Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd

Transcription

1 Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd Reg. No. 2008/004627/07 Telephone: (044) st Floor Eagles View Building Facsimile: (044) Progress Street, George Web: PO Box 2070, George 6530 SCOPING REPORT & PLAN OF STUDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for RIETFONTEIN FARM DAM on Portion 1 of the Farm Rietfontein 594 In terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended & Environmental Impact Regulations 2014 Prepared for Applicant: Calvus Properties (Pty) Ltd By: Cape EAPrac Report Reference: NMM443/06 Department Reference: ECm1/C/LN2/M/ Department Enquiries: Ndileka Nazo Date: 6 January 2017 D.J. Jeffery Directors L. van Zyl

2 Rietfontein Farm Dam NMM443/06 APPOINTED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER: Cape EAPrac Environmental Assessment Practitioners PO Box 2070 George 6530 Tel: Fax: Report compiled by: Louise-Mari van Zyl (MA Geography & Environmental Science [US]; Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner with the Interim Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of South Africa, EAPSA. Mrs van Zyl has 15 years experience as an environmental practitioner. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: Stakeholder Review and Comment APPLICANT: Calvus Properties (Pty) Ltd CAPE EAPRAC REFERENCE NO: ECm1/C/LN2/M/ DEPARTMENT REFERENCE: 14/12/16/3/3/2/624 SUBMISSION DATE 06 January 2017

3 Rietfontein Farm Dam NMM443/06 SCOPING REPORT & PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIR in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended & Environmental Impact Regulations 2014 RIETFONTEIN FARM DAM Portion 1 of the Farm Rietfontein 594 Submitted for: Stakeholder Review & Comment This report is the property of the Author/Company, who may publish it, in whole, provided that: Written approval is obtained from the Author and that Cape EAPrac is acknowledged in the publication; Cape EAPrac is indemnified against any claim for damages that may result from any publication of specifications, recommendations or statements that is not administered or controlled by Cape EAPrac; The contents of this report, including specialist/consultant reports, may not be used for purposes of sale or publicity or advertisement without the prior written approval of Cape EAPrac; Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility by the Applicant/Client for failure to follow or comply with the recommended programme, specifications or recommendations contained in this report; Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility for deviation or non-compliance of any specifications or recommendations made by specialists or consultants whose input/reports are used to inform this report; and All figures, plates and diagrams are copyrighted and may not be reproduced by any means, in any form, in part or whole without prior written approved from Cape EAPrac. Report Issued by: Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners Tel: PO Box 2070 Fax: Progress Street Web: George 6530 Cape EAPrac Scoping Report

4 Rietfontein Farm Dam NMM443/06 REPORT DETAILS Title: SCOPING REPORT & PLAN OF STUDY FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT for proposed Rietfontein Farm Dam Purpose of this report: This Scoping Report forms part of a series of reports and information sources that are being provided during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the farm dam on Portion 1 Rietfontein 594 (Eastern Cape). In accordance with the EIA Regulations (2014), the objective of the scoping process is to: Identify the relevant policies and legislation relevant to the activity; Expand on the need and desirability of the proposed activity, including the need and desirability of the activity in the context of the preferred location; Identify and confirm the preferred activity and technology alternative through an impact and risk assessment process; Identify and confirm the preferred site, through a detailed site selection process, which includes an impact and risk assessment process inclusive of cumulative impacts and a ranking process of all the identified alternatives focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment; Identify the key issues to be addressed in the assessment phase; Agree on the level of assessment to be undertaken, including the methodology to be applied, the expertise required as well as the extent of further consultation to be undertaken to determine the impacts and risks the activity will impose on the preferred site through the life of the activity, including the nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts to inform the location of the development footprint within the preferred site; and Identify suitable measures to avoid, manage or mitigate identified impacts and to determine the extent of the residual risks that need to be managed and monitored This scoping report must be available to registered Interested & Affected Parties for a period of no less than 30 calendar days before the competent authority can consider it. Prepared for: Published by: Author: Cape EAPrac Ref: Calvus Properties (Pty) Ltd Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd. (Cape EAPrac) Mrs Louise-Mari van Zyl NMM433/06 Cape EAPrac Scoping Report

5 Rietfontein Farm Dam NMM443/06 DEA Contact person Ref. No: Ndileka Nazo ECm1/C/LN2/M/ Date: 6 January 2016 To be cited as: Cape EAPrac, Scoping Report for the proposed Rietfontein Dam on Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594. Report Reference: NMM433/06. George. Cape EAPrac Scoping Report

6 Rietfontein Farm Dam NMM443/06 ORDER OF REPORT Executive Summary Final Scoping Report Main Report Appendix 1 : Location, Topographical & Site Map Appendix 2 : Environmental Maps (CBA, NFEPA, Veg Map etc) Appendix 3 : Notifications calling for registration of I&APs & Stakeholder Register Appendix 4 : Dam Design Report Appendix 5 : Yield Analyses Report Appendix 6 : Alternative electrical overhead line routes Appendix 7 : Ecological Scoping Report Appendix 8 : Aquatic Scoping Report Appendix 9 : Heritage Statement Appendix 10 : Authority correspondence Cape EAPrac Scoping Report

7 Rietfontein Farm Dam NMM443/06 TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SUMMARY 1 PROCESS OVERVIEW... I 2 SITE DESCRIPTION & WATER RIGHTS... II 3 IV DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES... IV 4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY... VI 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS... VII 7 SPECIALIST STUDIES & TECHNICAL SUPPORT REPORTS... VII 8 PLANNING CONTEXT... VIII 9 PROCESS TO DATE... VIII 10 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS... XII 1) INTRODUCTION ) LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity (ACT 10 OF 2004) CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS & BROAD SCALE PROCESSES National Forests Act (No. 84 of 1998): Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act CARA (Act 43 of 1983): National Heritage Resources Act National Water Act, NO 36 OF MAMMALMAP / SARCA / FROGMAP DATABASE Sustainability IMPERATIVE ) ACTIVITY ) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES SITE Alternatives DESIGN/TECHNOLOGY Alternatives No-Go Alternative (alternative 4) ) SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES ) ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS VEGETATION SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FAUNA SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Potential ECOLOGICAL impacts impacts to be assessed Conclusion & Preliminary Recommendations ) AQUATIC FRESHWATER CONSIDERATIONS aquatic SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Potential aquatic impacts to be assessed Conclusion & Preliminary Recommendations ) HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS ) SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS / CONCERNS ECOLOGICAL Aquatic Cape EAPrac Scoping Report

8 Rietfontein Farm Dam NMM443/ HERITAGE ) PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS ) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS TO DATE ) ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS ) PLAN OF STUDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Criteria for Specialist Assessment of Impacts Brief for Specialist Studies to be Undertaken as Part of the EIA ) TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR SPECIALIST STUDIES ) PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED ) CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ) REFERENCES FIGURES Figure 1: Aerial image of Portion 1 Rietfontein 594 with general site location for the dam (inclusive of all the alternatives within the designated footprint).... iii Figure 2: Location of Rietfontein Farm within the greater Yellowwoods Estate (indicated with red boundary line).... iii Figure 3: Flow diagram of the S&EIA process as per the 2014 Regulations Figure 4: Nelson Mandela Bay Bioregional Plan (2015) indicating vegetation type and ecosystem status for the study area Figure 5: Mucina & Rutherford (2006 in Todd 2016) vegetation type classification Figure 6: Designated critical biodiversity areas (CBA) excluding the study area Figure 7: Site alternative with off-stream dam position (Alternative 3) Figure 8: Design alternative 1 of in-stream dam with underground pipe to discharge ecological reserve flow Figure 9: Design alternative 3 with artificial by-pass channel Figure 10: Downstream section of the Maitland River with forest/thicket patches visible along the western slope Figure 11: Transformed areas currently used as grazing, that will be inundated by the dam Figure 12: Upstream section of the in-stream dam footprint with the existing 22kV overhead power line visible Figure 13: Example of existing structure with heritage value identified outside the development footprint Figure 14: Possible offset areas identified in collaboration with the freshwater specialist (layout using the Applicant's preferred in-stream option) TABLES Table 2: Chronology of Events for Process... viii Table 3: Tabled 'listed activities' for Rietfontein Dam as proposed Table 4: General coordinates for preferred dam position Table 5: General coordinates for weir position Table 6: Preliminary ranking of alternatives for the purpose of the scoping phase Table 7: Chronology of events ito public participation for Rietfontein Dam Cape EAPrac Scoping Report

9 1 PROCESS OVERVIEW REPORT SUMMARY Cape EAPrac has been appointed by Calvus Properties (Pty) Ltd, hereafter referred to as the Applicant, as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner EAP), to facilitate the Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) for the Rietfontein Farm Dam proposed on Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594 (Eastern Cape Province) near Blue Horizon Bay. The 2014 Environmental Regulations specify various listed activities that require prior environmental consideration and assessment before decision-making. Amongst others, the construction of a dam where the dam wall will be higher than five (5) metres, the moving/removing or sand/rock/soil within a watercourse and/or removal of indigenous vegetation, are such listed activities hence these must be investigated and assessed as part of a regulated process. The S&EIR process is divided into three distinct phases namely the Application, Scoping and Impact Assessment phases. Phase 1 (application) is complete and the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA) accepted the formal Application Form on 26 November 2016, which was submitted to them on 10 November Since the allowable timeframe for submission of a Scoping Report (phase 2) would have resulted in the commenting period extending over the December holiday period, an extension was granted by the DEDEA on 6 December 2016 permitting the Scoping Report to be submitted to the DEDEA no later than 10 February In terms of Regulation 982 (21) of the 2014 Environmental Regulations of NEMA, interested and affected parties (I&APs) must be presented the opportunity to review and submit comments on all reports forming part of the S&EIR process, including the Scoping Report, before the decision-making authority may consider the report. This scoping report is hereby subjected to a mandatory public participation process of at least 30- days, extending from 6 January February All comments received prior to and/or during this commenting period will be considered and incorporated into the report where after it will be submitted to the competent authority for consideration by no later than 10 February Specific mention of the project reference number: ECm1/C/LN2/M/ on all correspondence is important. All comments must be submitted in writing, addressed to Cape EAPrac. Cape EAPrac ATTN: Louise-Mari van Zyl PO Box 2070, George, 6530 Fax: louise@cape-eaprac.co.za 1 Once submitted to the DEDEA the Scoping Report must already have been made available to stakeholders for a minimum period of 30-days. 2 R982 (3)2 specifies that for any action contemplated in terms of the Regulations, for which a timeframe is prescribed, the period of 15 December to 5 January must be excluded in the reckoning of days. Cape EAPrac i Scoping Report

10 2 SITE DESCRIPTION & WATER RIGHTS Portion 1 of the Farm Rietfontein 594 is situated approximately 4km north-north east from Blue Horizon Bay in the Eastern Cape (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan District) refer to Figure 1. Table 1: Property details for Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594. SITE COORDINATES (centre point) South; East PROPERTY SIZE SG NUMBER C TITLE DEED 220,253ha T117031/1998 The property is accessed off the Van Stadens Road leading to Blue Horizon Bay and it has been incorporated into the larger Yellowwoods Estate refer to Figure 2. The Maitland River traverses the site. The vast majority of the property is transformed mainly through invasive alien vegetation and agricultural areas. Cape EAPrac ii Scoping Report

