Pearly Beach Abalone Farm G6 Coastal... · The proposed development involves the construction and...

Marine Impact Assessment

Pearly Beach Abalone Farm

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

20 November 2019

Marine Impact Assessment: Pearly Beach Abalone Farm Aquatic Ecosystem Services

1

Executive Summary

Project Description

The proposed development involves the construction and operation of an aquaculture facility for abalone,

Haliotis midae. The development will take place in two core nodes on the property in order to reduce the

impact of the development footprint in the coastal zone. The core production facilities, which require

constant supply of seawater and release of effluent, will be located behind the foredune in the southern

node. All infrastructure not reliant on seawater use will be constructed in the northern node located

adjacent to the R43 on the northern boundary of the property which is outside of the coastal setback line.

The pump house and sump will be located as close to the sea as possible. The abstraction and effluent

pipelines will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 Marine Works involve the construction of one intake

and one effluent pipeline which will extend through the foredune, across the beach and intertidal zone into

the subtidal. Each pipeline will be 3m in width, 2m deep and extend to a maximum length of 400m from the

high water mark (HWM) for abstraction and 300m for effluent. Phase 2 Marine Works will involve the

development of an additional two intake and two effluent pipelines of similar dimensions and will be

constructed several years later as the farm requirements develop. Pipelines will be constructed using pre-

cast concrete culverts laid in 20-30m sections. Each pipeline will abstract and discharge seawater at a rate of

6,000m3.hr-1 and at full production 18, 000m3.hr-1 will be required. The water intake onto the farm will

operate via a positively flooded sump constructed below low tide water level which will allow seawater to

gravity feed into the sump throughout the tidal cycle. Active pumping will occur from the flooded sump to

header tanks located above the production platforms. Effluent water will gravity feed from the grow-out and

hatchery tanks to an effluent sump constructed above the mean highwater level which will allow effluent

water to discharge via gravity flow through the effluent pipelines. Construction will require excavation to

bury pipelines below ground level over the beach, but in the subtidal they will be above seafloor. Blasting

may be required during construction.

Alternatives

The above description provides an overview of Alternative 3, the preferred development option which has

been refined based on input from specialists. Two project alternatives are considered:

1: No-go alternative – project will not proceed. This is not considered in this impact assessment since no

marine impacts will occur in this instance.

2: Alternative 2 – this involves the original layout plants for the land based development prior to input from

specialists. The pipeline locations remain the same and therefore the marine impacts presented in this

report are the same for both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.

Regional Context

The proposed development is located on the south coast of South Africa, within the Agulhas Ecoregion

which is classified as a warm-temperate marine environment. Oceanography on the south coast is complex

as the area is influenced by both the Agulhas Current and the Benguela Current. This region, in which the

project site is located, is considered to be a transitional or overlap zone between the two Ecoregions in

which mixing of waters from each major boundary current occurs creating a dynamic inshore coastal

environment. The south coast area is subject to upwelling of nutrient rich waters at various promontories

creating an intermediate marine environment in terms of water temperature and productivity between the


2

contrasting warm Agulhas and cold Benguela regions. Coastal oceanography is strongly influenced locally by

wind and wave action which interact with the physical shoreline characteristics and contribute to the highly

dynamic marine environment within this region. Generally speaking the south coast is a high energy coast,

being exposed to strong winds and wave action which vary seasonally. This results in rapid mixing of inshore

waters.

The combination of these oceanographic and meteorological features results in a highly dynamic nearshore

environment along the south coast which is subject to continual water movement and mixing as a result.

Habitat Types within the Ecoregion and Project Area

The coastal habitat type of the Agulhas Bioregion is dominated by mixed or mosaic shoreline habitat which

accounts for 42% of the coastal habitat area. Sandy shore habitat is the second most dominant (33%)

followed by exposed rocky shoreline habitat (25%). The Subtidal habitats within the bioregion are dominated

by mixed or mosaic shelf habitat (48%), followed by sandy shelf (34%) and rocky shelf (11%). Muddy shelf

and bay habitats are less common (3% and 4% respectively) and kelp forests account for less than 1% of the

habitat type present within the Agulhas Ecoregion.

On a local scale (defined as a 5km radius) around the proposed project site mixed or mosaic shoreline type

dominates (50%) followed by sandy shore (29%) and then exposed rocky shoreline 21%. In the subtidal

habitats mixed or mosaic shelf habitat dominates in the proposed project areas accounting for 98% of all

subtidal habitat present. Agulhas kelp habitat accounts for 2% of the subtidal habitat in the project area.

The key shore and shelf habitats present within the project area and their threat status and current

protection level is summarised in the table below. All habitat types present locally within the study area are

Moderately or Well protected in Marine Protected Areas within the Ecoregion.

Summary of marine habitat types present within the project area and the Agulhas Ecoregion indicating Threat Status and protection level.

Assessment of Impacts

Construction Phase

Construction phase impacts are related to temporary disturbance or loss of habitats and associated fauna as

a result of excavation and use of machinery within the coastal zone. Impacts may also occur as a result of

hydrocarbon spillage from the construction machinery and general pollution from increased numbers of

people working in the coastal zone. Marine biota may be impacted through noise from use of machinery and

blasting during construction. These impacts are summarised in the table below.

Ecosystem Habitat type Ecoregion Project Area Threat Status Protection level (2019)

Shore habitat

Mixed shore 40% 50% Near threatened Moderately Protected

Dissipative Sandy shore 5% 5% Near threatened Well Protected

Dissipative Intermediate Sandy shore 25% 24% Least concern Well Protected

Island 1% 13% Vulnerable Well Protected

Exposed rocky shore 19% 8% Vulnerable Moderately Protected

Subtidal habitat

Shelf mosaic 48% 98% Vulnerable Moderately Protected

Kelp forest <1% 2% Vulnerable Moderately Protected


3

Operational impacts

Impacts likely to occur during the operational phase are associated with the abstraction of seawater

(impingement and entrainment), discharge of effluent water and potential impacts on wild stocks from

genetic pollution and diseases arising from farmed abalone. General pollution, and chemicals used in the

farm facilities may find their way into the marine and coastal environments and temporary disturbance on of

biota as a result of maintenance will occur. The construction of a raised linear pipeline in the marine

environment may impact on sediment dynamics in the nearshore. These impacts are summarised in the

table below.

Impacts associated with the construction of the pipeline described during the construction phase also apply

to the operation phase with the implementation of Phase 2 Marine works. The impacts will be the same and

therefore are not repeated in this section. Cumulative impacts of both phases are unlikely to be higher than

currently assessed. Should any design or construction method changes occur for Phase 2 a review of impacts

will be required at that point.

Cumulative impacts

Adjacent coastal land is included in the Uitkraalsmond Nature Reserve to the west and the Pearly Beach

Nature Reserve to the east. Furthermore all marine habitats present with the project area are Moderately or

Well Protected in reserves within the Ecoregion (Sink et al. 2019). The settlement of Pearly Beach is located

to the east of the proposed development, separated by agricultural land, and may have existing impacts on

the coastal and marine environment through recreational resource use activities, storm water runoff, other

potential effluents, and general use of the coastal zone. Agricultural land also borders the proposed

development but is unlikely to have any direct impacts on the marine environment. Due to the low

population density and low levels of development in the surrounding areas, as well as the zonation of

adjacent coastal land cumulative impacts on the coastal and marine environment are considered to be LOW

provided mitigation measures recommended are implemented.


1

Summary of impacts on the marine environment during construction and operation.

Project Phase

Impact Description Magnitude

Consequence Likelihood Confidence Pre-Mitigation

Significance Post-Mitigation

Significance Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Construction Impact 1: Loss of habitat from cut and fill for pipeline construction across fore dune, beach and into the intertidal.

Direct -ve On-site Short-term Low High Low Definite High Moderate Minor

Construction Impact 2: Habitat disturbance on foredune and beach as a result of temporary access road and use of vehicles.

Direct -ve On site Short-term Low High Low Definite High Moderate Minor

Construction Impact 3: Erosion and increased nearshore turbidity during construction.

Direct -ve Local / On site

Short-term Low High Low Likely High Minor Minor

Construction Impact 4: Disturbance of marine fauna, including cetaceans, from marine noise and blasting.

Direct -ve Local Short-term Medium High Low Likely Medium Moderate Minor

Construction Impact 5: Hydrocarbon spills from onsite plant and machinery.

Direct -ve On site Short-term Low High Low Unlikely High Moderate Negligible

Construction Impact 6: General pollution entering the marine environment.

Direct -ve Regional / Local

Short-term Low High Low Likely High Moderate Minor

Op

era

tio

n

Operational Impact 1: Discharge of effluent water causing eutrophication and elevated TSS.

Direct -ve Local Long-term Low Medium Medium Unlikely High Moderate Minor

Operational Impact 2: Water abstraction causing impingement and entrainment.

Direct -ve On site Long-term Negligible High Low Unlikely High Minor Minor

Operational Impact 3: Genetic impacts on wild stock from escapees

Direct -ve Local Long-term Medium Low Medium Likely Medium Moderate Minor

Operational Impact 4: Disease transfer to wild stocks.


Long-term Medium Low Medium Unlikely Medium Moderate Minor

Operational Impact 5: Disturbance to marine habitats during operational maintenance.

Direct -ve On site Long-term Low High Low Definite High Minor Negligible

Operational Impact 6: General pollution entering marine environment.


Long-term Low High Medium Definite High Moderate Negligible

Operational Impact 7: Impact of hard linear structure on coastal sediment dynamics.

Direct -ve Local Long-term Medium Medium Medium Definite Low Moderate Moderate

Operational Impact 8: Impact of harmful chemicals on marine biota.

Direct -ve Local Long-term Low High Low Unlikely High Minor Negligible


ii

Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Regional Context ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Habitat Types within the Ecoregion and Project Area...................................................................................................... 2

Assessment of Impacts ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Construction Phase........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Operational impacts ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Cumulative impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................................. 5

2. Marine Ecology ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Regional Oceanographic Context ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Habitat Types within the Ecoregion and Project Area ........................................................................................ 6 2.3 Description of habitat types and associated biota within the study area ........................................................... 8

2.3.1 Sandy beaches ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Rock shores ............................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Mixed Shore .............................................................................................................................................. 10 2.3.4 Island habitat ............................................................................................................................................ 11 2.3.5 Shelf (inner) Mosaic .................................................................................................................................. 11 2.3.6 Kelp Forest ................................................................................................................................................ 11

2.4 Cetaceans .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 3. Identification and Assessment of Impacts ................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 Construction Phase ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Construction Impact 1: Loss of habitat from cut and fill for pipeline construction . ................................................. 13 Construction Impact 2: Impacts on foredune and beach as a result of temporary access road and use of vehicles. 15 Construction Impact 3: Erosion and increased nearshore turbidity during construction. ......................................... 16 Construction Impact 4: Disturbance of marine fauna, including cetaceans, from marine noise and blasting. ......... 18 Construction Impact 5: Hydrocarbon spills from onsite plant and machinery. ......................................................... 19 Construction Impact 6: General pollution entering the marine environment. .......................................................... 20

3.2 Operational impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Operational Impact 1: Discharge of effluent water causing eutrophication and elevated total suspended solids. .. 21 Operational Impact 2: Water abstraction causing impingement and entrainment. ................................................. 23 Operational Impact 3: Genetic impacts on wild stock from escapes ......................................................................... 25 Operational Impact 4: Disease transfer to wild stocks. ............................................................................................. 26 Operational Impact 5: Disturbance to marine habitats during operational maintenance. ....................................... 27 Operational Impact 6: General pollution entering the marine environment. ........................................................... 28 Operational Impact 7: Impact of hard linear structure on coastal sediment dynamics. ........................................... 29 Operational Impact 8: Impact of harmful chemicals on marine biota. ...................................................................... 30

3.3 Decommissioning impacts ................................................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Cumulative impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 31

4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 33 5. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix 1: Impact Rating Scale provided by Lornay Environmental Consulting .............................................................. 37


1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Description

The section provides an overview of the proposed project with emphasis on aspects which will affect the

marine environment. A full description of the project is provided in the main report (Lornay Environmental

Consulting 2019).

