application for ea, ael and ga for the proposed lanele oil ......report application for ea, ael and...
TRANSCRIPT
DRAFT
REPORT
Application for EA, AEL and GA for the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) Project at Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban: Biodiversity Impact Assessment Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd
Submitted to:
Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd
Submitted by:
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd P.O. Box 6001 Halfway House, 1685 Building 1, Maxwell Office Park
Magwa Crescent West Waterfall City Midrand, 1685 South Africa
+27 11 254 4800
1791874-324751-8
July 2019
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
i
Distribution List 1 x electronic copy Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd
1 x electronic copy Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions South Africa (Pty) Ltd
1 x electronic copy Golder project folder
1 x electronic copy e-projects library [email protected]
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
ii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Abbreviation/Acronym Explanation
ATG Automatic Tank Gauging
BFS Bankable Feasibility Study
DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa
D’MOSS Durban Metropolitan Open Space System
CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act No. 43 of 1983)
CBA Critical Biodiversity Area
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
EA Environmental Authorisation
EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner
EDTEA Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs
EHS Environmental, Health, and Safety
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ESS Environmental and Social Sustainability
ESSS Environmental and Social Safeguard Standards
GN Guidance Note
IBL Inside Battery Limits
IFC International Finance Corporation
IMO International Maritime Organisation
ITT Inter-Tank Transfer
JET A1 Jet Aviation Grade Kerosene
LNG Liquified Natural Gas
MGO IMO 2020 Compliant Marine Gas Oil
MPP Multi Product Pipeline (previously known as the New Multi Product Pipeline)
NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)
NEMBA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
iii
Abbreviation/Acronym Explanation
NFA National Forests Act (Act No. 84 of 1998)
OBL Outside Battery Limits
PFS Prefeasibility Study
PS Performance Standard
SANS South African National Standard
ULP95 Unleaded Petrol 95RON
ULSD Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel
VRU Vapour Recovery Unit
QDS Quarter Degree Squares
ADU Animal Demographic Unit
BODATSA Botanical Database of Southern Africa
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
iv
Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
3.1 Location .......................................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 Facility Details ................................................................................................................................ 3
4.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Aim ................................................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 Approach and Structure of Report .................................................................................................. 4
4.3 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework .................................................................................. 4
5.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 5
5.1 Terrestrial Ecology (Flora and Fauna) ............................................................................................ 5
5.1.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 5
5.1.2 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................ 6
5.2 Wetland Ecology ............................................................................................................................. 6
5.3 Estuarine Ecology ........................................................................................................................... 6
5.4 Assessment of Biodiversity Value ................................................................................................... 7
5.4.1 Species of Conservation Concern .............................................................................................. 7
5.4.2 Likelihood of Occurrence ............................................................................................................ 7
6.0 TERRESTRIAL HABITATS ...................................................................................................................... 8
6.1 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt ............................................................................................................ 8
6.2 Statutory Conservation Considerations ......................................................................................... 11
6.3 Landscape Context and General Characteristics of the Site ......................................................... 14
6.4 Flora Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 16
6.4.1 On-Site Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 16
6.4.2 Species of Conservation Concern ............................................................................................ 17
6.4.3 Listed Alien Invasive Plant Species .......................................................................................... 19
6.4.3.1 Applicable Legislation ............................................................................................................... 19
6.4.3.2 Listed Alien Species Recorded On-Site .................................................................................... 20
6.5 Land Cover Classification ............................................................................................................. 21
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
v
6.6 Faunal Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 22
6.6.1 Mammals .................................................................................................................................. 22
6.6.2 Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 22
6.6.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles and Amphibians) ................................................................................. 22
6.6.4 Arthropods ................................................................................................................................ 22
7.0 WETLAND HABITATS ........................................................................................................................... 28
7.1 Historical Wetland Context............................................................................................................ 28
7.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation ............................................................................................ 29
7.2.1 Terrain Unit Indicator ................................................................................................................ 29
7.2.2 Vegetation Indicator .................................................................................................................. 31
7.2.3 Soil Wetness Indictor ................................................................................................................ 32
7.3 Wetland Classification .................................................................................................................. 34
7.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) ........... 35
8.0 ESTUARY HABITATS............................................................................................................................ 37
8.1 Estuaries – An Introduction ........................................................................................................... 37
8.2 Durban Bay Estuary ...................................................................................................................... 38
8.2.1 General Characterisation .......................................................................................................... 38
8.2.2 Physical Attributes .................................................................................................................... 39
8.2.3 Biological Communities ............................................................................................................ 39
8.2.4 Existing Threats to Durban Bay Estuary ................................................................................... 40
8.3 Durban Bay Estuary in Relation to the Project Site ....................................................................... 40
9.0 SCREENING OF IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ................................................................ 42
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 46
10.1 Methodology for Assessing Impact Significance ........................................................................... 46
10.2 Project Phases ............................................................................................................................. 48
10.3 Detailed Description of Potential Impacts During All Phases of the Proposed Project .................. 48
10.3.1 Loss of Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 48
10.3.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Water Resources ........................................ 49
10.3.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna .............................................................................................. 50
10.3.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species .................................................................................... 50
10.4 Impact Assessment Summary ...................................................................................................... 50
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
vi
11.0 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 53
11.1 Key Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 53
11.2 Environmental Management and Mitigation Measures Identified .................................................. 53
11.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts Identified ........................................................................................ 53
11.4 Summary of Mitigation and Management Measures for the Operational, Decommissioning and
Closure Phases ............................................................................................................................ 53
11.4.1 Loss of Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 53
11.4.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Soil and Water Resources ........................... 54
11.4.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna .............................................................................................. 54
11.4.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species .................................................................................... 54
11.5 Recommended Monitoring Framework ......................................................................................... 55
12.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 57
13.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 58
TABLES
Table 1: Plant species of conservation concern potentially occurring in the study area ................................... 17
Table 2: CARA and NEM:BA listed alien invasive species recorded on-site .................................................... 20
Table 3: Mammals of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area ...................................... 24
Table 4: Birds of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area .............................................. 25
Table 5: Herpetofauna of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area ................................ 27
Table 6: List of dominant plant species identified in the sampled area during the wetland field visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species (Eco-Pulse 2019) ....................................................................... 31
Table 7: Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit (Eco-Pulse, 2019) ................... 35
Table 8: Common provisioning and regulating ecosystem services associated with estuaries ........................ 37
Table 9: Screening of important biodiversity (species and ecosystems) features ............................................ 42
Table 29: Impact assessment factors .............................................................................................................. 46
Table 30: Impact assessment scoring methodology ........................................................................................ 46
Table 31: Significance of impact based on point allocation .............................................................................. 47
Table 13: Rating of impacts before and after mitigation ................................................................................... 51
Table 14: Proposed monitoring framework ...................................................................................................... 56
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional locality map .......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Regional vegetation types, as per Mucina & Rutherford (2006) .......................................................... 9
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
vii
Figure 3: Study area in relation to the Scott-Shaw-Escott (2011) provincial vegetation delineations ............... 10
Figure 4: Project site in relation to the KZN Conservation Plan delineation of CBAs........................................ 12
Figure 5: The Project site in relation to the D’MOSS ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 6: Time sequence of the Project site from 1968 to 2016 (Images from CD”NGI Historical Imagery) ..... 15
Figure 7: View across the northern portion of the Project site .......................................................................... 17
Figure 8: View across the southern portion of the Project site ......................................................................... 17
Figure 9: Dense and extensive stands of Ricinus communis and Tithonia diversifolia, amongst others, characterise most of the Project site ................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 10: Ring-barked Melia azedarach (Syringa) tree ................................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Avicennia marina (White Mangrove) ............................................................................................... 19
Figure 12: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1937 (Eco-Pulse). ............................................. 28
Figure 13: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1944 (Eco-Pulse, 2019)..................................... 29
Figure 14: Focal points of the wetland ddelineation and mapping study within a 500 m radius of the Project site. .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 15: Typical sandy brown terrestrial soil sample (Eco-Pulse, 2019) ....................................................... 33
Figure 16: Dark grey/black burnt soil horizon noted at various locations (Eco-Pulse, 2019) ............................ 33
Figure 17: Typical ‘temporary’ wetland soil sampled at the western focal site (Eco-Pulse, 2019). ................... 33
Figure 18: Delineated, mapped and classified watercourses within a 500 m radius of the Project site ............ 36
Figure 19: Project site in relation to the Durban Bay and Estuary Functional Zone .......................................... 41
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Specialist Wetland Verification and Delineation Study (2019) – Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
APPENDIX B Flora species recorded in the Project site during the field visit
APPENDIX C List of mammals potentially present in Project site
APPENDIX D List of birds potentially present in Project site
APPENDIX E List of herpetofauna potentially present in Project site
APPENDIX F Document Limitations
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
viii
APPENDIX G Specialist CVs
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
1
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd (Lanele) is a privately-owned South African company with a track record in the
downstream oil, gas and energy sector. Lanele forms part of the Lanele Group of entities, which was founded in 2005 to focus on the energy and commodities sector. Using in-house expertise honed within the oil refining, gas, and coal to the petrochemical industry, the company has made in-roads into the downstream segment of
the energy production value chain. Ventures have been within the biofuels sector, with a bio-refinery that will produce bio-ethanol and power. The company aims to become a fully integrated energy and commodities
trading company. This includes interests throughout the energy value chain, comprised of crude oil, fuels,
lubricants and power and extending to industry-related commodities such as steel, copper, and aluminium.
Lanele is proposing to develop and operate a liquid fuel blending and storage terminal at Ambrose Park, in
Bayhead, Durban to be known as the “Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1)” project. The portion of land is
approximately 7 hectares (ha) and has been leased from Transnet Properties for 30 years. The first phase of the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1(Lot 1) project is funded by the Development Bank of Southern Africa
(DBSA).
The facility is intended for the receipt, storage, blending and issuing of refined products. It will import petrol,
diesel and blending components via the port of Durban. The distribution of product will take place via the multi
products pipeline (MPP), previously known as the new multi products pipeline to Gauteng and via road and/or rail, by Lanele and storage tenants at the facility. Lanele also has the intention of importing low sulphur fuel oil
and supplying it to the port via the facility.
2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Lanele commissioned engineering company, Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions South Africa (Pty) Ltd
(Thyssenkrupp) to complete the pre-feasibility study and bankable feasibility study. Lanele now requires the necessary Environmental Authorisation (EA) undertaken though an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before construction and operations may commence. Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd (Golder), as
Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), has been commissioned to undertake the EIA process. The scope of the EIA only relates to the inside battery limits portion of the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1)
project. While some aspects of the outside battery limits portion of the project will be discussed, the outside
areas of the proposed project do not form part of the scope of this EIA.
The proposed Project will be developed in phases over the first few years to reach a total liquid fuels storage
capacity of 225 000 m3.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location The Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) project is located in Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban (Figure 1). The
parcel of land is approximately 7 ha in extent, on a portion of the Kings Royal Flats No. 16576 and the remainder of ERF 10019. Ambrose Park is currently being proposed for tank farm development projects. The
Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) project is located immediately north of the proposed NOOA Fuel Storage and
Handling Terminal (NOOA Terminal).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
2
Figure 1: Regional locality map
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
3
3.2 Facility Details The operation of the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) project is primarily pipeline driven with limited
gantry loading and, therefore, will be operated as follows:
Single shift operation
8-hour working day
5-day working week
21 working days per month
Ship receipts or pipeline injections after hours can be managed on an overtime basis with minimal staff
The proposed facility will store mostly diesel 50 parts per million (ppm) as ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD),
special diesel products and blends, unleaded petrol (ULP) 95 octane (ULP 95), high octane blend stock, low octane ULP, aviation grade turbine kerosene (JET A1), in addition to blending components such as reformate,
naphtha, biofuels, marine gas oil (MGO) and marine fuel oil (MFO) 500 ppm according to the International
Marine Organisation (IMO) 2020 specification.
ULSD, ULP 95 and JET A1 will be received from Berths 6 and 9 (and also possibly Berth 2) in the Cutler Complex via common user infrastructure. The details of the receipt of low octane petrol, high octane blend
stock and special diesel blend stock is based on the following assumptions:
Low octane product is received from a destination approximately 5000 m away via pipeline at a rate of 600
m3/hr. Properties for calculation purposes have been assumed to be the same as ULP 95
High octane blend stock is assumed to be reformate. It is assumed to be received from Berth 2 at a rate
of 800 m3/hr at maximum parcel size of 10 000 m3
Low octane product is blended with high octane blend stock in a ratio of 4:1
Diesel blend stock is received from a destination approximately 5000 m away via pipeline at a rate of 600
m3/hr. Properties for calculation purposes have been assumed to be the same as ULSD
ULSD, ULP 95 and JET A1 will be dispatched to Gauteng via the MPP. ULSD, ULP 95 and JET A1 will also be dispatched via road tankers. MGO will be received from Berth 2. MGO will be dispatched via pipeline to the
storage within the port – located along side Berth 10.
The facility will have the ability to:
Blend (in-line) low octane unleaded petrol with high octane blend stock (e.g. toluene or reformate) to create
ULP 95;
Blend (in-tank) ULSD with blend stock to create special diesel products;
Add colorant (in-line) to imported ULP 95; and
Add conductivity additive (in-line) to imported ULSD product.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
4
4.0 BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION
4.1 Aim This report presents the findings of the biodiversity impact assessment that was conducted for the proposed
Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) project. The principle aim of the assessment was to characterise the biodiversity of the Project site and associated environs, and to assess potential impacts that may result from the proposed
Project.
4.2 Approach and Structure of Report The biodiversity assessment focused on three main biodiversity components, viz. terrestrial ecology (fauna and flora), wetland ecology and estuarine ecology. Golder conducted the terrestrial and estuarine ecology
components. The wetland study was conducted by Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services.
Baseline descriptions for these components are presently separately in Chapter A of the report. However,
considering the degree of overlap of impacts across the three study disciplines, one integrated impact assessment was performed, and used to develop mitigation and management measures. These are
presented in Chapter B of this report.
4.3 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework The specialist study has been undertaken in accordance with the following legal and administrative framework
documents:
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2014 (published under Government Notice R982 of
Government Gazette 38282 of 4 December 2014, as amended
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004, as amended (NEM:BA)
National Environmental Management: Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983, as amended (CARA)
National Forests Act 84 of 1998, as amended (NFA)
KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance 15 of 1974, as amended
IFC World Bank Group documents:
Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (ESS) (2012)
General Environment Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines (2007)
EHS Guidelines for Ports, Harbours and Terminals (2007)
EHS Guidelines for Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Terminals (2007)
DBSA Environmental and Social Safeguards Standards (ESSS) (2018
DBSA Environmental and Social Safeguards Standards (ESSS)
Of particularly relevance to this study is Performance Standard 6 of the IFC Performance Standards on
Environmental and Social Sustainability (2012). Performance Standard 6 concerns Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. By establishing the biodiversity context,
specifically the presence of natural, modified and potential critical habitats, as defined by Performance
Standard 6, within a defined area of analysis, the study set out to identify important biodiversity that may
potentially constrain future project activities. Such constraints may include:
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
5
Biodiversity features that qualify as critical habitat
Natural and modified habitats that support high biodiversity values
Ecosystems that may support potentially irreplaceable and/or vulnerable species, habitats and
ecosystem services
5.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
5.1 Terrestrial Ecology (Flora and Fauna) The terrestrial ecology study consisted of a literature review and targeted field survey. The tasks associated
with these components are discussed below.
5.1.1 Literature Review
A description of the prevailing regional vegetation types was based on Mucina and Rutherford's (2006)
delineation and description of South Africa's vegetation and Scott Shaw and Escott's (2011) provincial
delineations
NEM:BA Threatened Ecosystems (2011) and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife's provincial conservation plan were
assessed to determine ecosystem threat status and identify Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA's) relevant to the study area. The Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (D'MOSS) was also consulted to
determine sites of importance with respect to municipal conservation planning
A list of plant species potentially occurring on site was obtained from the South African National
Biodiversity Institute’s (SANBI) online Botanical Database of Southern Africa1 (ref. BODATSA, 2016)
Lists of mammals, birds, herpetofauna and arthropods (focus on spiders and butterflies) for the 2930DD
and 2931DD Quarter Degree Squares (QDS) were obtained from the Animal Demographic Unit’s (ADU) South African Bird Atlas Project 2 (ADU - SABAP2, 2011) and the ADU - Virtual Museum's (2015)
MammalMAP, ReptileMAP, Frog MAP, LepiMAP and SpiderMAP databases
The flora and fauna specialist study report (Styles, 2017) for the adjacent NOOA development site was
also reviewed to determine general habitat condition and potential species assemblages
Flora and fauna lists were cross-referenced against the relevant Red Lists to determine the potential presence of species of conservation concern, i.e. threatened and near-threatened species. Other
statutory guidelines also used in this regard include:
NEM:BA Lists of species that are threatened or protected (Draft NEM:BA ToPS List, 2013)
Schedule 2, 3, 7, 9 12 of the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (Act No. 15 of 1974),
concerning Specially Protected and Protected flora and fauna
National Forests Act, (1998) list of protected trees
The status of alien plants was determined based on:
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) 2016 listing (NEMBA
Alien and Invasive Species Lists, 2016)
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act No. 43 of 1983) (CARA, 1983)
1 Successor of SANBI’s POSA Database
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
6
5.1.2 Field Survey
The terrestrial ecology field survey was conducted on the 20th November 2018 and focused on the Project site
only. The primary objective of the field survey was to assess the character of on-site habitat, with respect to:
General species composition
Type and extent of disturbances
Habitat suitability for flora and fauna of conservation concern
The field survey thus focused on vegetation sampling, with habitat condition being used, inter alia, to evaluate
the likelihood of occurrence of species of conservation concern.
The timed meander search procedure was used to sample vegetation in the Project site. This method relies on using terrain observations to orientate the course of a meander to account for habitat variation and to yield
new species populations within a field unit (Goff et al., 1982).
Several reference works were used to identify flora observed in the field, including Van Wyk and Malan
(1998), Pooley (2003), Pooley (2005), Bromilow (2010) and Glen and Van Wyk (2016). Flora nomenclature is
in line with Germishuizen et al., (2006), although more recent name changes were used where applicable.
5.2 Wetland Ecology The aim of the wetland study was to:
Verify the presence of wetland habitat occurring in the Project site
Determine the likelihood of the proposed project impacting wetlands and surrounding watercourses
Tasks associated with the wetland study are summarised below. For a detailed description of study methods,
refer to the full wetland verification report in APPENDIX A.
Infield field verification of the outer boundary of key ‘focal area’ wetlands (where water use is likely to be triggered) according to the methods and techniques contained in DWAF (2005). In line with the DWAF (2005) guidelines, three indicators were used to verify wetlands, namely terrain unit indicator, vegetation
indicator and soil wetness indicator. For the soil wetness indicator, the upper most 50 cm of the soil profile was sampled using a standard Dutch-type auger. The Munsell Soil Colour Chart was used to
ascertain soil colour values including hue, colour value and matrix chroma, as well as degree of mottling
in order to inform the identification of wetland (hydric) soil
Desktop identification, delineation and mapping of water courses (rivers, riparian areas and wetlands)
within a 500 m radius of the Project site
Based on collected and reviewed data, an impact/risk likelihood screening assessment was conducted of
all water courses within a 500 m radius of the Project site, which was used to inform recommendations
concerning WULA requirements
5.3 Estuarine Ecology There is a considerable amount of existing information on Durban Bay Estuary. Based on an assessment of
these data and considering the location of the Project site, it was determined that no additional estuarine
fieldwork was necessary, and that existing information could be used as the basis for the estuarine study.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
7
The estuarine study was thus based on a desktop collation and review of available literature. Amongst others,
the publication by Forbes and Demetriades (2008) 2 presents information on Durban Bay Estuary’s physical
and biological characteristics, while the Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan (2015) was also
particularly germane to this study.
5.4 Assessment of Biodiversity Value Habitats were preliminarily defined as being either natural or modified, based on the IFC approach to
assigning value to biodiversity. Key natural/modified habitat determinants outlined in Performance Standard 6
include the level of human-induced disturbance, with the following factors being considered:
Presence of invasive species
Level of pollution
Extent of habitat fragmentation
Viability of existing naturally-occurring species assemblages
Resemblance of existing ecosystem functionality and structure to reference conditions
Degree of other types of habitat degradation
The biodiversity values of the site (e.g., threatened species and ecosystems)
Culturally important biodiversity features
Ecological processes necessary for maintaining nearby critical habitats
5.4.1 Species of Conservation Concern
Although all species occurring within an area of interest form a component of the overall biodiversity and ecological value, it is neither practical nor necessary to assess potential effects of a project on every species
that might be affected. Therefore, species of concern are defined as plant or animal species that require special conservation consideration based on certain characteristics, or species that may be particularly sensitive to project effects. For this study, the following selection criteria were principally used to identify
species of concern for screening, and are in line with Performance Standard 6:
a) Threatened and restricted-range/endemic species (Criteria 1 and 2)
b) Statutory species (protected by national/international legislation, agreements, conventions) (Criteria 1, 2
and 3)
c) Migratory species (Criterion 3) (as recognised under CMS, 2012)
5.4.2 Likelihood of Occurrence
The screening process assessed all species and ecosystems of concern identified in the preliminary lists, as
well as all other potential triggers of critical habitat. The probability of the critical habitat triggers occurring on-site was determined based on a probability analysis that was informed by a review of species life histories and
habitat preferences, and where required, in consultation with relevant experts. Three levels of probability were
used:
2 Published for Environmental Management Department of the eThekwini Municipality.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
8
a) Probable: the species is likely to occur in the Project site due to suitable habitat and resources being
present, and/or known records from the area
b) Possible: the species may occur in the Project site or move through the Project site (in the case of
migratory and highly mobile species)
c) Unlikely: the trigger will not likely occur in the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat and resources
Only those species with a possible and probable likelihood of occurrence in the Project site were filtered against Performance Standard 6 criteria 1 to 5. A precautionary approach was adopted where there was
uncertainty that a species could potentially occur in the Project site, or where uncertainty existed regarding
extent of occurrence.
6.0 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY In this section, we present information relating to terrestrial fauna and flora associated with the Project site
and the Greater Durban area.
6.1 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt The Project site is located in the Northern Coastal Grasslands of the broader KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt
vegetation type (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) – shown in Figure 2. This vegetation type forms part of the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt (IOCB) regional vegetation complex, which has climatic, biogeographic and
ecological peculiarities that render it a distinct biome (often termed Subtropical Coastal Forest Biome) within the context of South Africa’s vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). It covers a broad coastal strip from
Mtunzini in the north to Port Edward in the south (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).
Important Plant Taxa
Important taxa in the KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt vegetation type, as per Mucina and Rutherford (2006), are:
Trees: Bridelia micrantha, Phoenix reclinata, Syzygium cordatum, Vachellia natalitia, Albizia adianthifolia
and Antidesma venosum
Shrubs: Clutia pulchella, Gnidia kraussiana, Phyllanthus glaucophyllus and Tephrosia polystachya
Graminoides: Digitaria eriantha, Aristida junciformis, Themeda triandra, Alloteropsis semialata,
Cymbopogon caesius, Eragrostis curvula, Hyparrhenia filipendula, Melinis repens and Panicum
maximum
Herbs: Berkheya speciosa, Cyanotis speciosa, Senecio glaberrimus, Alepidea longiflora, Centella glabrata, Cephalaria oblongifolia, Chamaecrista mimosoides, Conostomium natalense, Helichrysum
cymosum, H. pallidum, Hibiscus pedunculatus, Hybanthus capensis and Senecio albanensis
Endemic Taxa: Vernonia africana, Kniphofia pauciflora and Barleria natalensis
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
9
Figure 2: Regional vegetation types, as per Mucina & Rutherford (2006)
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
10
Figure 3: Study area in relation to the Scott-Shaw-Escott (2011) provincial vegetation delineations
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
11
6.2 Statutory Conservation Considerations Northern Coastal Grasslands are classified as Critically Endangered at a national level (NEM:BA Threatened
Ecosystems, 2011). Of an original extent of approximately 24 000 ha, only about 12 % remains, of which less than 1% is conserved in formal protected areas. As a consequence of this level of threat, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife designate the Project site, as well other small fragmented patches in and around the harbour precinct,
as CBA3 Irreplaceable in the KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Plan4 (C-Plan) – refer Figure 4.
