DEVELOPMENT OF AN ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UILKRAALS ESTUARY

Minutes of the First Stakeholder Meeting

10 March 2010

Gansbaai Municipality Hall

Agenda

10:00 am Tea All

10:15 am Welcome and Introduction Anchor Environmental

10:30 am Access Point identification and discussion All

12:30 pm Lunch All

01:15 pm Access Point identification and discussion All

02:45 pm Closure Anchor Environmental

Welcome and Apologies

Dr Barry Clark of Anchor Environmental Consultants welcomed all the participants to the meeting and thanked everyone for taking the trouble to attend. A round of introductions followed, during which everyone present introduced themselves and explained their affiliations. Dr Clark presented apologies for the following persons:

• Rob Fryer apologized on behalf of Overstrand Conservation Foundation (OCF)

• John Roberts apologized on behalf of DWAF Breede Overberg and asked Patrick Coller and Samantha Adey to attend in his stead

• Wilfred Chivell apologized on behalf of Dyer Island Conservation Trust and sent Nick Loubser in his stead

• Alan Boyd apologized on behalf of MCM but indicated that someone would represent him

• Sunette Rauch apologized on behalf of DEADP Pollution Management

• Ferde Hugo apologized on behalf of Department of Agriculture WC – Landcare Officer

Concerns were also expressed over the fact that certain other key individuals were not present at the meeting. This included a representative from the Uilkraalsmond Kampvereniging. Corne Swart offered to provide contact details for a representative.

It was noted that many of the riparian landowners were missing from the meeting, including Julian AIcross, Wayne Gabb and Lambertus van Zyl, and a Mr Germishuis. Dirk Crafford of the Gansbaai Municipality was also not in attendance, nor was Johan Botha, manager of the Uilkraalsmond Caravan Park, or Kat Mybirgh, Municipal manager, or Anton Odendal of BirdLife Overberg, or a representative of the local Ratepayers Association, and someone from the Strandveldlandbouvereniging.

Dr Clark promised that every effort would be made to ensure that these people and all other stakeholders would be invited to the next meeting. He stressed that is was difficult for the consultants to know who all the key stakeholder were and welcomed any assistance from stakeholders present at this meeting in spreading the word to other interested persons for future meetings.

Rationale and Proposed approach to the development of a Management Plan for the Uilkraals estuary

Dr Clark then explained that this was the first stakeholder meeting for the development of a management plan for the Uilkraals estuary. He explained that this was part of the Cape Estuaries Programme, a partnership between National government (Marine and Coastal Management, Department of Water Affairs and Environment, SANPARks), Provincial government (DEADP, CapeNature) and local government (Overberg District Muncipality, Overstrand Local Municipality). The main objective of the programme was to enhance management of estuaries in the Cape Floristic Region. This programme falls within the ambit of the new Integrated Coastal Management Act (2009) which requires that management plans are developed for all estuaries in the country. Dr Clark explained that the project would be undertaken in three phases, the first being a scoping phase in which meetings such as this would be held with stakeholders to identify what the main issues are pertaining to the Uilkraals estuary and in which a Situation Assessment report would be prepared describing the current status of the estuary and documenting all issues requiring management attention. The second phase of the project would revolve around the development of the management plan for the system which would seek to address key issues of concern identified by stakeholders. The third phase of the project would involve setting up an Estuary Management Forum for the Uilkraals estuary which would comprise of representative of all the major stakeholder groups (e.g. riparian land owners, local businesses, recreation clubs, rate payers etc.) and the various government stakeholders (e.g. Overberg District Muncipality, Overstrand Local Municipality, Marine and Coastal Management, Department of Water Affairs and Environment, DEADP, Cape Nature). The role of the forum would be to oversee the implementation of the management plan and to address new issues that may arise in the future.

A number of questions and comments were raised during this discussion session and are summarised below.

Question: Who appointed Anchor to develop the management plan?  Answer: Pierre De Villiers from the CAPE Estuaries programme responded to say that Anchor was appointed by the CAPE Estuaries programme and explained the nature of the programme as articulated above.

Question: The development of the Kraaibosch Dam and the EIA that was conducted – will Anchor be looking at this?  Answer: Barry Clark replied that we were aware of the issues relating to the dam and that we had a copy of the EIA and would be addressing this in the Situation Assessment report and management plan. Pierre De Villiers stressed that it was imperative that all issues affecting the estuary be addressed in this study

Question: DWAF has established catchment management agencies for all major river catchments around the country. Can we link into the forum that has been established for the CMA in which the Uilkraals falls, rather than creating a new forum just for the estuary? Answer: Yes this is certainly possible and will need to be considered at the appropriate time. The Uilkraals estuary fall within the Breede‐Overberg Catchment Management Agency, which already has an associated stakeholder forum. Issues relating to the Uilkraals estuary, while being of major significance to local residents, may not be of importance to the whole of the CMA and hence may not receive the attention they deserve, especially in the initial phases of the implementation of the management plan.