The proposed development involves the construction and operation of an aquaculture facility for abalone,

Haliotis midae, on a portion of the Remainders of Farm 385, Pearly Beach in the Overstrand Municipal Area

(Figure 1.1). The land is currently zoned for agricultural use and an Environmental Authorisation has

previously been granted for the property for the establishment of a fish farm for dusky kob and yellowtail

(EA dates 24/02/2011 DEA&DP ref E12/2/4/1-E2/29-2024/10).

The farm comprises approximately 117ha of which 19ha will be developed in the proposed aquaculture

project. The development will take place in two core nodes on the property in order to reduce the impact of

the development footprint in the coastal zone. The coastal zone is defined as 1000m from the high water

mark, as per the Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008. The core production facilities, which

require constant supply of seawater and release of effluent, will be located behind the foredune in the

southern node. Only the pump house, electrical room, essential roads and paddle ponds will be located

within 100m of the high water mark as it is not practically or financially feasible to have these located further

back. The remainder of the southern node will be developed landward of the 100m high water mark zone.

All infrastructure not reliant on seawater use (main housing, additional offices etc.) will be constructed in the

northern node located adjacent to the R43 on the northern boundary of the property which is outside of the

coastal setback line (red line in shown in Figure1.1).

Figure 1.1: Location of the proposed development in relation to the coast and the settlement of Pearly Beach. Red line indicates the coastal setback line. Blue line indicates the border of the farm boundary on which the proposed

development will take place (Extract from Overberg Draft Coastal Setback Lines Report).


2

The nature of the proposed activity requires proximity to the coast and access to seawater; failing which the

activity is not be possible. The proposed site on Erf 385 Pearly Beach offers a favourable location due to its

situation on the coast, nearby access to the ocean for abstraction and discharge of water, favourable

topography for the pump-ashore aquaculture operation, proximity to a nearby employee pool, and access to

an international airport for exportation of product. At full production the farm will produce approximately

960 tonnes of abalone and include a hatchery and processing area. Development of the facility will be

phased with the initial phase aiming to produce 160 tonnes in the first five years, with the addition of a

further 160 tonnes every additional five years over a 20 year period.

The pump house and sump will be located as close to the sea as possible. The abstraction and effluent

pipelines will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 Marine Works involve the construction of one intake

and one effluent pipeline which will extend through the foredune, across the beach (below surface) and

intertidal zone into the subtidal. Each pipeline will be 3m in width, 2m deep and extend to a maximum

length of 400m from the high water mark (HWM) for abstraction, and 300m for effluent (Figure 1.2). Phase 2

Marine Works will involve the development of an additional two intake and two effluent pipelines of similar

dimensions and will be constructed several years later as the farm requirements develop. Each pipeline will

abstract and discharge seawater at a rate of 6,000m3.hr-1 and at full production 18, 000m3.hr-1 will be

required. The exact alignment of the pipeline will be determined by an engineer upon approval of the

Environmental Application.

The water intake onto the farm will operate via a positively flooded sump, therefore there will be no direct

pumping from the abstraction point. The sump behind the foredune will be constructed below the low tide

water level, as will the intake pipelines which will allow seawater to gravity feed into the sump on an

ongoing basis throughout the tidal cycle. Active pumping will occur from the flooded sump to header tanks

located above the production platforms which will provide water for the flow through system used by the

grow-out and hatchery facilities. Since the abstraction pipelines will function via a flooded intake, with no

direct pumping force at the subtidal abstraction point, impacts of impingement and entrainment at the

abstraction point have been designed out and therefore avoided. The abstraction point will have a vertical

riser to reduce the intake of sediments and organic material settled on the seafloor and will have

screens/filers to prevent entry of larger organisms or debris.

Effluent water will gravity feed from the grow-out and hatchery tanks to an effluent sump constructed above

the mean highwater level which will allow effluent water to discharge via gravity flow through the effluent

pipelines. Distances between the subtidal abstraction point and effluent discharge location will be

approximately 100m.


3

Figure 1.2: Prosed location of the Phase1 and Phase 2 pipeline locations. Exact alignment will be determined by an engineer and test drilling once Environmental Authorisation has been obtained.

The pipeline will be built using precast cement culvert sections which will be buried under the foredune and

beach so as not to impeded access or create negative visual impacts for the public. The depth of the

pipelines will depend on the final construction depth of the intake sump as the abstraction point will gravity

feed water into the sump and requires a negative gradient from sea to shore. The pipeline with therefore

need to be buried deeper on the shoreward side than the seaward end of the intake pipeline. Within the

intertidal or nearshore subtidal the pipeline will revert to above surface (depending on gradient required).

The precast culverts will be laid in 20-30m sections with backfilling being undertaken as soon as a section is

completed. The precast base will be anchored to the bedrock by means of stainless pins after which

readymix cement will be used to complete the precast base structure prior to covering with the precast

culvert top (Figure 1.3). Cement mixer trucks will not access the beach and will remain within the main

southern development node and cement will be pumped via extension pipes from this area to the pipeline

construction corridor. An access track will be required through the foredune and onto the beach. Permits for

ORV use will be obtained. Inspection ports will be placed every 150m along the pipelines, except along the

foredune and beach, and all future maintenance will be undertaken internally.

The depth of the bedrock within the approved zones will be determined by test drilling which will determine

the final alignment and depth at which the pipelines will be laid to achieve the required gradient for the

folded sump design. This information along with the final depth of the sump behind the foredune will then

determine the extent of excavation and/or blasting which is required. Low velocity Nonex explosive will be

used to minimise impacts on marine fauna. An excavator will be used for trenching through the fore dune

and beach switching to a gravel pump in the intertidal. No excavation will be required subtidally as the

pipeline will run above ground.


4

Figure 1.3: Proposed design for the precast cement pipelines.

The farm design includes paddle ponds for the cultivation of marine algae (Ulva sp. and Gracillaria sp.) which

will be used as an alternative feed to artificial feed. The paddle ponds will be located downstream of the

grow-out and hatchery facilities allowing partial beneficiation of the effluent water prior to discharge to the

sea. The marine algae will utilise some of the nutrients in the effluent stream during growth thereby

reducing nutrient load in the effluent stream prior to discharge. However, only a small portion of the effluent

stream will pass through the paddle ponds and hence receive beneficiation prior to discharge.

A canning facility and live packaging area will be developed. The cannery will include canning, drying and

freezing which will involve shucking and gutting prior to processing. Effluent from the cannery will be filtered

to remove all solids. The effluent water stream will be fractionated and ozoned before discharge to mitigate

risk of disease transfer. Solid waste will be disposed of in a registered landfill or removed from site by an

independent contractor. The live packaging area will not generate any forms of waste different from the

grow-out facility.

Initially sewage will be collected in a conservancy tank which will be serviced by an independent contractor.

Once the farm is well established with a large workforce, sewage package plants will be installed which meet

Department of Water and Sanitation standards. Effluent water from the package plants will be used as

irrigation water for the adjacent land. No sewage effluent water will be discharged directly to the marine

environment and water quality leaving package plants will be monitored regularly to ensure compliance with

the relevant standards. No sewage infrastructure will be located within 100m of the high water mark.

1.2 Alternatives

The above description provides an overview of Alternative 3, the preferred development option which has

been refined based on input from specialists. Two project alternatives are considered:

1: No-go alternative – project will not proceed. This is not considered in this impact assessment as no marine

impacts will occur in this instance.

2: Alternative 2 – this involves the original layout plants for the land based development prior to input from

specialists (refer to Lornay Environmental Consulting 2019 for more details). The pipeline locations

remain the same and therefore the marine impacts presented in this report are the same for both

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.


5

1.3 Terms of Reference

Aquatic Ecosystem Services were appointed to undertake a desktop assessment of the likely marine impacts

arising from the development of the proposed Pearly Beach Abalone Farm. The assessment is based on the

project description provided by Lornay Environmental Consulting (Dated 11 July 2019) and takes into

account the planned farming practices.

No site visit was undertaken, however, digital images of the coastline provided by Lornay Environmental

Consulting were reviewed and Google Earth imagery was used to assess the local site conditions. No subtidal

images were available.

The main objectives of the report are to:

Provide an overview of the marine environment in the project area.

Provide a description of project activities likely to affect the marine environment.

Assess impacts associated with these project activities.

Where required provide actions to avoid or mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive ones.

Provide recommendations for monitoring of marine impacts.

2. Marine Ecology

2.1 Regional Oceanographic Context

The proposed development is located on the south coast of South Africa, within the Agulhas Ecoregion (Sink

et al. 2019) which is classified as a warm-temperate marine environment. The Ecoregion extends from Cape

Point in the west to the Mbashe River on the Wild Coast in the east. The east and south coasts of South

Africa which fall within this Ecoregion are heavily influenced by the dominant oceanographic feature, the

Agulhas current, from which the Ecoregion derives its name. The Agulhas Current is a strongly flowing warm

western boundary current which flows southwards along the east coast of South Africa transporting nutrient

poor tropical and subtropical surface waters from the equatorial regions of the western Indian Ocean

(Lutjeharms 2001; Sink et al. 2019). The continental shelf widens along the south coast forming the Agulhas

Bank, an area of relatively shallow water which extends up to 260km offshore. The widening shelf interacts

with the Agulhas Current to form cyclonic eddies on the inshore edge which result in localised areas of

substantial upwelling of cold nutrient rich water which stimulate productivity on the shelf. The Agulhas

current flows along the shelf edge moving offshore as it nears the Agulhas Bank where most water

movement continues into the western Indian Ocean.

Oceanography on the south coast is complex as the area is influenced by both the Agulhas Current and the

cold Benguela Current which flows in a northerly direction along the west coast of South Africa. This region,

in which the project site is located, is considered to be a transitional or overlap zone between the two

Ecoregions in which mixing of waters from each major boundary current occurs creating a dynamic inshore

coastal environment (Sink et al. 2019). The south coast area is subject to upwelling of nutrient rich waters at

various promontories creating an intermediate marine environment in terms of water temperature and

productivity between the contrasting warm Agulhas and Cold Benguela regions (Lombard et al. 2004). This

mixing area along the south coast creates a highly productive environment which is an important spawning

area for several marine species. The Agulhas Ecoregion supports the highest number of South African

endemics including sparid reef fish, octocorals, and algae and is an important spawning and nursery area

utilised by numerous species (Atkinson & Sink 2018; Griffiths & Robinson 2016 in Sink et al.2019).


6

Coastal oceanography is strongly influenced locally by wind and wave action which interact with the physical

shoreline characteristics and contribute to the highly dynamic marine environment within this region. Wave

energy is determined by wind strength and fetch (or distance over which it blows) and determines the degree to

which breaking waves at the shore will modify habitat types and leading to water mixing. South westerly swell

dominates along the south coast (Martin & Flemming 1986) which leads to inshore counter current moving

eastwards along the south east coast. Generally speaking the south coast is a high energy coast, being

exposed to strong winds and wave action which vary seasonally. This results in rapid mixing of inshore waters.

In addition to wind and wave induced currents semi-diurnal tides along the South African coastline result in

large scale inshore water movement on a cyclical basis. Successive high (and low) tides are separated by 12

hours, with an approximate 25 minutes delay each day. Spring tides occur once a fortnight during full and

new moons resulting in even greater diurnal water movements. Tidal activity greatly influences the biological

cycles (feeding, breeding and movement) of intertidal and subtidal marine organisms and assists in water

column mixing.

The combination of these oceanographic and meteorological features results in a highly dynamic nearshore

environment along the south coast which is subject to continual water movement and mixing as a result.

2.2 Habitat Types within the Ecoregion and Project Area

The coastal habitat type of the Agulhas Bioregion is dominated by mixed or mosaic shoreline habitat which

accounts for 42% of the coastal habitat area (Sink et al. 2019). Sandy shore habitat is the second most

dominant (33%) followed by exposed rocky shoreline habitat (25%) (Sink et al. 2019) (Table 2.1). The Subtidal

habitats within the bioregion are dominated by mixed or mosaic shelf habitat (48%), followed by sandy shelf

(34%) and rocky shelf (11%). Muddy shelf and bay habitats are less common (3% and 4% respectively) and

kelp forests account for less than 1% of the habitat type present within the Agulhas Ecoregion (Sink et al.

2019).

