Bootklub_EA_FINAL_080510

Final Environmental Assessment: Vleesbaai Boat launching site

Charl de Villiers Environmental Consulting cc

FINAL

APPLICATION FOR THE REGISTRATION OF THE

VLEESBAAI BOAT LAUNCHING SITE

VLEES BAY

DEA&DP

Charl de Villiers

Boat being retrieved at Noordstrand launching

Environmental Assessment: Vleesbaai Boat launching site – May 2010


INAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


BOAT LAUNCHING SITE AT NOORDSTRAND,

VLEES BAY, WESTERN CAPE

DEA&DP Ref: E16/2/4 VLEES BAY HOLIDAY RESORT

8 May 2010

Prepared by


on behalf of

Mr Hannes van Jaarsveldt

Vleesbaai Bootklub

PO Box 307

PAARL

7620

Boat being retrieved at Noordstrand launching site, Vleesbaai December 2009

1


NOORDSTRAND,

site, Vleesbaai December 2009

Final Environmental Assessment: Vleesbaai Boat launching site – May 2010

Charl de Villiers Environmental Consulting cc 2

This environmental assessment has been undertaken in terms of Reg 7(4)(ii) of the ‘Off-

road Vehicle (ORV) Regulations’, amended by GN R.1426 of 7 December 2004, which

stipulate that a licence for boat launching sites shall only be issued if the applicant – in this

instance the Vleesbaai Bootklub – complies with the requirements of section 24(4) of the

National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended, i.e. the provision

relating to the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential impact of

the activities associated with boat launching at the site.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Unrevised)

16 – 11

2 MINIMUM PROCEDURES FOR THE INVESTIGATION, ASSESSMENT AND

COMMUNICATION OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OR IMPACTS OF

ACTIVITIES ON THE ENVIRONMENT

12 - 15

2.1 Co-ordination and co-operation between organs of state

2.2 Factors that must be taken into account by decision-makers

2.3 Description of the receiving environment (Ch 7)

2.4 Impact assessment and evaluation of significance of impacts (Ch 8)

2.5 Public participation

2.6 Alternatives (Ch 4)

2.7 Mitigation (Ch 8)

2.8 Heritage resources (Chapters 5, 7 and 8)

2.9 Reporting gaps in knowledge and uncertainty (Ch 8)

2.10 Monitoring and management of residual impacts (Ch 9)

2.11 Consideration of maps of environmental attributes and

information(Chapters 5, 6 and 7)

2.12 Adherence to the requirements of other environmental management

Acts (Ch 5)

2.13 Appeals

3 OVERVIEW OF THE ACTIVITY AND THE LOCAL CONTEXT 16 – 18

4 ALTERNATIVES 19 – 24

4.1 Alternative 1: The preferred option

4.2 Alternative 2: Construction of a slipway at Die Hoek.

4.3 Alternative 3: The ‘no-go’ option

4.4 Alternative 4: Launching boats at the Mossel Bay harbour or

Gouritsmond

4.5 Summary

5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE VLEESBAAI

(NOORDSTRAND) BOAT LAUNCHING SITE

25 – 28

6 THE ‘DUTY OF CARE’, THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

PRINCIPLES, THE DRAFT WESTERN CAPE RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING

AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES and CAPENATURE’S REQUIREMENTS

WITH RESPECT TO BIODIVERSITY IN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

29 – 32

6.1 The Duty of Care

6.2 Protection of Coastal Public Property

6.3 The National Environmental Management Principles

6.4 The Draft Western Cape Rural Land-use Planning and Management

Guidelines

6.5 CapeNature’s requirement with respect to biodiversity in development

applications



7 THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 33 – 47

7.1 Location

7.2 Topography

7.3 Climate

7.4 Ecosystems

7.4.1 Critical Biodiversity Areas

7.4.2 Sandy beaches and dune systems

7.4.3 The Noordkloof Strandveld valley bottom wetland

7.4.4 The rocky inter-tidal zone and inshore waters at Die

Hoek

7.5 The archaeological context: Shell middens

7.6 The social context: Bathing and other recreational activities

7.6.1 Recreational activities and outdoor pursuits

7.6.2 Access to the beach at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai

7.6.3 Municipal services and representation of homeowners

7.6.4 The Vleesbaai Bootklub

8 IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ARISING

FROM ORV USE OF THE VLEESBAAI (NOORDSTRAND) BOAT LAUNCHING

SITE

48 – 66

8.1 Evaluation method

8.2. Vulnerabilities of the natural environment w.r.t. ORV use

8.2.1 A note on impact frequency, scale, resilience of sandy

beach ecosystems and impact reversibility

8.3 Potential damage by ORVs to the Noordkloof and Noordstrand sandy

beach and dune ecosystems and coastal processes

8.3.1 Implications of scale-related factors, type of disturbance

and ecological resilience to impact evaluation

8.3.2 Discussion

8.3.3 Measures for impact avoidance and mitigation

8.4 Potential damage by ORVs to the Noordkloof Strandveld valley

bottom wetland

8.4.1 Discussion


8.5 Potential degradation of the Noordstrand-Noordkloof sediment

corridor and embedded Strandveld valley bottom wetland, i.e.

Critical Biodiversity Areas


8.6 Potential impacts of a slipway on the rocky inter-tidal zone at Die

Hoek


8.7 Vulnerability of shell middens to ORVs


8.8 Vulnerability of bathers and other users of the Vleesbaai boat



launching site


8.9 Potential financial costs and the question of ‘reasonableness’ and

‘feasibility’

8.10 Comparative assessment of the significance of all four alternatives

8.10.1 Alternative 1 – The status quo and preferred option

8.10.2 Alternative 2 – Construction of a slipway and access road

at Die Hoek

8.10.3 Alternative 3 – The ‘no go’ option

8.10.4 Alternative 4 – Launching boats at Gouritsmond or Mossel

Bay

9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 67 - 85

9.1 The legal basis for public participation

9.2 The Western Cape guideline on public participation

9.3 Potential interested and affected parties who were notified of the

application

9.3.1 The informal phase of public participation

9.3.2 The formal phase of public participation

9.4 Actions to notify potential interested and affected parties

9.5 Proof of notice and record of registration of I&APs

9.6 Registered interested and affected parties

9.7 Comments and responses report

9.8 Key issues raised by interested and affected parties

9.9 Copies of comment received from interested and affected parties

10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86 - 88

10.1 Conclusions: The preferred option

10.2 Recommendations

10.3 Draft environmental management programme (EMP) for the

Noordstrand launching site

11 REFERENCES 89 - 91

12 APPENDICES 1-7

1. Rulesof the Vleesbaai Bootklub

2. VAB Bpk permission to boat club o use access route via VAB property

3. Quote for construction of slipway at Die Hoek

4. Pre-application correspondence with Dept Env Affairs and Development Planning

5. Draft EMF for the Vleesbaai boat launching site

6. Konsep- omgewingsbestuursplan vir die Vleesbaai bootlanseringsplek

7. ORV application form and checklist

8. Comment by interested and affected parties (5 Feb 2010-25 March 2010)

9. Second round of comment by I&APs (14 Apr 2010-7 May 2010)



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NOTE: The executive summary has not been updated since it was first distributed in

December 2009. This is because the conclusions of the environmental assessment have

not changed since then. The executive summary therefore remains an accurate reflection

of the findings of the environmental assessment and its recommendations. Changes to

the draft Environmental Management Plan are detailed in Chapter 9, ‘The public

participation process’, and the amended EMPs are contained in Appendix 5 (the original

English version) and Appendix 6 (the Afrikaans translation).

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Vleesbaai Bootklub (‘the boat club’) has initiated a process to have a boat launching site

at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, licensed in terms of the Off-road Vehicle (ORV) Regulations.1

Vleesbaai is a coastal holiday settlement about 24 km south-west of Mossel Bay in the

Western Cape (see Figure 1, p 2).

The ORV regulations require that an environmental assessment be undertaken in terms of

section 24(4) of NEMA, and that an environmental management plan (EMP) must be

submitted with the application.

This information document summarises the initial findings of the draft environmental

assessment that is being undertaken for the boat club in fulfilment of its legal obligations. It

also spells out how interested and affected parties can participate in the environmental

assessment process.

1.2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Section 24(4) of NEMA specifies the minimum requirements for investigating, assessing and

communicating the potential impact of activities such as those associated with a boat

launching site.

The Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning has

instructed the boat club to investigate the environmental impacts of the Noordstrand

launching site, as well as the ‘no go’ option, and at least one other alternatives. The

additional alternatives are:

− Constructing a concrete slipway at Die Hoek, Vleesbaai; and

− Making use of existing slipways at Gouritsmond or Mossel Bay.

1 See Sections 2 to 9 of the Draft Environmental Assessment for references.



Alternatives must be both feasible and reasonable – from the perspective of the applicant,

as well as in terms of both biophysical and social impacts.

None of the activities conducted by the boat club require authorisation in terms of the

NEMA environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations.

The environmental assessment process is being conducted by an independent

environmental consultancy, Charl de Villiers Environmental Consulting cc (contact details

provided in Section 7, ‘The Way Forward’).

The section on ‘The way forward’ summarises the public participation process and explains

how you can become involved in this process.

1.3 THE ACTIVITY

The activity entails launching boats from an open beach at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, on the

southern Cape coast.

The launch site, which entails no fixed infrastructure such as a slipway, jetty or breakwater,

is located at about 34°17’02.99” South 21°54’42.98” East (see Figs. 1 and 2). Only members

Fig 1: The boat launching site in its regional context



of the Vleesbaai Boat Club have permission to drive across private land to the beach at

Noordstrand. The site has been used to launch boats since the early 1970s. The site is used

most frequently during the summer holidays, when three to five boats may be launched a

day. Vehicles get to the beach via a tarred ramp into a shallow sandy valley, Noordkloof,

which opens into Noordstrand.

1.4 THE ENVIRONMENT

The launching site and the access route through Noordkloof are located within the littoral

active zone, i.e. that naturally dynamic part of the coastal environment that is characterised

by the exchange of sand between the sea and the coast, and biodiversity that is adapted to

these unstable conditions. See Figure 2.

The biodiversity of the littoral active zone is highly resilient to natural disturbances caused

by wave action and wind, and seasonal cycles of erosion, transport and deposition of sand.

Sandy beach and dune ecosystems are, however, particularly vulnerable to developments or

activities that interfere with the natural dynamics of the littoral active zone. Dunes are very

sensitive to trampling and destabilised drift sand can become a major nuisance if the natural

vegetation cover is disturbed.

Fig. 2: The Vleesbaai boat launching site

The littoral active zone comprises the in-shore region, the area between the low and high

water marks, the open beach and sand dunes at varying stages of development. Some of the



dunes, such as the steeply-incised foredunes in front of the built-up area at Vleesbaai-

Noord, are relatively vegetated and stable. Dunes in Noordkloof, which forms a natural sand

corridor, are generally less well developed, mobile and exposed to storm surges that can

rapidly change the local dune topography. The dunes at Vleesbaai fall within a ‘Least

Threatened’ vegetation type classified as Cape Seashore Vegetation.

About 120 m inland of the high water mark, the shifting sands of Noordkloof are replaced by

a shallow Strandveld valley bottom wetland, most of which is located on the neighbouring

farm. The tarred ramp into Noordkloof skirts this wetland. Noordkloof and the adjacent

coastal zone are defined as a Critical Biodiversity Area due to the presence of the wetland

and the potential occurrence of an ‘Endangered’ vegetation type, Groot Brak Dune

Strandveld in the vicinity. Critical Biodiversity Areas represent the least amount of land that

is required to meet thresholds for conserving biodiversity pattern (such as species, habitats

and vegetation types) and ecological processes, and need to be managed accordingly.

The environmental assessment has approached the Noordstrand-Noordkloof area as a single

ecosystem, which is dominated by the features and processes of the littoral active zone but

which also includes part of a Strandveld valley bottom wetland at its landward margin.

The only animal species of concern that is known to frequent the area is the African Black

Oystercatcher, classified as ‘Near-threatened’ by the 2009 IUCN Red Data List. This species

does not nest in the vicinity of the launching site, although oystercatchers regularly forage

on the rocks either side of Noordstrand. Southern right whales, a ‘Species of least concern’,

often frequent Vleesbaai in the winter months to calve and mate.

There is a shell midden about 15 m north of the access route through Noordkloof. The

midden is located in a raised depression and therefore not considered to be at risk from

driving. Noordstrand is also used for other seaside activities, particularly bathing, surfing,

walking and games.

1.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The environmental assessment investigated four alternatives. Only two of these would have

a predicted impact on the environment as the result of boat launching in the littoral active

zone. These are the preferred option – maintaining Noordstrand as a launching site – or

building a slipway at Die Hoek, about 800 m to the south. The latter site did have a slipway

which has since been destroyed by the action of the sea.

The ‘no go’ and Mossel Bay and Gouritsmond alternatives would have no negative

environmental consequences, but would be most inconvenient from the perspective of the

Vleesbaai Bootklub as both of the alternative launching sites entailed roundtrips of at least

50 km by road to get to the respective slipways. Retaining Noordkloof and Noordstrand as

the access route and launching site respectively is likely to have some environmental impact,

but with minimal long-term effect due to the small area of disturbance (≤ 0.4 ha or about

33% of the Noordkloof-Noordstrand interface), the limited duration of driving in the littoral

active zone, and the natural dynamism and resilience of the receiving environment. In

contrast, a slipway at Die Hoek, besides the direct financial costs of such a project and its



hazards to boating due to its rocky environs, would have a long-term negative effect on the

coastal environment.

Overall, the draft environmental assessment has found that there is no evident

environmental justification for relinquishing the existing Noordstrand launching site at

Vleesbaai, and that all the other alternatives cannot be viewed as either feasible or

reasonable by the Vleesbaai boat club.

1.6 IMPACT MITIGATION AND THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The statutory environmental ‘Duty of Care’ requires that degradation of the environment

must be avoided, and where degradation or pollution cannot be reasonably prevented, it

must be minimised and rectified.

In the case of the existing boat launching site at Vleesbaai, a number of measures have been

proposed to avoid, and insofar as this is not reasonably possible, to mitigate the effects of

driving in the littoral active zone. Remedial actions are not deemed necessary due to the

limited magnitude and duration of impacts on the coastal environment, and the ability of

the affected system to absorb the short-lived effects of driving through Noordkloof to

Noordstrand. These mitigatory measures and a monitoring protocol are contained in a draft

environmental management plan for the Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, boat launching site.

Table 1 summarises the significance of impacts arising from all four alternatives, without and

with mitigation.

Table 1: Summary of draft impact evaluation [(+) = positive, (-) + negative; negative impacts

shaded]

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

Vulnerable

feature No Mit. With Mit. No Mit. With Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit. With Mit.

Coastal

processes

LOW (-)

Probable

LOW (-)

Possible NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

Valley bottom

wetland

LOW (-)

Unlikely

NEUTRAL

Unlikely NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

CBAs HIGH (-)

Possible

V. LOW (-)

High.

prob.

NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

Shell middens HIGH (-)

Possible

NEUTRAL


Bathers, etc HIGH (-)

Unlikely

NEUTRAL


Rocky inter-tidal

zone NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

MEDIUM

(-)

Probable

MEDIUM

(-)

Probable

NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

Feasibility &

reasonableness

HIGH (+)

Definite

HIGH (+)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite



1.7 THE WAY FORWARD

The public participation process is being approached in two phases:

− An informal opportunity (the ‘informal Vleesbaai phase’) for residents at Vleesbaai

to be informed of the environmental process during the summer holidays

(December-January, 2009); and

− A formal public participation process (‘the formal public phase’) that conforms to

legal requirements, and which is planned to commence in January or February,

2009.

The informal Vleesbaai phase

Copies of this information document and the draft EMP were e-mailed to Vleesbaai Dienste

in December for distribution to the associations and companies representing homeowners

at Vleesbaai, namely: Keerom Bpk; Hoekbaai Huiseienaarsvereniging; Visbaai Bpk; Driehoek

Huiseienaarsvereniging; Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk; and the Karmosyn Homeowners’

Association.

The recipients of the documents have been given an opportunity to familiarise themselves

with the application and the draft EMP so as to ensure the factual accuracy of these

documents. Any factual corrections must please be submitted to Charl de Villiers

Environmental Consulting cc by 8 January, 2010, if possible (see contact details on page 6).

The formal phase of public participation

All the above mentioned associations will be notified of the formal public participation

process once it commences in January or February 2010, when they will have an

opportunity to register as interested and affected parties and to formally submit comment

on the potential environmental impacts of the licence application.

