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: Ms D.C. Vromans PO Box 133 Bathurst, 6166 Tel: 046 625 0300/ 082 714 6904 Email: [email protected]Prepared for: Ms S. van der Waal/Mr B. Cobbing Conservation Support Services PO Box 504, Grahamstown, 6140 61 New Street, Grahamstown, 6139 Tel: 46 6224526 Email: [email protected]Submission date: 16 August 2013
89
Embed
PROJECT LOCATION - cssgis.co.za D_Ecological Speciali… · STUDY METHODOLOGY ... LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)..... 73. Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
Table of Contents
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
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
6
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
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
7
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:
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMEMT LAYOUT (EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE)
NO-GO (NO DEVELOPMENT OPTION)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
PRE- MITIGATION:
POST MITIGATION
PRE- MITIGATION:
POST MITIGATION
PRE- MITIGATION:
POST MITIGATION
DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
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
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
10
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
11
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
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 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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
12
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
13
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
14
Figure 1b: The proposed Biorock sewage system discharges liquid effluent of a suitable water quality meeting the relevant guidelines.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
15
Figure 1c: Locality map showing the position of the new proposed residential unit along the Kariega Estuary,
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:
Encephalartos trispinosus or Bushmans River Cycad (Vulnerable), Syncarpha sordescens (Endangered).
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
25
Plate 1: Photographic images showing the property with vegetation on site and along the Kariega Estuary.
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 Indian Ocean.
1d. The property, looking northwards, showing the stepped garden, lawn areas and formal garden beds.
1e. Looking up towards the existing house. 1e. Entrance to the property.
Milkwood
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
26
Plate 2. Protected Species
2a. The large, mature Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) that will need to be removed to make way for the new residential unit. The existing water tank.
2b. Aloe arborescens (Krantz Aloe), Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig) and two other Mesembryanthemacea species are positioned within the formal garden, which are likely to be removed.
2c. Two Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) plants that will need to be removed.
2d. Three Aloe species, that will not require removal as this 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)
Existing Water Tank
Milkwood
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
27
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).
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
28
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,
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):
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
29
PR
ESSU
RES
Change in Flow Medium
Pollution Low
Habitat Loss Medium
Mining 0
Artificial Breaching
0
Fishing effort Low
Fishing Effort (Catches in tons)
2.2
Bait collection Yes
HEA
LTH
CO
ND
ITIO
N
Hydrology Fair
Hydrodynamics Excellent
Water Quality Fair
Physical habitat Fair
Habitat State Fair
Microalgae Fair
Macrophytes Fair
Invertebrates Fair
Fish Final Fair
Birds Good
Biological State Fair
Estuary Health State
Fair
Ecological Category / Provisional Ecological Status
C
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
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
30
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).
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
31
Figure 2c: The Kariega Estuary floodplain, indicated by the 5 m contour (with close up).
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
32
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
33
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).
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
34
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
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
37
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
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
45
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:
10.1. THE CONSTITUTION (108 OF 1996) The South African Constitution is the supreme law of the land and ensures that: '… everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. It requires that development is sustainable.
Measures must be implemented that 1) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; 2) promote conservation; and 3) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development'.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
46
10.2. NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) 36 OF 1998 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 discharge, impact on watercourses, altering watercourse flow and the determination of the Reserve. The General Authorisations in terms of Section 39 of the Act identify certain activities that require registration or licensing via the Department of Water Affairs that impact aquatic resources (watercourses). Section 144 requires that the 1:100 year flood line be determined by a developer for township developments. In terms of Sections 21(f) and (h) of the National Water Act and the General Authorisation regarding ‘’Discharge of waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer or other conduit” – a General Authorisation will only apply if:
- The daily discharge is equal to or less than 2 000 cubic metres (2 000 000 litres) of wastewater and if the wastewater effluent complies with the general wastewater limit values set out in Table 3.1 of the General Authorisations.
Section 21(g) relates to ‘’Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource’’ and covers septic tanks, conservancy tanks and soak-aways. It usually applies to domestic wastewater discharged into communal septic tanks serving more than 50 households. Further, the location of wastewater disposal sites (sewage discharge), must be (a) outside of a watercourse (the Kariega Estuary); (b) above the 100 year flood line, or alternatively, more than 100 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 the Department).