On a local scale (defined as a 5km radius) around the proposed project site mixed or mosaic shoreline type

dominates (50%) followed by sandy shore (29%) and then exposed rocky shoreline 21% (this includes 13% of

island habitat assumed to comprised hard substrata) (Table 2.1). The sandy shoreline within the project area

is further sub-divided into dissipative intermediate sandy shore (24%) and dissipative sandy shore (5%), with

the distinguishing factors between these habitat types being the slope and width of the shoreline. In the

subtidal habitats mixed or mosaic shelf habitat dominates in the proposed project areas accounting for 98%

of all subtidal habitat present. Agulhas kelp habitat accounts for 2% of the subtidal habitat in the project

area (Sink et al. 2019) (Figure 2.1). A summary of the key shore and shelf habitats present within the project

area and their threat status and current protection level is presented in Table 2.3. All habitat types present

locally within the study area are Moderately or Well protected in Marine Protected Areas within the

Ecoregion (Sink et al. 2019).


7

Table 2.11: Summary of percentage of marine habitat types present within the project area and the Agulhas Ecoregion indicating Threat Status (Sink et al. 2019).

Ecosystem Habitat type Ecoregion Project Area Threat Status Protection level (2019)

Shore habitat

Mixed shore 40% 50% Near threatened Moderately Protected

Dissipative Sandy shore 5% 5% Near threatened Well Protected

Dissipative Intermediate Sandy shore 25% 24% Least concern Well Protected

Island 1% 13% Vulnerable Well Protected

Exposed rocky shore 19% 8% Vulnerable Moderately Protected

Subtidal habitat

Shelf mosaic 48% 98% Vulnerable Moderately Protected

Kelp forest <1% 2% Vulnerable Moderately Protected

Figure 2.1: Key habitat types within the project area (5km radius) based on the National Biodiversity 2018 classification (Sink et al. 2019).


8

Figure 2.2: Key habitat types within the immediate pipeline corridors (Sink et al. 2019).

2.3 Description of habitat types and associated biota within the study area

2.3.1 Sandy beaches

Due to the inherent instability and mobility of the substrate, sandy beaches are highly dynamic habitats

which are heavily influenced by wave action (Branch & Branch 1983) which in turn influence the beach slope

and sand particle size distribution. Sandy beaches are classified as dissipative, reflective or intermediate

based on their morphodynamic characteristics (McLachlan et al. 1993). Dissipative beaches generally have a

wide beach and surf zone, are flat and comprised of fine sands (Sink et al. 2019). These beaches are exposed

to high wave energy which is dissipated over a wide surf zone creating a gently sloping beach in the intertidal

area which is favoured by macrofaunal communities which often have higher biomass on dissipative

beaches. Reflective beaches are typically steep, narrow with course grained sands. They are subject to low

wave energy but which breaks directly onto the shoreline resulting a high energy intertidal region and large

scale turnover of sediments creating a harsh environment. Reflective beaches therefore often have

impoverished faunal communities as a result. As the name suggests, intermediate beaches occur on the

continuum between dissipative and reflective beach types. Faunal communities on intermediate beaches are

highly variable based on beach morphodynamics and organic (feed) input.

The dynamic nature of sandy beaches and the physical characteristics influence the biological communities

which are present in these habitats. Macroalgae are typically absent as they lack suitable attachment points

required for establishment and sandy beach faunal communities lack grazers with the dominant groups

being filter feeders, scavengers or predators (McLachlan 1983). Food availability is a primary determinant of

sandy beach faunal communities and sandy beaches with high organic input from alternative sources are

able to support more diverse and larger communities (Branch and Griffiths 1988). On the west and south

coast, kelp wrack is an important food source shaping faunal communities on sandy beaches in these areas.

Typical meiofauna on sandy beaches of the Agulhas Ecoregion include nematodes, copepods and ostracods

which occupy different areas of the beaches based on their physical and biological preferences (McLachlan


9

1977; du Toit & Attwood 2008). The intertidal region typically holds the greatest faunal biomass in sandy

beach ecosystems (McLachlan et al. 1981) with tidal migrations being undertaken to maintain position within

desirable habitat conditions over the full tidal cycle. Typical macrofauna in this region of sandy beaches

includes the filer feeding sand mussels, Donax serra and Donax sordidus, and carnivores such as Bulia

rhodostroma and Bulia digitalis (Branch et al. 2010). Scavengers tend to occur on the upper beach and

include the isopod Tylos capensis (du Toit & Attwood 2008; Branch et al. 2010).

Fauna of sandy beaches are well adapted to the dynamic conditions, being mobile, and able to burrow into

the sediments to avoid harsh conditions which are often prevalent. The upper beach areas of this habitat

support communities of larger fauna which feed on the invertebrate macrofauna. This community is

dominated by birds including the kelp gull (Larus dominicanus), African black oystercatcher (Haematopus

moquini), white fronted plovers (Charadrius marginatus) and sanderlings (Calidris alba)(du Toit & Attwood

2008; Branch et al. 2010).

Several ichthyofaunal species occur in the subtidal adjacent to sandy beaches feeding on the invertebrate

fauna available during high tides (Branch et al. 1983). Typical species may include the white seenbras

(Lithognathus lithognathus), cape stumpnose (Rhobdosargus holubi), white stumpnose (Rhabdosargus

globiceps), sand steenbras (Lithognathus mormyrus), blacktail (Diplodus capensis), galjoen (Dichistius

capensis) and lesser guitarfish (Acteriobatus annulatus) (Bennett & Attwood 1993). All fish species occurring

along sandy beaches are highly mobile and undertake diurnal tidal migrations for feeding purposes.

Within the study area dissipative intermediate beaches are the dominant (83% of sandy beach ecosystems)

sandy shoreline habitat. These beaches are fine grained, gently sloping sandy shore with moderately wide

beach and surf zone (Sink et al. 2019). Dissipative beaches are the only other form present (17% of sandy

beach ecosystems) and typically comprise fine grained, gently sloping sandy beach with a wide beach and

wide surf zone (Sink et al. 2019).

Faunal communities within these habitats are typically able to withstand and respond to high levels of

physical disturbance as they are well adapted to the naturally dynamic nature of the ecosystem. The main

species likely to occur there are generally widespread along the south and east coast sandy beach

ecosystems.

Plate 2.1: View from the foredune down to the coastline where pipelines will be placed subsurface. Note kelp forests

in the nearshore waters.


10

2.3.2 Rock shores

Rocky shoreline within the study area is classified as exposed (Sink et al. 2019) and represents only 8% of the

shoreline habitat present within a 5km radius of the development site. Rocky shores are classified into four

distinct zones based on the environmental gradient created through the semi-diurnal tidal cycle (Branch et

al. 1983). The uppermost zone is the Littorina zone, and is characterised by the presence of a single small

Littorina snail on the south coast, Afrolittorina knysnaensis, which occurs in conjunction with the marine

algae purple laver (Porphyra capensis), in the upper intertidal zone of rocky shores where they are able to

withstand the periodic desiccation during the low tidal cycle. The common shore crab (Cyclograpsus

punctatus) also occurs frequently in the Littorina zone where it scavengers at night on kelp wrack (Branch et

al. 1983; le Roux 1991).

The upper Balanoid zone is dominated by barnacles, winkles, limpets and few species of marine algae which

are able to withstand the semi-dry conditions prevalent during the low tidal phase. On the south coast the

limpets Scutellastra granularis and Cymbula oculus are common along with the winkle Oxystele variegata.

The barnacles, Octomeris angulosa, Tetraclita serra and Cthalamus dentaus are common in the upper

Balanoid zone. Few algal species occur in this zone with Ulva sp. being the most prominent.

The lower Balanoid zone experiences longer periods of inundation and tidal wash allowing dense stands of

algae to occur on this region of the shoreline. Gigartina polycarpa, Sarcothalia striata and Gelidium pritoides

are all common algae on the south coast in this zone (Branch et al. 1983; Branch et al. 2010) The limpet

Scutellastra longicosta, and winkles Oxystele sinensis and O. tigrina are commonly found amongst the

marine algae, with scavenging welks, Burnupena sp. Nucella dubia and N. squamos,a and anenomes also

common (Branch et al. 1983; Branch et al. 2010).

The Cochlear zone is the lower most rocky shore intertidal zone. Scutellastra cochlear forms dense bands

along the low water mark within this zone. Below the Cochelar zone the infratidal zone begins which

supports dense colonies of red bait (Pyura stolonifera) and serval species of algae including Hypnea spicifera,

Plocamium sp. and Laurencia sp., and the kelp, Ecklonia radiata. Urchins (Parechinus angulosus) and starfish

(Henricia sp. and Marthasterias glacialis) are also common.

There are only two very small sections of exposed rocky shoreline within the vicinity of the project site,

located approximately 2km to the west and 3km to the east, and it is highly unlikely that they will experience

any impacts from the proposed development.

2.3.3 Mixed Shore

The largest component of the shoreline in the project area comprises mixed shore which accounts for

approximately 50% of the shoreline type within a 5km radius. The National Biodiversity Assessment (2019)

defines mixed shore as ‘shoreline habitat with interspersed rocky and sandy substrata, neither dominant’

(Sink et al. 2019). This habitat type will support a mixture of flora and fauna from both sandy and rocky

shorelines depending on the local wave exposure and morphodynamics. This habitat type is often also highly

dynamic, similar to sandy beaches, as it is subject to periodic accretion and erosion of sands during heavy

seas and storm events, as well as a result of seasonal currents which may alter the dominant substrate

composition. Any hard rocky substrata may be periodically inundated for extended periods of time under

natural conditions and the fauna and flora occurring in these habits are hardy and tolerant of these habitat

changes. As a result the communities in these habitats are likely to withstand short-term localised

disturbance from excavation on the shoreline.


11

2.3.4 Island habitat

Dyer island is located approximately 5km from the proposed development.The National Biodiversity

Assessment identifies island shoreline as a distinct habitat. The fauna and flora as well as zonation on the

island shoreline is likely similar to that described above for rocky shorelines. Kelp forest occurs in the hard

substrata surrounding the islands including Ecklonia maxima, Laminaria pallida and Ecklonia radiata (Birss et

al. 2012). The island provides habitat for the Cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) as well as several

bird species including the African penguin (Spheniscus demersus), Cape cormorant (Phalacrocorax capensis),

bank cormorant (Phalacrocorax neglectus) which are of conservation importance (Birss et al. 2012). Other

bird species utilising the island include swift, Roseate (Sterna dougallii) and Caspian terns (Hydroprogne

caspia), African black oystercatcher (Haematopus moquini), crowned (Phalacrocorax coronatus) and

whitebreasted (Phalacrocorax lucidus) cormorant, kelp (Larus dominicanus) and Hartlaub’s (Larus hartlaubli)

gull and Leach’s storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Several other bird species also occur at the island

periodically.

The area around Dyer Island is well known for the presence of great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)

which is an important location for ecotourism activities. Great white abundance around Dyer Island is higher

in autumn and winter (March to August) than the summer months (Johnson 2003; Towner et al. 2013), with

an increase in abundance in the inshore over summer (Johnson 2003). Numerous species of fish also occur in

the waters around the island, as well as the commercially important west coast rock lobster (Jasus lalandii)

and abalone (Haliotis midae). Since Dyer island is located approximately 5km from the proposed

development, it is unlikely that it will be affected by construction or operational activities.

2.3.5 Shelf (inner) Mosaic

This habitat includes the subtidal seafloor comprising a mosaic of hard and soft substrata extending from the

seaward side of the surf zone to the 40m isobaths (Sink et al. 2019). It accounts for 98% of the subtidal

habitat present with the project area.

This habitat will include a wide range of fauna and flora. Similar to shoreline habitats the soft sediment,

habitat in the subtidal will be dynamic and communities will be limited to interstitial fauna which are able to

seek refuge within the sediments with limited algal communities. Rocky areas within these habitats will

support more diverse and permanent biological communities providing attachment points for algae and

refuge of invertebrate and vertebrate fauna. Several species of fish will occur in the subtidal ranging from

mobile species associated with soft sediments to highly resident species which occur around reef structure.

Large sub-tidal reefs are limited in the project area and resident fish communities are likely limited to the

areas of kelp forest (see below).