11 Figure 1: Aerial image of Portion 1 Rietfontein 594 with general site location for the dam (inclusive of all the alternatives within the designated footprint). Figure 2: Location of Rietfontein Farm within the greater Yellowwoods Estate (indicated with red boundary line). Appendix 1 of this scoping report contains maps indicating the regional location, site location and topographical location of the property. Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594 does not have any registered water rights, however direct abstraction from the Maitland River has occurred over time mainly for irrigation and drinking water for animals. This existing water use was being processed as a late registration with the Department Cape EAPrac iii Scoping Report

12 of Water Affairs & Sanitation (DWA) by Atkinson Survey & Designs, however due to a recently instigated process of validation and verification by DWA a formal Water Use License Application (WULA) replaced the late registration process. 3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES The following summarises the development proposal (preferred by the Applicant): Dam Wall Height: Not exceeding 9 metres Crest of wall: 130m Width of Crest: 6.4m Overflow width: 13m Free Board: 1.5m Volume of dam: m 3 Surface Area: 4.96Ha The Applicant s preferred site location is to construct the dam within the Maitland River at a preselected location on Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594. This preferred location was identified by Atkinson Survey & Designs and is based on a number of dam design criteria, amongst others the cost of earth works, potential suitability of material to construct the core and dam wall, accessibility of site with machinery, storage volume and distribution options from site location ito farming operations. Another important factor influencing the preferred location is the fact that the dam is positioned within the upper reaches of the Maitland River catchment area. The dam yield analysis (NYM Consulting 2016) confirms that positioning the dam in the upper reaches leaves sufficient of the catchment supply volume below the dam (i.e. other tributaries feeding the Maitland River downstream will not be affected) which will ensure that runoff from the middle and lower reaches of the catchment still feeds the remaining system to support both the ecological reserve and downstream water users 3. To the Applicant, the location is equally important since it creates an appealing water feature in proximity to existing dwellings that can be utilised for private recreational activities also. The above-mentioned preferred site location includes two design alternatives, namely: (a) an in-stream dam with an upstream weir from where stream flow is split 50/50 into the dam and into an underground 90mm PVC pipe that will discharge surplus water back into the river, and (b) a second design alternative that requires the natural river channel to be diverted around the in-stream dam position. The intake into this artificial channel will still be from an upstream weir position and will serve a similar function as that of the 90mm PVC pipe (which is to prevent river base flow from entering the dam). 3 Storage and taking of water from the upper reaches of the Maitland River remains subject to specified conditions that must, at all times, prioritise the ecological reserve requirements and accommodate downstream lawful water user demand. Cape EAPrac iv Scoping Report

13 Both of these so-called in-stream options will require the dam wall to allow vehicular access across since the existing access across the Maitland River connecting the portions either side of the river (a dilapidated weir) will be inundated. Of the above two in-stream design options mentioned, the latter has been indicated as the preferred design option by the appointed freshwater specialist (Freshwater Consulting Group, 2016). The reason being that an underground pipe could block more easily (vs an open channel) and the implication of a potential blockage would be undesirable for the ecology as well as lawful downstream water users. Both these design alternatives however are likely to result in impacts of overall high negative consequence without intervention and effective mitigation measures. The key impacts identified through this scoping process will be assessed and measured once final design details become available and only then will it be possible to determine the significance, level of confidence and nature of each of the different alternatives. The alternative site location is for an off-stream dam position situated above the preferred site location. An upstream weir with associated pipeline is still required to ensure intake of water. Although this position will avoid the main river channel (i.e. direct impacts), it will still result in a 50% reduced stream flow volume in the current channel that will still impact on the ecology of the river in a similar manner as if an in-stream dam is built (i.e. indirect impacts). In terms of design requirements an off-stream location requires water to be pumped to the dam (vs gravity feed for an in-stream location) which implies higher electricity demand. Likewise the costs of an off-stream option are much greater than the in-stream option due to more significant excavations and dam wall design requirements (Atkinson 2016). According to the freshwater specialist an off-stream dam will need to be excavated to a low enough level for it to receive flows diverted from the proposed weir. This would imply that the existing natural watercourse would become effectively perched above the dam, running the risk of diversion of the channel into the dam during flood events. This would result in significant permanent watercourse degradation. The heritage specialist (Perception Planning 2016) indicated that the off-stream option is least preferred as its visual impact (on identified buildings with cultural heritage value) will be worse (looking into a visual scar and elevated dam wall) compared to overlooking the river and/or an artificial water feature. For all of the above options an upstream weir must be constructed that will run across the width of the channel and be fitted with a mechanism to divert 50% of the nominal stream flow to the dam. The status quo option (No-Go Alternative) implies that no dam be constructed and that instead, the Applicant relies on continued direct abstraction from the river. This alternative still implies taking water directly from the system, thus impacts on the river ecology and potentially downstream users continue to be anticipated, however the absence of earth works and impoundment will reduce direct impacts. Since abstraction would be assumed to continue, this alternative would be expected to have lesser, but to date, un-quantified impacts on the river downstream. In determining the site selection alternatives, based on the number of watercourses that enter the Maitland River downstream of the study area, it seems likely that the proposed impoundment and possible associated additional abstraction would result in a relatively low level of cumulative impact, particularly if coupled with active alien clearing. However the cumulative impact(s) of abstraction and storage on the downstream conditions (including the Maitland Estuary) must still be verified with Cape EAPrac v Scoping Report

14 additional hydrological information that will allow some level of gauging of the relative contribution of the upper reaches compared to the overall discharge at the estuary. Until such time as the detailed impact assessment (phase 3) is concluded this status quo option remains the preferred alternative. As a result of the proposed dam an existing 22kV overhead power line under the authority of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, must be realigned across the property. 4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY Calvus Properties (Pty) Ltd is the registered owner of the Yellowwoods Estate which is a private nature reserve comprised of several land parcels in the Van Staden s precinct. This estate is approximately 4,500 Ha in extent. Besides the two riverine systems traversing the Estate, it does not have any water storage facility which could be used as a reserve for drinking water for game, stock and humans. In the face of changing climate conditions and anticipated prolonged droughts the Applicant has identified the need to create a water reserve in the form of a dam to supply water during dryer periods and potentially prolonged drought conditions. The purchase and integration of the Rietfontein Farm (1/594) into the Yellowwoods Estate private nature reserve affords the Applicant the opportunity to investigate the potential of creating an appropriate water resource on the Estate. Portion 1/594 Rietfontein is ideally located and accessible to all game and stock in the event of a drought, being within the Estate boundary fencing. From a desirability perspective the official Yield Analysis (NYM Consulting 2016) confirms that the Maitland River catchment has a natural runoff of 4.74 million cubic meters per annum. The analysis further determines the existing irrigation applications within the catchment to be an estimated million cubic metres per annum (this data is based on the WARMS system from the Department of Water Affairs). Taking into account the estimated storage capacity of upstream dams (0.16 million cubic metres), as well as other stream flow reduction activities (mostly alien invasive vegetation) at 2.71 square kilometres, the finding of the analysis is that the storage capacity of a cubic metre dam will take a further 0.27 million cubic metres/annum whilst still releasing an ecological reserve volume of 0.26 million cubic metres/annum which should still meet the requirements of a Management Category D for the Maitland River. According to Turpie & Clark (in Day 2016) the Maitland River Estuary just east of Blue Horizon Bay is considered a core estuary with conservation value and a recommended freshwater requirement to support an Estuarine Management Class A/B (that is nearnatural). Since the proposed dam is situated within the upper reaches of the Maitland River, leaving most of the downstream catchment supply available to feed the Estuary it is likely that the estuarine management class will not be affected. However the ongoing validation and verification process (of water use and water rights in the system) facilitated by DWA and the detailed assessment by the freshwater specialist, will help determine whether the Cape EAPrac vi Scoping Report

15 ecological reserve volume as calculated by NYM Consulting (2016) is considered sustainable. In conclusion, although a need for this dam has been identified, the desirability thereof must still be determined through the detailed analysis and impact assessment phase of the ongoing EIA and WULA processes. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The proposed activity triggers various listed activities in terms of the 2014 Environmental Regulations and therefore requires consideration and investigation into potential impacts before a decision can be taken on whether or not the activity may be permitted or not. In the case of the proposed dam both an environmental application process 4, as well as a water use license application (WULA) 5 process are required to register the taking and storage of water as well as the impediment and altering of the beds/banks of a watercourse. In the case of the environmental application the DEDEA is the decision-making authority whilst the Department of Water Affairs will be responsible for considering the WULA. Both processes will run concurrently. The relevant environmental programmes consulted as part of this investigation is depicted in the main report as well as Appendix 2 attached to this document. 7 SPECIALIST STUDIES & TECHNICAL SUPPORT REPORTS For the purpose of this environmental process a clear distinction is made between independent specialists and the technical support professionals. The latter specifically refers to the project engineers (i.e. dam and yield analysis), whilst the independent specialists are required to be unbiased in their evaluation and impartial in their findings and recommendations about a particular activity. To date the following specialist studies have been undertaken as part of the pre-application planning and scoping phase: Freshwater baseline investigation that culminated in the Freshwater Scoping Report; Ecological baseline investigation that culminated in the Ecological Scoping Report; and The Heritage Statement. Following the outcome of the scoping phase, the specialist investigations and reports will become more detailed in order to investigate and assess the various issues/concerns and potential impacts identified through the scoping phase. Should it become clear that additional specialist studies or technical support investigations are required such will be done to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIR). 4 In terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) as amended. 5 In terms of the National Water Act (NWA). Cape EAPrac vii Scoping Report

16 8 PLANNING CONTEXT The study area falls within the planning domain of the Nelson Mandela Bay Conservation Plan (SRK in Day 2016), as gazetted in According to this biodiversity plan only the lower reaches of the Maitland River is classified as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). The river upstream of, and within the study area has not been awarded any direct conservation status and it is assumed that this reflects the degree of degradation and transformation of the upper reaches, largely as a result of existing agricultural activities and alien invasive vegetation. The biodiversity plan furthermore assigned unique signatures to each of the rivers in the larger study area with the Maitland River requiring at least 20% of its length to be conserved. 9 PROCESS TO DATE On 12 May 2016 a pre-application meeting was held with representatives of the DEDEA (Mr Andries Struwig) and DWA (Mr Joseph Jacobs) and attended by Mrs Louise-Mari van Zyl (Cape EAPrac) and Allan Atkinson (Atkinson Survey & Designs). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed activity in broad terms and to obtain input from the key authorities early on during the preapplication phase. NYM performed the draft yield analysis and ecological reserve determination by end May 2016 which was used to inform the preliminary dam designs. Specialists were appointed and performed their initial site inspections during July These site inspections were followed up with an interactive project team meeting (inclusive of the Project Manager, Engineer, Cape EAPrac and appointed specialists) on 19 July The freshwater specialist again visited the site on 5 August 2016 with the engineer to discuss alternatives and potential trade-offs (i.e. rehabilitation/restoration of transformed areas within and along the Maitland River). Mid October 2016 Cape EAPrac consulted with the Department of Agriculture to verify the land use of Portion 1 Riefontein 594. By 8 November 2016 the Department (Leon Meyer) confirmed the property to be lawfully registered for agricultural use in terms of Act 70 of 70 thereby verifying land used for grazing and crop use. On 10 November 2016 the formal Application Form was submitted to the DEDEA, accepted by them on 26 November Due to outstanding specialist reports a formal extension request was submitted to the DEDEA on 29 November 2016 and granted on 6 December Written notification to potential stakeholders and interested and affected parties distributed on 9 December 2016 informing of the proposal and ongoing environmental application process. The newspaper advert (EP HERALD) appeared on 10 December 2016 and site notices were also placed at the farm entrance on 10 December Copies of the written notifications, as well as the Stakeholder Register are included in Appendix 3 of this report. Specialist scoping reports received on 19 December Table 2: Chronology of Events for Process CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DATE ACTION Cape EAPrac viii Scoping Report