Significantly, the Project site is not recognised at all under the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System
(D’MOSS) (see Figure 5). The D’MOSS is a municipality-developed spatial layer that identifies several open areas across the city that contain important biodiversity features that are considered crucial to achieving both
provincial and national conservation targets.
Given the highly modified and degraded nature of the Project site (refer to sections 6.3 and 6.4) and other
undeveloped land within the harbour precinct, the KZN C-Plan designation is ostensibly predicated on the
overall irreplaceability of Northern Coastal Grassland at a regional level (Styles, 2017). The D’MOSS designation on the other hand, recognises and is commensurate with the Project site’s actual ecological
condition and is therefore a more accurate representation of its conservation value.
3 Critical biodiversity areas
4 Formal and systematic mapping of KwaZulu-Natal’s CBAs
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
12
Figure 4: Project site in relation to the KZN Conservation Plan delineation of CBAs
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
13
Figure 5: The Project site in relation to the D’MOSS
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
14
6.3 Landscape Context and General Characteristics of the Site Landscape Context
The proposed Project site is located within the Durban harbour precinct (Bayhead), which is dominated by industrial built infrastructure and facilities associated with port operations. Areas of vegetation in the precinct
are generally confined to small, fragmented patches of natural and/or modified habitat.
The Project site is elongated in shape and is bounded on all sides by Transnet rail infrastructure. Parallel concrete canals (130 m in length) bisect the northern portion of the Project site and enter into a larger canal
that runs parallel to the railway line, on the eastern edge of the site. This feeds into the Bayhead Canal of the harbour to the south-east of the Project site. Other drainage features in the immediate landscape include the
Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers. These flow to the south of the site, before converging and draining via a
concrete canal, into the harbour.
Beyond the railway infrastructure, the surrounding land is characterised by various harbour and industrial
facilities, warehouses and roads. Small landscaped areas are present in between the railway lines that lie adjacent to the site – visible in Figure 5. The Project site thus constitutes a small (10.3 ha) and isolated
vegetated patch, sited within a highly developed and transformed landscape matrix.
General Characteristics
A study of historic aerial imagery indicates that, as a terrestrial landscape5, the Project site has been
subjected to considerable anthropogenic disturbances and modification. In an image from 1969 (Plate 1,
Figure 6) the majority of the site appears to have been disturbed, with little apparent woody/shrub vegetation
present.
In 2002 (Plate 2,
Figure 6) the site still appears to be fairly open, but by 2009 (see Plates 3,
Figure 6) woody/shrub vegetation was establishing across portions of the site. The most recent NGI image
available (2016 – Plate 4,
Figure 6), indicates that the majority of the site was dominated by woody/shrub vegetation.
However, the most recent Google Earth imagery (July 2018) (not shown in report) of the site indicates that it
had been subjected to new disturbances, with vehicle tracks and vegetation clearing evident (not shown).
A soil survey indicates that the first metre of the site’s soil profile comprises imported fill material, and not
natural, undisturbed soils. This suggests that the site’s entire landform is anthropogenic, with potentially
altered hydrological patterns (Pers. Comm. I Snyman).
5 Refer to discussion on wetland habitat (specifically Section 7.1) for historic imagery and discussion of the site, prior to its transformation to a terrestrial landscape.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
15
Plate 1: 1968 Plate 2: 2002 Plate 3: 2009 Plate 4: 2016
Figure 6: Time sequence of the Project site from 1968 to 2016 (Images from CD”NGI Historical Imagery)
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
16
6.4 Flora Assessment 6.4.1 On-Site Vegetation
The entire Project site is highly degraded and characterised by a complete dominance of alien vegetation, including several invasive species listed under the NEM:BA and CARA. Vegetation structure generally grades
from short, open to semi-closed scrub, although small pockets of thicket/taller trees and scattered individual
trees are also present.
In terms of general composition, 91 plant species were recorded on-site during the field survey (refer to APPENDIX B), of which 53 (58%) are alien species. Several alien taxa are locally dominant including inter alia; the creepers Ipomoea purpurea and Cardiospermum grandiflorum, and various shrubs and large herbs
such as Commelina benghalensis, Helianthus annuus, Ricinus communis, Tecoma stans, Tithonia diversifolia
and Urtica urens.
Most taller woody plants are also alien taxa, with Melia azedarach, Morus alba, Schinus terebinthifolius and Syzygium cuminii common. Interestingly, ring-barking of numerous Melia azedarach trees was evident throughout the site – suggesting that alien invasive species control, of at least this species, has been
attempted.
Other frequently observed alien species include, amongst others, the tall reed/grasses Arundo donax,
Pennisetum purpureum, as well as various forbs/herbs and woody shrubs such as Bidens spp., Canna indica,
Lantana camara, Melilotus albus, Rivina humilis, Solanum mauritianum and Verbena spp.
Compared to alien vegetation, the cover and richness of indigenous flora is depauperate. The most frequently
recorded indigenous taxa are the woody species; Brachylaena discolor, Strelitzia nicolai and Trema orientalis; the grasses; Chloris gayana, Digitaria eriantha, Panicum maximum and Sporobolus africanus; and various
forbs such as Abutilon spp. and Asystasia gangetica. Figure 7 to Figure 10 show photographs of the Project
site.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
17
Figure 7: View across the northern portion of the Project site
Figure 8: View across the southern portion of the Project site
Figure 9: Dense and extensive stands of Ricinus communis and Tithonia diversifolia, amongst others, characterise most of the Project site
Figure 10: Ring-barked Melia azedarach (Syringa) tree
6.4.2 Species of Conservation Concern
According to the distribution records in BODATSA (2016), Golder (2017) and Styles (2017), an additional 14
plant species of conservation concern potentially occur in the broader Bayhead area. These comprise nine Red List species, one nationally protected tree, and six specially protected plants under the provincial
conservation ordinance - Table 1.
Table 1: Plant species of conservation concern potentially occurring in the study area
Family Species name National Red
List Status
(2017.1)
KZN Specially
Protected
Species (1974)
National
Protected
Tree List (2017)
AMARYLLIDACEAE Crinum macowanii Declining Specially Protected
-
AMARYLLIDACEAE Boophone disticha - Specially Protected
-
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
18
Family Species name National Red List Status (2017.1)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
National Protected Tree List
(2017)
AMARYLLIDACEAE Scadoxus puniceus - Specially
Protected
-
ANACARDIACEAE Searsia harveyi Near Threatened - -
APOCYNACEAE Mondia whitei Endangered - -
ARECACEAE Raphia australis Vulnerable - -
ASPHODELACEAE Aloe linearifolia Near Threatened - -
ASPHODELACEAE Aloe thraskii Near Threatened - -
ASPHODELACEAE Kniphofia pauciflora Critically Endangered
- -
ASTERACEAE Cineraria atriplicifolia Vulnerable - -
IRIDACEAE Crocosmia aurea - Specially
Protected
-
ORCHIDACEAE Zeuxine africana Endangered Specially
Protected
-
ORCHIDACEAE Eulophia speciosa - Specially
Protected
-
SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme - - Protected
Sources: BODATSA (2016), Golder (2017) and Styles (2017)
Five small-sized Avicennia marina (White Mangrove) trees were recorded growing in the artificial canal on-site
– shown in Figure 11. Although this species is listed as Least Concern on the national Red List (SANBI, 2017) and therefore not formally a species of conservation concern, it is, like other mangrove species, under threat
from over-exploitation in parts of its range (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
19
Figure 11: Avicennia marina (White Mangrove)
6.4.3 Listed Alien Invasive Plant Species
6.4.3.1 Applicable Legislation
South African legislation concerning alien invasive species includes the NEM:BA and CARA. Both sets of regulations have been developed to control the spread of alien invasive species. The NEM:BA and CARA
regulations are briefly summarised below.
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act No. 43 of 1983
The 2001 revision of the CARA recognises three categories of invasive plant; Category 1 - declared weeds,
Category 2 - declared invader plants with a commercial or utility value, and Category 3 - ornamental plants.
The regulations pertaining to each category are summarised below.
CARA Category 1: Declared Weeds
Category 1 listed plants have no economic value and possess characteristics harmful to humans, animals or
the environment. These species tend to produce high volumes of seed, are wind or bird dispersed, or have
efficient vegetative reproduction, and are thus highly invasive causing substantial environmental degradation. Category 1 listed plants may not be planted or propagated in rural and urban areas, and trade in their seeds, cuttings and other propagatory material is prohibited. Moreover, it is required that active measures be taken to
control and eradicate populations of these species (Agricultural Research Council, 2010).
CARA Category 2: Declared Invader Plants with Commercial or Utility Value
Although Category 2 listed plants are invasive species, they do have beneficial properties and general utility. They are permitted in demarcated areas (as granted by the Executive Officer) under controlled conditions, and
in bio control reserves. Seed and propagative material may only be sold to and acquired by land users of areas demarcated for that particular species (as determined by the Executive Officer). Category 2 plants may
not occur within 30 m of the 1:50 year flood line of a watercourse or wetland, except under authorisation in
terms of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (Agricultural Research Council, 2010).
CARA Category 3: Mostly Ornamental Plants
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
20
Category 3 plants are generally popular ornamental and garden species that show a high invasive potential
and frequently encroach into natural areas. No further planting or trade in propagative material of these
species is permitted. However, existing plants may remain provided they do not occur within 30 m from the 1:50 year flood line of a water course or wetland, and provided all reasonable steps are taken to limit the
further spread of that species (Agricultural Research Council, 2010).
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004
According to the NEM:BA, exotic species can be listed into one of four categories; 1a, 1b, 2 and 3. Species may be listed under more than one category, depending on the region in which they are found (Van
Oudtshoorn, 2015). The regulations relating to each category are discussed below.
Category 1a and 1b
Category 1a listed species are considered emerging invasive species. These species require immediate control by all landowners. Category 1b species are established invasive species. Coherent control programmes need to be implemented to control Category 1a and 1b species and existing programmes must
be maintained (Invasive Species South Africa, 2015).
Category 2
Category 2 listed species are those that have economic or aesthetic value, yet which can become invasive and have negative ecological consequences. Provision has thus been made to control these species and
provide mechanisms to continue to derive benefit from them (Invasive Species South Africa, 2015).
Category 3
Category 3 species are subject to exemption, however they do have the potential to become invasive and must be managed and contained accordingly (Invasive Species South Africa, 2015). They are prohibited in
riparian areas (Van Oudtshoorn, 2015).
6.4.3.2 Listed Alien Species Recorded On-Site
Of the 51 alien species recorded on-site, 26 are listed under CARA and/or NEM:BA as recognised invader
species. These are listed in Table 2 along with their respective categories.
Table 2: CARA and NEM:BA listed alien invasive species recorded on-site
Family Scientific Name Common Name CARA
Category
NEM:BA
Category
ANACARDIACEAE Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Tree 1 1b
ASTERACEAE Ageratum conyzoides Invading Ageratum - 1b
ASTERACEAE Chromolaena odorata Triffid Weed 1 1b
ASTERACEAE Flaveria bidentis Smelter’s Bush - 1b
ASTERACEAE Parthenium hysterophorus Famine Weed 1 1b
ASTERACEAE Tithonia diversifolia Mexican Sunflower 1 1b
BASELLACEAE Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine 1 1b
BIGNONIACEAE Tecoma stans Yellow Bells 1 1b
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
21
Family Scientific Name Common Name CARA Category
NEM:BA Category
CACTACEAE Pereskia aculeata Pereskia 1 1b
CANNACEAE Canna indica Indian Shot 1 1b
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea purpurea Morning Glory 3 1b
EUPHORBIACEAE Ricinus communis Castor-oil Plant 2 2
FABACEAE Leucaena leucocephala Leucaena 2 2
FABACEAE Senna didymobotrya Peanut butter Cassia 3 1b
MELIACEAE Melia azedarach Syringa 3 1b
MORACEAE Morus alba White Mulberry 3 3
MYRTACEAE Syzygium cuminii Jambolan 3 1b
PHYTOLACCACEAE Rivina humilis Bloodberry 1 1b
POCEAE Arundo donax Spanish Reed 1 1b
POCEAE Pennisetum purpurea Elephant/Napier Grass X2 2
ROSACEAE Rubus fruticosus European Blackberry 2 2
SAPINDACAE Cardiospermum grandiflorum Balloon Vine 1 1b
SOLANACEAE Solanum mauritianum Bugweed 1 1b
VERBENACEAE Lantana camara Lantana 1 1b
VERBENACEAE Verbena bonariensis Wild Verbena - 1b
VERBENACEAE Verbena brasiliensis Brazilian Verbena - 1b
6.5 Land Cover Classification In line with IFC (2012) Performance Standard 6, the extent of natural and modified habitats must be
established in order to determine the significance of potential impacts. The categorisation of natural and
modified habitats on-site for this study was predicated on field observations and aerial imagery.
IFC (2012) Performance Standard 6, recognises that natural and modified habitats exist on a continuum that ranges from largely untouched, pristine natural habitat to intensively managed transformed habitats. To designate an ecosystem as ‘modified habitat’, it is necessary to determine how human-derived activities have
altered ecological structure and function, and naturally occurring biodiversity. Moreover, it is also important to
consider the character of the broader landscape with regard to anthropogenic disturbances.
For this study, and in line with IFC (2012), Performance Standard 6, we defined modified habitat as areas that have been significantly altered by human activity, contain large portions of non-native plants (i.e. alien plants),
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
22
and are likely to remain in a disturbed, or indeed ‘modified’ state, over the medium- to long-term (i.e. unlikely
to return to a natural state).
We note that the Project site is an anthropogenic landform that is dominated by alien invasive vegetation, with
no viable naturally-occurring species assemblages. It is located within a highly developed industrial landscape and is largely isolated from other natural vegetation patches. Moreover, the site is unlikely to return to a natural state without active intervention. Pursuant to these traits, the entire site is classified as ‘modified’
habitat.
Notwithstanding the above rationale, as a patch of undeveloped vegetated land, the site does have a potential
role in local ecological processes that is worth highlighting. Most cities comprise a network of habitat patches or fragments. The functionality and integrity of patches varies considerably. Some patches are stable ‘source’ habitats, while others act as transient habitats and are used mostly as ‘stepping stone’ or dispersal corridors
(Angold et al., 2006). As a collective network, these habitat fragments provide the necessary resource base to meet the life-history requirements of various wildlife populations, allowing them to persist in otherwise hostile urban environments. Within this dynamic, we recognise that despite its evident degradation, the Project site
may have value as a ‘stepping stone’ habitat patch within the broader landscape matrix.
6.6 Faunal Assessment Considering the degree of degradation and isolation, the site does not comprise important or indeed viable
source habitat for most indigenous fauna. In this section, we thus provide a high-level faunal screening assessment, focused specifically on the possible presence of species of conservation concern (threatened
and protected species) predicated by habitat suitability.
6.6.1 Mammals
Literature indicates that up to 70 mammal species occur, or potentially occur, in the broader Durban area (FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, 2019; Stuart and Stuart, 2007) – refer to list in APPENDIX C. Of these 10 are considered species of concern – refer Table 3. Nine taxa are listed as threatened on the national
Red List (EWT, 2016), while four taxa are listed as protected either national or provincially. No mammals were
recorded on-site during the field visit.
6.6.2 Birds
Records from the South African Bird Atlas Project 2 (ADU - SABAP2, 2011) indicate that 358 bird species
have been recorded in and around the Durban harbour area -– refer to list in APPENDIX D. Of these, 21 are species of conservation concern - Table 4. Twenty species are listed as threatened on the national Red List (BirdLife South Africa, 2015), five taxa listed on the NEM:BA ToPS List (2013) and six are listed as specially
protected provincially.
6.6.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles and Amphibians)
Based on the ADU - Virtual Museum (2015) records, 54 reptile6 and 30 amphibian species have been recorded in the QDS in which the study area is located – refer to lists in APPENDIX E. These include six
reptile and four amphibians are of conservation concern (Table 5).
6.6.4 Arthropods
A search of the ADU - Virtual Museum (2015) database indicates that 401 butterfly and 35 spider species have been recorded in the relevant QDS. Of these, one Red List butterfly species is reported, namely
Durbania amakosa flavida (Endangered).
6 Only terrestrial reptile species are considered as part of this assessment
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
23
The favoured habitat of this subspecies includes lichen/alga covered rocks in montane grassland (Henning et
al., 2009) – habitats absent from the site. It is therefore unlikely that Durbania amakosa flavida is present.
Three baboon spiders (Family Theraphosidae) have also been reported; Harpactira curator, Harpactira sp.
and Brachionopus sp. Although not formally listed, baboon spiders are considered species of conservation
value. Considering the degree of disturbance, it is unlikely that any of these taxa are present on-site.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
24
Table 3: Mammals of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence
Red List (2016) - Regional Status
NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Protected Species (1974)
Bovidae Philantomba monticola Blue Duiker Vulnerable Vulnerable Protected Unlikely
Cephalophus natalensis Red Duiker Near Threatened Protected Protected Unlikely
Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck - Protected - Unlikely
Felideae Leptailurus serval Serval Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Muridae Dasymys incomtus Water Rat Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Mustelidae Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter Near Threatened Protected - Possible
Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Soricidae Myosorex cafer Dark-footed Forest Shrew Vulnerable - - Possible
Vespertilionidae Scotoecus albofuscus Thomas’ House Bat Near Threatened - - Possible
Hypsugo anchietae Anchieta’s Pipistrelle Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Source: ADU - Virtual Museum (2015) – MammalMAP
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
25
Table 4: Birds of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence
Red List Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected
Species (1974)
Accipitridae Stephanoaetus coronatus African Crowned Eagle Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle Endangered Vulnerable - Unlikely
Aquila verreauxii Verreaux's Eagle Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Alcedinidae Alcedo semitorquata Half-collared Kingfisher Near Threatened - - Possible
Bucerotidae Bucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground-
hornbill
Endangered Vulnerable Specially
Protected
Unlikely
Calyptomenidae Smithornis capensis African Broadbill Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Ciconiidae Ciconia nigra Black Stork Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Ciconia ciconia White Stork - - Specially
Protected
Unlikely
Coraciidae Coracias garrulus European Roller Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Falconidae Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon Vulnerable - - Possible
Heliornithidae Podica senegalensis African Finfoot Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Jacanidae Microparra capensis Lesser Jacana Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Laridae Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Vulnerable Protected - Unlikely
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
26
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence
Red List Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Locustellidae Bradypterus sylvaticus Knysna Warbler Vulnerable - - Possible
Mycteria ibis Mycteria ibis Yellow-billed Stork Endangered - Specially Protected
Unlikely
Pelecanidae Pelecanus onocrotalus Great White Pelican Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Pelecanus rufescens Pink-backed Pelican Vulnerable - Specially Protected
Unlikely
Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus ruber Greater Flamingo Near Threatened Protected Specially Protected
Unlikely
Sulidae Morus capensis Cape Gannet Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Sylviidae Lioptilus nigricapillus Bush Blackcap Vulnerable - - Possible
Threskiornithidae Geronticus calvus Southern Bald Ibis Vulnerable Vulnerable Specially
Protected
Unlikely
Source: ADU - SABAP2 (2011)
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
27
Table 5: Herpetofauna of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence
Red List – Regional Status
NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Protected Species (1974)
Reptiles
Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion
melanocephalum
KwaZulu Dwarf Chameleon Vulnerable Vulnerable - Unlikely
Cordylidae Chammaesaura macrolepis Large-scaled Grass Lizard Near Threatened Protected - Unlikely
Lamprophiidae Macrelaps microlepidotus KwaZulu-Natal Black
Snake
Near Threatened - - Possible
Pythonidae Python natalensis South African Python - Protected Protected Unlikely
Scincidae Scelotes inornatus Durban Dwarf Burrowing
Skink
Critically Endangered - - Unlikely
Varanidae Varanus niloticus Water Monitor - - Protected Possible
Amphibians
Hemisotidae Hemisus guttatus Spotted Shovel-nosed Frog Vulnerable - - Possible
Hyperoliidae Afrixalus spinifrons Natal Leaf-folding Frog Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Hyperolius pickersgilli Pickersgill’s Reed Frog Endangered - - Unlikely
Pyxicephalidae Natalobatrachus bonebergi Kloof Frog Endangered - - Unlikely
Source: ADU - Virtual Museum (2015)
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
28
7.0 WETLAND ECOLOGY Information in this section is taken from the Eco-Pulse Report (2019) – refer to APPENDIX A for the full report
and is specific to site(s) investigated as possible wetland habitat.
7.1 Historical Wetland Context Orthophoto’s taken in 1937 (Figure 12) suggest that the Project site was once a functional estuarine or
intertidal swamp forest or mangrove forest comprised of typical sub-tropical coastal estuarine swamp forest/mangrove species such as Avicennia marina, Brugiuera gymnorrhiza, Barringtonia racemosa, Rhizophora mucronata and Hibiscus tiliaceus (Eco-Pulse, 2019). However, by 1944 the lower Umbilo River
had been canalized and diverted to join the artificially realigned, straightened and canalized Mhlatuzana River (Figure 13). The Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers were likely altered to facilitate the development of the Durban
Harbour and other associated infrastructure and industries.
Figure 12: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1937 (Eco-Pulse).
Diverted flows and the canalization of the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers in the 1940’s had altered vital fluvial
processes necessary to support a functioning estuarine or intertidal wetland system (Eco-Pulse, 2019). Furthermore, pressure from development and urbanisation led to the removal of natural swamp forest/mangrove vegetation from the area. As a result, the area surrounding the Project site no longer
functions as a tidally-influenced wetland system or a wetland system linked to the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana
Rivers, and there are no visible signs of remnant estuarine/swamp/mangrove forest vegetation communities.
Estimated location
of Project site
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
29
Figure 13: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1944 (Eco-Pulse, 2019)
7.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation The methods outlined in ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005) were used to verify and delineate wetlands on the site (Eco-Pulse, 2019).
Three specific wetland indicators were used: terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness
indicator.
7.2.1 Terrain Unit Indicator
Available 2 m interval elevation contours of the study area highlighted two obvious depressions in the
landscape to the south (Focal Point 1) and west (Focal Point 2) the Project site – shown in Figure 14. Given the high level of disturbance in the area, these depressions are likely to be anthropogenic. Depressions can be, but are not always, associated with wetland habitat as these areas are ideal settings for the collection of
water at low points in the landscape. Given the potential likelihood of wetlands forming in low-lying areas such as depressions, the area to the south and west of the Project became focal points for the wetland verification
exercise. Furthermore, during the field survey, a wetland area was identified adjacent to the hardened gravel
platform (Focal Point 3).
Estimated location
of Project site
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
30
Figure 14: Focal points of the wetland ddelineation and mapping study within a 500 m radius of the Project site.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
31
7.2.2 Vegetation Indicator
Vegetation is usually the principle indicator of wetland habitat, with the presence of wetland plants or ‘hydrophytes’ typically suggesting the presence of water-saturated soils (for at least a period of 2 weeks of the
year) and generally associated with wetlands. Wetland field surveys of the vegetation were undertaken by
Eco-Pulse in January 2019 (south) and March 2019 (west).
The field assessment of Focal Point 1 (south) revealed that the entire area was disturbed and dominated by dense alien vegetation, resembling an invaded coastal bushland community comprising mixed woody and herbaceous invasive alien and indigenous pioneers and weed species of plants. Signs of historic infilling were
apparent, with fill material encountered at various depths during sampling. Whilst some of the species sampled were typical ‘facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in wetlands and terrestrial
environments) such as Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum and Commelina benghalensis, these were
found to be mainly invasive alien plants that are known to invade terrestrial forest/bushlands and wetland environments, and as such their presence cannot be assumed to indicate wetland presence (these are poor wetland indicator species). The indigenous species occurring at the site, such as Strelitzia nicolai and
Brachylaena discolour, are typical of pioneer coastal forest/coastal bush (terrestrial habitat) and do not
typically occur in wetland habitat.
The field assessment of Focal Point 2 (west) revealed that the depression area is dominated by the Common Reed, Phragmites australis, an indigenous ‘obligate’ wetland plant species. Several other ‘facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in wetlands and terrestrial environments) were noted at the site. Many
of these are known invasive alien species. Common plants recorded in sampled focal areas are presented in
Table 6 (Eco-Pulse 2019).