2.3.6 Kelp Forest

Agulhas kelp forests are defined as a specific habitat type in the National Biodiversity Assessment (2019) and

comprise 2% of the habitat type in the study area, while contributing less than 1% to habitat in the

Ecoregion. Agulhas kelp forests comprise three main species Sea bamboo (Ecklonia maxima), Spined kelp

(Ecklonia radiata) and split-fan kelp (Laminaria pallida). Sea temperature, wave action and light penetration

are key factors determining the distribution and composition of kelp forests. Substrate is also important as

kelp require a strong attachment point for its holdfast, and kelp forests therefore only occur over hard

substrata where water temperature is favourable. Sea bamboo is the largest of the kelp species which can

attain lengths of up to 12m (Branch et al. 2010). It is the most dominant species along the southern west


12

coast of South Africa (Branch et al. 2010) with its eastern distribution previously reported to be west of Cape

Agulhas, with recent reports of a range extension to the De Hoop Nature Reserve to the east of Cape

Agulhas (Bolton et al. 2012). The species forms dense forests in waters up to 15m in depth and creates a

complex habitat for a range of other fauna and flora. The split-fan kelp is a smaller species generally not

attaining lengths greater than 5m which grows under sea bamboo forests in shallow waters but continues to

grow down to depths of 30m. Spined kelp is the smallest species attaining sizes of up to 1m, and is also the

only species which does not occur on the west coast, only being found along the south and east coast of

South Africa (Branch et al. 2010). It generally occurs close inshore in deep pools and gullies, and is more

common east of Cape Agulhas with only few occurrences reported west of this point, with presence in these

areas usually associated with deeper water (Anderson et al. 2016). All three species are reported to occur in

Dyer Island Nature Reserve Complex (Birss et al. 2012) and the Agulhas Kelp Forests mapped through the

NBA process (Sink et al. 2019) are assumed to comprise a mixture of the three species as no sampling has

been undertaken at the project site.

These kelp forests and surrounding subtidal habitats are important areas for many reef associated and

resident fish species including roman (Chrysoblephus laticeps), panga (Pterogymnus laniarius), carpenter

(Argyrozona argyrozona), poenskop (Cymatoceps nasutus), zebra (Diplodus hottentotus), janbruin

(Gymnocrotaphus curvidens), hottentot (Pachymetopon blochii), bronze bream (Pachymetopon grande) and

galjoen (Dichistius capensis) (Bennet & Attwood 1993; Birss et al. 2012; Robertson et al. 2015; de Vos et al.

2014). Other species which may occur over the subtidal mosaic habitat include geelbek (Atractoscion

aequidens), silver kob (Argyrosomus inodorus) and bellman (Umbrina canariensis) (Bennet & Attwood 1993;

Birss et al. 2012; Robertson et al. 2015; de Vos et al. 2014). In addition several pelagic species may occur

periodically within the project areas. Overall 42 marine fish species have been recorded in the offshore

subtidal environment in the adjacent Betty’s Bay MPA (Robertson et al. 2015) and 38 in the Stilbaai MPA (de

Vos et al. 2014 using Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) highlighting the diversity of ichthyofauna in

the offshore habitats adjacent to that of the project area. Other important species occurring in the kelp

forests (reef areas) include the abalone (Haliotis midae), rock lobster (Jasus lalandii) alikreukel (Turbo

sarmaticus) (Birss et al. 2012; Branch et al. 2010).

2.4 Cetaceans

Several cetaceans may be encountered in the nearshore waters around the project site. These include the

humpback (Sousa chinensis), Indo-Pacific bottlenose (Tursiops aduncus) and common bottlenose (Tursiops

truncatus) dolphin. Humpback dolphins generally occur closer inshore (<20m) and close the estuary mouths

with both the common and bottlenose being found more often in deeper waters (Birss et al. 2012). The

short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) has also been observed in the Dyer Island Nature Reserve

Complex (Birss et al. 2012).

The south coast of South Africa is an important area for Southern Right whales (Eubalaena australis). They

undertake an annual migration between the sub-Antarctic waters where they feed on copepods in summer,

moving northwards over winter to the coastline of continents and islands where they calf and mate (Peters

& Barendse 2016). Walker Bay and the surrounding areas are particularly important areas for this species

for calving and mating which takes place from June to November each year. Calving takes place during

August and September with mating occurring in October and November at which time densities are at their

highest.

Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Bryde’s (Balaenoptera edeni) whales also common along the

south coast. Humpbacks undertake a seasonal migration from tropical to polar waters (Barendse & Carvalho


13

2016), being most common off the south coast during the winter months June, July and August. Bryde’s

whales are resident in South African, being particularly common over the Agulhas Bank (Best 2007). Higher

summer abundance has been observed between Cape Agulhas and East London (Best et al. 1984) and it is

thought that they may undertake a winter migration following the annual sardine run up the east coast of

South Africa (Penrey et al. 2016).

3. Identification and Assessment of Impacts

3.1 Construction Phase

Construction of the main pipeline infrastructure will occur in two phases separated from each other by

several years. Impacts below are rated for Phase 1 construction activities. Impacts for Phase 2 will likely be

similar to Phase 1 as infrastructure and construction methods will be similar albeit Phase 2 will be slightly

larger. Nonetheless the significance of impacts will remain similar provided there are no major changes in

design or construction methods. Cumulative impacts of both phases are unlikely to be higher than currently

assessed below. Should any design or construction method changes occur for phase 2 a review of impacts

will be required at that point.

Construction Impact 1: Loss of habitat from cut and fill for pipeline construction across fore dune, beach

and into the intertidal.

In order to construct the water intake and effluent discharge pipelines, cut and fill techniques will be used to

dig trenches from the sump behind the fore dune, across the beach to the intertidal zone. Two pre-cast (1

abstraction; 1 effluent) concrete pipelines will be constructed during Phase 1 Marine Works. Each pipeline

will be 3m wide, 2m deep and up to 400m long to extend from the sump to the desired abstraction point

subtidally. Phase 2 Marine Works will occur in the same manner, but several years afterwards (time not

specified) and will be larger with four pipelines, each 3m wide by 2m deep by 400m in length will the

constructed in proximity to the Phase 1 Marine Works area (Figure 1.2). The impacts of Phase 2 construction

will be the same as Phase 1 albeit at a larger scale, approximately twice the area impacted during phase 1

will be impacted during Phase 2.

The pipelines will be constructed in sections of 20 to 30m in length across the fore dune (approximately 30m

in length) and beach (approximately 80m in length) in order to minimise impacts on public access along the

beach throughout the construction period. Trenches will be dug using an excavator and shored on either

side using temporary shutter ply. The depth of the trenches will depend on the final depth of the sump

behind the fore dune and the depth of bedrock beneath the beach. Blasting may be required to level or

deepen the bedrock to accommodate the pipeline along a uniform gradient. Once each section is excavated

to the correct depth and gradient, precast concrete base mouldings (Figure 1.3) will be pinned to the

bedrock with stainless steel bars and ready mix concrete will be poured into the base from a cement mixer

truck parked in the disturbance zone of the farm footprint behind the fore dune. Cement will be pumped

through extension pipelines from the disturbance zone and the cement mixer will not require vehicular

access to the beach. Once the base is complete the precast top of the concrete pipeline will be laid and the

trenches covered using the excavated beach sand and rock. The precast culverts will be transported via the

dedicated disturbance zone which is 80m in width and extends 20m either side of the sump. Once the trench

is complete, the beach profile will be landscaped to match the original and surrounding beach profile and

any large rock debris from the excavation will be removed from the beach and disposed of in a suitable

location. The trenching and use of an excavator for digging and laying pre-cast sections of the pipeline will


14

result in direct loss of habitat within the pipeline corridor and damage from compaction and trampling

adjacent to it as a result of the use of an excavator and other machinery.

The pipelines are being laid across a dissipative intermediate sandy beach (Sink et al. 2019) of which the

lower beach and intertidal area is subject to high levels of natural disturbance as a result of currents and

storm events. Although macro invertebrate fauna occurring in these habitats are mobile and tolerant of

dynamic environments a large portion of macro invertebrate organisms present within the corridor will likely

be damaged and killed due to the speed at which an excavator is able to remove sands. Blasting impacts will

also be unavoidable. However, these ecosystems are highly resilient and the corridor is narrow relative to

the amount of adjacent habitat of similar type, re-colonisation once construction is complete is likely to be

rapid. Avifauna is sufficiently mobile to vacate the area during the period of disturbance, however, nesting

birds may be affected but this can be mitigated and will be short-term.

The scale of this direct impact is small relative to the amount of habitat present within the Ecoregion and

project area (5km radius). Assuming an impact corridor 80m wide by 200m length over the fore dune, sandy

beach and into the intertidal, the impact footprint will account for 0.7% temporary loss of intermediate

sandy beach habitat present within a 5km radius of the project site. The impact will be localised and short-

term with anticipated construction of the pipelines to be within 12months, and natural recovery should be

rapid.

Proposed mitigation measures for this impact include the following:

Clearly demarcate the pipeline corridor prior to commencement of construction.

Maintain strict control of corridors for the use of earth moving equipment and vehicles within the

pipeline corridor during construction.

Ensure Phase 1 (and Phase 2) pipelines are aligned as close as possible to each other.

Demarcate the access track through the fore dune clearly and ensure strict adherence of use of the

track.

As far as possible, limit the number of construction vehicle/equipment on the beach at any one time.

Prevent unnecessary use of vehicles in the coastal zone.

Check for nesting shorebirds and slow moving animals within and adjacent to the pipeline corridor

and access track prior to construction, relocate where required.

Ensure all unused excavated material is removed from the beach after construction of each segment.

Cement mixing to be restricted to the project disturbance area on the main site and no cement

mixing to occur on the beach.

Ensure cement extension pipelines are firmly secured and joints sealed prior to pumping.

Ensure the beach is properly landscaped on completion of construction.

Fore dune to be re-vegetated using vegetation similar to what occurred prior to the construction

works following completion of the pipeline.

Limit blasting as far as possible.

Check for, and remove any mega fauna from the project area prior to excavation and blasting.


15

Table 3.1: Rating for Construction Impact 1

Nature of impact Negative Direct Impact

Intensity Low. Natural functions and processes will return to normal post

construction.

Spatial extent On-site. This refers to the beach area immediately adjacent to Erf footprint.

Duration Short-term. Anticipated 12 month construction period.

Consequence Low.

Likelihood of impacts occurring Definite.

Confidence of impact prediction High.

Degree of irreplaceable loss of

resources

Low. The ecosystem to be affected is naturally highly dynamic and recovery

is likely to occur rapidly post construction.

Degree impact can be reversed High. The impacts are short-term and localised once construction is

complete recovery will occur naturally.

Cumulative impact before mitigation Low. Natural functions and processes will not be affected in the long-term.

Significance before mitigation Moderate.

Degree impact can be avoided Unavoidable. There are no viable alternatives for abstraction of seawater

and discharge of effluent water.

Degree impact can be mitigated Medium.

Residual impacts None. Direct impacts from cut and fill will recover naturally following

appropriate mitigation and post construction rehabilitation.

Cumulative impact post mitigation None. As above.

Significance after mitigation Minor.

Construction Impact 2: Impacts on foredune and beach as a result of temporary access road and use of

vehicles.

A temporary access road will be constructed from the southern end of the property and the project

disturbance zone through the fore dune and onto the beach. The track will provide access to the beach for

excavators and vehicles during the pipeline construction phase which is anticipated to take approximately 12

months to complete. The access track will be approximately 80m in width and will be aligned though the

foredune based on recommendations from the botanist to ensure sensitive areas are avoided. The track will

be rehabilitated and re-vegetated following completion of the construction of the pipeline during Phase 1.

Phase 2 will require the development of a new access track for the same purposes. Impacts will be similar,

but will occur several years later.

The extent of the impact will be limited provided strict control of vehicles is maintained and the duration will

be short-term for the 12 month construction period. The scale of the impact in relation to adjacent similar

habitat is minimal and recovery is likely to occur rapidly provided rehabilitation is undertaken following

construction.


Clearly demarcate the access track prior to use.

Inform all drivers of the boundaries of the track and on good beach driving practices.

Maintain strict control of use of the access track.

Restrict the use of the access track to essential vehicles and machinery only.

Prevent unnecessary use of vehicle in the coastal zone.