NAVRAE EN KONTAK-BESONDERHEDE

Navrae i.v.m die Vleesbaai Bootklub se lisensie-aansoek ingevolge die ‘ORV’-regulasies en

die meegaande omgewingsimpakstudie, asook enige feitelike regstellings, moet asseblief

aan die volgende instansie gerig word:


Bradwellweg 14

VREDEHOEK

8001

e-pos [email protected]

faks 086 553 9256

tel 021 461-2477

sel 083 785 0776

Korreksies moet asb, waar moontlik, teen Vrydag 8 Januarie 2010 ingedien word.

Afgesien van hierdie inligtingstuk, sal u vereniging ook in Januarie of Februarie 2010

formeel uitgenooi word om by die wetlik-voorgeskrewe openbare deelname-proses as

belanghebbende en geaffekteerde party te registreer.



2. MINIMUM PROCEDURES FOR THE INVESTIGATION, ASSESSMENT

AND COMMUNICATION OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OR

IMPACTS OF ACTIVITIES ON THE ENVIRONMENT

The Vleesbaai Bootklub (hereafter ‘the boat club’) has applied to the Western Cape

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) for the licensing

of the Noordstrand launching site at Vleesbaai in the southern Cape in terms of the ORV

regulations. The potential environmental consequences or impacts of boat launching and

related activities at Noordstrand need to be investigated and reported to DEA&DP in terms

of section 24(4) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (hereafter

‘NEMA’) as amended.

In summary, section 24(4) of NEMA stipulates minimum requirements for environmental

assessments that relate to authorities and the environmental assessment process

respectively.

Figure 1: Location

The minimum requirements with respect to organs of state are paraphrased below.



2.1 Co-ordination and co-operation between organs of state

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.

2.2 Factors that must be taken into account by decision-makers

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 (section 2, NEMA).

Environmental assessments, in turn, must as a minimum address the following

(corresponding chapters in this document in brackets):

2.3 Description of the receiving environment (Ch 7)

An application must contain a description of the environment likely to be significantly

affected by the proposed activity.

2.4 Impact assessment and evaluation of significance of impacts (Ch 8)

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.

2.5 Public participation (Ch 9)

The public participation process was conducted between 5 February 2010 and 19 February

2010. The conduct of the process and a record of comments received and the responses

thereto are reflected in Chapter 9. All notices and correspondence relating to the public

participation process are contained in Appendix 8. Amendments to the main body of the

report that were introduced on the basis of public comment or the availability of new

information are underlined.

2.6 Alternatives (Ch 4)

All applications for an environmental authorisation 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.

2.7 Mitigation (Ch 8)

Measures must be investigated to mitigate adverse consequences or impacts to the

minimum.

2.8 Heritage resources (Chapters 5, 7 and 8)

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.

2.9 Reporting gaps in knowledge and uncertainty (Ch 8)

Gaps in knowledge, the adequacy of predictive methods and underlying assumptions and

uncertainties arising from the compilation of information must be reported.

2.10 Monitoring and management of residual impacts (Ch 10 and Apps 5 and 6)

Arrangements for monitoring and managing environmental consequences and impacts must

be investigated and formulated, as must the effectiveness of such arrangements.

2.11 Consideration of maps of environmental attributes and information (Chapters 5, 6

and 7)

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.

2.12 Adherence to the requirements of other environmental management Acts (Ch 5)

Environmental assessments must also adhere to the requirements prescribed in other

environmental management Acts that may be relevant to the listed or specified activity in

question. It is the understanding of the boat club that this provision, section 24(4)(b)(vii),

does not apply to its application for the licensing of the Vleesbaai boat launching site as the

latter does not entail a ‘listed’ or ‘specified’ activity as defined by NEMA. See section 5

(‘Regulatory requirements’) below.



2.13 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.

Figure 2: Vleesbaai – Local features



3. OVERVIEW OF THE ACTIVITY AND THE LOCAL CONTEXT

The activity entails launching small craft such as ski boats, sailing dinghies and ‘rubber ducks’

from the open beach at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai (approximate location 34°17’02.99” South

21°54’42.98” East). Vleesbaai is a coastal holiday node constituting about 300 dwellings at

the south-western extremity of Vlees Bay, about 30 km by road from Mossel Bay. The sandy

Noordstrand beach at Vleesbaai has been used for launching boats for about 35 years. It is

also a popular bathing beach.

Boats are towed

to the beach by

off-road vehicles.

Launching usually

takes place at low

tide, from the

open beach. A

section of the

access route

crosses a strip of

privately-owned

land (Vleesch Baai

Strand 266),

which is located in

the littoral active

zone.2 The latter

property is owned

by Vleesbaai

Aandeleblok Bpk, a

body representing

shareholders in the neighbouring coastal settlement that is colloquially known as Vleesbaai-

Noord. Only members of the Vleesbaai Bootklub may drive through Noordkloof to the

launching site (cf. Appendix 2, ‘ VAB Bpk permission to boat club to use access route via VAB

property’). The northern, undeveloped part Vleesch Baai Strand 266 is a conservancy).

Measured from the access gate on Mullerlaan, Vleesbaai-Noord (34° 17’05.48” South, 21°

54’ 38.63” East), to the approximate water’s edge, the distance traversed by vehicle in the

littoral active zone is about 140-150 m. The potential area that may be adversely impacted

by the physical effects of driving through Noordkloof to the beach amounts, at most, to

about 1.2 ha. Boat launching activities, including driving to and from the launch site, parking

2 The ‘littoral active zone’ refers to that portion of the coastal environment that is dominated by

beaches and foredunes, and where sand is moved naturally by wind, water or gravity. Frontal dunes

form part of this sediment exchange system (Tinley 1985; Council for the Environment, 1991)

Figure 3: The Noordstrand boat launching site



vehicles and trailers on the back beach, and manoeuvring vehicles and trailers in the vicinity

of the launch site, use an area not exceeding 0,4 ha or about 33% of the Noordkloof-

Noordstrand interface.3

A tarred ramp, 40-50 m in length, from Mullerlaan to the base of Noordkloof represents the

only fixed infrastructure associated with the boat launching site. The base of the ramp is

about 90 m from the HWM. Vehicles only access the beach during daylight hours.

Only members of

the Vleesbaai

Bootklub are

allowed to use the

launching site, and

vehicular access to

Noordkloof and the

beach is controlled

by a gate that is

kept locked when

not in use by

members of the

boat club.

Membership of the

boat club is limited

to 30 individuals

(section 3, ‘Vleesbaai

Aandelblok (VAB)

Booklubreëls’;

Appendix 1).

Use of the beach launching site peaks over the summer holidays (mid-December to mid-

January), when there may be three to four launchings a day. The number and frequency of

launchings is strongly dictated by environmental factors such as the tide, sea state, wind and

weather. The intensity of such use decreases significantly outside the festive season. It takes

about 20 to 30 minutes to launch a boat. Vehicles are either removed from the beach after

boats have been launched, or left parked against the foredunes flanking the northern aspect

of Noordstrand (cf. Figure 3). Vehicles must be parked out of sight to the rest of Vleesbaai.

There is rarely more than one vehicle parked in such a manner at any time. The boat club

limits the number of vehicles that may be parked on the back beach at any one time to five.

3 Measurements calculated using ‘GoogleEarth’ http://earth.google.com and ‘Google Planimeter’

http://www.acme.com/planimeter/

Figure 4: ORV traversing Noordkloof with boat from launching site



Members of the boat club must subscribe to a set of rules enforced by Vleesbaai

Aandeleblok Bpk (see Appendix 1).

For reasons of safety, access and limited environmental impact, the boat club views

Noordstrand as the most optimal site for launching boats at Vleesbaai and the latter site has

therefore been selected as the preferred option in the treatment of alternatives in Section 4.

Figure 5: The preferred alternative in its local context



4. ALTERNATIVES

One of the central principles of environmental management is that it must seek the best

practicable 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.4 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).

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 the 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.

The Vleesbaai boat club has been instructed to assess at least one other alternative besides

the preferred and ‘no-development’ options (DEADP, 23 November 2009). A fourth

(location) alternative is also assessed, viz., abandoning the Noordstrand launch site in favour

of the Gouritsmond or Mossel Bay slipways.

4.6 Alternative 1: The preferred option

For the Vleesbaai Bootklub, its primary activity of choice and reason for its existence is

partaking in fishing and water sports, as safely as possible, with minimal environmental

impact, in boats launched at Noordstrand, in the waters directly off Vleesbaai in the

southern Cape. This activity has been taking place in the latter location since at least the

early 1970s, and with the formal approval of the owners of the land via which the launching

site is accessed, since 1983 (Appendix 2).

The reasons given by the boat club for its preference for Noordstrand as a launching site are:

4 Cf. sections 1(1)(iii) and 2(4)(b) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of

1998 as amended.



− The coastline from Fransmanshoek (to the east) to Die Hoek at Vleesbaai is rocky and

entirely unsuitable for the purposes of boat launching (Figure 2).

− There were two concrete

slipways at Die Hoek (one

sanctioned, the other not;

Dr Martin Pauw, pers

comm), about 800 m

south of the Noordstrand

beach, but this has been

out of action for many

years due storm damage.

(Figures 7 & 8). This site, if

it were to be redeveloped

into a slipway and access

point, is viewed as being

unacceptably hazardous due

to its seaward approaches

being too narrow to allow

vessels sufficient room to manoeuvre freely, its rocky coastline and bottom conditions

alternating with congestion by sand, and shallow waters. These factors particularly

apply to the safe launching of yachts, which have a very narrow margin of error in such

hazardous conditions. The Die Hoek site is, however, selected as a second alternative to

Noordstrand (the existing boat launching site) due to its historical use as a slipway and

close proximity to Vleesbaai (see below,’ Alternative 2’).

− From Die Hoek to Noordstrand, the shoreline constitutes virtually unbroken rocks and is

therefore not suitable for boat launching.

− The Noordstrand beach is defined by rocky areas directly to its north and south. The

sandy portion of the beach is about 150 m wide, but in practice less frontage is

available (and used) for launching boats at any time. This is chiefly due to changes in the

sandy bottom brought about by the shifting location and configuration of in-shore

sandbanks and channels.

− North of Noordstrand, the shore is again dominated by more rocky wave-cut platforms

and sea conditions become increasingly rough as one starts losing the sheltering effect

of the Fransmanshoek Peninsula against south-westerly swells.

Figure 6: Retrieval of ski boat, Noordstrand (Dec 2009)



4.7 Alternative 2: Construction of a slipway at Die Hoek.

The second alternative refers to one of two former slipways at Die Hoek (see Figures 2 and

6), a rocky inlet about 800 m to the south of Noordstrand (34°17’27.94”S, 21°54’52.06”E).

This alternative would entail rebuilding the slipway and the access road, which would have

to negotiate a ±1:3 gradient down to inter-tidal zone. The parking lot above this site is about

180 m2

in extent.

The beach here consists of loose cobbles in places overlain with aelionite or a similar

sedimentary deposit. The seaward approaches are shallow, rocky and periodically clogged

with sand. A line of rocks defines the immediate western shoulder of the Die Hoek site

(Figures 7 & 8).

Figure 7: Die Hoek – location

According to local accounts, there were two slipways at Die Hoek (Dr M Pauw, pers comm).

One was apparently built in the 1960s, below Gallie Mayer Avenue (i.e. the approximate

location of Alternative 2). A second slipway was apparently built without permission. It

mainly served the needs of kayakers and inflatables.

Both slipways have been largely destroyed by the action of the sea. The boat club views De

Hoek as particularly unsuited for launching sailboats as vessels leaving and approaching the



slipway have to negotiate an opening in the rocks that is less than 25 m wide. Owing to the

bottom conditions, it may be necessary to excavate a channel to accommodate vessels with

a deeper draught or fixed keels.

It is estimated that it would cost about R360 000 [corrected amount] to build a reinforced

concrete slipway of 80 to 100 m2 in extent at Die Hoek (see Appendix 3). This amount

excludes engineering consulting fees, a geotechnical/hydrographical survey of the seaward

approaches to Die Hoek, and costs of excavating a channel. It also does not take into account

the transaction costs arising from the EIA that would need to be undertaken before such an

activity could be allowed to proceed.

Figure 8: Die Hoek – topography

Access to the former slipway site is partly blocked by a wooden boardwalk that runs parallel

to the shoreline. Die Hoek is not regularly used by bathers, and there is therefore limited

likelihood for conflict between boating and bathing. The area is apparently popular with

snorkelers.

Die Hoek represents the only local launching site (albeit an abandoned and hazardous one),

apart from Noordstrand, that can be accessed directly from Vleesbaai and without having to

travel longitudinally along the beach.



4.8 Alternative 3: The ‘no-go’ option

The ‘no-go’ option provides a basis from which to conduct an informed, comparative

assessment of the respective environmental costs and benefits of different ways of meeting

a particular land-use objective or development outcome.

This alternative would satisfy the mandatory requirement that the ‘no go’ option be

assessed. 5 If implemented, it would entail the cessation of an activity – launching of boats

from an open beach – that has been conducted in the same place, in the same manner, and

to the same effect for more than three decades.

In the case of this application, Goebbelskloof and its associated landforms, vegetation and

ecological processes present a useful local example of the state that Noordkloof and

Noordstrand may return to were they to be closed to vehicles and people (see Figure 9).

Goebbelskloof, although more exposed to on-shore winds and generally more high energy

sea conditions than the Noordkloof-Noordstrand boat launching site, also serves a potential

benchmark for comparing the impacts of limited driving on a sandy beach environment to

one where no driving takes place. Goebbelskloof is about one kilometre north of

Noordstrand.

Figure 9: Effects of trampling on frontal dunes, Goebbelskloof & Vleesbaai-Noord

5 Section 24(4)(b)(i), NEMA



4.9 Alternative 4: Launching boats at the Mossel Bay harbour or Gouritsmond

This is another location alternative that would see boat-owners at Vleesbaai driving to the

Mossel Bay harbour, about 30 km away, or Gouritsmond, roughly 23 km by road, to launch

their vessels from slipways at the respective launch sites (see Figure 1).

The effect of these alternatives on the environment would be the same as the ‘no go’ option

(Alternative 3), as they would entail the cessation of all boat launching activities and driving

in the littoral active zone in Noordkloof and the Noordstrand beach at Vleesbaai.

Both these alternatives are possible. It is questionable, however, if they would be either

feasible or reasonable from the boat club’s perspective, and the general purpose of its

primary activity as spelled out above.

In terms of the safety criterion, the Mossel Bay harbour would certainly be viewed an

acceptable option, although a busy working harbour would not provide a safe environment

for non-motorised sailboats. Use of the Gouritsmond slipway would entail few evident

hazards if boating was restricted to the river upstream from the mouth. Skippers wishing to

go to sea would have to negotiate the river mouth which can be dangerous due to strong

currents, unpredictable waves and migrating sand bars.

Hauling boats to Mossel Bay or Gouritsmond by road would be highly inconvenient for

members of the Vleesbaai boat club, who would incur additional fuel costs and would be

obliged to negotiate busy, high season traffic which holds its own safety risks.

There would probably also be additional costs, over and above fuel and vehicle wear-and-

tear, in the form of launching fees or permits at the two slipways in question.

4.10 Summary

The Vleesbaai Bootklub has elected not to investigate any alternatives other than those

outlined above. This is primarily because no other alternative – type of activity, design,

process, scheduling, layout, etc – is applicable to the activity of safely launching and

retrieving small craft from the only open beach at Vleesbaai. Location alternatives have

therefore predominated, with the addition of a process-type alternative in the case of

Alternative 2, which would entail rebuilding a slipway and new access road and, potentially,

excavation of the seabed.



5. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE VLEESBAAI

(NOORDSTRAND) BOAT LAUNCHING SITE

The following laws or regulations potentially apply to the application by the Vleesbaai

Bootklub for the licensing of the boat launching site at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, viz:

− The ‘Off-road Vehicle' (ORV) Regulations6 published in terms of the National

Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as most recently amended by Act 62 of

2008 (NEMA);

− The environmental impact assessment regulations7 published in terms of NEMA;

− The Sea-shore Act 21 of 1935 (section 3: ‘Letting of sea-shores and the sea’);

− The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of

2008 (section 65: leasing land in ‘coastal public property’)8;

− The Marine Traffic Regulations9 published in terms of section 14 of the Marine Traffic

Act 2 of 1981;

− The National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999.