17 12 May 2016 Pre-Application Meeting with DEDEA and DWA May 2016 July 2016 Mid-October 2016 Initial yield analysis and ecological reserve determination Specialist appointments and site inspections Consultation with the Department of Agriculture to verify agricultural land use 10 November 2016 Formal Application Form submitted to DEDEA 26 November 2016 DEDEA accepts Application 29 November 2016 Extension request submitted to DEDEA 6 December 2016 Extension granted by DEDEA 9/10 December 2016 Formal notifications/adverts/site notices to potential stakeholders and interested and affected parties 19 December 2016 Final specialist scoping reports received 6 January 2017 Scoping Report available for public review and comment To date, the scoping process has highlighted the following concerns / noted objections to the proposed activity that require further investigation/assessment as part of the ongoing environmental process: The Maitland River is a non-perennial river which implies that flow stops some time(s) during the year. Currently there is a low level of confidence regarding the passage of adequate low flows into the downstream channel [according to the preliminary yield analysis and ecological reserve determination, the proposed storage volume and abstraction ratio of taking 50% of the nominal flow volume for storage, would still leave sufficient water in the system to maintain ecological functioning. It will be crucial to monitor abstraction volumes (i.e. metering water intake and use) to ensure that no more water may be taken than permitted. The design proposal allows for the top one (1) metre from the dam level to be flushed back into the system in the event that low flow or no flow scenarios demand more freshwater be released back into the system. The feasibility of such a design proposal must be verified by the DWA in consultation with the freshwater consultant]. During drought periods, the temptation to secure additional flows from the channel by diverting it into the dam, is a concern with all storage facilities where surety of supply drives the need for a dam [an effective way of preventing unlawful taking of water i.e. at specified low flow periods is through metering/measuring of intake, discharge and intake volumes at all times and for such records to be independently audited and scrutinised by the DWA. Such management measures must be specified in the environmental management plan]. The Maitland river is considered particularly sensitive to changes in flow as a result of abstraction (i.e. high sensitivity to the proposed development) which could result in significant prolonging of the dry season / periods of no flow, with potential consequences for dependent fauna and flora. It is anticipated that the aquatic habitat type will change from lotic (flowing) habitat with its associated pools and riffle sequences, to lentic or standing, deep water habitat which likely supports a lower diversity of macroinvertibrate fauna [the detailed freshwater and ecological impact assessments will investigate the potential consequences for dependent fauna and flora that may be affected downstream whilst considering the potential benefit of creating a permanent water feature i.e. dam in an otherwise dry system]. Cape EAPrac ix Scoping Report

18 Permanent alteration of riverine habitat of at least moderate conservation importance as a result of inundation of an estimated 690m of river channel [the potential loss of secondary floodplain channels and seasonal inundated marginal vegetation which is considered increasingly threatened, as well as the loss of lower growing parts of indigenous forest along the left hand river bank of the dam footprint is of concern and both the freshwater and ecological specialist must further unpack and assess the significance of such loss of habitat compared to potential trade-offs]. Replacing a natural section of river (albeit modified) with an artificial standing water habitat which is relatively common in the area and potentially likely to support problematic floral and faunal species [the establishment of bulrush and various weedy invaders of artificial shorelines, as well as the potential introduction of alien fish species must be investigated by both the freshwater and ecological specialist to determine whether, in a non-perennial system, such a permanent water feature may have positive impacts under management and what such management/mitigation measures may need to be]. Potential negative impact of abstraction/storage dam from the Maitland River on downstream water users [although Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594 has no registered water use rights, existing water use for livestock and crops have occurred over time and the WULA process has been initiated to register this water use as well as additional water for storage. The new water rights applied for will however be considered and measured against that of other lawful water users that may be affected downstream. The ongoing validation and verification process (of water rights) will inform this process. It must be noted however that new rights may not infringe on the rights of existing, lawful water users, therefore clarification on the possibility and/or significance of such a potential impact is important]. Permanent alteration in flood flows into the Mailtand River downstream. The Maitland River must at the very least maintain a Management Objective of Class C/D whilst the Maitland Estuary must maintain a Management Objective of Class A/B construction of a dam with additional storage capacity may potentially undermine these management objectives; [the position of the dam on Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594 is in the upper reaches of the Maitland River, thus not affecting most of the runoff accumulating in the middle and lower reaches of the river from where flooding would also occur. Due to a high level of transformation in the upper and middle reaches of the river, the lower part of the Maitland River is indicated as a critical biodiversity area with conservation value which correlates with the Management Objectives. However the validation and verification process of water allocation in the system will be valuable data necessary to inform the final phase of the environmental and water use license processes. In the event that the additional abstraction and storage of water in the Rietfontein Dam may have a detrimental impact on the Management Objectives more alternatives may have to be investigated. The freshwater specialist will have to consider and assess the proposed mechanism of artificial release of water from the dam to determine whether it will be sufficient for ecological purposes i.e. flushing of pools, scour of vegetation and opning up of primary and secondary channels]. Disturbance of sensitive vegetation and aquatic habitats present in vicinity to the proposed dam through excavation and the development footprint; [the baseline specialist investigations have confirmed that sensitive areas will be affected, however the final design alternative will be evaluated once-more by the specialist in the detailed impact assessment phase of the ongoing investigation. Various mitigation measures such as flow-bypasses and limiting construction during dry periods as well as pre-impoundment clearing of vegetation to prevent eutrophication are possible and must be detailed in the environmental management plan]. Cape EAPrac x Scoping Report

19 Potential loss of protected tree species within the dam footprint(s) [the ecologist has confirmed the presence of a limited number of protected tree species within the dam footprint and has advised that the necessary Forestry Permits will be required for removal of such trees in the event the activity is authorised. The Department of Forestry will be the decisionmaking authority on such permit applications and is a key stakeholder in this application process.] NFEPA identifies the Maitland Stream quaternary catchment as a fish support area, with the endemic fish Sandelia capensis (Cape Kurper) as the target species requiring protection. The potential impact of the proposed dam on this species should be verified in the impact assessment phase. Off-stream vs in-stream dam alternatives to be considered [the preliminary indication from all the specialists are, for varying reasons, that the off-stream dam is likely to cause similar or greater impacts compared to an in-stream dam. Likewise the anticipated cost of an offstream dam compared to an in-stream dam proves to be much higher thereby affecting the feasibility of the project]; The option of constructing a dam and obtaining additional water rights will be subject to substantial trade-offs namely alien clearing of the system and any other areas identified by the specialists, as well as rehabilitation of in-stream riparian areas [the freshwater specialist has already identified both upstream and downstream areas as potential trade-off areas, however the significance / contribution of implementing such trade-offs must be verified as part of the assessment along with conditional monitoring and audit requirements which the decision-making authorities must agree to if allowed]. Re-alignment of the existing 22kV overhead power line may affect susceptible avifauna through collisions [according to the ecologist the deviation does not affect any sensitive areas and since the extent of the line is limited a significant impact is unlikely especially since the alignment is dominated by woody aliens which are not attractive to most bird species. The exception is where the realignment will pass through the valley at which point there may be more negative avifaunal impacts which must be investigated with the detailed impact assessment phase]. Proximity of the proposed dam to identified structures with heritage value [the heritage specialist has confirmed that construction of an in-stream dam will not have a detrimental impact on the sense-of-place or character of the area. No further assessment is likely however the Eastern Cape Heritage Authority and the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA) are key stakeholders in the application process and will provide its input as part of the application]; Considering that the Maitland River is a non-perennial river, the potential of having an empty dam for some time during the year is a possibility that could be aesthetically unattractive [sloping the dam margins in the order of 1:7 will facilitate the establishment of locally indigenous wetland vegetation in a broad band within which natural seasonal water level fluctuations would be expected to occur. Such measures would reduce wave wash and reduce the negative aesthetic impact of a bare shoreline]. Outcome of the recently initiated validation and verification process is likely to be decisive in the decision-making process of the proposed activity [the WULA process is being run in parallel to the ongoing environmental process and it is anticipated that the outcome of the V&V will be in time to inform the decision-making processes].i Positive impact of potential trade-off through active alien clearing which will increase low flows through the system and could result in recovery of the system at a large scale by reinstating locally indigenous riparian vegetation in eroded/overgrazed areas [although a full recovery of Cape EAPrac xi Scoping Report

20 the riparian zone would be unlikely the significance of such a positive contribution, compared to potential negative impacts, will be considered and assessed by both the ecological and freshwater specialist in the detailed assessment phase]. Cape EAPrac is confident that the issues/concerns identified and highlighted during the scoping process can be investigated and assessed through more detailed specialist investigation in order to (i) help avoid potential impacts by amending the proposal or introducing further alternatives, (ii) help identify mitigation and/or management aspects that could avoid or help reduce potential negative impacts and (iii) and inform decision-making about this proposed project. 10 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The specialists have identified various key mitigation measures that could address, to some meaningful level, the significance of some of the identified impacts. Where impacts cannot be mitigated it is possible to consider trade-offs. In the event that the Applicant and Dam Engineer can effectively implement said mitigation measured and/or trade-offs through improving the dam design and management conditions, the final phase of the environmental process, namely the impact assessment phase, will see a final evaluation of the proposed activity. It is evident that the most critical aspects of the proposal, resolves around the potential impact of impounding water (i.e. taking water from the system) and the loss of aquatic habitat. That being said the proposed location of the dam is in the upper reaches of the Maitland River system and pending more detailed hydrological data it would be possible to allocate more precisely the contribution (or loss) of habitat and stream flow of the middle and lower reaches of the river which will help determine the nature, level and significance of the proposed activity. A lack of verified lawful water users in the Maitland River system is of concern since verified, lawful water use volumes/allocations is important information that may help quantify the risk of additional abstraction on the system and downstream lawful water users alike. It is hoped that the standalone validation and verification process currently underway for the area will address this gap in information. Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs), authorities, the project team, as well as specialists are invited to provide input and help identify any additional issues and concerns, based on the baseline / scoping studies undertaken to date, that may not already have been identified in this scoping report. This scoping report summarises the process to date and reports on the findings of relevant baseline specialist studies. Further detailed investigation is however required to inform the final design and decision-making. Cape EAPrac is of the opinion that the information contained in this Scoping Report, Plan of Study for EIR and the documentation attached hereto is sufficient to allow the general public and key stakeholders to apply their minds to the potential negative and/or positive impacts associated with the development, in respect of the activities applied for. In terms of Regulation 41 of NEMA registered I&APs must submit comments to the EAP by no later than 6 February 2017 should they wish for their comments to be recorded and noted. Cape EAPrac xii Scoping Report