Check for nesting shorebirds within and adjacent to the access track route prior to construction,

relocate where required.

Rehabilitate the access track on completion of construction.


16

Re vegetate the fore dune as recommended by the botanist following construction.

Limit blasting as far as possible.



Intensity Low. Natural functions and processes with return to normal post

construction

Spatial extent On-site. This refers to the foredune and beach area immediately adjacent to

Erf footprint

Duration Short-term. Anticipated 12 month construction period

Consequence Low.




resources


is likely to occur rapidly post construction. Rehabilitation and re-vegetation

of the foredune is required.

Degree impact can be reversed

High. The impact is short-term and localised once construction is complete

recovery on the foredune can be facilitated by landscaping and re-

vegetation.



Degree impact can be avoided Unavoidable. There are no viable alternatives for providing access to the

pipeline construction corridor.


Residual impacts None. Direct impacts from temporary access will be rehabilitated and the

foredune re-vegetated on completion of construction.




Although the sandy beach ecosystem is a highly dynamic environments subject to sediment movement by

wind, waves and currents, construction activities on the beach and the use of a gravel pump for excavation

in the intertidal zone will increase the possibility for erosion and suspended solids in the water column.

Excavated sand on the upper shore beach will be stockpiled for back filling after pipeline construction and

will pose limited risk for erosion and sedimentation provided stockpiles are not left exposed for extended

periods of time and backfilling occurs promptly. Sand stockpiles will be subject to wind erosion and water

erosion during rain events which may result in higher than usual sand movement in the coastal zone over a

short period of time during construction and within the localised area. Sediments removed in the intertidal

by the gravel pump will be discharged at sea in the nearshore, thereby increasing the suspended sediment

load in the discharge area significantly during these operations. Due to the predominantly course nature of

the sediments which are likely to occur on the local sandy beach ecosystem (as opposed to muds and clays)

settlement time of suspended sediments is likely to be quick and fairly localised to the construction area.

Some dispersal of the fine sediment fraction may occur on local currents but is likely have negligible impact.

Higher suspended solids in the water column has the potential to smother sessile benthic communities.

However, the majority (98%) of the local subtidal habitat is described as inner mosaic shelf habitat

comprising a mix of soft and low profile hard substrate. These habitats are often dynamic with on-going

accretion and erosion occurring though predominant or seasonal currents, wave profiles and storm events.


17

The biota occurring in these habitats are resilient to sediment movement and are unlikely to suffer major

impacts.

Permanent hard substrata and the organisms occurring in these habitats are more susceptible to adverse

sediment loads in the water column and smothering during deposition. High turbidity will affect the ability of

marine algae to photosynthesise should it occur for prolonged periods. Sessile fauna on reefs will be unable

to move should adverse conditions prevail for extended periods of time which may lead to mortality of these

organisms. Kelp forests occur over the hard substrata and greatest concern for this impact as

photosynthesis will be impaired and smothering the kelp and organisms occurring within this habitat will

occur. However, only 2% on the local (within 5km radius) subtidal habitat comprises kelp forest and the

impacts will be localised and short-term. Mitigation measures should be implemented to minimise erosion,

sedimentation and turbidity as far as possible.


Only conduct intertidal gravel pumping during calm sea conditions to limit the dispersal field of

suspended sediments.

Undertake search and relocation of sessile macro-fauna occurring on hard substrata prior to

construction, particularly any wild abalone present which will be susceptible to this impact.

Undertake the construction in as short a period of time as possible, particularly in the intertidal as

this will limit the duration of exposure to the impact.

Ensure timely backfilling of beach excavations to minimise stockpile erosion.



Intensity Low. Natural functions and processes with return to normal post

construction.

Spatial extent On-site / Local. This refers to the beach and intertidal area immediately

adjacent to Erf footprint


Consequence Low.

Likelihood of impacts occurring Likely.



resources


is likely to occur rapidly post construction.

Degree impact can be reversed

High. The impact is short-term and localised once construction is complete

natural wave and currents will aid in recovery of intertidal and subtidal

habitats.


Significance before mitigation Minor.

Degree impact can be avoided Unavoidable. There are no viable alternatives for pipeline construction.


Residual impacts None. Extent of impact will be limited and duration short-term allowing for

recovery and re-colonisation from adjacent areas.




18


The construction phase will generate noise above ambient levels in the areas surrounding the construction

site due to the use of excavators, machinery or blasting. Larger mobile fauna will naturally move away from

the area on commencement of noise generating activities while sessile invertebrate fauna are less sensitive

to impacts from noise and vibration and are likely able to withstand the impacts without experiencing any

major adverse effects.

Avifauna on the beaches will move away from the immediate area unless nesting during which period they

will be susceptible to construction impacts, including noise. Transmission of noise and vibration in the

marine environment is highly effective and can therefore be transmitted long distances from the source.

Cetaceans and whales are particularly susceptible to impacts of marine noise as they rely on sound

generation in their daily lives for communication, navigation and feeding. Impacts on cetaceans must be

avoided as far as possible by implementing appropriate mitigation measures, as outlined below. Other

marine fauna, including fish and sharks will relocate from the area of disturbance over the short-term and

impacts will likely be negligible.

Impacts from noise during the construction period will be limited to the local area in the short term and as a

result they overall impact is considered low.


Undertake visual assessment of nearshore for dolphins and whales prior to any intertidal gravel

pumping or blasting.

During operation in the intertidal and subtidal an observer must be posted and keep a lookout for

large marine mega fauna. Should any whales, dolphins or flocks of birds be observed within the

immediate project area then the noise generating activities should be halted until such time as the

animals have moved away.

No blasting to be undertaken if large marine megafauna are observed within the project and

adjacent nearshore areas.

Minimise blasting as far as possible.

Complete construction in the inter- and subtidal over as short a period as possible to minimise

disturbance.

Use low velocity explosives and equipment to minimise noise generation.

Monitor shorebirds birds, in particular nesting birds, during construction.



Intensity Medium.

Spatial extent Local. Noise impacts, particularly in the marine environment will be

transferred beyond the immediate project site.


Consequence Low.


Confidence of impact prediction Medium.


resources Low. Mobile fauna will return on cessation of noise generating activities.

Degree impact can be reversed High. The impacts are short-term and localised and mobile fauna will return

naturally one the noise generating activities stop.



19


Degree impact can be avoided Unavoidable. There are no viable alternatives for pipeline construction.


Residual impacts None. Extent of impact will be limited and duration short-term.




The use of construction vehicles, excavators and generators within the coastal zone may result in accidental

spillage of fuels and/or oils which could find their way into the marine environment. Hydrocarbons are highly

toxic to marine organisms and any larger spills reaching the aquatic environment disperse rapidly and are

difficult to contain.

All machinery used in the coastal zone for the construction of the pipeline must be maintained in good

working order and checked regularly for leaks. Vehicles and machinery should not be parked on the beach

unnecessarily and for periods longer than required. No re-fuelling is to take place in the coastal zone, all

refuelling must be undertaken at correctly installed bunded fuelling stations. Contingency plans to handle

accidental spillage must be developed and spill and containment kits must be available onsite.

The likelihood of accidental spills is low if good management practices are followed and any spills which do

occur are likely to be small and affect a localised area. The overall significance is therefore considered low.


Limit the number of vehicles and machinery to those essential for construction only.

All vehicles and machinery used in the coastal zone to be maintained in good working order.

No maintenance of machinery to be undertaken in the coastal zone.

No refuelling to be undertaken in the coastal zone.

Should a refuelling station be required on site it must be constructed in the northern node located

adjacent to the R43 on the northern boundary of the property which is outside of the coastal

setback line (red line in shown in Figure1.1). Where fuel is stored on site, the storage area must be

securely bunded and the bunding should have a capacity to contain 150% of the storage volume.

Emergency spill and containment kits must be available at the fuel storage areas and available to

construction teams on the beach.

A contingency plan must be developed to deal with accidental spillages.

Appropriate training of construction personnel must be undertaken so that they are aware of the

restrictions, mitigation measures and the use of spill and containment kits.



Intensity Low. Impact unlikely and will be small and localised.

Spatial extent On site. Accidental spillages on the beach will likely be small and localised,

those reaching the intertidal will be rapidly dispersed.


Consequence Low

Likelihood of impacts occurring Unlikely. Highly unlikely if appropriate management mechanisms re

implemented.


Degree of irreplaceable loss of Low. It is highly unlikely that any large scale spill which would cause


20

resources irreplaceable loss will occur due to the scale of the operation (i.e. no crude

oil tankers to be used).

Degree impact can be reversed High. Any impacts are likely to be localised, small and containable provided

contingency plans are in place and spill kits available.



Degree impact can be avoided Unavoidable. It is unlikely to occur but vehicles and machinery are required

in the coastal zone during construction.

Degree impact can be mitigated High. Effective mitigation measures can be implemented.

Residual impacts None. Extent of impact will be limited and duration short-term.

Cumulative impact post mitigation None.



The construction period will lead to more than the usual amount of people being present within the coastal

zone at any one time and for the duration of the construction period. As people will be working for the

duration of the day in the coastal zone they will likely have food containers and cold drink or water bottles

which may lead to litter in the coastal zone. In addition any construction material packaging may be lost in

the coastal zone, or construction materials themselves may result in littering and pollution i.e. pvc piping;

cement spillage. Non-biodegradable products have the potential to be widely dispersed once they enter the

marine environment and hence the impacts can be far fetching. Plastics can be ingested by marine mega

fauna or lead to entanglement and ultimately starvation of birds, fish and mammals.

All construction staff working on site should be informed as to the impacts of pollution on marine

ecosystems and encouraged not to use single use plastics. An effective protocol for containment and

disposal of waste products must be developed and enforced on site.

The significance impact is considered low as it can be effectively managed through appropriate mitigation

measures.


Educate all staff working in the coastal zone as to the appropriate waste disposal and recycling

protocols.

Limit the use of single use plastics on site.

Provide disposal facilities for recycling reusable waste materials.

Provide sufficient disposal facilities on site.

Undertake daily inspections and cleans ups to remove any litter which has accumulated on site.



Intensity Low. The impact can be effectively managed or eliminated.

Spatial extent

Regional / Local. Due to the ability of plastic products to be rapidly

dispersed by winds and currents the impact is not limited to the site alone.

However, through mitigation and management the likelihood of the impact

occurring can be reduced.


Consequence Low.

Likelihood of impacts occurring Likely. Highly unlikely if appropriate management mechanisms are

implemented.


21



resources Low.

Degree impact can be reversed Good.

Cumulative impact before mitigation Moderate. Pollution may arise from the adjacent town, Pearly Beach.

Significance before mitigation Moderate

Degree impact can be avoided Avoidable.

Degree impact can be mitigated High. Effective management and mitigation measures can be implemented.

Residual impacts None. Provided managed effectively.

Cumulative impact post mitigation Minor. Mitigating impacts on the farm is possible by not within Pearly Beach

town.


3.2 Operational impacts

Operational Impact 1: Discharge of effluent water causing eutrophication and elevated total suspended

solids.

Discharge of effluent water from aquaculture facilities is often considered the most threatening long-term

impact on the marine environment from large scale aquaculture developments. While this may be true for

high density finfish culture, the impact of effluent water from abalone aquaculture facilities has been shown

to be lower than previously expected (Probyn et al. 2017). The main concern with aquaculture effluent water

is the discharge of nutrient rich water which leads to local organic accumulation and eutrophication in the

nearshore. Outputs of elevated nitrogen and phosphorus stimulate primary production which can alter

marine community structure. Eutrophication, as a result of excess input of nutrients, may result in a

reduction in dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving waters as a result of bacterial decomposition. In

addition disease transfer (dealt within separately in Operational Impact 4) and raised temperature levels

have also been flagged as issues of concern associated with effluent water discharge. The effect of increased

water temperature is considered insignificant as the proposed system is flow through (no heating) and rapid

dispersion and dilution will occur on discharge. Solar heating while in the sump and grow-out facilities is

unlikely to raise water temperature significantly above ambient in the nearshore as residence times in the

structures is too short. Maximum temperature increase in the effluent stream is anticipated to be 1.5oC and

dilution in the nearshore will be rapid mitigating any potential negative impacts.

