Draft Status Quo Report for the Pixley Ka Seme ... - SRK Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SRK Consulting in association with BKS Pixley Ka Seme Local Municipality EMF – Draft Status Quo Report Page 17 SRK. Assumptions have been made that the data sourced are correct and complete. The SEMP will need to provide guidelines which must cover uncertainties regarding information. It is further assumed that input from key stakeholders during the public participation process will fine-tune information in the Status Quo report. Information gaps include: • Very limited data on groundwater quantity, use, quality and influences on groundwater quality. Gaps in comprehensive groundwater quality and quantity data and groundwater monitoring programmes for the area are an important limitation for decision-making; • Location of waste dumps, registered landfill sites, cemeteries and other sources of impact on water quality; and • Sufficient data to carry out modelling of catchment management. Aquatic and wetland ecology • The resolution of the available data enables large spatial patterns to be detected, and is suitable for strategic planning. Information has been presented mainly at a quinary level, and there are 106 of these within the study area. The average diameter of the quinary catchments is about 6 km, which provides some indication of the resolution of the information presented. The available database for fish contains information for five monitoring sites only within the study area. The river health database, together with unpublished data obtained from Johan Engelbrecht, contains aquatic invertebrate biomonitoring data for seven sites only within the study area; • There were no data available to inform the present ecological state of the any of the wetlands within the study area. As such, a surrogate measure of ecological state was based on the understanding that the condition of a wetland is influenced by land use in the catchment; • The delineation of wetlands for this study was conducted at a broad scale only, due largely to budgetary constraints and the large size of the study area. The wetland boundaries should therefore be treated as a coarse guideline of suspected wetland areas, and can only be used as an indication of where wetland and riparian areas are likely to be found. The information is suitable for strategic planning purposes only; and • The Aquatic and Wetland Ecology specialist report focused on the likely biodiversity support values of aquatic ecosystems. The assessment did not consider other potential functional values of aquatic ecosystems, such as water supply, flood attenuation, water quality enhancement and the like. These values tend to be controversial, and differ from wetland to wetland. The scale used in this project did not allow for a reliable and consistent assessment of these functional values across the study area. Terrestrial ecology • No live trapping was done due to the time- and financial-constraints placed on the study; • Limited site visits were conducted, limiting the field survey to spring and late summer; and • No night surveys were done. Land use • The main limitation was the reliance on secondary data, with particular reference to demographic, socio-economic and infrastructure provision data, some of which was fairly outdated such as the 2001 Census data. Of the range of recent documentation (2006 to 2009) used in the compilation of the Land Use specialist report, a number of sources of demographic data appear to be used, namely, the 2001 census, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) figures of 2005, the PKSLM Water Services Plan of 2006, the IHS Global Insight: Regional Explorer 388 (2.2b), and the 2007 Community Census. For the purposes of clarity, statistics were aligned with the PKSLM IDP 2009- 2010, which has predominantly used the WSDP, 2006 and Global Insight data, for purposes of continuity as the baseline for the demographic data. However, where other statistical sources are used it is purely to indicate levels of relative magnitude rather than precise figures. KILI/BEAT G:\404946_PIXLEY EMF\7REPORTS\Status Quo report\Draft report\Draft status quo report, July 2010.docx July 2010
SRK Consulting in association with BKS Pixley Ka Seme Local Municipality EMF – Draft Status Quo Report Page 18 • It should however, be noted that although the 2007 Community Census information is considered to be the baseline for the entire country and has been used in the GSDM SDF, completed in 2009, concerns have been expressed by statisticians about the accuracy of some of the data, and as such this report aligns with the local municipality’s IDP as indicated above. There was also limited verification in terms of extensive site visits or interviews. Agriculture • The agricultural specialist study only focussed on issues relating to agriculture, i.e.: agricultural systems, natural resource potential, agro-tourism, agricultural institutions, land reform, and agricultural production and produce markets. It was assumed that other cross-cutting issues also intimately linked to agriculture such as the environment and water management were covered by other specialists. • Information such as vulnerable land for soil erosion, environmental sensitive areas, availability of water resources for agriculture and agricultural potential, needed further detailed research and assessments since these were not available from current information and satellite photos. Socio-economics Social statistics were primarily taken from the Census (2007), the PKSLM (2010) and the Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) Community Survey (CS) (2007). There are some concerns regarding social data integrity for the area, with over- and overestimations in some cases. An accurate and up-to-date survey is required in order to ensure that adequate and appropriate development planning is carried out for PKSLM. Cultural heritage • There is a large gap in information relating to the history of this area. The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) database is completely outdated and does not cover the latest resources proclaimed as heritage sites. SAHRA is in the process of combining maps of cultural resources identified through heritage impact assessment (HIA) reports, but this is not yet available. It also needs to be indicated that this area has not been well researched by historians and archaeologists in the past; • Cultural resources are all non-physical and physical man-made occurrences, as well as natural occurrences associated with human activity. These include all sites, structure and artifacts of importance, either individually or in groups, in the history, architecture and archaeology of human (cultural) development. Graves and cemeteries are included in this; • The significance of the sites, structures and artifacts is determined by means of their historical, social, aesthetic, technological and scientific value in relation to their uniqueness, condition of preservation and research potential. The various aspects are not mutually exclusive; • The latitude and longitude of any archaeological or historical site or feature, is to be treated as sensitive information by the developer and should not be disclosed to members of the public; • All recommendations are made with full cognizance of the relevant legislation; and • The few sources available are biased and focus mostly on the cultural heritage of Europeans in the area. The sources were however found to be very reliable apart from omitting information. Resource economics • All technical, financial and other information provided by other specialists and official sources is assumed to be correct; • Comprehensive baseline data on the costs and benefits of different land use alternatives was generally difficult to access or unavailable. This necessitated the use of assumptions and professional judgement combined with selected key expert inputs generally accessed through telephonic interviews; • The quantification of economic impacts in order to inform the assessment of impacts was not possible, nor considered necessary, for all impacts. Where possible, quantification focused on impacts considered to be most important in the overall KILI/BEAT G:\404946_PIXLEY EMF\7REPORTS\Status Quo report\Draft report\Draft status quo report, July 2010.docx July 2010
Page 2 and 3: SRK Consulting in association with
Page 10 and 11: SRK House 265 Oxford Road, Illovo J
Page 76 and 77:
SRK Consulting in association with
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
show all

Draft Status Quo Report for the Pixley Ka Seme ... - SRK Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?