21 1) INTRODUCTION MAIN REPORT Cape EAPrac has been appointed by Calvus Properties (Pty) Ltd, hereafter referred to as the Applicant, as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner EAP), to facilitate the Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) for the proposed development of the Rietfontein Dam on Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594, Eastern Cape Province. The property has been incorporated into the larger Yellowwoods Estate which is operated as a private nature reserve with a mixture of land use activities namely agricultural (mostly game), pastures and crops. The Maitland River flows through Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594 and historical water use have been recorded according to Atkinson (2016) although no formal water use rights are registered for this property. It is the intension of the Applicant to register the historical water usage and apply for additional water rights to allow building of a dam. The main purpose of the proposed dam is to increase water surety of supply to the farm and Estate. Climatic changes and prolonged drought conditions see many agricultural operators seeking relief from intermittent water supply (via direct abstraction) by means of creating storage capacity on their farms. For this same reason the Applicant intends to construct a cubic metre dam on the property. The proposal involves directing flow from the Maitland River into a dam via a new instream weir that will be positioned upstream from the dam location. From this weir a 90mmØ pipe or artificial open channel will divert roughly 50% of the nominal stream runoff into the dam with the remainder of water continuing down the system. The volume of the pipe is estimated at 3.2 litres/second. The purpose of this Scoping Report is to describe the environment to be affected, the proposed project, the process followed to date (focussing on the outcome of the initial public participation process and baseline specialist studies), to present the site constraints identified by the various specialist during their initial site assessments, and provide the Plan of Study for the Impact Assessment phase of this development. In terms of Regulation 41 of NEMA registered I&APs must submit comments on the all relevant reports directly to the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP). Thus, should any I&AP wish to make any contribution to this Scoping Report they are required to please forward their written submission within the specified 30-day comment period, extending from 6 January February ) LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK The legislation relevant to this study is briefly outlined below ( ). These environmental requirements are not intended to be definitive or exhaustive, but serve to highlight key environmental legislation and responsibilities only. 2.1 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) states that everyone has a right to a non-threatening environment and that reasonable measure are applied to protect the Cape EAPrac 1 Scoping Report

22 environment. This includes promoting conservation and environmentally sustainable development, while promoting justifiable social and economic development. 2.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) The current assessment is being undertaken in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998 as amended) 6. This Act makes provision for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the environment and which require authorisation from the competent authority (in this case, the Provincial Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs, DEDEA) based on the findings of an Environmental Assessment. The proposed scheme entails a number of listed activities, which require a Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process, which must be conducted by an independent environmental assessment practitioner (EAP). Table 3: Tabled 'listed activities' for Rietfontein Dam as proposed. etailed description of listed activities associated with the project sted activity as described in GN R.983, 984 and 985 escription of project activity that triggers listed activity if activities in GN R. 985 are triggered, indicate the triggering criteria as described in the second column of GN R. 985 N R. 983 (12): The development of (ii) channel exceeding 100 square metres in size, (iv) dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface area, exceeds 100 square metres in size; (v) weirs, where the weir, including infrastructure and water surfaces area, exceeds 100 square metres in size, (viii) jetties exceeding 100 square metres in size, (ix) slipways exceeding 100 square metres in size, (x) buildings exceeding 100 square metres in size, (xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square metres or more, where such development occurs (a) within a watercourse, (c) if no development setback existing, within 32meters from a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse. N R. 983 (13): The development of facilities or infrastructure for the off-stream storage of water, including dams and reservoirs, with a combined capacity of cubic metres or more. he construction of a dam with associated infrastructure including an (a) In-stream, upstream intake weir with diversion infrastructure to ensure ecological flow requirements are met; (b) Potential diversion channel associated with one of the alternatives; (c) slipway and jetty for private use within 32m from the high water mark of the dam; (d) a pump house within 32m from the high water mark of the dam; and (e) associated infrastructure within 32m from the high water mark of the dam i.e. overflow channel, stabilising structures for rehabilitation of upstream and downstream sections in the watercourse, and potentially a level area across/pathway the dam wall to allow continued access from the one side of the watercourse to the other. ne of the alternatives under consideration is an off-stream position for the proposed dam. N R. 983 (19): The infilling or depositing of any onstruction activities associated with building of a dam with 6 On 18 June 2010 the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs promulgated new regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998), viz, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations These regulations came into effect on 02 August 2010 and replace the EIA regulations promulgated in In December 2014 these Regulations were replaced with the latest 2014 Regulations. Cape EAPrac 2 Scoping Report

23 material or more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic metres from (i) a watercourse. associated structures and infrastructure as mentioned under GN. R. 983 (12) above which will occur within a watercourse. N R. 983 (27): The clearance of an area of 1 hectares onstruction activities associated with building of a dam with or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous associated structures and infrastructure as mentioned under vegetation, except where such clearance of GN. R. (12) above which will result in the indigenous vegetation is required for (i) undertaking removal/damaging/submerging of indigenous vegetation and of a linear activity. riparian habitat. The relocation of the existing 22kVA overhead transmission line is excluded since it is a linear activity. N R. 984 (16): The development of a dam where the onstruction of a dam with a surface (high water mark) not highest part of the dam wall, as measured from the exceeding 5ha and a dam wall height not exceeding 9 metres. outside toe of the wall to the highest part of the wall, is 5 metres or higher or where the high-water mark of the covers an area of 10ha or more. N R. 985 (12): The clearance of an area of 300 square onstruction activities associated with building of a dam with metres or more of indigenous vegetation except associated structures and infrastructure as mentioned under where such clearance is required for maintenance GN. R. (12) above which will result in the purposes undertaken in accordance with a removal/damaging/submerging of indigenous vegetation and maintenance management plan, (i) within any CE or riparian habitat. E ecosystem listed ito Section 52 of NEMBA, (ii) within CBA identified in bioregional plans. N R. 985 (14): The development of (ii) channel exceeding 10 square metres in size, (v) weirs, where the weir, including infrastructure and water surface area exceeds 10 square metres in size, (viii) jetties exceeding 10 square metres in size, (ix) slipways exceeding 10 square metres in size, (x) buildings exceeding 10 square metres in size, (xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 10 square metres ore more (ff) CBA or ecosystem service areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans, where such development occurs (a) within a watercourse, (c) if no development setback has been adopted within 32 metres of a watercourse measured from the edge of a watercourse. he construction of a dam with associated infrastructure including an (a) In-stream, upstream intake weir with diversion infrastructure to ensure ecological flow requirements are met; (b) Potential diversion channel associated with one of the alternatives; (c) slipway and jetty for private use within 32m from the high water mark of the dam; (d) a pump house within 32m from the high water mark of the dam; and (e) associated infrastructure within 32m from the high water mark of the dam i.e. overflow channel, stabilising structures for rehabilitation of upstream and downstream sections in the watercourse, and potentially a level area across/pathway the dam wall to allow continued access from the one side of the watercourse to the other. Before any of the above mentioned listed activities can be undertaken, authorisation must be obtained from the relevant authority, in this case DEDEA. Should the Department approve the proposed activity, the Environmental Authorisation does not exclude the need for obtaining relevant approvals from other Authorities who also have a legal mandate. Cape EAPrac 3 Scoping Report

24 The estimated coordinates for each of the abovementioned activities are provided as follows: R983 (12, 19, 27) representing the in-stream dam options and in-stream weir positions R983 (13) representing the off-stream dam position R984 (16) representing both the in-stream and off-stream dam positions R985 (12, 14) representing the in-stream dam and in-stream weir positions Cape EAPrac 4 Scoping Report

25 Figure 3 depicts a summary of the S&EIR process as a flow diagram. Key Applicant / EAP Actions Department Actions Appellant Actions Statutory Timeframes Scoping Phase Environmental Impact Phase Activities NEMA Listing Notice 2 NEM:WA Category B NEM:AQA Prepare Environmental Impact Report (EIR); Conduct specialist investigations; Conduct Public Participation Conduct specialist investigations; Draft Scoping Report (SR); Conduct Inital Public Participation. Submit Application Form to Competent Authority 10 days 30 days for comment on EIR Submit Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to Competent Authority Decision Making / Appeal Phase Submit EIR 106 days from acceptance of scoping report or 156 days if signficant changes made Acknowledgement / Acceptance of Application Reject Application 10 days Acknowledgement of EIR Conduct Public Participation 30 days for comment on SR Grant EA in full or part 107 days Refuse EA in full or part Submit Final Scoping Report (SR) and Plan of Study for Environmental Impact Report to Competent Authority 10 days Submit SR 44 days from receipt of application 5 days Notify Applicant of Decision Acknowledgement / Acceptance of SR 43 days 14 days Applicant to notify I&APs of Decision 6 days Refuse Environmental Authorisation Accept SR and Plan of Study Appeal Figure 3: Flow diagram of the S&EIA process as per the 2014 Regulations. 2.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY (ACT 10 OF 2004) The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA) provides for listing threatened or protected ecosystems, in one of four categories: critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU) or protected. The list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems supersedes the information regarding terrestrial ecosystem status in the NSBA NEMBA also deals with endangered, threatened and otherwise controlled species. The Act provides for listing of species as threatened or protected, under one of the following categories: Cape EAPrac 5 Scoping Report

26 Critically Endangered: any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future. Endangered: any indigenous species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, although it is not a critically endangered species. Vulnerable: any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future; although it is not a critically endangered species or an endangered species. Protected species: any species which is of such high conservation value or national importance that it requires national protection. Species listed in this category include, among others, species listed in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). According to the Nelson Mandela Bay Final Bioregional Plan, as gazetted on 30 March 2015 the vegetation type/ecosystem status for the dam location falls within the Kragga Kamma Indian Ocean Forest vegetation type which has been designated as Critically Endangered, meaning that remaining indigenous species face extinction. Figure 4: Nelson Mandela Bay Bioregional Plan (2015) indicating vegetation type and ecosystem status for the study area. Todd (2016) confirms the vegetation in and around the site, according to Mucina & Rutherford (2006) to be mapped as Albany Coastal Belt which, in the Eastern Cape, generally occurs within 15-30km from the Indian Ocean coastline. It is classified as Least Threatened. Cape EAPrac 6 Scoping Report

27 Figure 5: Mucina & Rutherford (2006 in Todd 2016) vegetation type classification. It must be noted that in 2014 NEMBA published the list of species that may not be maintained in specified areas. The presence of vast areas of invasive alien vegetation on the study area and surrounding properties is of concern as land owners and the Applicant are obliged by law to clear invasive alien vegetation such as wattle which is found all over the area. 2.4 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS & BROAD SCALE PROCESSES Despite the vegetation type classification according to the local Bioregional Plan the critical biodiversity area (and ecological support area) does not include the upper reaches of the Maitland River, including the study area, implying that transformation over time have resulted in substantial degradation of ecological processes. The riparian area of the Maitland River from some 1.7km downstream of the proposed dam site has however been classified as a CBA until a few kilometres upstream of the Maitland Estuary. According to the Nelson Mandela Bay Conservation Plan the Maitland River requires at least 20% of its length to be conserved. Cape EAPrac 7 Scoping Report