Abalone are invertebrate herbivores, however, under cultivation they are generally fed a high protein

formulated diet that what would not normally be available to them in the wild. Although the formulated diet

increases growth rates, it raises concern over the release of higher levels of dissolved nitrogen in effluent

water. Early studies on abalone effluent water indicated elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients,

particularly ammonium (Yearsley 2007; Britz & Godfrey 2008; Probyn 2017). A recent study has shown that

Total Suspended Solids in grow out facilities were indeed significantly higher during working hours than after

hours due to the range of management (cleaning, flushing etc) activities taking place in the grow-out

facilities. However, the levels of dissolved nutrients in the effluent stream showed very little difference

(Probyn et al. 2017). The authors concluded that the environmental risk posed by farm derived total

ammonium and other dissolved nutrients was minimal, as was that for Total Suspended Solids, which

accounted for between 1-11% of that generated from kelp beds and the west and south coast notes (Probyn

et al. 2017). Furthermore studies on intertidal rocky shore communities within and adjacent to an effluent

discharge point showed no noticeable difference in community structure at a distance of 50m from the

discharge point (Britz & Godfrey 2008).


22

Therefore despite the higher protein content of formulated feeds used on abalone farms, the release of

nutrients and Total Suspended Solids in the effluent water has been documented to have a relatively low

potential impact in coastal upwelling areas (Probyn et al. 2017). The effluent stream is comprised of waste

feed, which is manageable to a certain extent, faeces and dissolved nutrients (AAD 2010). The proposed

farm will operate on a flow thought system and on-going concentration of nutrients in the grow-out facility

will therefore not occur as water used for grow-out is continually replaced. In addition, abalone are highly

sensitive to water quality and water temperature and any elevated parameters would be detrimental to the

grow-out stock and the economic viability of the farm itself. It is therefore in the interest of the farm to

maintain good water quality through appropriate management and on-going monitoring and this makes it

highly unlikely that any elevated levels of nutrient will be produced from the grow-out facilities. Higher levels

may potentially occur during flushing and cleaning of tanks, but this will be short duration and low volume

overall.

Effluent water from the grow-out and hatchery facilities will pass through paddle ponds prior to discharge.

Marine algae will be cultivated in the paddle ponds which will be used as supplemental abalone feed on the

farm. Algal culture will also aid in bioremediation of effluent streams prior to discharge as algae have been

shown to assimilate and significantly decrease the concentrations of waste nutrient products (Buschmann et

al. 2001; Huo et al. 2010). Certain species of algae have been shown to be particularly effective in reducing

nitrogen and phosphorus compounds generated during aquaculture production with up to a 90% reduction

in ammonium produced through aquaculture (Buschmann et al. 2001;Troel et al. 2003; Buschmann et al.

2008; Huo et al. 2010). In doing so they reduce the nutrient load of the effluent stream prior to discharge

into the receiving environment. Maintaining algal cultures during the operational phase will be an important

mitigation measure for effluent bioremediation prior to discharge and aid in further reducing the significance

of the impact of effluent on the receiving environment.

The nature of the receiving environment and nature of the discharge point should also be taken into account

when considering the impact on the ecosystem. Effluent will be discharged into a highly dynamic nearshore

environment which is influenced by local oceanographic conditions including winds, waves, counter currents,

upwelling and storm events, all of which will contribute to rapid mixing and dispersion in the nearshore

environment. It is also worth taking into account the location of the intake and effluent discharge points

relative to each other. The current design for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Marine Works places the two pipelines

adjacent to each other and the intake point will therefore be in close proximity to the discharge point (within

100m). It is therefore in the farms best interest to ensure that effluent water quality does not reach adverse

levels such that it will have detrimental effects on the farm grow-out if abstracted in the intake line. This

ensure a self-regulatory system for management of the effluent discharge during the life of the aquaculture

operation. Abalone farms are therefore unlikely to exceed water quality targets for coastal marine waters

beyond the immediate vicinity of the discharge point (AAD 2010). Local impacts including sediment

accumulation and algal growth are limited to a few meters from the discharge point and are undetectable

50m from the outfall (Britz & Godfrey 2008). Periodic natural storm events and regular maintenance of the

discharge point will further reduce any long-term localised impact from occurring. Findings of the research

undertaken to date on abalone farms and impacts of effluent water support expansion of the industry

without posing and great risk to the receiving environment (Probyn et al. 2014).

Based on the review of available information and farm design this impact is considered to be of low

significance following mitigation.


23


Adhere to requirements of Coastal Waters Discharge Permit (CWDP).

Monitor effluent water quality leaving the facility and ensure it complies with relevant aquaculture

guidelines (AAD 2010).

Parameters to be monitored and frequency of monitoring to comply with the CWDP specifications.

Ensure appropriate management of feeding regime to prevent wasteful and excessive accumulation

of feed in tanks which will increase dissolved nutrient levels in effluent water.

Farm management practices must ensure regular cleaning of tanks to prevent excess build-up of

particulates in grow-out facilities which would lead high levels peaks of particulate outputs during

sporadic flushing.

Cultivate marine algae in paddle ponds downstream of grow-out facilities to contribute to

bioremediation of the effluent stream prior to release.

Maintain effluent sump and discharge pipeline and screens in good working order.

Table 3.7: Rating for Operational Impact 1


Intensity Low. The impact can be minimised through management and mitigation.

Spatial extent Local. Due to the rapid dispersion, the area of impact will extend beyond

the project site, but unlikely beyond a 20km radius in any measurable form.

Duration Long-term. For the duration of operation.

Consequence Medium.

Likelihood of impacts occurring Unlikely.



resources Low.

Degree impact can be reversed High.

Cumulative impact before mitigation Low.


Degree impact can be avoided Low, Unavoidable.

Degree impact can be mitigated High. Effective management and mitigation measures can be implemented

to reduce impacts.

Residual impacts Low. Provided managed effectively.

Cumulative impact post mitigation Low.



Two of the most important issues related to seawater abstraction are entrainment and impingement

(Missimer & Maliva 2018). Abstraction of large volumes of seawater can lead to entrainment of small

planktonic organisms and eggs or larval phases of larger species such as fish and abalone which are able to

pass through the screens and filters. Impingement can also occur where larger species become trapped

against the screens due to the suction force created by the abstraction of water. Quantification of the impact

of impingement and entrainment on marine biota is extremely difficult (Missimer & Maliva 2018) and

although some studies have determined the number of fish or invertebrate larvae and eggs which have been

entrained, the interpretation of this data is difficult. Natural mortality rates of fish and invertebrate eggs and

larvae need to be taken into account as well as the fecundity and stock size of the breeding population. The

number of organisms affected by the abstraction therefore needs to be taken into account in terms of the

natural mortality rates of fish eggs and larvae which is extremely high. Natural mortality has been estimated


24

at 10-20% per day in early life stages (McGurk 1986). When considering the scale of the project in relation to

the breeding population size and the high natural mortality of the early life stages likely to suffer from

entrainment, the impact is likely to be minor.

Impacts can be minimised by locating the intake in an area of low productivity (Missimer & Maliva 2018),

which is not possible on a broad scale for this project as the project is site specific. However, locating the

intake away from dense kelp forests (and hence reef) will mitigate this impact to some extent as it will

reduce the likelihood of impingement of kelp fronds and possibly entrainment of abalone and fish larvae.

The proposed intake pipeline will abstract water by means of a flooded intake system, with the construction

of a sump behind the foredune which will be below sea level. The intake pipeline, which will extend up to

300m from the shoreline, will gravity feed water into the sump. The sump will act as a holding reservoir from

which water will be pumped to a header tank above the operational area of the farm. As a result water will

be drawn into the sump passively, and will be pumped actively to a header tank. This will reduce the velocity

of water intake at the subtidal abstraction point and hence reduce the likelihood of entrainment and

impingement. In addition, a strainer screen and cage will be placed at the abstraction point which will create

a barrier with a large surface area which will reduce the velocity of abstracted water and therefore the

suction force. This will reduce the significance of impingement. There are no mitigation measures to reduce

the effects of entrainment and organisms taken up with the abstracted water will likely die as they are

collected on the drum filter prior to entering the farm.

This will be a highly localised impact and is considered minor after mitigation.


Design features including a flooded intake system and screen filters at sufficient distance from the

pipe inlet to reduce the intake velocity and sucking force are the main forms of mitigation.

Regular cleaning of the screens will prevent build-up of debris which will reduce the surface area for

water to pass through thereby increasing suction force.



Intensity Negligible. The effect of the impact will be indiscernible provided the intake

point is designed correctly.

Spatial extent On-site. The extent will be limited to the immediate area around the

abstraction point.


Consequence Low.




resources Low.





Degree impact can be mitigated High. Good design can be used to reduce impacts.





25

Operational Impact 3: Genetic impacts on wild stock from escapes

Escapees from aquaculture operations which are endemic to the region have the potential to breed with the

wild population. Although only one species of abalone (Haliotis midae) is farmed in South Africa, broodstock

may originate from different, widely separated geographical areas along the coastline. Two independent

reproductive stocks of H. midae have been reported in South Africa, with the spatial divide occurring in the

region of Cape Agulhas (Sweijd 1999; Evans et al. 2004). Aquaculture operations utilise different genetic

broodstock, and breed specifically from a limited broodstock number which are often bred selectively to

enhance beneficial traits, usually associated with growth rates. As a result the cultivated offspring have an

altered genetic profile which is different from the wild stock occurring in the adjacent waters (DAFF 2012).

Should farmed individuals escape into the nearshore waters they have the potential to impact on the genetic

structure of the wild stock. This impact is exacerbated if broodstock originates from different genetic stock,

however, a small number of escapes will have an insignificant effect on wild populations given the

background genetic variability (DAFF 2012).

Although land-based aquaculture systems, as in the proposed project, are more secure than cage

aquaculture operations, there is still a risk of farmed organisms escaping into the adjacent marine

environment. Hatchery operations pose the greatest threat as eggs and larvae may escape the facility in

effluent water in large numbers, and should they survive, they may mix and integrate with wild stocks.

However, this is also the easiest source of genetic contamination to mitigate as effluent waters from the

hatchery facility, which contains egg and larval phases, can be sterilised before being released into the main

effluent stream leaving the farm.

During hatchery spawning, procedures are undertaken to induces spawning and water to the broodstock

tanks are switched off. Once the animals have spawned, the water from the broodstock tanks is drained and

collected in buckets. The best samples are kept and the rest are bleach treated to sterilize all eggs and larvae

before being discarded. The fertilized eggs are moved to the larvae tanks and these tanks have fine screens

on the outlet pipes which catch the eggs and or larvae to prevent them being discharged with the effluent

water. This reduces the likelihood of release of large numbers of eggs and larvae into the main effluent

stream but requires active management during the spawning process.

Spawning in grow-out facilities may also occur and has been reported from several farms in South Africa

(Johnston pers. com. 2019). Natural spawning events are induced by seawater temperature, season and

moon phase which cannot be regulated under farming conditions to the extent to prevent these cues from

inducing spawning events in the grow out facilities. Abalone are broadcast spawners with males releasing

sperm into the water column which in turn encourages females to release eggs which are fertilised in the

water column. There is no control on the release of fertilised eggs from grow out facilities should this occur,

however, the survival rate of the pelagic eggs and larvae is extremely low but may contribute to enhanced

abalone recruitment adjacent to the discharge point in the long-term. The main mitigation for this impact

would be strict control of broodstock management, i.e. only broodstock from the western stock to be used

in the hatchery and strict control of hatchery breeding discussed above to minimise parent-offspring

fertilisation should be maintained. Selective breeding on farms may lead to reduced genetic diversity and a

higher frequency of selected traits and this should be avoided and managed as far as practically possible.

Active control of hatchery breeding will minimise the genetic impacts of abalone reared for grow-out, which

in-turn will minimise genetic impacts on wild stocks should any eggs or larvae be released during from an on-

farm spawning event.

Post-larval abalone are sedentary in nature and the threat of escape is therefore minimal. However, few

individuals may find their way into the effluent channels and ultimately the effluent pipeline through which

they will gain access to the wild stock. However, the number of escapes in this form is likely to be low and


26

the threat of genetic contamination of few individuals on a large population of wild abalone is low (DAFF

2012). Mitigation measures to ensure effluent canals are checked regularly for escapees can be

implemented to minimise the threat of this impact.