5.1 The ORV Regulations

The ‘Off-road Vehicle' (ORV) Regulations10

published in terms of the National Environmental

Management Act 107 of 1998 generally prohibit the use of vehicles in the coastal zone11

unless the use is:

− Permissible (without a permit) in terms of Reg 4;

− Authorised in terms of Reg 6 (permit); or

− Permitted in terms of Reg 7 (boat launching site licence).12

In the case of Vleesbaai, persons wishing to drive on private property within the coastal zone

(e.g. Vleesch Baai Strand 266) do not require a permit if they have permission to do so from

the owner or lawful occupier of the land (Reg 4). It would, however, be unlawful to drive on

such land without a permit issued in terms of Reg 6 if the necessary permission has not be

been given by the owner or lawful occupier of the property in question. Access to the boat

6 GN R. 1426 of 7 December 2007

7 GN R. 385, GN R. 386 & GN R. 387 of 21 April 2006

8 ‘Coastal public property’ consists inter alia of coastal waters, land submerged beneath coastal

waters, the seashore and any admiralty reserve owned by the state. 9 GN R. 194 of 1 February 1985

10 GN R. 1426 of 7 December 2007

11 The ‘coastal zone’ means the area adjacent to the sea characterised by coastal landforms, and

includes beaches, dunes, estuaries, coastal lakes, coastal wetlands, land submerged by the waters of

the sea, or of any estuary, coastal lake or coastal wetland, boat launching sites, proclaimed harbours

and recreational use areas. 12

Cf. DEAT (2004) Guidelines on the implementation of regulations pertaining to the control of

vehicles in the coastal zone. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.



launching site via Vleesch Baai Strand 266 is currently limited to members of the Vleesbaai

Bootklub, who, by virtue of their membership of the boat club, have the permission of the

owners of this land, Vleesbaai Aandeblok Bpk, to drive there.

Any vehicle may be used within a licensed boat launching site (Reg 7), provided that the

vehicle is used for the purpose of launching a vessel. It is important to note that even though

a launching site may be licensed in terms of Reg 7, those using it for launching vessels will

also need a permit for using a vehicle in the coastal zone (Reg 6).

Applications for permits in terms of the ORV Regulations must be directed to:

The Sub-Directorate: Coastal Planning and Environmental Protection

Branch: Marine and Coastal Management

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Telephone: 021 - 402 3023

Fax: 021 - 402 3009

Address: Private Bag X2, Roggebaai, 8012

Web Site: www.environment.gov.za

In order to ensure that its activities are legally compliant, the Vleesbaai Boat Club has

applied to the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning (DEA&DP) for the Noordstrand (‘Vlees Bay Holiday Resort’) beach to be licensed as

a boat launching site in terms of the ORV regulations. In this instance, the licence application

entails the following components:

− Compliance with the general objectives of integrated environmental management as

prescribed under the ‘Environmental Authorisation’ provisions of section 24 of the

National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as most recently amended by Act

62 of 2008 (this includes the consideration of alternatives, including the ‘no-go’ option,

and a public participation process); and

− Submission of a draft environmental management plan (EMP) that would give

operational effect to the ‘Duty of Care’ insofar as this would apply to the launching of

boats from an open beach on the Southern Cape coastline.

5.2 The NEMA EIA Regulations

The Vleesbaai boat-launching site does not trigger any listed activities identified in terms of

GN R. 386 or GN R. 387 i.e. (activities that requiring authorisation in terms of section 24 of

NEMA). This has been confirmed by the DEA&DP (see paragraph 5 of the letter from

DEA&DP, dated 23 November 2009; Appendix 4).



5.3 The Sea-shore Act

Section 3 of the Sea-shore Act provides for the letting of any portion of the sea-shore13

and

the sea by the State President. Such letting must be in the interest of the general public, or

must not seriously affect the general public’s enjoyment of the sea-shore and the sea. In the

circumstances, it would appear that the use of an open beach for periodic launching of

recreational vessels does not constitute any of the ‘purposes’14

for which the sea-shore may

be let. Such ‘purposes’ chiefly relate to construction or erection of structures on the sea-

shore. It is consequently the understanding of the Vleesbaai Bootklub that, provided it is not

contemplating any of the ‘purposes’ stipulated in section 3 of Act 21 of 1935, it is not

required to enter a lease agreement with the State for the launching of boats from the open

beach at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai.

5.4 The NEM: Integrated Coastal Management Act

Any person wishing to occupy any part of, or a site on, or construct or erect a building, road,

barrier or structure on or in Coastal Public Property may only do so in terms of a coastal

lease awarded by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.15

It is the understanding

of the Vleesbaai Bootklub that section 65 of the NEM: Integrated Coastal Management Act is

not yet in force (cf. paragraph 1 of letter of 23 March 2 from the Acting Deputy-director:

Coastal Planning and Environmental Protection (Appendix 8, ‘Comment by interested and

affected parties’) and that this provision therefore does not apply to the activities of the

boat club. It is the view of the boat club that, due to the nature of its intermittent and non-

invasive utilisation of the beach and littoral active zone at Noordstrand and Noordkloof,

Vleesbaai, its activities would in any event not entail any of the actions contemplated by

section 65 of Act 24 of 2008 and therefore would not be required to enter a coastal lease

with the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, were these provisions to be in

force.

5.5 The Marine Traffic Regulations

The Marine Traffic Regulations inter alia exempt small vessels engaged in sporting or

recreational activities from section 4(1) of the Marine Traffic Act 2 of 1981, which stipulates

that the Master of any ship “shall not, except as prescribed by regulation, cause it to enter

or leave internal waters other than a harbour or a fishing harbour”. Insofar as potential

pollution of the sea is concerned, Act 2 of 1981 provides that it is an offence to sink or dump

any vessel, wreck or hulk except with the permission of the South African Maritime Safety

13

The ‘sea-shore’ means the water and the land between the low-water mark and the high-water

mark. 14

Sub-section 3(a) to (o) of Act 21of 1935. 15

Section 65(1), Act 24 of 2008.



Authority.16

Neither the Marine Traffic Regulations nor the empowering Act would seem to

place a specific, direct onus on the Vleesbaai Bootklub and its activities.

5.6 The National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999

Section 24(4)(b)(iii) of NEMA requires that environmental assessments must investigate,

assess and evaluate the impact of any proposed listed or specified activity on any national

heritage estate referred to in section 3(2) of the National Heritage Resources Act. The

national heritage estate ranges from structures with cultural significances and archaeological

and paleontological sites to graves and objectives of scientific and technological interest.

Section 38 of Act 25 of 1999, in turn, specifies the circumstances under which the

responsible heritage resources authority (in this instance, Heritage Western Cape) must be

notified of proposed developments in terms of a series of specified categories.17

Sub-section 38(2)(a) specifies that if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be

affected by such development, the responsible heritage authority must within 14 days of

having being notified of the proposed development notify the project proponent to

undertake a heritage impact assessment. Regulations published by the provincial heritage

agency, Heritage Western Cape, inter alia specific the circumstances and procedures under

which a permit must be obtained in terms of sections 27, 29 and 34 of Act 25 of 1999.18

Given that the activities associated with boat launching at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, do not

impact on the national estate as defined by section 3(2) of Act 25 of 1999, or constitute any

of the categories of development specified in section 38 of the Act, and that such activities

will not result in the destruction or any form of damage or disturbance to heritage

resources, it is the understanding of the Vleesbaai Bootklub that:

− (a) Heritage Western Cape does not need to be notified of the licensing application in

terms of the ORV regulations; and

− (b) The boat club’s activities do not require a permit in terms of the Western Cape

heritage regulations.

16

Section 6, Act 2 of 1981. 17

Cf. sub-sections 38(1)(a) to (2): (a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or

other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300 m in length; (b) the construction of

a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50 m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will

change the character of a site— (i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or (ii) involving three or more

existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which

have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in

terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site

exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations

by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority... 18

Provincial Notice 336 of 25 October 2002



6. THE ‘DUTY OF CARE’, THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES, THE DRAFT WESTERN CAPE RURAL

LAND-USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES and

CAPENATURE’S REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO BIODIVERSITY

IN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

This section summarises ‘high-level’ legal and policy considerations that would contribute to

informing an official decision with respect to the boat club’s application for the licensing of

the Vleesbaai boat launching site at Noordstrand.

6.1 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 EMP for the boat launching site would be drafted with the specific goal of giving effect

to the Vleesbaai boat club’s obligations in terms of the ‘Duty of Care’, which is also present

in the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of

2008.19

6.2 Protection of Coastal Public Property

The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008,

in turn, confirms the State’s role as the public trustee of all ‘coastal public property’ (CPP),20

which must be used and conserved in the interests of the whole community and protected

for present and future generations. Act 24 of 2008 also established a ‘coastal protection

zone’ (CPZ).21

The CPZ is established for enabling the use of land that is adjacent to CPP or

that plays a significant role in a coastal ecosystem to be managed, regulated or restricted in

19 Section 58, Act 24 of 2008 20

Cf. section 7 of Act 24 of 2008 for the definition of ‘coastal public property’, which includes the

seashore below the HWM. 21

Cf. sections 16 and 17 of Act 24 of 2008 for the definition of the ‘coastal protection zone’ and its

purpose.



terms of predominantly ecological considerations and potential risks to people, property and

economic activities that may arise from dynamic coastal processes. Act 24 of 2008

establishes the right of reasonable access to CPP provided it does not cause an adverse

effect.22

6.3 The National Environmental Management Principles

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

principles23

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.24

The National Environmental Management

Principles therefore apply to the Vleesbaai Bootklub’s application for the licensing of

Vleesbaai (Noordstrand) boat launching site.

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

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

environmentally and economically sustainable.25

They also endorse the participation of all

interested and affected parties in environmental governance.26

The principles that would

have particular relevance to decisions relating to driving and boat launching the littoral

active zone of the Southern Cape coast 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.27

6.4 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)28

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:

22

Section 13, Act 24 of 2008. 23

Section 2, Act 107 of 1998 as amended 24

Section 2(1)c), Act 107 of 1998 as amended 25

Section 2(2), Act 107 of 1998 as amended 26

Section 2(4)(f), Act 107 of 1998 as amended 27

Cf. sub-sections 2(4)(a)(i), (ii), (vi); (b); and (r) 28 http://www.capegateway.gov.za/other/2009/9/wcpsdf_rural_guidelines_may_09_draft_3.pdf



− 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.

These guidelines delineate Spatial Planning Categories (SPCs) in terms of, among others, the

biodiversity categories that are used by CapeNature’s Critical Biodiversity Area maps29 for

Western Cape municipalities (Pence, 2008; Te Roller and Vromans, 2009). 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.

In the case of the Vleesbaai boat launching site, the following CBAs and SPCs apply:

CBA category Desired conservation

management objective

SPC Appropriate activities

Aquatic CBA

- Maintain natural land.

- Rehabilitate degraded

areas to natural or

near-natural state.

- Manage against further

degradation

Core 1

- ‘No go’ for development. Should

remain undisturbed by human

impact.

- Conservation management to be

encouraged.

- Subject to stringent controls, these

biodiversity-compatible, low impact

land uses may be accommodated:

o Non-consumptive low impact

eco-tourism

o Harvesting of natural resources

o No further loss of natural

habitat

o No large-scale ecotourism

developments

o Encourage land consolidation &

discourage sub-division.

Terrestrial CBA

29

Cf. http://bgis.sanbi.org



The CBAs and SPCs are particularly relevant to evaluation of the significance of potential

impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems (see Section 6).

6.5 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;

− 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 province. Although the CBA maps represent the best available information, they need to

be ground-truthed and do not replace the need for a specialist assessment (Ralston et al.,

2009). Ground-truthing is also needed to identify potential errors in land cover mapping.



7. THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

Impact assessment and environmental management need to be undertaken at a scale that is

appropriate to the issues being addressed. In order to determine the appropriate scale of an

EA, it is therefore necessary to understand the distinctive dynamics and sensitivities of the

receiving environment, how it may respond to human pressures, to what spatial extent, for

how long, and to what effect.

This study focuses on the area that is most immediately impacted by the infrequent use of

ORVs in a small, ca. 0.4 ha portion, of the littoral active zone at Vleesbaai in the southern

Cape. The receiving environment is described with the objective of identifying potentially

significant impacts in relation to key sensitivities or vulnerabilities of the affected

ecosystems, their resilience to the effects of ORVs, and the social context.

Chapter 7 summarises the main features of the receiving environment. Chapter 8 considers

the potential environmental consequences or effects of the use of ORVs at the Vleesbaai

boat launching site, and evaluates the significance of these potential consequences or

impacts. It also presents mitigatory measures that would be fed into an operational EMP.

7.1 Location

The Noordstrand launching site at Vleesbaai is located at approximately 34°17’02.99”S,

21°54’42.98”E, in the south-western corner of the coastal landform known as Vlees Bay on

the southern Cape coast (see Figures 1, 2 & 5).30

Mossel Bay, about 23 km to the north-east,

is the closest major settlement. Vleesbaai lies on South Africa’s Indian Ocean coastline.

7.2 Topography

The ‘half-heart’ Vlees Bay (Tinley, 1985) is defined by rocky headlands at Cape St Blaize to

the north-east and the Fransmanshoek Peninsula and Vleespunt to the east, connected by a

concave coastline of about 32 km in length. The Langeberg range, part of the Cape Fold Belt,

lie about 35 km inland in a roughly latitudinal orientation. The mouth of the Gouritz River,

which forms part of a major regional catchment and drainage system, is located about 7 km

(geographic) to the west of Vleesbaai (Figure 1).

The coastline is dominated by sandy shores interspersed by wave-cut platforms that are

generally inundated at high tide. Major stretches of the rocky inter-tidal zone are

periodically smothered by massive deposits of sand that can remain in place for several

years at a time. The defining headlands are made up of quartzitic sandstones of the

Nardouw Formation in the Table Mountain Group. Conglomerates associated with the Enon

Formation are exposed in a fault at Die Hoek, Vleesbaai (Rust, 1998; Malan et al., 1994).

30 1:50 000 topocadastral sheet GOURITSMOND 3421 BD, Chief-Director Surveys and Mapping



A raised scarp about 40 m above mean sea level (MSL) defines the boundary between the

littoral active zone and adjacent coastal plateau, which is incised by pronounced drainage

lines such as at Danabaai and the Blinderivier, Goebbelskloof and Noordkloof valleys. These

are highly seasonal and ephemeral freshwater systems which are seldom open to the sea.

Once-extensive dune fields are a dominant feature of this coastline, and include the

spectacular Kanon dunes that form a northwards-trending headland bypass system, over the

Fransmanshoek Peninsula, into the adjacent Vleesbaai (Figure 2). The sandy parts of the bay

are rimmed by primary and foredunes which, geomorphically, form part of the littoral active

zone. Sands in the Strandveld Formation predominate on this coastline, which in recent

years has experienced considerable erosion at the Vleesbaai settlement.

Natural sediment dynamics and processes – at a local as well as a regional scale – have

undoubtedly been degraded as a result of extensive infestation of once-mobile dune fields

by the woody rooikrans shrub Acacia cyclops and the construction of roads and property

development that act as physical barriers to the natural migration of sand.

7.3 Climate

Vleesbaai is situated in a region of spring-dominant, bimodal rainfall (Stone et al., 1998).

Mean annual rainfall is 417 mm, peaking in September and April (Cape St Blaize). The dry

season extends from November to March. The mean annual temperature is 17,9°C with an

annual range of 7,1°C. Westerly winds occur throughout the year, the main seasonal

difference being the higher frequency of easterlies in spring and summer. The wind is

predominantly westerly to north-westerly in winter. Desiccating katabatic winds occur under

pre-frontal, anticyclonic conditions from autumn until spring when temperatures can rise up

to 10°C an hour, creating a major fire risk.

There are anecdotal accounts of torrential rain accompanied by flooding and severe erosion

of dunes in the back beach area in Noordkloof, which is also subject to periodic inundation

by sea water that may extend up to 150 m inland from the high water mark (HWM) (Figure

16). The physical effects of pedestrian trampling in sand dunes and impacts of driving on

unconsolidated dry sand are probably most pronounced during the summer holiday season

due an influx of visitors that coincides with high temperatures, low rainfall and strong south-

easterly winds (Figures 4 & 9).

7.4 Ecosystems

The Noordkloof-Noordstrand area is characterised by a number of distinctive, inter-related

landforms and habitats in which features and processes associated with the sandy littoral

active zone are predominant, namely:



− An open, sandy beach (Noordstrand) spanned by a rocky inter-tidal zone of wave cut

platforms at its northern and southern extremities;

− The drier back beach area, above the high water mark, that grades into Noordkloof and

its combination of unconsolidated sand and embryo and hummock dunes, and

foredunes north and south of the beach; and

− The seaward aspect of a Strandveld valley bottom wetland that potentially forms an

interface with the western, inland portion of the Noordkloof sand flats and mobile

dunes.

These landforms, systems and habitat types (Figure 10) variously fall within the ‘Coastal

Ecosystems’ and ‘Freshwater Ecosystems’ categories defined by the Fynbos Forum

Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape (De Villiers et al.,

2005).31

Figure 10: Habitats of the Noordkloof-Noordstrand ecosystem

The ecosystems are:

− Sandy beaches and dune systems

− Strandveld, dune thicket and dune fynbos

− Wetlands (although not treated as estuarine, this system is at least partly under the

influence of coastal processes and environmental conditions).