Table 6: List of dominant plant species identified in the sampled area during the wetland field visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species (Eco-Pulse 2019)
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status
Tithonia diversifolia* Mexican Sunflower Fd
Ricinus communis* Castor-Oil Plant D
Pennisetum purpureum* Napier Grass F
Morus alba* Mulberry Tree Fd
Lantana camara* Common Lantana Fd
Chromolaena odorata* Triffid Weed D
Commelina benghalensis* Bhengal Wandering Jew F
Urtica urens* Stinging Nettle F
Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian Pepper Tree Fd
Melia azedarach* Syringa Tree Fd
Ipomoea purpurea* Common Morning Glory D
Ipomoea indica* Indigo flower D
Ipomoea alba* Moonflower D
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
32
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status
Solanum chrysotrichum* Devil’s Fig Fd
Canna indica* Indian Shot F
Conyza sp* Fleabane Fd
Commelina africana Yellow Commelina D
Commelina erecta Forest Commelina D
Ficus sur Cluster Fig F
Senecio tamoides Canary Creeper Fd
Strelitzia nicolai Natal Wild Banana D
Brachylaena discolor Coastal Silver Oak D
Panicum maximum Guinea Grass Fd
Source: Eco-Plus (2019)
7.2.3 Soil Wetness Indictor
Whilst vegetation is the generally the primary indicator of wetland habitat, in practice the soil wetness indicator
tends to be the most important because vegetation responds relatively quickly to changes in soil moisture and
may be transformed by local impacts (which is the case for much of the site sampled); whereas soil morphological indicators are far more permanent and will retain signs of frequent saturation (wetland
conditions) long after a wetland has been transformed (DWAF, 2005).
Soils sampled across Focal Point 1 were generally brown in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 6 and
Chroma of 4) with a high sand content (Figure 15). The sandy brown soils did not display signs of wetness,
indicating that these are terrestrial or dryland soils (non-wetland). Soils were relatively homogenous across the southern focal site. Signs of historic excavations and infilling were also apparent across the site sampled,
with fill material encountered at various depths during sampling.
Across most of Focal Point 1, a layer of dark black/slate coloured material was observed overlying the sandy layer of sediment, up to a depth of between 10 – 50 cm (Figure 16). At first glance, this dark soil horizon could
be mistaken for being a typical gleyed ‘wetland soil’. However, upon closer inspection this layer was identified as a layer of burnt organic material resembling a type of ash. This is likely to have been an organic layer that built up under the former estuarine environment that once probably characterised the site, and which then
desiccated (dried up) during the construction of the Durban harbour and Bayhead area. Under the
terrestrialised and desiccated conditions, the organic layer then burnt over time (historic fires possibly associated with ‘slash and burn’ management of the vegetation at the site) to create an ashy, burnt organic
soil horizon. Essentially, the soils at Focal Point 1 displayed no visible signs of wetness and the site is
determined to be terrestrial and not indicative of wetland habitat.
Soils sampled at Focal Point 2 were generally grey in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 5 and Chroma of 1) and had a sandy texture (Figure 17). Faint orange mottles were present in the soil profile. The grey soil matrix and the presence of mottles in the soil profile are a result of the soil profile being sufficiently saturated
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
33
such that anaerobic conditions prevail, which leads to the reduction of iron from its oxidised state, which is
soluble in water. The soils at Focal Point 2 can be considered typical of ‘temporary’ wetland soils, and combined with the vegetation indicator, confirmed that wetland habitat is present west of the existing railway
line west of the proposed development site.
Figure 15: Typical sandy brown terrestrial soil sample (Eco-Pulse, 2019)
Figure 16: Dark grey/black burnt soil horizon noted at various locations (Eco-Pulse, 2019)
Figure 17: Typical ‘temporary’ wetland soil sampled at the western focal site (Eco-Pulse, 2019).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
34
7.3 Wetland Classification Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South
Africa (Ollis et al., 2013).
In their present state, both Wetland Unit 1 (at Focal Point 2) and Wetland Unit 2 (at Focal Point 3) can be
classified as ‘artificial’ wetlands7 and resemble depressions that have formed as a result of stormwater runoff concentrating on the platform developed to the south of the site and within a low-lying area between the
railway lines located west of the development site.
In order to determine whether the wetlands assessed are artificial or a natural feature of the landscape, the
following needs to be taken into account:
The historical reference state of the watercourse, which has been established as far as possible through
historical imagery/photography;
On-site evidence of wetland habitat established through soil and vegetation sampling; and
The onsite impacts that have altered the template, nature and functioning of the watercourse.
From a legal perspective, wetlands are covered specifically in National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National
Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, with the definition of a wetland taken from the National Water Act 36 of 1998 referring to “…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”. Here an important distinction needs to be made to land which under “normal circumstances” would support
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil (i.e. wetland/aquatic vegetation or hydrophytes) and where
conditions or circumstances are ‘not normal’ or ‘artificially’ created or modified due to human activities or actions. Here one’s interpretation of the definition of ‘wetland’ in the National Water Act 36 of 1998 is critical, and the wetland ecologist from Eco-Pulse has interpreted this to mean that if circumstances are ‘not normal’ at
a site (for example, due to runoff from a road or hardened platform leading to increased saturation of soils or
standing water where wetland plants have become established artificially) then the definition would not apply and the ‘wetland’ would be deemed to be artificial in nature (i.e. not resulting from a ‘natural’ process of
formation).
It has been deduced based on the on-site investigations and assessment undertaken by Eco-Pulse
Consulting, that under ‘normal circumstances’ the wetlands would likely have been wooded mangrove habitat
forming part of the broader estuary at Durban Bay, which has since been infilled and modified completely. Freshwater wetland habitat would have been absent. The resulting modified area is thus a hardened gravel
platform to the south of the Project site where Wetland Unit 2 is located, and a modified/infilled low-lying area
between the two railway lines located west of the site where Wetland Unit 1 is located (Figure 18).
Where a ‘natural’ salt water mangrove/marsh was likely present at the Project site in the past (which historical accounts and photography suggests) (), this is no longer evident at the site, based on the sampling undertaken, with the vegetation having seen significant modification and adaptation to the new site conditions.
Circumstances now are no longer ‘normal’ (as per the definition of a wetland in terms of the NWA, 1998) due to modifications associated with infilling, topographical changes, channel diversions and storm water runoff
from hardened surfaces.
7 The term ‘natural’ when applied to ecosystems such as wetlands, generally refers to an ecosystem that exists in or is derived from a natural process or processes and is not man-made or caused by human/anthropogenic act ions. ‘Artificial’ thus refers to a system that has been produced by humans or human actions rather than naturally occurring.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
35
The ‘remaining’ extent of seepage wetland found at the southern edge of the property also appears to be a
recent feature of the landscape that resulted from the deposition of soils transported and deposited
downstream from the upstream eroded watercourse and adjacent unstable banks. Whether this habitat is entirely artificial or simply has become a more permanent feature of the landscape superimposed onto an
existing wetland surface) remains uncertain, and cannot be easily established without having access to baseline data for the study area prior to the level of modification of the catchment and bay area over the last
50 years.
7.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS)
Only wetlands perceived to be ‘natural’ in terms of their origin can be assessed in terms of Present Ecological
Status (PES) using established assessment methods. These rely on there being a ‘reference’ state’ from which to compare deviations. Since the ‘artificial’ wetlands identified for the study area do not have a natural
‘reference state’, the PES of both wetland units (i.e. Wetlands Units 1 and 2) could not be formally
established.
The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Wetland Units 1 and 2 was rated using the Wetland EIS tool
developed by Eco-Pulse (2017). For both units, a relatively low EIS rating was assigned, which can be attributed
to the artificial nature of both wetland units, their small size, limited functioning and biodiversity value and their generally disturbed state (Table 7). Importantly, Eco-Pulse (2019) found that these two artificial wetlands were
hydrologically disconnected from the project site.
Table 7: Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit (Eco-Pulse, 2019)
Wetland Unit Hydro geomorphic
type
Ecological
importance
(0-4)
Ecological
sensitivity
(0-4)
EIS Score
(0-4)
EIS Rating
Wetland Unit 1 Artificial wetland 0.85 0.41 0.85 Low
Wetland Unit 2 Artificial wetland 0.50 0.50 0.50 Very low
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
36
Figure 18: Delineated, mapped and classified watercourses within a 500 m radius of the Project site
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
37
8.0 ESTUARINE ECOLOGY The Project site is located within the Estuarine Functional Zone of the Durban Bay Estuary. In this section we
outline the ecological character of estuaries, and present a description of the Durban Bay Estuary, based on
Forbes and Demetriades (2008).
8.1 Estuaries – An Introduction Estuaries are located where river systems meet and interact with the sea. They are essentially transition
zones, defined by semi-enclosed water bodies, that contain both land and sea elements. They receive variable contributions of freshwater runoff from contributing rivers, which mixes and interacts with salt water
from the adjoining sea (based on the tidal or salt intrusion limit) (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Because of this mixing of disparate inputs, estuaries are highly dynamic and complex systems, each characterised by the
interplay of particular chemical, biological and physical influences (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
One of the consequence of this complexity is that estuaries are highly productive ecosystems, supporting a remarkable diversity and faunal biomass (National Estuarine Management Protocol, 2013). This productivity
extends across many trophic levels, and accordingly, estuaries compromise exceptionally important biodiversity habitats, supporting multiple biological communities and ecological processes (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). For example, estuaries are critically important breeding and nursery habitats for fish
species, as well as providing feeding habitat and migratory corridors for various coastal and marine species,
including several threatened bird species (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Another prominent feature of estuaries is their role in rendering ecosystem services to human societies. Throughout history, they have been critically important repositories of inter alia, various foods to coastal
communities (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Indeed, throughout the world human
communities have established themselves around estuaries for the explicit purpose of accessing the
associated ecosystems services (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
At a fundamental level, ecosystems services are classified into four main categories. These are provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. Those associated with estuaries are both abundant and manifold,
with some of the more common types listed in Table 8.
Table 8: Common provisioning and regulating ecosystem services associated with estuaries
Category Service
Provisioning Commercial and subsistence fishing
Fuel wood
Salt production
Traditional medicine and pharmaceutical products
Building material, including biological (e.g. timber) and non-biological products (e.g. building sand)
Regulating Water quality and quantity maintenance and regulation
Protection of shoreline from floods and wave
Climate regulation
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
38
Category Service
Waste treatment
Cultural Tourism and recreation
Religious and spiritual
Intrinsic value
Supporting Nutrient cycling
Habitat for both terrestrial and marine fauna
Source: Summarised from Forbes and Demetriades (2008)
South Africa has between 291 and 300 estuaries (Cilliers and Adams, 2016; National Estuarine Management Protocol, 2013), with a combined estuarine functional zone of approximately 171,046 ha (Cilliers and Adams, 2016). Anthropogenic development and activity along most of the South African coastline has placed
increasing pressure on the country’s estuarine systems, and they are currently one most of the threatened
habitat-types in South Africa (Cilliers and Adams, 2016).
8.2 Durban Bay Estuary 8.2.1 General Characterisation
The city of Durban, as defined by the eThekwini municipal boundary, has 16 estuaries (Forbes and
Demetriades, 2008). These comprise four estuarine types, namely 1) river mouths, 2) permanently open, 3)
temporally open, and 4) estuarine bays (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
The Project site is located adjacent to the Durban Bay Estuary, which is classified as an estuarine bay (Draft
Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Unlike other estuary types, estuarine bays are characterised by a dominance of marine influences rather than freshwater influences (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine
Managment Plan, 2015). They are the rarest form of estuary in South Africa.
The city of Durban originally developed around Durban Bay, which has an estimated catchment of
26 400 ha. It is fed by three main rivers; the uMbilo, uMhlatuzana and the aManzimnyama (Forbes and
Demetriades, 2008).
Over the last one and a half centuries, the Bay has gradually been transformed from its natural state into a large industrial-harbour complex that is of considerable regional economic importance (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Most of the original bay area has been lost or critically modified (Forbes
and Demetriades, 2008). Dredging and land reclamation (infilling) for harbour development purposes have been amongst the primary drivers of modification, with only an estimated 13.5 km2 out of an original extent of
35 km2 remaining (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015).
Harbour development has had severe negative consequences for the Bay’s natural habitat (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Forbes and Demetriades (2008) indicate that few land-water interfaces
have not been converted to concrete harbour infrastructure, and little remains of the wetland, reedbed, inter tidal reaches and mangroves habitats that were once prevalent. Estimates suggest that out of an original extent of approximately 440 ha, only about 15 ha (3.4%) of mangrove habitat is still present (Forbes and
Demetriades, 2008). Similarly, only 14% of the original tidal flats and 4% of the natural shoreline habitat
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
39
remains (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). It is also noted that all the rivers draining into the Bay have been
canalised, with the loss of associated riparian habitat.
8.2.2 Physical Attributes
In a natural state, the depth of Durban Bay rarely exceeds two metres at spring tide (Forbes and Demetriades,
2008). Historically, the Bay’s bottom sediments comprised muddy estuarine silts.
However, long-term dredging, increased tidal exchange and the activities of sand prawns have altered these
characteristics, with a sandy courser sediment now the most dominant (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Water quality in the Bay is compromised and has been for many years. This is a consequence of the frequent input of contaminants, coupled with, and accentuated by, poor water circulation (Forbes and Demetriades,
2008). Water quality testing has indicated that the level of organic waste and nitrogenous and phosphate compounds entering the Bay is often at hazardous levels, and this causes the deoxygenisation and algal
blooms that have been linked to fish die-offs (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Both the uMbilo and uMhlatuzana rivers are major contributors of pollution into the Bay, as are the up to 50
storm water drains that discharge into it. Contaminated surface water originating in urban and industrial areas
flows into these drainage features, and ultimately into the Bay. The poor configuration of harbour infrastructure results in limited circulation and reduced water exchange. This allows pollutants to aggregate at the canal
discharge points into the Bay, where it only slowly dilutes and disperses (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Testing for faecal coliform bacteria at various points in the Bay has revealed alarming levels of pollution that
are well-above acceptable human health levels. The most polluted areas include the silt canal before the Bluff
Yacht Club and the Esplanade sand banks (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
8.2.3 Biological Communities
From a biological perspective, micro-algae comprise the largest plant community in the Durban Bay Estuary, with diatoms the most abundant (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). These small, single-celled organisms are
highly important primary producers, forming the base-component of the Bay’s trophic cascade. Micro-algae occur as phytoplankton and microphytobenthos, with populations proliferating into noticeable ‘blooms’ in response favourable conditions. Other common plant forms in the Bay’s waters include marco-algae -
commonly referred to as ‘sea weed’, and mangrove trees (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
The zoobenthos community of the Bay is dominated by a small sand prawn called Callianassa kraussi (Forbes
and Demetriades, 2008). This species favours intertidal sandbanks and, through its continual bioturbation of sediments, has a major influence on the structure and composition of benthic communities, as well as fish and bird populations (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Owing to its abundance, Callianassa kraussi is also an
important source of bait for local fishermen (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
The fish community of the Bay is generally dominated by bottom-feeding estuarine species, although marine
species become more dominant in waters closer to the harbour mouth (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Fish surveys indicate that between 32 and 36 species are frequently sampled in the Bay, comprising mostly
benthic feeders (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). According to Forbes and Demetriades (2008), this highlights
the importance of inter-tidal and shallow sub-tidal sandbanks habitats for fish, especially juvenile migrant
species.
The loss of tidal flats and natural shoreline habitats has negatively affected waterbird populations in Durban Bay Estuary. Records suggest that between 1965 and 1999 the abundance of water birds plummeted by 70%,
while that of Paleartic waders dropped by as much as 81% (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). In
contradistinction to other areas in South Africa, this decline appears particular to Durban (Forbes and
Demetriades, 2008).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
40
During a 1999 study, 119 bird species were recorded in the Bay, of which, 36 were non-breeding migrants.
Subsequent, bird counts highlighted the importance of different areas of the Bay for bird populations (Forbes
and Demetriades, 2008). The most important area is Centre Bank, which supports 40% of the Bay’s birds and is favoured by numerous Paleartic waders, gulls and terns. The Bayhead area, in which the Project site is
located, is the second most important area for birds (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Alongside other sub-tropical systems, like Richards Bay, St Lucia and Kosi Bay, Durban Bay ranks amongst
the most diverse estuaries in KwaZulu-Natal. Forbes and Demetriades (2008) further note that it is the only large estuarine system in the province that possesses sheltered, marine-dominated and permanently tidal sandbank habitat. Such habitat plays a significant role in the functioning of the estuary and maintaining its
associated biodiversity, which is ranked the highest among the province’s estuaries.
8.2.4 Existing Threats to Durban Bay Estuary
Forbes and Demetriades (2008) highlight the perilous condition of all eThekwini’s estuaries. The health status of Durban Bay Estuary is rated Highly Degraded and projections suggest that a continual decline in status is
likely (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
A rank ordering of anthropogenic impacts on South Africa’s estuaries lists nine major threats, of which, the
most critical at a national level largely correspond to those facing Durban Bay. Those having a high impact on Durban Bay in order of national rank, include habitat loss, eutrophication, sewage, chemical contamination and litter (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Despite its degraded status, Durban Bay Estuary is recognised as
being highly important at both national and local level (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015).
8.3 Durban Bay Estuary in Relation to the Project Site The proposed Project site is located within the estuarine functional zone (EFZ) of the Durban Bay Estuary
(shown in Figure 19), with the closest boundary situated about 400m from the nearest open water of the Bayhead Canal. The site is however, located outside of the Estuarine Zonation Plan, as presented in the Draft
Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan (2015).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
41
Figure 19: Project site in relation to the Durban Bay and Estuary Functional Zone
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
42
9.0 SCREENING OF IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY FEATURES Important biodiversity features that may trigger potential critical habitat in terms of IFC PS6 (2012) are
summarised in Table 9. Note: for IFC purposes, screening for criterion one considers the ‘global’ IUCN Red
List status.
Table 9: Screening of important biodiversity (species and ecosystems) features
Criteria Biodiversity
Feature
Red List Status
– IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Details of Occurrence
Species
Criterion 1:
Globally Endangered or Critically
Endangered
Species
Mondia whitei
(White’s Ginger)
Endangered Grows in dense bush in woodland and forest
habitats (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001). Considering the high degree of disturbance and degradation, it is unlikely to occur on-site.
Kniphofia
pauciflora (Dainty
Poker)
Critically
Endangered
Kniphofia pauciflora occurs in marshy
grassland. It is known from only one confirmed
locality - a grassland between urban areas in Durban (SANBI, 2017). Considering the highly disturbed nature of the site, it is unlikely to be
present.
Zeuxine africana
(Orchid)
Endangered Known from only one locality in the Durban Port
– a site that has been subsequently cleared (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001). It favours dampish sandy, disturbed areas, and
is thought to have been accidentally introduced
into the area (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001). Considering its proclivity for disturbed habitats,
it is possible (low) that this species is present on-site.
Durban Dwarf
Burrowing Skink (Scelotes
inornatus)
Critically
Endangered
A fossorial species, occurring in Berea red
sands of coastal forests, within 4 km of the ocean (Bates et al., 2014). The site’s soil
comprises imported fill material, and not natural soils. It is unlikely to be present on-site.
Pickersgill’s Reed
Frog (Hyperolius pickersgilli)
Endangered Pickersgill’s Reed Frog is a habitat specialist,
favouring well-vegetated perennial wetlands in coastal bushveld and grassland (du Preez and
Carruthers, 2009). Considering the degree of on-site disturbance, it is unlikely that this species is present.
Kloof Frog (Natalobatrachus
bonebergi)
Endangered The Kloof Frog occurs in kloofs and rocky stream beds in closed-canopy forests (du Preez
and Carruthers, 2009). These habitats are not
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
43
Criteria Biodiversity Feature
Red List Status – IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Details of Occurrence
Species
present on-site, and it is therefore unlikely that this species is present.
Criterion 2:
Endemic or Range
Restricted Species
Durban Dwarf
Burrowing Skink (Scelotes
inornatus)
Critically
Endangered
See above account.
Pickersgill’s Reed
Frog (Hyperolius
pickersgilli)
Endangered See above account.
Kloof Frog (Natalobatrachus bonebergi)
Endangered See above account.
Criterion 3:
Migratory and/or
Congregatory Species
Large-eared
Free-tailed Bat
(Otomops martiensseni)
- Recorded from a variety of habitats, including
urban environments, and over a broad range of
southern Africa (Monadjem et al., 2001). It is possible that Large-eared Free-tailed Bat occur in on-site.
European Roller
(Coracias
garrulus)
Near Threatened European Rollers migrate to the southern Africa
during the summer months, where they occur in
dry woodland and savannas (IUCN, 2018). It is also adept at foraging in agricultural landscapes (IUCN, 2018). It is therefore unlikely to occur
on-site.
White Stork
(Ciconia ciconia)
- A Palearctic migrant (CMS8 Appendix II) that
favours grassland, fields and shallows wetlands (Sinclair et al., 2011). These habitats are not present on-site and the White Stork is unlikely
to be present.
Black Stork
(Ciconia nigra)
Vulnerable A migrant species (CMS Appendix II) favouring
habitats associated with lakes, rivers and marshes. In South Africa, it frequents the estuaries of tidal rivers (IUCN, 2018). Desite
the proximity of the harbour and the Umbilo and
Mhlatuzana rivers, it is unlikely that this species is an occasional or temporary visitor.
8 Convention of the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
44
Criteria Biodiversity Feature
Red List Status – IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Details of Occurrence
Species
Lanner Falcon (Falco biarmicus)
Vulnerable Lanner Falcon can be resident or nomadic. They have a wide habitat tolerance (IUCN, 2018). It is possible that this species is an
occasional visitor to the site.
Yellow-billed
Stork (Mycteria ibis)
Endangered Yellow-billed Storks are irregular migrants that
occur in a range of wetland-type habitats (IUCN, 2018). It is unlikely that this species visits the site.
Great White Pelican
(Pelecanus onocrotalus)
Vulnerable A migrant (CMS Appendix II) that is found in lakes, estuaries and sheltered coastal bays
(Sinclair et al., 2011). It is unlikely that this species visits the site.
Greater Flamingo
(Phoenicopterus ruber)
Near Threatened Intra-African migrant occurring in lakes,
saltpans and estuaries (Sinclair et al., 2011). It is unlikely that this species visits the site.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
45
Criteria Biodiversity Feature
Red List Status – IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Details of Occurrence
Species
Ecosystems
Criterion 4: Highly Threatened or
Unique Ecosystems
The IFC GN6 (2012) indicates that highly threatened or unique
ecosystems include:
Those that are at risk of significantly decreasing in area
or quality;
Those with a small spatial extent; and/or
Those containing unique assemblages of species,
including assemblages or
concentrations of biome-
restricted species.
KwaZulu-Natal
Coastal Belt
Grassland; and
Durban Bay Estuary
Northern Coastal Grassland is a Critically
Endangered vegetation type (NEM:BA
Threatened Ecosystems, 2011) – read section 6.2.
Despite the site occurring within this vegetation type, on-site habitat is significantly degraded and is considered modified (section 6.5), in
accordance with (IFC PS6, 2012). Durban Bay Estuary is an estuarine bay, which is the rarest form of estuary in South Africa
(Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). It is recognised as being highly important at both
national and local level and is under threat from
a range impacts (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015).
Criterion 5: Areas associated with Key Evolutionary Processes
Areas associated with key evolutionary processes are defined by:
The physical attributes of a landscape that might be
associated with particular
evolutionary processes; and/or
Subpopulations of species that are phylogenetically or
morphologically distinct and
may be of special conservation concern given their distinct
evolutionary history.