Escapees from aquaculture facilities can also be a major vector for transferring diseases, pathogens and

parasites to wild populations. High density aquaculture operations exacerbate the risk as the risk of disease

outbreak in the culture environment increases. The risk of disease transfer is discussed further in under

Operational Impact 4.


Develop a Biosecurity Management Plan for the abalone facility.

In order to minimise negative genetic impacts, broodstock and grow-out organisms should originate

from the same genetic stock as the wild populations adjacent to the facility i.e. only west coast

brood stock should be kept in the hatchery.

Effluent streams post hatchery spawning should be sterilised with bleach prior to release.

Parent-offspring breeding should be minimised as far as possible

All broodstock and spawning to be undertaken in line with DEFF Hatchery Permit requirements.

Records to be maintained on broodstock origin and spawning.

Regular inspection of effluent canals to remove escapees.




Spatial extent Local. Any egg or larval escapees, should they occur, may disperse beyond

the immediate on-site location.


Consequence Medium.




resources Low.

Degree impact can be reversed Low.




Degree impact can be mitigated Moderate. Effective management and mitigation measures can be

implemented to reduce impacts.

Residual impacts Low.




The introduction of diseases, pathogens and parasites from farmed abalone to wild stocks is a major threat.

Aquaculture facilities increase the risk of disease outbreak as they amplify the pathogen levels due to the

high stocking densities and poorer water quality which may occur due to poor management practices.

Diseases, pathogens and parasites may be transferred to adjacent receiving waters through effluent

discharges, escapees of cultured organisms, poor biosecurity management practices and external vectors

(e.g. birds).


27

Diseases of abalone in South Africa are not well characterised (Mouton 2011), and there have been no major

viral disease outbreaks, however, bacterial diseases are common, and fungal diseases have been reported in

recirculating systems (Urban-Econ 2018). Recirculating systems inherently have higher disease risk due to

poorer water quality. Flow-through systems, as in the proposed development, experience better water

quality, however, this is largely dependent on flow rate through the production facility. Although no major

disease occurrence has been reported in South Africa, disease outbreaks resulting in reduced production

have occurred in China, Chile, Korea, Taiwan and Australia, where wild stock were also affected (Urban-Econ

2018). Developing a biosecurity and disease management plan as well as regular monitoring is the primary

mitigation measure for this impact. Although this impact poses a significant risk, the likelihood of occurrence

is low as can be demonstrated through the absence any major outbreak since the start of the abalone

aquaculture industry in South Africa.


Develop a Biosecurity and Disease/Health Management Plan.

Develop a monitoring programme to monitor abalone health, water quality, disease and pathogens within facilities.

Report any disease outbreaks to the relevant bodies/authorities.

Stringent monitoring of effluent waters must be undertaken.

The grow-out platforms must have effective barriers to prevent potential disease transfer vectors from accessing holding tanks and waste water sources (e.g. birds).



Intensity Medium. The impact can be minimised through management and mitigation.

Spatial extent Regional. Waterborne transmission could extend widely to other farms and

wild stock.

Duration Long-term.

Consequence Medium.




resources Low.

Degree impact can be reversed Low.

Cumulative impact before

mitigation Low.


Degree impact can be avoided Moderate, good management practices can reduce the likelihood of the impact

occurring.

Degree impact can be mitigated Moderate. Mitigation depends on good on-farm animal husbandry.

Residual impacts Elevated level of disease and pathogens in wild stocks.

Cumulative impact post mitigation Low. Elevated level of disease and pathogens in wild stocks.



Ongoing farm management and maintenance will occur throughout the life of the project. This will include

maintaining infrastructure as well as daily farm management such as tank cleaning. Infrastructure

maintenance will require ongoing cleaning of abstraction and effluent pipelines and sumps which may

involve high pressure water jets. This will increase the particulate load in the effluent water temporarily


28

during the maintenance operation and waste material being evacuated will generally comprise marine bio

fouling organisms which naturally occur in the nearshore such as algae, mussels redbait etc. Daily

management of the farm grow-out facilities will require cleaning and flushing of tanks to remove

accumulated waste products. This will include faecal material and feed waste which will result in temporary

short term increased on organic loading on the effluent stream. These activities will be required on an

ongoing basis and there is little mitigation which can be implemented. However, the significance of the

impact is considered low as the effluent sump will aid in trapping particulate matter prior to discharge into

the marine environment. The coastal inshore area is also highly dynamic allowing for rapid dispersion.

Periodic sludge removal from the effluent sump may be required, and this material will need to be removed

to a suitable operation for disposal.


Undertake regular tank cleaning to prevent large scale build-up of organic material.

Undertake regular maintenance on pipelines.

Periodic draining of effluent sump and removal of sludge




Spatial extent On-site.


Consequence Low.




resources Low.





Degree impact can be mitigated High. Good management and mitigation measures can be implemented to

reduce impacts.



Significance after mitigation Negligible.

Operational Impact 6: General pollution entering the marine environment.

Operation of the abalone farm on an ongoing basis will lead to the generation of general waste products

which may find their way into the marine environment through the effluent pipelines or as windblown

pollution. This will require general management to minimise spread of waste and education to ensure

employees follow good disposal and recycling principles. Screens on effluent canals can aid in trapping water

borne rubbish and boundary fences will aid in collecting windblown rubbish. Regular inspections should be

undertaken to remove visible rubbish from the site. Periodic beach clean-ups adjacent to the farm could be

undertaken as a service and in support of the local community.


Fit rubbish collection screens on open effluent canals.

Regular rubbish collections for screens and boundary fences.


29

Educate employees as to best practice for waste management.

Placement of rubbish bins at key areas on the farm.

Periodic beach clean-ups adjacent to the farm.




Spatial extent Local.


Consequence Medium.




resources Low.


Cumulative impact before mitigation Medium. Pollution from adjacent Pearly Beach town may occur.



Degree impact can be mitigated High. Good management and mitigation measures can be implemented to

reduce impacts.





The construction of the abstraction and effluent pipelines in the subtidal will occur above the substrate. The

height of the pipelines will be in the region of 2m which is considerable for the nearshore environment. It is

likely that these structures will be colonised by benthic biota, including both algae and invertebrates, fairly

rapidly. In the long-term these structures will act as an artificial reef. However, the linear nature and height

above the seafloor of the structure will in effect create an artificial groin perpendicular to the coastline. This

may alter the localised inshore current patterns and longshore sediment transport, with deposition on the

upstream side of the predominant current and erosion on the downstream section being the most likely

scenario.

There is no information on the local current patterns so the significance of this impact is difficult to rate and

confidence is low.


No mitigation possible


30



Intensity Medium.


Duration Long-term, if removed on decommissioning or permanent if not removed.

Consequence Medium. It should only affect sediment dynamics on a localised scale.


Confidence of impact prediction Low.


resources Low.

Degree impact can be reversed Low. If effluent pipelines are removed this will revert to High.




Degree impact can be mitigated Low.

Residual impacts Yes, Altered longshore sediment movement.

Cumulative impact post mitigation Low. Altered longshore sediment movement.

Significance after mitigation Moderate.


The farming operation will at times need to use substances which may be harmful to the marine

environment if released in sufficient quantities. Such substances include fuels and oils for machinery,

chemical treatments for control of disease or invasive species, antibiotics used for treatment or disinfectants

used as part of the biosecurity programme. These compounds will be toxic to both the target and other not

target organisms exposed to them in the adjacent marine environment, and may be persistent since they do

not easily degrade. The main form of mitigation is to manage the storage and application of all substances

carefully and only utilise them when necessary in accordance with application instructions. The detailed

instructions for the storage and use of substances used for treatment and sterilisation should be included in

the Biosecurity and Health Management Plan. The use and storage of fuels and oils should be covered in the

general management plan.

Small accidental spills are likely to be of negligible impact as they will disperse rapidly. However, large scale

and persistent use of substances will have greater impacts on the receiving environment.


Develop Biosecurity and Health Management Plan which outlines protocols for storage and use of

antibiotics, disinfectants and other treatments.

Provide for the storage and use of hydrocarbon fuels and oils in the general farm management plan.

Develop contingency plans for accidental spills and have spill kits available on site.



Intensity Low.



Consequence Low.




31


resources Low.






Residual impacts Low.



3.3 Decommissioning impacts

During the decommissioning phase of the project the abstraction and effluent pipelines will need to be

removed from the beach and nearshore as well as other infrastructure in the coastal zone. This will involve

the use of excavators and potentially some blasting to break up the concrete pipelines. This will result in

similar impacts to the construction phase with temporary loss of habitat, impacts from access roads, marine

noise, erosion, sedimentation and turbidity as well as potential hydrocarbon spills. These impacts have all

been discussed in section 3.1 and the significance of impacts during decommissioning will likely be similar.

3.4 Cumulative impacts

The surrounding coastal land is relatively well protected through the Uilkraalsmond Nature Reserve to the

west and the Pearly Beach Nature Reserve to the east. Furthermore all marine habitats present with the

project area are Moderately or Well Protected in reserves within the Ecoregion (Sink et al. 2019). The

settlement of Pearly beach is to the east of the proposed development, separated from the proposed project

by agricultural land, and may have existing impacts on the coastal and marine environment through

recreational resource use activities, storm water runoff, other potential effluents, and general use of the

coastal zone. Agricultural land also borders the proposed development but is unlikely to have any direct

impacts on the marine environment. Due to the low population density and low levels of development in the

surrounding areas, as well as the zonation of adjacent coastal land cumulative impacts on the coastal and

marine environment are considered to be LOW provided mitigation measures recommended are

implemented.


32

Table 3.15: Summary of impacts on the marine and coastal environment.

Project Phase

Impact Description Magnitude

Consequence Likelihood Confidence Pre-Mitigation

Significance Post-Mitigation

Significance Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Construction Impact 1: Loss of habitat from cut and fill for pipeline construction across fore dune, beach and into the intertidal.

Direct -ve On-site Short-term Low High Low Definite High Moderate Minor

Construction Impact 2: Habitat disturbance on foredune and beach as a result of temporary access road and use of vehicles.

Direct -ve On site Short-term Low High Low Definite High Moderate Minor


Direct -ve Local / On site

Short-term Low High Low Likely High Minor Minor


Direct -ve Local Short-term Medium High Low Likely Medium Moderate Minor


Direct -ve On site Short-term Low High Low Unlikely High Moderate Negligible



Short-term Low High Low Likely High Moderate Minor

Op

erat

ion

Operational Impact 1: Discharge of effluent water causing eutrophication and elevated TSS.

Direct -ve Local Long-term Low Medium Medium Unlikely High Moderate Minor


Direct -ve On site Long-term Negligible High Low Unlikely High Minor Minor

Operational Impact 3: Genetic impacts on wild stock from escapees

Direct -ve Local Long-term Medium Low Medium Likely Medium Moderate Minor



Long-term Medium Low Medium Unlikely Medium Moderate Minor


Direct -ve On site Long-term Low High Low Definite High Minor Negligible

Operational Impact 6: General pollution entering marine environment.


Long-term Low High Medium Definite High Moderate Negligible


Direct -ve Local Long-term Medium Medium Medium Definite Low Moderate Moderate


Direct -ve Local Long-term Low High Low Unlikely High Minor Negligible


33

4 Conclusion

The significance of impacts from project development on the marine and coastal environment pre-mitigation

is considered to Moderate (83% of impacts) or Minor (17% or impacts). Through implementation of

mitigation measures during the construction phase these impacts can be reduced to Minor (83% or impacts)

or Negligible (17% of impacts).

The significance of operational phase impacts is considered to be Moderate (63%) or Minor (37%) pre-

mitigation. The significance of all but one impact can be reduced to wither Minor (50%) or Negligible (38%)

following mitigation. Only one impact remains of moderate significance, however, the confidence of the

assessment is considered Low. This involves impacts on inshore sediment dynamics as a result of the

construction of a raised linear structure perpendicular to the shoreline.

Due to the low population density and levels of development along this stretch of coastline cumulative

impacts are considered LOW.


34

5. References

Anderson RJ, Stegenga H, Bolton JJ. 2016. Seaweeds of the South African South Coast. World Wide Web

electronic publication, University of Cape Town, http://southafrseaweeds.uct.ac.za; Accessed on 01

November 2019.