31

Downloadable at http://bgis.sanbi.org



Each of the local manifestations of the aforementioned ecosystems is presented below in

relation to its potential sensitivities to activities associated with the launching of boats at

Noordstrand. From an ecosystem perspective, most of the area in question lies in a natural

sediment movement corridor that extends landwards from the seashore, interfacing with a

highly seasonal Strandveld valley bottom wetland below the Mullerlaan access route.

Noordkloof and the Noordstrand boat launching site are therefore treated as an ecotone

between wetland and sandy beach/littoral ecosystems, in which the latter is overwhelmingly

dominant (Figures 5, 10 & 11).

The rocky inter-tidal zone and inshore area at Die Hoek are also presented as components of

the coastal environment that potentially would be vulnerable to impacts associated with

Alternative 2 (Figures 7 & 8).

Figure 11: Environmental features, Noordkloof-Noordstrand interface

7.4.1 Critical Biodiversity Areas

Virtually the entire extent of Noordkloof, its coastal margin, and the littoral active zone

extending to Boggomsbaai to the north are depicted as a Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area

(CBA) on the CBA Map for the Mossel Bay Municipality (Figure 12) (CapeNature, 2008). The

Noordkloof wetland is depicted as an Aquatic CBA on the same map. The land cover for



Noordkloof directly either side of the western boundary fence is designated as ‘mixed’ by

the Mossel Bay CBA Map.

CBA Maps are derived from systematic conservation planning methods (Margules and

Pressey, 2000; Pence, 2008) and identify the most 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.

CBA Maps depict spatially-explicit biodiversity categories that are linked to desired

management objectives. The categories indicate the importance that is attached to a site

owing to its contribution to meeting biodiversity objectives, and therefore serves as an

explicit indication of a site’s contextual significance. The desired management objectives, in

turn, provide the 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 not consistent with these objectives would

probably not be appropriate, and an alternative should be explored.

This background to CBA maps will inform the evaluation, in Chapter 8, of impacts associated

the use of ORVs in the Noordkloof-Noordstrand area of Vleesbaai.



Figure 12: Critical Biodiversity Areas, Vleesbaai and environs

7.4.2 Sandy beaches and dune systems

The area that is colloquially known as Noordstrand is an example of a sandy beach

ecosystem associated with the half-heart bays of the southern Cape coastline (see Figures 1,

3 & 9).

Its ~150 m seaward frontage is broadly defined by rocky shorelines to the north and south,

and extends about 50 m inland to a line that roughly corresponds with the base of the

foredunes fronting Vleesbaai-Noord and the seashore to the north (Figures 9 & 11). The

bathing beach covers an area of about 0.4-0.5 ha. The natural ocean wave climate, free

exchange of mobile sands between frontal dunes and the beach, and seasonal cycles of

deposition and erosion are the major drivers of this ecosystem (Clark and De Villiers, 2005).

Wrack such as marine algae and terrestrial plant material washed into the sea by floods

represents an important imported food source for organisms in the littoral active zone.

Seashore fauna and avifauna commonly associated with the area under tidal influence and

sand movement include Plough snails Bullia spp. (a scavenger), Whitefronted Plover

Charadrius marginatus (a shorebird), African Black Oystercatcher Haematopus moquini (a

shorebird) and Kelp Gulls Larus domicanus (a scavenger that feeds on the beach and in open



water). Sand mussels Donax serra, an important prey species in sandy beach ecosystems,

represent an example of sub-surface macrofauna. Ghost crab Ocypode spp. burrows are

occasionally found in the back beach area, near the HWM. Microscopic interstitial fauna

would occur in the saturated sediments of the inter-tidal zone.

The African Black Oystercatcher is the only Red Data Book species known to occur locally at

Vleesbaai. It has ‘Near-threatened’ status according to the IUCN’s 2009 Red List of

Threatened Species.32

The nearest observed nesting site is on the Fransmanshoek Peninsula,

on a rock-bounded sandy beach about 1,5 km across the bay from Noordstrand. The African

Black Oystercatcher is not considered to be at risk from the use of ORVs at Noordstrand.

Local threats to this species, especially while foraging on rocks at low tide, would potentially

include dogs or, in the longer-term, over-harvesting of bait organisms by humans.

The back beach, i.e. the area immediately inland of the high spring tide drift line (cf. Lubke

and McLachlan, 1998), is characterised by unconsolidated, mobile sands that feed and grade

into the primary and foredune systems (Figures 11 & 15).

The drier sands of the back beach are mostly devoid of plant growth, except for hardy wind,

desiccation and salt-tolerant species such as the ‘seepampoen’ Arctotheca populifolia which

can contribute to dune formation (Figure 15). The terrestrial vegetation here is classified as

Cape Seashore Vegetation, a Least-Threatened ecosystem that is associated with beaches,

coastal dunes, dune slacks and coastal cliffs (Mucina et al., 2006, pp 685 & 686). It comprises

open grassy, herbaceous and, to some extent, dwarf-shrubby (including succulent)

vegetation often dominated by single pioneer species. It occurs on young coastal sandy

sediments (Strandveld Formation) exposed to reworking by relentless winds and frequent

sea storms. Cape Seashore Vegetation has a biodiversity target of 20%. Almost 50% of this

vegetation type is represented in statutory protected areas.

The foredunes fronting Vleesbaai-Noord exceed 2 m in height and have been subject to

considerable erosion over recent years as is evidenced by their cliff-like structure. Anecdotal

accounts (Prof Martin Pauw pers. comm) suggest that the dune face may have retreated by

as much as 15 m since c. 2007. These erosional processes have resulted in breakages to

cement storm water pipes laid in the foredunes, the destruction of a sewage pipe and

potential under-cutting of at least one seafront property. The dunes closest to the

Noordstrand bathing area undergo considerable trampling and localised destabilisation by

beachgoers in the annual high season, December to January (Figure 9).

Isolated hummock dunes approaching an equivalent height to the foredunes extend

westward into Noordkloof (Figures 4 & 14). Embryo dunes, with small colonies of

‘seepampoen’ A. populifolia, are sometimes evident. These structures are often temporary

32 http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/144070/0



in nature as they are susceptible to being destroyed by storm surges that have been

observed to wash up to 150 m into Noordkloof.

The dunes to the rear of the Noordkloof sand flats are heavily infested by rooikrans Acacia

cyclops, which also dominates the inland aspect of the foredunes and coastal scarp north of

Noordkloof (Figures 10 & 11).

7.4.3 The Noordkloof Strandveld valley bottom wetland

A Strandveld valley bottom wetland extends about 25 m into the seaward aspect of

Noordkloof at the property boundary between Vleesch Baai Strand 266 (‘Vleesbaai-Noord’)

and the neighbouring farm Buffelsfontein 250/8.

Job et al. (2008) define valley bottom wetlands as low-lying, gently-sloped areas that receive

water from an upstream channel and/or from adjacent hill slopes, not subject to periodic

over-bank flooding by a river channel. Altogether 19 Strandveld valley bottom wetlands,

collectively covering less than 600 ha, have been mapped in the Riversdale Plain planning

domain by CapeNature’s fine-scale biodiversity planning project. Only 14% of these wetland

types are considered more than 80% intact.

Figure 13: Strandveld valley bottom wetland, from access ramp to Noordkloof



The wetland in Noordkloof is defined as an ‘Aquatic Critical Biodiversity Area’ by the CBA

map for the Mossel Bay Municipality (Figure 12) (CapeNature, 2008).33

Its buffer is identified

as a seep zone which is mapped as extending below the high water mark. The wetland, in

turn, is depicted as extending to a point roughly in line with the main frontage of the

foredunes (cf. Figure 11).

The major extent of the wetland is confined to the adjacent farm, and appears to be in a

highly degraded condition. A spring in the lower end of the wetland has been encased in a

cement structure, the sides of the kloof are infested with rooikrans, the base of the valley is

grazed and trampled by cattle, and natural vegetation at the base of this depression has

been replaced by kweek grasses.

The stretch of wetland between the fence and the access ramp to Noordkloof appears to be

in a more natural condition than the corresponding area of wetland on the farm side of the

fence (Figures 13 & 14). The area has, however, occasionally been used for dumping of

building rubble and other waste, which besides being illegal, has contributed to the

degradation of the Noordkloof wetland.

Whether the seaward aspect of the wetland, which is separated from the shoreline by more

than 100 m of shifting sands and dunes, represents estuarine properties is not viewed as

relevant to this environmental assessment. When the site was visited in October 2009, there

was a small (~1,5 m2) stand of glasswort Sarcicornia meyeriana close to where the fence

runs through the wetland in Noordkloof (Figure 14). The presence of this species, which is

adapted to saline conditions (as can be expected after inundation by sea water under storm

and high tide conditions) suggest salt marsh habitat. The plants were green, indicating a

predominance of fresh rather than salt water (when they turn red). Windblown sand directly

east of the latter vegetation supported two dune pioneer species, Tetragonia spp. and A.

populifolia, which supports the contention that the study area represents a constant

interplay between sandy beach and valley bottom wetland processes, in which the former

predominate.

The tarred ramp into Noordkloof from Mullerlaan skirts the seaward edge of the wetland,

and forms an artificial, fixed barrier that may result in changes to the hydrology of the

wetland. This obstacle probably has less of an impact under irregular high flow conditions

that may follow torrential downpours over the Noordkloof catchment. Vehicles accessing

Noordkloof and the Noordstrand beach do not have a direct impact on the wetland,

although they would traverse the mapped buffer area that incorporates part of the

Noordkloof sediment corridor (Figures 4, 11 & 13).

33 http://bgis.sanbi.org



Figure 14: Habitats in the sandy beach-wetland ecotone, Noordkloof

The Strandveld aspect of the Noordkloof wetland refers to the vegetation type that is

mapped as potentially occurring in the area, i.e. Groot Brak Dune Strandveld, an

‘Endangered’ ecosystem (Rebelo et al., 2006, pp 206 & 207). The potential presence of Groot

Brak Dune Strandveld probably explains the ‘Terrestrial CBA’ status that is assigned to the

coast between Gouritsmond and Dana Bay by the CBA Map for the Mossel Bay Municipality.

The Sub-tropical Thicket Ecosystem Plan (Pierce et al., 2003) also depicts a coastal ecological

corridor that has been selected for conservation planning purposes along this coastline.

Groot Brak Dune Strandveld occurs on flats, undulating landscapes (stabilised dunes) and

steep coastal slopes (Rebelo et al., 2006). High bird and animal densities are important for

maintaining pollination and seed dispersal in dune thicket (such as Groot Brak Dune

Strandveld) and the maintenance of habitat connectivity is therefore an important

management objective (Helme, 2005, pp 32-37). Because dune slack wetlands contribute to

the overall diversity of this ecosystem, drainage is another important ‘driver’ of ecosystem

functioning.

Given that the access route to the boat launching site runs through an area of

unconsolidated beach sand and shifting dunes, it is unlikely that this area provides habitat

that would support Groot Brak Dune Strandveld unless artificially stabilised and deliberately



managed to this end. Pockets of this vegetation type do seem, however, to occur just west

of the tarred access ramp, on the stable, north-facing slopes adjacent to and inland of the

fence line that bisects Noordkloof ( i.e. well away from the area subject to the license

application) (Figure 13).

There is no evidence of Groot Brak Dune Strandveld occurring in the area impacted by ORVs

travelling to and from the Noordstrand launching site.

7.4.4 The rocky inter-tidal zone and inshore waters at Die Hoek

The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment identifies coastal development as the single

greatest threat to the supra-tidal (inshore) zone of the Southern Cape coastline (Lombard et

al., 2004).

Slow-moving or sessile invertebrates are used to categorise animal and plant communities in

the rocky inter-tidal one, which is only habitable by species that are adapted to varying

degrees of exposure to immersion, desiccation and a high energy wave environment (Lubke,

1998). Rocky coastlines and reefs can provide habitat for over-exploited fish species such as

Roman Chrysoblephus laticeps and Dageraad Chrysoblephus cristiceps, both of which are

listed as having ‘orange’ status in terms of WWF-SA’S ‘South African Sustainable Seafood

Initiative’.34

The rocky inter-tidal zone at Die Hoek comprises three major zones defined by the following

indicator species (after Lubke, 1998, pp 174 & 175):

The Inter-tidal Zone The Sub-tidal Zone

Littorina zone

(periwinkles)

Balanoid Zone

(barnacles & mussels)

Cochlear Zone

(limpets)

Infratidal zone

(red-bait and

seaweeds) Upper Lower

Between Mean HW

Spring Tides & Mean

HW Neap tides

Between Mean HW

Neap Tides & Mean

LW Neap tides

Between Mean LW

Neap tides

Between Mean LW

Spring Tide

A slipway at De Hoek would probably extend across the tidal gradient from the Littorina into

the Infratidal zones. It would have an estimated direct ‘footprint’ of 80 to 100 m2, but this

does not take into account construction-related impacts which would probably affect a

wider area, or the impacts associated with excavating an approach channel.

34

http://www.wwfsassi.co.za/?m=1



7.5 The archaeological context: Shell middens

There are numerous shell middens in the dune and coastal scarp environments of the

broader Vleesbaai area.

They form part of a cultural and historical

heritage that reflects human use of South

Africa’s coastal resources for more than 100

000 years, and the conservation of this

heritage is underscored as vitally important

by the White Paper for Sustainable Coastal

Development (CMPP, 1999).

Webley and Hall (1998) note that open shell

middens represent the most common Later

Stone Age (≤30 000 years before present)

sites along the southern and eastern Cape

coasts. The majority are located within 300 m

from the HWM, but middens have been

found up to as 5 km from the coast. LSA

middens generally consist of shellfish remains

(reflecting the coastal habitat types – sandy

or rocky shores – that provided the food

species). Other archaeological material

potentially includes marine and terrestrial

mammal remains, stone artefacts, bone

tools and sometimes pottery.

In Noordkloof, the nearest observable midden occurs in a raised, east-west trending,

depression in the dunes some 15 m to the NNW of the access route to the launching site.

The midden, which appears to consist of a thin layer of shattered shell remains (the species

is not known), is not threatened by vehicles using Noordkloof to gain access to the launching

site (Figures 11 & 15).

An extensive midden occurs about 700 m to the north in a longitudinal dune slack just south

of the mouth of Goebbelskloof, but the area has become virtually impenetrable due to the

spread of rooikrans. Stone tools, blackened shell deposits, ostrich shell beads and pottery

shards used to be visible in depressions and benches in the calcareous dune scarp north of

Noordkloof but this feature, too, is no longer accessible due to infestation by rooikrans.

Figure 15: Exposed shell midden,

October 2009. By December, three

months later, the area was covered by

drift sand and the midden was no

longer visible.



7.6 The social context: Bathing and other recreational activities

The first bungalows at Vleesbaai-Noord were built in the late 1950s, and Noordstrand has

been used for launching boats since about 1970.

Vleesbaai is primarily a holiday settlement, with no established commerce or industry

besides a single shop (TV3, 2005). The surrounding land uses are virtually exclusively

agricultural. The nearest settlement is Boggomsbaai, about 2 km up the coast to the north.

There are about 300 houses at Vleesbaai, representing about 60% of the developable land in

the settlement.

The scenic, relatively undeveloped coastal environment with its distinctive landforms,

sheltered waters and occurrence of charismatic marine mammals such as dolphins and

Southern Right Whales Eubalaena australis, contribute to Vleesbaai’s reputation as an

exceptional holiday destination.

7.6.1 Recreational activities and outdoor pursuits

The beach and inshore waters form the focus of outdoor recreational activity at Vleesbaai,

and the resident population peaks during the summer festive season (mid-December to mid-

January) (cf. Frontispiece & Figure 6). Visitor numbers drop significantly during the rest of

the year.

Water sports revolve around swimming, surfing and kayaking. Off-shore boating activities,

i.e. beyond the surf line, include fishing from ski-boats, yachting, and trips in inflatables

(‘rubber ducks’). There is limited use of ‘jet skis’ at Vleesbaai, a form of conveyance that has

been banned in certain areas owing to its unpopularity with the public. Sunbathing, games,

snorkelling (in rocky sections of beach), walking and rock and surf angling are popular

activities. There is a privately-run 4x4 trail on the Kanon dunes,35

and the overnight

‘Oystercatcher Trail’ proceeds past Vleesbaai to Gouritsmond.36

Swimming and other water sports are mostly limited to two beaches at Vleesbaai due to the

rocky coastline: Middelstrand and Noordstrand (Figures 5 & 7). Middelstrand, about midway

between Noordstrand and Die Hoek, is the smaller of the two beaches. Both beaches are

freely accessible to the public. The number of users of the Noordstrand beach increases

when Middelstrand is rendered unfit for bathing due to the removal of sand and exposure of

rocks as a result of storms and natural cycles of erosion and deposition in the littoral active

zone.