NA NA
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
46
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
10.1 Methodology for Assessing Impact Significance The impact assessment was undertaken using a matrix selection process, the most commonly used
methodology, for determining the significance of potential environmental impacts/risks. This methodology incorporates two aspects for assessing the potential significance of impacts, namely occurrence and severity,
which are further sub-divided as follows (Table 10)
Table 10: Impact assessment factors
Occurrence Severity
Probability of occurrence Duration of occurrence Scale/extent of impact Magnitude of impact
To assess these factors for each impact, the following four ranking scales are used (Table 11):
Table 11: Impact assessment scoring methodology
Value Description
Magnitude
10 Very high/unknown
8 High
6 Moderate
4 Low
2 Minor
Duration
5 Permanent (Impact continues post-closure)
4 Long term (Impact ceases after decommissioning and closure)
3 Medium-term (Impact ceases after the operational phase)
2 Short-term (Impact ceases after the construction phase)
1 Immediate
Scale
5 International
4 National
3 Regional
2 Local
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
47
Value Description
1 Site Only
0 None
Probability
5 Definite/Unknown (impact will definitely occur)
4 Highly Probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance)
3 Medium Probability (40% to 60% chance)
2 Low Probability (5% to 40% chance)
1 Improbable (less than 5% chance)
0 None
Significance Points= (Magnitude + Duration + Scale) x Probability.
Table 12: Significance of impact based on point allocation
Points Significance Description
SP>60 High environmental significance
An impact which could influence the decision about whether or not to proceed with the project regardless of any possible mitigation.
SP 30 - 60 Moderate environmental
significance
An impact or benefit which is sufficiently important to require management, and which could have an influence on the decision unless
it is mitigated.
SP<30 Low
environmental significance
Impacts with little real effect and which will not have an influence on or
require modification of the project design.
+ Positive impact An impact that is likely to result in positive consequences/effects.
For the methodology outlined above, the following definitions were used:
Magnitude is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis (e.g., the area of pasture, or the concentration of a metal in water compared to the water quality guideline value for the
metal), and is classified as none/negligible, low, moderate or high
Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and is classified as site,
local, regional, national, or international
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
48
Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e.
immediate/transient, short-term, medium term, long-term, or permanent
Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact actually occurring as
improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40% to 60%
chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will definitely occur).
10.2 Project Phases The environmental impacts of the project were assessed for the:
Pre-construction and construction phase;
Operational phase; and
Closure and Rehabilitation phase.
10.3 Detailed Description of Potential Impacts During All Phases of the Proposed Project
Four negative biodiversity impacts have been identified for the proposed project, namely:
Loss of habitat;
Chemical leaks/spill causing contamination of water resources;
Killing and disturbance of fauna; and
Spread of alien invasive plant species.
A general impact characterisation is presented in the box-inserts below. This is followed by a discussion on
the impact in relation to the proposed project.
10.3.1 Loss of Habitat
Impact Characterisation
Habitat loss refers to the direct removal of natural habitat. This occurs primarily through the clearing of indigenous vegetation coupled with earth works (e.g. soil/sediment removal, excavations, infilling). The
immediate impact is typically characterised by the destruction of individual plants and some faunal species within development footprints. If remaining habitat is insufficient in size and heterogeneity to sustain ecological processes, broader-scale ecosystem integrity and functioning can be impaired, which may result
in losses in biodiversity.
Habitat degradation occurs when disturbances drive compositional and structural changes to the
biophysical character of ecosystems. Common degradation syndromes in terrestrial and wetland systems can include inter alia, soil erosion, overgrazing, bush encroachment and alien species invasion(Scholes, 2009). In extreme cases of habitat degradation, the mix of functional species-types is altered and
ecosystem functioning is impaired, which may also lead to losses in biodiversity (Scholes, 2009).
Impact in Relation to Proposed Project
The Project site is an isolated and highly degraded anthropogenic landform. It is currently characterised by a
preponderance of alien invasive vegetation. Accordingly, the entire site is classified as ‘modified’ habitat, in
line with IFC PS6 (2012) and IFC GN6 (2012).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
49
Notwithstanding the highly transformed and developed character of the surrounding landscape matrix, the site
does constitute an ‘island’ of undeveloped vegetated habitat, and thus potentially acts as a ‘stepping stone’
patch for faunal dispersal and movement, increasing overall habitat connectivity across the immediate
landscape.
Development of infrastructure thus cannot be considered an impact of negligible significance apropos habitat loss. On-site habitat loss associated with vegetation clearing and earth works will be permanent, and is
difficult to mitigate. It is rated an impact of moderate significance both before and after mitigation.
10.3.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Water Resources
Impact Characterisation
Water resources can be contaminated by inter alia:
Leaks and spills of fuel (e.g. petrol, diesel) and lubricants from construction vehicles and other
machinery and equipment; and
Spillages of chemicals from poorly sealed storage units or containers.
The consequences of contamination are manifold, and may include inter alia, mass die-off of terrestrial and
estuarine plants, fish die-offs, and reduction in general animal health and fecundity.
Impact in Relation to Proposed Project
Considering the presence of the storm water canals on- and immediately adjacent to the Project site, there is
potential for contaminated water and sediment originating on-site to be conveyed into the Durban Bay
Estuary. This could have severe negative consequences on estuarine habitat and biological communities.
This impact can occur throughout all phases of the proposed project but is most likely to occur through: 1) spills and leaks from machinery and equipment during the construction phase, and 2) poorly sealed/maintained fuel storage containers/tanks during the operational phase. This impact is rated high before
the implementation of mitigation during both the construction and operational phases. However, it can be
effectively mitigated by, inter alia:
The correct design and maintenance of fuel storage units and containment bunds, as well as storm water
infrastructure; and
Through the correct implementation of on-site operating procedures, including those related to vehicle
and machinery maintenance, waste disposal and storage, and chemical storage;
It is therefore rated with a post mitigation impact of low significance.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
50
10.3.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna
Impact Characterisation
Small and/or less mobile species can be trapped, injured and killed during vegetation clearing and earth
works. Fauna that are of particular concern in this regard include:
Fossorial9 mammals (e.g. moles, rodents);
Nesting birds; ground and tree nests; and
Reptiles and amphibians;
Other particularly common cause of injury or death is vehicle-wildlife collisions along access roads, and
wildlife becoming caught/trapped in project facilities during the operational phase.
Impact in Relation to Proposed Project
Considering the degree of degradation, the study area is unlikely to contain noteworthy faunal populations.
This impact is thus rated as having low significance both before and after mitigation.
10.3.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species
Impact Characterisation
Disturbances caused by vegetation clearing and earth works can create conditions conducive to the
establishment and rapid colonisation of alien invasive species. If left uncontrolled, alien species can spread
exponentially, suppressing or replacing indigenous vegetation. This may lead to a breakdown in ecosystem
functioning and a loss of biodiversity.
Impact in Relation to Proposed Project
The site is already almost completely dominated by alien vegetation, with many species (n=25) listed under the NEMBA and the CARA as recognised invasive species. Additional disturbances are thus unlikely to result
in an increase in the number of different alien invasive plants or overall cover. Conversely, it is likely that site
clearing will result in the removal of these plants from the development footprint.
However, as per the requirements of the NEMBA, it is important that measures are implemented to control
and eradicate alien invasive plants that occur along the disturbed periphery of the development footprint. The implementation of an alien invasive species control programme, as part of landscaping initiatives, can manage
this impact at a low significance.
10.4 Impact Assessment Summary The predicted environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project activities are listed in Table 13 along with their significance ratings before and after mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures are discussed in
section 11.4.
9 Organism adapted to digging and life underground.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
51
Table 13: Rating of impacts before and after mitigation
Category Activity Potential Impact/ Risk
Impact Assessment Factors
Probability Significance without mitigation
Impact Assessment Factors
Probability Significance with mitigation
Pre-Construction and Construction Phases
Biodiversity Vegetation clearing and earthworks
Loss of habitat Magnitude: Low Definite Moderate Magnitude: Low Definite Moderate
Duration: Permanent Duration: Permanent
Scale: Site only Scale: Site only
Biodiversity Vegetation clearing and earthworks
Killing and disturbance of fauna
Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low
Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
Biodiversity Storage and use of hazardous construction substances and materials.
Chemical leaks/spills causing contamination of water resources (estuary).
Magnitude: High High Moderate Magnitude: Moderate Low Low
Duration: Medium Duration: Medium
Scale: Regional Scale: Regional
Biodiversity All forms of ongoing disturbance.
Spread of alien invasive plant species.
Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low
Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
Operational Phase
Biodiversity Storage and use of
Chemical leaks/spills
Magnitude: High Highly High Magnitude: Moderate Low Low
Duration: Medium Duration: Medium
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
52
Category Activity Potential Impact/ Risk
Impact Assessment Factors
Probability Significance without mitigation
Impact Assessment Factors
Probability Significance with mitigation
hazardous construction substances and materials.
causing contamination of water resources (estuary).
Scale: Regional Scale: Regional
Biodiversity All forms of ongoing disturbance.
Spread of alien invasive plant species.
Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low
Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
Decommissioning and Closure Phases
Biodiversity Site clearance and construction activities
Soil contamination
Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Minor Low Low
Duration: Short term Duration: Short term
Scale: Site only Scale: Site only
Biodiversity All forms of ongoing disturbance.
Spread of alien invasive plant species.
Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low
Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
53
11.0 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed measures aimed at mitigating and managing potential impacts on terrestrial ecology during the
construction, operational and closure phases are presented in this section.
11.1 Key Objectives
Avoiding the contamination of water and soil resources (sediment);
Improving the ecological integrity of adjacent, undeveloped land; and
Rehabilitating the site during the closure phase.
11.2 Environmental Management and Mitigation Measures Identified A summary of mitigation measures should be presented:
For negative impacts (either/or):
Avoid
Minimize
Rehabilitate/Repair
Compensate
For positive impacts:
Enhance
11.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts Identified Several developments are currently planned for undeveloped sites in the harbour precinct, including the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 project, the NOOA tank farm development (immediately south and adjacent to
the site) and other similar projects.
The cumulative impact of habitat loss associated with these various developments, may adversely affect the functional dynamic of the broader terrestrial habitat network (discussed in section 6.5), and this may
negatively impact local plant and animal populations. From an estuarine perspective, additional contaminated water entering the Durban Bay Estuary will further exacerbate pollution levels in this already critically stressed
system.
11.4 Summary of Mitigation and Management Measures for the Operational, Decommissioning and Closure Phases
Management measures to mitigate potential ecological impacts are recommended below:
11.4.1 Loss of Habitat
Minimisation
Earth works should be restricted to the proposed development footprints only, with no disturbance
permitted outside of these areas
Areas to be disturbed should be clearly demarcated to prevent unnecessary clearing outside of these
sites
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
54
Rehabilitate
A landscaping plan, based on the using indigenous grass and trees for revegetation, should be
developed and implemented in non-built areas during the operational phase
11.4.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Soil and Water Resources
Avoidance and Minimisation
Construction vehicles and machinery should be regularly maintained to limit potential fuel leaks
All materials, fuels and chemical used/stored on-site during the construction phase should be stored in
the correct containers/storage units, which should be handled according to the required specifications
The proposed bulk fuel storage facilities should be correctly designed, with appropriate containment bunds (110% of tank volume) and leakage detection equipment. These should be regularly inspected
and maintained as required
Appropriately designed storm water infrastructure should be constructed on-site to prevent the mixing of
clean and dirty water, and the egress of dirty/contaminated water into adjacent water canals
A water quality monitoring programme should be developed to assess potential impacts on water
resources originating from site
An Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan should also be developed and implemented on-site
during all phases of the proposed project
11.4.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna
Avoidance and Minimisation
An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) should be on-site during vegetation clearing to monitor for, and
manage, any wildlife-human interactions. The ECO should be trained, inter alia, in snake handling
A low speed limited (recommended 20 - 40 km/h) should be enforced on site to reduce wildlife-collisions
The handling, poisoning and killing of on-site fauna by construction workers and contractors must be
strictly prohibited
11.4.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species
Minimisation
An alien invasive species control programme must be developed and implemented on-site during all
phases of the proposed project. It is recommended that the programme include:
A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods
Periodic follow-up treatments, informed by regular monitoring
Monitoring should take place in all areas that are not under development throughout the site
Rehabilitation
A rehabilitation plan, based on the using indigenous grass and trees for revegetation, should be developed and implemented in non-built areas during the construction and operational phase, and
throughout the entire site during the closure phase
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
55
11.5 Recommended Monitoring Framework Mechanisms for monitoring compliance with, and performance assessment against, the environmental
management programme and reporting thereof, include:
Monitoring of impact management actions
Monitoring and reporting frequency
Responsible persons
Time period for implementing impact management actions
Mechanisms for monitoring compliance
A recommended monitoring framework for biodiversity is presented in Table 14.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
56
Table 14: Proposed monitoring framework
Source Activity Impacts requiring monitoring programmes
Functional requirements for monitoring
Roles and responsibilities (for the execution of the
monitoring programme)
Monitoring and reporting frequency and time periods
for implementing impact management actions
Construction activities Post habitat loss rehabilitation Assess the effectiveness of rehabilitation and inform adjustments to the
rehabilitation procedures.
Environmental Manager Post-construction - monitoring of rehabilitation for 2 growing-season cycles.
Post closure - monitoring of rehabilitation for 5 growing-
season cycles.
Storage and use of fuels and hazardous materials/
chemicals on-site
Contamination of water quality As per recommendations of surface- and ground water
monitoring studies.
Environmental Manager As per recommendations of surface- and ground water
monitoring studies.
Earth works and vegetation
clearing during construction.
General project activities
during operations.
Killing and injuring of fauna Record all incidents of fauna
death/injury in an incidents
report.
Environmental Manager As required, throughout all
project phases.
NA Alien invasive species
colonisation
Assess the effectiveness of
implemented control
treatments.
Environmental Manager Annual monitoring and
reporting throughout all
phases. Findings of monitoring used
Recommendations implemented during following control cycle.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
57
12.0 CONCLUSION The proposed Project site is highly disturbed, having been subjected to considerable historic degradation
including both the importation of fill material (first 1 metre of soil) and vegetation clearing. Floristically, the site is almost wholly dominated by alien invasive flora, with several CARA and NEM:BA listed species prevalent. In line with IFC PS6 (2012), the site is thus classified as modified habitat. Furthermore, considering the degree
of disturbance and isolation, it is unlikely that the site, in and of itself, constitutes important life-cycle habitat for species of conservation concern. We note however, that considering the highly built-up and developed
character of the city landscape, undeveloped areas, even if they are very disturbed, do play a potential role as
‘stepping stone’ habitats for remaining local biological communities. The wetland verification study indicated that there are no wetlands in the Project site, and that the site is located away from any watercourses and is hydrologically isolated (Eco-Pulse 2019). Concrete storm water canals do however, traverse across the site
and drain into the Durban Bay Estuary at the Bayhead Canal. Durban Bay Estuary is an important estuarine
system.
Habitat loss associated with the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 development has been identified as a negative project-related impact, with a moderate significance rating prior to mitigation. With effective
management, this impact can be reduced to low significance.
Considering the location of storm water canals draining into the Durban Bay Estuary, potential water contamination is another significantly negative project-related impact. This impact can also be mitigated
through the correct design of tank facilities and supporting infrastructure (e.g. storm water drains) and through the implementation of appropriate facility maintenance and operational procedures. With mitigation, this
impact reduced to a low significance.
One of the other key recommended management interventions for the site and immediately adjacent undeveloped areas is the control of alien invasive species. The control of alien invasive plants coupled with
rehabilitation (including active revegetation) can significantly improve the ecological integrity of vegetated areas. This represents a potential ‘value-gain’ for biodiversity conservation in the Bayhead area. Pursuant to this, it is recommended that Lanele investigate collaborating with adjacent land users/owners and
stakeholders (e.g. eThekwini Municipality) to develop and implement a joint and co-ordinated alien invasive
species control programme for the entire Bayhead area of the harbour precinct.
13.0 SPECIALISTS This Biodiversity Impact Assessment report was prepared by Andrew Zinn, and the report reviewed by Warren
Aken, of Golder. The details of the specialist’ qualifications and experience are provided in Table 15 below:
Table 15: Qualifications and experience of the specialists
Role Name Qualifications and Experience
Environmental Scientist
Andrew Zinn MSc. Resource Conservation Biology, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2013
BSc. Hons. Ecology and Conservation Biology, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2005
BSc. Zoology and Grassland Science, University of KwaZulu-
Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2004
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
58
Role Name Qualifications and Experience
Registered with the South African Council of Natural
Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural Scientist,
2015
Andrew has more than 10 years’ experience in terrestrial
ecology studies
Senior Aquatic Biologist
Warren Aken B.Sc (Aquatic Health), University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa, 2013
B.Sc Honours (Ichthyology and Fisheries Science), Rhodes
University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 2004
B.Sc (Ichthyology Zoology) , Rhodes University,
Grahamstown, South Africa, 2003
Lance has over 12 years’ experience in aquatic biology focusing on ichthyofauna, aquatic macroinvertebrates and
ecosystem functioning
Neither Golder nor the specialists that prepared this report has any vested interest in the proposed Lanele Oil
Terminal 1 (Lot 1) project other than fair remuneration for professional services rendered. The findings
presented in this specialist report are those of the specialists, without influence from any other parties.
14.0 REFERENCES ADU - SABAP2 (2011) The Southern Africa Bird Atlas Project 2, Animal Demographic Unit. Available from: http://sabap2.adu.org.za [Accessed 6 November 2018].
Agricultural Research Council (2010) Legal obligations regarding invasive alien plants in South Africa. Available from: www.arc.agric.za/home.asp?pod=1031 [Accessed 1 December 2011].
Angold, P. G., Sadler, J. P., Hill, M. O., Pullin, A., Rushton, S., Austin, K., et al. (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches, Science of the Total Environment, 360 (1–3), pp. 196–204. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.035.
Bates, M., Branch, W., Bauer, A., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G. and De Villiers, M. (eds.) (2014) Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Suricata 1, South African Biodiversity Institute.
BirdLife South Africa (2015) The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
BODATSA (2016) Plants of Southern Africa, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) - Botanical Database of Southern Africa. Available from: http://newposa.sanbi.org/ [Accessed 18 March 2019].
Bromilow, C. (2010) Problem Plants and Alien Weeds of South Africa. Third Edit. Pretoria: Briza Publications.
Cilliers, G. J. and Adams, J. B. (2016) Development and implementation of a monitoring programme for South African estuaries, Water SA, 42 (2), pp. 279–290. DOI:10.4314/wsa.v42i2.12.
CMS (2012) Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals ( CMS ), (February), pp. 1–10.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
59
Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan Department of Environmental Affairs (2015). South Africa.
Draft NEMBA ToPS List National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) - Lists of critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and protected species. (2013). South Africa.
du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. (2009) A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Struik Nature.
EWT (2016) Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Endangered Wildlife Trust.
FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2019) Virtual Museum - MammalMAP, ReptileMAP, FrogMAP, SpiderMAP, ScorpionMAP and LepiMAP, Animal Demographic Unit. Available from: http://vmus.adu.org.za [Accessed 2 October 2018].
Forbes, A. and Demetriades, N. (2008) Estuaries of Durban, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Durban.
Germishuizen, N., Meyer, N., Steenkamp, Y. and Keith, M. (2006) A Checklist of South African Plants. Pretoria: Southern African Botanical Divesity Network (SABONET) Report No. 41.
Glen, H. and Van Wyk, B. (2016) Guide to Trees Introduced into Southern Africa. Pretoria: Struik Nature.
Goff, F. G., Dawson, G. A. and Rochow, J. J. (1982) Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species, Environmental Management, 6 (4), pp. 307–316. DOI:10.1007/BF01875062.
Golder (2017) Vegetation Assessment of the Proposed Above-ground Pipeline Between The Bay 3 and Quarry 1 Tank Terminals. Midrand. Report No. 1781731-315098-1.
Henning, G., Terblanche, R. and Ball, J. (eds.) (2009) South African Red Data Book: Butterflies. Pretoria: Biodiversity Series 13, South African National Biodiversity Institute.
IFC GN6 (2012) Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources, in: World Bank Group - Intenational Finance Corporation,.
IFC PS6 (2012) Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. World Bank Group - International Finance Corporation.
Invasive Species South Africa (2015) Invasive Species Legislation. Available from: http://www.invasives.org.za/ [Accessed
IUCN (2018) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2018-2. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T22719744A94642482.en.
Monadjem, A., Taylor, P., Cotterill, F. and Schoeman, M. (2001) Bats of Southern and Central Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M. (2006) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Reprint 2011, Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).
National Estuarine Management Protocol National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act No. 24 of 2008) (2013). South Africa.
NEMBA Threatened Ecosystems National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) - National list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems for South Africa (2011). South Africa.
PlantzAfrica.com (2001) PlantzAfrica.com, South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). Available from: www.pza.sanbi.org [Accessed 1 January 2017].
Pooley, E. (2003) The Complete Field Guide to Trees of Natal, Zululand and Transkei. Fourth Edi. Durban: Natal Flora Publications Trust.
Pooley, E. (2005) A Field Guide to Wild Flowers of KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Region. Durban: The Flora Publications Trust.
SANBI (2017) Red List of South African Plants, South African National Biodiversity Institute. Available from:
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
60
http://redlist.sanbi.org/ [Accessed 2 January 2018].
Scholes, R. (2009) Syndromes of dryland degradation in southern Africa, African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 26 (3), pp. 113–125.
Scott Shaw, C. and Escott, B. (2011) KwaZulu-Natal Vegetation Type Description Document for Vegetation Map 2011, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife - Biodiversity Conservation Planning Division.
Sinclair, I., Hockey, P., Tarboton, W. and Ryan, P. (2011) Birds of Southern Africa. Fourth Edi. Cape Town: Struik Nature.
Stuart, C. and Stuart, T. (2007) Field Guide to Mammals of Southern Africa. Fourth Edi. Cape Town: Struik Nature.
Styles, D. (2017) Floral and Faunal Biodiversity Impact Assessment for the Proposed Fuel Storage Facility at Bayhead, Durban. Durban.
Van Oudtshoorn, F. (2015) Veld Management - Principles and Practices. Pretoria: Briza Publications.
Van Wyk, B. and Malan, S. (1998) Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld. Second Edi. Cape Town: Struik Publishers.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
61
Signature Page
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
Andrew Zinn Warren Aken Ecologist Biodiversity Group - Lead
AZ/WA/jep
Reg. No. 2002/007104/07 Directors: RGM Heath, MQ Mokulubete, SC Naidoo, GYW Ngoma
Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
https://golderassociates-my.sharepoint.com/personal/micvanniekerk_golder_com/documents/projects/1791874_thyssenkrupp lanele terminal/6. deliverables/drafts/biodiversity/3rd
draft/1791874-324751-8_rep_biodiversity_rep_draft_20190722.docx
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX A
Specialist Wetland Verification and Delineation Study (2019) –
Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Bayhead Industrial
eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal
Specialist Wetland Verification &
Delineation Study
Version 1.2
Rev. 1
Date: 8th April 2019
Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
Report No: EP419-01
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Prepared for: Golder
Contact person: Natalie Kohler
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 011 254 4800
Mobile: 089 316 0920
Prepared by: Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
26 Mallory Road, Hilton, 3245, South Africa
Contact person: Adam Teixeira-Leite Pr.Sci.Nat.
Email: [email protected]
Tel: (+27) 31 2666 700
Mobile: (+27) 82 310 6769
Suggested report citation:
Eco-Pulse Consulting, 2019. Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study.
Unpublished report for Golder. Report No. EP419-01. Version 1.2 (Rev1). 10th April 2019.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
SPECIALIST WETLAND VERIFICATION & DELINEATION REPORT
DETAILS AND DECLARATION
Document Title: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study: Bayhead Industrial Site
Report No. EP419-01
Version 1.2
Revision No. 1
Date: 10th April 2019
Report prepared by: Mr Shaun McNamara
Junior Scientist (Wetland & Aquatic Ecology)
Internally Reviewed & signed off by:
Mr Adam Teixeira-Leite
Professional Natural Scientist (Pr. Sci. Nat.) (Ecological Science)
Senior Scientist: Wetland & Aquatic Ecologist
Client: Golder & Associates
I, Adam Teixeira-Leite hereby declare that this report has been prepared independently of any
influence or prejudice as may be specified by the DEA or DWS.