Question: Why is the mouth of the estuary closed for the first time in 100 years?

Question: Why has a notice been erected indicating that it is no longer safe to swim in the estuary? Is this linked to the closure of the mouth?  Dr Clark responded by saying he would try to get answers to the questions and that they would be addressed in Management Plan and Situation Assessment Report

Some discussion on land use in the catchment followed. It was noted that agriculture was the main land use in the catchment and included vegetable farming grazing and hay/silage for dairy farming, vineyards, orchards (pears). It was also noted that dairy farming was important in the Boesmans River tributary and that there may be an issue with effluent from the abattoir in this area being discharged into the river.

A comment was also made regarding the high concentrations of E. coli in the estuary. Melt Carstens from the Overberg District Municipality indicated that he had data on this. Mr Carstens also mentioned the fact that there was a need for salinity monitoring on the system and that there was a problem with sewage discharged into the estuary. It was also mentioned that DWAF used to manage alien vegetation on the dunes near the mouth of the estuary. Some discussion followed on mouth closure which is believed to be linked to the construction of the Kraaibos dam. Numerous objections were made at the time when the dam was proposed and later when it was actually built. The dam reportedly captures approximately 30% of the winter flow but none of the summer flow. A number of people challenged this, indicating that they believed that the dam was not being operated in accordance with the rules included in the ROD derived from the EIA study. An observation was made that the Kraaibos dam always appears full, much fuller than other dams in the region. Most of the abstraction from the river came from the dam or the river upstream, with very little being taken out below the dam.

A question was asked regarding what the relative contribution agriculture and poor land management might have made to the closure of the mouth. Dr Clark indicated that this issue would be addressed in the Situation Assessment report. He also indicated that it is most likely that any silt generated by poor and management would be trapped in the dam and would not reach the estuary.

A number of questions were also asked about the desirability and need for breaching of the estuary mouth. Dr Clark indicated that this would have to be addressed as an option in the management plan but that it should be recognised that an EIA would need to be completed if this was identified as the best future management approach. Other management interventions might involve greater releases of water from the dam and clearing of aliens that would release more water from the catchment.

The role played by wave action and ocean currents in closing the estuary mouth was discussed and whether there had been any major changes in these parameters in recent years that may have influenced the state of the estuary mouth. The impacts of the bridge on the estuary mouth was also discussed. It was acknowledged that bridge construction had preceded the recent mouth closure events by a considered period and was unlikely to be a major influencing factor.

The importance of the estuary as a draw card for tourists was also discussed. Ecotourism had previously been highlighted as being extremely important in the region. The estuary is very important in drawing tourists to the area. ODM has recently funded a study of the economic importance of tourism in the area. Uilkraalsmond receives in the order of 4‐5000 visitors per year. A number of cancellations had been received from prospective visitors in recent months thought to be due to concerns over poor water quality in the estuary. Further deterioration in water quality in the estuary was a serious risk due to projected growth at Uilkraalsmond and Franskraal.

There are also some flood risks associated with the closure of the estuary mouth, with water being pushed up the storm water pipes into the caravan park. The sewage works and other infrastructure in Uilkraalsmond was at risk from this source as well.

Discussion then moved onto identifying the major issues affecting the estuary. These were identified as being:

• Reduction in freshwater flow to the estuary and links to mouth closure which has affected water quality and ecology.

• Public access to the estuary – currently this is restricted access via the two bridges over the system and via the beach from Franskraal.

• Lack of public amenities, including parking, around the estuary.

• Sewage discharges to the estuary and water quality problems in the estuary

• Development encroaching on the estuary. Currently there is little but a number of proposal have been tabled.

• Bait collecting in the estuary.

• Dune management. Cape Nature used to assume this responsibility in the past but is no longer involved. This may be part of the reason for mouth closure in recent years.

• Recreational opportunities associated with the Kraaibos dam. Municipality does not want motorised boats on the dam due to pollution issues.

• Future development in the area and increased demands for freshwater on local rivers.

• Alternative sources of water need to be identified – e.g. ground water use and desalination need to be considered as alternatives.

Discussion slowed at this point and it was suggested that the meeting be closed. Dr Clark thanked all participants for taking the time to attend the meeting and for their inputs. He explained that the next steps entailed the preparation of the Situation Assessment report which would be tabled at a second stakeholder meeting where issues affecting the estuary would be discussed in more detail.

COMMENTS

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Verification code: