Agrisouth_s24G_FINAL_Revised_FEIR_30042013

DEA&DP Ref: E18/2/3/2/2-Ptn 11 Farm 59 Meerlustkloof (s 24G) Caledon

REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

APPLICATION IN TERMS OF NEMA s 24G FOR RECTIFICATION OF

LISTED ACTIVITIES COMMENCED WITHOUT ENVIRONMENTAL

AUTHORISATION, FARM 59/11 ‘MEERLUSTKLOOF’, CALEDON,

WESTERN CAPE

APRIL 2013

CHARL DE VILLIERS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

14 Bradwell Road

VREDEHOEK 8001

Ph 021 461 2477 * Cell 083 785 0776 * Fax 086 553 9256 * e-mail [email protected]

with

REVISED FINAL EIR FOR ‘MEERLUSTKLOOF’ 59/11, CALEDON

Page 2 of 111

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 LAYOUT OF THE FARM IN RELATION TO THE PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE ........................................... 8

1.2 FLOOD DAMAGE: NOVEMBER 2008 ........................................................................................... 12

1.3 FLOOD DAMAGE: OCTOBER 2012 ............................................................................................... 14

1.4 GROUNDS FOR EMERGENCY MEASURES – OCTOBER 2012 ....................................................... 18

1.5 UNAUTHORISED ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION..................................................... 20

1.6 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS RELATING TO SUBMISSION OF s 24G APPLICATION ....................... 24

1.7 SCOPE OF THE WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN ................................................................................ 26

1.8 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 27

1.9 THE NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................ 28

1.10 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................ 29

2. LEGAL AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................ 33

2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) AND THE NEMA EIA

REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 34

2.2 NEMA CHAPTER 1: THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES .................. 34

2.3 NEMA CHAPTER 7: THE DUTY OF CARE ...................................................................................... 35

2.4 NEMA CHAPTER 5: INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ......................................... 36

2.5 MANDATORY AND DISCRETIONARY PROCEDURES RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION ........................................................................................... 36

2.6 THE NEMA EIA REGULATIONS ..................................................................................................... 37

2.7 APPEALS ..................................................................................................................................... 40

2.8 NEMA CHAPTER 5: COMPLIANCE NOTICES AND RECTIFICATION PROCEDURES ........................ 40

2.9 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT ............................................ 41

2.10 NATIONAL WATER ACT ............................................................................................................... 43

2.11 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT 25 OF 1999 ................................................................... 44

2.12 CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT ................................................................ 45

2.13 LAND USE PLANNING ORDINANCE ............................................................................................ 46

2.14 THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

(DEA&DP) GUIDELINES AND BIODIVERSITY SECTOR PLANS ....................................................... 47

2.15 THE DRAFT WESTERN CAPE RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................................. 50

2.16 CAPENATURE’S REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO BIODIVERSITY IN DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 51

3. THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................... 53

3.1 LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 53

3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 54

3.3 DISTINCTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ................................................................................. 54


Page 3 of 111

3.4 CONDITION OF THE RIVERS AFTER THE 2008 AND 2012 FLOODS .............................................. 59

4. ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 67

4.1 CHOICES W.R.T. THE CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................... 68

4.2 SALIENT ASPECTS OF THE DEADP GUIDELINE ON ALTERNATIVES (2007) .................................. 70

4.3 RESPONSES TO FLOOD DAMAGE, NOVEMBER 2008 .................................................................. 71

4.4 RESPONSES TO FLOOD DAMAGE, OCTOBER 2012 ..................................................................... 73

4.5 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ............................................................................................................. 77

4.6 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION .................................. 78

5. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNAUTHORISED ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 80

5.1 UNCERTAINTY OF PREDICTIVE METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................. 80

5.2 IMPACTS OF THE UNAUTHORISED EMERGENCY SUMP ............................................................. 81

5.3 IMPACTS OF THE IRRIGATION PIPELINE OVER THE ELANDSKLOOF RIVER ................................. 84

5.4 IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE REBUILT CROSSING OVER THE ELANDSKLOOF RIVER

CROSSING .................................................................................................................................... 85

5.5 IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE REBUILT CROSSING OVER THE MEERLUSTKLOOF RIVER ............ 86

5.6 RECOMMENDED MONITORING FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 87

6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: METHOD .............................................................................................................. 88

6.1 METHOD OF IMPACT IDENTIFICATION ....................................................................................... 88

6.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 89

6.3 A NOTE ON ‘MITIGATION’, ‘REHABILITATION’ AND ‘RESTORATION’ ......................................... 91

7. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 93

7.1 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE UNAUTHORISED EXCAVATION OF THE SUMP

(ELANDSKLOOF RIVER) ................................................................................................................ 93

7.2 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM UNAUTHORISED PIPE CULVERT CROSSINGS

(MEERLUSTKLOOF AND ELANDSKLOOF RIVERS) ........................................................................ 95

7.3 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM PIPELINE OVER ELANDSKLOOF RIVER ........................................... 97

7.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE WITH MITIGATION, AND DISCUSSION ........................... 99

7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION ....................... 101

8.1 EFFECTS OF FLOODS AMPLIFIED BY CONDITION OF CATCHMENT AND FLOODPLAINS ........... 103

8.2 CRITICAL INFORMATION GAPS THAT COMPROMISE RESILIENCE OF AFFECTED SYSTEMS ...... 103

8.3 FRAMEWORK STRATEGIC, CATCHMENT-BASED MANAGEMENT OF THE TWO RIVERS ........... 104

9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 106

9.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: DRAFT EIR AND EMP ......................................................................... 106

9.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: FINAL EIR AND EMP ........................................................................... 106

9.3 DRAFTING OF REVISED FINAL EIR AND EMP FOR A SECOND ROUND OF COMMENT .............. 106

9.4 HOW TO COMMENT ON THE REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.................. 107

9.5 PROCESS TASKS STILL TO BE COMPLETED ................................................................................ 108

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 109


Page 4 of 111

TABLES:

Table 1: Assessment criteria for the evaluation of impacts

Table 2: Definition of significance ratings

Table 3: Definition of probability ratings

Table 4: Definition of confidence ratings

Table 5: Summary of impact assessment and evaluation of significance of impacts

FIGURES:

Figure 1: Approximate study area downstream of confluence of Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof

Rivers

Figure 2: Topography of farm and sites of flood damage, 2008 and 2012

Figure 3: Meerlustkloof 59/11, Caledon

Figure 4: Locality map showing the farm Meerlustkloof 59/11, Caledon. Map sourced from

Government topo-cadastral 1: 250 000 map series 3319 WORCESTER.

Figure 5: Location of unauthorised sump in context of the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers. All

rivers shown as blue lines. FEPA wetlands and rivers shown as green polygons and thick blue lines,

respectively.

APPENDICES

Appendix A (1-2): Locality Maps

Appendix B: Site Layout

Appendix C: Annotated Site Photographs

Appendix D: Critical Biodiversity Areas Map

Appendix E (1 – 11): Specialist Reports and Supplementary Information

Appendix F: Public Participation Process

Appendix G: Environmental Management Programme (EMP)


Page 5 of 111

ABBREVIATIONS

CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act no. 43 of 1983)

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DWA Department of Water Affairs

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

ECA Environment Conservation Act (Act no. 73 of 1989)

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EMP Environmental Management Programme

GN Government Notice

I&APs Interested and Affected Parties

IEM Integrated Environmental Management

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act no. 107 of 1998)

NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act no. 10 of 2004)

NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act (Act no. 25 of 1999)

NWA National Water Act (Act no. 36 of 1998)

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency

SPC Spatial Planning Categories


Page 6 of 111

1. INTRODUCTION

A Final Environmental Assessment Report relating to the application for ‘retrospective’

authorisation of an emergency irrigation sump excavated at the end of 2008 was submitted to

the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning in September 2012. This

report has, however, had to be revised to reflect the full ambit of unauthorised activities that

followed the flood in November 2008 and, more recently, flood damage in October 2012. This

report therefore replaces the final draft that was submitted to the Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning in September 2012.

The application relates to emergency interventions initiated by Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd

in response to two highly destructive floods that occurred on its farm ‘Meerlustkloof’ in

November 2008 and October 2012.

‘Meerlustkloof’ is located in the Caledon magisterial district and falls within the Theewaterskloof

Local Municipality. The nearest settlement is Genadendal, some 12.5 km to the east. The farm is

about 32 km from Caledon by road. See Figure 1.

Figure 1:


Page 7 of 111

The farm comprises three portions:

−−−− Elandskloof 59/9;

−−−− Elandskloof 59/11; and

−−−− Elandskloof 59/4.

This application relates to the farm portions Elandskloof 59/11 and Elandskloof 59/4.

Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd (‘Agrisouth’) purchased the ‘Meerlustkloof’ property in 1990.

‘Meerlustkloof’ is a working fruit farm which exports apples and pears. It was established as a

fruit farm in 1970. Orchards occupy about 109 ha or roughly 12% of the 929 ha farm, which spans

the Elandskloof River and a tributary, the Meerlustkloof River. The Elandskloof River joins the

Riviersonderend which also represents the southern boundary of the farm.

The terrain is hilly and rises steeply from the floodplains of the two rivers to the Riviersonderend

Mountains directly to the north. The foothills of the Riviersonderend Mountains are characterised

by deeply incised kloofs. ‘Breëkraal se Rante’ overlook the Elandskloof River from the west. See

Figure 2 for a topo-cadastral map of the property.

The ‘Introduction’ firstly describes the broad physical landscape, and how this shapes the spatial

layout of orchards and associated infrastructure, before summarising the impacts of each flood

episode and, in turn, how the Applicant responded to the ensuing disruption to farming

operations.

The ‘Introduction’ also identifies the listed activities1 for which rectification is sought, describes

the scope of work and records the assumptions and limitations that informed and defined the

environmental assessment.

1 The legal and regulatory context relating to the unauthorised activities in question is presented in detail in

Chapter 2 of this report.


Page 8 of 111

Figure 2: Topography of farm and sites of flood damage, 2008 and 2012

1.1 LAYOUT OF THE FARM IN RELATION TO THE PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE

Topography, the major drainage systems and distribution of arable soils dictate the location of

orchards and infrastructure on the farm. It is necessary to understand the physical opportunities

and constraints within which this farming operation functions in order to understand the

Applicant’s response to the destructive effects of floods. See Figure 2 for a schematic explanation

of the main features referred to here.

1.1.1 Overview of river and floodplain (wetland) systems

Two rivers that drain southwards from the Riviersonderend Mountains converge on the farm

‘Meerlustkloof’ – the Elandskloof River (the larger of the two watercourses) and a tributary that

joins the Elandskloof River from the east, the Meerlustkloof River. These rivers form a typically

dendritic or ‘Y’-shaped pattern, with the Elandskloof River forming the left-hand ‘arm’ and stem

of the ‘Y’. The Elandskloof River joins the eastwards-flowing Riviersonderend about 3 km below


Page 9 of 111

its convergence with the Meerlustkloof River. The floodplains associated with two watercourses

represent the most intensively developed parts of the farm. Chapter 3 describes the natural

environment.

1.1.2 River crossings

The local topography and two rivers effectively divide the cultivated parts of the farm into three

sections which are informally labelled A, B and C for the sake of explanation (see Figure 3). These

sections are separated as follows by the two rivers:

Section of farm Right (W) bank2 Left (E) bank

(A) North of confluence of Meerlustkloof

and Elandskloof rivers (affected reach ± 1.5

km)

Orchards, roads and

employee

accommodation

Orchards, roads

and packing sheds

2 Convention holds that the viewer is facing downstream when referring to the left or right banks of a river


Page 10 of 111

(B) Elandskloof River from Meerlustkloof

River to the DR1313 (± 3 km)

Orchards, roads and

employee

accommodation

Orchards, roads

and pump house

(C) Elandskloof River from the DR1313 to

the Riviersonderend River (± 0.5 km)

Orchards, two

pump houses and

roads

Orchards and roads

The main, tarred, access road to the farm from the DR1313 runs in a northerly direction to the

east of the Elandskloof River. Gravel roads connect the latter road with accommodation,

infrastructure and orchards on the western (right) banks of the two rivers by means of two

crossings (see Figures 2 and 3).

Access to Section A from the main transport axis on the farm is located next to the packing sheds,

on the left bank of the Meerlustkloof River. Before November 2008, a cement bridge spanned the

Meerlustkloof River at this point. Flood damage necessitated the replacement of the bridge with

a temporary pipe culvert, which is described below.

See Appendix C for photographs of the respective sites.

The box on the right provides the co-ordinates for the

respective sites.

Section B of the farm used to be connected to the

remainder of the property by means of a concrete drift

across the Elandskloof River, about 140 m downstream

of the confluence of the two rivers. The drift was also

replaced by a pipe culvert following its destruction by

the November 2008 flood.

Access arrangements to Section C are recorded for the sake of completeness. This part of the

farm is readily accessible from the DR1313, which was severely damaged at its crossing over the

Elandskloof River in October 2012.

Repairs in November 2012 to the damaged pipe culvert over the Elandskloof River were

undertaken by either the Overberg District Council or the Western Cape Department of Transport

and Public Works.

Bridge Meerlustkloof River

34° 2'53.03"S 19°24'56.84"E

Bridge Elandskloof River

34° 3'07.91"S 19°24'56.97"E

Drift Elandskloof River

34° 3'08.12"S 19°24'57.39"E

Sump Elandskloof River

34° 3'15.64"S 19°25'13.70"E

Pipeline Elandskloof River

34° 3'47.46"S 19°26'11.96"E


Page 11 of 111

1.1.3 Irrigation infrastructure

Altogether 109 ha of ‘Meerlustkloof’ are under irrigated orchard. The farm is watered from three

main sources:

− About 37 ha of orchards in the upper reaches of the farm are irrigated from an earth-

walled dam that is replenished via a pipeline from the mountains (centre point of the

dam – approx. 34°02'19.11"S 19°25'11.25"E);

− Another 31 ha of orchards in the lower-lying parts of the farm, i.e. towards the

Riviersonderend, receive water from the Zonderend Water Users Association; and

− The middle parts of the farm – constituting about 41 ha of orchards or a third of the

entire planting – are irrigated by water abstracted directly from the Elandskloof River.

The critical period for irrigation is usually between October and March, over the dry summer

months.

It has been the central portions of the farm, which are irrigated from the Elandskloof River, that

have been most adversely affected by floods episodes over the past seven years, namely in 2006,

2007, 2008 and 2012.

Until 2006, water was taken from a concrete weir about 800 m downstream of the confluence of

the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers. The pump house, which is still in use, is about 200 m

north-east of the location of the former weir. It is understood that the weir was built at the time

that ‘Meerlustkloof’ had been first developed as a fruit farm, and therefore had been in operation

for at least 20 years by the time ‘Meerlustkloof’ was bought by Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd.

The structure was apparently about 1.5 m high and 25 m wide.

The weir was ruptured in a flood in the autumn of 2006 and rendered inoperable by another

flood in November 2007. In order to ensure that irrigation was not interrupted, a pipe was

installed at a bridge upstream of the weir and connected via a gravity feed to the pump station.

This temporary system was destroyed by yet another flood, in November 2008, which swept

away about 5 ha of orchards, the drift and two bridges, and destroyed farm roads along the banks

of both rivers.

The preceding sections described the broad topography and layout of the farm, and the

infrastructural elements – river crossings and abstraction points – that have borne the brunt of

flood damage. The following section provides a more detailed account of damage that resulted

from the floods of November 2008 and October 2012 respectively. It also describes the actions


Page 12 of 111

taken by Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd to protect is property and secure the ‘Meerlustkloof’

farming operation against further disruption and, potentially, loss of production.

1.2 FLOOD DAMAGE: NOVEMBER 2008

Cut-off low pressure systems contributed to substantial flooding in the Cape Winelands and

Overberg districts between 11 and 13 November, 2008 (Holloway and Fortune, 2009). Although

meteorologically less significant than a similar event the previous year, the November 2008 cut-

off low contributed significant losses which totalled R943-million in the Winelands and Overberg.

At ‘Meerlustkloof’, 369 mm of rainfall were measured between 11 and 13 November 2008 (Mr

Arrie Grobler, pers comm, 24-01-2013). The swollen rivers and ensuing erosion damaged bridges,

roads, orchards and irrigation systems, and large parts of the farm were left isolated for several

days. The damage to farm infrastructure is described below.

1.2.1 Meerlustkloof River

As indicated previously, a cement bridge used to connect the two banks of the Meerlustkloof

River just upstream from the packing sheds. This bridge was, however, washed away in November

2008. It was replaced by a vented culvert comprising two segmented 1.5 m diameter concrete

pipes overlain with a one-lane deck built from wooden poles and compacted rock. This structure

remained in place until it was breached by the flood in October 2012 (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix

C).

1.2.2 Elandskloof River

The river channel downstream of the former drift over the Elandskloof River had been about 26 m

wide prior to the flood in November 2008. Lateral erosion cut massively into both banks of the

river, increasing the bank width of the channel by some 30 m to 150 m – in other words, a three

to five-fold increase in the width of the incised area. Figure 1, Appendix C, shows the extent of

erosion and deposition of coarse sediments across the width of the flood channel.

The river was ‘opened up’ relatively less at the site of the former weir (~25 m in 2004) but its

width was approximately doubled by the 2008 flood. A rock outcrop that strikes laterally into the

channel appears to have inhibited erosion at the site of the weir (see Figure 4, Appendix C, which

shows the remains of the weir in the bed of the Elandskloof River), although the remains of the

structure appeared to have deflected flow towards the left bank.


Page 13 of 111

The former drift spanning the Elandskloof River was irrevocably damaged in the November 2008

flood. As with the damaged crossing at the packing shed, this reach of the Elandskloof River was

also subsequently spanned by an informal pipe culvert with three segmented 1.5 diameter pipes

and a single-lane deck built from poles and compacted rock. The rebuilt structure was severely

damaged by the flood in October 2012 (Figure 7, Appendix C).

The November 2008 flood also destroyed the relocated abstraction point and, with the weir

entirely inoperable as a result of flood damage, necessitated urgent steps to reinstate a supply of

water to irrigate fruit trees. It bears noting that the 2008 flood coincided with the onset of the

hot, dry summer season, which meant that securing a reliable supply of water in order to irrigate

fruit trees was a pressing concern for the farm.

From a business perspective, the situation amounted to an emergency. If irrigation had not been

resumed timeously, up to R3.8-million’s worth of annual fruit production from the 41 ha of

orchards in question could have been lost. It takes about five years for a newly planted orchard to

start bearing fruit that can be harvested. Had it been necessary to replace water-stressed fruit

trees, the total cost to Agrisouth would have been in the order of R20-million in forfeited income

(pers comm. Mr André van Wyk, 23 April 2013).

At the time, the Western Cape Department of Agriculture was unable to provide advice

immediately on what steps should be taken to reinstate irrigation to the central portions of the

farm. An irrigation firm based in Worcester, Brandwacht Besproeiing, apparently recommended

that a sump be excavated in the reworked bed of the river, upstream of the former weir.

The excavations were undertaken as advised and the water supply to the orchards was re-

established in December 2008. The structure in question entails an excavation of some 2 900 m2

in extent which is surrounded, except at its upstream extremity, by a bulldozed berm. See Figures

1 and 3, Appendix C, for photographs of the sump. It was necessary to raise the level of water to

allow a gravitational feed to the pump station on the northern or left bank of the Elandskloof

River. The excavation was limited in its entirety to the massively scoured and widened channel

that resulted from the flood in November 2008.

The next section describes the impacts of the October 2012 flood on the farm ‘Meerlustkloof’.


Page 14 of 111

1.3 FLOOD DAMAGE: OCTOBER 2012

Heavy rainfall in the catchments of the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers resulted in the

destruction of two bridges and substantial erosion of roads and orchards on ‘Meerlustkloof’

between 14 and 21 October 2012. Altogether 250 mm of rain was measured in this period.

The damage that required the most urgent attention was:

− The rupturing of two pipe culvert crossings that resulted in about 20 ha of orchards on the

western banks of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers (i.e, sections A and B of the farm)

being made inaccessible to vehicles for spraying and eventual harvesting;

− Loss of the water supply, as a result of lateral, westwards migration of the Elandskloof River,

to the emergency sump, and damage to pipes that supplied more than half of the farm’s

irrigation water; and

− Inundation of two pump houses near the Riviersonderend as a result of sediment build-up in

the latter river that has caused flow to back up above the obstruction.

The question of how to deal with sediment build-up at the confluence of the Riviersonderend and

Elandskloof River does not form part of this application. It is clearly, however, a significant

problem that holds adverse consequences for both the farm and the environment. It is also a

problem that needs to be addressed at the appropriate hydro-geomorphological and ecological

scales. This is an issue that should form part of the scope of work for the proposed strategic

management plan for the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers (see Chapter 8).

1.3.1 Meerlustkloof River

Although the channel and banks of the highly disturbed Meerlustkloof River remained largely

unscathed as a result of the flood in October 2012, a portion of the bridge at the packing sheds

was washed away, leaving Section A entirely cut off from the rest of the farm. See Figure 6,

Appendix C.

Advice was obtained from the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and a specialist

freshwater ecologist on the best method for effecting emergency repairs to the breached

structure (see Appendices D and E for correspondence and specialist reports relating to the best

approach to implementing the emergency repairs). In summary, it was recommended that:

−−−− Additional pipes be added to the culvert to improve its capacity to accommodate

elevated base flows;


Page 15 of 111

−−−− A temporary berm be constructed to deflect flow into the existing pipes for the duration

of repairs;

−−−− Rehabilitation measures be implemented as a matter of urgency to stabilise the banks by

means of re-shaping and vegetation with appropriate indigenous plants; and

−−−− A long-term solution had to be sought for the crossing, which was vulnerable to damage

by floods and would, unless redesigned, contribute to ongoing degradation and

destabilisation of the river environment.

The severely damaged culvert crossing over the Meerlustkloof River was repaired in November

2012, with the addition of two more segmented, 1.5 m diameter pipes, thereby roughly doubling

the hydraulic capacity of the structure. The deck of the rebuilt log-and-stone structure is about 21

m long and 5 m wide. The spaces between pipes are grouted and protected with stone pitching.

The work has been completed, except for a protective wing wall that needs to be built into the

right-hand bank upstream of the bridge in order to prevent erosion occurring at this point. See

Figure 10, Appendix C.

The four segmented pipes are laid several centimetres above the bed of the channel, but water is

able to percolate below and past the structure through a loosely deposited substrate of cobble

and small boulders. Higher flows would pass through the pipes.

Analysis of satellite imagery indicates that the damaged bridges over the Meerlustkloof River that

were rebuilt after the floods in 2008 and 2012 were both constructed along the same alignment

as the former concrete bridge that was destroyed in 2008. The centre point of the current pipe

culvert crossing over the Meerlustkloof River is: 34o 02’ 53.0”S 19

o 24’ 56.8”E.

1.3.2 Elandskloof River

As was the case with the damaged bridge over the Meerlustkloof River, the western approaches

of the rebuilt structure over the Elandskloof River were washed away in October 2012, isolating

Section B from the rest of the farm. An informal drift was established directly downstream of the

damaged culvert structure as a temporary measure to reinstate contact with Section B. See

Figures 7 and 8, Appendix C, for photographs of the damaged river crossing over the Elandskloof

River and temporary drift respectively.