Signed: Date: 10th A pril 2019
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
i
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF TABLES ii
DEFINITION OF TERMS iii
ABBREVIATIONS USED iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background........................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of the Study.........................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................................................2
2. METHODS 3
2.1 Wetland Verification and Delineation ..........................................................................................................3
2.2 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) A ssessment................................................................5
2.3 Desktop Mapping and ‘Likelihood of Impact’ Screening .........................................................................5
2.4 Assumptions and Limitations ...........................................................................................................................7
3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 8
3.1 Background Information ..................................................................................................................................8
3.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation ..........................................................................................................9
3.2.1Terrain Unit Indicator 10
3.2.2Vegetation Indicator 11
3.2.3Soil Wetness Indicator 14
3.3 Classif ication of Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES)..................................................................................................... 17
3.5 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) A ssessment............................................................. 18
4. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NEMA 18
5. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NWA AND WATER USE LICENSING 18
5.1 Identification & Mapping of Watercourses ............................................................................................... 19
5.2 ‘Likelihood of Impact’, Risk and Water Use Screening............................................................................ 19
6. CONCLUSION 21
7. REFERENCES 22
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Map showing the location of study site (outlined in ‘red’) in relation to the Durban Harbour
and the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana canals. ............................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 Diagram representing the different zones of wetness found within a wetland (source:
DWAF, 2005). ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3 Historical imagery (aerial photography) of the study area in the vicinity of the development site taken in 1937. ............................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4 Historical imagery (aerial photography) of the study area in the vicinity of the development site taken in 1944. ............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5 Map showing the ‘artificial’ wetland habitat located to the south (Wetland 01) and west
(Wetland 02) of the proposed development property. ..................................................................................... 10
Figure 6 Map of the study area with 2m elevation contours highlighting the presence of a
depression in the landscape to the south (01) and west (02) of the proposed development site. ........... 11
Figure 7 Map showing the location of soil sampling undertaken at the site in the vicinity of focal assessment areas 01 and 02 to the south and west of the development site. .............................................. 14
Figure 8 Map showing delineated, mapped and classified watercourses within the DWS regulated area for Section 21 c & i water use (i.e. within a 500m radius of the proposed development site)........... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Criteria used to inform the delineation of wetland habitat based on wetland vegetation (adapted from Macfarlane et al., 2008 and DWAF, 2005). ................................................................................. 3
Table 2. Soil criteria used to inform wetland delineation using soil wetness as an indicator (after DWAF,
2005). .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Rating table used to rate EIS (Eco-Pulse, 2017). ...................................................................................... 5
Table 4. Qualitative ‘likelihood of impact’ ratings and descriptions. ................................................................. 6
Table 5. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 01 during the site v isit, including the estimated
‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text. .............................................. 12
Table 6. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 02 during the site v isit, including the estimated
‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text. .............................................. 13
Table 7. Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit................................................. 18
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
iii
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Biodiversity
The wide variety of plant and animal species occurring in their natural environment
(habitats). The term encompasses different ecosystems, landscapes, communities,
populat ions and genes as well as the ecological and evolut ionary processes that allow these elements of biodiversity to persist over time.
Catchment
The area where water from atmospheric precipitation becomes concentrated and
drains downslope into a river, lake or wetland. The term includes all land surface,
streams, rivers and lakes between the source and where the water enters the ocean.
Conservation The safeguarding of biodiversity and its processes (often referred to as Biodiversity
Conservat ion).
Delineation Refers to the technique of establishing the boundary of a resource such as a wetland
or riparian area.
Drain
In the context of wetlands, refers to a natural or art ificial feature such as a ditch or
t rench created for the purpose of removing surface and sub-surface water from an
area (commonly used in agriculture).
Ecosystem
An ecosystem is essent ially a working natural system, maintained by internal ecological
processes, relationships and interactions between the biot ic (plants & animals) and the non-liv ing or abiotic environment (e.g. soil, atmosphere). Ecosystems can operate at
different scales, from very small (e.g. a small wetland pan) to large landscapes (e.g. an ent ire water catchment area).
Erosion (gulley)
Erosion is the process by which soil and rock are removed from the Earth's surface by
natural processes such as wind or water flow, and then transported and deposited in other locations. While erosion is a natural process, human activities have dramatically increased the rate at which erosion is occurring globally. Erosion gullies are erosive channels formed by the action of concentrated surface runoff.
Habitat The general features of an area inhabited by animal or plant which are essent ial to its
survival (i.e. the natural “home” of a plant or animal species).
Indigenous Naturally occurring or “native” to a broad area, such as South Africa in this context.
Invasive alien species
Invasive alien species means any non-indigenous plant or animal species whose
establishment and spread outside of its natural range threatens natural ecosystems, habitats or other species or has the potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species.
Limnetic >2m maximum inundation depth at low water
Littoral <2m maximum inundation depth at low water
Red Data Book or Red
List
Provides information on the status of threatened species: endangered species are
most at risk of ext inct ion, followed by rare and vulnerable species
Systematic conservation plan
An approach to conservat ion that priorit ises actions by sett ing quantitat ive targets for biodiversity features such as broad habitat units or vegetat ion types. It is premised on conserving a representative sample of biodiversity pattern, including species and
habitats (the principle of representat ion), as well as the ecological and evolut ionary processes that maintain biodiversity over t ime (the principle of persistence).
Threatened ecosystem In the context of this document, refers to Critically Endangered, Endangered and
Vulnerable ecosystems.
Threat Statu s
Threat status (of a species or community type) is a simple but highly integrated
indicator of vulnerability. It contains information about past loss (of numbers and / or
habitat), the number and intensity of threats, and current prospects as indicated by recent population growth or decline. Any one of these metrics could be used to
measure vulnerability. One much used example of a threat status classificat ion system is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (BBOP, 2009).
Transformation (habitat
loss)
Refers to the destruct ion and clearing an area of its indigenous vegetat ion, resulting in
loss of natural habitat. In many instances, this can and has led to the partial or
complete breakdown of natural ecological processes.
Water course
Means a river or spring; a natural channel in which water flows regularly or
intermittently: a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows: und any collect ion 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 (National Water Act, 1998).
Wetland
Refers to land which is transit ional 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 vegetat ion typically adapted to life in saturated soil (NWA, 1998).
Wetland Type This is a combination between wetland vegetation group and Level 4 of the National
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
iv
Wetland Classificat ion System, which describes the Landform of the wetland.
Wetland Vegetation
Group
Broad wetland vegetation groupings reflect differences in regional context such as
geology, soils and climate, which in turn affect the ecological characterist ics and functionality of wetlands.
ABBREVIATIONS USED
CARA Conservat ion of Agricultural Resources Act No. 43 of 1983
CR Critically Endangered (threat status)
DEARD Department of Env ironment, Agriculture and Rural Development
DEAT Department of Env ironmental A ffairs & Tourism (now DEA)
DWA Department of Water A ffairs (formerly DWAF)
EKZNW Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife: as defined in Act 9 of 1997 to be the KZN Nature
Conservat ion Service
EN Endangered (threat status)
FEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area
FSCP Freshwater Systematic Conservat ion Plan
FW Facultat ive wetland species - usually grow in wetlands (67-99% occurrence) but
occasionally found in non-wetland areas
GIS Geographical Information Systems
GPS Global Positioning System
HGM Hydro-Geomorphic (unit)
IAPs Invasive Alien Plants
KZN Province of KwaZulu-Natal
LT Least Threatened (threat status)
NEMA National Environmental Management Act No.107 of 1998
NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No.10 of 2004
NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority A reas, identified to meet national freshwater
conservation targets (CSIR, 2011)
NT Near Threatened (threat status)
NWA National Water Act No.36 of 1998
Ow Obligate wetland species
PES Present Ecological State, referring to the current state or condit ion of an environmental resource in terms of its characteristics and reflecting change from its reference condit ion.
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Inst itute
TSCP Terrestrial systematic conservat ion plan
VU Vulnerable (threat status)
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
A new industrial development has been proposed in the Bayhead area of eThekwini Municipality, in the vicinity
of the Durban Harbour. The proposed development is west of the Durban harbour and north of the confluence
of the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana canals (Figure 1, below). Golder are preparing the Env ironmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for the planned development and sub-contracted Eco-Pulse Consulting to investigate any
potential wetland habitat and triggers for the EIA and to determine whether there are any Water Use Licensing
(WUL) requirements associated with the planned development.
Figure 1 Map showing the location of study site (outlined in ‘red’) in relation to the Durban Harbour and the
Umbilo and Mhlatuzana canals.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
Eco-Pulse undertook a freshwater wetland/aquatic assessment in 2017 to inform and EIA and WULA for another
development project (NAPOT) in the Bayhead area. As part of this assessment, potential wetland areas within
a 500m radius of the development site in 2017 were flagged as part of a desktop screening exercise. This study
and exercise identified potential wetland habitat in an area to the south of the development site (shown as a
‘blue’ marker on the map in Figure 1), however the potential ‘wetland’ was never verified in the field as there
Durban Harbour
Umbilo canal
Mhlatuzana
canal
Development
Site
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
2
was no risk of impact or triggering water use for the NAPOT development project assessed by Eco-Pulse had
identified an area of wetland habitat to the south of the proposed development footprint at a desktop level.
Golder subsequently approached Eco-Pulse in January 2019 on behalf of the client/developer, to ground-truth
and verify whether the potential ‘wetland’ identified by Eco-Pulse is indeed a wetland or not, and to delineate
the extent of the wetland habitat, if it were present at the site. This exercise was undertaken and reported on by
Eco-Pulse in January 2019. Golder then approached Eco-Pulse to rev isit the site to undertake a second wetland
verification and ground-truthing exercise to confirm the presence and nature of potential ‘wetland’ habitat to
the west of the site and existing railway line and to the south (off site) to further inform EIA and WULA
requirements.
This report presents the finding of both the initial and follow-up wetland verification and delineation
assessments, as well as the results of an Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) assessment that was carried
out on each delineated wetland unit (no PES undertaken as wetland habitat was confirmed to be ‘artificial’ in
nature). A screening exercise was also undertaken by Eco-Pulse to assess the likelihood of the new planned
industrial development impacting on surrounding watercourses and to inform the need for a Water Use License
Application (WULA) for the development project.
1.3 Scope of Work
The aim of the specialist wetland verification and delineation study was to verify the presence of any wetlands
at site, to delineate the boundary of any wetlands encountered and to undertake a ‘impact/risk likelihood
screening assessment of all watercourses (includes rivers, riparian areas and wetlands) within the DWS
‘regulated area’ for Section 21 (c) and (i) wetland water use licensing (i.e. within a 500m radius of the
development site). This was done according to the follow scope of work:
1. Infield field verification of the outer boundary of key ‘focal area’ wetlands (where water use is likely to
be triggered) according to the methods and techniques contained in ‘A Practical Field Procedure for
Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005).
2. Desktop identification, delineation/mapping of all watercourses (includes rivers, riparian areas and
wetlands) within a DWS 500m radius of the property (i.e. regulated area for wetland water use).
3. Undertaking an assessment of the present Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of the delineated
watercourse units.
4. ‘Impact/risk likelihood’ screening assessment of all watercourses (includes rivers, riparian areas and
wetlands) within the DWS ‘regulated area’ for Section 21 (c) and (i) wetland water use licensing (i.e.
within a 500m radius of the development site).
5. Discussion of environmental authorisation processes and licensing/permitting requirements in terms of
WULA guidelines and the likely implications for development.
6. Description any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge, as well as Identifying
the need for any future specialist inputs should these be deemed relevant to the project.
7. Reporting: Compilation of a brief Wetland V erification & Delineation Study Report with initial
recommendations.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
3
2. METHODS
A summary of the methods used in this wetland verification and delineation study has been included below.
2.1 Wetland Verification and Delineation
The methods outlined in ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Ident ificat ion and Delineat ion of Wetland and Riparian
Areas’ (DWAF, 2005) were used to verify and delineate wetlands on site. Three specific wetland indicators were
used: terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness indicator.
2.1.1 Terrain Unit Indicator
A practical index used for identify ing those parts of the landscape where wetlands are likely to occur based on
the general topography of the area (primarily at low points in the landscape where water collects).
2.1.2 Vegetation Indicator
Vegetation in an untransformed state is a useful guide in finding the boundary of a wetland as plant
communities generally undergo distinct changes in species composition as one proceeds along the wetness
gradient from the centre of a wetland towards adjacent terrestrial areas. An example of criteria used to classify
wetland vegetation and inform the delineation of wetlands is provided in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Criteria used to inform the delineation of wetland habitat based on wetland vegetation (adapted from
Macfarlane et al., 2008 and DWAF, 2005).
SYMBOL HYDRIC STATUS1 DESCRIPTION/OCCURRENCE
Ow Obligate wetland species Almost always grow in wetlands (>90% occurrence)
Fw (or F+) Facultat ive wetland species Usually grow in wetlands (67-99% occurrence) but occasionally
found in non-wetland areas
F Facultat ive species Equally likely to grow in wetlands (34-66% occurrence) and non-
wetland areas
Fd (or F-) Facultat ive dry-land species Usually grow in non-wetland areas but sometimes grow in
wetlands (1-34% occurrence)
D Dryland species Almost always grow in drylands
2.1.3 Soil Wetness Indicator
According to the wetland definition used in the National Water Act (NWA, 1998), vegetation is the primary
indicator which must be present under normal circumstances. However, in practice the soil wetness indicator
(informed by investigating the top 50cm of wetland topsoil) tends to be the most important, and the other three
indicators are used to refine the assessment. The reason for this is that vegetation responds relatively quickly to
changes in soil moisture and may be transformed by local impacts, whereas soil morphological indicators are
1 Hydric status: A classificat ion of plants according to occurrence in wetlands and can be useful in determining whether the
habitat at a site is wetland/riparian based on the status of dominant species occurring in terms of species affinity for wet or dry soil condit ions.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
4
far more permanent and will retain signs of frequent saturation (wetland conditions) long after a wetland has
been transformed/drained (DWAF, 2005).
Thus, the on-site assessment of wetland indicators focused largely on using soil wetness indicators, determined
through soil sampling with a Dutch soil auger. Vegetation and topography were used as secondary wetland
indicators.
A Munsell Soil Colour Chart was used to ascertain soil colour values including hue, colour value and matrix
chroma as well as degree of mottling in order to inform the identification of wetland (hydric) soils. Soil sampling
points were recorded using a GPS (Global Positioning System) and captured using Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) for further processing. An example of soil criteria used to assess the presence of wetland soils is
prov ided below in Table 2, while Figure 2 provides a conceptual overv iew of soil and vegetation characteristics
across the different wetness zones.
Table 2. Soil criteria used to inform wetland delineation using soil wetness as an indicator (after DWAF, 2005).
Soil depth Temporary wetness zone Seasonal wetness zone Permanent wetness zone
0 – 10cm
Matrix chroma: 1- 3
(Grey matrix <10%)
Mottles: Few/None high chroma
mott les
Organic Matter: Low
Sulphidic: No
Matrix chroma : 0- 2
(Grey matrix >10%)
Mottles: Many low chroma
mottles
Organic Matter: Medium
Sulphidic: Seldom
Matrix chroma: 0- 1
(Prominent grey matrix)
Mottles: Few/None high chroma
mott les
Organic Matter: High
Sulphidic: Often
30 – 50cm
Matrix chroma: 0 – 2
Mottles: Few/Many
As Above
As Above
Figure 2 Diagram representing the different zones of wetness found within a wetland (source: DWAF, 2005).
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
5
2.2 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) Assessment
"Ecological importance" of a water resource is an expression of its importance to the maintenance of
ecological diversity and functioning on local and wider scales (Duthie, 1999). Therefore, ecological importance
encompasses the role water resources play in maintaining biodiversity as well as the importance of regulating
and supporting functions / services for maintaining and buffering freshwater ecosy stems. "Ecological sensitivity"
refers to the sy stem’s ability to resist disturbance and its capability to recover from disturbance once it has
occurred (Duthie, 1999). As an overarching measure of the importance of an ecosy stem, EIS prov ides a
guideline for determination of the Ecological Management Class (EMC) (Duthie, 1999).
The ecological importance and sensitiv ity of wetland ecosystems was assessed using a Wetland EIS (Ecological
Importance and Sensitivity ) assessment tool developed by Eco-Pulse Consulting (2017). The Eco-Pulse Wetland
EIS tool includes an assessment of the following components:
• Biodiversity maintenance supply (informed by biodiversity noteworthiness and ecological viability of
the habitat);
• Biodiversity maintenance demand (at a regional/national scale); and
• Sensitiv ity of the water resource (i.e. Biota, floods, low flows, sediment, water quality , erosion risk and
edge disturbances).
The maximum score for these components was taken as the importance rating for the wetland which is rated
using Table 3, below.
Table 3. Rating table used to rate EIS (Eco-Pulse, 2017).
EIS Score EIS Rating
>3.4 Very High
3.0 - 3.4 High
2.5 - 2.9 Moderately-High
1.6 - 2.4 Moderate
1.1 - 1.5 Moderately-Low
0.6 - 1.0 Low
<0.6 Very Low
2.3 Desktop Mapping and ‘Likelihood of Impact’ Screening
Following the infield wetland verification and delineation exercise a desktop ‘likelihood of impact’ screening
assessment for all watercourses within 500m of the proposed development was undertaken. This was done in
order to confirm if any watercourses were likely to be negatively affected by the proposed development (at
risk). This assessment involved the desktop mapping of all watercourse units within 500m (this pertains to then
DWS ‘Regulated Area’ for Section 21 c & i Water Use) of the proposed development activities and assigning a
likelihood of impact rating to each of these watercourse units (as per Table 3).
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
6
2.3.1 Desktop Mapping
The desktop delineation of all watercourses (rivers / riparian zones and wetlands) within 500m of the proposed
development / activ ities was undertaken by analy sing available digital elevation contours and colour aerial
photography supplemented by Google EarthTM imagery where more up to date imagery was needed.
Digitization and mapping were undertaken using QGIS 2.10 GIS software. All mapped watercourses were then
broadly subdivided into distinct resource units (i.e. classif ied as either riverine or wetland sy stems/habitat). This
was undertaken based on aerial photographic analysis and professional experience in working in the region.
2.3.2 ‘Likelihood of Impact’ Screening Assessment
Following the desktop identification and mapping exercise, watercourses were assigned preliminary ‘likelihood
of impact’ ratings based on the likelihood that activities associated with the proposed development will result in
measurable direct or indirect changes to the mapped watercourse units within 500m of the proposed
development. Each watercourse unit was ascribed a qualitative rating according to the ratings and
descriptions provided in Table 3, below.
Table 4. Qualitative ‘likelihood of impact’ ratings and descriptions.
Likelihood of
Impact Description of Rating Guidelines
Likely
These resources are likely to require impact assessment and a Water Use License in terms of Sect ion 21 (c) &
(i) of the National Water Act for the following reasons:
resources located within the footprint of the proposed development activity and will definitely be
impacted by the project; and/or
resources located within 15m upstream and/or upslope of the proposed development act iv ity and
trigger requirements for Environmental Authorisat ion according to the NEMA: EIA regulat ions; and/or
resources located within 15m or downslope of the development and trigger requirements for
Environmental Authorisat ion according to the NEMA: EIA regulat ions; and/or
resources located downstream within the following parameters:
o within 15m downstream of a low risk development;
o within 50m downstream of a moderate risk development; and/or
o within 100m downstream of a high-risk development e.g. mining, large industrial land uses.
Possible
These resources may require impact assessment and a Water Use License in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i) of the
National Water Act for the following reasons:
resources located within 32m but greater than 15m upstream, upslope or downslope of the proposed
development; and/or
resources located within a range at which they are likely to incur indirect impacts associated with the development (such as water pollution, sedimentat ion and erosion) based on development land use
intensity and development area. This is generally resources located downstream within the following parameters:
o within 32m downstream of a low risk development;
o within 100m downstream of a moderate risk development; and/or
o within 500m downstream of a high-risk development (note that the extent of the affected area downstream could be greater than 500m for high risk developments or developments that have extensive water quality and flow impacts e.g. dams / abstract ion and treatment plants);
Unlikely
These resources are unlikely to require impact assessment or Water Use License in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i)
of the National Water Act for the following reasons:
resources located a distance upstream, upslope or downslope (>32m) of the proposed development
and which are unlikely to be impacted by the development project; and/or
resources located downstream but well beyond the range at which they are likely to incur impacts
associated with the development (such as water pollut ion, sedimentation and erosion). This is generally
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
7
Likelihood of
Impact Description of Rating Guidelines
resources located downstream within the following parameters:
o greater than 32m downstream of a low risk development;
o greater than 100m downstream of a moderate risk development; and/or
o greater than 500m downstream of a high-risk development (note that the extent of the
affected area downstream could be greater than 500m for high risk developments or developments that have extensive water quality and flow impacts e.g. dams / abstract ion and treatment plants);
None
These resources will not require impact assessment or a Water Use License in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i) of the National Water Act for the following reasons:
resources located within another adjacent sub-catchment and which will not be impacted by the
development in any way, shape or form.
2.4 Assumptions and Limitations
The following limitations and assumptions apply to the studies undertaken for this report:
• This report deals exclusively with a defined area and the extent and nature of wetlands/aquatic
ecosystems in that area.
• The field delineation and wetland assessment were undertaken in summer (January & March 2018) and
therefore does not cover the seasonal variation in conditions at the site. Most wetland plants were flowering
at the time of the assessment however, and wetland soils are not seasonally dependent, hence the
seasonality of the assessment has little influence on the outcomes of the delineation study, if any.
• With ecology being dynamic and complex, there is the likelihood that some aspects (some of which may
be important) may have been overlooked.
• Sampling by its nature, means that generally not all aspects of ecosy stems can be assessed and identified.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
8
3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
3.1 Background Information
A review of historic orthophoto’s taken in 1937 and 1944 (see Figures 3 & 4, below) suggests that the site of
the proposed industrial development and ‘potential wetland’ identified by Eco-Pulse in 2017 was once a
functional estuarine or intertidal swamp forest or mangrove forest comprised of typical sub-tropical coastal
estuarine swamp forest/mangrove species such as Avicennia marina, Brugiuera gymnorrhiza, Barringtonia
racemosa, Rhizophora mucronata and Hibiscus t iliaceus. In the 1937 photo (Figure 3), the Mhlatuzana and
Umbilo River were flowing naturally. However, by 1944 (Figure 4) the lower Umbilo River had been canalized
and diverted to join the artificially realigned, straightened and canalized Mhlatuzana River. The Umbilo and
Mhlatuzana Rivers were likely altered to facilitate the development of the Durban Harbour and other
associated infrastructure and industries.
Figure 3 Historical imagery (aerial photography) of the study area in the v icinity of the development site
taken in 1937.
Diverted flows and the canalization of the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers in the 1940’s had altered vital fluvial
processes necessary to support a functioning estuarine or intertidal wetland system. Added to this, pressure
from development and urbanization led to the removal natural swamp forest/mangrove vegetation from the
area. As a result, the area surrounding the proposed industrial development no longer functions as a tidally-
influenced wetland system or a wetland system linked to the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers with not visible
signs of remnant estuarine / swamp / mangrove forest vegetation communities.
Estimated location of proposed
development
1937
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
9
Figure 4 Historical imagery (aerial photography) of the study area in the v icinity of the development site
taken in 1944.
3.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation
Wetlands and rivers on the property were identified and delineated in the field according to the Department
of Water Affairs wetland delineation manual ‘A Pract ical Field Procedure for Ident ification and Delineat ion of
Wet land and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005). Three specific wetland indicators were used to verify the
presence of wetland habitat, including: terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness indicator
(these wetland indicators are described in detail in the ‘Methods’ found in Chapter 2 of this report). Detail for
each of the three indicators is prov ided below.
The wetland verification and delineation assessment ultimately confirmed the presence of one (1) ‘artificial’
wetland to the west of the proposed development property (Figure 5).
A second ‘artificial’ wetland exists to the south of the site (Figure 5). This wetland was identified and
delineated by Eco-Pulse in 2017 as part of work done for another development project (NAPOT) in the
Bayhead area. Although this unit was not included in the rigorous field verification process in 2017, it was re-
visited in March 2019 to confirm its status and EIS (Ecological Importance & Sensitiv ity).
Estimated location
of proposed
development
1944
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
10
Figure 5 Map showing the ‘artificial’ wetland habitat located to the south (Wetland 01) and west (Wetland
02) of the proposed development property.