28 Figure 6: Designated critical biodiversity areas (CBA) excluding the study area. 2.5 NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NO. 84 OF 1998): The National Forests Act provides for the protection of forests as well as specific tree species, quoting directly from the Act: no person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree or possess, collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree or any forest product derived from a protected tree, except under a licence or exemption granted by the Minister to an applicant and subject to such period and conditions as may be stipulated. According to the SANBI POSA database lists 65 species of conservation concern from the quarter degree square containing the site, of which one (1) species, the Yellowwood Tree (Podocarpus latifolius), a protected species, was confirmed present on site. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is registered as a key stakeholder on this environmental process and will be given an opportunity to comment on this SR. They will also be a decision-making authority ito the Forestry Permit that will be required for the removal of relevant yellowwood trees found within the footprint of the dam. 2.6 CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT CARA (ACT 43 OF 1983): CARA provides for the regulation of control over the utilisation of the natural agricultural resources in order to promote the conservation of soil, water and vegetation and provides for combating weeds and invader plant species. The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act defines different categories of alien plants: Category 1 - prohibited and must be controlled; Category 2 must be grown within a demarcated area under permit; and Cape EAPrac 8 Scoping Report

29 Category 3 - ornamental plants that may no longer be planted, but existing plants may remain provided that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the spreading thereof, except within the flood lines of water courses and wetlands. The abundance of alien plant species on the study area (which forms part of a private nature reserve), as well as the surrounding properties is substantial and the land owner/applicant is reminded of his/her duty of care and responsibility ito CARA to eradicate and maintain an alien free environment. 2.7 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT The protection and management of South Africa s heritage resources are controlled by the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999). South African National Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is the enforcing authority at National level and the Eastern Cape Heritage Authority is responsible for the Eastern Cape. Both are registered as stakeholders for this environmental process. In terms of Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, SAHRA will comment on the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) where certain categories of development are proposed. Section 38(8) also makes provision for the assessment of heritage impacts as part of an EIA process. The National Heritage Resources Act requires relevant authorities to be notified regarding this proposed development, as the following activities are relevant: the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length; any development or other activity which will change the character of a site exceeding m² in extent; the re-zoning of a site exceeding m ² in extent. Furthermore, in terms of Section 34(1), no person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure, which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the SAHRA, or the responsible resources authority. Nor may anyone destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position, or otherwise disturb, any grave or burial ground older than 60 years, which is situated outside a formal cemetery administered by a local authority, without a permit issued by the SAHRA, or a provincial heritage authority, in terms of Section 36 (3). In terms of Section 35 (4), no person may destroy, damage, excavate, alter or remove from its original position, or collect, any archaeological material or object, without a permit issued by the SAHRA, or the responsible resources authority. The appointed heritage specialist confirmed the presence of structures (old dwellings and causeways) with heritage value in proximity to the proposed dam location. With the exception of the causeway none of the homestead structures will be inundated by the dam and as such is not considered of any concern. The Eastern Cape Heritage Authority/SAHRA will issue formal comment on the Heritage Statement (Perception Planning 2016). No further assessment is recommended although mention has been made for the restoration of the identified dwellings. Cape EAPrac 9 Scoping Report

30 2.8 NATIONAL WATER ACT, NO 36 OF 1998 Section 21c & i of the National Water Act (NWA) requires the Applicant to apply for authorisation from the Department of Water Affairs for an activity in, or in proximity to any watercourse or the use of any watercourse. All identified alternatives involves work to be undertaken within the Maitland River, whether it be for an upstream weir only, or the weir and an in-stream dam with associated infrastructure. Furthermore the registration of historical water use, as well as the application for additional water use and the storage of water all require authorisation ito the NWA. Atkinson Surveys & Designs has been appointed to facilitate the process specifies ito the NWA. The initial application was made for late registration of historical water use, however due to the recent initiation of a validation and verification process (of water rights) in the area, the late registration option is no longer deemed sufficient and has been replaced with a complete Water Use License Application (WULA) process that will be run in parallel to the ongoing environmental process. According to the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) the study area contains no NFEPA wetland or rivers. However the rivers dataset has classified the quaternary catchment as a fish support area with the Eastern and Western Cape endemic fish Sandelia capensis (Cape Kurper) as the target species requiring protection. 2.9 MAMMALMAP / SARCA / FROGMAP DATABASE Todd (2016) in his scoping mentions that species of conservation concern known from the broad area include Honey Badger and Blue Duiker. He further comments that due to the degraded nature of the site it would not be locally important for these species, however poaching is an ever present problem that should be noted and managed during construction. The general observation from the site indicates that mammal diversity is low since the majority of the site is transformed. Similarly the diversity of reptiles/amphibians is low and few species were observed during the site inspection suggesting that abundance is low due to the transformed nature of the majority of the site. Creating an artificial water feature through the dam is likely to create a greater habitat for frogs especially which might prove positive. The avian habitats at the site are fairly diverse and include the river line itself, areas of thicket, forest patches and various disturbed environments. The forest and thicket areas are considered most significant for birds SUSTAINABILITY IMPERATIVE The norm implicit to our environmental law is the notion of sustainable development ( SD ). SD and sustainable use and exploitation of natural resources are at the core of the protection of the environment. SD is generally accepted to mean development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The evolving elements of the concept of SD inter alia include: the right to develop; the pursuit of equity in the use and allocation of natural resources (the principle of intragenerational equity) and the need to preserve natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. Cape EAPrac 10 Scoping Report

31 Economic development, social development and the protection of the environment are considered the pillars of SD (the triple bottom line). Man-land relationships require a holistic perspective, an ability to appreciate the many aspects that make up the real problems. Sustainable planning has to confront the physical, social, environmental and economic challenges and conflicting aspirations of local communities. The imperative of sustainable planning translates into notions of striking a balance between the many competing interests in the ecological, economic and social fields in a planned manner. The triple bottom line objectives of sustainable planning and development should be understood in terms of economic efficiency (employment and economic growth), social equity (human needs) and ecological integrity (ecological capital). As was pointed out by the Constitutional Court, SD does not require the cessation of socioeconomic development but seeks to regulate the manner in which it takes place. The idea that developmental and environmental protection must be reconciled is central to the concept of SD - it implies the accommodation, reconciliation and (in some instances) integration between economic development, social development and environmental protection. It is regarded as providing a conceptual bridge between the right to social and economic development, and the need to protect the environment. Our Constitutional Court has pointed out that the requirement that environmental authorities must place people and their needs at the forefront of their concern so that environmental management can serve their developmental, cultural and social interests, can be achieved if a development is sustainable. The very idea of sustainability implies continuity. It reflects the concern for social and developmental equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation. This concern is reflected in the principles of inter-generational and intragenerational equity which are embodied in both section 24 of the Constitution and the principles of environmental management contained in NEMA. [Emphasis added.] In terms of NEMA sustainable development requires the integration of the relevant factors, the purpose of which is to ensure that development serves present and future generations. 7 Although the Applicant is full within his right to apply for having a dam on his property, the rights of existing, lawful water users (downstream), as well as the environmental priority rights (i.e. ecological reserve of the system) may not be detrimentally affected by such a right of application. 3) ACTIVITY Through the ongoing S&EIA process the Applicant is applying for rights to increase surety of water supply to Portion 1 of Farm Rietfontein 594 and Yellowwoods Estate altogether. The Rietfontein property was recently acquired and incorporated into the Estate. The Maitland River traverses the property and pastures and crops are indicative of historical water use from the river. Although abstraction and use of water from the Maitland River was never formally registered with the DWA, the historical use thereof is subject to a WULA along with the proposal to construct a new storage dam. Atkinson Survey & Designs is responsible for the dam design and a copy of his report with details on the proposal can be found in Appendix 4 along with a copy of the Yield Analysis done by NYM Consulting attached as Appendix 5. 7 See definition of sustainable development in section 1 of NEMA. Cape EAPrac 11 Scoping Report

32 The Applicant s preferred proposal is for the following (in-stream with underground pipe): Dam Wall Height: Not exceeding 9 metres Crest of wall: 130m Width of Crest: 6.4m Overflow width: 13m Free Board: 1.5m Volume of dam: m 3 Surface Area: 4.96Ha Water stored in this dam will be for agricultural purposes, when required, but mostly it will act as a reservoir to compensate for prolonged droughts. As and when water is not required for irrigation or drinking purposes the dam will still resemble an artificial water feature that can be utilised for private recreational purposes as well. Since the original homestead and outbuildings will look onto the dam it is anticipated that it will add value other than only a water resource. The dam will be fitted with an emergency overflow that will allow nearly 30 litres / second of water to be discharged up to the top one (1) metre of the surface level of the dam to replicate flood events and/or discharge water for ecological requirements. the dam will have a maximum depth of 8 metres with the deepest portion of the dam being in excess of 5 metres for about the first 300 metres upstream of the dam wall, shallowing thereafter along a relatively gentle slope. The inundated channel length is estimated at some 690 metres, of which nearly 250 metres, from immediately upstream of the existing crossing point, are considered to be historically impacted by an old weir / causeway, while the remaining (approximately) 440 metres of channel length is considered to be in relatively good condition. The maximum inundated width of the dam is estimated at 160 metres, with the western side slopes being steep and giving into a steep sided vegetated cliff, while the eastern side slopes would grade gradually up into flat terrestrial land, currently used for grazing of livestock. The approximately centre point coordinates for the proposed dam (in its preferred location) is: Table 4: General coordinates for preferred dam position. Latitude (S) (DDMMSS) Longitude (E) (DDMMSS) With the exception of the off-stream dam site alternative, both in-stream design options will require the dam wall to duplicate as a vehicular crossing since the dam will inundate the existing crossing that is used to move from the one side of the Maitland River to the other. A new upstream weir will be necessary to direct water into the dam. It is anticipated that this weir will be fitted with a mechanism that will catch 50% of the nominal flow to divert to the dam. The height of the weir is anticipated to be in the order of 350mm spanning the width of the stream. Table 5: General coordinates for weir position. Latitude (S) (DDMMSS) Longitude (E) (DDMMSS) Cape EAPrac 12 Scoping Report

33 When full the dam will inundate an existing 22kV overhead power line owned by the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. This power line will be re-aligned to avoid the footprint of the dam. Two alternative routes have been identified and both have been considered by the ecologist. The preferred route runs along the boundary line of the property. Appendix 6 contains maps of the two alternative routes. 4) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES A number of alternatives layout and technological/design alternatives have been considered to date. The consideration of these alternatives is detailed below. 4.1 SITE ALTERNATIVES Two site alternatives have been considered, namely: An off-stream dam with a dam wall height of at least 10 metres and a storage capacity of approximately cubic metres, requiring a new upstream weir to direct 50% nominal flow into the dam (Alternative 3); and A cubic metre dam with a dam wall less than 9 metres high, situated in-stream with a new upstream weir to direct 50% nominal flow into the dam. It should be noted that the off-stream dam is not preferred by the Applicant as it is anticipated to cost in the order of R4 million rand to construct compared to an estimated R1,7 million rand for the in-stream option. This cost difference excludes the cost of electricity/diesel to pump water into the dam vs the gravity fed in-stream option. This difference in price is mainly associated with the volume of material that must be excavated and re-introduced to create the dam. Similarly the various specialists have reservations about the off-stream dam since it has the potential to (a) create a visual scar which is unwanted from a heritage perspective given proximity to structures with heritage value, (b) could result in the natural watercourse becoming perched above the dam position which would result in significant permanent watercourse degradation and (c) since more significant earthworks/scarring are anticipated with the off-stream option the ecologist raised concern about long term erosion with potential for siltation. Cape EAPrac 13 Scoping Report