AAD. 2010. Abalone Aquaculture Dialogue Standards. World Wildlife fund, Inc.

Atkinson LJ, Sink KJ 2018. Field guide to the offshore marine invertebrates of South Africa. Pretoria:

Malachite Marketing and Media.

Barendse J, Carvalho I. 2016. A conservation assessment of Megaptera novaeangliae. In Child MF, Roxburgh

L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South

Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered

Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Bennet, B.A. & Attwood, C.G. 1993. Shore-angling catches in the De Hoop Nature Reserve, South Africa, and

further evidence for the protective value of marine reserves. South African Journal of Marine

Science 13: 213-222.

Best PB. 2007. Whales and Dolphins of the Southern African Subregion. Cambridge University Press, Cape

Town, South Africa.

Best PB, Butterworth DS, Rickett LH. 1984. An assessment cruise for the South African inshore stock of

Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni). Reports of the International Whaling Commission 34:403–

423.

Birss,C., Geldenhuys, D., Waller,L., & Cleaver-Christie,G. 2012. Dyer Island Nature Reserve Complex

Management Plan 2013-2018. Cape Nature.

Bolton, J.J., Anderson, R.J., Smit, A.J., & Rothman, M.D. 2012. South African Kelp Moving Eastwards: The

Discovery of Ecklonia maxima (Osbeck) Papenfuss at De Hoop Nature Reserve on the South Coast

of South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 34:1, 147-151.

Branch, G., & Branch, M. 1983. The Living Shores of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Branch, G.M., Griffiths, C.L., Branch, M.L., & Beckley, L.E. 2010. Two Oceans. A guide to the marine life of

Southern Africa. Struik Nature.

Britz, P.J. and Godfrey, B. 2008. Specialist report on the impact of the expansion of the wild coast abalone

farm on the marine environment. EnvirofishAfrica. 208p.

Buschmann, A.H., Troell, M., Kautsky, N., 2001. Integrated algal farming: a review. Cah. Biol. Mar. 42, 83–90.

Buschmann, A.H., Varela, D.A., Hernández-González, M.C., Huovinen, P., 2008. Opportunities and challenges

for the development of an integrated seaweedbased aquaculture activity in Chile: determined the

physiological capabilities of Macrocystis and Gracilaria as biofilters. J. Appl. Phycol. 20, 121–127.

De Vos, L., Götz, A., Winker, H., & Attwood, C.G. 2014. Optimal BRUVs (baited remote underwater video

system) survey design for reef fish monitoring in the Stilbaai Marine Protected Area. African

Journal of Marine Science, 1-10.

Du Toit, J. & Attwood, C. 2008. Stilbaai Marine Protected Area Management Plan. Cape Nature & DEAT.

http://southafrseaweeds.uct.ac.za/


35

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012.Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine

Aquaculture. A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally

produced by Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and revised by AquaEco.

Evans, B.S., Sweijd, N.A., Bowie, R.C.K., Cook, P.A., &Elliott, N.G. 2004. Population genetic structure of the

perlemoen Haliotis midae in South Africa: Evidence of range expansion and founder events. Mar.

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 270: 163-172.

Griffiths CL, Robinson TB 2016. Use and usefulness of measures of marine endemicity in South Africa. South

African Journal of Science 112: 1–7.

Huo, Y.Z., Xu, S.N., Wang, Y.Y., Zhang, J.H., Zhang, Y.J., Wu, W.N., Chen, Y.Q., He, P.M., 2010. Bioremediation

efficiencies of Gracilaria verrucosa cultivated in an enclosed sea area of Hangzhou Bay, China. J.

Appl. Phycol. doi:10.1007/ s10811-010-9584-9.

Johnson, R. 2003. The behavioural ecology of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) at Dyer Island, MSc

dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

le Roux , P.J. 1991. The population ecology and feeding biology of rocky shore crabs on the Cape Peninsula.

MSc Dissertation, University of Cape Town.

Lombard, A.T., Strauss, T., Harris, J., Sink, K., Attwood, C., and Hutchings, L. 2004. South African National

Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004. Technical Report. Volume 4: Marine Component. South

African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), Pretoria.

Lornay Environmental Consulting. 2019. Pearly Beach Abalone Farm Basic Assessment Report.

Lutjeharms JRE 2001. The Agulhas Current. In: Steele J, Thorpe S, Turekian K (eds), Encyclopedia of Ocean

Science. (1 vol.). London: Academic Press. pp 104–113.

Martin, A.K., & Flemming, B.W. 1986. The Holocene Shelf Sediment Wedge Off the South and East Coast of

South Africa. Shelf Sands and Sandstones, Memoir 11. 27-44.

McGurk, M.D. 1986. Natural mortality of marine pelagic fish eggs and larvae: role of patchiness, Mar.-Prog.

Ser. 34 227–242.

McLachlan, A. 1977. Composition, distribution, abundance and biomass of the macrofauna and meiofauna of

four sandy beaches. Zoologica Africana 12: 279-306.

McLachlan, A. 1983. The ecology of sandy beaches in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Developments in

Hydrobiology. Sandy Beaches and ecosystems. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 539-546.

McLachlan, A., Erasmus, T., Dye, A.H., Wooldridge, T., van der Horst, G., Rossouw, G., Lasiak, T.A.,

and McGwynne, L. 1981. Sand beach energetics: An ecosystem approach towards a high energy interface.

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 13: 11-25.

McLachlan A, Jaramillo E, Donn TE & Wessels D. 1993. Sandy beach macrofauna communities and their

control by the physical environment: A geographical comparison. Journal of Coastal Research 15:

27-38.

Missimer, T.M., & Maliva, R.G. 2018. Environmental issues in seawater reverse osmosis desalination: Intakes

and outfalls. Desalination 434: 198-215.

Mouton, A. 2011. An epidemiological study of parasites infecting the South African abalone (Haliotis midae)

in Western Cape aquaculture facilities. MSc Dissertation, university of Pretoria.


36

Penry G, Findlay K, Best P. 2016. A conservation assessment of Balaenoptera edeni. In Child MF, Roxburgh L,

Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa,

Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust,

South Africa.

Peters IT, Barendse J. 2016. A conservation assessment of Eubalaena australis. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do

Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa,

Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust,

South Africa.

Probyn, T. A., Pretorius, M., & Bernatzeder, A. 2014. Effluent Water Quality Characteristics Of Landbased

Abalone Farms In The Western Cape, South Africa. Directorate: Aquaculture Research, Department

of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).

Probyn, T. A., Pretorius, M., Seanego, K., & Bernatzeder, A. 2017. Characterisation of water quality in

effluents of land-based abalone farms in the Western Cape, South Africa. Aquacult Environ Interact

Vol 9:87-102.

Roberson, L. , Winkler, H., Attwood, C., De Vos, L., Sanguinetti, C., & Götz, A. 2015. First survey of fishes in

the Betty's Bay Marine Protected Area along South Africa's temperate south-west coast, African

Journal of Marine Science, 37:4, 543-556, DOI: 10.2989/1814232X.2015.1110045

Sink KJ, van der Bank MG, Majiedt PA, Harris LR, Atkinson LJ, Kirkman SP, Karenyi N (eds). 2019. South

African National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 4: Marine Realm. South

African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. South Africa.

Sweijd. 1999. Molecular markers and abalone seeding as tools for the conservation and management of the

South African abalone (perlemoen), Haliotis midae Linn., resource. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. 265

pp.

Towner, A.V., Underhill, L.G., Jewell, O.J.D, and Smale, M.J. 2013. Environmental Influences on the

Abundance and Sexual Composition of White Sharks Carcharodon carcharias in Gansbaai, South

Africa. Plos ONE 8(8): e71197. Doi10.137/journal.pone.0071197.

Troell, M., Hallling, C., Neori, A., Chopin, T., Buschmann, A.H., Kautsky, N., Yarish, C., 2003. Integrated

mariculture: asking the right questions. Aquaculture 226, 69– 90.

Urban-Econ. 2018. Abalone Feasibility Report. Final Report 2018. Preapred for the Department of Agriculture

Forestry and Fisheries. Prepared y Urban-Econ Development Economists.

Yearsley, R.D. 2007. Water quality, abalone growth and the potential for integrated mariculture on a South

African abalone Haliotis midae. farm. MSc Thesis, Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science.

84p.


37

Appendix 1: Impact Rating Scale provided by Lornay Environmental

Consulting

Impacts are described according to their nature or type, as follows: Nature / type of impact Nature / Type of impact Definition

Positive An impact that is considered to represent an improvement on the baseline or introduces a positive change

Negative An impact that is considered to represent an adverse change from the baseline, or introduces a new undesirable factor

Direct Impacts that result from a direct interaction between a planned project activity and the receiving environment/receptors (e.g. between occupation of a site and the pre-existing habitats or between an effluent discharge and receiving water quality).

Indirect Impacts that result from other activities that are encouraged to happen as a consequence of the Project (e.g. in-migration for employment placing a demand on resources).

Cumulative Impacts that act together with other impacts (including those from concurrent or planned future third-party activities) to affect the same resources and/or receptors as the Project.

The magnitude of the impact is categorised based on the spatial extent duration and intensity of the impact. Impact Magnitude

Extent

On site – impacts that are limited to the boundaries of the development site, or in the case of the marine assessment the adjacent coastline and marine environment.

Local – impacts that affect an area in a radius of 20 km around the Development site.

Regional – impacts that affect regionally important environmental resources or are experienced at a regional scale as determined by administrative boundaries, habitat type/ecosystem.

National – impacts that affect nationally important environmental resources or affect an area that is nationally important/ or have macro-economic consequences

Duration

Temporary – impacts are predicted to be of short duration and intermittent/occasional.

Short-term – impacts that are predicted to last only for the duration of the


38

construction period.

Long-term – impacts that will continue for the life of the Project but ceases when the project stops operating.

Permanent – impacts that cause a permanent change in the affected receptor or resource (e.g. removal or destruction of ecological habitat) that endures substantially beyond the project lifetime.

Intensity

BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Negligible – the impact on the environment is not detectable.

Low – the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural functions and processes are not affected

Medium – where the affected environment is altered but natural functions and processes continue, albeit in a modified way.

High – where natural functions or processes are altered to the extent that they will temporarily or permanently cease.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

Negligible – there is no perceptible change to people’s livelihood.

Low - people/communities are able to adapt with relative ease and maintain pre-impact livelihoods.

Medium – people/communities are able to adapt with some difficulty and maintain pre-impact livelihoods but only with a degree of support.

High - affected people/communities will not be able to adapt to changes or continue to maintain pre-impact livelihoods.

Likelihood – the likelihood that an impact will occur

Likelihood

Unlikely The impact is unlikely to occur.

Likely The impact is likely to occur under most conditions.

Definite The impact will occur.

Once an assessment is made of the intensity and likelihood, the impact significance is rated using the matrix below:

Significance

Mag

nit

ud

e Unlikely Likely Definite

Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor

Low Negligible Minor Minor

Medium Minor Moderate Moderate

High Moderate Major Major

Definitions of significance: Negligible

An impact of negligible significance (or an insignificant impact) is where a resource or receptor (including people) will not be affected in any way by a particular activity, or the


39

predicted effect is deemed to be ‘negligible’

Minor

An impact of minor significance is one where an effect will be experienced, but the impact magnitude is small (with and without mitigation) and within accepted standards, and/or the receptor is of low sensitivity/value

Moderate

An impact of moderate significance is one within accepted limits and standards. The emphasis for moderate impacts is on demonstrating that the impact has been reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable. This does not necessarily mean that ‘moderate’ impacts have to be reduced to ‘minor’ impacts, but that moderate impacts are managed effectively and efficiently.

Major An impact of major significance is one where an accepted limit or standard may be exceeded, or large magnitude impacts occur to highly valued / sensitive resource / receptors. A goal of the EIA process is to get to a position where the Project does not have any major residual impacts.

Significance of an impact is then qualified through a statement of the degree of confidence. Degree of confidence is expressed as low, medium or high.

Pearly Beach Abalone Farm G6 Coastal... · The proposed development involves the construction and...

Documents

Transcript of Pearly Beach Abalone Farm G6 Coastal... · The proposed development involves the construction and...