3.2.1 Terrain Unit Indicator
Available 2m interval elevation contours of the study area highlighted a two (2) obv ious depression in the
landscape to the south and west of the proposed development footprint (see map in Figure 6). Given the high
level of disturbance in the area these depressions are likely to be of anthropogenic origin. Depressions can be,
but are not always, associated with wetland habitat as these areas are ideal settings for the collection of water
at low points in the landscape. Given the potential likelihood of wetlands forming in low-lying areas such as
depressions, the area to the south (Focal Site 01) and west (Focal Site 02) of the proposed development
became focal sites for the wetland verification exercise (see Figure 6).
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
11
Figure 6 Map of the study area with 2m elevation contours highlighting the presence of a depression in the
landscape to the south (01) and west (02) of the proposed development site.
3.2.2 Vegetation Indicator
Vegetation is usually a principle indicator of wetland habitat, with the presence of wetland plants or
‘hydrophytes’ typically suggesting the presence of water-saturated soils (for at least a period of 2 weeks of the
year) and generally associated with wetlands. Field surveys of the vegetation were undertaken by Eco-Pulse in
January 2019 (Site 01) and March 2019 (Site 02).
Focal Site 01
The field assessment of Focal Site 01 revealed that the entire area (development footprint and area to the
south) was disturbed and dominated by dense alien vegetation (see photo ‘a’, below), resembling an invaded
coastal bushland community comprising mixed woody and herbaceous invasive alien and indigenous pioneers
and weed species of plants. Signs of historic infilling were apparent, with fill material encountered at various
depths during sampling.
Whilst some of the species sampled were typical ‘Facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in
wetlands and terrestrial environments) such as Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum and Commelina
benghalensis, these were found to be mainly invasive alien plants that are known to invade terrestrial
forest/bushlands and wetland environments, and as such there presence cannot be assumed to indicate
Subtle
Depressions
Site 02
Site 01
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
12
wetland presence (these are poor wetland indicator species). The indigenous species occurring at the site,
such as St relitzia nicolai and Brachylaena discolour, are typical of pioneer coastal forest / coastal bush
(terrestrial habitat) and do not typically occurr in wetland habitat. A list of the dominant plant species noted at
Site 01 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric status’ of each species, is presented in Table 4.
Photo (a): Typical alien bushland vegetation community at Site 01.
Table 5. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 01 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text.
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status2
Tit honia diversifolia Mexican Sunflower Fd
Ricinus communis Castor-Oil Plant D
Penniset um purpureum Napier Grass F
Morus alba Mulberry T ree Fd
Lant ana camara Common Lantana Fd
Chromolaena odorata Triffid Weed D
Commelina benghalensis Bhengal Wandering Jew F
Urt ica urens St inging Nett le F
Schinus t erebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Tree Fd
Melia azedarach Syringa T ree Fd
Ipomoea purpurea Common Morning Glory D
Ipomoea indica Indigo flower D
Ipomoea alba Moonflower D
Solanum chrysot richum Dev il’s Fig Fd
Canna indica Indian Shot F
Conyza sp Fleabane Fd
Commelina africana Yellow Commelina D
Commelina erecta Forest Commelina D
Ficus sur Cluster Fig F
Senecio tamoides Canary Creeper Fd
2 Hydric status: A classification of plants according to occurrence in wetlands and can be useful in determining whether the
habitat at a site is wetland/riparian based on the status of dominant species occurring in terms of species affinity for wet or dry soil condit ions.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
13
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status2
Strelit zia nicolai Natal Wild Banana D
Brachylaena discolour Coastal Silver Oak D
Panicum maximum Guinea Grass Fd
Focal Site 02
The field assessment of Site 02 revealed that the depression area is dominated by the Common Reed,
Phragmites aust ralis, an indigenous ‘Obligate’ wetland plant species (see photo ‘b’). Several other
‘Facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in wetlands and terrestrial env ironments) were noted
at the site. Many of these are known invasive alien species. A list of the dominant plant species noted at Site 02
during the site v isit, including the estimated ‘hydric status’ of each species, is presented in Table 6.
Photo (b): Phragmites aust ralis dominated ’reedland’ vegetation community at Site 02.
Table 6. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 02 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text.
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status3
Lantana camara Common Lantana Fd
Commelina benghalensis Bhengal Wandering Jew F
Urt ica urens St inging Nettle F
Ipomoea purpurea Common Morning Glory D
Ipomoea indica Indigo flower D
Ipomoea alba Moonflower D
Canna indica Indian Shot F
Arundo donax Spanish Reed F
Panicum maximum Guinea Grass Fd
Phragmit es aust ralis Common Reed O
Cyclosorus int errupt us Marsh Fern F
3 Hydric status: A classificat ion of plants according to occurrence in wetlands and can be useful in determining whether the
habitat at a site is wetland/riparian based on the status of dominant species occurring in terms of species affinity for wet or dry soil condit ions.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
14
3.2.3 Soil Wetness Indicator
According to the wetland definition used in the National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (NWA, 1998), whilst
vegetation is the primary indicator of wetland habitat which must be present under normal circumstances, in
practice the soil wetness indicator tends to be the most important because vegetation responds relatively
quickly to changes in soil moisture and may be transformed by local impacts (which is the case for much of the
site sampled); whereas soil morphological indicators are far more permanent and will retain the signs of
frequent saturation (wetland conditions) long after a wetland has been transformed (DWAF, 2005).
The upper most 50cm of the soil profile was sampled at various locations around Focal Sites 01 and 02 (Figure 7).
Samples were obtained using a standard Dutch-type auger. A Munsell Soil Colour Chart was used to ascertain
soil colour values including hue, colour value and matrix chroma as well as degree of mottling in order to inform
the identification of wetland (hydric) soils.
Figure 7 Map showing the location of soil sampling undertaken at the site in the v icinity of focal assessment areas 01 and 02 to the south and west of the development site.
Results of Soil Sampling to inform the Wetland Delineation at Focal Site 01
Soils sampled across at Site 01 were generally brown in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 6 and Chroma
of 4) with a high sand content (Photo ‘c’). The sandy brown soils did not display signs of wetness, indicating that
these are terrestrial or dryland soils (non-wetland). Soils were relatively homogenous across Site 01. Signs of
Site 02
Site 01
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
15
historic excavations and infilling were also apparent across the site sampled, with fill material encountered at
various depths during sampling.
Across most of the sampled area at Site 01, a layer of dark black/slate coloured material was observed
overlying the sandy layer of sediment, up to a depth of between 10 – 50cm (Photo ‘d’). At first glance, this dark
soil horizon could be mistaken for being a typical gleyed ‘wetland soil’. However, upon closer inspection this
layer was identified as a layer of burnt organic material resembling a type of ash. This is likely to have been an
organic layer that built up under the former estuarine environment that once probably characterised the site
which became desiccated (dried up) with the construction of the Durban harbour and Bayhead area as the
site was disconnected from the former estuarine functional zone. Under the terrestrialised and desiccated
conditions, the organic layer then burnt over time (historic fires possibly associated with ‘slash and burn’
management of the vegetation at the site) to create an ashy, burnt organic soil horizon. Essentially, the soils at
Site 01 displayed no visible signs of wetness and the site is determined to be terrestrial and not indicative of
wetland habitat.
Photo (c): Typical sandy brown terrestrial soil sampled. Photo (d): Dark grey/black burnt soil horizon noted at various locations.
Results of Soil Sampling to inform the Wetland Delineation at Focal Site 02
Soils sampled at Site 02 were generally grey in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 5 and Chroma of 1) and
had a sandy texture (Photo ‘e’). Faint orange mottles were present in the soil profile. The grey soil matrix and the
presence of mottles in the soil profile are a result of the soil profile being sufficiently saturated such that
anaerobic conditions prevail, which leads to the reduction of iron from its oxidised state, which is soluble in
water. The soils at Site 02 can be considered typical of ‘temporary’ wetland soils, and combined with the
vegetation indicator, confirmed that wetland habitat is present west of the existing railway line west of the
proposed development site.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
16
Photo (e): Typical ‘temporary ’ wetland soil sampled at Site 02.
3.3 Classification of Wetlands
Wetlands identified and delineated within the vicinity of the proposed development site were classified in
accordance with the National Wetland Classification Guidelines (Ollis et al., 2013). In their present state,
both wetlands 01 and 02 can be classified as ‘artificial’ wetlands4 and resemble depressions that have
formed as a result of storm water runoff concentrating on the platform developed to the south of the site
and within a low-lying area between the railway lines located west of the development site.
In order to determine whether the wetlands assessed are artificial or a natural feature of the landscape, the
following needs to be taken into account:
1. The historical reference state of the watercourse which has been established as far as possible through
historical imagery/photography;
2. On-site evidence of wetland habitat established through soil and vegetation sampling; and
3. The onsite impacts that have altered the template, nature and functioning of the watercourse.
From a legal perspective, wetlands are covered specifically in National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (NWA) and
the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA), with the definition of a wetland taken
from the NWA of 1998 referring to “…land which is t ransitional between terrest rial and aquat ic 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 t ypically adapted to life in saturated
soil“. Here an important distinction needs to be made to land which under “normal circumstances” would
support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil (i.e. wetland/aquatic vegetation or hydrophytes)
4 The term ‘natural’ when applied to ecosystems such as wetlands, generally refers to an ecosystem that exists in or is derived from a natural process or processes and is not man-made or caused by human/anthropogenic act ions. ‘Artificial’ thus refers to a system that has been produced by humans or human actions rather than naturally occurring.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
17
and where conditions or circumstances are ‘not normal’ or ‘artificially’ created or modified due to human
activ ities or actions. Here one’s interpretation of the definition of ‘wetland’ in the National Water Act (1998) is
critical, and the wetland ecologist from Eco-Pulse has interpreted this to mean that if circumstances are ‘not
normal’ at a site (for example, due to runoff from a road or hardened platform leading to increased saturation
of soils or standing water where wetland plants have become established artificially) then the definition would
not apply and the ‘wetland’ would be deemed to be artificial in nature (i.e. not resulting from a ‘natural’
process of formation).
It has been deduced based on the on-site investigations and assessment undertaken by Eco-Pulse Consulting,
that under ‘normal circumstances’ the wetlands would likely have been wooded mangrove habitat forming
part of the broader estuary at Durban Bay, which has since been infilled and modified completely. Freshwater
wetland habitat would have been absent. The resulting modified area is thus a hardened gravel platform to
the south of the development site where wetland 01 is located, and a modified/infilled low-lying area between
the two railway lines located west of the site where wetland 02 is located.
Where a ‘natural’ salt water mangrove/marsh was likely present at the site in the past (which historical accounts
and photography suggests), this is no longer ev ident at the site based on the sampling undertaken, with the
vegetation hav ing seen significant modification and adaptation to the new site conditions. Circumstances
now are no longer ‘normal’ (as per the definition of a wetland in terms of the NWA, 1998) due to modifications
associated with infilling, topographical changes, channel diversions and storm water runoff from hardened
surfaces.
The ‘remaining’ extent of seepage wetland found to occur at the southern edge of the property also appears
to be a recent feature of the landscape and resulting from the deposition of soils transported and deposited
downstream from the upstream eroded watercourse and adjacent unstable banks. Whether this habitat is
entirely artificial or simply has become a more permanent feature of the landscape superimposed onto an
existing wetland surface) remains uncertain and cannot be easily established without having access to baseline
data for the study area prior to the level of modification of the catchment and bay area over the last 50+ years.
Note that in terms of the definition of a ‘watercourse’, this is found also in the National Water Act of 1998, which
refers to “a river or spring; a natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittent ly: a wetland, lake or
dam into which, or from which, water flows: and any collect ion 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”. Here no distinction is made between artificial or natural wetlands.
3.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES)
It is important to note that only wetlands perceived to be ‘natural’ in terms of their origin can be assessed in
terms of PES using established assessment methods which rely on there being a ‘reference’ state’ from which to
compare dev iations from. Since the ‘artificial’ wetlands identified for the area of study do not have a natural
‘reference state’, the PES of both wetland units could not be formally established.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
18
3.5 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) Assessment
The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Wetland Units W01 and W02 was rated using the Wetland
EIS tool developed by Eco-Pulse (2017). For both units, a relatively low EIS rating was assigned which can be
attributed to the artificial nature of both wetland units, their small size, limited functioning or biodiversity value
and their generally disturbed state (Table 7, below).
Table 7. Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit.
Unit ID HGM Type Ecological
Importance (0 – 4) Ecological
Sensitivity (0 – 4) EIS Score
(0 – 4) EIS Rating
W01 Art ificial Wetland 0.50 0.50 0.5 Very Low
W02 Art ificial Wetland 0.85 0.41 0.85 Low
4. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NEMA
The latest applicable National Environmental Management Act (NEMA): Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) Regulations of 2014 (as per Government Notice No. 38282 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 4 December 2014) (as
amended in 2017 in terms of Government Notice No. 40772 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 7 April 2017) were
rev iewed in order to ascertain potential triggers for wetland impacts in terms of the Listed Activities outlined in
the regulations. Where development triggers a ‘Listed Activity’, this will generally indicate that an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Basic Assessment will need to be undertaken and environmental
authorisation will be required from the relevant environmental authority/department before development on
the property may commence.
Due to the development footprint not directly or indirectly impacting on wetlands (no infilling or extraction) and
with wetland being located more than 32m from the boundary of the site based on the site investigation and
wetland verification undertaken by Eco-Pulse, no listed activities are associated with the development and
wetland ecosystems. Note that EIA listed activ ities in terms of vegetation transformation, etc., were not
assessed, with the focus being purely on wetlands.
5. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NWA AND WATER USE
LICENSING
Chapter 4 and Section 21 of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) lists certain activities for which water uses
must be licensed, unless its use is excluded. There are several reasons why water users are required to register
and license their water uses with the Department of Water & Sanitation (DWS). The most important reasons
being: (i) to manage and control water resources for planning and development; (ii) to protect water resources
against over-use, damage and impacts and (iii) to ensure fair allocation of water among users.
To inform the water use licensing requirements for the development project, a mapping and screening exercise
was undertaken for watercourses occurring within a 500m radius of the proposed development [i.e. within the
DWS regulated area for Section 21 (c) and/or (i) water uses] to determine whether watercourses (wetlands,
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
19
rivers) stand to be measurably impacted by the development project or stand to trigger Section 21 (c) and/or
(i) water use.
5.1 Identification & Mapping of Watercourses
All watercourses occurring within a 500m radius of the proposed development [i.e. within the DWS regulated
area for Section 21 (c) and/or (i) water uses] were mapped at a desktop level, verified in the field and classified
in terms of their Hydro Geomorphic (HGM) type in accordance with the national wetland/river classification
define by Ollis et al. (2013). This was done using a GIS (Geographical Information Systems) software through
analy sis of available aerial images (Google EarthTM and historic aerial photography), elevation contours and
existing wetland and river coverages for the area.
5.2 ‘Likelihood of Impact’, Risk and Water Use Screening
Two (2) artificial wetlands and the Durban Bay area (modified estuary ) were identified within a 500m radius of
the proposed development activity (shown mapped in Figure 8).
Figure 8 Map showing delineated, mapped and classif ied watercourses within the DWS regulated area for
Section 21 c & i water use (i.e. within a 500m radius of the proposed development site).
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
20
The risk of impacting adjacent and downstream wetlands was considered in terms of:
1. Potential risk of incurring direct impacts on watercourses: potentially associated with crossing or infilling
wetland habitat and disturbance of wetland soils or impeding/diverting flows of water; and
2. Potential risk of incurring indirect impacts on watercourses: potentially associated with polluting
watercourses, affecting surface water runoff to wetlands and resulting in potential soil erosion.
The potential risk of impact was assessed qualitatively based on a number of factors, including:
1) Topographical location of wetlands in the landscape relative to the infrastructure planned and the
position, orientation and nature of potential surface runoff flow paths towards wetland areas; and
2) Potential impact mitigation and management controls that could eliminate the risk of indirectly
affecting wetland characteristics.
DIRECT IMPACT POTENTIAL:
In terms of direct impacts, since there are no wetlands located within the development area or footprint, there
is no risk of direct impacts to artificial wetland habitat and vegetation/soils occurring.
INDIRECT IMPACT POTENTIAL:
In terms of indirect impacts, risk posed by storm water runoff and potential pollution sources was assessed
qualitatively . The site of the proposed development has been disconnected (hydrologically) from the
catchment area of the Durban Harbor / Bay (which is essentially a modified estuary ) as well as the artificial
wetlands to the west and south of the site (i.e. wetland units W01 & W02). Although the wetland to the west of
the site (W02) is within relatively close-proximity to the western boundary of the proposed development (>35m
away), an elevated railway line embankment exists between the wetland unit and the property in question and
this embankment is currently acting as an impeding feature, such that the development property area and the
artificial wetland are in fact not hydrologically linked. Therefore, there is no risk of impacting wetlands
hydrologically as storm water will be contained within the development site and likely discharged in a
controlled fashion into the artificial canal east of the property leading towards the Durban Bay area / harbor.
The risk of indirectly contaminating wetlands with potential pollutants stored and handled at the development
site during its construction and operation (e.g. oils and fuels) is also expected to be negligible so far as best-
practice controls are implemented and the site is lined with a suitable containment barrier / hard layer to
prevent the migration of any contaminated runoff to the adjacent aquatic environment or ground water.
It can be concluded that there is no risk of the development impacting on the artificial wetlands in the study
area and also that 21 (c) and (i) water uses are not triggered by the proposed development as there is will be
no impeding/diverting of flows or alterations/modifications that could affect watercourse characteristics. This is
however based on the following conditions being met by the developer:
1. Existing access roads will be used by vehicles and labour and no new services/roads infrastructure will
be planned across or close to wetlands mapped;
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
21
2. Any temporary construction site camps / equipment or machinery storage or lay-down areas will not be
located near wetland areas;
3. The development will be underlain by a suitable impermeable layer that will prevent the migration of
any pollutants/contaminants into the ground water aquifer at the site and surrounds; and
4. Storm water runoff will not be directed into the wetlands delineated.
Wetland W01 is located more than 300m from the development site whilst the distance from the development
boundary to wetland W02 is at least 35m. This is generally considered to be a suitable distance and buffer zone
to reduce risk of impact to both wetlands, with a recommended wetland buffer width of 20-30m typically
recommended for the project.
6. CONCLUSION
Two (2) ‘artif icial’ depression-type wetlands were identified in the v icinity of the proposed development
property, one located immediately west of the railway lines to the west of the development site and a second
located a considerable distance south of the site on an existing gravel platform. PES could not be established
for the artificial wetlands due to their being no ‘reference’ state, with wetland EIS considered to be low.
Eco-Pulse concluded that there is no risk of directly impacting the wetlands and where carefully managed and
avoided during construction and operation, both wetlands are unlikely to be impacted indirectly. Due to the
location of the wetlands being outside of the planned development footprint and being hydrologically
isolated, there is no risk of triggering a Section 21 c water use as flows will not be impeded or diverted by the
development planned. Furthermore, where storm water runoff is directed away from the wetlands, there is no
Section 21 (i) water use associated with the development as the bed, banks and characteristics of both artificial
wetlands will not be modified.
It is therefore the opinion of Eco-Pulse that the planned development will not result in impacts to wetlands and
that there is no risk of water use associated with the artificial wetland assessed. Therefore, the DWS should
consider exempting the development from water use licensing in terms of Section 21 c and i water use, subject
to the development conditions described under Chapter 5 of this report.
Should you have any queries or comments, please contact Eco-Pulse Consulting directly.
Yours faithfully ,
Adam Teixeira-Leite Pr.Sci.Nat. (Ecological Science)
Senior Scientist & Wetland Specialist: Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
Email: [email protected] | Mobile: 082 310 6769
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
22
7. REFERENCES
Bromilow, C., 2010. Problem Plants and Alien Weeds of South Africa. Third Edition. Briza Publications, Pretoria,
South Africa.
CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). 2010. National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA).
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J. and Funke, N. 2011.
Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. XXXX. June 2011.
DWAF (Department of Water affairs and Forestry). 2005. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland and riparian areas. Edition 1, September 2005. DWAF, Pretoria.
Eco-Pulse Consulting. 2017. NOOA Petroleum Fuel Storage and Handling Terminal at Ambrose Park, Durban
Harbour, eThekwini Municipality , KwaZulu-Natal: Freshwater Habitat Impact Assessment Report. Unpublished
report prepared for Kantey & Templer Consulting Engineers. Report No. EP331-01. Version 0.1 (draft). 22
November 2017.
Erwin, K.L. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world.
Wetlands Ecological Management,17:71–84.
Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. & Goge, C. 2008. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health, Version 2.
Munsell Soil Colour Chart (year 2000 edition).
National Water Act No. 36 of 1998.
Pooley, E., 2005. A field guide to Wildflowers of KZN and the Eastern Region. First Edition, second impression.
Natal Flora Publications Trust.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2010. Wise use of wetlands: Concepts and approaches for the wise use of
wetlands. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edition, vol. 1. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
Ollis, D., Snaddon, K., Job. N. and Mbona. N. 2013. Classif ication system for wetland and other aquatic
ecosystems in South Africa. User manual: inland systems. SANBI biodiversity series 22. SANBI Pretoria.
Scott-Shaw, C.R and Escott, B.J. (Eds), 2011. KwaZulu-Natal Prov incial Pre-Transformation Vegetation Type Map –
2011. Unpublished GIS Coverage [kznveg05v2_1_11_wll.zip], B iodiversity Conservation Planning Division,
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, P. O. Box 13053, Cascades, Pietermaritzburg, 3202.
Van Ginkel, C.E., Glen, R.P., Gordan-Gray, K.D., Cilliers, C.J., Muasya and van Deventer, P.P. 2011. Easy identification of some South African Wetland Plants (Grasses, Resticios, Sedges, Rushes, Bulrushes, Eriocaulons
and Yellow-eyed grasses). WRC Report No. TT 459/10.
Van Oudtshoorn, F., 2006. Guide to grasses of Southern Africa. Pretoria, South Africa.
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX B
Flora species recorded in the Project site during the field visit
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
ACANTHACEAE Asystasia gangetica
AMARANTHACEAE Achyranthes aspera var. aspera*
AMARANTHACEAE Alternanthera pungens*
AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus viridis*
AMARANTHACEAE Gomphrena celosioides*
ANACARDIACEAE Rhus pyroides var. integrifolia
ANACARDIACEAE Schinus terebinthifolius*
ARALIACEAE Washingtonia filifera*
ASCLEPIADACEAE Gomphocarpus physocarpus
ASTERACEAE Ageratum conyzoides*
ASTERACEAE Berkheya bipinnatifida
ASTERACEAE Berkheya sp.
ASTERACEAE Bidens bipinnata*
ASTERACEAE Bidens pilosa*
ASTERACEAE Brachylaena discolor
ASTERACEAE Chromolaena odorata*
ASTERACEAE Conyza bonariensis*
ASTERACEAE Conyza canadensis*
ASTERACEAE Flaveria bidentis*
ASTERACEAE Galinsoga parviflora*
ASTERACEAE Helianthus annuus
ASTERACEAE Lactuca serriola*
ASTERACEAE Parthenium hysterophorus*
ASTERACEAE Senecio deltoideus
ASTERACEAE Senecio madagascariensis
ASTERACEAE Senecio tamoides
ASTERACEAE Sonchus sp. *
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
ASTERACEAE Tagetes minuta*
ASTERACEAE Taraxacum officinale*
ASTERACEAE Tithonia diversifolia*
ASTERACEAE Tridax decumbens*
BASELLACEAE Anredera cordifolia*
BIGNONIACEAE Tecoma stans*
BRASSICACEAE Lepidium bonariense*
CACTACEAE Pereskia aculeata*
CANNACEAE Canna indica*
CHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium album*
COMMELINACEAE Commelina afra
COMMELINACEAE Commelina benghalensis
COMMELINACEAE Commelina erecta
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea purpurea*
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea alba*
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea indica*
CUCURBITACEAE Kedrostis foetidissima
CUCURBITACEAE Lagenaria sphaerica
CYPERACEAE Cyperus rotundus subsp. rotundus
EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia cyathophora*
EUPHORBIACEAE Ricinus communis*
FABACEAE Vachellia natalitia
FABACEAE Leucaena leucocephala*
FABACEAE Melilotus albus*
FABACEAE Senna didymobotrya*
LAMIACEAE Ocimum sp.