34 Figure 7: Site alternative with off-stream dam position (Alternative 3). Cape EAPrac 14 Scoping Report

35 4.2 DESIGN/TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES Two design alternatives for the proposed facility have been considered: An cubic metre in-stream dam with an underground 90mmØ PVC pipe that will discharge the required flow for the ecological reserve downstream of the proposed dam (Alternative 1); A cubic metre in-stream dam with an artificial channel running around the dam to discharge the required flow for the ecological reserve downstream of the proposed dam (Alternative 2). Cape EAPrac 15 Scoping Report

36 Figure 8: Design alternative 1 of in-stream dam with underground pipe to discharge ecological reserve flow. Cape EAPrac 16 Scoping Report

37 Figure 9: Design alternative 3 with artificial by-pass channel. Both design options require a new upstream weir (approximately 350mm high spanning the width of the stream) and both options will result in the need to divert the existing 22kV overhead power line as well as create a vehicular driveway across the dam wall since the existing crossing will be inundated. Cape EAPrac 17 Scoping Report

38 Off the two design alternatives the freshwater specialist has indicated that the latter option is preferred due to the concern of potential blockages with the underground pipe vs the open channel that can be inspected visually and more easily cleaned if it becomes blocked. 4.3 NO-GO ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 4) The Status Quo Alternative implies continued direct abstraction from the Maitland River (subject to validation and verification as well as registration of the water use). Since the option of continued abstraction (possibly in higher volumes if the Applicant is successful in his/her application to the Department of Water Affairs) has not been quantified the ecological impact on the Maitland River system (including the Estuary) cannot yet be verified as being more or less of an impact. However a lesser impact is expected ito physical disturbance since no construction / flow impediment will be required. More detailed hydrological data is required as part of the detailed impact assessment phase to help determine the relative contribution of the catchment upstream of the dam compared to the overall discharge downstream and at the estuary. It is likely however that the number of watercourses that enter the Maitland River downstream from the dam location will contribute substantially to the downstream flow requirements making this alternative 4 the specialists preferred alternative at scoping level. Based on the collective evaluation of site and design alternatives the following ranking is allocated to the various identified alternatives at scoping level. It must be noted that additional information and more detailed assessment may alter the ranking of these alternatives during the final phase of the S&EIA process: Table 6: Preliminary ranking of alternatives for the purpose of the scoping phase. ALTERNATIVE RANKING EXPLANATION Alternative 1 (in-stream with underground pipe) Alternative 2 (in-stream with artificial channel) 3 Design not ideal. 2 Subject to mitigation measures/trade-offs and final design. Alternative 3 (off-stream) 4 High levels of disturbance coupled with high risk of incurring permanent and unplanned impacts in future as well as unwanted visual scarring in the face of recognised heritage features. Alternative 4 (No-go) 1 To be verified with additional hydrological data as well as final design. 5) SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES The larger Yellowwoods Estate of which Portion 1 Farm Rietfontein 594 forms part of is located approximately 30km west of Port Elizabeth and roughly 4km north of Blue Horizon Bay in the Eastern Cape Province. The Maitland River traverses the study area and lies within the DWA s quaternary catchment M20B in the Fish-to-Tsitsikamma Water Management Area (WMA). The river enters the property within a dense bank of mainly alien Acacia mearnsii (Black Wattle) and other alien species (eg Acacia saligna and Eucaluptus). The river channel runs along the base of a steep-sided valley on the left Cape EAPrac 18 Scoping Report

39 hand channel, with the right hand channel giving way, beyond the fringe of alien vegetation, to previously ploughed and currently grazed agricultural lands. The river reaches upstream of the proposed Rietfontein Dam site flows through highly transformed agricultural areas including several dairy farms. Downstream of the proposed dam, the River is joined by several other tributaries, which enter mainly from the north and north east. The river passes into the sea via its small estuary just east of Blue Horizon Bay. The meandering nature of the river has over time carved an intricate network of natural valley through the larger rural landscape between the coastline and the N2 National Road. As a result this river corridor constitutes and important natural feature that effectively defines the landscape character of the study area and its environs. Cape EAPrac 19 Scoping Report

40 Figure 10: Downstream section of the Maitland River with forest/thicket patches visible along the western slope. Figure 11: Transformed areas currently used as grazing, that will be inundated by the dam. Figure 12: Upstream section of the in-stream dam footprint with the existing 22kV overhead power line visible. The on-site historical settlement within proximity of the study area has responded to this natural landscape in the manner in which cultivation took place, the siting of buildings and roads and planting of vegetation. Several structures on the farm relate to early settlement (i.e. older than 60 Cape EAPrac 20 Scoping Report

41 years) and these are presumed to be the historic core of the original farmstead. Upon inspection the follow structures were noted, the original farmstead and related outbuildings, at least two labourer s cottages set apart from the homestead grounds, a secondary and third cottage and the remains of a former causeway which is still used as a means for vehicles to cross the river in order to access agricultural lands north of the river. Figure 13: Example of existing structure with heritage value identified outside the development footprint. The area experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern, with the highest rainfall generally in autumn and spring (SRK 2010 in Day 2016). Cleared areas, used for grazing/crops are visible on approximately 30% of the Rietfontein property. Historical photographs dating back to 2004 indicate that up to 50% may have been utilised for agricultural use at some point in time. The existing agricultural areas are concentrated in the middle to eastern parts of the site, surrounding the various homesteads. A number of farm roads traverse the remainder of the farm making large parts of the property accessible for potential future cultivation. 6) ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The purpose of an ecological investigation is to describe and detail the ecological features of the proposed site(s), to provide a preliminary assessment of the ecological sensitivity of the site and identify likely impacts that may be associated with the proposed activity. The ecological scoping investigation was informed by a site visit (14 July 2015) and desktop review of the available ecological information for the area in order to identify and characterise the ecological features of the site. The footprint areas of alternatives were investigated in detail in the field and surveys of fauna and flora within these areas were used to compile a detailed plant species list. Active searches for reptiles and amphibians were also conducted within habitats likely to harbour or be important for such species. The presence of sensitive habitats within the stream as well as within the adjacent terrestrial environment were noted in the field, if present, and recorded on a GPS from where it was transferred onto satellite imagery for mapping purposes. This included delineating the different Cape EAPrac 21 Scoping Report

42 habitat units identified in the field and assigning sensitivity values to the units based on ththeir ecological property, conservation value and the observed presence of species of conservation concern. From this information an ecological sensitivity map was derived that represents ecological constraints and opportunities for the proposed activity (which are used to inform the detail planning and design phase as well as the impact assessment phase of the S&EIA process). The purpose being to provide a baseline against which the potential impacts can be measured. The scoping study furthermore outlines a plan of study for the impact assessment phase. The scope of work, general considerations, gaps and assumptions as well as methodology of the ecological scoping report are detailed in the specialist report attached as Appendix7. For the purpose of the ecological scoping phase the specialist considered all four (4) alternatives, inclusive of the site location and design/technology alternatives. 6.1 VEGETATION SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The ecological sensitivity of the different units identified in the mapping procedure was rated according to the following scale: LOW areas of natural or transformed habitat with a low sensitivity where there is likely to be a negligible impact on ecological processes and terrestrial biodiversity. Development can proceed within these areas with little ecological impacts. MEDIUM areas of natural or previously transformed land where the impacts are likely to be largely local and the risk of secondary impacts (such as erosion) are low. Development within these areas can proceed with relatively little ecological impact provided that appropriate mitigation measures are taken. HIGH areas of natural or transformed land where a high impact is anticipated due to the high biodiversity value, sensitivity or important ecological role of the area. Development within these areas is undesirable and should only proceed with caution as it may not be possible to mitigate all impacts appropriately. VERY HIGH critical and unique habitats that serve as habitat for rare/endangered species or perform critical ecological roles. Such areas are considered no-go areas not suitable for development. According to Todd (2016) Mucina & Rutherford (2006) mapped the study area as falling within the Albany Coastal Belt that contains 14 endemic species. More than 12% of the original extent of this vegetation unit has been transformed by cultivation and 5% is in formal protected areas. This vegetation unit has been classified as Least Threatened. The more recent Nelson Mandela Bay Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Stewart 2009, gazetted in 2015 in Todd 2016) excludes the study site from identified critical biodiversity areas (CBA) and ecological support areas (ESA). At site level, upstream of the proposed dam site(s) the common and dominant species include rushes such as Typha capensis and trees such as Acacia natalita, Searsia chirendensis, S. lucida. S. pallens, Zanthoxylum capense, Gymnosporia buxifolia and alien species such as Pennisetum clandestinum, Xantium spinosum and Eucalyptus sp. Near the general position of the dam wall (in-stream) most of the area consists of Kikuyu pasture with occasional indigenous or alien shrubs and trees. Podacarpus latifolius (Yellowwood trees) were noted amongst the forest patches along the steep slope section that would be inundated. Cape EAPrac 22 Scoping Report

43 Other typical and dominant species includes trees such as Euphorbia triangularis, Canthium spinosum, Ekbergia capensis, Vepris lanceolata, Zanthoxylum capense and Cussonia spicata as well as forbs and climbers such as Rhocissus digitata, Isoglossa woodii and Sarcostemma viminale. The off-stream dam position shows a very low sensitivity as it is currently pastures with little remaining intact biodiversity. The area where the weir is proposed (upstream of the dam position) is highly degraded and the river has become heavily invaded with Eucalyptus and there is very little remaining indigenous vegetation as a result. Similarly the vegetation north of the site that will be affected by realignment of the existing 22kV overhead power line is highly degraded and transformed with little natural vegetation remaining where old pastures have been reinvaded by Acacia mearnsi, Eucalyptus sp. and other weedy species. 6.2 FAUNA SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS On-site observation indicates that mammal diversity at the site is generally low and considered to be low sensitivity for fauna. The MammalMap database recorded 16 mammals from the quarter degree square 3325CD that includes the study area. It is thought however that this is an understatement since it does not include many of the small mammals that are likely to be present in the study area. It is anticipated that species of conservation concern such as the Honey Badger and Blue Duiker may utilise the area on occasion although the degraded nature of the site suggests that the site would not be locally important for these species. Although most mammal species are unlikely to be negatively affected by the loss of habitat caused by development of the dam they are vulnerable to poaching. If vegetation around the proposed dam is allowed to regenerate, then the dam will also generate novel and additional habitat for fauna that can replace the lost habitat. With regards to reptiles the diversity and abundance of species is considered to be low. Given that the site does not bear fynbos montaine habitat the ecologist consider it unlikely that the threatened Elandsberg Dwarft Cameleon will occur in the area. Some species such as the Cape Crag Lizard are likely to be fairly common at the site. Fourteen frog species have been recorded in the FrogMap database for the area including the Giant Bull Frog (Near Threatened). However it prefers drier savannahs and breed in shallow, temporary pools, pans and ditches rather than running streams. The species richness and abundance of frogs at the site is low with most species present those that favour artificial dams. As with reptiles, rehabilitation of the wider site would likely be beneficial for frogs. It is likely that the proposed dam will have some small positive effect on amphibians by providing greater habitat. Avian (bird) habitats at the site are fairly diverse and include the river line itself, areas of thicket, forest patches and various disturbed environment ranging from open fields to dense alien infestations. The areas of forest and thicket are considered most significant for birds, although the overall small extent of the development would not result in significant habitat loss. The only major potential impact would be associated with realignment of the existing 22kV power line, however bird flappers can mitigate against unwanted collisions. In general most of the footprint of the site(s) is either transformed (agricultural fields) or fairly degraded habitat of low sensitivity. The in-stream dam options will have a limited local impact, particularly in the narrow strip of indigenous forest vegetation along the western banks of the river. Cape EAPrac 23 Scoping Report