Measures must be implemented that prevent pollution and ecological degradation of aquatic resources i.e. rivers, estuaries and wetlands. A water use licensing application will not be needed as the proposed development is not sited in close proximity to a wetland or within a river, but in close proximity to an estuary, which is dealt with by the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). Refer below. The proposed development is for one residential unit, not a township. Wastewater effluent from the BIOROCK Sewage System: Although the sewage system will not discharge wastewater directly into the Kariega
Estuary, it may detrimentally impact on the environment (Section 21g). The general wastewater limit values set out in Table 3.1 of the General Authorisations should be complied with (Section 21f and 21h). The South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters: Recreational Use (Volume 2) should also apply, where relevant; or unless otherwise directed by the Department of Water Affairs. Further advise should be sought from the Department of Water Affairs because wastewater will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary, although it may detrimentally impact on a water resource. Further, Ndlambe Municipality has advised that only conservancy tanks or connection to existing sewage infrastructure should be permitted by the Municipality, while other instances will require the approval of the Department of Water Affairs. Although this 1:100 year flood line has not been determined, it is highly likely that the 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 The NEMA provides for overarching principles that should inform South Africa’s environmental management and governance. The NEMA is mainly regarded as a reasonable legislative measure 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.
A Basic Assessment must be implemented for the proposed development. Listed Activity Notice 3 requires that development within a Critical Biodiversity Area (accepted by the DEDEAT) must be authorised as well.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
47
10.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ICMA) 24 OF 2009
The objective of the Act is to establish a system of integrated coastal and estuarine management, to promote conservation and to ensure that development and natural resource use within the coastal zone is ecologically sustainable and socio-economically justifiable. The Act identifies (i) the coastal protection zone (100m – 1km belt) and (ii) the coastal public property (low to high water mark) that should be protected for safeguarding biodiversity and public access. The coastal protection zone, as determined by the Minister of the Executive Committee, should take into account the potential impacts of climate change (e.g. flooding of vulnerable areas). Discharge of effluent into coastal waters, including estuaries, is controlled via Section 69, either through the National Water Act (Section 32 & 33) or an ICMA permit. A coastal set back line should be established or approved by the provincial Authority (Department of Environmental Affairs) within four years of the promulgation of the Act (Section 25). In terms of the Draft National Estuarine Management Protocol (2012), municipalities must compile Estuary Management Plans for estuaries under their jurisdiction.
The proposed development is located within the coastal protection zone. The Authority (National Department of Environmental Affairs) may insist on an environmental assessment where a significant impact may occur as a result of a proposed development, however, this is dealt with by the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). Refer above. The proposed development is within the coastal protection zone, and cannot restrict public access to the coastal public property or discharge effluent into the Kariega Estuary without an authorisation. 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 the provincial Authority i.e. Developers are not responsible for determining set back lines, 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 Section 8 regarding the Provincial Climate Change Response Strategy). There is no Estuary Management Plan for the Kariega Estuary. Developers are not responsible for compiling this plan, the local Authority is.
10.5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEMBA) 10 OF 2004 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 Assessment regulations). It promotes the application of appropriate environmental management tools to protect biodiversity. 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 5 of the Act refers to the introduction and control of alien invasive species.
The proposed development must consider biodiversity and in particular threatened and important biodiversity features. Although the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map and Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s CBA Map are not bioregional plans, they are the precursor to one (with the Ndlambe CBA Map representing the more accurate map to be used), and should ideally be consulted in decision-making. Any Threatened or Protected Species cannot be removed without an authorisation. No 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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
48
10.6. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NEMWA) 59 OF 2008) The Act administers matters pertaining to waste minimisation, recovery, re-use, recycling, treatment, disposal and integrated waste management. Part 5 and 6 relate to general storage, collection and transport of waste, including the prevention of littering. The NEMA EIA regulations apply to several listed waste management activities, in which a Basic Assessment or EIA is required.
A waste management programme will need to be compiled that is aligned with the general measures of the Act, and as part of the Basic Assessment Report e.g. storage of waste (e.g. bins), disposal of waste (such as concrete, fuels, litter), prevention of oil leaks from construction vehicles, ablution facilities etc.
10.7. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (NEMPAA) 57 OF 2003
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 are the equivalent of National Protected Areas. Section 10 states that a Protected Area, declared in terms of provincial legislation, is either a nature reserve or protected environment.
No National Protected Area (PA) is sited within or adjacent to the proposed property and therefore this Act does not apply i.e. permission would need to be granted in terms of this Act if the proposed development occurred within a PA or impacted on a PA. The study site is however situated approximately 736 m from a formal Protected Area, which extends along the coastline from the eastern bank of the lower reaches of the Kariega Estuary.
10.8. NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NFA) 84 OF 1998 Any area that has vegetation that is characteristic of a closed and contiguous canopy is defined as a ‘forest’ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Forestry. No person may cut, 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.
One large, mature Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) tree was recorded on the property. A license application will apply because this tree will need to be removed as it is sited within the development footprint.
10.9. ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT (ECA) 73 OF 1989 Section 20 of the Act requires for the appropriate disposal of waste and licensed waste disposal site, although any new waste licenses are subject to approval via the NEMWA.
All wastes (general and hazardous) generated during the construction phase must be disposed of at an ECA licensed waste disposal site, if applicable, by the contractor/developer.