MALAVACEAE Abutilon cf sonneratianum
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
MALAVACEAE Abutilon sp.
MELIACEAE Melia azedarach*
MORACEAE Ficus sur
MORACEAE Morus nigra*
MYRTACEAE Syzygium cuminii*
PHYTOLACCACEAE Rivina humilis*
PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago lanceolata*
POACEAE Chloris gayana
POACEAE Cynodon dactylon
POACEAE Eragrostis sp.
POACEAE Imperata cylindrica
POACEAE Panicum deustum
POACEAE Pennisetum clandestinum
POACEAE Pennisetum purpureum*
POACEAE Phragmites australis
POACEAE Sorghum bicolor
POACEAE Sorghum cf halepense
POACEAE Stenotaphrum secundatum
POACEAE Tragus berteronianus
POCEAE Arundo donax*
POCEAE Chloris virgata
POCEAE Digitaria eriantha
POCEAE Melinis repens
POCEAE Panicum maximum
POCEAE Sporobolus africanus
ROSACEAE Rubus fruticosus*
RUBIACEAE Canthium cf mundianum
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
RUBIACEAE Canthium inerme
SAPINDACAE Cardiospermum grandiflorum*
SOLANACEAE Solanum mauritianum*
SOLANACEAE Solanum chrysotrichum
SOLANACEAE Solanum nodiflorum
SOLANACEAE Solanum lycopersicum*
STRELITZIACEAE Strelitzia natalitia
ULMACEAE Trema orientalis
URTICACEAE Urtica urens*
VERBENACEAE Avicennia marina
VERBENACEAE Lantana camara*
VERBENACEAE Verbena bonariensis*
VERBENACEAE Verbena brasiliensis*
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX C
List of mammals potentially present in Project site
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Bathyerigidae Georychus capensis Cape-Mole-rat - -
Bovidae Cephalopus monticola Blue Duiker Vulnerable Vulnerable Protected
Cephalopus natalensis Red Duiker Near Threatened Protected Protected
Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker - -
Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck - Protected
Canidae Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal -
Chrysochloridae Amblysomus hottentotus Hottentot Golden Mole - -
Chrysospalax villosus Rough-haired Golden Mole Vulnerable Critically Endangered
Emballonuridae Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian Tomb Bat - -
Erinaceidae Atelerix frontalis South African Hedgehog Near Threatened Protected
Felideae Felis sylvestris African wild Cat - -
Leptailurus serval Serval Near Threatened - -
Herpestidae Atilax paludinosus Water Mongoose - - -
Galerella sanguinea Slender Mongoose - - -
Herpestes icheumon Large-Grey Mongoose - - -
Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Mungos mungo Banded Mongoose - - -
Galagidae Otolemur crassicaudatus Thick-tailed Galago - - -
Hipposideridae Hipposideros caffer Sundevall’s leaf-nosed Bat - - -
Hystricidae Hystrix africaeaustralis Porcupine - - -
Leporidae Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare - - -
Molossidae Chaerephon ansorgei Ansorge’s Free-tailed Bat - - -
Chaerephon pumila Little Free-tailed Bat - - -
Mops condylurus Angola Free-tailed Bat - - -
Otomops martiensseni Large-eared Free-tailed Bat - - -
Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat - - -
Muridae Aethomys chrysophilus Red Veld Rat - - -
Dasymys incomtus Water Rat Near Threatened - -
Dendromus melanotis Grey Climbing Mouse - - -
Dendromus mesomelas Brant’s Climbing Mouse - - -
Dendromus mystacalis Chestnut Climbing Mouse - - -
Grammomys dolichurus Woodland Thicket Rat - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Lemniscomys rosalia Single-striped Grass Mouse - - -
Mastomys sp. Multimammate Mouse - - -
Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse - - -
Mus musculus House Mouse - - -
Otomys angoniensis Angoni Vlei Rat - - -
Otomys irroratus Vlei Rat -
Otomys laminatus Laminate Vlei Rat Near Threatened - -
Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat - - -
Rattus rattus House Rat - - -
Rhabdomys pumilio Striped Mouse - - -
Mustelidae Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter Near Threatened Protected -
Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat - - -
Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel Near Threatened - -
Myoxidae Graphiurus murinus Woodland Dormouse - - -
Nycteridae Nycteris hispida Hairy Slit-faced Bat - - -
Nycteris thebaica Eqyptian Slit-faced Bat - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Pteropodidae Epomophorus wahlbergi Wahlberg’s Epauletted Fruit-bat - - -
Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian Fruit-bat - - -
Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat - - -
Rhinolophus darlingi Darling’s Horseshoe Bat - - -
Rhinolophus swinnyi Swinny’s Horseshoe Bat Vulnerable - -
Soricidae Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey Musk Shrew - - -
Crocidura flavescens Greater Red Musk Shrew - - -
Crocidura hirta Lesser Red Musk Shrew - - -
Crocidura mariquensis Swamp Musk Shrew Near Threatened - -
Myosorex cafer Dark-footed Forest Shrew Vulnerable - -
Myosorex sclateri Sclater’s Forest Shrew Vulnerable - -
Myosorex varius Forest Shrew - - -
Suncus infintesimus Least Dwarf Shrew - - -
Thryonomyidae Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane-rat - - -
Potamochoerus procus Bush Pig - - -
Vespertilionidae Glauconycteris variegata Butterfly Bat - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Hypsugo anchietae Anchieta’s Pipistrelle Near Threatened - -
Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered Bat - - -
Myotis tricolor Temminck’s Hairy Bat - - -
Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Bat - - -
Neoromicia nana Banana Bat - - -
Pipistrellus hesperidus African Pipistrelle - - -
Scotophilus dinganii Yellow House Bat - - -
Scotoecus albofuscus Thomas’ House Bat Near Threatened - -
Viverridae Genetta tigrina South African Large-spotted Genet - - -
Sources:
Distributions = Stuart & Stuart (2007)/ADU MammalMAP;
Conservation Status = EWT (2016), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX D
List of birds potentially present in Project site
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Apalis thoracica Apalis, Bar-throated - - -
Apalis flavida Apalis, Yellow-breasted - - -
Lybius torquatus Barbet, Black-collared - - -
Trachyphonus vaillantii Barbet, Crested - - -
Stactolaema leucotis Barbet, White-eared - - -
Batis capensis Batis, Cape - - -
Batis molitor Batis, Chinspot - - -
Merops pusillus Bee-eater, Little - - -
Euplectes orix Bishop, Southern Red - - -
Ixobrychus minutus Bittern, Little - - -
Lioptilus nigricapillus Blackcap, Bush Vulnerable - -
Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie, Bokmakierie - - -
Laniarius ferrugineus Boubou, Southern - - -
Smithornis capensis Broadbill, African Vulnerable - -
Phyllastrephus terrestris Brownbul, Terrestrial - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Nilaus afer Brubru, Brubru - - -
Pycnonotus tricolor Bulbul, Dark-capped - - -
Emberiza flaviventris Bunting, Golden-breasted - - -
Telophorus quadricolor Bush-shrike, Gorgeous - - -
Malaconotus blanchoti Bush-shrike, Grey-headed - - -
Telophorus olivaceus Bush-shrike, Olive - - -
Telophorus sulfureopectus Bush-shrike, Orange-breasted - - -
Turnix sylvaticus Buttonquail, Kurrichane - - -
Buteo rufofuscus Buzzard, Jackal - - -
Kaupifalco monogrammicus Buzzard, Lizard - - -
Buteo vulpinus Buzzard, Steppe - - -
Camaroptera brachyura Camaroptera, Green-backed - - -
Crithagra sulphuratus Canary, Brimstone - - -
Serinus canicollis Canary, Cape - - -
Crithagra scotops Canary, Forest - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Crithagra mozambicus Canary, Yellow-fronted - - -
Cercomela familiaris Chat, Familiar - - -
Cisticola natalensis Cisticola, Croaking - - -
Cisticola aberrans Cisticola, Lazy - - -
Cisticola tinniens Cisticola, Levaillant's - - -
Cisticola cinnamomeus Cisticola, Pale-crowned - - -
Cisticola chiniana Cisticola, Rattling - - -
Cisticola erythrops Cisticola, Red-faced - - -
Cisticola galactotes Cisticola, Rufous-winged - - -
Cisticola lais Cisticola, Wailing - - -
Cisticola ayresii Cisticola, Wing-snapping - - -
Cisticola juncidis Cisticola, Zitting - - -
Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris Cliff-chat, Mocking - - -
Fulica cristata Coot, Red-knobbed - - -
Phalacrocorax africanus Cormorant, Reed - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant, White-breasted - - -
Centropus burchellii Coucal, Burchell's - - -
Amaurornis flavirostris Crake, Black - - -
Balearica regulorum Crane, Grey Crowned - - -
Trochocercus cyanomelas Crested-flycatcher, Blue-mantled - - -
Sylvietta rufescens Crombec, Long-billed - - -
Corvus capensis Crow, Cape - - -
Corvus splendens Crow, House - - -
Corvus albus Crow, Pied - - -
Chrysococcyx cupreus Cuckoo, African Emerald - - -
Cuculus clamosus Cuckoo, Black - - -
Chrysococcyx caprius Cuckoo, Diderick - - -
Clamator glandarius Cuckoo, Great Spotted - - -
Clamator jacobinus Cuckoo, Jacobin - - -
Chrysococcyx klaas Cuckoo, Klaas's - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Cuculus solitarius Cuckoo, Red-chested - - -
Campephaga flava Cuckoo-shrike, Black - - -
Coracina caesia Cuckoo-shrike, Grey - - -
Anhinga rufa Darter, African - - -
Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing - - -
Aplopelia larvata Dove, Lemon - - -
Oena capensis Dove, Namaqua - - -
Streptopelia semitorquata Dove, Red-eyed - - -
Columba livia Dove, Rock - - -
Turtur tympanistria Dove, Tambourine - - -
Dicrurus adsimilis Drongo, Fork-tailed - - -
Dicrurus ludwigii Drongo, Square-tailed - - -
Anas sparsa Duck, African Black - - -
Anas platyrhynchos Duck, Domestic - - -
Dendrocygna bicolor Duck, Fulvous - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Anas platyrhynchos Duck, Mallard - - -
Thalassornis leuconotus Duck, White-backed - - -
Dendrocygna viduata Duck, White-faced - - -
Anas undulata Duck, Yellow-billed - - -
Stephanoaetus coronatus Eagle, African Crowned Vulnerable - -
Aquila pennatus Eagle, Booted - - -
Lophaetus occipitalis Eagle, Long-crested - - -
Polemaetus bellicosus Eagle, Martial Endangered Vulnerable -
Aquila verreauxii Eagle, Verreaux's Vulnerable - -
Aquila wahlbergi Eagle, Wahlberg's - - -
Bubo africanus Eagle-owl, Spotted - - -
Bubulcus ibis Egret, Cattle - - -
Egretta alba Egret, Great - - -
Egretta garzetta Egret, Little - - -
Egretta intermedia Egret, Yellow-billed - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Falco biarmicus Falcon, Lanner Vulnerable - -
Falco peregrinus Falcon, Peregrine - - -
Falco concolor Falcon, Sooty - - -
Amadina erythrocephala Finch, Red-headed - - -
Podica senegalensis Finfoot, African Vulnerable - -
Lagonosticta rubricata Firefinch, African - - -
Lagonosticta senegala Firefinch, Red-billed - - -
Lanius collaris Fiscal, Common (Southern) - - -
Haliaeetus vocifer Fish-eagle, African - - -
Phoenicopterus ruber Flamingo, Greater Near Threatened Protected Specially Protected
Sarothrura elegans Flufftail, Buff-spotted - - -
Sarothrura rufa Flufftail, Red-chested - - -
Muscicapa adusta Flycatcher, African Dusky - - -
Muscicapa caerulescens Flycatcher, Ashy - - -
Sigelus silens Flycatcher, Fiscal - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Melaenornis pammelaina Flycatcher, Southern Black - - -
Muscicapa striata Flycatcher, Spotted - - -
Scleroptila levaillantii Francolin, Red-winged - - -
Scleroptila shelleyi Francolin, Shelley's - - -
Porphyrio alleni Gallinule, Allen's - - -
Morus capensis Gannet, Cape Vulnerable - -
Anser anser Goose, Domestic - - -
Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian - - -
Plectropterus gambensis Goose, Spur-winged - - -
Accipiter tachiro Goshawk, African - - -
Melierax gabar Goshawk, Gabar - - -
Sphenoeacus afer Grassbird, Cape - - -
Tachybaptus ruficollis Grebe, Little - - -
Andropadus importunus Greenbul, Sombre - - -
Chlorocichla flaviventris Greenbul, Yellow-bellied - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Treron calvus Green-pigeon, African - - -
Tringa nebularia Greenshank, Common - - -
Bucorvus leadbeateri Ground-hornbill, Southern Endangered Vulnerable Specially Protected
Zoothera guttata Ground-thrush, Spotted - - -
Numida meleagris Guineafowl, Helmeted - - -
Larus cirrocephalus Gull, Grey-headed - - -
Larus dominicanus Gull, Kelp - - -
Scopus umbretta Hamerkop, Hamerkop - - -
Polyboroides typus Harrier-Hawk, African - - -
Egretta ardesiaca Heron, Black - - -
Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed - - -
Ardea goliath Heron, Goliath - - -
Butorides striata Heron, Green-backed - - -
Ardea cinerea Heron, Grey - - -
Ardea purpurea Heron, Purple - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Ardeola ralloides Heron, Squacco - - -
Prodotiscus regulus Honeybird, Brown-backed - - -
Pernis apivorus Honey-buzzard, European - - -
Indicator indicator Honeyguide, Greater - - -
Indicator minor Honeyguide, Lesser - - -
Indicator variegatus Honeyguide, Scaly-throated - - -
Upupa africana Hoopoe, African - - -
Tockus alboterminatus Hornbill, Crowned - - -
Bycanistes bucinator Hornbill, Trumpeter - - -
Delichon urbicum House-martin, Common - - -
Threskiornis aethiopicus Ibis, African Sacred - - -
Plegadis falcinellus Ibis, Glossy - - -
Bostrychia hagedash Ibis, Hadeda - - -
Geronticus calvus Ibis, Southern Bald Vulnerable v
Vidua funerea Indigobird, Dusky - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Vidua chalybeata Indigobird, Village - - -
Actophilornis africanus Jacana, African - - -
Microparra capensis Jacana, Lesser Vulnerable - -
Halcyon albiventris Kingfisher, Brown-hooded - - -
Megaceryle maximus Kingfisher, Giant - - -
Alcedo semitorquata Kingfisher, Half-collared Near Threatened
Alcedo cristata Kingfisher, Malachite - - -
Halcyon senegaloides Kingfisher, Mangrove - - -
Ceryle rudis Kingfisher, Pied - - -
Milvus migrans Kite, Black - - -
Elanus caeruleus Kite, Black-shouldered - - -
Milvus aegyptius Kite, Yellow-billed - - -
Vanellus armatus Lapwing, Blacksmith - - -
Vanellus melanopterus Lapwing, Black-winged - - -
Vanellus coronatus Lapwing, Crowned - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Calandrella cinerea Lark, Red-capped - - -
Mirafra africana Lark, Rufous-naped - - -
Macronyx capensis Longclaw, Cape - - -
Macronyx croceus Longclaw, Yellow-throated - - -
Ceuthmochares australis Malkoha, Green - - -
Spermestes cucullatus Mannikin, Bronze - - -
Spermestes fringilloides Mannikin, Magpie - - -
Spermestes nigriceps Mannikin, Red-backed - - -
Circus ranivorus Marsh-harrier, African - - -
Riparia paludicola Martin, Brown-throated - - -
Hirundo fuligula Martin, Rock - - -
Riparia riparia Martin, Sand - - -
Ploceus intermedius Masked-weaver, Lesser - - -
Ploceus velatus Masked-weaver, Southern - - -
Gallinula chloropus Moorhen, Common - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Urocolius indicus Mousebird, Red-faced - - -
Colius striatus Mousebird, Speckled - - -
Acridotheres tristis Myna, Common - - -
Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky, Neddicky - - -
Nycticorax nycticorax Night-Heron, Black-crowned - - -
Caprimulgus europaeus Nightjar, European - - -
Caprimulgus pectoralis Nightjar, Fiery-necked - - -
Caprimulgus tristigma Nightjar, Freckled - - -
Columba arquatrix Olive-pigeon, African - - -
Anastomus lamelligerus Openbill, African - - -
Oriolus larvatus Oriole, Black-headed - - -
Oriolus oriolus Oriole, Eurasian Golden - - -
Pandion haliaetus Osprey, Osprey - - -
Tyto alba Owl, Barn - - -
Rostratula benghalensis Painted-snipe, Greater - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Cypsiurus parvus Palm-swift, African - - -
Terpsiphone viridis Paradise-flycatcher, African - - -
Psittacula krameri Parakeet, Rose-ringed - - -
Pavo cristatus Peacock, Common - - -
Pelecanus onocrotalus Pelican, Great White Vulnerable - -
Pelecanus rufescens Pelican, Pink-backed Vulnerable Specially Protected
Petronia superciliaris Petronia, Yellow-throated - - -
Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled - - -
Anthus cinnamomeus Pipit, African - - -
Anthus leucophrys Pipit, Plain-backed - - -
Anthus lineiventris Pipit, Striped - - -
Charadrius hiaticula Plover, Common Ringed - - -
Pluvialis squatarola Plover, Grey - - -
Charadrius pecuarius Plover, Kittlitz's - - -
Charadrius tricollaris Plover, Three-banded - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Charadrius marginatus Plover, White-fronted - - -
Netta erythrophthalma Pochard, Southern - - -
Prinia subflava Prinia, Tawny-flanked - - -
Dryoscopus cubla Puffback, Black-backed - - -
Nettapus auritus Pygmy-Goose, African - - -
Ispidina picta Pygmy-Kingfisher, African - - -
Coturnix coturnix Quail, Common - - -
Ortygospiza atricollis Quailfinch, African - - -
Quelea quelea Quelea, Red-billed - - -
Rallus caerulescens Rail, African - - -
Corvus albicollis Raven, White-necked - - -
Acrocephalus baeticatus Reed-warbler, African - - -
Acrocephalus arundinaceus Reed-warbler, Great - - -
Pogonocichla stellata Robin, White-starred - - -
Cossypha caffra Robin-chat, Cape - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Cossypha dichroa Robin-chat, Chorister - - -
Cossypha natalensis Robin-chat, Red-capped - - -
Monticola rupestris Rock-thrush, Cape - - -
Monticola explorator Rock-thrush, Sentinel - - -
Coracias garrulus , European Near Threatened - -
Coracias caudatus Roller, Lilac-breasted - - -
Philomachus pugnax Ruff, Ruff - - -
Bradypterus baboecala Rush-warbler, Little - - -
Actitis hypoleucos Sandpiper, Common - - -
Calidris ferruginea Sandpiper, Curlew - - -
Tringa stagnatilis Sandpiper, Marsh - - -
Tringa glareola Sandpiper, Wood - - -
Psalidoprocne holomelaena Saw-wing, Black (Southern race) - - -
Ptilopsus granti Scops-owl, Southern White-faced - - -
Cercotrichas signata Scrub-robin, Brown - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Cercotrichas leucophrys Scrub-robin, White-browed - - -
Crithagra gularis Seedeater, Streaky-headed - - -
Tadorna cana Shelduck, South African - - -
Anas smithii Shoveler, Cape - - -
Lanius collurio Shrike, Red-backed - - -
Circaetus cinereus Snake-eagle, Brown - - -
Gallinago nigripennis Snipe, African - - -
Passer melanurus Sparrow, Cape - - -
Passer domesticus Sparrow, House - - -
Passer diffusus Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed - - -
Accipiter melanoleucus Sparrowhawk, Black - - -
Accipiter minullus Sparrowhawk, Little - - -
Platalea alba Spoonbill, African - - -
Pternistis natalensis Spurfowl, Natal - - -
Pternistis afer Spurfowl, Red-necked - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Lamprotornis corruscus Starling, Black-bellied - - -
Lamprotornis nitens Starling, Cape Glossy - - -
Sturnus vulgaris Starling, Common - - -
Onychognathus morio Starling, Red-winged - - -
Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Starling, Violet-backed - - -
Creatophora cinerea Starling, Wattled - - -
Himantopus himantopus Stilt, Black-winged - - -
Calidris minuta Stint, Little - - -
Saxicola torquatus Stonechat, African - - -
Ciconia nigra Stork, Black Vulnerable - -
Ciconia ciconia Stork, White - - -
Ciconia episcopus Stork, Woolly-necked - - -
Mycteria ibis Stork, Yellow-billed Endangered - Specially Protected
Chalcomitra amethystina Sunbird, Amethyst - - -
Hedydipna collaris Sunbird, Collared - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Cinnyris afer Sunbird, Greater Double-collared - - -
Cyanomitra veroxii Sunbird, Grey - - -
Nectarinia famosa Sunbird, Malachite - - -
Cyanomitra olivacea Sunbird, Olive - - -
Cinnyris bifasciatus Sunbird, Purple-banded - - -
Chalcomitra senegalensis Sunbird, Scarlet-chested - - -
Cinnyris chalybeus Sunbird, Southern Double-collared - - -
Cinnyris talatala Sunbird, White-bellied - - -
Hirundo rustica Swallow, Barn - - -
Hirundo cucullata Swallow, Greater Striped - - -
Hirundo abyssinica Swallow, Lesser Striped - - -
Hirundo albigularis Swallow, White-throated - - -
Hirundo smithii Swallow, Wire-tailed - - -
Porphyrio madagascariensis Swamphen, African Purple - - -
Acrocephalus gracilirostris Swamp-warbler, Lesser - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Apus barbatus Swift, African Black - - -
Tachymarptis melba Swift, Alpine - - -
Apus apus Swift, Common - - -
Apus horus Swift, Horus - - -
Apus affinis Swift, Little - - -
Apus caffer Swift, White-rumped - - -
Tchagra senegalus Tchagra, Black-crowned - - -
Tchagra tchagra Tchagra, Southern - - -
Anas hottentota Teal, Hottentot - - -
Anas erythrorhyncha Teal, Red-billed - - -
Sterna paradisaea Tern, Arctic - - -
Chlidonias niger Tern, Black - - -
Sterna caspia Tern, Caspian Vulnerable Protected -
Sterna hirundo Tern, Common - - -
Sterna bergii Tern, Swift - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Chlidonias hybrida Tern, Whiskered - - -
Chlidonias leucopterus Tern, White-winged - - -
Burhinus capensis Thick-knee, Spotted - - -
Burhinus vermiculatus Thick-knee, Water - - -
Psophocichla litsipsirupa Thrush, Groundscraper - - -
Turdus smithi Thrush, Karoo - - -
Turdus libonyanus Thrush, Kurrichane - - -
Turdus olivaceus Thrush, Olive - - -
Pogoniulus pusillus Tinkerbird, Red-fronted - - -
Pogoniulus bilineatus Tinkerbird, Yellow-rumped - - -
Parus niger Tit, Southern Black - - -
Apaloderma narina Trogon, Narina - - -
Tauraco corythaix Turaco, Knysna - - -
Gallirex porphyreolophus Turaco, Purple-crested - - -
Arenaria interpres Turnstone, Ruddy - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Streptopelia capicola Turtle-dove, Cape - - -
Mandingoa nitidula Twinspot, Green - - -
Gypohierax angolensis Vulture, Palm-nut - - -
Motacilla aguimp Wagtail, African Pied - - -
Motacilla capensis Wagtail, Cape - - -
Motacilla clara Wagtail, Mountain - - -
Bradypterus barratti Warbler, Barratt's - - -
Schoenicola brevirostris Warbler, Broad-tailed - - -
Chloropeta natalensis Warbler, Dark-capped Yellow - - -
Sylvia borin Warbler, Garden - - -
Bradypterus sylvaticus Warbler, Knysna Vulnerable - -
Acrocephalus palustris Warbler, Marsh - - -
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Warbler, Sedge - - -
Phylloscopus trochilus Warbler, Willow - - -
Platysteira peltata Wattle-eye, Black-throated - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Uraeginthus angolensis Waxbill, Blue - - -
Estrilda astrild Waxbill, Common - - -
Estrilda perreini Waxbill, Grey - - -
Amandava subflava Waxbill, Orange-breasted - - -
Coccopygia melanotis Waxbill, Swee - - -
Ploceus capensis Weaver, Cape - - -
Ploceus bicolor Weaver, Dark-backed - - -
Ploceus xanthops Weaver, Golden - - -
Ploceus xanthopterus Weaver, Southern Brown-throated - - -
Ploceus ocularis Weaver, Spectacled - - -
Amblyospiza albifrons Weaver, Thick-billed - - -
Ploceus cucullatus Weaver, Village - - -
Ploceus subaureus Weaver, Yellow - - -
Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel, Common - - -
Zosterops virens White-eye, Cape - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Specially Protected Species (1974)
Vidua macroura Whydah, Pin-tailed - - -
Euplectes axillaris Widowbird, Fan-tailed - - -
Euplectes ardens Widowbird, Red-collared - - -
Euplectes albonotatus Widowbird, White-winged - - -
Turtur chalcospilos Wood-dove, Emerald-spotted - - -
Phoeniculus purpureus Wood-hoopoe, Green - - -
Phylloscopus ruficapilla Woodland-warbler, Yellow-throated - - -
Strix woodfordii Wood-owl, African - - -
Dendropicos namaquus Woodpecker, Bearded - - -
Dendropicos fuscescens Woodpecker, Cardinal - - -
Campethera abingoni Woodpecker, Golden-tailed - - -
Dendropicos griseocephalus Woodpecker, Olive - - -
Jynx ruficollis Wryneck, Red-throated - - -
Source: Distributions= SABAP2
Conservation Status: = BirdLife SA (2015), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX E
List of herpetofauna potentially present in Project site
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Reptiles
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional Status (2014)
NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Protected Species (1974)
Endemic Status
Agamidae Acanthocercus atricollis atricollis
Southern Tree Agama - - - -
Agama aculeata distanti Eastern Ground Agama
- - - Endemic
Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion melanocephalum
KwaZulu Dwarf Chameleon
Vulnerable Vulnerable - Endemic
Chamaeleo dilepis Flap-neck Chameleon - - - -
Colubridae Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia
Red-lipped Snake - - - -
Dasypeltis inornata Southern Brown Egg-eater
- - - Endemic
Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater - - - -
Dispholidus typus Boomslang - - - -
Philothamnus
hoplogaster
Green Water Snake - - - -
Philothamnus natalensis natalensis
Eastern Natal Green Snake
- - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional
Status (2014)
NEMBA TOPS List
(2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Endemic Status
Philothamnus natalensis
occidentalis
Western Natal Green
Snake
- - Endemic
Philothamnus semivariegatus
Spotted Bush Snake - - - -
Thelotornis capensis capensis
Southern Twig Snake - - - -
Cordylidae Chammaesaura anguina
anguina
Cape Grass Lizard - - - Endemic
Chammaesaura macrolepis
Large-scaled Grass Lizard
Near Threatened Protected - Endemic
Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled Lizard
- - - Near Endemic
Elapidae Dendroaspis angusticeps
Eastern Green Mamba - Vulnerable - -
Dendroaspis polylepis Black Mamba - - - -
Elapsoidea sundevallii Sundevall's Garter Snake
- - - -
Hemachatus
heamachatus
Rinkhals - - - Near Endemic
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional
Status (2014)
NEMBA TOPS List