44 However this vegetation occurs on a steep slope and given the limited height of the proposed dam wall, on the lower few meters would be inundated. There is also a patch of somewhat degraded riparian forest at the northern extent of the dam where the wall would be located. This does include some young Yellowwood trees which are a protected species. Under ideal circumstances the footprint of the in-stream dam options should be minimised to retain the forest patches. However considering that the total extent of habitat lost within these sensitive areas would be around 1 hectare it is not considered to represent a very high impact. If woody aliens in the area are cleared and additional vegetation is allowed to regenerate around the dam it would serve to recreate some habitat lost to the dam footprint and thereby offset some of the negative impact associated with the development. The off-stream dam option also has low sensitivity with low associated impact of a much localised nature on natural vegetation with only a patch of degraded riparian vegetation to the north of the proposed dam site. The greatest concern with the off-stream option is potential erosion that may impact on the stream through long term siltation. The power line options are transformed and degraded habitats of low sensitivity. Although birds do learn the location of power lines the relocation of the existing line to a new position may impact on local avifauna due to collisions especially where it will pass through the valley. 6.3 POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS The majority of impacts associated with the proposed activity will occur during the construction phase as a result of disturbance, vegetation clearing and the inundation of vegetation by the dam. After construction impacts would be generated by human activity and the presence of the development which may reduce broad-scale ecological processes such as landscape connectivity. Impacts on fauna, riparian vegetation and impacts on broad-scale ecological processes are considered to be the most likely potential impacts of the development. Construction Phase: Vegetation clearing could impact on protected species as well as riparian and terrestrial plant communities. Potential habitat loss for fauna and potentially the loss of sensitive faunal species, habitats and ecosystems. Presence and operation of construction machinery on site will create a physical impact as well as generate noise, pollution and other forms of disturbance that could affect faunal species. Increased human presence can lead to poaching an illegal plant harvesting. Vegetation clearing for maintenance and access roads for the overhead power line infrastructure could impact on plant communities. Operational Phase: The presence of the facility will disrupt the connectivity of the landscape for some species which will avoid traversing the cleared areas and may impact their ability to disperse or maintain gene flow between subpopulations. The deviated power line might impact on avifauna negatively through collisions of birds with the power lines. This could be a similar impact to that of the existing power line (and therefore not present a new impact) or, depending on the overlap of the existing avifaunal use of the area the new power line placement, it might generate additional, new negative impacts. There is also the chance that the new placement could represent a positive Cape EAPrac 24 Scoping Report

45 impact if there are fewer impacts on avifauna along the new route compared to the existing placement of the power line. Cumulative Impacts: Transformation of intact habitat could disrupt the connectivity of the landscape for fauna and flora and impair their ability to respond to environmental fluctuations. The disturbance with the off-stream dam option might significantly impact the intact ecosystem services of the terrestrial vegetation, leading to erosion, silting and fragmentation of habitat. 6.4 IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED As can be seen from Section 6.3 there are various impacts that may arise as a result of the proposed activity whether it be at the in-stream or off-stream positions under consideration. The following impacts must be investigated and assessed further in the detailed impact assessment phase that is to follow on this scoping phase: Impact 1: species. Impacts on riparian vegetation, terrestrial ecosystems and protected plant The intact riparian vegetation at the site is considered sensitive, but not threatened since the affected vegetation type is fairly restricted. The extent of intact vegetation loss from Alternatives 1 & 2 would be very low as the level of the dam would not completely inundate the more sensitive fragments of riparian vegetation and have only result in a local significance. The impacts of Alternative 2 would still be slightly higher than Alternative 1 due to the additional footprint of the diversion canal/bypass. The impact of Alternative 3 would result in a major disruption of terrestrial ecosystem processes including soil water retention, runoff, infiltration and erosion. The disruption of associated vegetation services would be higher with Alternative 3 than with Alternatives 1 & 2. Impact 2: Direct and Indirect Faunal Impacts Sensitive and shy fauna are likely to move away from the area during the construction phase, while some slow moving species may be killed. Illegal collection or poaching during the construction phase may happen. The loss of habitat through vegetation clearing would impact habitat species and will result in the loss of some faunal habitat. Most of these impacts can however be effectively managed or mitigated. Impact 3: Relocation of overhead power line will impact on vegetation and protected plant species Although it is likely that the impact would be low and have only local significance the potential for affecting remnants of indigenous vegetation, including protected species, must be further investigated/assessed. Impact 4: Direct Avifaunal impacts as a result of relocation the power line The magnitude of the impact of the new route could be greater than the existing section of power line if the new route crosses frequently used flight paths or particular bird species. At this point in time no nests or other sensitive features are evident in either of the alternative routes but further investigation is required. Cumulative Impact 1: Impacts on CBA and broad scale ecological processes Although the site does not contain any CBA/ESA areas the disturbance associated with construction of Alternative 3 especially would lead to the interruption of ecological functions Cape EAPrac 25 Scoping Report

46 associated with terrestrial ecosystem, such as wildlife movement and refuge, soil water balance and runoff retention. This impact would manifest after construction due to the presence of the development. 6.5 CONCLUSION & PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the identified potential impacts, the ecologist performed a cursory assessment of the various impacts and determined that the off-site dam position on the property is less preferred than the in-stream options. The No-go option is likely to result in the least level of impact due to the lack of construction, however the lack of associated alien clearing and re-creation of habitat along the proposed dam will be a loss. The following measures are submitted for consideration by the Applicant to influence the final siting and design of the proposed dam. The impact assessment phase will evaluate and assess the significance of implementing these measures to reduce negative impacts and optimise positive impacts where possible: The footprint of the dam on riparian vegetation should be minimised as far as possible; Ensure that lay-down areas and other temporary infrastructure are within low sensitivity areas, preferably previously transformed areas; Follow-up alien clearing must be implemented for the property to ensure that benefits of ongoing clearing initiatives continue into the future; Ensure that now Yellowwood samplings are accidently cleared during alien clearing efforts as these species are sometimes mistaken for aliens; All personnel should undergo environmental induction with regards to fauna and in particular awareness about not harming or collecting species such as snakes, tortoises which are often persecuted; Any fauna threatened by the construction activities should be removed to safety by an appointed Environmental Control Officer (ECO); All construction vehicles should adhere to low speed limits to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises; All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site; Bird flappers should be considered for the overhead power line. According to the ecologist there is not a lot of difference between the different proposed alternatives from an ecological perspective and the preferred alternative should therefore be identified based on the hydrological and freshwater ecology consideration rather than ecological consideration. 7) AQUATIC FRESHWATER CONSIDERATIONS For the purpose of the aquatic scoping investigation all reference to wetlands and watercourses are based on the following definitions of wetland and watercourses as stipulated in the National Water Act (NWA, Act 36 of 1998): watercourse means a. A river or spring b. A natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently c. A wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which water flows; and Cape EAPrac 26 Scoping Report

47 d. Any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks; wetland means Land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil. When evaluating a river s ecological importance and sensitivity the following components are considered namely: The presence of rare and endangered species, unique species and communities, intolerant species and species diversity for both the in-stream and riparian components of the river; Habitat diversity; Biodiversity in its general form; The importance of the particular river or stretch of river in providing connectivity between different sections of the river; The presence of conservation or relatively natural areas along the river section; and The sensitivity (or fragility) of the system and its resilience (i.e. ability to recover following disturbance) of the system to environmental changes. When all of the above biotic and abiotic determinants are scored, the median score is calculated to derive the ecological importance and sensitivity category which are defined as: LOW Quaternaries/delineations that are not unique at any scale. These rivers are generally not very sensitive to flow modifications and usually have a substantial capacity for use. MEDIUM / MODERATE Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a provincial or local scale due to biodiversity. These rivers are usually not very sensitive to flow modifications and often have a substantial capacity for use. HIGH Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a national scale due to biodiversity. These rivers may be sensitive to flow modifications but in some cases, may have a substantial capacity for use. VERY HIGH Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a national level or even international level based on unique biodiversity. These rivers are usually very sensitive to flow modifications and have no or only a small capacity for use. The Freshwater Consulting Group performed the aquatic investigation and a complete copy of their report can be viewed as Appendix8. As part of the aquatic scoping investigation a single water quality sample was collected from the Maitland River in the vicinity of the proposed in-stream dam alternatives in order to provide information regarding water quality. In situ measurements of EC, ph and temperature were carried out at the same time, using calibrated hand-held field instrumentation. The South African Scoring System (version 5) (SASS5) bio-assessment method was used by the specialist to provide input into river water quality, with aquatic macroinvertebrates occurring in a particular river reach or site reflecting a tolerance to the range of water quality conditions to which they have been exposed over their lifetime, and thus providing a tool by which longer-term water Cape EAPrac 27 Scoping Report

48 quality can be gauged in a river, than allowed for in the snapshot of water quality allowed by direct measurement of water quality variables only. For the purpose of the aquatic scoping investigation the specialist considered all four (4) alternatives including the location options as well as design/technological options. The scoping exercise indicated that none of the development options are considered acceptable without mitigation and ecological offsets. The more detailed impact assessment phase will consider and assess the feasibility of implementing identified mitigation measures and/or offsets to determine whether any of the development proposals has the potential to outweigh the No-go option (i.e. status quo). 7.1 AQUATIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The main stem of the Maitland River is classified as non-perennial, as are the other tributaries of the system. This classification is supported by the flow time series data presented by NYM Consulting (2016), which indicate at least some months without any flow in most years. Downstream of the proposed (in-stream) dam position the Maitland River is joined by several other tributaries. The river passes into the sea via its small estuary just east of Blue Horizon Bay. This estuary is considered by Turpie & Clark (2007 in Day 2016) as one of the core estuaries required for biodiversity conservation with a recommended freshwater requirement to support an Estuarine Management Class A/B (that is near-natural). By contrast, the condition of the Maitland River in its reaches upstream of the estuary has been consistently rated as Category D (that is moderately modified with loss of habitat and wetland functions). This classification is supported by the Nelson Mandela Bay Bioregional Conservation Plan which indicates that the riparian area of the Maitland River from some 1.7km downstream of the proposed dam position has been classified as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) until a few kilometres upstream of the estuary. The river upstream of an within the present study area has not however been awarded any direct conservation status and it is assumed that this reflects the degree of degradation of these reaches, largely as a result of historical and ongoing agricultural activities in the catchment area. Based on its in-stream gradient 8 the Maitland River has been classified as an upper foothill stream. Within the reaches of the study area the river alternates in form between pool /riffle sequences and, in some areas controlled by bedrock intrusions, wider pool areas, with braided secondary channels and in-stream wetland vegetation along the channel margins. These sequences provide a good diversity of in-stream aquatic habitat. In particular the presence of extended sections of stream with vegetated secondary channel is regarded as increasingly rare habitat in the water management area (WMA), where extensive Black Wattle invasion has, as in many other areas, resulted in channelization and the permanent associated loss of such habitat. Its retention on the Rietfontein farm is regarded as a positive and conservation worthy attribute. It appears that the stream and its tributaries downstream may be channelized in places and lacking such features. Within the reaches of the river likely to be inundated by Alternatives 1 & 2 the condition of the riparian corridor improved markedly with the presence of indigenous forest patches on the steep slopes next to the river. The river through the forest patches flows as a riffle-pool sequence with braided secondary channels. The river margins however have been disturbed by grazing and trampling by grazers (livestock and mammals alike). Extensive invasion of the river bank by kikuyu grass is evident in these areas. Nevertheless, in-stream aquatic habitat and stream 8 Using the slope criteria of Rowntree & Wadeson (1999) as cited by Driver et al Cape EAPrac 28 Scoping Report