35

http://www.trailguide.co.za/trailswesterncape.html 36

http://www.oystercatchertrail.co.za/



Life-savers are on duty at Noordstrand during the high (summer holiday) season, and

members of the Vleesbaai boat club have reputedly assisted with a number of rescues at sea

(Chris Rabie, pers comm.).

7.6.2 Access to the beach at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai

There is limited space for parking in Vleesbaai, most notably during the peak season, and

vehicular access to the VAB property is controlled by an automated boom. There is

unrestricted pedestrian access to Vleesbaai and its constituent properties, including that

owned by VAB. According to a submission by a local interested and affected party (Mr Johan

Lambrechts, 2 March 2010), there is a need for public parking and ablution facilities at

Noordstrand, which is reputedly Vleesbaai’s most popular bathing beach. This issue, and

that of the control of vehicular access to property owned by VAB, appears have given rise to

considerable local polemic. This matter is addressed in more detail in the ‘Comment and

response’ table (Chapter 9).

Workers and their dependents on nearby farms also make use of the beach and inshore

environment at Vleesbaai, variously as a public throughway to the local shop, or for fishing,

bait collection and swimming.

7.6.3 Municipal services and representation of homeowners

Vleesbaai is located within the boundaries of the Mossel Bay Municipality, but services and

infrastructure are controlled by a private utility, Vleesbaai Dienste. 37

Shareholders are

represented on Vleesbaai Dienste by six companies:

− Keerom Bpk.

− Hoekbaai Huiseienaarsvereniging;

− Visbaai Bpk.

− Driehoek Huiseienaarsvereniging

− Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk; and

− The Karmosyn Homeowners’ Association.

Local environmental and conservation interests are represented through the Vleesbaai-

Noord, Fransmanshoek and Boggomsbaai conservancies. Vleesbaai Dienste also has an

environmental committee. The Fransmanshoek Conservancy employs a full-time

conservator.38

37

http://www.vleesbaai.co.za/ 38

http://www.fransmanshoek.co.za/



7.6.4 The Vleesbaai Bootklub

In April 1983, the Board of Directors of Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk (VAB) granted the

Vleesbaai Bootklub permission to use the Noordkloof access route, via property registered in

the name of VAB, to launch boats from the beach at the northern extremity of the Vleesbaai

village (cf. Appendix 2,’VAB permission to boat club to use access route via VAB property’).

VAB also compiled rules for the boat club that inter alia limit vehicular access to Noordkloof

to members of the boat club, limit the number of boat club members to 30, and prohibit any

additional membership by owners of ‘jet skis’. Membership of the boat club must be

renewed annually

See Appendix 1 for the full set of boat club rules.



8. IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

ARISING FROM ORV USE OF THE VLEESBAAI (NOORDSTRAND)

BOAT LAUNCHING SITE

This section sets out to identify impacts on the natural and social environments that may

arise from the use of ORVs in the study area, to assess the environmental implications of

such impacts, and to evaluate their significance against appropriate criteria.

Each suite of potential impacts is analysed with reference to specialised literature including

the Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape

(De Villiers, et al., 2005), an authoritative peer-reviewed account of threats to sandy beach

ecosystems (Defeo et al., 2008, pp 1-12) and A Field guide to the Eastern and Southern Cape

Coasts (Lubke and De Moor (eds), 1998).

This is followed by recommendations with respect to effective mechanisms to alternatively

avoid, minimise or, where appropriate, remedy loss of biodiversity and disturbance to

ecosystems. The treatment of mitigation measures only applies to Alternative 1, the status

quo and preferred option.

The draft Environmental Management Plan for the Vleesbaai boat launching site is informed

by the proposed preventative and mitigatory measures which will take into account the

natural resilience of the affected ecosystems to transient disturbances.

ADDITIONAL IMPACTS RAISED DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The public participation process (Chapter 9 and Appendix 8) did not raise any additional

issues pertaining to potential biophysical impacts relating to the use of the Vleesbaai

launching site by the Vleesbaai Bootklub.

Concerns were raised about the provision of public parking and ablution facilities within the

property owned by Vleesbaai Aandelblok Bpk at Noordstrand. Such developments, were

they to be initiated, would not be the responsibility of the Vleesbaai Bootklub, do not fall

within the ambit of this application and are therefore not relevant to the subject of this

environmental assessment process: the launching of boats from an open, sandy beach at

Noordstrand, Vleesbaai with the assistance of ORVs.

The question of parking and ablution faciltiies has, however, been comprehensively dealt

with in the ‘Comments and responses report’ (section 9.7) and is also flagged as a key issue

that may need to be addressed in an appropriate forum.



8.1 Evaluation method

The method employed here was developed by the Ninham Shand Environmental Section,

which is hereby acknowledged as the authors of this approach.

The potential impacts associated with each of the four alternatives will be evaluated in

terms of spatial extent, magnitude and duration (Table 1), which provides a significance

rating for each impact (Table 2). The probability an impact occurring, and the confidence of

that prediction, will be recorded (Tables 3 & 4 respectively).

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

National Loss of habitat in a Critical Biodiversity Area

Regional Boggomsbaai-Vleesbaai-Fransmanshoek and wider

Local Directly neighbouring properties

Site specific Noordkloof and Noordstrand

Magnitude of

impact (at the

indicated spatial

scale)

High Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are severely & irreplaceably

altered (including irreversible loss of habitat in CBA)

Medium Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably altered. but reversible

(including reversible loss of habitat in CBA)

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



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.

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.

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.



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.

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE AND UNCERTAINTY OF PREDICTIVE METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

As the investigation, assessment and evaluation of impacts was undertaken by a ‘generalist’

environmental assessment practitioner, and not a biodiversity specialist, conservative

confidence ratings have deliberately been recorded where there may have been any

uncertainty as to the type and effect of impacts. Overall, the type, quality and relevance of

information at the EAP’s disposal are viewed as adequate for the purposes of accurately and

confidently identifying, predicting and analysing the potential consequences of impacts of

the environment in question.

8.2. Vulnerabilities of the natural environment w.r.t. ORV use

The in-shore region, inter-tidal zone, back beach, adjacent dunes and at least the portion of

Noordkloof that lies to the seaward of the fence between the Vleesbaai-Noord property and

the adjacent farm is understood to be a contiguous sediment corridor that needs to be

understood and managed as a functional unit or ecosystem. The Strandveld valley bottom

wetland is treated as a distinct ecosystem that is embedded in the sediment corridor, and is

therefore at least partly subject to its dynamics.

The effects of ORV’s driving to and from the Noordstrand boat launching site via Noordkloof

will be assessed in terms of impacts on:

− Coastal ecological processes (sand exchange, mobility, accretion, erosion and dune

formation);

− The Strandveld valley bottom wetland; and

− The Noordstrand-Noordkloof sediment corridor and embedded Strandveld valley

bottom wetland (i.e. as a single functional unit with Aquatic and Terrestrial CBA status).



8.2.1 A note on impact frequency, scale, resilience of sandy beach ecosystems

and impact reversibility

Spatial and temporal scale, and the frequency and type of impacts, need to be factored into

estimates of the effect, duration and reversibility of ORV-related disturbances to sandy

coastal ecosystems such those associated with the Vleesbaai boat launching site.

At an ecosystem level, impacts to sandy beaches are viewed as reversible over a period of

five to 10 years if the disturbance was not caused by fixed infrastructure or development

(Clark and De Villiers, 2005). This is understood to constitute a highly conservative estimate

as to recovery periods following transient disturbances. Where dune vegetation has been

destroyed, recovery to the climax phase of the successional process may exceed 10 years.

Defeo et al. (2009, p 3), in turn, state that the effects of recreational activities on sandy

beaches, including ORVs, are “particularly noticeable” at scales ranging from weeks to

months, and from <1 to 10 km. However,

Shorter term impacts (i.e. weeks to months) tend to be pulse disturbances (compared

to ‘press’ or sustained, repeated, long-term pressures – CdeV) and effects are generally

expected to last for shorter time periods, since sandy-beach species are adapted to

severe physical disturbances (e.g. storms)... (Defeo et al., 2009, p 2).

These authors note that notwithstanding uncertainty about higher-order ecological impacts

arising from mortalities of beach invertebrates as a result of ORV driving on beaches, there is

evidence to suggest that such impacts can extend beyond the level of individual organisms.

Owing to the temporally and spatially limited frequency of such impact from ORVs at the

Vleesbaai boat launching site, and the natural dynamism and disturbance regime of the

littoral active zone, higher order or secondary impacts arising from mortalities of beach

invertebrates are not considered to be of ecological significance in the context of this

application.

8.3 Potential damage by ORVs to the Noordkloof and Noordstrand sandy beach and

dune ecosystems and coastal processes

Clark and De Villiers (De Villiers et al., 2005: pp 28-31) identify the major threats to sandy

beach ecosystems and coastal processes as stabilisation of naturally dynamic dune systems

and sediment corridors, fixed infrastructure that impedes longshore drift and inshore

sediment dynamics, and destruction of dune vegetation.

Defeo et al. (2009, p 3), in turn, found that the negative impacts most directly associated

with ORVs in sandy beach ecosystems are:



− Disturbing the physical attributes and stability of dunes and beaches by deeply rutting

the sand surface and destroying embryonic foredunes in the tyre tracks;

− Destroying dune vegetation, leading to lower diversity and less floral ground cover; and

− Disturbing, injuring or killing beach fauna, including endangered vertebrates such as

turtles and shorebirds.

8.3.1 Implications of scale-related factors, type of disturbance and ecological

resilience to impact evaluation

For the purposes of impact evaluation, i.e. determining the potential significance of impacts

on the environment, the use of ORVs at the Vleesbaai boat launching entails:

− A low-frequency (± one month p.a.) pulse disturbance at a highly localised (<1,5 ha)

scale;

− No impact on dune climax vegetation;

− No permanent interference with coastal processes;

− An activity in an environment naturally subject to severe physical disturbances; and

− An activity in an environment that is naturally resilient to transient pressures.

8.3.2 Discussion

The use of ORVs to haul boats to the water’s edge at Noordstrand does not result in the

artificial stabilisation of mobile sands, or entail erection of any fixed infrastructure. It is

therefore viewed as highly unlikely that coastal sediment processes will be negatively

influenced by ORVs in the littoral active zone.

Potentially fatal species-level impacts must be anticipated in the littoral active zone,

particularly with respect to burrowing fauna. These are understood to be locally abundant

and not at risk from anthropogenic pressures. There is no evidence that any threatened

animal species would be at risk from the use of ORVs to access to the Vleesbaai boat

launching site.

In terms of impacts on terrestrial habitats, there is potential of at least some damage to

dune vegetation and embryo dunes in the base of Noordkloof – specifically dune pioneer

plant species – en route to the launching site.



Figure 16: Effects of coastal processes on sand flats in Noordkloof sediment corridor

Damage such as rutting of vehicle tracks and destruction of dune pioneer vegetation and

embryo dunes is most likely at the start of the summer vacation when there is increased

vehicle use in the littoral active zone, and the route to the beach is ‘opened’ for the first

time that season.

The risk of damage to indigenous dune vegetation is directly linked to the physical state of

Noordkloof’s substrate, the extent of dune formation in the preceding year, rainfall and the

degree of new plant growth or condition of existing dune vegetation. If the kloof was

recently scoured by storm surges, or flooding from the adjacent catchment, there potentially

would be a reduced likelihood of damage to dunes and dune vegetation by ORVs (Figure 16).

If, however, dune formation and colonisation by plants had not been affected by, for

example, storm surges or destabilisation of sand and environmental desiccation as a result

of strong bergwinds, there would be a corresponding increased risk that driving could

damage dune vegetation. Such damage would probably be limited both in extent and effect

due to the wide natural dispersion of embryo dunes and pioneer plants, the proximity of

source populations of these species, ‘once-off’ limitation of such impacts to vegetation

directly in the route to the beach and launching area, and general avoidance by drivers of all

but the smallest dune mounds (cf. Figure 4).




The following measures are proposed to prevent and, where adverse impacts are

unavoidable, reduce potential environmental damage by ORVs in the Noordkloof and

Noordstrand sandy beach and dune ecosystems:

− The number of daily launchings with the assistance of ORVs or other vehicles must be

limited to seven a day.

− No more than five vehicles may be parked above the high water mark in Noordkloof at

any one time.

− At the onset of the peak season, i.e. in early December each year, the boat club must

aim to mark the least environmentally harmful route to Noordstrand by driving a

vehicle so that its tracks (‘spoor’) avoid dunes and dune vegetation (the approximate

line of this route is depicted in Figure 11;

− Members of the boat club must be encouraged to follow the same set of tracks in

Noordkloof and to actively avoid straying from the original route;

− Dunes that may pose an obstacle to the safe hauling of boats to and from the beach

may be dug away by hand (i.e. not by mechanical excavation), but only to the extent

that the direct obstacle is removed – note that the removal of 10m2 or more of

indigenous vegetation or sand within 100 m of the HWM constitutes a listed activity in

terms of the EIA regulations and cannot be undertaken without an environmental

authorisation;

− Avoid depositing sand on dune vegetation, and especially dune pioneer species such as

the ‘seepampoen’ A. populifolia or Tetragonia spp;

− Do not park in the dunes or damage dunes when parking;

− Only four-wheel drive vehicles must be allowed into Noordkloof under dry conditions,

and both axles must be engaged for the duration of the trip off tar;

− Drivers must take standard precautions to avoid getting stuck in sand, including

deflating tyres, using gears in high range, maintaining a steady momentum, not making

tight turns, and not allowing the wheels to spin;

− Keep either the front or rear wheels on drier sand when launching or retrieving boats in

the swash zone; and

− Vehicles must under no circumstances, unless authorised to do so, be allowed beyond

the borders of the lines marked A, B and C in Figure 11.



8.3.4 Assessment summary: Coastal processes (sand exchange, mobility,

accretion, erosion and dune formation)

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

No Mit. With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit.

No Mit. With

Mit.

Extent Local Site

specific

No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Magnitude Medium Low No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Duration Medium

term

Short

term

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Significance MEDIUM

(-)

VERY LOW

(-)


Probability Possible Probable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Confidence Certain Certain Certain Certain

Significance: positive impacts indicated by no shading & (+), negative impacts indicated by shading & (-)

8.4 Potential damage by ORVs to the Noordkloof Strandveld valley bottom wetland

Helme (2005) lists major threats to Strandveld and dune thicket vegetation as resort and

urban development and associated impacts (e.g. trampling, dumping and fires) and

uncontrolled driving by ORVs. Day and Job (2005) identify some of the key threats to

wetlands as direct loss of habitat, drainage, separation from up- and downstream systems,

changes in water quality, insufficient buffering from adjacent developments, alien species

and aesthetic degradation.

8.4.1 Discussion

Of these threats and vulnerabilities, the only issue that may potentially arise from ORV use

in the vicinity of the Noordkloof Strandveld valley bottom wetland would be direct damage

to wetland habitat if vehicles deliberately left the tarred access ramp and turned up the

kloof to the west. The probability of this happening is negligible. ORVs do traverse the

mapped Aquatic CBA buffer, but the latter largely overlaps with habitat in the littoral active

zone and impacts would relate to effects on the latter system rather than the valley bottom

wetland (Figures 4 & 11).

The quality of the wetland on the Vleesbaai-Noord property would, in most respects, be

determined by land use pressures occurring on the adjacent farm which lies upstream from

the study area.

As far as could be reasonably ascertained, no Strandveld vegetation or habitat occurs in the

area used by ORVs at Noordkloof. It therefore follows that use of the Noordkloof-

Noordstrand area by ORVs for the purposes of boat launching has no evident impact on



Groot Brak Strandveld or the integrity of the Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area that is

associated with this Endangered vegetation type.


The following measure is proposed to prevent and, where adverse impacts are unavoidable,

reduce potential environmental damage to the Noordkloof Strandveld valley bottom

wetland:

− Stay on the tarred ramp when driving to and from Noordkloof.

8.4.3 Assessment summary: Strandveld valley bottom wetland

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

No Mit. With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit.

No Mit. With

Mit.

Extent National Site

specific


impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Magnitude Medium Zero No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Duration Long term Short n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Significance HIGH (-) NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

Probability Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Confidence Sure Certain Certain Certain

Significance: positive impacts indicated by no shading & (+), negative impacts indicated by shading & (-)

8.5 Potential degradation of the Noordstrand-Noordkloof sediment corridor and

embedded Strandveld valley bottom wetland, i.e. Critical Biodiversity Areas

As noted above, the Noordkloof-Noordstrand sediment corridor and embedded Strandveld

valley bottom wetland are understood to constitute different habitat components of a larger

ecosystem in which the dynamics, processes and habitat types associated with the littoral

active zone predominate.