(2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Endemic Status
Hydrophis platurus Yellow-bellied Sea
Snake
- - - -
Naja melanoleuca Forest Cobra - - - -
Naja mossambica Mozambique Spitting Cobra
- - - -
Afroedura pondolia Pondo Flat Gecko - - - Endemic
Hemidactylus mabouia Common Tropical House Gecko
- - - -
Homopholis wahbergii Wahlberg’s Velvet Gecko
- - - -
Lygodactylus capensis capensis
Common Dwarf Gecko - - - -
Pachydactylus maculatus
Spotted Gecko - Protected - Near Endemic
Gerrhosauridae Gerrhosaurus flavigulari Yellow-throated Plated
Lizard
- - - -
Tetradactylus africanus Eastern Long-tailed Seps
- - - Endemic
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional
Status (2014)
NEMBA TOPS List
(2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Endemic Status
Lamprophiidae Amblyodipas concolor KwaZulu-Natal Purple-
glossed Snake
- - - Endemic
Amblyodipas polylepis
polylepis
Common Purple-
glossed Snake
- - - -
Aparallactus capensis Cape centipede-eater - - - -
Atractaspis bibronii Bibron’s Stiletto Snake - - - -
Boaedon capensis Common House
Snake
- - - -
Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug
Eater
- - - Endemic
Gonionotophis capensis
capensis
Common Field Snake - - - -
Gonionotophis nyassae Black File Snake - - - -
Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin
Snake
Near Threatened - Protected Endemic
Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin
Snake
- - - Endemic
Lamprophis aurora Aurora Snake - - - Endemic
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional
Status (2014)
NEMBA TOPS List
(2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Endemic Status
Lamprophis guttatus Spotted Rock Snake - Protected - Near Endemic
Lycodonomorphus inornatus
Live Ground Snake - - - Endemic
Lycodonomorphus laevissimus
Dusky-bellied Water Snake
- - - -
Lycodonomorphus rufulus
Brown Water Snake - - - -
Macrelaps microlepidotus
KwaZulu-Natal Black Snake
Near Threatened - - Endemic
Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted Grass
Snake
- - - -
Psammophylax rhombeatus rhombeatus
Spotted Grass Snake - - - -
Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake - - - -
Pelomedusidae Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh Terrapin - - - -
Pythonidae Python natalensis South African Python - Protected Protected -
Scincidae Acontias plumbeus Giant Legless Skink - - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional
Status (2014)
NEMBA TOPS List
(2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Endemic Status
Afroablepharus
wahlbergii
Wahlberg’s Snake-
eyed Skink
- - - -
Scelotes mossambicus Mozambique Dwarf
Burrowing Skink
- - - Near Endemic
Scelotes inornatus Durban Dwarf
Burrowing Skink
Critically Endangered - - -
Trachylepis
homalocephala
Red-sided Skink - - - Endemic
Trachylepis striata Striped Skink - - - -
Trachylepis sulcata Western Rock Skink - - - -
Trachylepis varia Variable Skink - - - -
Typhlopidae Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron’s Blind Snake - - - Near Endemic
Leptotyphlops scutifrons Peter's Thread Snake - - - -
Leptotyphlops sylivicolus Forest Thread Snake Data Deficient - - Endemic
Varanidae Varanus albigularis albigularis
Rock Monitor - - Protected -
Varanus niloticus Water Monitor - - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional
Status (2014)
NEMBA TOPS List
(2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Endemic Status
Viperidae Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder - - - -
Causus defilippii Snouted Night Adder - - - -
Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder - - - -
Sources:
Distribution = Bates et al. (2014)/ADU ReptileMAP;
Conservation Status = Bates et al. (2014), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Amphibians
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status
NEMBA TOPS List (2013)
KZN Protected Species (1974)
Arthroleptidae Arthroleptis wahlbergi Bush Squeaker - - -
Leptopelis natalensis Natal Tree Frog - - -
Breviceptidae Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog - - -
Breviceps verrucosus Plain Rain Frog - - -
Bufonidae Amietophrynus gutturalis Guttural Toad - - -
Amietophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad - - -
Hemisotidae Hemisus guttatus Spotted Shovel-nosed Frog Vulnerable - -
Hemisus marmoratus Mottled Shovel-nosed Frog - - -
Hyperoliidae Afrixalus aureus Golden Leaf-folding Frog - - -
Afrixalus delicates Delicate Leaf-folding Frog - - -
Afrixalus fornasinii Greater Leaf-folding Frog - - -
Afrixalus spinifrons Natal Leaf-folding Frog Vulnerable - -
Hyperolius acuticeps Sharp-nosed Reed Frog - - -
Hyperolius argus Argus Reed Frog - - -
Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List –
Regional Status
NEMBA TOPS
List (2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Hyperolius pickersgilli Pickersgill’s Reed Frog Endangered Critically
Endangered
-
Hyperolius pusillus Water Lily Frog - - -
Hyperolius semidiscus Yellow-striped Reed Frog - - -
Hyperolius tuberilinguis Tinker Reed Frog - - -
Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina - - -
Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog - - -
Phrynobatrachidae Phrynobatrachus mabiensis Dwarf Puddle Frog - - -
Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog - - -
Pipidae Xenopus laevis Common Platanna - - -
Ptychadenidae Ptychadena anchietae Plan Grass Frog - - -
Ptychadena oxyrhynchus Sharp-nosed Grass frog - - -
Ptychadena porosissima Striped Grass Frog - - -
Pyxicephalidae Amietia angolensis Common River Frog - - -
Anhydrophryne hewitti Natal Chirping Frog - - -
Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco - - -
July 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List –
Regional Status
NEMBA TOPS
List (2013)
KZN Protected
Species (1974)
Cacosternum nanum Bronze Caco - - -
Cacosternum striatum Striped Caco Data Deficient - -
Natalobatrachus bonebergi Kloof Frog Endangered - -
Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog - - -
Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog - - -
Tomopterna cryptotis Tremolo Sand Frog - - -
Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog - - -
Source:
Distributions = du Preez & Carruthers (2009)/ADU FrogMAP;
Conservation Status = IUCN (2018-2), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
July 2019
APPENDIX F
Document Limitations
DOCUMENT LIMITATIONS
GAA GAIMS Form 10, Version 4, August 2018 Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
Document is uncontrolled if downloaded or printed Page 1 of 1
https://golderassociates-my.sharepoint.com/personal/micvanniekerk_golder_com/Documents/Administration/GAIMS/GAA GAIMS Form 10_Rev 4.docx
This document has been provided by Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd (“Golder”) subject to the following
limitations:
i) This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golder’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.
ii) The scope and the period of Golder’s Services are as described in Golder’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Golder in regard to it.
iii) Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.
iv) In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Golder’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations.
v) Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.
vi) Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.
vii) The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained sub-consultants affiliated with Golder to provide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for the Services and work done by all its sub-consultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder and not Golder’s affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, or cause of action, against Golder’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.
viii) This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party because of decisions made or actions based on this Document.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD
July 2019
APPENDIX G
Specialist CVs
1
Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
Education
MSc. Resource Conservation Biology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2013
BSc. Hons. Ecology and Conservation Biology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2005
BSc. Zoology and Grassland Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2004
Certifications
Member of the South African Wildlife Management Association, 2013
Registered with the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural Scientist , 2015
Languages
English – Fluent
Golder Associates Africa (Pty.) Ltd. – Johannesburg
Terrestrial Ecologist Andrew Zinn is a terrestrial ecologist with Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd. In this role he conducts terrestrial ecology studies, comprising flora and fauna surveys, for baseline ecological assessments and ecological impact assessments. He has worked on projects in several African countries including Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania. Andrew is a qualified ecologist, holding a Master of Science degree in Resource Conservation Biology from the University of the Witwatersrand. Before joining Golder's Ecology Division, Andrew worked for WSP Environment and Energy. He has also worked on a range of conservation and ecology related projects, both locally in South Africa, including work in the Kruger National Park, as well as further afield in Northern Ireland and the United Arab Emirates. Andrew is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural Scientist - Ecological Science.
Employment History
Sub-contracted to KPMG UAE – Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Independent ecological consultant (2011 to 2011)
I was subcontracted to KPMG UAE as a subject matter expert on a team conducting an internal audit of the Conservation Department of Sir Bani Yas Desert Island, in the United Arab Emirates. The island is a conservation and tourism destination off the coast of Abu Dhabi, in the Arabian Gulf.
WSP Environment and Energy – Johannesburg Consultant (2008 to 2011)
As an environmental consultant I was involved in a wide range of environmental projects. These included managing environmental authorisation projects (EIA and BA studies), facilitating stakeholder engagement processes, conducting compliance audits and developing environmental management programmes (EMP). I was also involved in specialist ecological projects.
Yale University/Kansas State University – Satara, Kruger National Park Researcher (2007 to 2008)
I was employed as a research technician on the Savanna Convergence Project in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. The project is long-term, cross-continental study investigating the roles of fire and herbivory on savanna/prairie vegetation dynamics. I was responsible for the collection and analyses of vegetation and herbivore distribution data.
2
Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – ECOLOGY
Nidvest Tank Terminals, Quarry 2
Tank Terminals KwaZulu-Natal, South
Africa
Developed a rehabilitation plan for the upgrading of the Quarry 2 Tank Terminals in the Durban Harbour complex.
Frontier Mine Katanga Province,
Democratic Republic of Congo
Conducted a biodiversity screening study for the Frontier Mine Concession in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Metalkol Mine Katanga Province,
Democratic Republic of Congo
Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Metalkol Mine Concession in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Boss and COMIDE Mines
Katanga Province, Democratic Republic of
Congo
Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Boss and COMIDE Mine Concessions in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Kipoi Copper Mine Katanga Province,
Democratic Republic of Congo
Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Kipoi Mine Concession in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Kipushi Mine Katanga Province,
Democratic Republic of Congo
Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, of the Kipushi Mine lease area.
Arcelor Mittal Gauteng and Western
Cape, South Africa
Conducted exotic invasive plant species assessments at various Arcelor Mittal properties, including Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Pretoria and Suldanha
Phalaborwa Mining Company
Limpopo Province, South Africa
Conduct annual VEGRAI monitoring assessments at select sampling points along the Olifants and Selati Rivers.
Kusile Power Station Mpumalanga Province,
South Africa
Completed a search and rescue operation of Red Data and Protected plants growing in the development footprint of the proposed Kusile Power Station 10 year ash stack.
Ndumo - Gezisa Power-line Project
Maputaland, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, of the proposed route alternatives of the Ndumo-Gezisa Power-line.
3
Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
Scaw Metals - Manufacturing
Facilities Gauteng & Free State,
South Africa
Conducted exotic invasive plant species assessment at various Scaw Metal properties to provide control and eradication recommendations.
Jwaneng Diamond Mine
Southern District, Botswana
Conducted a flora assessment of undisturbed and disturbed areas at Jwaneng Diamond Mine to inform the development of a re-vegetation protocol, as part of the mines rehabilitation programme.
Komoa Copper Project Katanga Province,
Democratic Republic of Congo
Participated on the terrestrial ecology assessment of the exploration area of the proposed Komoa Copper Mine.
Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Shinyana Region,
Tanzania
Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, of the site of the proposed tailings facility No. 4 at Bulyanhulu Gold Mine.
Tshikondeni Coal Mine Limpopo Province,
South Africa
Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of theTshikondeni Coal Mine lease area, with the aim of providing a ecological baseline to inform the development of a mine rehabilitation plan.
Grootegeluk Coal Mine Limpopo Province,
South Africa
Conducted an ecological sensitivities assessment of the sites of the proposed entrance road and cyclic ponds at Exxaro Coal's Grootegeluk Mine.
Mafube Colliery - Nooitgedacht
Mpumalanga Province, South Africa
Conducted an ecological survey and impact assessment of the Nooitgedacht portion of the proposed Mafube Colliery.
Ruighoek Chrome Mine
North-West Province, South Africa
Conducted an ecological survey and impact assessment of areas of Ruighoek Mine in which open cast pit mining has been proposed.
TRAINING
Basic Principles of Ecological Rehabilitation and Mine Closure Centre for Environmental Management, North-West University, 2008
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
Southern African Wildlife Management Association
PUBLICATIONS
Journal Articles Burkepile, D.E., C.E. Burns, E. Amendola, G.M. Buis, N. Govender, V. Nelson, C.J. Tambling, D.I. Thompson, A.D. Zinn and M.D. Smith. Habitat selection by large herbivores in a southern African savanna: the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces. Ecosphere, 4(11):139 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00078.7.
4
Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
Knapp, A.K., D.L. Hoover, J.M. Blair, G. Buis, D.E. Burkepile, A. Chamberlain,
S.L. Collins, R.W.S Fynn, K.P. Kirkman, M.D. Smith, D. Blake, N. Govender, P. O'Neal, T. Schreck and A. Zinn. A test of two mechanisms proposed to optimize grassland aboveground primary productivity in response to grazing. Journal of Plant Ecology, 5 (2012), 357-365.
Zinn, A.D., D. Ward and K. Kirkman. Inducible defences in Acacia sieberiana in
response to giraffe browsing. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 24 (2007), 123-129.
Zinn, A.D.. Exploitation vs. Conservation: A Burgeoning Fifth Column -. African
Wildlife, 61 (2007), 9-11.
1
Resumé WARREN AKEN
Education
M.Sc (Aquatic Health), University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2013
B.Sc Honours (Ichthyology and Fisheries Science), Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 2004
B.Sc (Ichthyology Zoology) , Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 2003
Matric, Pretoria Boys High School, South Africa , 2000
Certifications
SASS5 Practitioner (Department of Water Affairs Accreditation), Expires 2020
First Aid Level 1, 2018
Category R Certificate of Competency (Skippers Licence), 2016
Languages
English – Fluent
Golder Associates Africa (Pty.) Ltd. – Johannesburg
Senior Aquatic Biologist / Team Lead: Social and Sciences Prof.Sci.Nat - 400495/14 Team lead and project manager in the Social and Sciences Group within the Mine Environment Division. Senior aquatic biologist in the fields of environmental impact assessments and environmental compliance to international standards. Specializes in aquatic biology focusing on ichthyofauna, aquatic macroinvertebrates and ecosystem functioning.
Freshwater Ecology and Aquatic Biodiversity As a qualified Ichthyologist Warren has subsequently completed his Master in Aquatic Health. With over ten years of experience working in African river systems, he is well equipped to assess the ecological drivers (e.g. habitat and water quality) and biota of freshwater ecosystems. Further to this his exposure and understanding of the anthropogenic drivers allows for a pragmatic approach to determining the ecological status and cumulative impacts within a catchment. Warren has been trained in the use of SPATSIM (V3), for EFlow modelling in relation to hydropower developments.
Environmental Compliance and Impact Assessment Working on both green and brownfields sites within the mining, oil and gas and industrial sectors, Warren has been involved in predevelopment baseline assessments as well as compliance monitoring. Assessing the impacts of a project and applying the mitigation hierarchy is key to maintaining biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide, whilst allowing sustainable development. Through the long term monitoring of rivers, Warren and team are able to detect trends and advise suitable mitigation measures and adaptive management.
Aquaculture With an ever growing demand for protein, the growth of Aquaculture is expanding globally with numerous opportunities in Africa. Warren has been involved on the EIA, auditing and strategic planning components of aquaculture development.
Client Management Warren maintains strong relationships with his clients, having worked on individual projects for over 10 years, whilst acting as the client relationship manager for various other technical disciplines.
Project Management Warren is involved in the initiation, planning, writing of proposals, execution and overall supervision of biodiversity projects to ensure that they are delivered on time, within budget and with the appropriate team to meet the client’s expectations. In a diverse continent, and in line with the IFC’s Guidance Note 6, our team promotes the collaboration with recognized and credible organisation and or academic institutes.
Employment History
Independent Consultant – Madagascar and RSA
2
Resumé WARREN AKEN
Aquatic Biologist / Fish husbandry technician (July 2007 to December 2007)
Worked as a sub-consultant for Golder Associates in Madagascar as well as in South Africa as an assistant aquatic biologist. Responsible for components of the Biodiversity Management Plan, which involved salvaging fish from the rivers and housing them in recirculating systems built on site. Conditioning and husbandry of fish.
Kyle of Sutherland District Salmon Fishery Board – Highland, Scotland Assistant Biologist (May 2005 to September 2005)
Employed as a seasonal assistants for the summer. Involved in the hatchery, planting out of salmon fry, telemetry tagging, anti-poaching work and electro-fishing. Data collection, analysis and reporting.
3
Resumé WARREN AKEN
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Countries of project work experience:
Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Scotland, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia.
ERG Katanga, DRC
Lead on the aquatics team for the baseline and impact assessment study of the aquatic ecosystems associated with four mines within the copperbelt.
Zambia Hydropower Development
Northern Province, Zambia
Lead biodiversity specialist managing a core team of specialist for baseline data collection. Environmental Flow (EFlow) modelling for hydropower using SPATSIM V3 software.
Seychelles Fishing Authority
Mahé, Seychelles
Specialist lead for the Seychelles Mariculture Master Plan (MMP), addressing a framework to launch an aquaculture industry.
CLN Nacala, Mozambique
Reviewer and technical advisor on the biodiversity and fisheries monitoring of the oil and gas operations in Northern Mozambique.
Delonex Somali, Ethiopia
Conducted a high level biodiversity assessment for seismic exploration activities.
Highlands Trout Katse, Lesotho
Formed part of the team who conducted the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) audit for the Highland Trout aquaculture operations located in Katse Dam.
Farm Africa Nyanza, Kenya
Conducted a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Kenyan Market-Led Aquaculture Programme.
Sasol Gas to Power Inhambane,
Mozambique
Lead aquatic biologist for the collection of baseline data in the Govuro River, assessing river crossings.
Kansanshi Solwezi, Zambia
Lead on the aquatics team for the baseline and impact assessment study of the aquatic ecosystems associated with a proposed TSF.
Blesbokspruit Springs, South Africa
Worked on the Ecology team providing specialist input for the Ecological Economic Study. The project is based around the Eco System Services, which the Blesbokspruit provides.
Johannesburg Water Johannesburg, South
Africa
Project manager and coordinate the aquatic monitoring and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing, associated with four (4) of Johannesburg Waters Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW’s).
Matla Kriel, South Africa
I have been involved in the biological monitoring program for the Matla River Diversion (Exxaro Resources), since baseline and impact assessment, through to present, where I now manage the project and conduct biannual aquatic monitoring.
Kusile Ogies, South Africa
Working as part of the team for the baseline study for the proposed Bravo (Eskom) power station, I participated in the aquatics screening assessment and survey.
4
Resumé WARREN AKEN
Palaborwa Mining Company
Mpumalanga, South Africa
Golder Associates (Pty) Ltd. conducts biomonitoring on sections of the Olifants and Selati Rivers associated with Palabora Mining Company (Pty) Ltd., Foskor (Pty) Ltd and Bosveld Phosphate. Project manager and lead aquatic scientist worked on the project since 2008 - present.
Dynatec Ambatovy Biodiversity Project
Atsinanana, Madagascar
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. was responsible for the Biodiversity Management for the Ambatovy Nickel and Cobalt mine in Madagascar. Worked on the aquatics salvaging fish from the rivers and housing them in systems we built on the mine site. Conditioning and husbandry of these salvaged fish was a part of the work.
Riversdale Benga Coal Concession
Tete, Mozambique
Riversdale Mining (Pty) Ltd was contracted by Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. to conduct the EIA for the proposed Benga Coal Concession. I was a part of the Aquatic Sampling Team conducting work on the Zambezi and Revuboè River Systems.
Lonmin Exploration Drilling
Makamba, Tanzania
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. was approached by Lonmin Plc to conduct an environmental assessment of aquatic ecosystems associated with their exploration drilling activities in Tanzania. Prior to submitting a full work plan I attended a site visit in order to assess the area, identify sites and begin the collection of data.
Vale Tete, Mozambique
Vale has contracted Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. to carry out ecological work of which I conducted an ichthyofaunal assessment within the Moatize Industrial Complex.
TRAINING
First Aid Level 1 2018
SUPPLEMENTAL SKILLS
GIS Practitioner
I have experience and am currently using ArcMap 10.2 software. Skills include map production and analysis of ecological data.
Ecotoxicology
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) interpretation for aquatic ecosystems and reporting. Working in collaboration with the Golder Associates Research Laboratory (GARL).
Diatoms sampling
Sample collection, interpretation of results and reporting.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
South African Society for Aquatic Scientists (SASAqS)
Water Institute of Southern Africa (WISA)
Zoological Society of Southern Africa (ZSSA)
5
Resumé WARREN AKEN
PUBLICATIONS
Conference Proceedings
Aken, Warren and Roger Bills. 2014. An Inventory of Fish from Tete, the Lower Zambezi, Mozambique. South African Society of Aquatic Scientists (SASAqS), June. Bloemfontein, RSA.
Other TAYLOR, J.C., GRAHAM, M., AKEN, W. And VAN RENSBURG, L. 2009. The
Application of European Diatom Indices in Tropical and Sub-Tropical Rivers. International Symposium “Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers”. (Poster)
golder.com