49 geomorphology remain relatively intact in these reaches which are considered of high importance. Based on the SASS5 bio-assessment data the macroinvertebrate diversity of the river is relatively low which contributes to the assessment of the area river as Category D with the habitat integrity of the river and its reaches accorded a Category D/C (largely to moderately modified). Nonetheless the riparian fringes are likely to offer a protected longitudinal corridor to riverassociated and non-riverine fauna by virtue of the cover it offers to shy species. In 2014 the DWA classified the Maitland River throughout its reaches as of Moderate Ecological Importance and High Ecological Sensitivity as the river is particularly sensitive to changes in flow as a result of abstraction, which could result in significant prolonging of the dry season / periods of no flow, with potential consequences for dependent fauna and flora. On the basis of the data and records considered the entire Maitland River channel and riparian fringe, is considered of high sensitivity to the proposed development. The surrounding (nonriparian) area is considered of low sensitivity. Based on the number of tributaries that enter the Maitland River downstream of the proposed site location it seems likely that the proposed impoundment and possible associated abstraction would result in a relatively low level of cumulative impact, particularly if coupled with alien clearing. 7.2 POTENTIAL AQUATIC IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED This section only aims at identifying the key impacts to aquatic ecosystems that are likely to accrue from the proposed development alternatives. These impacts will be considered in more detail in the EIA phase of the project and are included primarily to highlight critical areas where development design would need to consider impact mitigation measures / trade-offs carefully. Construction phase: Siltation and degradation of downstream areas; Loss of conservation worthy sections that will be subject to earthworks; Possible eutrophication of sections of the system; In-channel disturbance Operational phase: Permanent alteration (degradation) of riverine habitat of at least moderate conservation importance Replacement of natural habitats with artificial standing water habitat that is likely to support problematic floral and faunal species, potentially including the introduction of alien fish species for recreational purposes; Permanent alteration in flood flows into the Maitland River / Estuary downstream, including concentrated flood flows at times over the overflow outlet, potentially resulting in downstream channelization, particularly if such overflows were irregular; Decrease in the frequency of flood distributions that allow, amongst other functions, for the flushing of pools and in larger events the scour of vegetation and opening up o fprimary and secondary channels; Passage of adequate low flows into the downstream channel given the proposed release mechanisms for Alternatives 1 & 2 coupled with the temptation to secure additional flows from the channel by diverting it into the dam beyond low flow periods; Significant physical fragmentation of the river channel that will change the aquatic habitat type from lotic (flowing) to lentic (standing) habitat with resulting biodiversity impacts; Cape EAPrac 29 Scoping Report

50 Alteration of surface flows and risks of accidental channel diversion associated with Alternative 3 since the dam would need to be excavated to a low enough level for it to receive gravity flows and this could ultimately result in the watercourse becoming perched above the dam, running the risk of diversion of the channel into the dam during flood events which would result in permanent watercourse degradation. Cumulative impacts: The impact on downstream habitat / ecosystems, inclusive of the Estuary, must be investigated further as part of the detailed impact assessment phase. Additional hydrological information is required to inform such an assessment. 7.3 CONCLUSION & PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The additional hydrological data necessary to inform the next phase of the S&EIA process will be important to determine the contribution of the upper reaches of the Maitland River to downstream habitat and ecology when compared to the remainder of the middle and lower reaches that continue to contribute to the system and estuary. Likewise information forthcoming from the validation and verification process (of water rights) in this area by DWS will also provide useful information. A number of key mitigation measures and offsets are specified at scoping level and should be considered by the Applicant to inform the final design to be assessed. If implemented such measures could address, to some meaningful level, the significance of the identified negative impacts described in Section 7.2. The following measures should be considered for the dam design: Allowance must be made to increase the surety of an automatic and sustainable release of the Ecological Reserve into the downstream reaches; Measures would need to be set in place to allow for the release of freshets / medium size floods into the downstream system on a regular basis, even when the dam itself was not full; Stringent management measures must be applied to prevent the introduction into, or persistence of an alien fish in the dam since the system has been identified as a fish support area ; The diversion channel (for Alternative 2) would need to be designed such that it operates as an artificial channel, with planted side slopes and buffer areas in the order of 10 metres on either side of the channel, to provide artificial connectively across the landscape. Even with the above-mentioned mitigation measures the loss of high quality riverine habitat is not mitigatable and offset measures must be considered for Alternative 1 & 2. Even measures to reduce the dam capacity by lowering the dam wall will have no effect on the extent of riverine habitat lost to inundation as the river channel is at a low point in the dam profile and would be inundated first, even when wall height was considerably reduced. Additional measures that must be considered to offset residual impacts could include the following: Rehabilitating the Maitland River on the Rietfontein Farm (in addition to alien clearing) by planting and maintaining over the establishment phase quantities of locally indigenous riparian vegetation that will substantially improve river habitat integrity in these reaches; Allowing for the release of the Ecological Reserve such that it could potentially support a river in a Category C downstream of the dam (in other words aim to improve the condition of the downstream system altogether); Cape EAPrac 30 Scoping Report

51 Ensuring that the dam itself plays some role as an ecological corridor, by paying attention to the establishment of locally indigenous wetland vegetation along the dam margins. The dam margins should be gentle sloping at a slope in the order of 1:7 to facilitate the establishment of wetland vegetation where natural seasonal water level fluctuations would be expected to occur. Considering the current information sourced during the scoping phase the freshwater specialist recommend that Alternative 3 (off-stream dam) be discarded in favour of Alternatives 2 (in-stream with by-pass channel) or 4 (No-Go option). 8) HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS The Heritage Statement prepared by Perception Planning (2016) confirms that the farm has been occupied since early 1800 s. From a colonial perspective the subject property forms part of the early loan farm Rietfontein 472 which was first surveyed in The historical buildings are clearly identifiable in this survey and the site visit confirmed their presence and status. The river corridor and alignment of historic routes across the original farm include a section crossing the now Portion 1 of Farm Rietfontein 594 at what appears to be the same location of the dilapidated causeway. This causeway will become inundated should the dam be constructed. In terms of archaeological features it is noted by the specialist that most identified sites are situated in proximity to the coast and since the study site is set back from the coastline and has been altered significantly through agriculture for an extended period of time the possibility of unearthing archaeological remains is unlikely (although it cannot be discounted completely). While no gravesites or burial grounds were noted during field work the possibility of such heritage resource cannot be discounted. The original Rietfontein precinct is considered of high historical, aesthetical and architectural cultural significance. Several historical structures older than 60 years were noted during the field work, the location which corresponds with the location of structures highlighted on the 1816 survey and 1939 aerial imagery obtained for the investigation. Unfortunately most of the buildings have been poorly maintained and/or subject to inappropriate alterations and additions which greatly detract from the overall significance of the individual buildings as well as the overall historical precinct. The farmstead precinct itself has strong spatial and visual relationships with the river corridor which is considered of high significance. Taken within the context of the property s recent inclusion into the Yellowwoods Estate private nature reserve it is possible that careful restoration and authentication of the historical farm complex has the potential to greatly enhance the overall sense of place and historical context of the reserve. Although the proposed introduction of an artificial dam would tend to alter the character of the direct landscape (Section 38-1-c of the NHRA) this would not materially detract from the overall cultural significance of the historic farmstead precinct and the permanent inundation of the causeway remains would not be an unacceptable outcome. Unless the Applicant wishes to restore the identified buildings as a future project (which is considered separate from the proposed activity of the dam), it is unlikely that further detailed investigation is required ito heritage aspects. Input from SAHRA and the Eastern Cape Heritage Authority will however provide guidance on any additional information they may require. A copy of the Heritage Statement report can be viewed in Appendix 9 of this scoping report. Cape EAPrac 31 Scoping Report

52 9) SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS / CONCERNS The following site-specific constraints and/or key impacts were identified by various specialists during this scoping / baseline phase of the environmental process. These constraints / key impacts will be used to further refine the proposal, as the potential impacts associated with them will become recommendations to avoid and/or mitigate impacts that are provided during the ongoing environmental process. 9.1 ECOLOGICAL Reduce the footprint of the in-stream dam to avoid remaining forest/thicket patches if possible; Consider Alternative 2 compared to other alternatives since it would reduce the level of fragmentation of habitat through the by-pass channel; Rehabilitation the margins of the dam to allow greater habitat areas as a trade-off for the anticipated loss of habitat; Expedite and maintain alien clearing initiatives on the property with the intension of restoring such areas to its prior natural condition; Implement construction and operational mitigation measures as recommended by the specialist; Allow for bird flappers to be installed on the realigned 22kV overhead power line. 9.2 AQUATIC Must consider the implementation of trade-offs in conjunction with suggested mitigation measures to inform detail design of the proposed dam; Ensure that the margins of the dam are sloped at least 1:7 where possible to allow wetland habitat to be restored for a larger area; The artificial channel (Alternative 2) must be designed in more detail according to specification provided by the specialist; Additional hydrological data is required to inform the final assessment of development alternatives to determine whether the No-Go option will not remain the preferred alternative altogether; Alien clearing must be expedited and implemented for selected areas and such areas must be actively restored and replanted with indigenous vegetation that would potentially reduce the loss of habitat and transformation of the affected area. 9.3 HERITAGE No further studies are required ito the proposed dam; Should the Applicant wish to restore the identified historical buildings as a further project more detailed analysis and input will be required. The various detailed specialist studies that are required in order to further investigate and assess the potential impacts include: Ecological Impact Assessment Aquatic Freshwater Impact Assessment Cape EAPrac 32 Scoping Report

53 10) PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS Since the key issues concerning this application focus on the aquatic discipline the Applicant has engaged with the specialists on numerous occasions since the start of this process and will continue to engage with them throughout. As part of the interactive process to address issues and concerns the Applicant has committed to the restoration of key areas in the vicinity of the dam location in order to offset the anticipated loss of ecological and aquatic habitat. Although the Applicant does not yet meet all the measures identified by the specialists in the scoping phase, the active clearing of alien vegetation and rehabilitation of the areas identified in conjunction with the freshwater specialist is indicative of an understanding on the part of the Applicant of the need to minimise impacts where it cannot be avoided or mitigated. Three (3) zoned were identified for urgent clearing and rehabilitation that must coincide with the construction phase of the dam, one upstream, one downstream and another mid-stream. The exact details of rehabilitation and restoration of these areas will be specified by the specialists as part of the detailed assessment phase of the investigation. The following image indicates the location and extent of these areas in relation to the Applicant s preferred alternative (note that may apply to the other alternatives as well). Cape EAPrac 33 Scoping Report

54 Figure 14: Possible offset areas identified in collaboration with the freshwater specialist (layout using the Applicant's preferred in-stream option). Cape EAPrac 34 Scoping Report