The drift was about 20 m long and 3.5 m wide. It was constructed from uncemented rocks and

cobbles that had been dislodged from the damaged bridge directly upstream. The drift was

vented by two unanchored pipes. The drift was demolished once the bridge had been repaired

early November 2012 and most vestiges of the drift had disappeared by January 2013. According


Page 16 of 111

to the freshwater ecological assessment (Day, 2013, p 17; Appendix E), the long-term ecological

consequences of the latter drift were “negligible”.

The Applicants, acting on the advice of the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and Dr Liz

Day, the freshwater ecologist, added three additional 1.5 m diameter pipes to the pipe culvert

structure over the Elandskloof River. The structure, which has been built in precisely the same

way as the repaired bridge over the Meerlustkloof River, is currently equipped with six culverts

instead of the previous three (see Figure 11, Appendix C).

The rebuilt bridge over the Elandskloof River appears to be identically aligned to the drift that

spanned the channel until it was destroyed in the flood of November 2008. The centre point of

the repaired bridge is at: 34o 03’ 07.9”S 19

o 24’ 57.0”E

The flood that occurred in October 2012 brought about significant changes to the alignment of

the channel of the Meerlustkloof River in the vicinity of the sump, which was effectively put of

commission owing to changed course of the river.

The channel at the irrigation sump was forced further to the south, and the left bank of the active

channel has been laterally displaced by 15 to 21 m from its previous position. The flood of

October 2012 also precipitated extensive deposits of coarse fluvial material that raised the profile

of the river bed at the intake to the sump which, with down-cutting and lateral migration of the

active channel to the south, left the sump entirely cut off from the channel and its supply of

water.

The channel migration has taken place over a distance of about 200 m. Besides literally stranding

the sump, the realigned river has started under-cutting the farm road that runs along the top of

the southern bank of the Elandskloof River. The active channel has also found its way to the right

of a large, free-standing plinth of sediment whereas it had previously passed this structure to the

left (see Figure 1, Appendix C).

The loss of the sump as an irrigation asset has been effectively off-set by the Applicant’s resort to

two submersible ‘sump pumps’ for taking water for irrigation from the Elandskloof River. These

devices, which operate at water depths of 1 m or more, are portable and each one can be

installed in half a 200 ℓ drum partly sunken into the river bed. This technology, which was not

available when the farm experienced major damage to its irrigation infrastructure in November

2008, has a negligible impact on the riparian environment and does not trigger any requirement

for environmental authorisation. Water is fed to the existing pump station by a ‘quick release’

pipe. Together, the two pumps deliver 60 000 ℓ per hour.


Page 17 of 111

The flood in October 2012 also washed away the irrigation pipe that crossed the Elandskloof River

at the bridge which connected the two banks in Section B as outlined above, as well as a plastic

pipe that conveys water from one of the two pump houses below the DR1313 to the central parts

of the farm. The repairs to the damaged irrigation pipeline did not trigger any activities requiring

environmental authorisation, and are therefore not subject to this section 24G application.

Owing to the vital role of irrigation at ‘Meerlustkloof’, and the challenges of securing irrigation

infrastructure that would not have an adverse environmental impact, or be vulnerable to extreme

events such as floods, the question of the best practicable option for taking water across the

Elandskloof River is simply raised to inform future planning in this regard.

The pipe over the Elandskloof River, which used to be supported on wooden posts secured in

drums dug into the river bed, was replaced provisionally with several ‘quick release ‘aluminium

sections laid across the river bed. Owing to the force of the pump, the pipes had to be reinforced

with wooden poles and steel bindings, which meant that they can no longer be dismantled at

short notice, such as prior to an anticipated flood (Figure 9, Appendix C). The pipe was also liable

to cause erosion under slightly elevated flows and would probably be washed away under flood

conditions. The structure of drums and wooden posts that previously supported the pipe has

since been reinstated (i.e. by March 2013), lifting the pipe about 1 m above the bed of the

channel.

An alternative method for conveying irrigation water across the Elandskloof River at this point has

been identified as a priority action. The freshwater ecologist has recommended two other

alternatives to the system that is currently in place, namely:

− Routing the irrigation pipe via the existing pipe culvert road crossing over the Elandskloof

River (the most ecologically-desirable option); or

− Burying the pipe to a depth of least 0.5 m along its current alignment and securing it to a

gabion mattress (which is viewed as an improvement over the suspension of the pipes as

described above).

Another alternative has since been identified by Mr Hans King of the Western Cape Department

of Agriculture, namely suspending the pipeline from cable strung between two towers.

Any decision about the long-term routing and alignment of the water pipeline will have to be held

in abeyance until after the 2013 harvest as irrigation cannot be interrupted in this crucial period.

Also, if environmental authorisation is needed for either of the additional alternatives outlined

above, this is unlikely to be achieved before the onset of the 2013 winter and ‘flood season’ when


Page 18 of 111

work would in any case not be able to take place in the river. It was for these reasons that the

Applicant opted to temporarily reinstate the suspended pipe alternative (i.e. the status quo

before the 2012 flood).

The following section describes the impact of the most recent damage on the functioning of the

farm and explains why the Applicant could not countenance delays that would propel the farm

towards a worsening emergency. The description is limited to flood-related damage or disruption

which, besides having to be attended to urgently owing to the impact on farming operations,

resulted in the unauthorised activities that are the subject of this application (see Section 1.5 for

a full description of the listed activities that were triggered by emergency repairs in 2008 and

2012).

1.4 GROUNDS FOR EMERGENCY MEASURES – OCTOBER 2012

As indicated previously, ‘Meerlustkloof’ is an export fruit farm that enters the height of its

operational activities with the onset of summer and the annual harvest (which, on average, starts

in the second week of January and proceeds to mid-April each year). Being able to rely on

uninterrupted irrigation in order to ensure effective ripening of high quality fruit is particularly

critical at this time of the year on the deciduous fruit calendar. These considerations applied

directly to the Applicant’s decision to excavate an emergency sump following destruction of

irrigation infrastructure by the flood in November 2008. They were as relevant in October 2012

when it was initially believed necessary, as a stop-gap emergency measure, to dig a channel so

that water could be relayed from the realigned river to the sump, which had been left stranded

by the flood.

The grounds for the Applicant’s decision to proceed with emergency interventions in November

2008 and October 2012, without following the prescribed (and, under the circumstances,

prohibitively time-consuming) procedures for obtaining environmental authorisation, were

essentially identical, namely to reinstate normal agricultural operations which were at a critical

stage in terms of the need to irrigate and spray orchards on the eve of the respective harvest

seasons (see correspondence between the attorneys Smith Ndlovu Summers and the Department

of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, 9 November 2012; Appendix D). Failure to

act urgently would have exacerbated what, from the Applicant’s perspective, amounted to an

escalating emergency and the prospect of catastrophic crop – and financial—losses.

The dire circumstances precipitated by the two floods are explained below. The expert opinion

provided by Dr JJB Pretorius, a specialist horticulturalist, with respect to the impact of the


Page 19 of 111

October 2012 flood on fruit production can be applied with equal measure to the effects of the

preceding flood, in November 2008.

1.4.1 Impacts on fruit production arising from the interruption of irrigation

With respect to the destruction of irrigation infrastructure, failure to adequately water apple

trees with ripening fruit can have severe consequences for a farming operation (Dr JJB Pretorius,

deciduous fruit specialist – 31 October 2012; Appendix E), some of which are potentially

irreversible: initially trees start losing fruit and fruit that is retained on the tree shrinks in size,

which make it potentially unsuitable to be sold for fresh consumption; complete crop loss can

result.

Apple trees that are severely water-stressed lose leaves and enter a state known as

ektodormancy. If such trees are exposed to rainfall before winter, while temperatures are still

suitable for growth, the tree responds by flowering prematurely, which destroys the next year’s

crop.

Dr Pretorius warned that there was a “very real chance” of trees dying due to a lack of water. He

recommended that the water supply to the affected orchards be restored “as soon as possible”. If

not, crop loss could start to occur “within the next couple of days” – i.e. by the first week of

November 2012. It can be assumed that the urgent situation described here with respect to water

stress and potential crop losses would have been compounded by the 2008 flood, which occurred

about three weeks later into the season than the flood in 2012.

1.4.2 Impacts on production arising from damage to bridges

Besides major inconvenience to the general operation of the farm – such as staff not being able

to get to work at a critical time of the year or, in some cases, being cut off from the outside world

– the destruction of internal river crossings by floods can seriously impede the treatment of fruit

trees against fungal infection as spraying equipment cannot be deployed in the affected orchards.

As explained by Dr Pretorius, the transition from a wet winter to dry summer creates moist and

warm conditions that are highly advantageous for fungal infection of fruit trees. In terms of

integrated pest management protocols, contact fungicides need to be applied to protect crops

during the first 60 to 80 days after full bloom. Fruit not treated in this manner may not be

marketable overseas which, in the case of Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd., could be financially

ruinous. Untreated fruit could become reduced in size, making it unsuitable even for processing

which would translate into a 100% loss. It also becomes increasingly difficult to maintain disease-


Page 20 of 111

free crops in orchards that have not been properly treated for fungal infections. The risk of fungal

infection remains unabated throughout the ripening process and is exacerbated by warm, wet

conditions as would have prevailed in both November 2008 and October 2012.

In the case of both floods, physical access to the orchards on the western or right banks of the

Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof Rivers was entirely cut off due to the destruction of the affected

river crossings (see sections 1.1.2, 1.1 and 1.2). Access to the affected orchards was reinstated by

constructing the two pipe culvert crossings in November and December 2008 (replacing inter alia

the destroyed drift over the Elandskloof River) and, in October and November 2012, excavating a

temporary drift over the Elandskloof River and re-equipping the damaged bridges with expanded

flow capacity in the form of additional pipes and repaired decks.

The situation with respect to the farm’s treatment of trees for fungal infections was sufficiently

acute in October 2012 to compel the Applicant to employ the services of a helicopter company to

undertake aerial spraying at a daily cost of R11 000 and an additional R350 per hectare. The

temporary drift over the Elandskloof River proved, owing to its rough surface, to be unsuitable for

transporting fungicides in tanks towed by tractors. Repairing the bridges was, in the

circumstances, an unavoidable and urgently necessary option for the farm.

From the Applicant’s perspective, the flood damage had amounted to an “ongoing emergency

situation” and, in order to protect its property – in the form of the orchards and the current

harvest – Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd, had “no alternative but to undertake the flood repair

and/or restorative works as a matter of urgency and necessity...” (Smith Ndlovu Summers,

paragraph 12; Appendix D).

1.5 UNAUTHORISED ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION

This section highlights those aspects of the emergency repairs (i.e. prescribed ‘activities’ listed in

terms of national environmental impact assessment regulations) that were undertaken without

the requisite environmental authorisations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental

Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) as amended.

Certain aspects of the actions taken in response to the flood damage in November 2008 would

have required authorisation in terms of the 2006 version of the environmental impact assessment


Page 21 of 111

(EIA) regulations,3 whereas the emergency repairs initiated immediately after the flood in

October 2012 were in contravention of the 2010 EIA regulations.4

The activities relating to the November 2008 flood were concluded in a matter of weeks after the

damage had been incurred.

All of the listed activities arising from the October 2012 flood emergency had commenced before

the end of the year and had, with a few exceptions, been concluded by the end of January 2013.

Incomplete work associated with the 2012 flood includes the addition of a protective wing wall to

the repaired and expanded pipe culvert crossing over the Meerlustkloof River, and finding a more

suitable and secure method for routing an irrigation pipe across the lower reaches of the

Elandskloof River (repairs to the latter pipe in late 2012 and early 2013 did not, however,

constitute listed activities and are therefore do not form part of this section 24G application).

Both of the latter activities formed part of the suite of emergency responses implemented by

Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd in the last two months of 2012.

1.5.1 Activities triggered in November 2008 by the 2006 NEMA EIA regulations

The emergency repairs in November and December 2008 entailed excavation of the sump in the

Elandskloof River, and reinstating two vehicle crossings over the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof

rivers.

The activities that were triggered by these unauthorised operations in 2008 are activities 1(m)

and 4 of Listing Notice, 1 GN R. 386 of the 2006 NEMA EIA regulations, namely:

3 Listing Notice 1, GN R. 386 of 21 April 2006, identified in terms of sections 24 and 24D of the National

Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. 4 Listing Notice 1, GN R. 544 of 18 June 2010 (as amended) and, potentially, Listing Notice 3, GN R. 546 of 18

June 2010, published in terms of sections 24(2) and 24D of the National Environmental Management Act 107

of 1998.


Page 22 of 111

1(m) The construction of facilities or infrastructure,

including associated structures or infrastructure, for...

any purpose in the one in ten year flood line of a river

or stream, or within 32 metres from the bank of a

river or stream where the flood line is un-known,

excluding purposes associated with existing

residential use... but including (iii) bridges and (iv)

dams...

Construction of two pipe culvert crossings (‘bridges’)

to replace a drift over the Elandskloof River and a

former cement bridge over the Meerlustkloof River,

both of which were destroyed in the flood. The

alignment of the repaired/replacement structures was

identical to what had been there previously.

Excavation of an emergency irrigation sump (i.e. a

‘dam’) in the reworked bed of the Elandskloof River

following destruction of an abstraction point by the

flood. See below.

4 The dredging, excavation, infilling, removal or

moving of soil, sand or rock exceeding 5 cubic metres

from a river, tidal lagoon, tidal river, lake, in-stream

dam, floodplain or wetland

The sump lies roughly along the median line of the

reworked flood channel. There is a gap of 40 to 80 m

between the northern bank of the sump and the river

bank, and a 30 m gap between the sump and the right

(southern) bank of the river. The sump is about 2 900

m2

in extent. It is a kidney-shaped structure, open at

its upstream end, with bulldozed banks increasing to

about three metres in height along its downstream

aspect. The southern bank of the sump is partly

defined by remnants of floodplain soil deposits.

Overall, the sump occupies about one fifth of the

post-2008 river reach within which it is located. Water

was drawn via a 250 mm pipe to an established

pumping station about 280 m due east of the sump.

Excess water was released into the Elandskloof River

about 275 m downstream of the sump. The sump was

in use from late 2008 to October 2012, when changes

in the position of the active channel resulted in the

sump losing its supply of water.

1.5.2 Activities triggered in October 2012 by the 2010 NEMA EIA regulations

Emergency repairs following the flood in October 2012 entailed:

− Excavating a temporary drift across the Elandskloof River; and

− Rebuilding the damaged bridges over the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers, and

equipping them with additional 1.5 m diameter pipes.

Note that the unauthorised construction (and completion) of the sump had commenced during the

validity of the 2006 NEMA EIA regulations, which means that this set of activities do not require

retrospective authorisation in terms of the 2010 NEMA EIA regulations.


Page 23 of 111

The interventions carried out in October 2012 and directly thereafter triggered various activities in

Listing Notice 1 and, potentially, Listing Notice 3 of the 2010 NEMA EIA regulations (GN R. 544 and

546 respectively, published 18 June 2010), namely in terms of:

− Listing Notice 1, activities 11(iii) and (xi), 18, 39(iii) and 40(iv); and

− Listing Notice 3, activity 16(iv).

These following activities were triggered in terms of Listing Notice 1:

11 The construction of (iii) bridges and (xi)

infrastructure or structures covering 50 square

metres or more where such construction occurs

within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a

watercourse...

Construction of two expanded pipe culvert crossings

to repair two bridges over the Meerlustkloof and

Elandskloof rivers respectively. The alignment of the

repaired/replacement structures was identical to

what had been there previously. The temporary drift

over the Elandskloof River was about 70 m2

in extent.

18 The infilling or depositing of any material of more

than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation,

removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit,

pebbles or rock or more than 5 cubic metres from (i)

a watercourse... (Note that the EMP drafted for this

application is also to be submitted for approval as a

management plan for maintenance purposes as

provided for by Activity 18, LN1).

[Corrected by “Correction Notice 2” of 10 December

2010, GN No. R. 1159]

This activity applies to the construction of a

temporary drift over the Elandskloof River, pending

repairs to the damaged pipe culvert crossing. The

drift had been dismantled by late January 2013.

39 The expansion of (iii) bridges within a watercourse

or within 32 metres of a watercourse....

The hydraulic capacity of the two repaired pipe

culvert crossings was doubled (on the advice of the

Department of Agriculture and a freshwater

ecologist) with the addition of extra 1.5 m diameter

concrete pipes. In the case of the bridge over the

Meerlustkloof River, two extra pipes were added.

Three more pipes were added to the crossing over

the Elandskloof River.

40 The expansion of (iv) infrastructure by more than

50 m2

within a watercourse or within 32 m of a

watercourse....


2010, GN No. R. 1159]

Each pipe consists of two lengths, totalling 5 m when

laid end-on-end. The total area of expansion was

therefore 75 m2, explained as follows: Before the

repairs, the bridge over the Meerlustkloof River had

two pipes with a surface area of 15 m2 in total which

was doubled to 30 m2. The bridge over the

Elandskloof River initially had three pipes (of 22.5

m2), which were doubled in extent to 45 m

2.


Page 24 of 111

One activity was commenced in terms of Listing Notice 3, namely:

16 The construction of (iv) infrastructure covering 10

square metres or more where such construction

occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a

watercourse (d) in the Western Cape (ii) outside

urban areas (hh) within 5 km of a statutory protected

area that is not a national park....


2010, GN No. R. 1159]

All the unauthorised activities in question occurred

within 2 km of the Riviersonderend Nature Reserve,

which is a proclaimed protected area in terms of the

National Forests Act 30 of 1998 and the National

Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57

of 2003. The reserve is managed by CapeNature

(cf.< http:bgis.sanbi.org>)

The identification of these unauthorised activities is based on communication between the

Applicant’s lawyers and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (cf.

Appendix D), interviews with the Applicant and site visits with:

− LandCare representatives from the Western Cape Department of Agriculture on January

26 and February 16, 2012 (i.e. with respect to the activities triggered in response to the

November 2008 flood) ; and

− The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Breede-Overberg

Catchment Management Agency, Department of Water Affairs and the Western Cape

Department of Agriculture on 29 October 2012 (following renewed flood damage in

October 2012).

1.6 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS RELATING TO SUBMISSION OF s 24G APPLICATION

This section summarises actions following the issuing of a pre-compliance notice in terms of section

31L of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) 107 of 1998 as amended by the

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) on 28 December 2011. It

also outlines the sequence of authority consultations that followed on the flood damage in October

2012.

Pre-compliance

notice issued by

DEADP

28-12-2011

Agrisouth Orchards SA (Pty) Ltd (‘Agrisouth’) notified that a dam

had been constructed in a watercourse without environmental

authorisation. Agrisouth instructed to cease unauthorised

activity, rehabilitate the site to its original condition, and to

rectify the effects of the unlawful activity. Agrisouth afforded

seven days in which to make representations as to why a

compliance notice should not be issued.

Response by DEADP requested to refrain from issuing a compliance notice


Page 25 of 111

Agrisouth’s attorneys

16 January 2012

until attorneys had an opportunity to consult with their client

and make written representations to DEADP.

DEADP to attorneys

17 January 2012

Agrisouth granted an extension until 23-01-2012 to make a

submission to DEADP.

Attorneys to DEADP

24-01-2012

Agrisouth’s attorneys set out circumstances of excavation of

sump, i.e. sump excavated as a response to an emergency

resulting from severe flooding in November 2008. Request that

DEADP refrains from issuing a compliance notice, instead

motivating inter alia that Agrisouth submit a section 24G

application with a view to investigation, among others, whether

rehabilitation of the site (and reinstatement of original

conditions) would constitute the best practicable environmental

option.

Agrisouth appoints

EAP to undertake s

2G environmental

assessment

27-01-2012

EAP undertakes site visits with representatives of Western Cape

Department of Agriculture’s sustainable resource management

programme on 26-01-2012 and 16-03-2012. EAP notifies DEADP

of appointment on 31-01-2012. Freshwater Consulting Group

appointed to undertake specialist aquatic impact assessment (23-

02-2012)

Section 24G

application form

submitted to DEADP

08-02-2012

DEADP acknowledges

receipt of application

27-02-2012

DEA&DP requests correction to activities for which authorisation

is being sought (viz. 2006, not 2010 NEMA EIA regulations).

Public participation process must be undertaken and organs of

state must be consulted. Amended application form accepted by

DEA&DP on 06-03-2012.

Section 24G process –

Submission of Final

EIR to DEA&DP, 06-

09-2012

RENEWED FLOOD

DAMAGE, OCTOBER

2012

Final EIR published by BolandEnviro cc for second, 21-day round

of comment. Comment received from CapeNature and Overberg

District Municipality (see Appendix F). Final EIR submitted to

DEA&DP on 06-09-2012; acknowledgement of receipt issued by

DEA&DP on 17-09-2012.

Agrisouth hosts

authority meeting at

‘Meerlustkloof’ to

discuss emergency

responses to flood

damage, 29-10-2012

Meeting attended by representatives of DEA&DP section 24G

Unit and IEM directorate, BOCMA, Department of Water Affairs

and the Western Cape Department of Agriculture.

− It was agreed to that no decisions on the regulatory

responsibilities of Agrisouth could be taken on site.

− Agrisouth would request EAP to compile a memorandum on


Page 26 of 111

the situation at the farm for consideration by the

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning and Department of Water Affairs respectively (see

Appendix D).

− It was recommended that a meeting be set up with the

respective departments to consider an authorisation strategy

once the departments had received a formal request in this

regard from Agrisouth.

Meeting between EAP

and DEA&DP on

revised s 24G process,

26-11-2012

In summary, it was agreed that:

− The Final EIR would be amended to reflect the circumstances

that were triggered by the flood in October 2012;

− The Final EIR would be resubmitted to the DEA&DP after a

single, 21-day public participation process;

− The application for rectification would be expanded to

include – in terms of the 2006 NEMA EIA regulations – the

unauthorised construction of the two bridges in response to

the 2008 flood (note that these activities had not been

included in the s 31L pre-compliance notice issued on 28-12-

2011);

− Unauthorised activities that had commenced in response to

the October 2012 flood would be dealt with in terms of the

2010 NEMA EIA regulations. These activities related to the

reconstruction (and expansion) of the two pipe culvert

crossings, and the temporary drift; and

− All reporting and the EMPR/Maintenance Management Plan

would be amended accordingly.

1.7 SCOPE OF THE WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN

The scope of the study is determined with reference to the requirements of the relevant

legislation namely section 24G of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)

(NEMA), as amended.

The main responsibilities of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) undertaking an

environmental assessment in terms of s 24G would include but not be limited to, the following:

− Submission of the required Application Form to the relevant authority to register the

proposed project;


Page 27 of 111

− Consultation with the relevant authorities and stakeholders, at prescribed intervals

throughout the environmental assessment process, to ensure that relevant issues or

concerns are identified, assessed and reported;

− Ensure the assessment of and response to issues that are raised throughout the public

participation process, and which are relevant to the decision that needs to be taken;

− Compile a report containing —

(i) an assessment of the nature, extent, duration and significance of the impacts of the

activity on the environment, including the cumulative effects;

(ii) a description of mitigation measures undertaken or to be undertaken in respect of

the impacts of the activity on the environment;

(iii) a description of the public participation process followed during the course of

compiling the report, including all comments received from interested and affected

parties and an indication of how issues raised have been addressed; and

(iv) an environmental management programme.