These elements are also assigned Critical Biodiversity Area status. This means that they

should be managed in pursuit of biodiversity conservation objectives and, if not in a natural

state, restored to a natural or near-natural condition, and managed in support of that end.

Overall, there is no single set of impacts or potential combination of impacts arising from the

use of ORVs in this area that, on the basis of available evidence and analysis, may result in

either the long-term, irreplaceable loss of biodiversity or irreversible disturbance to coastal

ecological processes. This conclusion is supported by the finding that the use of ORVs in the

study area would have a ‘very low negative’ significance in terms of potential impacts on



the functioning of the littoral active zone and its associated ecosystems. The latter finding

also needs to be interpreted in the light of the high degree of resilience – and adaptation –

of such ecosystems to even “severe” pulse disturbances (Defeo et al., 2008, p. 2). It is

inconceivable that the current levels of ORV activity at Vleesbaai could even closely

approximate the magnitude and extent of disturbances that are associated with natural

processes such as storm surges, flooding and desiccation.

Allied to this, is the conclusion that driving in the vicinity of the Strandveld valley bottom

wetland will have no evident impact on this feature as long as drivers keep to the tarred

access ramp.


See the preventative and mitigatory measures with respect to impacts on coastal sandy

ecosystems and processes and the Noordkloof Strandveld valley bottom wetland.

8.5.2 Assessment summary: The Noordstrand-Noordkloof sediment corridor

and embedded Strandveld valley bottom wetland (i.e. as a single

functional unit with Aquatic and Terrestrial CBA status)

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

No Mit. With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit.

No Mit. With

Mit.


specific


impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Magnitude Medium Very low No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact


Significance HIGH (-) VERY LOW

(-)


Probability Possible Highly

probable

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely


Significance: positive impacts indicated by no shading & (+), negative impacts

8.6 Potential impacts of a slipway on the rocky inter-tidal zone at Die Hoek

Negative environmental impacts associated with slipways and their construction could

include:

− Direct destruction of habitat and biota;

− Disruption of local food webs and other ecological processes that underpin marine

ecosystems; and

− Disruption of sediment patterns.



Changes to patterns of local sediment movement as a result of artificial hardening of the

coastline and physical barriers that interfere with longshore drift are likely to be permanent

and can contribute to accelerated coastal erosion in adjacent sandy beach environments.

Biota killed or displaced by construction will probably be replaced through natural processes

of re-colonisation insofar as the reshaped inter-tidal environment would permit this.

A slipway in Die Hoek may potentially result in friction between local homeowners and boat

owners during the construction phase, and over parking, traffic congestion and noise

associated with the launching and retrieval of boats directly adjacent to an urban area.


It is surmised that construction phase impacts (e.g. traffic, blasting and concrete batching)

may have a broader but, by implication, temporary affect on the local littoral and social

environments. The long-term effects of a slipway at Die Hoek partly could be mitigated

through measures such as reducing the physical size of the structure and designing it in such

a way that inshore sediment dynamics would not be significantly affected. The feasibility of

such an option would need to be assessed.

8.6.1 Assessment summary: Impacts of a slipway on the rocky inter-tidal zone

at Die Hoek

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

No Mit. With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit.

No Mit. With

Mit.

Extent Local Local No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Magnitude Medium Medium No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Duration Long-term Long-term n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Significance MEDIUM

(-)

MEDIUM

(-)


Probability Highly

probable

Highly

probable

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely


Significance: positive impacts indicated by no shading & (+), negative impacts



8.7 Vulnerability of shell middens to ORVs

Archaeological sites are particularly vulnerable to damage and destruction by ORVs.39

Furthermore, archaeological sites such as coastal shell middens are non-renewable and

irreplaceable: once destroyed, they cannot be restored (Webley and Hall, 1998).

At Vleesbaai, there is no evident risk of interaction between ORVs travelling to and from the

local boat launching site at Noordstrand and any shell middens.

In the absence of any foreseen changes to the access route through Noordkloof, or

reconfiguration of semi-stabilised dunes near the boundary with the adjacent farm – i.e. the

location of the closest observed midden to the access route – shell middens are not viewed

as being vulnerable to the use of ORVs at the Vleesbaai boat launching site.


The following measures are proposed to prevent damage by ORVs to shell middens and

other heritage resources in the Noordkloof-Noordstrand environment:

− Drivers must at all times comply with the instruction relating to driving in the

Noordkloof and Noordstrand sandy beach and dune ecosystems;

− Drivers must under no circumstances deviate west of the line marked A in Figure 11;

− No shell middens or any other heritage resources may be moved, removed,

damaged or otherwise interfered with; and

− Any potential contraventions with respect to the National Heritage Resources Act

must be reported to the boat club and the Directors of Vleesbaai Dienste.

8.7.2 Assessment summary: Shell middens

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

No Mit. With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit.

No Mit. With

Mit.


specific


impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Magnitude High Zero No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact



Probability Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Confidence Certain Certain Certain Certain

39

http://www.unep.org/Geo/gdoutlook/041.asp



8.8 Vulnerability of bathers and other users of the Vleesbaai boat launching site

The formal management and control of ORVs at the Vleesbaai boat launching site is closely

integrated with the general oversight function of Vleesbaai Aandeblok Bpk, which represents

all shareholders at Vleesbaai-Noord.

Vleesbaai Aandeblok Bpk exercises authority over the boat club through a set of rules that is

binding on boat club members (see Appendix 1), control over access to Noordkloof via the

Mullerlaan gate, and general rules of public and environmental conduct that apply to all

shareholders.

There is a strong likelihood that any dissatisfaction with the conduct of boat club members

would be raised with the Directors of Vleesbaai Aandeblok Bpk, and reported at the entity’s

annual general meeting.

As far as can be reasonably ascertained, no formal complaints of this nature have been

raised with Vleesbaai Aandeblok Bpk, although concern has apparently been expressed

about the perceived nuisance associated the use of ‘jet skis’ at Vleesbaai.

In practice, bathers and other beach users will temporarily move away from the

approaching vehicles and launching site while boats are either launched from trailers on

winched in to place prior to removal from the beach (cf. Frontispiece & Figure 6). Most

launchings are completed within 20 to 30 minutes (Van Jaarsveldt – pers comm).

As far as could be reasonable ascertained, there have been no accidents at the Vleesbaai

boat launching site that have caused physical injury to non-boating members of the public.

It is concluded that boat launching at Noordstrand represents, at worst, a temporary

inconvenience for other users of this beach and, overall, is generally treated as a legitimate,

inoffensive use of this portion of the southern Cape coastline.


The following measures are proposed to prevent any risk of harm by ORVs to bathing and

other people seeking enjoyment of the Noordstrand beach and environs:

− Drivers must at all times comply with the rules of the Vleesbaai Bootklub (Vleesbaai

Aandeleblok Bpk (VAB): Bootklubreëls);

− All vessels must have an appropriate certificate of seaworthiness;

− Skippers must, where relevant, be able to producer their skippers’ licences;

− ORVs must be parked inland of the upper drift line, at the base of the foredunes to the

NW of the launching site;

− Boat engines may not be switched on out of the water;



− No fish may be gutted or otherwise cleaned on the beach;

− Skippers and all persons involved with launching and retrieving boats must exercise the

highest degree of caution towards bathers and other members of the public, especially

when vessels are leaving or approaching the launching site;

− Boats must remain outside of the demarcated swimming area, and be well clear of

bathers and other people in the water, except when leaving or approaching the

launching site;

− All boating activities, except those relating to launching or retrieval, must take place to

the seaward of the anchored buoys; and

− Jet skis must proceed to areas that are not off-shore to the built settlement of

Vleesbaai

8.8.2 Assessment summary: Impacts on bathers and other users of the

Vleesbaai boat launching site

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

No Mit. With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit.

No Mit. With

Mit.


specific


impact

No

impact

No impact No impact

Magnitude High Zero No impact No impact No

impact

No

impact

No impact No impact



Probability Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely


8.9 Potential financial costs and the question of ‘reasonableness’ and ‘feasibility’

It is believed that the question of financial affordability of alternatives needs to be taken into

account as this would inter alia address the question of what, from the applicant’s point of

view, would constitute a ‘reasonable’ and ‘feasible’ alternative relative to the general

purpose of the activity. In this instance, the latter entails launching boats from an open

beach at Vleesbaai under the aegis of the Vleesbaai Bootklub.

Detailed cost analyses have not be undertaken other than obtaining one quotation from a

consulting civil engineer on the potential costs of building a concrete slipway at Die Hoek

(Appendix 3). The comparison of direct financial costs associated with the respective

alternatives is straightforward and does not required any level of analysis other than

identifying potential areas of spending, i.e. constructing a new slipway and extra travel

costs.



Alternative Construction

costs (R)

Extra travel

Costs/launch (R)

1. Noordstrand Nil Nil

2. Die Hoek 360 000 [corrected amount] Nil

2. No-go Nil Nil

3. (a) Mossel Bay ~60 km / (b)

Gouritsmond ~46 km

(11 km/ℓ @ R7.42/ℓ)40

Nil (a) R40.47

(b) R31.02

Construction of a concrete slipway at Die Hoek would require an environmental

authorisation, and probably lease agreements in terms of the Sea-shore Act and National

Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act. The EIA process (at least

a basic assessment in terms of GN R. 366 of 21 April 2006) would cost in the order of R100

000 to R200 000; an amount approximating the latter figure is almost certain if a marine

biologist or similar specialist were to participate in the investigation. If construction costs are

included, a new slipway would cost at least R400 000. It is unlikely that a sponsor, or

proponent, for such expenditure would be readily forthcoming at Vleesbaai.

For the purposes of evaluating the significance of constraints that the different options may

place on their feasibility, reasonableness and practicability, construction of a slipway at Die

Hoek (Alternative 2), complete cessation of boat launching at Vleesbaai (Alternative 3), and

travel beyond Vleesbaai to launch boats elsewhere (i.e. Alternative 4), are all assigned a

significance value of ‘High negative’, with a probability rating of ’Definite’. This reflects the

views of the Vleesbaai Bootklub.

Retention of the status quo, i.e. Alternative 1, is treated as ‘definitely’ having a ‘High

positive’ significance.

8.10 Comparative assessment of the significance of all four alternatives

Table 5 summarises (a) the significance of impacts of all four alternatives, without and with

mitigation, on the Vleesbaai environment, and (b) the significance of constraints that would

weigh against the alternatives when measured against the criteria of cost, feasibility and

reasonableness.

The probability of the potential impacts occurring is also included.

40

RSA pump price for diesel in coastal areas on 3 Dec 2009, Calculation excludes wear-and-tear, etc



Table 5: Summary of impact significance of all four alternatives

8.10.1 Alternative 1 – The status quo and preferred option

Alternative 1 entails the continuation of the status quo, i.e. launching boats at Noordstrand,

Vleesbaai, via Noordkloof. The activities associated with Alternative 1 are found – if suitably

– mitigated to hold no threat, or have any negative significance, with respect to the

Noordkloof valley bottom wetland, shell middens, bathers, and the rocky inter-tidal zone.

In a worst case scenario, there may be impacts of ‘high’ negative significance on the locally-

designated Critical Biodiversity Areas if the latter’s’ management objectives were to be

compromised, i.e. if the objectives of maintaining the CBAs in a natural state or, if not

natural, rehabilitation to a natural or near-natural state, were to be subverted. It is

understood that such impacts would be associated with the irreversible degradation of

coastal ecological processes and/or irreplaceable loss of priority biodiversity, coupled with

no attempt to neutralise these threats or to pursue remediation of their effects.

It is the finding of this environmental assessment that the launching of boats and associated

use of ORVs probably do have some impact on coastal ecological processes and the

biodiversity value of the affected CBAs, but that such impacts are transient, of very low

significance and of negligible environmental consequence when measured against the

severity of the natural disturbance regime and resilience of the affected ecosystem. There is

consequently no evident environmental justification for relinquishing Noordstrand as a boat

launching site.

Even without especial mitigatory interventions, i.e. besides those already practised by the

Vleesbaai Bootklub, the use of ORVs for the purposes of launching boats at Noordstrand is

viewed as compatible with the management objectives of the affected CBAs, and the non-

Alternative 1

Noordkloof &

Noordstrand

Alternative 2

Die Hoek

Alternative 3

‘No-go’ option

Alternative 4

Mossel Bay or

Gouritsmond

Vulnerable

feature No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit. No Mit.

With

Mit.

Coastal

processes

LOW (-)

Probable

LOW (-)

Possible NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

Valley bottom

wetland

LOW (-)

Unlikely

NEUTRAL


CBAs HIGH (-)

Possible

V. LOW (-)

High. prob. NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

Shell middens HIGH (-)

Possible

NEUTRAL


Bathers, etc HIGH (-)

Unlikely

NEUTRAL


Rocky inter-

tidal zone NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

MEDIUM

(-)

Probable

MEDIUM

(-)

Probable

NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEUTRAL

Feasibility &

reasonableness

HIGH (+)

Definite

HIGH (+)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite

HIGH (-)

Definite



consumptive, low impact ecotourism recommended by the draft Western Cape Land-use

Planning and Management Guidelines.

From a boating safety point of view, Noordstrand represents the most suitable launching

site at Vleesbaai.

Overall, Alternative 1 represents the most feasible and reasonable option when weighed

against its largely inconsequential effects on the receiving environment and the general

purpose of the activities and expectations of the Vleesbaai Bootklub.

8.10.2 Alternative 2 – Construction of a slipway and access road at Die Hoek

Alternative 2 would entail building a new slipway at Die Hoek, Vleesbaai. This would incur

considerable financial costs to the boat club. A slipway would also result in the irreversible

destruction of an area of rocky shoreline and would probably have a long-term if relatively

localised impact on coastal sediment patterns and processes. The launching and retrieval of

boats at Die Hoek also would be considerably more hazardous than is the case at

Noordstrand. Die Hoek is, however, a local site that would be more convenient to use than,

for example, launching sites at Gouritsmond or Mossel Bay (Alternative 4).

On environmental grounds, and weighed against the general purpose of the activities and

expectations of the Vleesbaai Bootklub, Alternative 2 emerges as considerably less feasible

and reasonable than the preferred option, i.e. Alternative 1.

8.10.3 Alternative 3 – The ‘no go’ option

Alternative 3 is the ‘no go’ option. This would hold no benefit for the Vleesbaai Bootklub,

and therefore cannot be treated as a feasible or reasonable alternative from the boat club’s

perspective. Although the ‘no go’ option would undoubtedly hold some environmental

advantage, this would be miniscule to the point of insignificance; it would certainly not

justify the cessation of the boat club’s use of Noordkloof and Noordstrand for the purposes

of launching boats at Vleesbaai. In contrast, dune rehabilitation, alien clearance and

restoration of the Noordkloof wetland would be of far greater benefit to the environment

than implementing Alternative 3.

8.10.4 Alternative 4 – Launching boats at Gouritsmond or Mossel Bay

Alternative 4 would entail the Vleesbaai boat club abandoning Vleesbaai as a site for

launching boats into the sea and instead relocating its activities to slipways at Gouritsmond

or Mossel Bay. Like the ‘no go’ option, this holds no defensible environmental advantage or

motivation and, in the case of Gouritsmond, can entail significant safety risks. It would be

neither feasible nor reasonable for the boat club to uproot itself in favour of launching sites



that entail roundtrips by road of nearly 50 or more kilometres when Noordstrand is less than

150 m from the nearest tarred access point at Vleesbaai.

The next section presents the public participation process that was undertaken in fulfilment

of the requirements of s 24(4)(a)(v) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of

1998 as amended.

It is followed by the final chapter (10), which records the conclusions and recommendations

of this environmental assessment. Chapter 10 also introduces the outline of the draft

management plan and monitoring protocol for Alternative 1, i.e. the boat launching site at

Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, and its approaches through Noordkloof.



9. THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

This chapter records the public participation process that was undertaken in support of the

application which is the subject of this environmental assessment report.

Public participation is a definitive aspect of the integrated environmental management

process. It inter alia serves as a structured opportunity for interested and affected parties to

identify potentially significant environmental impacts and matters of concern that are

germane to an environmental decision and therefor may require further investigation. Public

knowledge and interests can also positively influence a project during the planning and

design phases, thereby pre-emptively addresssing and responding to environmental

concerns through the selection of suitable alternatives.

Section 9.1 outlines the legal basis for public participation in terms of the National

Environemntal Management Act 107 of 1998 and confirms the compliance of this

environmental assessment process with the guidelines and reporting requirements on

public participation processes as stipulated by the DEA&DP Guideline on Public Participation

(DEA&DP, 2009b).

Key aspects covered are (relevant sections cross-referenced in brackets):

− The potential interested and affected parties who were notified of the application (9.3);

− The steps that were taken to notify such potentially interested and affected parties (in

civil society and the state) (9.4);

− Proof that notice boards, advertisements and nofications had been displayed, placed or

given to potentially interested and affected parties (9.5);

− A list of all the persons, organisations and organs of state who were registered as

interested and affected parties (9.6);

− A comments and responses report that summarises the issued that were raised by

intererested and affected parties, the date of receipt, and the response thereto (9.7);

− A summary of issues that were incorporated in the body of the final environmental

assessment report or the environmental management plan (9.8); and

− Copies of all the comments received from interested and affected parties (9.9).

Appendix 8, ‘Public participation I’, contains a complete record of all notifications and

correspondence exchanged in connection with this public participation process for the first,

formal period of consultation, viz. 5 February 2010 to 19 March 2010. Appendix 9 (‘Public

participation II’) records comment by interested and affected parties on this (final) draft of

the environmental assessment report.



9.1 The legal basis for public participation

Section 1 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 defines a 'public

participation process' , in relation to the assessment of the environmental impact of any

application for an environmental authorisation, as “a process by which potential interested

and affected parties are given opportunity to comment on, or raise issues relevant to, the

application”.

The right of the public to informed participation in applications for environmental

authorisation is entrenched in NEMA’s provisions relating to the National Environmental

Management Principles,41

the minimum procedures for environmental assessment,42

and

the objectives of integrated environmental management.43

In terms of the National Environmental Management Principles (cf. 6.3, p 31),

The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance

must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the

understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective

participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be

ensured…44

The minimum procedures for environmental assessment (cf. Ch 2 of this report), stipulate

that an environmental assessment process—

must ensure, with respect to every application for an environmental authorisation

public information and participation procedures which provide all interested and

affected parties, including all organs of state in all spheres of government that may

have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity, with a reasonable opportunity to

participate in those information and participation procedures…45

The general objectives of integrated environmental management, in turn, include the

requirement to—

ensure adequate and appropriate opportunity for public participation in decisions

that may affect the environment… 46

41

Section 2, Act 107 of 1998 42

Section 24(4), Act 107 of 1998 43

Section 23, Act 107 of 1998 44

Section 2(4)(f), Act 107 of 1998 as amended 45

Section 24(4)(a)(v), Act 107 of 1998 as amended 46

Section 23(2)(d), Act 107 of1998 as amended



9.2 The Western Cape guideline on public participation

The Western Cape guideline on public particiation in environmental processes (DEA&DP,

2009b) provides guidance on the procedures to be followed when conducting public

participation processes in terms of the NEMA and the EIA regulations.

The guidelines among others reiterates the mandatory nature of public participation,

stipulate when and how to conduct public participation processes, and how to report on

them. The section dealing with reporting on public participation processes (DEA&DP, 2009b,

p 19) addresses the reporting requirements for the prescribed basic assessment and scoping

and EIA procedures, neither of which applies to this application. However, this chapter is

structured according to the reporting format prescribed by the DEA&DP guidelines to ensure

conformity with the provincial standard on public participation.

9.3 Potential interested and affected parties who were notified of the application

The public participation process was conducted in two phases:

− Firstly an informal one to notify Vleesbaai residents and holiday home owners of the

application during the 2009/2010 festive season; and

− Secondly, the formal public participation process which invited comment on the draft

environmental assessment and EMP between 5 February 2010 and 19 March 2010 (i.e.

a period of 42 calendar days). This phase of public participation placed the application

in the broad public realm, i.e. it was aimed at notifying all potential I&APs of the

application, as well as targeting particularly official roleplayers who may have

jurisdiction over some aspect of boat launching and/or the environment in which it

takes place.

− Registered interested and affected parties were subsequently invited to comment on

this (final) draft of the environmental impact report. The second leg of the formal public

participation process took took place between 14 April 2010 and 7 May 2010. All

comment received will be submitted to the DEA&DP appended to this report in an

appendix,

9.3.1 The informal phase of public participation

The informal phase of public participation was aimed at notifying those persons who would

potentially be most interested in this application, and most directly affected by the activities

of the Vleesbaai Boat Club, i.e. that population of local holiday home owners who would

disperse to their permanent residences at the end of the summer school holidays.

It entailed an information document and draft Environmental Management Plan being given

to Vleesbaai Dienste for distribution to all the Vleesbaai homeowner associations, i.e.,



− Keerom Bpk;

− Hoekbaai Huiseienaarsvereniging;

− Visbaai Bpk;

− Driehoek Huiseienaarsvereniging;

− Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk; and

− The Karmosyn Homeowners’ Association.

The recipients of the documents were invited to report any factual corrections by 8 January,

2010 (none was received) and advised that they would be formally notified of the public

participation process when it commenced in January or February 2010.

9.3.2 The formal phase of public participation

The formal phase of public participation was initiated on 5 February 2010 with the

publication of a notice in ‘Die Burger’ (see Appendix 8). Interested and Affected Parties who

were specifically notified of the application were:

Interested and affected party Contact person/s

The Mossel Bay Municipality Mr Eddie Kruger, Mr Warren Manuel

CapeNature Dr Wietsche Roets

The Sub-Directorate: Coastal Planning and

Environmental Protection of Marine and Coastal

Management , Department of Environmental Affairs

Dr Niel Malan, Ms LM Motaung

The Fransmanshoek Conservancy Mr Wayne Meyer, Mr Ronald Scholtz

The Boggomsbaai Conservancy Mr Fred Orban

Vleesbaai Dienste Dr Martin Pauw/The Secretary

Keerom Bpk Mr Hendrik Schoeman/The Secretary

Hoekbaai Huiseienaarsvereniging Mr Koos du Preez/The Secretary

Visbaai Bpk Mrs Anna Basson/The Secretary

Driehoek Huiseienaarsvereniging Mr Johan Lambrechts/The Secretary

Mr Andre du Plessis/ The Secretary

Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk Dr Martin Pauw/The Secretary

The Karmosyn Homeowners’ Association Mrs Elmarie Snel/The Secretary

9.4 Actions to notify potential interested and affected parties

Five techniques were used to notify potential I&APs of the application:

− Placing a formal notice in a regional newspaper

− Giving key statutory stakeholders bound copies of the draft environmental assessment

− Lodging bound copies of the draft environmental assessment in two public places



− E-mail notification of directly abutting neighbours and the two local conservancies

− Placing notices in public places at Vleesbaai.

I&APs who so requested were e-mailed either the entire draft report, or the executive

summary and the draft EMP.

The notification process specifically entailed—

− Placing a formal notice, as per the DEA&DP guideline on public participation, in ‘Die

Burger’ of 5 February 2010 (which provided I&APs 42 days’ opportunity, i.e. until 19

March 2010, to comment on the executive summary, draft environmental assessment

and Afrikaans and English translations of the draft environmental management

programme).

− Submitting bound copies of the complete draft environmental assessment and related

documentation with the key statutory stakeholders (viz.The Mossel Bay Municipality,

CapeNature and Marine and Coastal Management’s Sub-directorate: Coastal Planning

and Environmental Protection) on or before 5 February 2010;

− Lodging a bound copy of the draft environmental assessment and all related

documentation with the Mossel Bay Municipal Library and the Vleesbaai Strandwinkel

respectively, on or before 5 February 2010;

− Notifying the Secretary of Vleesbaai Dienste of the application by e-mail on 5 February

2010, and requesting that all the companies at Vleesbaai also be notified of the

application;

− Notifying, by e-mail, the Fransmanshoek and Boggomsbaai conservancies of the

application on 5 February 2010; and

− Placing an A3-sized notice on the Vleesbaai Dienste noticeboard at the Vleesbaai

Strandwinkel, as well as on the locked gate that bars vehicular access to Noordstrand

and the launching site for which the Vleesbaai Boat Club is seeking official recognition.

9.5 Proof of notice and record of registration of I&APs

Appendix 8 contains a full record of the correspondence that was generated by this

application.

The chronology of notifications and reminder to I&APs is as follows:

Date Action Proof

Feb

3-5 Bound copies of reports deposited with Mossel

Bay Municipality, CapeNature, Marine and

Coastal Management

CapeNature – e-mailed

confirmation W Roets, 8 Feb;

MCM – e-mailed confirmation,

Dr D Malan, 22 Feb

3-5 Bound copies of reports deposited with Mossel MB library – telephonic



Bay Library and Vleesbaai Strandwinkel confirmation, 3 Feb; e-mailed

confirmation, Dr M Pauw 9 Feb

3-5 Notices displayed at Vleesbaai Confirmed in situ, 16 Feb

5 Notice published in ‘Die Burger’ See Appendix 8

5 Notice e-mailed to Fransmanshoek Conservancy See Appendix 8

5 Notice e-mailed to Boggomsbaai Conservancy See Appendix 8

5 Notice e-mailed to Vleesbaai Dienste See Appendix 8

9 Confirmation by Vleesbaai Dienste that notice

distributed to all six local companies

See Appendix 8

13 Reminder e-mailed to all six local companies See Appendix 8

14 Reminder e-mailed to Boggomsbaai Conservancy See Appendix 8

14 Reminder e-mailed to Marine and Coastal

Management

See Appendix 8

15 Vleesbaai Dienste e-mailed notice to companies See Appendix 8

March

17 Reminder e-mailed to Mossel Bay Municipality See Appendix 8

17 Reminder e-mailed to Marine and Coastal

Management

See Appendix 8

9.6 Registered interested and affected parties

The following persons or organisations were registered as interested and affected parties.

Those I&APs that commented on the application are identified, with the date of comment.

Interested and affected

party

Commented

Yes/No

Date of reg-

istration

Date of comment

Mossel Bay Municipality

(initially indicated would not

be commenting)

Yes 17 March First comment: 19

March

Revised comment: 25

March

CapeNature Yes 8 February 11 March

Marine and Coastal

Management

Yes 22 February 23 March

Vleesbaai Dienste No 9 February No comment.

Permission to use

notice boards (29 Jan)

Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk Yes 9 February 15 March

Mr Johan Lambrechts Yes 18 February Initial comments: 17 &

19 February

Revised comment: 2

March



Mr PC le Roux No 8 February No comment

Fransmanshoek Conservancy Yes 5 February 5 March

Boggomsbaai Conservancy No No response No response

Mr Chris Rabie Yes 5 March 5 March

Mr Marius de Jager No 17 February No comment

Mr Alfrancois Henning No 25 February No comment

9.7 Comments and responses report

The comments and responses report is a summary of the major points raised by I&APs , and

particularly those that potentially could have a material bearing on the decision that is being

sought. A full record of I&AP comment is contained in Appendix 8.

In certain instances, I&AP comment has been addressed in the main body of the report. This

particularly relates to situations where IA&Ps have presented new information, or issues

have been raised that were not identified in the draft environmental assessment. Such

comment is clearly indicated in the comments and responses table.

MOSSEL BAY MUNICIPALITY (Mr Warren Manuel, Environmental Officer)

Comment Response

19 March 2010 Queried if the Strandveld

valley bottom wetland did not need to be

delineated, and if approval should not be

obtained in terms of the National Water Act

36 of 1998. Who would enforce ‘measures

for impact avoidance and mitigation’ w.r.t.

vehicles sticking to the ‘least

environmentally harmful route’? Swimming

area must be demarcated by buoys –

municipality would be held liable in the

event of incidents. Queried if people who did

not belong to the Vleesbaai Bootklub would

be able to launch their boats. Asked how

impacts on CBA could be justified for site

that offered ‘very limited localised service’.

Municipality could not comment until

CapeNature and DWAF had commented on

‘wetland issue’.

In response, it was explained in an e-mail

communication on 19 March 2010 to the

municipality that that there was a negligible

risk of vehicles entering the Strandveld valley

bottom wetland, chiefly because there

would be no reason to do so. The issue of

wetland had been raised because of the high

contextual significance of an aquatic CBA.

Wetland delineation was, however,

unnecessary because there was no evident

interaction between driving in Noordkloof

and the functioning or quality of the

wetland in question. Noordkloof and the

portion of the wetland that intruded into the

VAB property were dominated by the

processes and characteristics of the sandy

littoral active zone, of which the wetland

was a small component not impacted by

driving. Wetland delineation was therefore

not relevant to the decision being sought.

The Mossel Bay Municipality was requested

to reconsider its comment. Referred



25 March 2010 The Mossel Bay Municipality

indicated it had no objections to the

application provided that applicant adhered

to all recommendations and mitigation

measures included in the Draft EA.

municipality to pp 41-44, 55-57 of draft EA

w.r.t. wetland-related impacts. Advised

municipality that Dr Wietsche Roets of

CapeNature was prepared to discuss issues

raised by the municipality.

It will be recommended to the DEA&DP that

all recommendations and mitigation

measures included in the Draft EA be

reflected in the Record of Decision and that

implementation of the EMP be recorded as

a condition of authorisation.

CAPENATURE (Dr Wietsche Roets)

Comment Response

11 March 2010 Ecological issues have been

adequately dealt with and included in the

proposal. CapeNature has no objection to

application. All recommendations and

mitigation measures in the report have to be

included in the final approval. CapeNature

reserves right to revise comments if any

additional information were to be received.

It will be recommended to the DEA&DP that

all recommendations and mitigation

measures included in the Draft EA be

reflected in the Record of Decision and that

implementation of the EMP be

incorporated as a condition of

authorisation.

SUB-DIRECTORATE: COASTAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, MCM (Ms

LM Motaung)

Comment Response

23 March 2010 (a) Launch site boundaries

need to be indicated by boards to prevent

user conflict and avoid driving outside the

launch site.

(a) The Vleesbaai boat club believes that

there are sufficient measures in place to

prevent user conflict and driving outside the

launch site. In terms of managing the

interaction between boat launching and

bathing (both of which are highly seasonal

activities), the bathing beach at Noordstrand

is monitored by lifesavers during the peak

season, the swimming area is marked by

flags, and the rules of the Vleesbaai boat

club also place strict guidelines on boat

launching. Given the absence of any known

history of user conflict over launchings from

the beach, the limited number of daily

launchings in the high season (3-4 daily), and

effectiveness of existing controls over

vehicle use in the coastal zone at

Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, additional control



(b) Launch site needs demarcated parking

area to avoid vehicles parking in dunes.

(c) EA must address issue of public use of

beach during launching.

(d) EA must indicate number of boats that

can be launched daily, and number of

vehicles that can be parked at launch site per

day.

(e) Vehicle access points to launch site must

be marked.

measures are not deemed necessary. Also,

Fig. 1 of the draft EMP (p 4) clearly indicates

boundaries beyond which vehicles must not

be allowed.

(b) Vehicles do not park in the dunes, and a

demarcated parking lot is neither feasible

nor environmentally desirable due to

unstable substrate and the adverse

ecological impacts that would result from

hard development in the littoral active zone,

which is a naturally dynamic ecosystem. In

order to pre-empt any environmetnal risk

arising from parking. The EMP has been

amended to clearly prohibit parking in

dunes, or damaging dunes when parking

(paragraph ‘e’, section 7.2.1).

(c) The rules of the Vleesbaai Boat Club (App

1 of the draft EA) and section 7.2.3 of the

EMP directly address impact avoidance and

mitigation of launching w.r.t. people using

Noordstrand.

(d) The EMP has been amended to state

that:

- “No more than five vehicles may be

parked at any time at Noordstrand”

(paragraph ‘f’, 7.2.1; p 11); and

- “No more than seven boats may be

launched with the assistance of ORVs or

any other vehicle from Noordstrand

daily” (paragraph ‘g’, 7.2.1; the

understanding being that ‘launching’

refers to the use of ORVs to tow boats to

or from the water’s edge, but does not

refer to boats are that launched without

the assistance of ORVs or any other

vehicle).

(e) The only point where Noordkloof and the

launching site can be accessed is a locked



(f) It must be indicated how launching was

going to be controlled as there was no

‘control gate’.

(g) Any coastal development should take

into account impacts of coastal processes on

activity, and cumulative effects of impact.

(h) Ownership of launch site must be

clarified, i.e. is it a leased area or private

property?

gate from Mullerlaan, to which only

members of the boat club have keys (see p

18, Ch 3 of the draft EA re access). The draft

EMP addresses the delineation of the access

route through Noordkloof at section 7.2.1

(‘Impact avoidance and mitigation with

respect to the Noordstrand-Noordkloof

sediment corridor and embedded Strandveld

valley bottom wetland, i.e. Critical

Biodiversity Area’).

(f) There is a gate by means of which access

to the launching site is effectively controlled

(see above).

(g) The effects of coastal processes and

potential cumulative impacts are

comprehsensively dealt with in the draft EA

and EMP (cf. Ch 7, ‘The ‘Receiving

Environment’ , and particularly pp 51-57 for

the ecological implications of limited driving

in sandy beach ecosystems) – note

CapeNature’s comment that ecological

aspects had been adequately dealt with).

