environmental management programme (emp) tented … s24g/koensrust... · environmental management...
Post on 23-Aug-2018
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMP)
TENTED CAMP ON THE DUIWENHOKS RIVER,
‘KOENSRUST’ 502, VERMAAKLIKHEID
JULY 2013
Prepared by
CHARL DE VILLERS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
14 Bradwell Road VREDEHOEK 8001
Ph 083 785 0776 * skua@mweb.co.za * Fax 086 553 9256
in collaboration with
REGALIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
and
BOLANDENVIRO
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
2 | 1 6
1. BACKGROUND
This environmental management programme (EMP) was compiled in support of a section 24G
application1 for the retrospective authorisation of unauthorised activities
2 at the farm ‘Koensrust’
502 in the Hessequa Municipality.
The activities for which retrospective authorisation has been sought relate to the construction of a
tented camp on the banks of the Duiwenhoks River, about 5 km downstream of Vermaaklikheid. The
tented camp, which comprises three, furnished canvas tents placed on a wooden deck with a surface
area of 127 m2, forms an extension to an existing wooden shed/boathouse that was erected in the
1990s (see location map below).
The activities that were undertaken in order to establish the tented camp required environmental
authorisation prior to their commencement (cf. Section 2). It is an offence to commence a listed
activity without environmental authorisation.
The Applicant, Koensrust
Plase (Pty) Ltd, was issued
with a Pre-Compliance in
terms of section 31L of the
National Environmental
Management Act (NEMA)
107 of 1998 on 28 November
2012 on the basis that a
number of listed activities
had been commenced
without environmental
authorisation.
The Applicant was given the options of either ceasing the unauthorised activities, rehabilitating the
site, or submitting an application for retrospective environmental authorisation in terms of section
24G of NEMA. The Applicant chose the latter option and appointed a Certified Environmental
Assessment Practitioner, Mr Charl de Villiers of Charl de Villiers Environmental Consulting, to
1 i.e. in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (as amended).
2 i.e. in terms of s 24 of NEMA, and the 2010 environmental impact assessment regulations (as amended).
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
3 | 1 6
manage the prescribed environmental assessment process in terms of section 24G of NEMA. A
botanical/terrestrial ecological assessment was undertaken in January 2013 by Mr Jan Vlok of Regalis
Environmental Services. BolandEnviro conducted the public participation process.
This Environmental Management Programme (EMP) is a requirement3 of the s 24G process and
broadly follows the structure for EMPs as prescribed by section 24N of NEMA. It sets out
environmental management objectives for the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp that are premised on:
− Maintaining the current state of environmental quality at the facility;
− Preventing degradation to the receiving environment; and
− Monitoring to ensure timeous detection of, and responses to, of environmental change.
The EMP must be read in conjunction, insofar as this may be relevant to the issues at hand, with the
detailed ‘Guidelines for veld and wildlife management’ for the farms ‘Koensrust’ 502 and
‘Steenkoolfontein’ 501/1 drafted by Messrs Jan Vlok and Ken Coetzee in November 1999.
The EMP is a condition of authorisation and therefore legally enforceable. It may also need to be
amended in order to respond to changing environmental conditions or new information.
Fig 2: View downstream of the Duiwenhoks River,
estuarine wetlands and salt marsh from the wooden
deck at the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp.
Fig 3: The tented camp at ‘Koensrust’, from the south.
Note thicket vegetation in the foreground and
limestone scarp in the distance. The shed and solar
geysers on its roof are visible in the background.
3 s 24G(i)(a)(iv) of NEMA
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
4 | 1 6
2. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
This EMP was drafted as part of an environmental assessment undertaken in terms of Section 24G of
the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), which relates to the rectification of
the unlawful commencement of listed activities.
A more complete description of the most relevant environmental legislation is provided in the draft
Environmental Assessment Report (Charl de Villiers Environmental Consulting, April 2013).
The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended and the draft Western Cape
rural land regulations (DEAPD 2009) have the most direct bearing on this EMP.
2.1 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) states that everyone has a right to
an environment that is not harmful to their wellbeing, and to have the environment protected for
the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable measures. This includes
preventing pollution and promoting conservation and environmentally sustainable development,
while promoting justifiable social and economic development.
2.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA)
The National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended, makes provision
for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the
environment and which require authorisation from the relevant authorities based on the findings of
an environmental assessment.
In this case, the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
(DEA&DP) is the competent authority as defined by the Act.
2.3 NEMA CHAPTER 1: THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Chapter 1 of NEMA (the National Environmental Management Principles) lays down principles4 that
apply the actions of all organs of state that may significantly affect the environment. These principles
serve as guidelines by reference to which any organ of state must exercise any function when taking
4 Section 2, Act 107 of 1998 as amended
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
5 | 1 6
any decision in terms of any statutory provision concerning the protection of the environment, such
as the implementation of zoning regulations.5
The principles that would have particular relevance to decisions relating to the transformation of
undisturbed habitats and ecosystems are those that require that environmental management must
(in paraphrased format):
− Avoid, minimise or remedy disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity;
− Avoid degradation of the environment;
− Avoid jeopardising ecosystem integrity;
− Pursue the best practicable environmental option by means of integrated environmental
management; and
− Pay specific attention to management and planning procedures pertaining to sensitive,
vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems.6
2.4 NEMA CHAPTER 7: THE DUTY OF CARE
Chapter 7 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 prescribes a general ‘duty of
care’ and requirement to remediate environmental damage. Section 28(1) of NEMA states:
Every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the
environment must take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution or degradation from
occurring, continuing or recurring, or, insofar as such harm to the environment is authorised
by law or cannot reasonably be avoided or stopped, to minimise and rectify such pollution or
degradation of the environment....
The Duty of Care can, inter alia, be enforced through directives issued by the competent authority.7
This EMP aims specifically to give effect to the Applicant’s Duty of Care with regard to the use and
enjoyment of the tented camp at ‘Koensrust’.
5 Section 2(1)c), Act 107 of 1998 as amended
6 Cf. sub-sections 2(4)(a)(i), (ii), (vi); (b); and (r)
7 s 28(4), NEMA
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
6 | 1 6
2.5 LISTED ACTIVITIES THAT MAY NOT COMMENCE WITHOUT ENVIRONMENTAL
AUTHORISATION
The following activities listed in the 2010 NEMA EIA regulations were triggered by the unauthorised
construction of the tented camp at ‘Koensrust’:
Activities triggered in terms of Listing Notice 1 (GN R. 544)
Paraphrased definition of activity Aspect of the development that triggered the
listed activity
11(xi) Construction of infrastructure covering ≥50 m2 within
32 m of a watercourse
The wooden decks exceed the stipulated
threshold. They are also within 32 m of the
floodplain of the Duiwenhoks River.
16(vi) Construction of infrastructure covering ≥50 m2 within
100 m of an estuary8
The wooden decks exceed the stipulated
threshold and are within 100 m of an estuary.
40(iv) Expansion of infrastructure by >50 m2 within 32 m of a
watercourse
The wooden decks entail expansion of the built
facilities at the ‘Koensrust’ campsite in excess
of the stipulated threshold. They are also
within 32 m of the floodplain of the
Duiwenshoks River.
45(vi) Expansion of facilities within 100 m inland of high
water mark of an estuary for infrastructure exceeding
50 m2
The wooden decks entail expansion of the built
facilities at the Koensrust campsite in excess of
the stipulated threshold, and are within 100 m
ofthe HWM of an estuary.
Activities triggered in terms of Listing Notice 3 (GN R. 546)
Paraphrased definition of activity Aspect of the development that triggered the
listed activity
5(g)(iv) Construction of tourism accommodation that sleeps
<15 people 100 m from the edge of a watercourse in
the Western Cape
The tented camp can accommodate eight
people within 100 m of the Duiwenhoks River.
16(iv)(d)(i) The construction of infrastructure covering ≥10 m2
within 32 m of a watercourse in an estuary in the
Western Cape
The wooden deck exceeds both thresholds:
both in terms of its size, and distance from the
estuarine component of the Duiwenhoks
River.
8 The National Water Act 36 of 1998 (section 1, ‘Definitions’) defines an ‘estuary’ as a “partially or fully
enclosed body of water... which is open to the sea permanently or periodically... and within which the sea
water can be diluted, to an extent that is measurable, with fresh water drained from land....” The tented camp
is located above the terrestrial margin of the salt marsh, in a fynbos-thicket mosaic. No activities therefore
took place in an estuary as defined above.
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
7 | 1 6
2.6 THE NEMA S 24G PROCESS
NEMA, through Section 24G, provides a process that can lead to the rectification of unauthorised
activities. The ‘rectification process’ entails submission of an EIA to the competent authority that, in
turn, can have two potential outcomes:
− An instruction to cease the activity, either wholly or in part, and to rehabilitate the
environment;9 or
− Authorisation, subject to conditions, of the activity/ies that had been commenced unlawfully
(i.e. continuation).10
A decision will not be taken on a section 24G application until the Applicant has paid an
administrative fine, which may not exceed R1-million.11
2.7 THE DRAFT WESTERN CAPE RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
The draft Western Cape Rural Land-use Planning and Management Guidelines (DEA&DP 2009)12
are
based on the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework, an approved section 4(6)
structure plan in terms of the Land-use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985.
They among others delineate Spatial Planning Categories (SPCs) in terms of the biodiversity
categories that are used by CapeNature’s Critical Biodiversity Area maps13
for Western Cape
municipalities. Such SPCs indicate the type of land use that should be accommodated in the SPC and
where these land use should take place. CBA maps, in turn, provide desired management objectives
for the various mapped biodiversity categories that underpin SPCs.
The tented camp at ‘Koensrust’ is located within the buffer of an aquatic CBA, and adjacent to the
channel and floodplain of the Duiwenhoks River which are depicted as a terrestrial CBA on the CBA
map for the Hessequa and Mossel Bay municipalities (cf. Maree and Vromans, 2010). The affected
land should be designated as a ‘Core 2’ spatial planning category as it comprises the mapped buffer
area for an aquatic CBA and would contribute to ecological connectivity.
9 s 24G(2)(a), NEMA
10 s 24G(2(b), NEMA
11 s 24G(2A)
12 http://www.capegateway.gov.za/other/2009/9/wcpsdf_rural_guidelines_may_09_draft_3.pdf
13 Cf. http://bgis.sanbi.org
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
8 | 1 6
3. THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 LOCATION
The property is located on the left (eastern) bank of the Duiwenhoks River, about midway between
Vermaaklikheid and the mouth of the estuary. The ‘Koensrust’ camp site is about 5 km upstream of
Puntjie, where the Duiwenhoks River enters the Indian Ocean (see Figure 1).
The southern reaches of the Duiwenhoks River are situated within the South Western Coastal Belt
ecoregion of the Gourits Water Management Area. The region receives about rainfall of about 500
mm of rainfall a year. Rainfall is bimodal, i.e. rain can be expected in winter and summer.
Farm 502 (‘Koensrust’) consists of two sections either side of the road that connects Vermaaklikheid
with Puntjie. The unauthorised activities occurred on the western section of the property, i.e. that
part of the farm that lies between the Duiwenhoks River and the latter road.
The centrepoint of the unauthorised tented camp is at: 34o
20‘21.06“ S 21o01‘26.10“E.
3.2 DISTINCTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
The tented camp is located at the base of one of several steep valleys that incise the limestone
escarpment directly east of the Duiwenhoks River between the feature known as ‘Die Hoek’ and the
mouth of the estuary at Puntjie.
The Duiwenhoks River lies directly to the west of the limestone scarp below which the tented camp
is located. The scarp drops steeply to the river, from an altitude of about 160 masl over a distance of
a kilometre to virtually sea level in the channel of the Duiwenhoks River. The tented camp is located
on a narrow raised bench, about 20 m wide, between the base of the scarp and the salt flats of the
river. An access track, seep-fed dam and large lawned area lie to the north-east.
3.3 LAND USE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
The riverside campsite at Koensrust has been in private use since the early 1980s. Most of the
development on the property took place in the mid-to late 1990s. Infrastructure and facilities that
were established in this period included an access road, jetty, a wooden shed and gazebo, a slipway
and a pit Iatrine which is located behind the shed, about 50 m from the upper margin of the salt
marsh.
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
9 | 1 6
The jetty, slipway and upgraded road were authorised by Cape Nature Conservation in September
1998.
Previously, about 2 300 m2 of the property at the base of the local limestone scarp seems to have
been cleared for agricultural purposes (apparently vegetables were cultivated) and an earth dam is
still visible at the north-eastern extremity of this open grassed area. The dam is fed naturally by a
seep and provides water for domestic use. Water is filtered by an informal system of two 500 litre
settling tanks before flowing into a single, 2 500 litre tank, which supplies the campsite with potable
water.
The property has been cleared of invasive alien plants – including dense stands of rooikrans Acacia
cyclops and Spanish reed Arundo donax, which previously infested the dam. Alien management is
ongoing, and appears to be very effective. The area occupied by the shed and newly-built tented
camp had also previously been under aliens, which have been removed.
A water pipeline, which conveys water from the Oshoek kloof to Kleinfontein about 1.5 km to the
south-west of the Koensrust campsite, crosses the lower-lying parts of the Koensrust property. The
pipeline servitude runs directly adjacent to the shed and through the area where wooden decking
was installed between September 2010 and November 2011.
It is the latter infrastructure and, potentially, three furnished tents that were subject to a section
24G application for the rectification of unauthorised activities.
A maximum of 250 m2 of vegetation was cleared to establish the decking, which forms a veranda on
the riverside aspect of the shed and extends to the south (i.e. seawards) for about 30 m. The total
area of decking amounts to 127 m2. The deck houses an open ‘braai’ area just south of the shed and
supports three canvas tents arranged in a row to the south. The tents are equipped with basic
furnishings. There are four single beds in the tent closest to the shed, and a double bed in each of
the remaining tents. This additional infrastructure covers an area of roughly 300 m2 in extent. There
is another sunken ‘braai’ place on the ground to the west of the decking.
The shed and tented camp are on raised ground that is separated from the terrestrial margin of the
estuary by a distinct slope some 1.5 m in height and therefore do not intrude into estuarine habitat.
There are no components of the affected property that would come into contention as elements of
the ‘National estate’ as defined by Chapter 1 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999.
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
10 | 1 6
3.4 THE BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT
The broad study area is located within the Cape Floristic Region, one of 34 global biodiversity
‘hotspots’, i.e. areas of great natural wealth that are under extreme pressure. At a regional scale,
ecosystems and habitats would be those associated with the south-western parts of the Fynbos
Biome and western outliers of the azonal Albany Thicket Biome. Both these biomes are national
priority areas for biodiversity conservation action in South Africa.
3.4.1 Vegetation types
The fine-scale vegetation map for the
Riversdale conservation planning domain
(Figure 4, Vlok and De Villiers, 2007;
Maree and Vromans, 2010) indicates that
a thicket-fynbos mosaic occurs in the
area, namely Vermaaklikheid Thicket-
Limestone Fynbos (Vlok, 2013; Appendix
G of the final EIR). The tented camp is
exclusively located in a thicket clump (i.e.
the fynbos element of this vegetation
type is not locally present).
The Vegetation Map for South Africa,
Lesotho and Swaziland (Figure 5, Mucina
et al., (eds), 2005) (right), which depicts
vegetation types at a much smaller scale
(1:1 000 000) than the 1:50 000
biodiversity sector plan for the Mossel
Bay and Hessequa municipalites (Maree
and Vromans, 2010), places the site on a
boundary between Eastern Rûens Shale
Renosterveld and Cape Coastal Lagoons.
Ground-truthing by the botancial
specialist, Jan Vlok, found that the
national vegetation map had, in fact,
erred and that the site did not support renosterveld, but the aforementioned thicket-fynbos mosaic
Fig 4: Vegetation at the Koensrust tented camp – fine-scale plan for
the Riversdale Plain (Vlok and De Villiers, 2007)
Fig 5: Vegetation at the Koensrust tented camp – national
vegetation map (Mucina et al., 2005)
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
11 | 1 6
(see the final environmental impact assessment – botanical assessment, Appendix G, as well as
photographs in Appendix C of the habitat and vegetation that occur at the site). The immediate
environs of the site that was used to develop the tented camp would have comprised, at most,
about 1 350 m2
of the thicket-limestone fynbos vegetation type. The developable area is probably
considerably less than this owing to the proximity of the river and a steep slope directly to the south.
The camp is situated about 10 or 12 m from the edge of salt marsh component of the Duiwenhoks
River estuarine wetland.
3.4.2 Ecological corridors, boundaries and gradients
The tented camp is located on the left bank of the Duiwenhoks River, about 5 km upstream from the
estuary. The river, tidal wetlands and riparian vegetation would form part of an important sub-
regional ecological corridor.
3.4.3 Ecosystem status of affected vegetation
Eastern Rûens Shale Renosterveld is classified as Critically Endangered and Cape Coastal Lagoons as
not threatened by the national list of threatened ecosystems and ecosystems in need of protection
(DEA, 2011). However, as previously noted, the national vegetation map edited by Mucina et al.
(2005) has incorrectly depicted the site as supporting renosterveld whereas, in fact, it supports a
matrix of limestone fynbos interspersed with discreet clumps of thicket. Neither of the vegetation
units that comprise this mosaic are threatened (Vlok 2013, Appendix G). The ‘Koensrust’ tented
camp is located exclusively in the thicket component of the Vermaaklikheid Thicket-Limestone
Fynbos mosaic, which is not threatened.
3.4.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas
The area in question is depicted as a buffer of an aquatic CBA selected due to the potential presence
of seeps (there is a seep, which provides water for the property, about 100 m to the south-east).
The adjacent channel and salt marsh/floodplain of the Duiwenhoks River are depicted as a terrestrial
CBA in a mostly natural or near-natural condition. A vegetation clump directly to the north of the
grassed area described above is also designated as a terrestrial CBA. Although located within the
broad precincts of the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp, these thicket clumps were not affected by the
tented camp.
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
12 | 1 6
The management objectives for CBAs require that further degradation of these features must
prevented and, if the CBA is not in a natural condition, it must be restored to a natural or at least
near-natural condition. These objectives are incorporated into this EMP.
3.4.5 Impacts and rehabilitation potential of degraded terrestrial habitats
The tented camp largely confines trampling-related impacts to surface of the wooden deck, which
means that rehabilitation is not a priority for this facility. If the deck and tented camp were to be
decommissioned and demolished, the residue would be an open area of some 300 m2. Some
recovery of thicket may be expected if rootstocks have not been damaged – see Helme on post-
disturbance recovery of strandveld and dune thicket (De Villiers et al., 2005, pp 32-37).
3.4.3 Guidelines for alien clearance
The tented camp at ‘Koensrust’ and its immediate surrounds is effectively clear of invasive alien
plants. The alien management guidelines recommended by Vlok and Coetzee (1999, p 17) must
continue to be implemented as advised.
4. CONSOLIDATED IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The environmental impact report identified various impacts associated with the construction of the
tented camp, namely:
− Impacts on Critical Biodiversity Areas and other important biodiversity features;
− Impacts on socio-economic aspects; and
− Visual or noise-related impacts that may detract from a ‘sense of place’.
Table 1 provides a summary of the significance of key impacts associated with the development. A
significance rating is provided for each impact with and without mitigation. Refer to the final EIA
Report for a more detailed discussion on the identification, assessment and evaluation methodology
that was used.
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
13 | 1 6
Table 1: Summary of impact significance
Alternative 1
(The ‘no go’ option)
Alternative 2
(Tented camp on lawn)
Alternative 3
(The status quo)
Before
mitigation
After
mitigation
Before
mitigation
After
mitigation
Before
mitigation
After
mitigation
Impacts on Critical
Biodiversity Areas Nil Nil Nil Nil
Neutral to
Very low (-)
Neutral to
Very low (-)
Socio-economic
impacts Nil Nil Very low (+) N/A Very low (+) N/A
Impacts that may
detract from a
‘sense of place’
Nil Nil Very low (-) Very low (-) Very low (-) Very low (-)
4.1 BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT
The most significant associated with this development were, potentially, those associated with the
loss of indigenous vegetation. The key findings of the botanical/biodiversity assessment are:
− The unauthorised establishment of a tented camp had not impacted on rare or threatened
plant species or the vegetation of the adjacent estuarine wetland.
− The development had not resulted in loss of habitat in a Critical Biodiversity Area.
− The affected vegetation type (‘ecosystem’) was not threatened, and the removal of a
maximum of 250 m2 of thicket vegetation did not pose any threat to the maintenance of
ecological processes that function at a landscape, supra-site scale.
− Salt marsh vegetation in the vicinity of the jetty and slipway had also not shown signs of
recent degradation.
− The programme to remove invasive alien plants from the property was very effective, as was
the fire management plan.
− Overall, the farm ‘Koensrust’ 502 was being managed to a very high ecological standard.
− However, the existing ablution facilities at the tended camp had to be upgraded to an
environmentally-acceptable standard.
The positive impact of an upgraded sewage system would outweigh any negative impacts associated
with the development.
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
14 | 1 6
4.2 OVERALL FINDINGS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Viewed overall, impacts associated with the unauthorised tented camp at ‘Koensrust’ have ‘very
low’ negative significance with respect to biodiversity and the ‘sense of place’. Impacts on
biodiversity would be close to neutral if weighed against the positive contribution of the property to
responsible alien and fire management. The development may have a slightly positive socio-
economic effect.
The key environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures are presented below. Current
management practices at the tented camp appear to be very effective and no change in
management is therefore recommended. This is subject to a decision on whether the pit latrine
needs to upgraded.
4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES: INDIGENOUS VEGETATION
Removal of ≤250 m2
of non-threatened thicket vegetation did not have an impact on rare or
threatened species and would not have an effect on ecological processes that function beyond site
and property boundaries at a landscape scale.
The only mitigation measure would be to keep the immediately adjacent thicket clear of invasive
alien plants. Refer to Section 3.3 of the ‘Guidelines for veld and wildlife management’ for
‘Koensrust’ and ‘Steenkoolfontein’.
4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES: SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The tented camp, if authorised, may occasionally host eight campers. The camp would have a
positive socio-economic impact if high levels of occupancy could be sustained throughout the year. If
this is the case, new employment opportunities are likely to follow. No mitigation is necessary.
4.5 MITIGATION MEASURES: IMPACTS ON ‘SENSE OF PLACE’
Visual and noise-related impacts that may be associated with the tented camp are viewed as slight
and of little consequence with regard to the ‘sense of place’ attached to the broader environment of
‘Koensrust’.
At this stage, pending the publication of the final environmental impact report for public comment,
no mitigation is recommended with respect to impacts on ‘sense of place’.
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
15 | 1 6
4.6 MITIGATION MEASURES: IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
The environmental desirability of the existing pit latrine was called into question during the impact
assessment. Its construction did not, however, entail a listed activity and was therefore not subject
to the s 24G application. The owners of the ‘Koensrust’ campsite have indicated their willingness to
replace the pit latrine with a septic tank. The installation of a 2 500 ℓ (suitable for ≤10 persons) or 5
000 ℓ (suitable for ≤20 persons) septic tank would not trigger the licensing requirements of the NEM:
Waste Act 59 of 2008.
Potential impacts on water quality affecting the Duiwenhoks River can be effectively avoided by
installing a suitable sewerage system. What this would entail, and if it’s necessary, would have to be
clarified in discussion with the Hessequa Municipality and the Department of Water Affairs or the
Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency.
5. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES and MONITORING
Management interventions are defined and shaped by their intended objectives.
5.1 Management objectives
The recommended management objectives for the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp would complement the
objectives for vegetation and wildlife management contained in the management guidelines for the
‘Koensrust’ and ‘Steenkoolfontein’ properties (Vlok and Coetzee, 1999).
The management objectives for the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp are:
− Maintain the current state of environmental quality at the facility;
− Prevent degradation to the receiving environment; and
− Monitor the riverside precinct to ensure timeous detection of, and responses to, of
environmental change.
The applicant, Koensrust Plase (Pty) Ltd, is responsible for ongoing management of the site, in terms
of the management guidelines drafted by Vlok and Coetzee (1999).
EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale
16 | 1 6
Advice on management and monitoring may also be obtained
from CapeNature Conservation (See box).
5.2 Monitoring
The absence of alien invasive plants would be the key indicator
by which to monitor the effectiveness of environmental
management at the tented camp.
Adhere to the guidelines monitoring and alien clearance recommended by Vlok and Coetzee (1999).
6. REFERENCES
Department of Environmental Affairs (2011) National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in
need of protection. GG 34809 GN R. 1002, 9 December 2011. Government Printer, Pretoria.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2009) Draft Western Cape Rural
Land-use Planning & Management Guideline, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Cape
Town.
De Villiers CC, Brownlie S, Clark B, Day EG, Driver A, Euston-Brown DIW, Helme NA, Holmes PM, Job
N, Rebelo AB (2005) Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the
Western Cape. Fynbos Forum and Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch. ISBN 0-620-
35258-2.
Maree KS and Vromans DC (2010) The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Hessequa and Mossel Bay
Municipalities: Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas
and Ecological Support Areas. Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale
Biodiversity Planning Project. Kirstenbosch.
Mucina L, Rutherford MC and Powrie LW (2005) Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland: 1:1 000 000 scale sheets; in Mucina and Rutherford (eds), Strelitzia 19, South African
National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, pp 749-790.
Vlok J (2013) Specialist botanical impact assessment for the proposed resort facilities on the farm
‘Koensrust’ in the Riversdale district. Unpubl report, Regalis Environmental Services, Oudtshoorn.
Vlok J and Coetzee K (1999) Guidelines for veld and wildlife management:
Koensrust/Steenkoolfontein. Unpubl management guidelines prepared for Messrs F du Plessi and
E de Villiers, November 1999. Regalis Environmental Services and Conservation Management
Services, Oudtshoorn and George.
THE CONSERVATION
SERVICES MANAGER
Garden route Business Unit:
Hessequa section
CapeNature
P O Box 503
RIVERSDALE 6670
Tel 028 7132366
Fax 028 7132366
top related