− Provide such other information or undertake such further studies as the relevant

authority may deem necessary;

− Submission of the draft report to the public and commenting authorities for comment,

and

− Submission of the final report to the competent authority, specifically the Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP), for a decision.

1.8 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This environmental assessment is assailed with predictive uncertainty arising from a variety of

inter-related sources. The recommendations that are captured in Chapter 5 and Chapter 8 have

been specifically designed to contend with these uncertainties by means of an incrementally

structured planning process.

The over-riding problem is thus: Owing to extensive, flood-related erosion, destabilisation of the

Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers and the generally degraded condition of the adjacent

floodplains, it will take a comprehensive planning process to identify the most appropriate

strategy for achieving long-term stability of the river in manner that it is consistent with

rehabilitation of ecological function and structure as well securing reasonable levels of

agricultural activity in adjacent areas (cf. Day (2012; 2013); Appendix E).

In this context, the problems arising from historical degradation of the affected catchment,

changing weather patterns, chronic instability of the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers and the

ensuring vulnerability of critical farming infrastructure to floods represent a sub-set of a larger


Page 28 of 111

management problem that needs to be addressed in a strategic, holistic manner, with the right

specialist expertise, and at a catchment scale if further degradation and instability of the system is

to be halted and rectified.

In the absence of reliable assumptions about how the unauthorised works may be impacting on

the riparian environment, and what effect future floods may have on a highly destabilised system,

a phased process of investigation and management is recommended to deal with these

uncertainties. Given these critical uncertainties, it would be rash to recommend alternative

stream crossing and rehabilitation measures without understanding the dynamics and responses

of the broader system, and what is necessary to achieve its stabilisation and long-term

rehabilitation. These questions are dealt with comprehensively in the environmental impact

report (Chapters 6 and 7).

Assumptions and limitation that apply specifically to the specialist investigations and impact

assessment are recorded in Section 5.1 (‘Uncertainty of predictive methods and assumptions’).

1.9 THE NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

‘Need’ is understood to mean requiring something because it is essential or very important, and

not just desirable. ‘Desirability’, in turn, refers to wanting or wishing for something owing to its

attractiveness, utility or necessity (cf. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998). The DEA&DP

guideline on need and desirability (2010) suggests that ‘need’ refers to the ‘timing’ of a proposed

development, and ‘desirability’ to place. Jointly, the concepts raise critical questions about the

contextual appropriateness of development, and the “wise use of land”.

Here, the ‘need’ for a proposed development would depend on the degree of social or public

harm that would result from the development not going ahead. ‘Desirability’ can reflect both a

private desire that, if not met, will result in disappointment, as well as a more objective aspect –

namely, would a proposed development be strategically and contextually appropriate?

The preferred alternative is discussed in terms of its need and desirability in Chapter 4.


Page 29 of 111

1.10 ALTERNATIVES

The assessment of feasible and reasonable alternatives to development proposals forms a

cornerstone of integrated environmental management. It is also required by law.5 The rationale

underpinning the function of alternatives in project planning, impact assessment and decision

making is dealt with comprehensively in Chapter 4 below.

Alternatives are only addressed with respect to the events that followed the flood in October

2012. The reason for this are set out below.

1.10.1 Assessment of alternatives relating to the unauthorised emergency sump

Firstly, the emergency sump – which was the original trigger for this section 24G application – has

been effectively left stranded and operationally redundant as a result of sediment accumulation

and the southwards migration of the active channel during the 2012 flood (Day, 2013, p 14).

Although it was initially recognised that a long-term and more environmentally-acceptable

alternative had to be found for taking water from the middle reaches of the Elandskloof River (see

the August 2012 version of this Final EIR), changes in the river morphology and, more

importantly, procurement of new pumps by the Applicant have negated the need to investigate

other options for abstracting water for irrigation (see section 1.3.2 above for a description of this

technology, and its application). This environmental impact report confirms the earlier

recommendation that the removal of obstacles in the adjacent channel adjacent to the sump be

treated as a matter of priority. The sump, however, should be left in situ until completion of the

proposed strategic planning process for the stabilisation and rehabilitation of the Meerlustkloof

and Elandskloof rivers (see Chapter 8).

On the basis of the foregoing, alternatives to the sump will not be dealt with any further.

1.10.2 Assessment of alternatives relating to the unauthorised emergency repairs to

the bridges over the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers in 2008

Secondly, the initial application for retrospective environmental authorisation of unauthorised

activities that had been undertaken in response to flood damage in November 2008 did not

5 Cf. s 24(4)(b) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended


Page 30 of 111

include listed activities triggered by the repair of the flood-damaged pipe culvert crossings over

the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers.

The decision to confine the section 24G application to the unauthorised excavation of the

emergency was informed by the pre-compliance notice (issued by the DEADP on 28 December

2011) that related exclusively to the sump. It was the Applicant’s understanding that the repairs

to the two damaged bridges was confined to the replacement of damaged infrastructure and, on

the basis of the so-called ‘like-for-like’ principle, did not trigger a requirement for prior

environmental authorisation. Hearsay has it that this opinion was communicated verbally to the

Applicants at the time. Whereas this cannot be independently corroborated, it can be confirmed

that that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning did not raise this as

an issue in response to the section 24G application form that was submitted on 8 February 2012,

or during subsequent communications with the Applicants attorneys.

As a consequence, the initial environmental assessment only dealt with impacts arising from the

unauthorised excavation of the emergency sump. It was only during the site visit at

‘Meerlustkloof’, on 29 October 2012, that the legality of the emergency repairs to the two bridges

in 2008 came into question. It was subsequently agreed at a meeting between the Applicant’s

environmental assessment practitioner and representatives of the Sub-directorate: Section 24G

applications on 26 November 2012 that this Application would be amended to include the

unauthorised emergency repairs to the two bridges following the flood in November 2008, as well

as the urgent but unauthorised works that had been undertaken in the wake of the October 2012

flood.

1.10.3 The need to balance short-term mitigation with long-term rehabilitation of the

two rivers

Under the circumstances, it is not possible to provide a detailed assessment and evaluation of

impacts arising from the unauthorised repairs to the two bridges in 2008 as these did not feature

in the environmental assessment process that commenced early in 2012, and neither were they

included in the terms of reference for the aquatic ecologist, Dr Liz Day. Both bridges have been

rebuilt in the interim, following severe damage in the October 2012 flood, and both have been

equipped with extra hydraulic capacity by doubling the number of 1.5 m pipes that provide

venting through the structures (see Day, 2013, p 23; Appendix E).

The aquatic specialist did (Day 2013, Appendix E), however, note that the repairs to the two

bridges in 2008 would have had adverse environmental effects, including:


Page 31 of 111

− Concentration of flows and increased velocities as a result of river narrowing;

− In-filling of the floodplain and further concentration of flows by berms placed along the

top of the river bank; and

− A significant contribution to negative cumulative impacts on both rivers (such as severe

sedimentation, erosion and ongoing disturbance to downstream riparian habitats).

The latter findings with respect to the freshwater ecological impacts of the repairs to the bridges

in 2008, as well as the updated Present Ecological Status of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof

rivers, provides a useful baseline against which to assess the environmental effects of the

additional pipes that were added to the bridges after the flood in October 2012. The latter will be

treated as a design alternative for the purposes of impact assessment and evaluation.

The aquatic ecologist was unable to assess the impacts of the unauthorised drift as it had been

demolished by the time that she visited the farm in January 2013, and most traces of the

structure had disappeared by then. It could, however, be concluded that the drift would have had

a “negligible” long-term impact (See Day, 2013; Appendix E). The lifespan of the drift was, from

the outset, viewed as limited as it constituted a temporary measure to allow farm personnel to

ford the Elandskloof River until such time that adjacent pipe culvert crossing had been repaired.

The only alternatives to the drift would have been the ‘no go’ option, i.e. accepting the status quo

directly after the flood in October 2012 – and do nothing to reinstate contact with the western

parts of the farm – or to rebuild the pipe culvert crossing, which has happened, but with

potentially hugely damaging delays to the farming operation.

Neither of the latter options are considered to be feasible or reasonable. Their need and

desirability would also have to be questioned if considered in the light of the arguments

presented in Chapter 4, ‘Alternatives’.

1.10.4 Strategic, contextual constraints to the identification of alternatives

In general, it must be emphasised that without effective simultaneous rehabilitation of

the river from the overwhelming effects of flood damage, and deliberate steps to curb

pressures that contribute to the degradation of the farming-ecosystem interface, efforts

expended in rehabilitation of the impacts of the sump and other unauthorised

infrastructure will be of little measureable effect in terms of contributing improvements

to the overall ecological state of the affected rivers and wetlands.

Furthermore, insufficient information exists at present to provide a useful guide as to the

best approach to achieve long-term stability of the river system in a manner that is


Page 32 of 111

compatible both with rehabilitation of ecological function and structure, while allowing for

and securing reasonable levels of agricultural activity in adjacent areas. This issue is

particularly true in a context where extreme storms are predicted to become more

frequent with global climate change and, given the present levels of degradation and

instability of the above rivers, seemingly throughout their reaches in developed areas, their

present levels of resilience to ongoing hydrological / climatic disturbance is expected to be

particularly low.

This state of affairs can probably be extended to many other sub-catchments in this part of

the Riviersonderend system.

In light of the above, it is strongly recommended that the detailed design and actual

implementation of mitigation measures needs to be informed by additional critical

information that would only become available by means of a suitably-resourced

investigation at the appropriate hydro-geomorphological and ecological scales.

It is against this background that the identification of alternatives would, for the purposes

of this application and the decision that is sought, be premature and unjustified, and that

the question of alternatives is properly left to the conclusion of the recommended

planning process


Page 33 of 111

2. LEGAL AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is being 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.

Other legislation and policy may, however, also apply to this application. Other regulatory and

policy instruments may include:

− The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (threatened

species);

− The National Water Act 38 of 1998 (water use licensing);

− The National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999;

− The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983;

− The draft Western Cape Rural Land-use Planning and Management Guidelines (2009);

− CapeNature’s requirements and recommendations with respect to applications for

environmental, mining, agriculture, water, and planning-related authorisations (2009).

Several technical and interpretive guidelines may also apply to aspects of the application. These

include:

− Brownlie S (2005) Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes: Edition

1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 C. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government

Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape

Town;

− Holness and Bradshaw (2010) Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Overberg District

Municipality. Park Planning and Development Unit, SANParks, Port Elizabeth; and

− DEA&DP (2010) Guideline on Need and Desirability, EIA Guideline and Information

Document Series. Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development

Planning (DEA&DP).

The implications of each of these instruments are set out below.


Page 34 of 111

2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) AND THE

NEMA EIA REGULATIONS

The interpretation and application of environmental legislation is governed by the Constitution of

the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.

Chapter 2 of the Constitution constitutes a Bill of Rights that includes an environmental clause.6

Section 24 of the Bill of Rights states that “everyone has the right to have the environment

protected through reasonable laws or other means that prevent pollution and ecological

degradation, promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of

natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development”.

Constitutional provisions relating to the promotion of administrative justice and promotion of

access to information have a direct bearing on the environmental regulatory dispensation, which

obtain statutory expression through framework legislation in the form of the National

Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended.

NEMA is enforced by the national Department of Environmental Affairs, but certain powers have

been assigned to the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning (DEA&DP), which in this instance is the recognised competent authority.

2.2 NEMA CHAPTER 1: THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

PRINCIPLES

Chapter 1 of NEMA (the National Environmental Management Principles) lays down principles7

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 any decision in terms of any statutory provision concerning the protection of the

environment.8

The National Environmental Management Principles place people and their needs at the forefront

of environmental management, and require that development must be socially, environmentally

6 s 24, The Constitution of RSA

7 Section 2, Act 107 of 1998 as amended

8 Section 2(1)c), Act 107 of 1998 as amended


Page 35 of 111

and economically sustainable.9 They also promote the right of all interested and affected parties

to participate in environmental governance.10

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.11

2.3 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.12

9 Section 2(2), Act 107 of 1998 as amended

10 Section 2(4)(f), Act 107 of 1998 as amended

11 Cf. sub-sections 2(4)(a)(i), (ii), (vi); (b); and (r)

12 s 28(4), NEMA


Page 36 of 111

2.4 NEMA CHAPTER 5: INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

One of the primary objectives of integrated environmental management is to promote the

integration of the National Environmental Management Principles into all decision making that

may significantly affect the environment.13

Section 24(4)(a) of NEMA, in turn, lays down minimum, non-discretionary procedures14

that apply

to every application for an ‘environmental authorisation’, i.e. a listed or specified activity.

‘Listed activities’ refer to activities listed or specified in terms of, respectively, NEMA s 24(2)(a) or

(b) that may not be commenced without environmental authorisation issued in terms of section

24(1) of NEMA. Listed activities are defined by Listing Notices that are published with the NEMA

EIA regulations.

2.5 MANDATORY AND DISCRETIONARY PROCEDURES RELATING TO

APPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION

The mandatory and discretionary procedures relating to environmental assessment in support of

applications for environmental authorisation are summarised as follows:

NEMA s 24(4)(a)

Minimum, non-discretionary requirements that apply to

every application for environmental authorisation

NEMA s 24(4)(b)

Minimum, discretionary requirements that may apply with

respect to every application for environmental

authorisation

There must be co-ordination and co-operation between

organs of state where an activity may fall under the

jurisdiction of more than one organ of state.

All applications for an environmental authorisation (see

below) must include, where applicable:

−−−− Investigation of the potential consequences or impacts

of alternatives to the activity on the environment; and

−−−− Assessment of the significance of those potential

consequences or impacts, including the option of not

implementing the activity.

Any decision by an organ of state must take into account:

−−−− The findings and recommendations flowing from an

environmental assessment;

−−−− The general objectives of integrated environmental

management as provided for in Chapter 5 of NEMA

−−−− The national environmental management principles

Where applicable, measures must be investigated to

mitigate adverse consequences or impacts to the minimum.

13 s 23(2)(a), NEMA

14 As amended by the National Environmental Management Amendment Act 62 of 2008


Page 37 of 111

NEMA s 24(4)(a)

Minimum, non-discretionary requirements that apply to

every application for environmental authorisation

NEMA s 24(4)(b)

Minimum, discretionary requirements that may apply with

respect to every application for environmental

authorisation

(section 2, NEMA).

An application must contain a description of the

environment likely to be significantly affected by the

proposed activity.

Where applicable, potential impacts on heritage resources

(the ‘national estate’ in terms of section 3(2) of the National

Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999) must be investigated,

assessed and evaluated.

There must be an investigation of:

−−−− The potential environmental consequences for, or

impacts on, of the activity; and

−−−− The significance of those potential consequences or

impacts.

Where applicable, gaps in knowledge, the adequacy of

predictive methods and underlying assumptions and

uncertainties arising from the compilation of information

must be reported.

The public and all organs of state with jurisdiction over any

aspect of the activity must be given a reasonable

opportunity to participate in public information and

participation procedures.

Where applicable, arrangements for monitoring and

managing environmental consequences and impacts must

be investigated and formulated, as must the effectiveness

of such arrangements.

Where applicable, applications must consider information

and maps that specify the attributes of the environment in

particular geographic areas where such information and

maps have been complied by either the national Minister of

Water and Environmental Affairs or a provincial MEC

2.6 THE NEMA EIA REGULATIONS

NEMA section 24(5) provides for regulations that lay down procedures for applications for

environmental authorisations. These, and their accompanying listing notices of activities that may

not commence without environmental authorisation in terms of NEMA s 24(1), are generally

known as the ‘EIA regulations’.

2.6.1 ‘Listed activities’ requiring environmental authorisation: the 2006 and 2010

NEMA EIA regulations

The activities subject to this application commenced in November/December 2008 and

October/November 2012 respectively, which means that two different sets of listed activities

applied to the respective flood incidents.

The unauthorised excavation of the emergency sump and repairs to the two bridges in 2008

commenced in terms of the 2006 version of the NEMA EIA regulations, whereas the unauthorised

activities that were commenced with in response to flood damage in October 2012 were in

contravention of the 2010 amendments to the NEMA EIA regulations.


Page 38 of 111

Whereas listing notices published with the 200615

and 201016

NEMA EIA regulations identify

activities that require environmental authorisation subject to the respective periods of validity of

the regulations, the EIA regulations17

‘proper’ constitute the substantive rules governing

applications for environmental authorisation. Both sets of regulation have undergone periodic

amendment.

The NEMA EIA regulations have, since 2006, broadly provided two types of application procedure:

− The basic assessment; and

− The more comprehensive scoping and EIA process.

Under the 2006 NEMA EIA regulations, Listing Notice 1 defined activities for which a basic

assessment had to be undertaken, and Listing Notice 2 described activities subject to mandatory

scoping and EIA. Permission could be sought for a basic assessment, for example, to be upgraded

to a full EIA. Similar provisions are currently in force with respect to the 2010 NEMA EIA

regulations, except that there are currently three and not two listing notices: Listing Notices 1

and 3 respectively define activities and geographical areas to which the basic assessment

procedure applies. Scoping and EIA must be undertaken with respect to activities on Listing

Notice 2.

Had the activities subject to this application been contemplated de novo, afresh, they would have

been subject to environmental authorisation and the prescribed basic assessment process as

defined in the 2006 and 2010 editions of the NEMA EIA regulations respectively..

2.6.2 Listed activities ‘triggered’ by emergency excavations and repairs in 2008

The following listed activities on Listing Notice 1 of GN R. 386 of 21 April 2006 were undertaken

without environmental authorisation in 2008:

1(m) The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or

infrastructure, for... any purpose in the one in ten year flood line of a river or stream, or within

32 metres from the bank of a river or stream where the flood line is un-known, excluding

15 GN R. 386 of 21 April 2006 (Listing Notice 1)

16 GN R. 544 and 546 of 18 June 2010 (Listing Notices 1 and 3 respectively)

17 Cf. GN R. 385 for the 2006 NEMA EIA regulations, and GN R. 543 for the 2010 NEMA EIA regulations


Page 39 of 111

purposes associated with existing residential use... but including (iii) bridges and (iv) dams...;

and

4 The dredging, excavation, infilling, removal or moving of soil, sand or rock exceeding 5 cubic

metres from a river, tidal lagoon, tidal river, lake, in-stream dam, floodplain or wetland....

2.6.3 Listed activities ‘triggered’ by emergency excavations and repairs in 2012

The following listed activities on Listing Notice 1 (GN R. 544 of 18 June 2010) were undertaken

without environmental authorisation in 2012:

11 The construction of (iii) bridges and (xi) infrastructure or structures covering 50 square metres

or more where such construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a

watercourse...

18 The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging,

excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock or more than 5

cubic metres from (i) a watercourse... (Note that the EMP drafted for this application is also

submitted for approval as a management plan for maintenance purposes as provided for

by Activity 18, LN1). [Corrected by “Correction Notice 2” of 10 December 2010, GN No. R. 1159]

39 The expansion of (iii) bridges within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse....

40 The expansion of (iv) infrastructure by more than 50 m2

within a watercourse or within 32 m

of a watercourse.... [Corrected by “Correction Notice 2” of 10 December 2010, GN No. R. 1159]

The following activity on Listing Notice 3 (GN R. 546 18 June 2010) was undertaken without

environmental authorisation in 2012:

16 The construction of (iv) infrastructure covering 10 square metres or more where such

construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse (d) in the

Western Cape (ii) outside urban areas (hh) within 5 km of a statutory protected area that is

not a national park.... [Corrected by “Correction Notice 2” of 10 December 2010, GN No. R. 1159]

See Section 1.5 above for a full definition and description of the activities in question.

It is an offence to commence a listed activity without environmental authorisation.18

Transgressors can, on conviction, be sentenced to a fine not exceeding R5-million and/or

18 NEMA s 24F(2)


Page 40 of 111

imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years.19

It is a defence to a charge in terms of NEMA s 24F(2)

to show that the activity was commenced or continued in response to an emergency so as to

protect human life, property or the environment.

2.7 APPEALS

In terms of section 43(1) of NEMA, any affected person may appeal to the Minister against a

decision taken by any person acting under a power delegated by the Minister under Act of 107 of

1998.

2.8 NEMA CHAPTER 5: COMPLIANCE NOTICES AND RECTIFICATION

PROCEDURES

2.8.1 Compliance notices

Section 31L of the Act provides that an environmental management inspector may issue a

compliance notice if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has not complied with

a provision of the law (such as the NEMA EIA regulations) for which that inspector has been

designated. A compliance notice must inter alia set out the details of the conduct that constitutes

non-compliance and any steps that must be taken with a specified period.20

Failure to comply

with a compliance notice constitutes an offence as defined by s 24F(2) of the Act.

2.8.2 Rectification applications i.t.o. s 24G of NEMA

NEMA, through s 24G, provides a process that can lead to the rectification of unauthorised,

unlawful activities. The ‘rectification process’ entails submission of an environmental impact

assessment 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;21

or

− Authorisation, subject to conditions, of the activity/ies that had been commenced

unlawfully (i.e. continuation).22

19 NEMA s 24F(4)

20 Cf. sub-sections 31L(1) and (2)

21 s 24G(2)(a), NEMA

22 s 24G(2(b), NEMA


Page 41 of 111

The prescribed NEMA s 24G process may, depending on what the competent authority requires,

entail:

− An environmental assessment;

− A description of mitigation measures;

− A description of the public participation process, the issues raised by interested and

affected parties, and how these had been addressed; and

− An environmental management programme.23

The findings of any other studies that may be been required by the relevant authorities would

also have to be recorded in the environmental impact report.24

It is understood that an

application for rectification of an unauthorised activity to allow for its legal continuation would be

subject to the NEMA section 24(4) procedures for the investigation, assessment and

communication potential environmental impacts of activities on the environment.25

2.9 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT

The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA)

among others provides for the:

− Management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of the

National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998;

− Protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection;

− Sustainable use of indigenous biological resource; and

− Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bio-prospecting involving indigenous

biological resources; and

− Establishment and functions of a South African National Biodiversity Institute.

The NEMBA is part of a suite of legislation falling under NEMA, which includes the Protected

Areas Act, the NEM: Air Quality Act and the NE: Coastal Zone Act.

23 s 24G(1)(a), NEMA

24 s 24G(1)(b), NEMA

25 “An application (or EIA process followed) in terms of section 24G of NEMA is also subject to the minimum requirements

of section 24(4)(a) and (b) of NEMA. As such, the requirement to investigate the impact of alternatives is applicable. The

requirement for public participation is applicable, but the extent thereof is left to the discretion of the competent

authority.” Paul Hardcastle, DEA&DP, by e-mail 01.04.2010.


Page 42 of 111

Chapter 3 of NEMBA provides a framework for integrated and co-ordinated biodiversity planning,

monitoring of conservation status and promote research in biodiversity.

Chapter 4 deals with threatened and protected ecosystems and species and related threatening

processes and restricted activities.

Section 73 deals with Duty of Care relating to invasive species, while Section 76(2) calls for

development of invasive species monitoring, control and eradication plans by all organs of state

in all spheres of government, as part of environmental management plans required in terms of

Section 11 of NEMA.

NEMBA is particularly relevant to the EIA regime with regard to its provision for the listing of

threatened ecosystems26

and threatening processes27

which, in turn, provide the basis for certain

listed activities. However, no threatened ecosystems had been gazetted when the unauthorised

activities in question had commenced. The ecosystem status of affected vegetation is recorded

below, and uses the recently-published ‘National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in

need of protection’ (DEA 2011) as the reference.

NEMBA would appear to apply to this application insofar as mitigation and longer-term

management of the sites and the broader catchment would be aimed at clearing and controlling

invasive alien plants. Most of the subject property would have supported Greyton Shale Fynbos

(FFh7; Mucina and Rutherford, 2006), an Endangered ecosystem gazetted in terms of the 2011 list

of threatened ecosystems (DEA 2011). The threatened status of this ecosystem is attributed to

loss of habitat measured against the biodiversity target for Greyton Shale Fynbos.

However, this vegetation type – if it had at all been present in a palmiet floodplain wetland

associated with braided foothill channels – has been extirpated from the floodplains of the

Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof river by decades of cultivation and associated agricultural

developments and appears to be limited to steeper, shale-based slopes and high-lying foothills

flanking the river.

The unauthorised activities in question were confined exclusively to the severely eroded channels

of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers and therefore would not have entailed the

disturbance or removal of Greyton Shale Fynbos.

26 S 52

27 S 53


Page 43 of 111

2.10 NATIONAL WATER ACT

The National Water Act (NWA), Act 36 of 1998 has the purpose to ensure that South Africa’s

water resources are protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled in ways

which inter alia:

− Promote equitable access to water;

− Redress past racial discrimination;

− Facilitate social and economic development;

− Protect aquatic and associated ecosystems and their biological diversity;

− Reduce and prevent pollution and degradation of water resources; and

− Manage floods and droughts.28

Section 4 of the NWA describes the entitlement to water use, whereby a person may continue

with an existing lawful water use and a person may use water in terms of a general authorisation

or license. Section 21 of the Act defines ‘water use’ which is subject to compulsory licensing

unless the water use is exempted from such compulsory licensing in terms of subsections 22(1)(a)

and (c). Two ‘water uses’ as defined by section 21 of the Act would appear to apply to this

application, viz:

− s 21(c) – Impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse (see definitions below);

and

− s 21(i) – Altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse.

Definition of ‘watercourse’29

Definition of ‘wetland’30

“Watercourse” means –

(a) a river or spring;

(b) a natural channel in which water flows

regularly or intermittently;

(c) a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from

which, water flows; and

(d) any collection of water which the Minister

may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a

watercourse, and a reference to a water-

course includes, where relevant, its bed and

banks...

“Wetland” means –

land which is transitional between terrestrial and

aquatic systems where the water table is usually at

or near the surface, or the land is periodically

covered with shallow water, and which land in

normal circumstances supports or would support

vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil...

28 S 2 National Water Act 36 of 1998

29 S 1(1), NWA 36 of 1998

30 S 1(1), NWA 36 of 1998


Page 44 of 111

Section 39 of the Act provides for General Authorisations, in terms of which specified water uses

do not require a licence. In this instance, the General Authorisation31

that dispenses with the

need to obtain a water use licence for impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse,

or altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse, is not applicable to the

unauthorised activities that are the subject of this application. This is because GN 1199 does not

apply to development within 500 m of a wetland.

It is recommended that the s 24G process be concluded before a final decision is taken on the

obligations of the applicant in terms of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 as water licensing

requirements in terms of the latter Act would be linked to the alternatives that are eventually

authorised retrospectively by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning. The ecological assessment that has been undertaken to inform this application is of

direct relevance to the factors that would inform a decision on a water use licence application

(see, for example, subsections 7(1) to 7(10) of GN 1199 of impacts that must not arise from a

water use).

Section 41 of the National Water Act prescribed procedures for applications for water use

licences. Subsection 41(2)(a)(ii) states that a responsible authority may require that the effect of

the proposed licence on water quality be investigated. The responsible authority may direct that

such an impact assessment complies with the EIA regulations published in terms of the former

Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989.32

Those aspects of the NEMA s 24G application that also may require a water use licence in terms

of Act 36 of 1998 (viz. sections 21(c) and (i)) have been subjected to a comprehensive assessment

by an aquatic specialist (see Chapters 3, 5 and 6 and Appendix E for the ecological assessment).

2.11 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT 25 OF 1999

The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) 25 of 1999 regulates the management of heritage

resources in South Africa. It is enforced by Heritage Western Cape in the Western Cape Province.

The Act applies to propose planning and development processes in two main aspects, viz. through

regulating of activities:

31 GN 1199 of 18 December 2009 – Impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse [Section 21(c)] and

Altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse [Section 21(i)] 32

Section 41(3), NWA


Page 45 of 111

− Affecting the National Estate;33

and/or

− That may exceed prescribed thresholds.34

The ‘National Estate’ is defined as:

(Those) heritage resources of South Africa which are of cultural significance or other

special value for the present community and for future generations...”35

The NHRA provides for a system of grading and recording heritage resources into resources of

national, provincial or local heritage significance. Criteria are laid down by the Act. The Act

prescribes penalties for damaging or otherwise harming heritage resources. Section 38(1) of the

NHRA identifies activities that have to be reported to the provincial heritage authorities for a

decision on whether a heritage impact report is necessary. These activities include construction of

barriers of various types exceeding 300 m in length, construction of bridges or similar structures

in excess of 50 m in length and development or other activity which will change the character of a

site exceeding 5 000 m2.

None of these circumstances apply to the unauthorised activities in question. See Section 1.2

above for a comprehensive description of the sump and its dimensions.

2.12 CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA), Act 43 of 1983 has the objectives of

conserving the natural agricultural resources of South Africa, through the maintenance of the

production potential of the land, by combating and preventing erosion and the weakening of

water sources, the protection of vegetation and the combating of weeds and invader plants.

CARA provides for prescribed Control Measures,36

enforced through regulations37

. A directive also

may be issued in order to compel landowners to comply with a Control Measure.38

Section 6 describes how that the Minister is to achieve the objects of the Act by prescribing

control measures which may relate to (a) cultivation of virgin soil, (b) the utilisation and

33 Section 3, NHRA 25 of 1999

34 Section 38, NHRA

35 Section 3(1), NHRA

36 Section 6 of CARA.




Page 46 of 111

protection of land which is cultivated, (c) the irrigation of land, (d) the prevention or control of

water logging or salination of the land, (e) the utilisation and protection of vleis, marshes, water

sponges, water courses and water sources, (f) the regulating of the flow pattern of run-off water,

(g) the utilisation and protection of vegetation ... (l) the control of weeds and invader plants, (m)

the restoration or reclamation of eroded land or land which is otherwise disturbed or denuded, ...

(o) the construction, maintenance, alteration or removal of soil conservation works or other

structures on land.

The CARA regulations give regulatory effect to the Section 6 Control Measures. They inter alia

deal with the cultivation of virgin soil (i.e. soil that has not been mechanically disturbed for 10

years or more), cultivation of land with a slope, protection of cultivated land against erosion

through the action of water and wind, and utilisation and protection of vleis, marshes, water

sponges and water courses. Permits for the cultivation of virgin soil are issued in terms of

Regulation 2, R1048 of 25 May 1984. CARA is enforced by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry

and Fisheries (DAFF).

Comment has been elicited from the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and the national

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on the obligations of the Applicant in terms of

the CARA Section 6 Control Measures.

2.13 LAND USE PLANNING ORDINANCE

The Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 (LUPO) provides a framework for strategic spatial

planning as well as land use control.

Chapter 1 of LUPO provides for structure plans that lay down guidance for the future spatial

development of an area, such as a municipality. Structure plans do not confer or take away rights

in land. However, applications for rezoning must be consistent with an applicable structure plan.

Structure plans must give regard to the preservation of the natural and developed environments.

Chapter 2 of LUPO deals with zoning schemes which form the nub of municipal land use

regulation. Zoning schemes determine land-use rights, provide for control over these rights and

the utilisation of land in the area of jurisdiction of a municipality. Scheme regulations give effect

to control over zoning, and scheme regulations may authorise the granting of departures and sub-

divisions by a municipal council.

Land use must be consistent with its zoning, and the province or a municipal council – if

authorised by the provisions of a structure plan – may grant or refuse an application for rezoning.


Page 47 of 111

Rezoning applications are dealt with by municipal councils and must follow prescribed

procedures. Land must first be rezoned before it can be sub-divided.

The unauthorised activities subject to this rectification application do not require a decision in

terms of LUPO.

2.14 THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING (DEA&DP) GUIDELINES AND BIODIVERSITY SECTOR PLANS

There are a number of guideline documents and conservation plans that must inform the work of

both the environmental practitioner and specialists. Of direct relevance are:

− The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Guidelines on Public

Participation (2010);

− DEA&DP guideline on involving biodiversity specialists in EIA (2005);

− The Draft Western Cape Rural Land-use Planning and Management Guidelines (2009);

and, related to this,

− Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Overberg District Municipality (Holness and Bradshaw,

2010).

Salient aspects of each of the guidelines are summarised below.

2.14.1 Public participation

The public participation guideline provides information on the DEA&DP’s interpretation of the

public participation requirements of the EIA regulations (2010). Of direct relevance here are the

guidelines relating to appropriate mechanisms for notifying interested and affected parties of

their right to comment on applications for environmental authorisation and rectification (e.g. use

of notice boards on site, or the placement of notices in local or regional newspapers). Also

applicable are the minimum periods for public comment: 40 days in the case of draft reports, and

21 days for final documents. Interested and affected parties will have 21 days in which to

comment on this Revised Final Environmental Impact Report. See Chapter 9 for full details of the

public participation process.

2.14.2 Biodiversity specialists

The DEA&DP guideline on involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes (2005) places a very

strong emphasis on pre-empting irreversible loss of biodiversity and ecological functioning


Page 48 of 111

through proactive planning and impact avoidance. These considerations can no longer apply,

however, once transformation has occurred and mitigation through remediation – not avoidance

– is the only alternative strategy.

Key elements of the DEA&DP biodiversity guidelines that do apply to the application in question,

and have been implemented, are:

− Adoption of an ecosystem approach to impact assessment;

− Addressing impacts on biodiversity at the major levels of hierarchical organisation

(species, communities/habitats, and the catchment or riverscape scale); and

− Relating impact significance to ecological management objectives and the thresholds that

underpin Critical Biodiversity Areas (cf. Holness and Bradshaw, 2010) and National

Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Driver et al., 2011).

2.14.3 CBA maps and National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas

The CBA Map for the Overberg District Municipality (Holness and Bradshaw, 2010) indicates

areas of land as well as aquatic features which must be safeguarded in their natural state if

biodiversity is to persist and ecosystems are to continue functioning.

Maps of ‘Critical Biodiversity Areas’ (CBA maps) are derived from systematic conservation

planning methods (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Pence, 2008) and identify the most spatially-

efficient network of sites that are required to ensure the continued persistence of:

− Biodiversity pattern (e.g. species, habitats, vegetation types and ecosystems);

− The ecological processes and disturbance regimes by which this biodiversity pattern is

maintained (e.g. seasonal migration of sunbirds or fire in fynbos); and

− The services nature provides to society, such as supplying water, pollination in support of

fruit production, and providing protection against floods

With ecological support areas and areas of other natural vegetation, CBAs form the basis for the

system of spatial planning categories that were designed to give effect to the goals and objectives

of the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework in rural areas (see below).

The desired management objectives for CBAs (manage against further degradation, restore to a

natural or near-natural condition, manage in a natural condition) provide a useful test for

determining the appropriateness of a proposed development – development that is consistent

with a site’s desired management objectives would be appropriate, whereas development that is


Page 49 of 111

not consistent with these objectives would probably not be appropriate, and an alternative

should be explored. Biodiversity sector plans incorporate a CBA map for each municipality, a

profile of biodiversity per municipality, and land use guidelines. CBA maps represent

CapeNature’s primary reference when commenting on development applications.

Maps produced for South Africa’s National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) project

depict areas that have been prioritised for conserving freshwater ecosystems and supporting

sustainable use of water resources. (Driver et al., 2011; Day, 2012).

As with CBA maps, FEPA maps promote an ecosystem perspective in environmental assessment in

that they introduce a broader scale to impact identification than is often the case with site or

property-specific impact assessment. These maps emphasise the functional attributes of

biodiversity by providing spatial or geographic surrogates for ecological processes that may

otherwise not be readily evident if an assessment were limited to a particular site or property.

FEPAs have been determined for different river and wetland types throughout South Africa.

Criteria for selection as FEPAs include ensuring that there is an adequate extent of conservation

of different river and wetland ecosystem types, that they represent adequate habitats to support

threatened fish species and their migration corridors, and ecological connectivity between

systems is maintained as far as possible. FEPAs are often tributaries or rivers that support ‘hard-

working’ rivers downstream (that is, rivers that are heavily utilised or impacted by agricultural,

industrial or other human activities). They need to stay (or get into) good condition to manage

and conserve freshwater ecosystems and to protect downstream water resources for human use.

FEPAs do not necessarily need to be protected from all human use. Rather, they should be

supported by good planning, decision-making and management to ensure that human use does

not impact on their condition or on the important resources they may protect downstream (cf.

Driver et al., 2011).

The extent of degradation of wetlands and rivers in South Africa means that even systems

considered in the best relative condition for a particular ecosystem type may be highly degraded.

Nevertheless, the recommended condition for all river and wetland FEPAs is an Ecological

Category A (natural) or B (largely natural) indicative of a system that is in an unmodified/natural

to largely natural condition respectively (Driver et al., 2011).

It is important to recognise that although CBA and NFEPA maps represent the best available

mapped information on biodiversity priority areas, they need to be ground-truthed and do not


Page 50 of 111

replace the need for a specialist assessment (Ralston et al., 2009). Ground-truthing is also needed

to identify potential errors in land cover mapping.

Also, impacts on CBAs and NFEPAs need to be related to the criteria that informed the selection

of a piece of land as a CBA or FEPA as these can range from irreplaceable vegetation, habitats or

species – for which no compensatory trade-offs are available – to areas selected in terms of the

‘best design’ principle which promotes ecologically functional landscapes. In the latter instance,

the goal is to secure ecological processes which, depending on circumstances, may allow more

flexibility in planning than would be the case with developments that would result in irreversible

loss of biodiversity and for which no options remain for meetings targets or thresholds.

See Chapter 3 (‘The receiving environment’) for a description of important biodiversity features

and conservation priorities in the study area.

2.15 THE DRAFT WESTERN CAPE RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING AND

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

The draft Western Cape Rural Land-use Planning and Management Guidelines (DEA&DP 2009a)39

translate mapped CBA categories into spatial planning policy in areas outside the urban edge in

the Western Cape. The guidelines 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 aim to:

− Promote sustainable development in appropriate rural locations throughout the

Western Cape;

− Safeguard the functionality of the province’s life-supporting ecosystem services;

− Maintain the integrity, authenticity and accessibility of the province’s significant

farming, ecological, cultural and scenic rural landscapes and natural resources;

− Assist Western Cape municipalities to plan and manage their rural areas more

effectively; and

− Provide clarity to the province’s social partners on what kind of development is

appropriate beyond the urban edge, suitable locations where it could take place, and

the desirable form and scale of such development.

39 http://www.capegateway.gov.za/other/2009/9/wcpsdf_rural_guidelines_may_09_draft_3.pdf


Page 51 of 111

These guidelines delineate Spatial Planning Categories (SPCs) in terms of, among others, the

biodiversity categories that are used by CapeNature’s Critical Biodiversity Area maps40

for

Western Cape municipalities (Pence, 2008; Maree and Vromans, 2010). 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 following CBAs, biodiversity management objectives and corresponding spatial planning

categories apply to this application:

CBA category

(Spatial planning category)

Desired conservation

management objective

Appropriate activities

Critical Biodiversity Areas =

Core 1

Retain in a natural state or, if

degraded, rehabilitate to a

near-natural state and

manage accordingly

−−−− Essentially ‘no go’ areas.

−−−− Conservation management (e.g. alien clearing) to be

encouraged

Ecological Support Areas =

Core 2 Maintain ecological processes

−−−− ‘As for Core 1, but with latitude for low impact land

uses.

−−−− Development can be considered in less sensitive

areas as long as ecological processes are not

disrupted

−−−− To be informed by environmental sensitivity

mapping, transformation thresholds and cumulative

impacts −−−− Where existing agricultural activities occur in Core 2

SPCs, wetland and river bank protection must be

pursued

The CBAs and SPCs are particularly relevant to evaluating the desirability of development and

changes in land use.

2.16 CAPENATURE’S REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO BIODIVERSITY IN

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act (15 of 1998) designates CapeNature as the

statutory custodian of biodiversity in the Western Cape. The organisation requires that a

biodiversity assessment must be undertaken if a development may result in the loss of habitat or

ecological functioning in any of the following situations, or if there is any doubt about the

biodiversity value of an area (CapeNature 2008):

− Rivers, wetlands, groundwater-dependent communities and estuaries;

− Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas;

40 Cf. http://bgis.sanbi.org


Page 52 of 111

− Viable or connected Critically Endangered and Endangered ecosystems;

− Any area identified by a systematic conservation plan as important for biodiversity

conservation;

− Any special habitat with unique signature of species;

− Any habitat with rare, threatened or range-restricted plant or animal species;

− Natural habitat in ecological corridors or along vegetation boundaries, including frontal

dune systems; or

− Mountain Catchment Areas.

CapeNature recommends that CBA maps be used as the primary biodiversity informant in the

Western Cape Province.

Dr Liz Day, a specialist freshwater ecologist, was appointed to provide comment and

recommendations with respect to the mitigation and long-term management of impact arising

from the unauthorised activities undertaken in response to flood damage in November 2008 and

October 2012, as well as to provide guidance on future management priorities with regard to

agricultural utilisation of the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers. Hydrological expertise was

provided by Mr Hans King, an engineer with the Western Cape Department of Agriculture’s

Programme for Sustainable Resource Management.


Page 53 of 111

3. THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

This section provides an overview of the receiving environment that is subject to this

environmental assessment. It draws heavily on the specialist ecological comment prepared by Dr

Liz Day of the Freshwater Consulting Group in April 2012 and February 2013. Dr Day was also

extensively consulted during the period of authority consultation in October and November 2012.

For a comprehensive account of the bio-physical attributes, functioning and condition of the site

and its environs, see the two reports titled Specialist comment on freshwater ecosystems (Day,

2012 and 2013) in Appendix E.

3.1 LOCATION

The unauthorised activities which are subject to this application are located on the farm

’Meerlustkloof’, in the floodplains of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers, northerly tributaries

of the Riviersonderend about 12.5 km due west of Genadendal in the Theewaterskloof Municipality.

The farm is owned by Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd.

See the ‘Introduction’ above for a

detailed description of where the

infrastructure in question is

located in the landscape.

Figure 4. Locality map showing

the farm Meerlustkloof 59/11,

Caledon. Map sourced from

Government topo-cadastral 1:

250 000 map series 3319

WORCESTER.


Page 54 of 111

3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

The unauthorised activities that are the subject of this application all take place on a working fruit

farm, ‘Meerlustkloof’, which is owned by Agrisouth Orchards (SA) (Pty) Ltd. ‘Meerlustkloof ‘was

established as a fruit farm in 1970 and purchased by the current owners in 1990. ‘Meerlustkloof’

exports annually about 6 000 tons of apples and pears. Orchards occupy about 100 ha or roughly

11% of the farm, which spans the Elandskloof Meerlustkloof rivers.

Altogether 36 ha of orchards are irrigated by water taken from the Elandskloof River. The balance

of water for irrigation is supplied from the nearby mountains via an earth storage dam and water

purchased from the Zonderend Water Users Association. The orchards watered from the

Elandskloof River – i.e. which are currently irrigated from the unauthorised sump – produce an

annual crop valued at R3.8-million.

The ‘Meerlustkloof’ farm employs about 50 full-time workers and another 120 contract

employees during the annual harvest. The annual wage bill and other spending on employees

amounts to R1.65-milliion, of which 100% accrues to historically disadvantaged persons.

‘Meerlustkloof’ undergoes an annual audit for compliance with GlobalGAP and HACCP production

and workplace safety standards respectively.

Only one other property abuts ‘Meerlustkloof’ in the catchment in question, namely ‘Elandskloof’

upstream on the Elandskloof River. The latter property is apparently no longer actively farmed

and is currently being developed as a country retreat or ‘lifestyle’ estate. It comprises farm

‘Matjieskloof’ 900/00 and portion 20 of ‘Elandskloof’ 59. The southern boundary of

‘Meerlustkloof’ is defined by the Riviersonderend.

3.3 DISTINCTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES

The impacts of the unauthorised activities on the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers are

virtually exclusively limited to effects on heavily disturbed and destabilised aquatic ecosystems

that drain into the Riviersonderend. The description of the receiving environment is confined to

components that are relevant to an environmental assessment in such a context, viz:

− The surrounding catchment;

− The eco-regional status of the affected river;

− River and wetland types;

− The general condition of the affected wetlands and rivers; and

− The conservation context.


Page 55 of 111

Given that it provides the basis against which potential impacts that may have arisen as a result of

the unauthorised excavations and repairs in 2008 and 2012 are to be assessed and evaluated, the

post-November 2008 Present Ecological State (see Section 3.3.4 for an explanation of ‘PES’) of

the river is dealt with on its own (see Section 3.3.6).

As indicated below at Section 3.3.4, the PES of the Elandskloof River (for which an assessment has

been made) before the flood in November 2008 has tentatively been set at ‘C’, or moderately

modified. The PES for the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers was assessed as being Category ‘E’

or a ‘seriously modified system’ for both rivers following the 2012 flood, emergency repairs and

ensuing damage to the channels.

3.3.1 Catchment context

The farm Meerlustkloof is located in the Riviersonderend Catchment (DWA Drainage Region H6),

within the Breede River Water Management Area and the ‘WMA 18’ water management area as

mapped by the Atlas of National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas in South Africa (SANBI,

2011).The Elandskloof River rises in the north of the sub-catchment. The Meerlustkloof River rises in

the north eastern part of the sub-catchment. The Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof sub-catchments

have a combined area of 39.3 km2 (King 2012a; Appendix E).

Drainage lines passing through the farm rise on the steep sandstone mountain slopes of the

Riviersonderendberge (~1 588 mamsl). These drainage lines constitute perennial and seasonally

Figure 5. Location of unauthorised

sump in context of the Elandskloof

and Meerlustkloof rivers. All rivers

shown as blue lines. FEPA wetlands

and rivers shown as green

polygons and thick blue lines,

respectively.


Page 56 of 111

flowing tributaries that drain via the lower reaches of the Elandskloof River and a tributary, the

Meerlustkloof River, into the Riviersonderend directly east of the ridgeline formed by Breëkraal se

Rante. The catchment is generally very steep (for example, 73% of the catchment of the

Meerlustkloof River has a slope steeper than 30%), which gives rises to disproportionately large run-

off if the area is saturated (King, 2012a; Appendix E). Higher than average run-offs can be

anticipated if fires in the mountains are followed by extreme rainfall events.

The Meerlustkloof River joins the Elandskloof River about 600 m upstream of the unauthorised sump

on the latter river (Figure 2).

A preliminary hydrological study was undertaken by Mr Hans King (Pr. Eng.) of the Western Cape

Department of Agriculture (see King, 2012a, Appendix E). The study was aimed at determining peak

storm run-off for the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof catchments for various flood return periods.

Mean annual rainfall for the catchments is 983 mm, occurring bimodally in summer and winter.

The objective of these calculations was to inform the design of river protection works (e.g. groynes

or weirs). Run-off must be known in order to establish if the available flow channel, which has been

constricted by agricultural encroachment into the floodplain, is adequate to accommodate a

reasonable flood. Run-off data are also used for the design of erosion protection structures that

must inter alia be cognisant of upstream sources of destabilisation that may contribute abnormal

sediment supplies to the system (King, 2012b; Appendix E).

The Department of Agriculture had initiated a detailed survey of the channel and floodplains in the

vicinity of the unauthorised sump in April 2012, the result of which would, in conjunction with the

hydrological study, be used to calculate flood heights for the purposes of design soil stabilisation

works and identifying the most appropriate method for abstracting water from the Elandskloof

River. These results have not yet been released (23-03-2013).

3.3.2 Ecoregional status

An ecoregional classification produced by DWAF divided the country’s rivers into 31 distinct

ecoregions, or groups of rivers which share similar physiography, climate, geology, soils and

potential natural vegetation. The Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers lie in the Southern Coastal

Belt Ecoregion (also see River Health Programme (2011)). This ecoregion is characterised by:

− Terrain comprising low plains, closed hills with moderate relief, open hills with high

relief, and low mountains with high relief;

− Altitude that varies from 0 to 600 mamsl;


Page 57 of 111

− Rock types include quartzitic sandstone, shale, sand and biotite granite overlain by sand-

clay, sand-clay-loam, loam-sand, clay-loam and sand-loam soils;

− Natural terrestrial vegetation that is dominated by a variety of thicket, fynbos and

renosterveld types, with patches of forest in the Riversonderend range. In the present

study area, NFEPA vegetation data, based on the South African vegetation map (Mucina

and Rutherford, 2006) identifies natural wetland vegetation on the site as Southwest

Shale Fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford (2006);

− Moderate bimodal annual rainfall calculated at 983 mm p.a. by King (2012a); and

− Mean annual temperatures between 18 and 22 °C.

All the unauthorised activities took place in the eroded channels of the Meerlustkloof and

Elandskloof rivers which, in turn, are located within a highly transformed matrix of orchards which

have displaced virtually all vestiges of floodplain vegetation and no longer support Greyton Shale

Fynbos, had this previously occurred at any of the sites.

3.3.3 River and wetland types

In terms of the national classification of rivers by DWAF (Kleynhans et al., 2005), and the sub-

region by Brown and Fowler in 2000, the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers are treated as

mountain streams in their upper reaches, becoming upper (cobble) foothill systems in their lower

reaches where the slopes flatten out into broad valley bottoms. Under natural conditions, the

latter river reaches probably comprised broad wetland areas, classified in terms of the South

African National Wetland Classification of SANBI (2009) as ‘valley bottom wetlands’. The

unauthorised works are located within the upper foothill river reaches of the Meerlustkloof and

Elandskloof rivers.

The Riviersonderend River itself, into which the Elandskloof River flows, is classified as a lowland

floodplain River in these reaches (Figures 3 and 4 in the aquatic ecological specialist report,

Appendix E).

3.3.4 General condition of rivers and wetlands

Present Ecological Status (PES) assessments are used to classify rivers or reaches of rivers into

broad classes, reflecting river ecological condition, when compared to the natural or ‘reference’

condition for rivers of that ecoregion and type (see Table 1, aquatic specialist report, Appendix

E). The PES for the Breede River Basin (cf. Brown and Fowler, 2000) classifies the Elandskloof and

Meerlustkloof rivers as follows:


Page 58 of 111

Upper or mountain stream reaches: Category A, i.e. in unmodified, natural condition; and

Lower foothill reaches: Category B, i.e. as being largely natural with few

modifications.

The more recent NFEPA assessment (2011) depicts the wetlands associated with the lower

reaches of the Elandskloof River as being ‘moderately modified’ (i.e. Category C) which, given the

history of agricultural land use in the area, is viewed as the best estimate of river and wetland

condition prior to the 2008 flood. However, as noted by Day (2012, p. 6; 2013, p. 8), this finding of

PES is “subject to substantial uncertainty” owing to the absence of a comprehensive baseline

ecological assessment of the two rivers in question.

3.3.5 Biodiversity conservation context

The Critical Biodiversity Areas Map for the Overberg District Municipality (Holness and Bradshaw,

2010) assigns the following biodiversity categories to the reaches in the direct vicinity of each of

the four sites on the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers:

Bridge: Meerlustkloof River CBA Feature important for maintaining

hydrological processes; Area with potential

occurrence of threatened species or their

habitats

ESA Important supporting area for maintaining

ecological processes

Bridge and drift: Elandskloof River CBA Habitat required for CBA network; As above.

ESA Important supporting area for maintaining


Sump: Elandskloof River ESA Important supporting area for maintaining


Water pipe: Elandskloof River ESA Important supporting area for maintaining


CBAs should be managed against further degradation and rehabilitated to a near-natural or

natural condition, and managed accordingly. ESAs, in turn, should be managed in support of

maintaining hydrological and ecological processes. These are elaborated in the baseline ecological

assessment (Appendix E).

Figure 5 shows the location of a single FEPA wetland on the Elandskloof River in the reaches just

downstream of the unauthorised sump. As noted above, the Riviersonderend system in the

reaches up- and downstream of the confluence of the Elandskloof River has also been mapped as

a FEPA wetland, with a PES Category of C.


Page 59 of 111

Neither the Elandskloof nor the Riviersonderend sub-catchments have been identified by NFEPA

as sub-catchments of concern from a fish conservation perspective, and neither is considered to

be a ‘FEPA river’. The Riviersonderend River itself is however identified as a FEPA, with a PES

Category C that is compatible with that assigned to the surrounding wetland.

3.3.6 Present ecological state of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers

See Appendix E for a comprehensive account of the present ecological state (PES) of the two

rivers and their floodplain wetlands following visual assessments by the aquatic ecologist in

February 2012 and January 2013. PES was scored with reference the ‘Wetland Index of Habitat

Integrity’ which reflects the state of hydrology, geomorphology, water quality and vegetation

alteration of a river or wetland system.

Present ecological state

February 2012

January 2013

Elandskloof River Seriously modified (E) Seriously modified (E) although

slight improvement w.r.t.

alteration of vegetation.

Meerlustkloof River

Not assessed

At bridge Seriously modified (E)

Upper reaches Largely to seriously modified

(E/D)

3.4 CONDITION OF THE RIVERS AFTER THE 2008 AND 2012 FLOODS

The floods in November 2008 and October 2102 constituted significant disturbance events, with

both immediate and long-term ramifications for river function, stability and biodiversity at a variety

of scales.

It is important – for the purposes of impact assessment and the formulation of appropriate

management objectives – to differentiate between the implications of natural disturbance

(flooding), the effects of previous modifications to the channel and floodplains of the two rivers, and

impacts arising from the respective unauthorised emergency interventions. All these factors can be

mutually-reinforcing, as evidenced by the impacts of the floods on the farm ‘Meerlustkloof’ in

November 2008 and October 2012.


Page 60 of 111

This section (a) describes the condition of the two rivers before and after the floods in 2008 and

2012, and (b) explains the effects of the repaired infrastructure and its antecedents on flow and

sediment dynamics, and how this has impacted on the condition of riparian habitat and ecosystems.

It deals first with the Elandskloof River, then the Meerlustkloof River and, lastly, draws attention to

the need for a comprehensive ecosystem-based management plan that addresses cumulative

impacts, river instability and ecological degradation at the appropriate functional, spatial and

temporal scales.

The respective sites were evaluated by the aquatic ecologist, Dr Liz Day, in February 2012 and

January 2013.

In terms of the status quo (i.e. as observed in February 2012 and January 2013), the lower-lying,

developed areas surrounding the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers on ‘Meerlustkloof’ have

been disturbed to “critical levels”, according to the specialist ecological assessment. Large-scale

erosion of river and wetland beds, banks and floodplains have inter alia resulted in:

− A physically unstable system;

− Increased vulnerability to down-cutting in places; and

− Lateral erosion of the river banks.

Whereas some of these impacts need an immediate response (such as clearing obstacles from the

relocated active channel near the sump), others are linked to instability of the rivers which,

among others, is driven by historical land use patterns on the farm, channel confinement, alien

infestation and the impacts of the river crossings on hydrological, sedimentation and ecological

processes and habitat. The latter concerns must addressed by a strategic river management plan

that is based on best available information, clear management objectives and a phased

programme of implementation.

3.4.1 Description of the Elandskloof River in the reaches of the sump prior to the flood

in October 2012

The sequence of events that led to the unauthorised excavation of the sump in the Elandskloof

River in November 2008 is summarised in the ‘Introduction’ (Chapter 1). This section records the

key findings of the aquatic ecologist following her visit to the site in February 2012. For a full

account of the ecological implications of the excavation of the sump, and its subsequent

redundancy following the flood in October 2012, see the specialist aquatic assessments by Dr Day,

Appendix E.


Page 61 of 111

Contribution of agricultural development to erosion and destabilisation of the Elandskloof River

At the time of the February 2012 site visit, the lower-lying agricultural areas surrounding the

Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers were disturbed to critical levels. Large-scale erosion of river

and wetland beds, banks and floodplains had resulted in a physically unstable system, vulnerable

to ongoing down-cutting in some places, as well as lateral erosion of the river banks. For example,

it is estimated on the basis of historical GoogleEarth imagery that the macro-channel widened

from some 26 m in width prior to the November 2008 floods, to a bank width in excess of 124 m

in places just upstream of the sump in the Elandskloof River.

Although down-cutting into the river bed appeared to have been stabilised in places by underlying

shales, lateral erosion was clearly ongoing. There would also potentially be erosion of the river

bank and progressive channel widening. Remnant piles of soil and rock, which previously

comprised the river bed, now lie within the main eroded river channel, resulting in places in the

deflection of flows which exacerbate scouring and bank erosion.

In February 2012, the remains of the former weir comprised a few blocks of concrete in the

middle of the significantly widened river channel. Owing to their effects of concentrating and

deflecting flows, these broken remnants of the former weir were also contributing to ongoing

erosion of the river banks.

Impacts of the sump on the riparian environment

The sump is a bermed structure which, until October 2012, diverted almost all of the summer low

flows. The river between the upstream diversion into the sump and the pump station outlet

received only a fraction of its natural summer base flows. Seepage through the walls of the sump

allowed for some establishment of wetland vegetation in wetted areas.

Although wetland vegetation (e.g. Juncus lomatophylus, Juncus kraussii and various other sedges)

had established in wetted portions of the river bed, this habitat remained for the most part highly

unstable. Loose sands, gravels and pieces of eroded consolidated substrate were all likely to shift

in even small flood events, creating a habitat that would be characteristically abrasive, unstable

and turbid during high flows. This was, in turn, would impact on the suitability of this destabilised

habitat for colonisation by all but the most hardy of wetland and riverine fauna.

The single exception to the above was in the area on the left hand side of the river channel, north

of the sump. This area, which had been eroded out of the river floodplain in an area formerly

occupied by orchards, had probably been protected from the full force of later floods by the

presence of the sump and its structures. It includes low lying depressional areas, and zones in


Page 62 of 111

which water backs up against collapsed earthworks and eroded banks, providing an ideal habitat

for the establishment of wetland vegetation that thrives in disturbed, permanently wet habitats.

Stands of Typha capensis reeds, as well as Bulboschoenus maritimus had established there, along

with weedy annuals, grasses and other wetland sedges, by the time of the February 2012 site

visit.

3.4.2 Description of the Elandskloof River in the reaches of the sump after the flood in

October 2012

The October 2012 floods wrought still greater damage to the Elandskloof River in the vicinity of the

sump.

Changes to the alignment of the active channel and large-scale sediment deposition

The effects of this flood included significant erosion of the river channel, deposition of sediments

across large areas of the previously eroded and disturbed channel, and migration of the active

channel even further to the south. This, in turn, has resulted in erosion to the steep right bank of the

Elandskloof River and removing large sections of the ‘mesas’ or sediment stacks left in the newly-

widened channel after the 2008 floods.

Erosion of the right hand river bank has resulted in undercutting and bank collapse, which is likely to

continue, threatening a farm road that runs parallel to the river at this point.

As previously described, the floods resulted in isolation of the unauthorised emergency sump which,

cut off from its former supply of water, is now dry.

Flood-related improvements to the riverine environment

Notwithstanding high levels of geomorphological disturbance following the October 2012 flood,

these changes have improved the condition of the riverine environment. The reasons for this are

twofold: hydrological fragmentation has been eliminated owing to the isolation of the sump from

the active channel, and riverine conditions have been re-established in the section of river that

was previously cut off from all but seepage flows.

Evidence of previous in-filling of the floodplain wetland of the Elandskloof River

The recent high levels of erosion of the river channel have exposed a layer of organic material

underlying the sediment, which is assumed to reflect past wetland conditions that are often

associated with long-standing beds of Palmiet reed (Prionium serratum). The likelihood of the

existing right hand bank having been artificially in-filled in the past has been raised during site

discussions, and it seems credible that at least some infilling has occurred since the 1970. The

proximity of the organic deposits to the sheer river bank suggests that the organic deposits preceded


Page 63 of 111

the encroachment of the river bank over wetland areas, and that the latter was probably an

anthropogenic effect.

3.4.3 Description of the Elandskloof River at the repaired drift, 2004 to 2012

The repairs to the road crossing over the Elandskloof River following the 2008 floods resulted in

effective narrowing of the river channel in these reaches. This crossing is about 400 m upstream of

the former sump.

Previous narrowing of the river and implications for erosion

As with the reaches upstream of the sump, the river upstream of the piped culvert over the

Elandskloof River had already been artificially confined in 2004, but still had a component of

indigenous riparian vegetation. Downstream of the structure, the river was more confined, and the

crossing itself marked the onset of significant constriction of the channel. The 2008 floods

precipitated extensive erosion of the river bed, banks and floodplain which resulted in significant

widening of the active floodplain. Berms were subsequently established top of the river banks in a

bid to control flooding and erosion which had claimed several hectares of orchards and destroyed

farm roads in November 2008. The berms further confined the already-constricted channel.

Impacts of the rebuilt pipe culvert crossing following the November 2008 flood

In addition, the culverts built under the road crossing concentrated flows into downstream areas,

which would have contributed to further erosion and mobilisation of sediment. The pipe culverts

(there were three, double-length 1.5 m diameter pipes in the crossing prior to its destruction in

October 2012) also would have exacerbated blockages of debris and sediment during floods, causing

bank and bridge overtopping, thus further contributing to channel and bank destabilisation. The

results of the channel narrowing and berming were evident after the 2012 flooding, where

significant flood damage occurred directly upstream and downstream of the damaged river crossing

and a large load of sediment was deposited across the riverbed near the sump.

Positive ecological effects of the rebuilt pipe culvert crossing (post-October 2012)

Ecologically, the Applicants’ response to the devastation of the 2012 floods was largely a positive

one in that the number of pipes in the crossing was doubled from three to six. thereby improving

hydraulic capacity and facilitating sediment transport through the structure. Although the

refurbished crossing helps to spread downstream flows, the river at this point remains effectively

channelised owing to berms against either bank that would concentrate high flows and contribute to

the river’s erosive capacity.


Page 64 of 111

3.4.4 Description of the Elandskloof River at the irrigation pipeline (post-October 2012)

Downstream of the DR1313, the Elandskloof River is crossed by an irrigation pipeline. Prior to the

2012 floods, the pipeline was suspended above the river. See section 1.3.2 for a detailed description

of the repairs to the damaged pipeline.

The pipeline was initially laid across the river bed following its rupturing by the flood in October

2012. The freshwater ecologist (Day 2013, Appendix E) found that the temporary structure had

already contributed to localised changes in in-stream flows by January 2013. This, in turn, had

resulted in upstream pooling, concentration of flows in places downstream, as well as infilling along

the upper river banks. These impacts were, at the time of the site visit in January 2013, of relatively

lesser consequence, but this would not be the case when water levels started rising in winter. Dr Day

found that the pipeline would facilitate accumulation of flood debris during high flows, leading to

erosion and sedimentation; in the event of a flood, the pipeline would be likely to wash away,

causing extensive cumulative damage in the downstream river reaches.

The state of affairs outlined here has, however, been terminated following the reinstatement of the

drums and wooden posts that previously supported the pipeline, prior to the flood in October 2012.

The pipeline is now (March 2013) at least one metre above the level riverbed. It has been

recommended, however, that other options be considered for routing the pipeline over the

Elandskloof River (see Chapter 4, ‘Alternatives’).

3.4.5 Description of the Meerlustkloof River in the reaches of the repaired river crossing

The Meerlustkloof River has been subjected to a similar pattern of events as that described for the

Elandskloof River above. The bridge that was damaged in the 2008 and 2012 floods is about 300 m

upstream from the confluence of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof Rivers. A ridge separates the

two rivers above the confluence. The river had apparently been spanned by a concrete structure at

this point, but this structure was destroyed during the flood in November 2008. It was replaced by a

pipe culvert crossing (see below).

Analysis of GoogleEarth satellite imagery shows the river existing as a narrow channel within

vegetated, steep banks in 2004. By 2008, channelisation and narrowing of the river corridor had

taken place and the road crossing itself appears to have acted as a trigger for the erosion that

occurred that year.


Page 65 of 111

3.4.6 Impacts of the repaired pipe culverts, November 2008 and October 2012

Erosion arising from constriction at the crossing (which was vented by two 1.5 m diameter pipes

until the flood in October 2012) resulted in extensive widening of the in-filled channel at this point.

Furthermore, erosion also led to denudation of the river bank and bed, which would have made the

channel more vulnerable to erosion from subsequent high flows, such as those experienced in 2012.

The additional pipes (there are now four pipes, doubling the hydraulic capacity of the structure)

installed in the Meerlustkloof River after the 2012 floods allow for a wider spread of flows across the

river channel than that existing at least between 2008 and 2012. During low flows, river water

trickles beneath the culverts, passing through the uncompacted, loose stone and rock debris that

today characterise the river in these reaches. During higher flows, water would pass within the

pipelines.

However, it is likely that the upstream end of the crossing will be exposed to significant scour during

large floods. In order to reduce the risk of erosion occurring at this point, it has been recommended

that a stabilising be constructed on at least the right hand river bank at the crossing. The loose

cobbles between and above the pipelines should also be grouted to make them less vulnerable to

scour.

Notwithstanding the fact that the additional culverts have widened the river channel, potentially

reducing constriction and therefore flow velocities in this section of the channel, compared to

natural conditions the channel is still highly constricted and is likely to experience high levels of

erosion in the future.

3.4.7 Addressing cumulative impacts: The need for ecosystem-based management

The reports by the aquatic ecologist (Day 2012 and 2013; Appendix E) provide more detailed

assessments of the impacts to the river and its associated wetlands that were likely to have resulted

from the respective unauthorised emergency works.

The key ‘drivers’ that contributed to the cycle of degradation and destabilisation of the Elandskloof

and Meerlustkloof rivers were, in summary, artificial constriction of the channel with berms and

other earthworks that resulted in erosion which, in turn, was exacerbated by the establishment of

alien vegetation that promoted further down-cutting and release of sediments into the system.

In this regard, the ecological assessment (Day, 2012, p 12) concludes:


Page 66 of 111

The large floods of 2008 (and 2012) thus appear likely to have fallen on a system

that was already in a state of flux, vulnerable to erosion and highly disturbed. Its

resilience against flood disturbance would have been very low, as evidenced by the

extent of bed and bank erosion. Recovery from such levels of disturbance is unlikely

in the short-to medium term, without significant intervention (own emphasis; C de

V), given the extent of disturbance within the river channel...

It follows that although this environmental assessment is primarily concerned with impacts arising

from flood-related unauthorised activities in 2008 and 2012, the cumulative, long-term impacts of

extensive erosion as a result of flood damage cannot be ignored. Such erosion and destabilisation of

particularly the Elandskloof River poses significant threats to both the remnant valley bottom

wetlands downstream of the sump and to the FEPA wetlands of the Riviersonderend River.

This realisation underscores the urgent necessity for adopting an integrated, ecosystem-based

approach to management that stems the “vicious cycle” of erosion and deposition (King, 2012b) that

drives river instability while, simultaneously, working towards improving the ecological state of the

Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers.


Page 67 of 111

4. ALTERNATIVES

One of the central principles of environmental management is that it must seek the best

practicable environmental option, i.e. the option that provides the most benefit or causes the

least damage to the environment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to society, in the long term as

well as the short term.41

The primary mechanism for doing so is through the identification and

examination of alternatives that provide a basis for choice among options available to the

decision-maker (Preston et al., 1996, p 755).

Proactive identification and screening of alternatives against factors such as strategic

development objectives, and contextual desirability and feasibility is a distinguishing feature of

sound environmental assessment practice; it is, however, not compulsory under all

circumstances. Section 24(4)(b) of NEMA situates the consideration of alternatives with minimum

discretionary requirements for environmental assessment that may apply with respect to

applications for environmental authorisation (own emphasis; see section 2.5 on the mandatory

and discretionary measures pertaining to environmental assessment).

The identification and assessment of ‘feasible and reasonable’ alternatives suitably early in the

project planning process is clearly desirable; however, in the context of two devastating floods

that caused severe disruption to farm infrastructure at a critical time of the annual production

cycle, urgent operational imperatives inevitably, and unsurprisingly so, side-lined a more

considered and precautionary approach which, under the circumstances, was simply not available

to the Applicants.

There have already been several references to the need for a comprehensive, strategically-

directed planning process to address the chronic instability of the two rivers, ongoing

environmental degradation and the risks that this state of affairs holds for biodiversity and

farming activities on ‘Meerlustkloof’. Such a planning process would inter alia have to address the

most environmentally suitable ways for bridging the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers and

interrupting the vicious cycle of erosion and sedimentation which has yielded so much damage

over recent years. The identification of alternatives, informed by the principles of the ‘best

practicable environmental option’, feasibility and reasonableness falls squarely within the ambit

of such a planning process.

41 Cf. sections 1(1)(iii) and 2(4)(b) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended.


Page 68 of 111

4.1 CHOICES W.R.T. THE CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

One of the roles of environmental assessment is to identify and bound the alternatives that are to

be taken forward for impact assessment and evaluation. This section summarises some of the

considerations that have influenced the selection of alternatives for impact assessment and

evaluation.

4.1.1 Confinement of impact assessment to specific unauthorised activities, 2008 and

2012

For reasons such as incomplete information, the instability and dynamism of the two rivers, and

the desirability of linking impact assessment to the formulation of relevant and achievable

objectives, only the impacts arising from the excavation of the sump in November 2008 and the

repairs to the two bridges after the flood in October 2012 will be assessed. The fact is that

nothing can be done now that would demonstrably and rapidly undo the environmental

consequences of the repairs to the two flood-damaged river crossings in late 2008.

Also, as far as assessment of the impacts arising from the unauthorised construction of the two

bridges in 2008 is concerned, the replacement structures appear to have been erected in

precisely the same place as their predecessors. However, the design of the replacement

structures – piped culverts with decks constructed from river stone, logs and gravel – was

substantially different to what had previously been in place: the Meerlustkloof River was spanned

by a concrete bridge, and the Elandskloof River by a drift. Prior to the November 2008 flood, both

rivers were confined by bulldozed berms. These conditions changed dramatically with the flood in

2008, which precipitated wide-scale bank erosion and changes to the alignment of the channel.

Whereas a detailed ecological assessment has been undertaken of the impacts of the

unauthorised emergency sump (excavated late in 2008) and repairs to flood-damaged

infrastructure in late 2012, the assessment of the impacts on the river resulting from the bridges

that were destroyed in October 2008 had not benefited from an equivalent level of specialist

evaluation and analysis.

The freshwater ecologist was unable to assess the impacts of the emergency drift that had been

laid across the Elandskloof River after damage to the adjacent pipe culvert crossing in October

2012 as the drift was demolished once the culvert had been repaired by December 2013 (see Day

2013; Appendix E).


Page 69 of 111

4.1.2 Assessment of cumulative impacts

There is little argument that the biophysical consequences of these unauthorised emergency

works have persisted over the past four years (chiefly by cumulatively exacerbating the overall

instability of the two rivers, and degrading in-stream and floodplain habitats), and that their

effects contributed either directly or indirectly to the damage to the riparian environment and

farm infrastructure during the flood in October 2012.

As indicated, there is considerable urgency to address these cumulative impacts and their

respective ‘drivers’, but that can only take place under the aegis of a more comprehensive

planning process. Cumulative impact assessment and, more importantly, the design of mitigatory

strategies that focus on long-term hydro-geomorphological and ecological rehabilitation at the

scale of the affected catchments is beyond the scope if this study.

4.1.3 Linking alternatives and mitigation to demonstrable environmental outcomes

This environmental assessment has to inform the competent authority about the significance of

the impacts that arose from two sets of related unauthorised activities, in November 2008 and

October 2012, and, importantly, recommending appropriate mitigatory measures to stem and,

ideally, reverse further environmental degradation. The impact assessment can pinpoint impacts

that arose from the unauthorised excavation of the sump, and the repairs that followed the 2012

floods, with relative certainty. It can therefore recommend mitigation measures that would most

be limited to the amelioration of impacts that can be directly attributed to the unauthorised

structures in question.

This, as indicated above, is no longer possible with respect to the bridges that were built in

October 2012.

4.1.4 Scope of alternatives to be assessed: Exclusion of ‘no go’ option

The ‘no development’ alternative is not considered as, from the perspective of the Applicant, it

was not a reasonable option and, practically, simply could not be countenanced. In all cases,

failure to have to acted as it did, would have seriously jeopardised production and, with time, the

long-term financial sustainability of the Applicant’s farming

operation on ‘Meerlustkloof’.


Page 70 of 111

4.1.5 Preliminary ecological assessment of impacts arising from construction of

bridges in 2008

Impacts arising from the unauthorised reconstruction of the flood-damaged river crossings in late

2008 contributed to changes to the channel, banks and remnant floodplain of the rivers that were

not only reshaped or entirely obliterated by the flood in October 2012, but also would have

influenced flows, erosion and sedimentation patterns arising from the sharp increase in run-off

volumes. These factors are taken into account in the freshwater ecological assessment, which

found that the repairs to the crossings over the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers in 2008 had

had a highly negative impact – directly and cumulatively – on river hydraulics, floodplain habitat

and destabilisation and degradation of downstream reaches (see Day, 2013 (Appendix E), and

sections 2.3.1 and 2.4.1).

4.2 SALIENT ASPECTS OF THE DEADP GUIDELINE ON ALTERNATIVES (2007)

In terms of the DEA&DP Guideline on Alternatives (2007), the term means “different means of

meeting the general requirements of the activity” and can include location, activity, design or

layout, technological and operational alternatives. The DEA&DP guideline emphasises that

alternatives must be ‘feasible’ and ‘reasonable’, and that such ‘feasibility’ or ‘reasonableness’

must be weighed up against:

− The general purpose, requirements and need of the activity;

− How the activity impacts on the affected environment; and

− How the activity impacts on the affected human community.

The New Oxford English Dictionary (Pearsall (ed), 1998) defines ‘feasible’ as meaning “possible to

do easily or conveniently” and ‘reasonable’ as, variously, “fair and sensible... based on good

sense.... as much as it is appropriate or fair”, etc.

In order to ensure that the question of alternatives is given appropriate attention – even if only to

demonstrate why alternatives were not practically available to the Applicant when flood damage

occurred in November 2008 and October 2012 – a number of hypothetical responses to flood

damage are presented and discussed with respect their reasonableness and feasibility.

The environmental consequences of each respective course of action are addressed in the

chapters dealing with the environmental impacts of the unauthorised activities (Chapter 5) and

the actual impact assessment (Chapter 6).


Page 71 of 111

4.3 RESPONSES TO FLOOD DAMAGE, NOVEMBER 2008

The Applicant responded to flood damage in the following ways in November 2008:

− Excavation of a sump in the eroded channel bed of the Elandskloof River; and

− Construction of pipe culvert crossings over the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers.

4.3.1 The emergency sump

Hypothetically, the Applicant had a number of options in November 2008 for responding to the

precipitous loss of irrigation for the central parts of the farm (representing some 40% of the total

area under orchards) at the onset of summer:

Alternative

(selected alternatives

underlined, in bold).

General purpose of

alternative

Reasonableness Feasibility

Do nothing Fundamentally

contradicts the agri-

economic objectives

of the farm as a

productive and

profitable investment.

Hardly reasonable

owing to the

potentially ruinous

economic

consequences of such

a choice.

Both easy and

possible to

implement.

Abstract water

directly from active

channel

Continue lawful taking

of water from

Elandskloof River to

meet legitimate

agricultural and

economic needs

Based on good sense

and appropriate, but

pumping technology

not available at the

time. Would

constitute the best

practicable environ-

mental option for

taking water.

Hypothetical question

as high-powered

submersion pump

technology not

available at the time.

Excavate sump (with

potential local

variation w.r.t. siting,

capacity and

abstraction volumes)

This and the next

alternative have been

selected for impact

assessment and

evaluation

As above Reasonable if

contextualised within

the real constraints

faced by the

Applicant, and the

urgency to re-

establish the severed

irrigation supply.

However, this

resulted in significant

environmental harm.

This was the most

convenient option for

reinstating irrigation

(on advice of

irrigation specialist),

but with significant

negative implications

w.r.t. modifications to

flows, erosion and

quality of in-stream

habitat.

Demolish sump and

rehabilitate residual

impacts

This option can now

being considered as

the sump is no longer

needed for irrigation.

Environmentally, it

makes ‘good sense

and be appropriate to

demolish the sump,

rehabilitate its ‘foot-

print’ and remove

obstacles in the

adjacent channel.

Demolition of the

sump is possible and

desirable. Detailed

recommendations are

made with regard to

this course of action.


Page 72 of 111

4.3.2 Construction of bridges over the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers

Loss of the two crossings – a former bridge over the Meerlustkloof River, and a concrete drift over

the Elandskloof River – meant that 20% of the cultivated portion of the farm could not be

accessed for spraying and other purposes.

Alternative General purpose of

alternative




economic objectives

of the farm as a

productive and

profitable investment.

This course of action

would neither be

sensible nor

appropriate for a

working export fruit

farm on the eve of the

annual harvest..

Both easy and

possible to

implement.

Apply ‘like-for-like’

principle and rebuild

damaged structures

according to the

previous designs

Reinstate access to

20% of the productive

surface of the farm.

Neither sensible nor

appropriate given the

substantial time con-

straints on the

Applicant and the

delays that would

have resulted from an

extended planning

process.

Option possible but

not easy or

convenient, especially

in the context of

pressing operational

imperatives, potential

production losses, and

the ensuing economic

costs that long delays

would incur.

Build crossings

elsewhere

As above Maybe a sensible and

appropriate course of

action; only, however,

if informed by a

strategic, ecosystem-

based planning

process geared

towards the stabili-

sation and rehabili-

tation of the two

rivers in support of

sustainable farming.

Possible, but neither

easy nor convenient.

Construct pipe culvert

crossings.

This alternative has

been selected for

impact assessment

and evaluation to

provide an un-

mitigated baseline

against which to

assess the impacts of

the crossings that

were rebuilt in 2012.

As above In the evident

absence of other

choices, this option

made good sense to

the Applicant. It was

also appropriate to

the farm’s operational

needs. However,

implementation of

this option held

severe environmental

consequences.

Possible and, in the

circumstances, the

most convenient

method for meeting

immediate

operational demands

which, if neglected,

potentially would

have been highly

deleterious to the

Applicant’s economic

interests and the

long-term viability of

the farm.


Page 73 of 111

4.4 RESPONSES TO FLOOD DAMAGE, OCTOBER 2012

Alternatives relating to the sump are not discussed because this structure was rendered

redundant by the flood in October 2012 and a feasible and environmentally-acceptable

alternative – in the form of in-channel, submerged ‘sump pumps’ – could be implemented to

reinstate the irrigation supply to the central parts of the farm. The only question remaining with

respect to the sump is when and how it will be demolished and its ‘footprint’ rehabilitated. The

factors that informed the reasonableness and feasibility of rebuilding the damaged river crossings

were effectively identical to those that applied in 2008.

4.4.1 Reconstruction of bridges over the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers


alternative




economic objectives

of the farm as a viable

investment.


would neither be

sensible nor

appropriate for a


farm on the eve of

annual harvest.

Both easy and

possible to

implement.

Apply ‘like-for-like’

principle and rebuild

damaged structures

according to the

previous designs

This alternative has

been selected for

impact assessment

and evaluation.

Reinstate access to

20% of the productive

surface of the farm.

For the Applicant, this

option was sensible

and appropriate. The

pipe culvert crossings

installed in 2008 were

uncomplicated struc-

tures that could be

rebuilt quickly and

relatively cheaply. The

doubling in hydraulic

capacity of both pipe

culverts was a positive

impact. Overall, a

reasonable and

sensible option,

except for problem of

channel constriction.

Events since the flood

in October 2012

demonstrated the

feasibility and con-

venience of rebuilding

the two damaged

stream crossings. In

both cases, repairs

that included the

installation additional

pipes had been

concluded largely by

late December 2012.

Both bridges were

fully operational by

January 2013.

Build crossings

elsewhere

As above Potentially, a sensible

and appropriate

course of action, but

only if informed by a

strategic, ecosystem-

based planning

process aimed at

stabilising and

rehabilitating the two

rivers in support of

sustainable farming.

Possible, but neither



Page 74 of 111

4.4.2 Installation of a ‘quick-release’ water pipeline over the Elandskloof River42


alternative


Do nothing

Fundamentally


economic objectives

of the farm.


would neither be

sensible nor

appropriate for a


farm on the eve of the

most important

season in the annual

production cycle.

Both easy and

possible to

implement.

Apply the ‘like-for-

like’ principle and

reinstate a pipe

supported by

embedded in drums

buried in the riverbed

This and the next

three alternatives

have been selected

for impact assessment

and evaluation.

Reinstate the severed

water supply to

orchards between the

DR1313 and the

Riviersonderend.

Exercising the ‘like-

for-like’ principle and

replacing the

damaged pipeline

with an identical

equivalent would

seem to be sensible

and appropriate.

However, given the

urgency of the need

to irrigate the

orchards, this option

was not exercised

owing to the delays

that would have

resulted from digging

holes in the riverbed

and re-building the

damaged infra-

structure. For the

Applicant, this was an

eminently reasonable

consideration.

It would be possible

and relatively straight-

forward to re-

establish the

supporting structures

that were in place

before the flood in

October 2012.

However, it would

have imposed a major

inconvenience on the

farm if the irrigation

supply had to be

interrupted for the

duration of such

repairs. In the event,

this option was not

pursued.

Place a segmented,

‘quick release’ pipe-

line on the surface of

the riverbed.

As above This option was

implemented as it

appeared to be

sensible, and was

appropriate to

meeting the

immediate

This is the system that

was implemented

owing to its feasibility

and convenience.

Technical short-

comings only became

apparent after the

42 NOTE that the temporary repairs to the breached water pipeline over the Elandskloof River did not

trigger any listed activities. The structure that had supported the pipeline prior to the October 2012 flood

has been rebuilt in line with the ‘like-for-like’ principle, meaning that no listed activities relating to

construction or expansion of infrastructure, or excavation of material in or within 32 m of a watercourse,

were triggered by these works (see sections 1.1.3 and 1.3.2 for a description of repairs to the pipeline).

This material is included in the s 24G environmental assessment to inform future planning on the type and

location of infrastructure to take water across the Elandskloof River.


Page 75 of 111


alternative


operational priorities

of the farm. It was

reasoned that ‘quick

release’ pipes could

be removed prior to

impending floods, and

would have a limited

environmental

impact. Owing to

unforeseen technical

problems (pipes that

were torn apart by

the ‘head’ of water

pressure) it became

necessary to secure

the structure with

wooden poles and

steel ties. This undid

the evident benefits

of ‘quick release’

technology, and

contributed to

erosion.

option had been

implemented and set

in action. The

feasibility of this

option must therefore

be called into

question – on both

technical and environ-

mental grounds.

Bury the pipeline at a

depth and encase

with gabions at least

1 m below the

riverbed

As above This option is certainly

based on ‘good sense’

as it would secure the

irrigation supply with

a substantially re-

duced risk of

interruption owing to

flood damage, while

actively avoiding

adverse impacts on

the river environ-

ment. However, the

urgency that arose

with the destruction n

of the previous

irrigation pipeline

demanded an

immediate response,

which would not have

been possible if the

pipe were be placed

in a trench and

armoured with

gabions. This system

holds distinct

operational and

environmental ad-

vantages over the

status quo and

consideration should

be given to its

This system is feasible

in the sense that it is

‘possible’. It would,

however, be highly

inconvenient to im-

plement it during the

driest time of the year

which coincides with

the greatest need for

irrigation. It would

also probably require

environmental

authorisation which

would add to the

considerable cost

burden that the

Applicant has had to

carry as a result of

damage and

disruption arising

from devastating

floods in 2008 and

2012. In that regard,

this option is neither


This is a question that

needs to be taken up

with the relevant

authorities for

resolution as it inter

alia touches on issues


Page 76 of 111


alternative


implementation,

subject to

environmental and

authority oversight.

of ‘fairness’ and

reasonableness.

Re-route the pipeline

along the DR131, via

the existing pipe

culvert crossing over

the Elandskloof River.

As above. This alternative

undoubtedly satisfies

the requirements of

‘good sense’ and

appropriateness,

given the need to find

the technically best

practicable option for

conveying water

which contributes the

least environmental

damage. Its

implementation

would be contingent

upon a number of

variables, including

whether the Overberg

District Municipality

would agree to

private agricultural

infrastructure being

integrated into a

public road, and the

costs of implementing

such an option –

which raises questions

of ‘fairness’ with

respect to the

Applicant’s interests.

On the face of it, this

option would appear

to be feasible but its

feasibility would first

have to be put to the

test so as to ensure

informed planning

and decision making.

It needs to be

recognised that the

pipe culvert crossing

that supports the

DR1313 has also been

severely damaged by

floods and that its

design and ability to

withstand the effects

of extreme weather

events also need to be

critically reviewed.

Suspend pipeline from

cable strung between

towers on either

bank.

Too little is known

about the design of

this option to subject

it to a defensible

impact assessment

(this alternative was

first mooted on 25

March 2013). It is,

however, viewed as a

favourable alternative

to the status quo.

As above. In the long-term, this

alternative could

make good technical

and environmental

sense and deserves to

be further investi-

gated.

This would appear to

be a feasible method

for taking an irrigation

pipeline across the

river and merits

further consideration.


Page 77 of 111

4.5 NEED AND DESIRABILITY

The concept of ‘need and desirability’ is introduced in Section 1.9. It would seem apparent from the

preceding discussion of the reasonableness of the various alternatives, that the preferred options –

the unauthorised sum, the repaired and expanded pipe culvert crossings and, subject to review, the

irrigation pipeline across the Elandskloof River – had their background in manifest emergencies

precipitated by floods in November 2008 and October 2012.

The potentially dire consequences of the damage and resultant disruption to farming operations

demanded an immediate response from the Applicant. Failure to have timeously reinstated the

water supply and secure access to orchards with ripening fruit at the onset of summer could have

had disastrous consequences for the farm and its economic viability. For the Applicant, there was an

incontrovertible need to act swiftly; failure to have done so would, from the perspective of a

working export fruit farm, have been irrational and unthinkable. There would also have been evident

societal need or motivation for the Applicant not to have followed these respective courses of action

which, in the judgment of the Applicant, were urgent, essential and rational.

The upshot is that failure to have acted in the way that it had, meant that the Applicant could have

suffered irreparable harm to its farm. Any other alternative course of action could, in the

circumstances, therefore not be countenanced. Again, from the perspective of the Applicant, there

could be no question about the ‘desirability’ of its response to the potentially dire consequences of

the floods in November 2008 and October 2012 for the viability and wellbeing of the farm.

4.5.1 Need and desirability: The unauthorised emergency sump

The environmental assessment does shows that the unauthorised sump – with due recognition to

the circumstances under which it was excavated, and the apparent lack of choice in the matter for

the Applicant – is not desirable from an environmental perspective and that it must be demolished.

4.5.2 Need and desirability: Unauthorised emergency repairs to river crossings

The addition of extra pipes means that the impacts of the two pipe culvert crossings have been

considerably minimised with respect to erosion and sediment transport, which is viewed as being

ecologically advantageous. Management will, however, have to address other channel restrictions

and berms.


Page 78 of 111

4.5.3 Need and desirability: Water pipeline over the Elandskloof River

The water pipeline over the Elandskloof River is viewed as an essential temporary measure that

may, depending on the outcome of an appropriate planning process, have to be replaced with

another suitable alternative.

4.5.4 Summary: Need and desirability

All these interventions can be assessed as meeting the legitimate operational needs of the farm.

They are not, however, equally desirable from the view of maintaining a desired level of

environmental quality and ecosystem functioning. Contextual factors that would influence an

assessment of the desirability of the various alternatives include the proximity of these structures to

FEPA wetlands and potential overlaps with one or more ecological support areas. However, long-

term planning about the most suitable type and location of infrastructure must be informed by a

strategic environmental planning process as this cannot be adequately dealt with through

mechanism of activity-specific environmental assessment.

4.6 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

The following alternatives are ‘taken forward’ for detailed impact assessment and evaluation:

Alternative 1

Existing,

unauthorised

structure

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Sump in the

Elandskloof River

Demolish sump and

rehabilitate area

Pipe culvert

crossings

(Meerlustkloof River

and Elandskloof

River)

Rebuild bridge to

original (post-

October 2008)

specifications) with

additional pipes

Former drift,

Elandskloof River Drift demolished. No alternatives available or necessary.


Page 79 of 111

Pipeline over the

Elandskloof River43

Support pipe from

posts embedded in

drums in the

riverbed

Bury pipeline to a

depth of at least 50

cm; stabilise with

buried gabions

Route pipeline via

pipe culvert

crossing on the

DR1313

43 NOTE The replacement of the irrigation pipe over the Elandskloof River did not trigger any requirement for

environmental authorisation. This assessment is included for the purposes of informing future planning.


Page 80 of 111

5. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNAUTHORISED ACTIVITIES

This chapter is based on the findings of the freshwater ecological assessments by Dr Liz Day in 2012

and 2013 (Appendix E). Owing to the severely destabilised and degraded condition of the

catchments of the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof rivers, and the structural shortcomings of activity-

specific environmental assessment, it is necessary to draw attention to some of the key limitations

that have detracted from the predictive value of this environmental assessment.

5.1 UNCERTAINTY OF PREDICTIVE METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Questions of inadequate information about especially the stability and geomorphological dynamics

of the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof catchment were introduced at Section 1.8 which discussed

assumptions and limitations that may inhibit the predictive reliability of this environmental

assessment. This uncertainty has been acknowledged as a defining feature of this study.

The specialist ecological assessments (Day 2012 and 2013) identified limitations that placed

constraints on the environmental assessment and which would have to be addressed through a

more comprehensive, catchment-wide planning process. In particular, the ecological assessment

highlighted the following factors that inhibited the predictive reliability of the environmental

assessment:

− Detailed water quality, hydraulic, hydrological, faunal or floral assessments were not

undertaken;

− Access to the catchment was limited to the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers only within

the property boundary of Agrisouth Orchards (SA); and

− Only a visual inspection was carried out, for contextualisation of the impacts of the

unauthorised structures, on river reaches within the ‘Meerlustkloof’ property.

The ecological assessment concluded that the rivers had not been subject to the type of detailed

assessment that would normally be required for the preparation of a detailed management or

rehabilitation plan, to be implemented at the level of the river reach or sub-catchment, and the site

assessment had a relatively narrow focus on the section of the river affected by the unauthorized

sump.

This underlying uncertainty has, as emphasised, been a central contention in the design of

appropriate measures to address both the short-term issue of mitigating the impacts of the sump,


Page 81 of 111

pending its replacement and demolition, as well as placing the search for an alternative method of

abstraction within the broader framework of a catchment-wide management plan for the two rivers.

5.2 IMPACTS OF THE UNAUTHORISED EMERGENCY SUMP

5.2.1 Identification of impacts

It has been suggested that, prior to construction of the sump, the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof

Rivers both on the farm ‘Meerlustkloof’ but also in all likelihood on adjacent farms, were subject to a

number of activities that triggered or contributed to the wholesale devastation of riverine and

wetland habitats apparent today. Such activities are believed to have included:

− Significant long-term encroachment of agricultural lands, access roads, pump stations and

other infrastructure into a large portion of the floodplain;

− Concentration of flows within a narrow channel, as a result of agricultural encroachment,

culverts, channelized side-drains and minor drainage lines, all resulting in significant channel

incision and bank erosion during periods of high flow;

− Exacerbation of channel and bed erosion as a result of possible invasion of the low flow

channel by alien trees.

While the magnitude of impact associated with the sump is considered far less than the cumulative

long-term impact of the above impacts, many of which are deeply embedded in standard

agricultural practice in the broader Breede River catchment, it is nevertheless likely to have

contributed substantially to the cumulative degradation of the Elandskloof River, at least within a

localised extent. The main impacts associated with the unauthorised and unmitigated construction

of the sump include:

− Abstraction of a significant volume of water from the river, resulting (at least at the time of

the site visit) in the near-complete diversion of low flows from the main river channel: This

means that for the entire river reach between the diversion point and the point at which the

excess water from the pump station re-enters the river, the river was, during the operational

phase of the sump, largely deprived of summer base flows. This resulted in limited areas of

flowing water, as well as shrinkage of even saturated to moist areas, thus inhibiting the

extent to which wetland and riverine vegetation can be sustained on the river bed. This

impact had a compounded effect, in that the slow rate of re-vegetation of the low flow

channel in these reaches meant that they remained prone to erosion, while essentially

terrestrial areas within the disturbed river bed became increasingly vulnerable to invasion by

terrestrial alien vegetation, such as Sesbania punicea. This effect was magnified by the fact


Page 82 of 111

that flood damage considerably widened the effective low flow channel, with the result that

drying of its margins would be more likely, even without large-scale abstraction;

− Perpetuation of a disturbed in-channel environment, through the creation of in-stream

diversion and retention berms to allow for the collection and abstraction of water: These

berms seem likely to have contributed to the substantial erosion that took place along the

right hand river bank, adjacent to the sump. It appears that the berms that comprised the

sump structure play a role in diverting flood flows past the sump, but (given the extent of

eroded debris in the channel), these flows were deflected into the eroding stream bank, as

well as into a large mound of former stream bank, which (in early 2012) comprised an

isolated in-stream hillock, that contributed to flow deflections and further erosion, and

which by 2013 was described as an isolated mesa; the sump structure is considered

instrumental in precipitating the erosion and channel deflections that occurred in 2013, the

latter were the cumulative result of channelization, agricultural and infrastructure

encroachment along the reaches of the river, leading to significant loss of channel and

floodplain capacity, and resultant erosion.

− Provision of artificial in-stream habitat in the form of standing water, lacustrine habitat,

which would not normally occur in the Elandskloof River and which could provide habitat for

ecologically undesirable species, such as alien fish, many of which thrive in such conditions:

Information regarding the fish fauna of the Elandskloof systems has not been accessed in

this report, other than in terms of the absence of this sub-catchment from any FEPA

importance rating as a result of the presence of fish of conservation status (see Section

3.3.4).

Had the above impacts been assessed as part of a planning phase Basic Assessment, prior to their

implementation, they would, in the absence of any mitigation measures, have been assessed by FCG

as of medium to high negative significance, affecting river / wetland conditions in the long-term at a

medium to high level of magnitude. The fact that the sub-catchment is connected to the

Riviersonderend system, itself a FEPA river, means that the ramifications of significant impacts to

river condition in the Elandskloof River would be assessed as of elevated significance.

At January 2013, the sump had however been rendered redundant by in-stream deflection and the

implementation of the pump abstraction scheme. Recommendations made in the following

section are based on the fact that at present the sump is defunct and the current irrigation

abstraction scheme entails utilising submersible pumps placed in drums in the riverbed.


Page 83 of 111

5.2.2 Recommendations for mitigation

i. The current (2013) approach to river abstraction is strongly supported – namely, the use of

submersible pumps placed in drums in the riverbed;

ii. No further in-channel impoundment works should be undertaken in the river without a full

ecological assessment, and no efforts to stabilize the river banks with gabions, groynes or

other structures should take place without specialist input into their design;

iii. The sump structure (earth walls etc) should be removed (mechanically), but only once more

clarity has been obtained on the type and siting of soil conservation works in the Elandskloof

River. The area occupied by the sump should be re-landscaped as a riverine environment

that will not result in additional erosion knick-points. Material obtained from the demolition

of the sump can be used for landscaping the intervening river banks between groynes.

Chapter 8 provides a detailed motivation for a strategic, ecosystem-based approach with

respect to the stabilisation and rehabilitation of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers. It

is meanwhile recommended that the sump be authorised for at least two additional years so

that the planning process that will ultimately determine its fate can be satisfactorily

concluded ;

iv. The extensive berms and mounds of disturbed, partially eroded material that are associated

with the location of the now defunct sump, and which contribute to the creation of nodes of

disturbed areas, vulnerable to alien plant invasion as well as to areas that result in flow

diversion, concentration and ongoing lateral erosion should be removed from the channel,

or landscaped into more natural features compatible with achieving the re-instatement of

stable wetland vegetation on the expanded channel floor. Such in-channel manipulation

should however only be carried out with input from a geomorphological and/or hydrological

specialist, and subject to their approval. See the Final Environmental Management

Programme and Maintenance Plan (Appendix G) for detailed recommendations on how the

channel south of the sump needs to be cleared. These recommendations were finalised in

late March 2013 on the basis of discussions with Mr Hans King (Western Cape Department of

Agriculture) and Dr Liz Day.


Page 84 of 111

5.3 IMPACTS OF THE IRRIGATION PIPELINE OVER THE ELANDSKLOOF RIVER44

5.3.1 Identification of impacts

As outlined in Section 1.3.2, the irrigation pipeline in its present form is associated with the

following potential and actual impacts:

− Disturbance to the river bed and banks;

− Contribution to localised erosion as a result of blockages of in-channel flows;

− Likelihood of causing debris dams and other obstructions to flows during floods.

In a Basic Assessment Scenario, laying the pipeline across the riverbed would not have been

supported from an ecological perspective, and would have been assessed as of medium to high

negative significance, with impacts being long-term and taking place at a local to reach scale at a

medium magnitude. However, the pipeline has since (i.e.by March 2013) been lifted above the

riverbed and supported with the same type of structure that was in place before the river flooded in

October 2012 (see sections 1.1.3 and 1.3.2 for detailed descriptions of the repairs effected to the

pipeline).


The current (April 2013) configuration of the pipeline is supported for the purposes of this section

24G application although it needs to be revisited to find a more acceptable alternative. The reason

for this is that the structure, although lifted at least 1 m above the riverbed, potentially would entail

hydrological disturbance as it would be prone to the creation of debris dams during floods, which

would increase erosion and contribute to degradation of in-stream habitat.

Four options have been identified for taking a water pipeline across the river. They are, in order of

preference from an ecological perspective:

i. Extending the pipeline north, so that it can be attached to the existing road bridge – this

approach would be the most benign from an ecological perspective;

ii. Suspending the pipeline from a cable strung between two towers. This system can be

designed to fail under high flows so that the pipeline splits into two halves that swing 90°,

44 NOTE that none of the activities associated with repairs to the irrigation pipeline required environmental

authorisation. Section 5.3 is retained to inform future planning regarding the selection of the best practicable

environmental option for taking irrigation water across the Elandskloof River.


Page 85 of 111

i.e. parallel to the direction of flow, thereby pre-empting major damage to infrastructure

and, potentially, the riparian environment; and

iii. Passing the pipeline beneath the river bed – this approach would require the pipeline to be

buried below the river bed and it is suggested that it should be embedded / stabilised in a

gabion mattress, buried at least 0.5m below the existing river bed and banks; disturbance to

the bed and banks as a result of excavation should be addressed after installation of the

pipeline, such that pre-disturbance ground levels are achieved.

Regardless of the approach selected (above), mitigation measures would need to be accompanied by

the removal of all waste and debris associated with the current structure; all fill that has been used

to embed the existing pipeline must be removed from the river bank and bed and these areas must

be re-instated to natural ground level.

5.4 IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE REBUILT CROSSING OVER THE ELANDSKLOOF

RIVER CROSSING

5.4.1 Identification of impacts: Post-2008 flood activities

Repairs to the Elandskloof River crossing in 2008 are likely to have resulted in the following impacts:

− Concentration of flows and increased velocities at the crossing, as the result of river

narrowing;

− Infilling of the floodplain and further concentration of flows as a result of the construction of

berms along the top of the river bank (see Fig. 8, Appendix C);

− Significant contribution to the cumulative impacts in the Elandskloof River, resulting in

severe sedimentation, erosion and ongoing disturbance to riverine habitats in the

downstream river reaches.

The above impacts would not have been approved in a Basic Assessment from an ecological

perspective and are considered of high negative significance, taking place on a long-term to

permanent basis, at a high magnitude.


The approach to the bridge repairs following the 2012 floods is considered a positive impact, when

compared to the previous designs, and has resulted in localised widening of the river channel and a

decrease in velocity and scour potential in the vicinity of the bridge. Since the berms below the

crossing over the Elandskloof River remain in situ, the extent of channel widening is limited to the


Page 86 of 111

bridge area, and the system as a whole in these reaches remains essentially channelised and

confined.


Maintenance of the existing road design is supported. The following additional measures should

however be implemented:

i. Attempts should be made to establish locally indigenous wetland and riverine vegetation

along the bare, exposed river bed up- and downstream of the bridge; species such as

Palmiet (Prionium serratum) would be beneficial along the lower wetted bank;

ii. The berms established along the top of the river since 2008 (see the 2013 freshwater

assessment, Appendix E, Figure 7 and Photo J) should be pulled back to the outer edge of

the floodplain abutting existing orchards, so that the river channel has an area of floodplain

into which to overtop during floods, rather than scouring out the channel and elevated river

banks. A river ecologist and the Western Cape Department of Agriculture should have input

into the actual shaping of the berms / floodplain area, which should be carried out

mechanically.

5.5 IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE REBUILT CROSSING OVER THE

MEERLUSTKLOOF RIVER


These activities have had the same level of impact on the Meerlustkloof River as previously outlined

for the Elandskloof River crossing (Section 5.4).


Similarly, the widening of the culverts and the planned additional bank and bridge reinforcement at

this crossing have had a slight positive impact on river conditions, albeit at a highly localised scale,

given the fact that the river remains impacted by significant channelization.


The opportunities to remove berms and widen the riverine floodplain further are limited along these

reaches of the river by existing infrastructure. It is however recommended that attention should be

paid to improving in-stream habitat quality and reducing the vulnerability of the system to erosion,


Page 87 of 111

by establishing locally indigenous riverine and wetland plants along the river bank, with particular

attention being paid to stabilising the wetted bank.

5.6 RECOMMENDED MONITORING FRAMEWORK

To track the progress and efficacy of implementation of the direct mitigation measures, as well as to

allow tracking of long-term river rehabilitation success (or other), it is recommended that

consideration be given to incorporation of the following elements into a long-term monitoring

programme for the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers:

− Regular SASS5 bio-assessment monitoring (this tool provides information regarding both

water quality and macroinvertebrate habitat quality) which should commence before the

recommended short-term mitigation measures are implemented in order to establish a

baseline for future monitoring;

− Water quality monitoring (analysis of regular samples collected from selected sites for the

assessment of major nutrient concentrations and (ideally) suspended sediments;

− Flow monitoring, if required to provide input into long-term rehabilitation design;

− Periodic audits of fish community structure in the main stem rivers; and

− Regular assessments of PES, to track long–term changes in habitat quality.


Page 88 of 111

6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: METHOD

This and the following chapters explain the impact assessment methodology, define what is

understood by ‘mitigation’ and how this relates to desired management objectives, identifies

impacts on the environment that may have arisen as a result of the unauthorised activities on the

Applicant’s property, assesses the environmental implications of such impacts, and evaluates their

significance – without and with mitigation – against relevant criteria.

Impacts are related exclusively to the biophysical environment as the unauthorised activities have

not had an evident effect on socio-economic aspects such as heritage resources, human wellbeing or

safety, or developmental opportunities. In fact, the unauthorised activities were aimed at securing

and stabilising the status quo ante that immediately preceded the destruction of the weir and other

critical elements of farm infrastructure by floods in November 2008 and October 2012.

6.1 METHOD OF IMPACT IDENTIFICATION

Impacts were identified on the basis of sites visits in January and February 2012, October 2012, and

January 2013, reference to systematic biodiversity plans and the NFEPA maps, authority

consultation, and specialist assessment.

Site visits were held as follows:

26 January 2012 Applicant, EAP and the Western Cape Department of Agriculture (WCDoA)

16 February 2012 Applicant, EAP and the WCDoA

28 February 2012 Dr Liz Day

29 October 2012 Applicant, EAP, WCDoA, Department of Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning (DEADP), the Department of Water Affairs and the

Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency

25 January 2013 Applicant, EAP and Dr Liz Day

Consultations were held between the EAP, Dr Day and the WCDoA on 15 May 2012, the EAP and

DEADP on 26 November 2013, and the EAP and Mr Hans King of the WCDA and Dr Liz Day on 25

and 26 March 2013 respectively.

The specialist ecological assessments in 2012 and 2013 focused on:

− Changes in environmental flows resulting from the unauthorised structures;

− Erosion and sediment deposition; and


Page 89 of 111

− The condition of in-stream and floodplain habitats (as a coarse surrogate for biodiversity

pattern and process).

Each of the alternatives is assessed and evaluated with reference to impacts associated with

these aspects of the river and floodplain environment.

6.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The impact assessment relies on the conventional methodology of deducing significance ratings

from the extent, magnitude and duration of impacts. The magnitude of impacts has been

adjusted to reflect potential loss of habitat or ecological functioning in CBAs and FEPAs as being

of ‘regional’ extent.

The SIGNIFICANCE of an impact is derived by taking into account the temporal and spatial scales

and magnitude. The means of arriving at the different significance ratings is explained in Table 2.

Table 1: Assessment criteria for the evaluation of impacts

CRITERIA CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION

Extent or

spatial

influence of

impact

Regional Riviersonderend

Local Downstream of site till confluence with Riviersonderend

Site specific Within ~100 m radius of site

Magnitude of

impact (at the

indicated

spatial scale)

High

Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are severely &

irreplaceably altered (including loss of habitat in CBA/FEPA selected in

support of pattern targets or thresholds, including habitat in CR or EN

ecosystems and/or CR or EN plant and animal species)

Medium

Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably altered. but

reversible (including loss of habitat in CBA/FEPA selected in support of ‘best

design’ or VU ecosystems and/or VU plant and animal species)

Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly altered.

Very Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are negligibly altered.

Zero Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes remain unaltered.

Duration of

impact

Short Term 0-1 year

Medium Term 1-5 years

Long Term More than 5 years


Page 90 of 111

Table 2: Definition of significance ratings

SIGNIFICANCE

RATINGS LEVEL OF CRITERIA REQUIRED

High • High magnitude with a national or regional extent and long-term duration.

• High magnitude with either a regional extent and medium term duration or a local extent and

long term duration.

• Medium magnitude with a national or regional extent and long-term duration.

Medium • High magnitude with a local extent and medium term duration.

• High magnitude with a regional extent and short term duration or a site-specific extent and

long term duration.

• High magnitude with either a local extent and short-term duration or a site-specific extent and

medium term duration.

• Medium magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except site specific and short

term or regional and long term.

• Low magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration.

• Very low magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except national/regional and

medium or long term.

Low • High magnitude with a site-specific extent and short-term duration.

• Medium magnitude with a site-specific extent and short-term duration.

• Low magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except site specific and short

term.

• Very low magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration.

Very low • Low magnitude with a site-specific extent and short-term duration.

• Very low magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except regional and long

term.

Neutral • Zero magnitude with any combination of extent and duration.

Once the significance of an impact has been determined, the PROBABILITY of this impact

occurring as well as the CONFIDENCE in the assessment of the impact, are estimated using the

rating systems outlined in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. It is important to note that the

significance of an impact should always be considered in concert with the probability of that

impact occurring.


Page 91 of 111

Table 3: Definition of probability ratings

PROBABILITY RATINGS CRITERIA

Definite Estimated greater than 95 % chance of the impact occurring.

Highly probable Estimated 80 to 95 % chance of the impact occurring.

Probable Estimated 20 to 80 % chance of the impact occurring.

Possible Estimated 5 to 20 % chance of the impact occurring.

Unlikely Estimated less than 5 % chance of the impact occurring.

Unknown Likelihood of impact not occurring cannot be demonstrably excluded

Table 4: Definition of confidence ratings

CONFIDENCE RATINGS CRITERIA

Certain Wealth of information on and sound understanding of the environmental

factors potentially influencing the impact.

Sure

Reasonable amount of useful information on and relatively sound

understanding of the environmental factors potentially influencing the

impact.

Unsure Limited useful information on and understanding of the environmental

factors potentially influencing this impact.

A summary of the significance of the potential impacts is presented in Table 5.

6.3 A NOTE ON ‘MITIGATION’, ‘REHABILITATION’ AND ‘RESTORATION’

Management interventions are defined and shaped by their intended objectives.

Here, ‘mitigation’ is understood to be guided by the objective of preventing further environmental

degradation and rehabilitation of some of the original, pre-disturbance condition of the affected

environment or ecosystem. This also reflects the management objectives for CBAs (cf. Holness and

Bradshaw, 2010; see also Section 2.1.6 on the Western Cape rural land-use guidelines and

management objective for Core 1 and Core 2 spatial planning categories).

Mitigation can ‘soften’ some of the negative effects of a particular set of disturbances and, to some

extent, restore an element of environmental functionality or amenity such as visual integrity or a use

value such as grazing. Mitigation may include keeping a site clear of alien vegetation. Full ecological

recovery would not, however, be the objective.


Page 92 of 111

‘Rehabilitation’ seeks to repair damaged ecosystem functions with the primary goal of securing

ecosystem productivity for human benefit (Aronson et al., 1993). Rehabilitation attempts to adopt

the original ecosystem’s structure and functioning that, in the long-term, can promote eventual

restoration of the full complement of biodiversity and its supporting ecological processes. Ecological

restoration is not, however, the primary objective.

‘Ecological restoration’ is defined as management to return a damaged ecosystem to its pre-

disturbance condition, functionally, structurally and in terms of species composition. It is recognised,

though, that complete restoration is unlikely (cf. Cairns, 1993, p 193) and that a reinstatement of

appropriate ecosystem functions (such as bank stabilisation or re-establishing an ecological corridor)

may be the most realistic goal (cf. Holmes et al., 2008). However, areas restored in support of

reclaiming an element of ecological functionality could, if effectively managed, contribute to

structural and compositional changes towards a desired reference condition.


Page 93 of 111

7. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

This chapter assesses impacts relating to environmental flow requirements (chiefly with respect to

the former impact of the sump on in-stream water availability), erosion and sedimentation, and

riparian habitat. Erosion dynamics are treated as a direct driver of in-stream habitat degradation,

and have therefore been assigned identical significance ratings.

7.1 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE UNAUTHORISED EXCAVATION OF THE

SUMP (ELANDSKLOOF RIVER)

The previous draft of the Final Environmental Assessment Report outlined a number of alternatives

for mitigating the impacts of the sump that have been annulled by significant changes to the river

environment following the flood in October 2012 and, importantly, the successful implementation of

an abstraction method that does not rely on the sump.

7.1.1 Impacts on environmental flow requirements

These related chiefly to the significant volumes of water that were taken from the active channel

and rerouted via the sump, with adverse environmental consequences for riparian habitat in the

affected reach which received only a fraction of natural summer base flows.

Flows have subsequently been restored owing to flood-dictated changes in the channel morphology.

Alternative 1

‘Retain status quo’

Alternative 2 Demolish and rehabilitate

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

Extent Regional Regional Local Site-specific

Magnitude High (-) Medium (-) Low (-) Very low (-)

Duration Long-term Long-term Long-term Short-term

Significance HIGH (-) HIGH (-) LOW (-) VERY LOW (-)

Probability of impact occurring

DEFINITE POSSIBLE DEFINITE POSSIBLE

Confidence CERTAIN SURE CERTAIN CERTAIN


Page 94 of 111

7.1.2 Impacts on erosion and sedimentation

The key issue here is the effect that the sump, associated berms and free-standing, earth ‘mesas’

have had on channel constriction, erosion and mobilisation, transport and deposition of sediments.

Alternative 1



No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

Extent Regional Local Local Site-specific

Magnitude High (-) Medium (-) Medium (-) Low (-)

Duration Long-term Long-term Short-term Short-term

Significance HIGH (-) MED (-) MED (-) VERY LOW (-)


DEFINITE POSSIBLE DEFINITE UNLIKELY

Confidence CERTAIN UNSURE CERTAIN UNSURE

7.1.3 Impacts on-in-stream habitat

These impacts are determined by both changes to base flows as well as destabilisation of the in-

channel and floodplain environments which contribute to degradation of aquatic habitats.

Alternative 1



No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation


Magnitude High (-) Medium (-) Medium (-) Low (-)

Duration Long-term Long-term Short-term Short-term

Significance HIGH (-) MED (-) MED (-) VERY LOW (-)


DEFINITE PROBABLE DEFINITE POSSIBLE

Confidence CERTAIN SURE CERTAIN SURE


i. The current (2013) approach to river abstraction is strongly supported – namely, the use of a

pumped irrigation system from two drums

ii. No further in-channel impoundment works should be undertaken in the river without a full

ecological assessment, and no efforts to stabilize the river banks with gabions, groynes or

other structures should take place without specialist input into their design input from

iii. The sump structure (earth walls etc) should be removed (mechanically) upon completion of

the proposed strategic planning exercise for the two catchments on ‘Meerlustkloof’ 59/11,


Page 95 of 111

and the area re-landscaped as a riverine environment, that will not result in additional

erosion knick-points;

iv. The extensive berms and mounds of disturbed, partially eroded material that are associated

with the location of the now defunct sump, and which contribute to the creation of nodes of

disturbed areas, vulnerable to alien plant invasion as well as to areas that result in flow

diversion, concentration and ongoing lateral erosion should be removed from the channel,

or landscaped into more natural features compatible with achieving the re-instatement of

stable wetland vegetation on the expanded channel floor. Such in-channel manipulation

should however only be carried out with input from a geomorphological and/or hydrological

specialist, and subject to their approval. Ongoing input from Mr Hans King (WCDA) is

recommended in this regard.

7.2 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM UNAUTHORISED PIPE CULVERT CROSSINGS

(MEERLUSTKLOOF AND ELANDSKLOOF RIVERS)

The impacts of the unauthorised structures that were built in response to the November 2008 flood

are treated as the ‘baseline’ against which to assess the environmental merits of the pipe culvert

crossings that were constructed with expanded hydraulic capacity towards the end of 2012.

7.2.1 Impacts on environmental flow requirements

This relates to the degree that the pipe culverts could, potentially, impede summer base flows. The

affected substrate is, however, unconsolidated and loosely sorted which means that the in-channel

sediments apparently have a high measure of permeability, which would facilitate the passage of

water underneath the structures.

Alternative 1


Alternative 2 ‘Status quo’ plus doubled hydraulic capacity

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

Extent Local Local Local Site-specific

Magnitude Med (-) Med (-) Med (-) Low (-)

Duration Long-term Long-term Long-term Long-term

Significance MED (-) MED (-) MED (-) LOW (-)





These impacts arise chiefly from the constrictive effects of channelling flows via pipes that

concentrate flows over a narrow front, thereby promoting erosion downstream. The pipe culvert


Page 96 of 111

crossings would, in their own right, constitute barriers that are perpendicular to especially high

flows, which would also exacerbate the potential for erosion.

An increase in hydraulic capacity (i.e. larger and/or more pipes), spread along the full width of the

channel, counters the adverse effects of channel constriction by assuring more evenly spread and

relatively slower flow volumes. The transport of sediment past the structures is also facilitated by

improving the capacity of venting to accommodate high flows.

Alternative 1



No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation


Magnitude High (-) Med (-) to High (-) Med (-) to High (-) Low (-) to Med (-)


Significance HIGH (-) MED (-) to HIGH (-) MED (-) to High (-) LOW (-) to MED (-)




7.2.3 Impacts on habitat

As indicated previously, these impacts are determined by both changes to base flows as well as

destabilisation of the in-channel and floodplain environments which contribute to degradation of

aquatic habitats.

Alternative 1



No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation


Magnitude High (-) Med (-) to High (-) Medium (-) to High (-) Low (-) to Med (-)


Significance HIGH (-) MED (-) to HIGH (-) MED (-) to HIGH (-) LOW (-) to MED (-)





The existing road design is supported, and should be retained. The following additional measures

should however be implemented:

i. Attempts should be made to establish locally indigenous wetland and riverine vegetation

along the bare, exposed river bed up- and downstream of the bridge; species such as Palmiet

(Prionium serratum) would be beneficial along the lower wetted bank;


Page 97 of 111

ii. The berms established along the top of the river since 2008 (see Figure 7 and Photo J of the

2013 freshwater assessment, Appendix E) should be pulled back to the outer edge of the

floodplain abutting existing orchards, so that the river channel has an area of floodplain into

which to overtop during floods, rather than scouring out the channel and elevated river

banks. A river ecologist should have input into the actual shaping of the berms / floodplain

area, which should be carried out mechanically.

iii. `The opportunities to remove berms and widen the riverine floodplain further are limited

along these reaches of the river by existing infrastructure. It is however recommended that

attention should be paid to improving in-stream habitat quality and reducing the

vulnerability of the system to erosion, by establishing locally indigenous riverine and wetland

plants along the river bank, with particular attention being paid to stabilising the wetted

bank.

7.3 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM PIPELINE OVER ELANDSKLOOF RIVER45

In its current form and location, the pipeline that has been laid across the lower reaches of the

Elandskloof River does not constitute an activity requiring environmental authorisation.

However, the specialist freshwater ecological assessment by Dr Day (Day 2013, Appendix E)

recommended mitigation measures, and alternatives, that would have a direct bearing on the

management of the existing pipeline crossing as well as any decisions about future substitutes.

The specialist assessment relates to the position of the pipeline when it was first repaired after the

flood in October 2012, namely on the riverbed. It has since been lifted by at least 1 m from its

original, post-flood, position.

The impact assessment reported here is therefore retained to highlight considerations that would

need to inform future planning about this infrastructure and, potentially, its replacement.

7.3.1 Impacts on environmental flows

The pipeline in its current form and placement contributes to upstream pooling and flow

constriction downstream.

45 NOTE section 7.3 is included for the sake of completeness and to inform future planning regarding the

selection of the best practicable option for taking irrigation water across the Elandskloof River. This part of the

impact assessment has no bearing on the section 24G application.


Page 98 of 111

Alternative 1 ‘Retain status quo’

Alternative 2

Suspend pipe from posts supported by drums in

riverbed

Alternative 3 Bury pipeline and secure

with gabions

Alternative 4 Route pipeline via road

crossing

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

Extent Local Local Local Local Local

Site-specific

N/A N/A

Magnitude Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) Low (-) N/A N/A

Duration Long-term Long-term Long-term Long-term Short-term Short-term Long-term Long-ter m

Significance LOW (-) to HIGH (-)

LOW (-) to HIGH (-)

LOW (-) to HIGH (-)

LOW (-) to HIGH (-)

LOW (-) V LOW (-) High (+) High (+)


DEFINITE PROBABLE DEFINITE PROBABLE DEFINITE POSSIBLE DEFINITE DEFINITE

Confidence CERTAIN SURE CERTAIN SURE CERTAIN SURE CERTAIN CERTAIN


Constrictions to flow downstream of the pipeline, and in-filling along the upper river banks are

conducive to erosion which will be exacerbated during high flows and if debris is jammed against the

structure.

Alternative 1 ‘Retain status quo’

Alternative 2

Suspend pipe from posts supported by drums in

riverbed

Alternative 3 Bury pipeline and secure

with gabions

Alternative 4 Route pipeline via road

crossing

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

Extent Regional Regional Regional Regional Local

Site-specific

N/A N/A


Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) to High (-)



Significance MED (-) to HIGH (-)

MED (-) to HIGH (-)

MED (-) to HIGH (-)

MED (-) to HIGH (-)





7.3.3 Impacts on habitat

As indicated previously, these impacts are determined by both changes to base flows as well as

destabilisation of the in-channel and floodplain environments which contribute to degradation of

aquatic habitats.

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4


Page 99 of 111

‘Retain status quo’ Alternative 2 Suspend pipe from posts supported by drums in

riverbed

Bury pipeline and secure with gabions

Route pipeline via road crossing

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

No mitigation

With mitigation

Extent Regional Regional Regional Regional Local

Site-specific

N/A N/A


Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) to High (-)

Low (-) to High (-)



Significance MED (-) to HIGH (-)

MED (-) to HIGH (-)

MED (-) to HIGH (-)

MED (-) to HIGH (-)






Three methods for crossing the river are recommended for consideration, in order of preference

from an ecological perspective:

i. Extending the pipeline north, so that it can be attached to the existing road bridge – this

approach would be the most benign from an ecological perspective;

ii. Suspending the pipeline from a cable strung between to towers either side of the river; and

iii. Passing the pipeline beneath the river bed – this approach would require the pipeline to be

buried below the river bed and it is suggested that it should be embedded / stabilised in a

gabion mattress, buried at least 0.5m below the existing river bed and banks; disturbance to

the bed and banks as a result of excavation should be addressed after installation of the

pipeline, such that pre-disturbance ground levels are achieved;

Regardless of the approach selected (above), mitigation measures would need to be accompanied by

the removal of all waste and debris associated with the current structure; all fill that has been used

to embed the existing pipeline must be removed from the river bank and bed and these areas must

be re-instated to natural ground level.

7.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE WITH MITIGATION, AND DISCUSSION

The significance of impacts resulting from the respective structures, after mitigation, is summarised

below. The impacts of the temporary drift over the Elandskloof River could not be assessed owing to

the demolition of this structure prior to the site visit by the specialist freshwater ecologist in January

2013. The long-term ecological impacts of the drift were, however, considered to be “negligible”

(Day 2013, p 17; Appendix E).


Page 100 of 111

Activity/structure

& environmental

aspect

Alternative 1

(Status quo)46

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Significance rating

assigned to s. quo

by aquatic

ecologist

The sump Med (-) to High (-)

Environmental flows High (-) Very Low (-)

Erosion &

sedimentation

Med (-) Very Low (-)

Habitat condition Med (-) Very Low (-)

Bridges High (-)

Environmental flows Med (-) Low (-)

Erosion &

sedimentation

Med (-) to High (-) Low (-) to Med (-)

Habitat condition Med (-) to High (-) Low (-) to Med (-)

Water pipeline Med (-) to High (-)

Environmental flows Low (-) to High (-) Low (-) to High (-) Very Low (-) High (+)

Erosion &

sedimentation

Med (-) to High (-) Med (-) to High (-) Very Low (-) High (+)

Habitat condition Med (-) to High (-) Med (-) to High (-) Very Low (-) High (+)

In summary, the impact assessment indicates that the following constitute the preferred alternatives

from the perspective of river and floodplain management:

The sump: Alternative 2 (demolition and rehabilitation, after conclusion of a strategic,

ecosystem-based planning process)

The two bridges: Alternative 2 (rebuilt as before, with doubled hydraulic capacity).

The water pipeline: Alternative 4 (route pipeline via DR1313)

Alternative 3 (bury pipeline and secure with gabions).

(NB: The suspension of the pipe on a cable is another alternative that ought

to be assessed at the appropriate time).

46 The status quo with respect to the two repaired bridges reflects the design of the structures after the

November 2008 floods. The alternative refers to the structures that were rebuilt – with additional pipes – after

being destroyed by the flood in October 2012.


Page 101 of 111

Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the structures.

Mitigation cannot, however, be divorced from the urgent need to address – at the appropriate

hydro-geomorphological and ecological scales – questions of systematic instability and degradation

that assail the management of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers and their agricultural

interface.

Failure to address the latter questions at the right scale will simply perpetuate the instability that has

characterised the response of the two rivers to floods over the past decade.

With this in mind, the aquatic specialist has recommended measures to address cumulative impacts

and the longer-term stabilisation and rehabilitation of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers (see

Chapter 8, ‘Strategic river management plan’).

Recommended mitigation and maintenance measures are also reflected in the Final Environmental

Management Programme/Maintenance Plan that has been prepared as part of the Final

Environmental Impact Assessment Report (see Appendix G).

7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION

Based on the foregoing environmental assessment process, the following alternatives are

recommended for retrospective authorisation insofar as this would be necessary in terms of the

relevant provisions of NEMA:

7.5.1 – Unauthorised excavation of the sump in terms of the 2006 NEMA EIA regulations, subject

to its demolition and rehabilitation by 31 December 2015, in terms the objectives and guidelines

contained in the draft environmental management plan/maintenance management plan that

forms part of this environmental assessment process;

7.5.2 – Unauthorised construction of the two pipe culvert crossings (bridges) over the

Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers in terms of the 2006 and 2010 NEMA EIA regulations; and

7.5.3 – Unauthorised construction of a temporary drift immediately downstream of the damaged

pipe culvert crossing over the Elandskloof River.


Page 102 of 111

Any additional infrastructure, or expansion of existing infrastructure, that exceeds any of the

thresholds prescribed by the three listing notice in the 2010 NEMA EIA regulations will have to be

subjected de novo to the procedures that regulate applications for environmental authorisation

.

Of over-riding importance, however, is the urgent to commence drafting a strategic management

plan for the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof rivers. See Chapter 8.


Page 103 of 111

8. STRATEGIC RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ‘MEERLUSTKLOOF’ 59/11

This Chapter records the findings and recommendations of the freshwater specialist with respect to

the need for a comprehensive, ecosystem-based management plan for the Elandskloof and

Meerlustkloof rivers and their catchments (see Appendix E). The desirability of such a plan is also

supported by the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and CapeNature.

8.1 EFFECTS OF FLOODS AMPLIFIED BY CONDITION OF CATCHMENT AND

FLOODPLAINS

As noted by Dr Day, one of the problems in carrying out the ecological assessments for this section

24G environmental assessment has been the need to separate out the effects of unauthorised

activities on riverine ecosystems from the effects of climate change and natural disasters such as

large-scale flood events. While the various unauthorised activities cannot be blamed for the

extensive disturbance of the river corridor and the large-scale erosion of river bed, bank and

floodplain material that were evident during both the 2012 and 2013 site visits, they are likely to

have contributed to the decreased resilience of the systems, along with the effects of a long history

of infilling of the floodplains, channelization of the rivers and generally reduced flood capacity.

Given the scale of ecological disturbance and the trajectory of ongoing erosion evident in the

Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers at present, implementation of the mitigation measures

outlined in this report is unlikely to effect any substantial change in river condition or long-term

stability, when viewed against a backdrop of poor long-term land-use management, the effects of

which are triggered episodically by large flood events.

8.2 CRITICAL INFORMATION GAPS THAT COMPROMISE RESILIENCE OF

AFFECTED SYSTEMS

The Elandskloof River in its reaches adjacent to the sump is at present particularly prone to erosion,

threatening the stability of the adjacent bank and upper access road. However, insufficient

information exists at present to provide a useful guide as to the best approach to achieve long-

term stability of the river system in a manner that is compatible with rehabilitation of both

ecological function and structure, while allowing for and securing reasonable levels of agricultural

activity in adjacent areas. This is particularly true in a context where extreme storms are predicted

to become more frequent with global climate change and, given the present levels of degradation

and instability of the above rivers, seemingly throughout their reaches in developed areas, their


Page 104 of 111

present levels of resilience to ongoing hydrological / climatic disturbance is expected to be

particularly low.

8.3 FRAMEWORK STRATEGIC, CATCHMENT-BASED MANAGEMENT OF THE TWO

RIVERS

The following measures are recommended for implementation in the short- to medium term, as part

of a more holistic approach to river management and rehabilitation in the Elandskloof and

Meerlustkloof catchments, and should be seen in part as a mechanism to address the residual and

indirect impacts of both recent unauthorised activities described in this report, and the cumulative

effects of decades of inappropriate land-use, coupled with natural phenomena:

− A river management plan should be compiled for the entire Elandskloof / Meerlustkloof sub

catchments. The plan should provide practical management objectives, strategies and

targets for achieving an ecologically stable riverine system that allows for (and defines)

reasonable agricultural use of surrounding areas, while ensuring the long-term rehabilitation

of the riverine environment to a PES of at least Category C (the assumed pre-impact

condition of the system) in the reaches affected by agricultural activities.

− Adequate hydraulic and hydrological data should be collected to allow for the

development and implementation of a high-confidence rehabilitation strategy for the

Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof Rivers throughout their reaches, such that it allows for at

least the minimum objectives set out in the proposed rehabilitation plan to be practically

achievable, including the establishment of stable, vegetated river banks and corridors, with

adequate setback areas from adjacent agricultural lands to allow for mitigation against

runoff and water quality impacts associated with this kind of land-use, The development of

criteria for such habitats and areas would need to be developed as part of the river

management plan outlined above, which would need to include input from role players such

as biodiversity and conservation officials and specialists, the department of agriculture,

hydrological and geomorphological specialists and local landowners.

− Control measures should be implemented over the timing and rate of abstraction along

the river, both within the present study area and among upstream land users - uncontrolled

ad hoc abstraction by upstream land owners has however also been identified as a

significant issue affecting river management in the lower reaches of the Elandskloof River

(Mr Arrie Grobler, Agrisouth Orchards (Pty) Ltd, pers. comm. to Liz Day, FCG). An audit of

abstraction and impoundment activities in the Elandskloof and Meerlustkloof River


Page 105 of 111

catchments as a whole, and the development of an abstraction plan, that takes into account

both the required ecological reserve for the river systems, and the rights of individual

landowners, is strongly recommended. Such a plan would need to address issues such as the

rate and timing of abstraction throughout the year.

− Ongoing attention should be paid to the removal of weedy aliens from the channel and its

precincts, noting that the highly disturbed nature of the river beds at present mean that they

are particularly vulnerable to invasion

− Current sources of channel destabilisation should be addressed, including piled sediment /

remnants of eroded banks and berms that currently lie within the low flow channel of the

river, and which result in further deflection of flood and base flows onto the adjacent river

bank, contributing to ongoing scour and bank undercutting. Subject to approval from the

WCDA hydrological / hydraulics specialist Mr Hans King, it is recommended that key zones of

such impact should be removed from the channel, and/or reshaped into the river bed and

banks, as appropriate. Included in this activity is the recommendation for the remnant

concrete weir structures to be removed from the channel, at least in so far as they are

resulting in undesirable deflections of flow onto vulnerable river banks.

− Gabion groynes should be designed and installed as and where appropriate, along the

Elandskloof River, such that they provide protection from the ongoing erosion of the river

and the destabilisation of the left and right river banks – groynes should be as designed by

the WCDA hydrological / hydraulics specialist, and their installation should:

o not result in longitudinal lining / hard stabilisation of the river bank, other than at the

groyne structures themselves;

o be carried out in conjunction with a more holistic plan for the river, which allows for the

removal of berms along the river banks, and their replacement on the outer edge of the

river corridor / edge of existing orchards;

o be designed to improve riverine and marginal habitat.

Finally, it is noted that concerns were raised during the source of the present project regarding the

condition of the access road across the eroding Elandskloof River near the sump. Stabilisation of the

river banks in this area should not be driven by the need to maintain this crossing, but should be

driven by the need to effect urgent rehabilitation of the river and reduce erosion. Where necessary,

access to the right hand river bank is available by an existing road higher up the Elandskloof River.


Page 106 of 111

9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

A detailed Public Participation Process (PPP) was followed for the proposed development, in

terms of the 2010 NEMA EIA Regulations. Refer to Appendix F for a detailed description.

9.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: DRAFT EIR AND EMP

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Draft Environmental Management Programme

(EMP) were made available for public review and comment for a 40-day period from 26 June to 6

August 2012. Comments received during this period were captured and responded to in a

Comments and Response Report attached in Appendix F of this report. Persons who commented

on the report were included in the Interested and Affected Parties register.

9.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: FINAL EIR AND EMP

The Final Environmental Impact Report and EMP were made available for a 21-day period

commenting period from 8 to 30 August 2012. Comments were received from CapeNature and

the Overberg District Municipality. The Final EIR and EMP were submitted to the Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning on 6 September 2012

9.3 DRAFTING OF REVISED FINAL EIR AND EMP FOR A SECOND ROUND OF

COMMENT

The Final EIR was withdrawn and revised following the commencement of additional

unauthorised activities in response to the flood of October 2012.

The section 24G application was also expanded, on the basis of discussions with the Department

of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, to cater for a wider range of unauthorised

activities that had been undertaken in the wake of flood damage in November 2008. On

November 28, 2012, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

indicated that the Final EIR and EMP could be updated and made available as a Revised FEIR and

EMP for a 21-day commenting period.

The current round of public participation is therefore aimed at obtaining comment on the Revised

Final EIR and EMP.


Page 107 of 111

9.4 HOW TO COMMENT ON THE REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT

A. Submit all comments/suggestions relating to the Revised Final Environmental Impact

Report to BolandEnviro and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning (DEA&DP) at:

Boland Environmental Consultants

Attention: Mr Charl de Villiers

PO Box 250

WORCESTER 6849

Tel: 023 347 0336

Fax: 023 347 5336

Cell: 083 785 0776

Email: <[email protected]>

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Attention: Ms Kayleen Fester

Section 24G Unit

Private Bag X9086,

CAPE TOWN 8000

Tel: 021 483 2067

Fax: 021 483 4033

Email: <[email protected]>

B. Quote the reference: E18/2/3/2/2-Ptn 11 farm 59, MEERLUSTKLOOF (s 24FG), Caledon

C. The closing date for comments is 22 May 2013.

Any comments received during this round of public participation will be submitted to the DEA&DP

with the Revised Final EIR and Revised Final EMP. Registered interested and affected parties will

be notified of submission of the Final EIR and Final EMP to the DEA&DP. Electronic copies of the

final documents will be made available for I&APs.

The Applicant and I&APs have a prescribed right to appeal against the decision on the application

by the Competent Authority. All registered IA&Ps will be notified timeously of the decision in the

event that they wish to exercise their right to appeal.


Page 108 of 111

9.5 PROCESS TASKS STILL TO BE COMPLETED

The following tasks have either already been undertaken with respect to public participation or still

need to be concluded:

Release draft EIR & EMP for public review 26 June 2012

Comment period (40 days) on draft EIR & EMP ends 6 August 2012

Update EIR with comment and responses 6 August 2012

Release final EIR and EMP to registered I&APs 13 August 2012

Comment period (21 days) on final EIR & EMP ends 3 September 2012

Update EIR with comment and responses First week Sept 2012

Submit EIR, EMP to DEA&DP for consideration Second week Sept 2012

Final EIR, EMP withdrawn for updating. October 2012

Comment period (21 days) on Revised FEIR and EMP 30 April 2013

Submit revised final documents with I&AP comment 23 May 2013

DEA&DP Acceptance of Report and Issue of Decision Date unknown

I&APs Notification of Decision and appeal process Date unknown

Appoint Environmental Control Officer (ECO) Date unknown

Commence with restoration activities Date unknown


Page 109 of 111

REFERENCES

Aronson J, Floret C, LeFloc’h E, Ovalle C and Pontanier R (1993) Restoration and Rehabilitation of

Degraded Ecosystems in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands. A view from the South. Restoration

Ecology¸ March 1993: 8-17.

Brown C and Fowler J (2000) Breede River Basin Study. Preliminary Assessment of the Breede River

Basin. Southern Waters Report for MBB, Ninham Shand and Jakoet & Associates, for the

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

Brownlie S (2005) Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR

Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 C. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government Western

Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

Cairns J (1993) Ecological restoration: Replenishing our national and global ecological capital. In:

Saunders, Hobbs and Ehrlich (eds.) Nature Conservation 3: Reconstruction of fragmented

ecosystems. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 193-

208.

Day Liz (2012) Section 24G application for rectification of an unauthorised sump on the farm

Meerlustkloof, near Villiersdorp: Specialist comment on freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater

Consulting Group.

Day Liz (2013) Section 24G application for rectification of unauthorised activities on the farm

Meerlustkloof, near Villiersdorp: Specialist comment on freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater

Consulting Group.

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.

DEA&DP (2010) Guideline on Alternatives, EIA Guideline and Information Document Series.

Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP).

DEA&DP (2010) Guideline on Need and Desirability, EIA Guideline and Information Document

Series. Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning

(DEA&DP).

DEA&DP (2010) Guideline on Public Participation EIA Guideline and Information Document Series.

Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP).

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2011) National list of ecosystems that are threatened

and in need of protection. GG 34809 GN R. 1002, 9 December 2011. Government Printer,

Pretoria.


Page 110 of 111

Driver A, Nel JL, Snaddon K, Murray K, Roux DJ, Hill L, Swartz ER, Manuel J and Funke N (2011)

Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Water Research Commission

Report No 1801/1/11, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Helme N, Holmes P and Rebelo T (2005) Midland and Mountain Fynbos Ecosystems. In: (De

Villiers et al., Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the

Western Cape. Fynbos Forum and Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch.

Holloway A and Fortune G (2009) Exposure to severe weather events: A review of recent

experience in the Western Cape. Unpubl. Presentation, Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable

Livelihoods Programme, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.

Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Richardson DM and Witowski ETF (2008) Guidelines for improved management

of riparian zones invaded by alien plants in South Africa. South African Journal of Botany 74, pp

538-552.

Holness S and Bradshaw P (2010) Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Overberg District Municipality.

Park Planning and Development Unit, SANParks, Port Elizabeth

http://bgis.org/overberg/project.asp

Job, Nancy, Kate Snaddon, Liz Day, Jeanne Nel, Lindie Smith-Adao (2008) C.A.P.E. fine-scale

planning project: AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UPPER BREEDE RIVER VALLEY PLANNING

DOMAIN. Freshwater Consulting Group and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

King H (2012a) Hydrological Study of the Meerlustkloof and Elandskloof Rivers, Caledon. Report

prepared by the Western Cape Department of Agriculture, Elsenburg.

King H (2012b) River Maintenance Plans Enrichment Session Report prepared for the Department

of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning on behalf of the Western Cape

Department of Agriculture, Elsenburg.

Kleynhans CJ, Thirion C and Moolman J (2005). A Level I River Ecoregion classification System for

South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality

Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.

Manning J (2007) Field Guide to Fynbos. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Maree KS and Vromans DC. (2010) The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Witzenberg, Breede Valley

and Langeberg 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.

Margules CR and RL Pressey (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature Vol 405: 243-253.

Mucina L, Rutherford MC and Powrie LM (eds.) (2006) The Vegetation Map of South Africa,

Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.


Page 111 of 111

Nel J L, Murray K M, Maherry A M, Petersen C P, Roux D J, Driver A, Hill L,van Deventer H, Funke

N, Swartz e R, Smith-Adao L B, Mbona N, Downsborough L and & Nienaber S. 2011. Technical

Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. WRC Report No.

1801/2/11. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

Pence, G. Q.K. (2008) C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Systematic Conservation Planning Assessment: Technical

Report. Produced for CapeNature as part of the GEF-funded C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Biodiversity

Planning Project. Cape Town, South Africa.

Preston GR, Robins N and Fuggle RF (1996) Integrated Environmental Management. In Fuggle and

Rabie (eds.) Environmental Management in South Africa. Juta, Kenwyn.

Ralston S, de Villiers C, Manuel J, te Roller K and Pence G (2009) Where are we going? Fine Scale

Systematic Conservation Plans and their Contribution to Environmental Assessment. In:

IAIAsa 2009 National Conference Proceedings, 23-26 August 2009, Wilderness.

Rebelo AG, Boucher C, Helme N, Mucina L and Rutherford MC (2006) Fynbos Biome, in Mucina

and Rutherford (eds.) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19,

South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

River Health Programme (2011) State of Rivers Report: Rivers of the Breede Water Management

Area. Department of Water Affairs, Western Cape, Republic of South Africa.

South African National Biodiversity Institute (2009) Further development of a proposed National

Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report (Final Draft). Prepared

by the Freshwater Consulting Group for the South African National Biodiversity Institute

(SANBI).

South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) (2011) SANBI Biodiversity GIS Unit

<http://bgis.sanbi.org>

SRK Consulting (2011) Environmental Management Framework Cape Winelands District

Municipality Environmental Management Framework Report: 2012 to 2017. Draft. Report No.

410438/4.

Agrisouth_s24G_FINAL_Revised_FEIR_30042013

Documents

nema chapter

environmental authorisation

terms of nema s

nema eia regulations

g caledon

meerlustkloof s

g application

caledon page