10.10. CAPE NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974) Also known as the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PCNO). The Ordinance allows for conservation of the natural environment; and the protection of wildlife. Certain biota are scheduled and therefore protected. A permit must be obtained from Department of Economic Development, Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT), Provincial Environment Affairs (Biodiversity Unit), to remove or destroy any plants listed in the Ordinance.
Although seven listed plants are sited within the property, these are part of a formal garden and therefore a permit application will NOT apply (Pers Comm. Mr Alan Southwood, Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism).
10.11. PROVINCIAL NATURE CONSERVATION BILL (EASTERN CAPE) 2003 The Bill provides for the protection, preservation and conservation of the environment and biodiversity, and utilization of living resources to ensure sustainable economic growth and human development and a sound ecological balance with the development objectives of the provincial government. Several species are listed under this Bill for protection.
As above, but because this is not an Act, it does not yet apply and therefore the Cape Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance applies..
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
49
10.12. CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) 43 OF 1983 [to be replaced by the Sustainable Use of Agricultural Resources Bill] Section 6 of the Act, relates to the prescription of measures which all land users have to comply with, e.g. the prohibition of modifying run-off flow patterns; the control of invader plants; and the restoration of eroded land. Section 7 protects any vlei, marsh, water sponge or watercourse.
This Act is not implemented if not associated with an agricultural application. However, the NEMA, ICMA and NWA effectively deal with the potential impacts of proposed developments in relation to erosion, alien invasive plants and impacts on aquatic resources.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
51
Table 1a: Criteria for assessing significance of impacts
CO
NSE
QU
ENC
E
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
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
LIK
ELIH
OO
D
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
Almost never / almost impossible 1
Very seldom / highly unlikely 2
Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 3
Often / regularly / likely / possible 4
Daily / highly likely / definitely 5
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
53
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 m
2 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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
54
Figure 6: The various development alternatives.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
55
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:
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.
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
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
56
potential impacts are related to the development footprint (m²) of each development option, which is
adequately dealt with in the construction and operational phases.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
57
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
Likelihood Frequency of Activity <Annually 1 6
60 MEDIUM-LOW
Frequency of Impact Definite 5
Consequence
Severity of Impact Significant 3 10
Spatial Scope Boundary 2
Duration Permanent 5
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
58
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
Likelihood Frequency of Activity <Annually 1 5
15 VERY-LOW
Frequency of Impact Possible 4
Consequence
Severity of Impact Insignificant 1 3
Spatial Scope Activity 1
Duration One month 1
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.
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
59
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
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMEMT LAYOUT (EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE)
NO-GO (NO DEVELOPMENT OPTION)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
PRE- MITIGATION:
POST MITIGATION
PRE- MITIGATION:
POST MITIGATION
PRE- MITIGATION:
POST MITIGATION
ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)
from the status quo)
from the status quo)
impact from the status quo)
impact from the status quo)
impact from the status quo)
impact from the status quo)
8. DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)
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
Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report
80
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
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.
Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei
81
Table 2b. Summary of project specific recommended mitigation measures, indicating the management objective, priority of the mitigation measure, and capacity requirements
Impact
No. Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority
Capacity
requirements Frequency
Commence-
ment (Project
Phase)
Time line for mitigation
measures to be
implemented
7 Effluent
pollution and
solid waste
pollution
The BIOROCK sewage system must: - Be approved by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA)
regarding discharge of wastewater effluent into the ground (although it is acknowledged that effluent will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary General Authorisations Section 21f and 21h), although it may detrimentally impact on the environment (Section 21g), especially when considering cumulative impacts of existing septic tanks and soak-aways in the catchment).
- 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 all new developments must either connect to existing sewage infrastructure or install a conservancy tank. Hence the need for DWA approval prior to municipal approval.
- Comply with the National Building Regulations relating to the discharge of sewage effluent, although this should be covered in the two points above.
Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), which includes a waste management plan, to: - Prevent accidental leakage of pollutants e.g. oil, fuel, cement,
sewage from ablutions. - 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
Prevent effluent
pollution and
solid waste
pollution
1 1. BIOROCK
approval from
the
Department of
Water Affairs:
Environmental
Assessment
Practitioner
(EAP)
2. EMP
compilation -
Environmental
Assessment
Practitioner
(EAP)
3. EMP
Compliance:
Environmental
Control Officer
/Ndlambe
Building
Inspector
1. Once off
application to
Department of
Water Affairs.
2. Once off EMP
3. ECO/Building
Inspector: Start
of construction
and then every
2nd / 4th week
depending on
construction
activities
(ECO/Building
Inspector).
1. Pre-
construction
2. Pre-
construction
3. Pre-
construction &
Construction
1. BIOROCK Approval
from the Department
of Water Affairs:
Unknown at this stage
(If it meets the water
quality standards a
General Authorization
is likely).
2. EMP compilation: 1
week (as part of the
Basic Assessment
Report).
3. EMP implementation
(ECO / Building
Inspector):
Dependent on
duration of the
construction period
(±1 year).
Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei
82
Impact
No. Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority
Capacity
requirements Frequency
Commence-
ment (Project
Phase)
Time line for mitigation
measures to be
implemented
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,
soil erosion,
sedimentatio
n & turbidity
(hydrological
processes)
Disturbance
of important
ecological
process areas
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 as well.
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 footprint only. 4. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure
compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision, or alternatively the Municipal Building Inspector fulfills this role.
Minimize soil
erosion,
sedimentation
and turbidity
2 1. Environment
al Assessment
Practitioner
(EAP) – EMP
compilation.
2. Environment
al Control
Officer
(ECO)/Building
Inspector
1. Once off EMP
2. Start of
construction
and then every
2nd
/ 4th
week
depending on
construction
activities
(ECO/Building
Inspector)
1. Pre-
construction
2. Pre-
construction
Construction
1. EMP compilation: 1
week (as part of the
Basic Assessment
Report).
2. EMP implementation -
ECO / Building
Inspector: Dependent
on duration of the
construction period
(±1 year).
Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei
83
Impact
No. Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority
Capacity
requirements Frequency
Commence-
ment (Project
Phase)
Time line for mitigation
measures to be
implemented
(Biodiversity
loss)
2 Loss of
Species of
Special
Concern
3. A license application to the Department of Forestry will be required for the removal of the Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood).
4. Purchase another medium to large sized Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) on removal of the existing Milkwood, and plant on the property.
5. Translocate Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Aloe arborescens, Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig) and two Mesembryanthemaceae (Mesems or Vygies) species. See Plate 2.
6. Plants should preferably be planted during the rainy season or the dormant period, but this is not necessary as long as additional care is provided, e.g. watering, survival should be guaranteed, especially with reference to the succulents.
7. Water the plants until they are established, unless natural rainfall fulfills this role.
8. Removal of vegetation within the construction footprint only.
9. Plant disturbed areas with indigenous species immediately after construction.
10. Make use of compost and mulching when translocating/planting to enhance establishment and survival.
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.
Prevent loss of
Plant Species of
Special Concern
Minimize
vegetation loss /
habitat loss to the
development
footprint only.
3 1. Homeowner
(planting and
translocation)
2. Environ-
mental
Assessment
Practitioner
(EAP) – EMP
compilation.
3. EMP
Compliance:
Environment
al Control
Officer (ECO)/
Building
Inspector
1. Period of
planting and
translocation.
2. Once off EMP.
3. EMP
Compliance:
Start of con-
struction &
then every 2nd
/ 4th week
depending on
construction
activities
(ECO)/ Building
Inspector
1. Pre-
construction &
Construction.
2. Pre-
construction
3. Construction
1. Rehab: 1 - 2
weeks(translocation,
planting);
Minimum 4 week
establishment
period (i.e. watering
period, dependent
on rainfall).
2. ECO
employment/Buildin
g Inspector:
Dependent on the
construction period
(±1 year).
3. EMP compilation: 1
week (as part of the
Basic Assessment
Report).
Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei
84
Impact
No. Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority
Capacity
requirements Frequency
Commence-
ment (Project
Phase)
Time line for mitigation
measures to be
implemented
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
alien invasive
plant species
(Biodiversity
loss)
1. Removal of alien or non-indigenous species that establish. 2. Removal of listed alien plants within the development footprint / construction area, and property boundaries, where they occur, namely: Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper), and if they establish during the construction period. Although this is a Category 3 species that does not need to be removed in terms of legislation.
3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that specifies the requirement to remove alien plants. Photograph of Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper) with
fruit, listed as an alien invasive in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act.
Prevent and
minimize spread
of alien invasive
species
4 1. Environment
al Assessment
Practitioner
(EAP) – EMP
compilation.
2. Environment
al Control
Officer
(ECO)/Building
Inspector
3. Contractor
(alien removal)
1. Once off EMP
2. Start of
construction and
then every 2nd
/
4th
week
depending on
construction
activities
(ECO/Building
Inspector)
3. Construction
period
1. Pre-
construction
2. Pre-
construction &
Construction
3. Construction
1. EMP compilation: 1
week (as part of the
Basic Assessment
report).
2. EMP implementation
(ECO): Dependent on
duration of the
construction period.
3. Alien Removal:
Dependent on the
construction period
(±1 year).
Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei
85
Impact
No. Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority
Capacity
requirements Frequency
Commence-
ment (Project
Phase)
Time line for mitigation
measures to be
implemented
4 Loss 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. 3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental
Management Programme (EMP) that specifies that no fauna may be destroyed.