(h) The access route to the launch site, i.e.

the route through Noordkloof, is privately

owned by Vleesbaai Aandeblok Bpk (cf. p 17

of the draft EA), whereas the beach below

the HWM is state-owned public property

(which is dealt with in Ch 5, ‘Regulatory

requirements’ and Ch 6, which inter alia

addresses the question of coastal public

property). The inland aspect of the launch is

therefore privately owned, and the areas

located below the HWM is coastal public

property controlled by the state.

VLEESBAAI AANDELEBLOK BPK (Dr CM Pauw)

Comment Response

15 March 2010 Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk

(VAB) has no objection to the application,

which confirms a long-standing arrangement

The draft EMP for the Vleesbaai-Noord boat

launching site incorporates all relevant

aspects of the ‘VAB Bootklubreëls’ that



and agreement between VAB and the

Vleesbaai Bootklub regarding access (to the

launching site) over VAB’s property. As far as

VAB is concerned, (the boat club) can

continue to use the access route provided

that existing arrangements and agreed rules

remain applicable.

address the environmental aspects of boat

launching from the beach in question. No

changes are proposed to existing

arrangements and agreements between VAB

and the Vleesbaai Bootklub.

MR JOHAN LAMBRECHTS, resident of Driehoek, Vleesbaai

Comment Response

Mr Lambrechts engaged directly with the

EAP undertaking this environmental process

on four occasions, viz: 17 February 2010; 18

February 2010; 19 February 2010; and 2

March 2010.

In his e-mail of 17 February 2010, Mr

Lambrechts stated that his remarks to

Messrs Danie Gildenhuys and Koos du Preez

(Vleesbaai residents) in an earlier e-mail on

17 Feburay 2010 to the latter gentlemen

constituted his comment on the boat club

application. Mr Lambrechts stated in the

latter correspondence that Vleesbaai

Aandeblok was “very autocratic” in its views

with respect to public parking and ablution

facilities at Tarka beach, i.e. Noordstrand. He

also referred to a discrepancy between

“recommending approval of one application

at the primary bathing beach” while

“simultaneously ignoring and setting aside

long-standing requests, over many years, for

public public and public ablution facilities

(for the same beach)”. In another e-mail,

sent to nine recipients (but not the EAP) on

16 February 2010, Mr Lambrechts queried

why the boat club’s application could not be

linked to the provision of public parking and

ablution facilities at Tarka (Noordstrand)

beach. This would mean that a fundamental

need (“’n kardinale behoefte”) of the

broader Vleesbaai community would be met,

and not just the objectives of the boat club.

Mr Lambrechts’s e-mail of 17 February 2010

Correspondence was exchanged with Mr

Lambrechts three times: twice on 18

February 2010, and once on 19 February

2010.

An e-mail was sent to Mr Lambrechts on 18

February 2010 in reponse to his e-mail to

the EAP the previous day. In the responding

e-mail of 18 February, Mr Lambrechts was

requested to clearly distinguish his

comments from that of other persons. It was

also emphasised that the application by the

Vleesbaai Bootklub related exclusively to the

licensing of the Noordstrand boat launching

site in terms of the ORV regulations, and that

there was absolutely no intention on the

part of the boat club to apply for any other

activity. It was explained to Mr Lambrechts

that it was up to the appropriate body to

apply for environmental authorisation for

public facilities such as showers and toilets,

and parking, in the coastal zone, were this to

be contemplated. There were no factual

grounds, and specifically environmental

ones, for arguing that the boat club’s

activities warranted any additional facilties.

It was put to Mr Lambrechts that issues

pertaining to public facilities and parking at

Tarka (Noordstrand) should be addressed at

a planning level, and once clarity had been

obtained on these questions, an application

in terms of the NEMA EIA regulations could

be considered.



to the EAP included at least two others from

other individuals in its attached ‘string’.

Neither of the latter (both sent on 17

February 2010) had copied their comments

to the EAP.

On 18 February 2010, Mr Lambrechts copied

an e-mail to the EAP which was addressed to

altogether 14 recipients. Issues were raised

relating to previous correspondence

between Mr Lambrechts and others with

respect to Vleesbaai Dienste and its alleged

treatment of the public ablution and parking

matter. Mr Lambrechts also repeated the

assertion that the activities of the boat club,

under the aegis of VAB as the owners of the

“much discussed” private land, could not

claim precedence over the lack of public

parking and ablution facilities at Tarka

(Noordstrand) beach. He queried whether

towing vehicles would be parked on the

beach once boats had been launched, or if

they would have to be moved back on to the

streets owned by VAB. These issues, and that

of capping the number of vehicles that were

allowed to park at Tarka (Noordstrand)

beach, should be addressed in tandem with

the boat club’s application.

On 19 February 2010, Mr Lambrechts

thanked the EAP for his feedback, and said

he would make a comprehensive submission

to the EA process. He repeated his claims

that VAB was set on preventing public

ablution and parking facilities being

developed at Tarka (Noordstrand) beach.

Mr Lambrechts submitted a letter reflecting

his comment on the application on 2 March

2010. In the light of previous correspond-

ence with Mr Lambrechts, requesting that he

formalise his comment in order to avoid


February 2010, confirming that these

comments would be recorded in the final

environmental assessment.


February 2010, confirming the latter’s

registration as an interested and affected

party, and that comment was awaited from

him.



confusion and misinterpretation, the letter

of 2 March 2010 is understood to constitute

Mr Lambrechts’s formal, consolidated

comment on the application, substituting his

earlier comment, which is viewed as a

subsidiary preface to the formal submisison

recorded here.

Mr Lambrechts raised the following issues:

(a) All previous approvals or rights

pertaining to the Tarka (Noordstrand) boat

launching site had lapsed and the

application is therefore a new one.

(b) Reference was made to the boat

launching site but there was no mention

that this was also the main bathing beach.

(a) This is the first time that the

Vleesbaai Bootklub has applied for

authorisation of the Noordstrand launching

site in terms of the ORV regulations and s

24(4) of the National Environmental

Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended.

However, as acknowledged by the Dept of

Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning (cf. letter dated 23 Nov 2009,

Appendix 4 of the draft environmental

assessment), the Noordstrand boat

launching site has been in operation for

decades. The boat club’s rights with respect

to use of VAB’s propert to obtain access to

the launching site remain unchanged.

(b) Noordstrand’s use a bathing beach is

extensively described in section 7.6.1 of the

draft environmental assessment

(‘Recreational activities and outdoor

pursuits’). The draft environmental

assessment also assessed the potential

impacts of boat launching on bathers and

other users of the Vleesbaai boat launching

site (cf. section 8.8 of the draft

environmental assessment, ‘Vulnerability of

bathers and other users of the Vleesbaai

boat launchng site’). The ’Overview of the

Activity and the Local Context’ (Ch 3 of the

final environmental assessment) has been

amended to explicitly reflect that the

Noordstrand launching site is also an

important bathing amenity.



(c) There was no reference to the

number of existing or proposed members

of the boat club, which does not exist

legally.

(d) Mention has been made of 25

members of the boat club who have

permits, whereas their have reputedly been

35 ‘applications’, and impacts on the main

bathing beach could therefore not be

brushed aside on the basis of a limited

number of launchings.

(e) There is no provision for local

parking of ORVs or trailers, and numerous

requests for parking and public toilet

facilities have been swept from the table by

VAB.

(c) The number of members of the

Vleesbaai Bootklub is restricted to 30

members (cf. paragraph 3 of the ‘VAB

Bootklubreëls’, Appendix 1 of the draft

environmental assessment). Ch 3 of the

final environmental assesment has been

amended to dispel any ambiguity on this

question. The Vleesbaai Bootklub operates

as a financially independent entity under

the aegis of VAB.

(d) There are about three to four

launchings a day during peak season (cf p

18 of the draft environmental assessment).

As noted above, the boat club’s rules

require that it limits its number of

members to 30.

(e) These are separate issues. ORVs and

trailers are either removed from the beach

after launchings or parked against the base

of the foredunes flanking the northern

aspect of Noordstrand (cf. p 18 of the draft

environmental assessment). Limited use

(i.e. a maximum of five vehicles at a time)

of the back beach for boating-related

parking is deemed to be environmentally

justifiable: driving-related impacts on dune

ecosystems and coastal processes were

found to be of very low, short-term,

negative significance (cf. section 8.3, pp 51-

55, and 56 and 57 of the draft

environmental assessment). Questions

relating to the provision of public parking

and ablution facilities at Noordstrand need

to be addressed through an appropriate

planning process (cf. EAP’s response to Mr

Lambrechts on 18 February 2010). It would

be inapproporiate to harness these issues

to the boat club’s application which is

strictly limited in scope and intention (and

by regulation) to the licensing provisions of



(f) Tarka (Noordstrand) is the only

beach at Vleesbaai that can be used by

bathers, whose rights have priority over

those of the boat club.

(g) The statement that the application is

being made with the approval of Vleesbaai

Dienste and VAB is curious as ownership of

the coastal zone vests with the Republic of

South Africa.

(h) Where are vehicles to be parked

after boats have been launched – in streets

owned by VAB or in public parking areas

elsewhere in Vleesbaai, excluding VAB

which does not have such parking?

the ORV regulations.

(f) There is no evidence to suggest, on

the basis of this environmental assessment

process, that the use of Noordstrand as a

launching site for boats either claims any

form of precedence over the rights of any

other users of the coastal zone, or has any

but the slightest impact on public

enjoyment of the beach (cf. section 8.8, pp

59-61 of the draft environmental

assessment, ‘ Vulnerability of bathers and

other users of the Vleesbaai boat launching

site’). Also see response at 3(c) above.

(g) It is not clear what this comment

refers to, and where such an alleged

“statement” is recorded in the draft

environmental assessment, which deals

comprehensively with the question of land

ownership and land-use regulation in the

coastal zone (cf. Ch 5 of the draft

environmental assessment, ‘Regulatory

requirements relating to the Vleesbaai

(Noordstrand) boat launching site’, and Ch

6, which deals with legislation and policy

relating to planning and development in

the coastal zone).

(h) As noted above at (b), vehicles (that,

per definition, only have access to the

beach by virtue of the owner’s membership

of the boat club) are either temporarily

parked on the back beach between

launching and retrieving boats, or removed

from the beach altogether. Vehicles parked

above the high-water mark would be on

private property and, provided their

impacts are controlled in terms of the

measures proposed by this environmental

assessment and the draft environmental

management plan, this has been found to

be an environmentally acceptable practice,



(i) If it’s the latter case, the rights of

the public are being further constrained

due to the absence of parking at the main

beach and access control by VAB by means

of booms.

(j) The application by the Vleesbaai

Boat Club must be set aside by the Dept of

and one that is condoned by the owners of

the property in question, VAB. Parking or

the lack of it has not been raised as an issue

by any other users of the launching site,

and neither has parking in the back beach

area been identified as an unacceptable

practice by any authorities or social users of

the Noordstrand beach. Expecting vehicles

to leave the beach after every launching

would effectively double the suite of

impacts, and their effect on the receiving

environment, that have been the subject of

this environmental assesssment and its

findings. For these reasons alone, an

increase in the amount of vehicular traffic

above currently, environmentally-tolerable

levels, is both unnecessary and undesirable.

(i) The finding of the draft

environmental assessment is that the

launching of boats from Noordstrand, via

land owned by VAB, has a negligible impact

on the rights of other, non-boating, users of

the coastal zone at Vleesbaai. The issue of

providing public parking and ablution

facilities on privately-owned land, i.e. the

property owned by VAB, or elsewhere, is

emphatically not the subject of this

application, is not understood to be such by

the competent authority, and needs to be

addressed through an appropriate planning

process. Any such planning would have to

be informed by precisely the same coastal

planning principles and ecological

considerations raised in this environmental

assessment with respect to development in

the littoral active zone and the

Noordstrand-Noordkloof sediment corridor

and embedded Strandveld valley bottom

wetland (a CBA).

(j) This environmental assessment has

focused exclusively on potential impacts



Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning, and all launching must instead

take place at Gouritsmond, if VAB does not

give positive consideration to the provision

of public parking at Tarka (Noordstrand).

and issues relating to the application by the

Vleesbaai Bootklub for the Noordstrand

launching site to be licensed in terms of the

ORV regulations – a state of affairs that has

been confirmed, in writing, by the Western

Cape Department of Environmental Affairs

and Development Planning. If public

parking, or the lack of it, is viewed as an

issue affecting public enjoyment of the

coastal zone, this needs to be addressed on

the basis of a proper and environmentally

justifiable planning process, initiated by

the owners of the land in question,

Vleesbaai Aandeblok Beperk, in

consultation with relevant stakeholders.

That is not the responsibility of the

Vleesbaai Bootklub. It would be

inappropriate and capricious for a decision

subject to a clearly defined regulatory

process to be held ransom to another

process that is not being contemplated, has

not been required by any authority, has not

been agreed to by the affected landowner,

and the need for which has not been

conclusively established. The chapter

dealing with the receiving environment

(Ch 7 of the environmental assessment)

has, however, for the sake of

completeness, been amended to reflect

the issues of public parking and ablution

facilities at Noordstrand – even though

these matters have no substantial or

procedural bearing on this environmental

assessment process, or the decision that it

must inform.

THE FRANSMANSHOEK CONSERVANCY (Roland Scholtz, Senior Conservation Ranger)

Comment Response

5 March 2010 Only members of the

Vleesbaai Ski-Boat Club must be allowed to

launch at the Vleesbaai Slipway. Is there

sufficient parking for slipway users during

season time (December-January); where will

they leave their vehicles while at sea?

Only members of the Vleesbaai Bootklub

have permission to drive across VAB’s land

to the launching site, which means that the

launching site can only be used by members

of the boat club. The launching site is an

open, sandy beach; there is no slipway. The



issue of parking has been dealt with at

length above. In short, a limited number of

vehicles (no more than five) could be parked

on the back beach at any time; the number

is probably less in practice. Alternatively,

vehicles are removed from the beach – most

likely when a boat is going to used over an

extended period. This usually applies to

kayaks, yachts and ‘rubber ducks’ as ski-

boats are usually not left on the beach when

not in use.

MR CHRIS RABIE, Vleesbaai

Comment Response

5 March 2010 It is crucial for sea rescue

purposes to have a boat launching site at

Vleesbaai. I am aware of 12 incidents in the

past 30 years in which local boats carried our

rescues. Although the NSRI has a station at

Mossel Bay, this would be too far for a

rescue boat to arrive on time at Vleesbaai.

Vehicles and boats have never caused

damage to the beach at Vleesbaai. The only

damage has been caused by rain and run-off

from the land. Vleesbaai’s residents support

the boat club’s application for permission to

launch boats at Noordstrand.

The contribution of locally launched vessels

to sea rescue is noted and has been added

to section 7.6.1 of the report. The stated

desirability of retaining a boat launching site

at Noordstrand is therefore noted. The

interaction of ORVs with the Noordstrand-

Noordkloof environment is extensively dealt

with in the draft environmental assessment,

which to a large extent concurs – but not

entirely – with the statement that the main

causes of disturbance to this ecosystem are

natural. Support for the application is also

noted.

9.8 Key issues raised by interested and affected parties

There are several issues raised by interested and affected parties that either related to

requests for factual clarity (e.g. daily vehicle use of the launching site) or hinted at potential

points of conflict that, even though of tangential relevance to this application, could prove

to be problematic if not dealt with constructively and with the appropriate degree of

sensitivity.

These key are as follows (bracketed references denote where an issue was dealt with in the

comments and responses table):

− Requests for public parking and ablution facilities at Noordstrand, Vleesbaai, and,

linked to this, a demand that the boat club’s licensing application be refused if

Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk did not agree to provide public parking at Noordstrand

(see 3(b), 5(e), 5(h), 5(i), 5(j), and 6);



− Limiting the number of boats that could be launched daily (see 3(d) and 5(d));

− Limiting the number of vehicles that could be parked at the launch site daily (see

3(d)); and

− Potential friction between boat launching and other activities at Noordstrand, such

as bathing (see 3(c), 5(b) and 5(f)).

These issues are dealt with comprehensively in the ‘Comments and responses’ table.

The provision of public parking and ablution facilities at Noordstrand for bathers and other

user residing beyond the boundaries of the VAB property appeared to be the most

contentious issue. The interested and affected party who raised this said the application

should be refused if Vleesbaai Aandeleblok Bpk, whose land borders on Noordstrand and

provides the only vehicular access route to the launching site, did not agree to provide

public parking at Noordstrand (see comments by Mr Johan Lambrechts, 5(a)-(j)).

Owing to the seriousness of this matter, the response thereto in the comments table

(recorded at 5(j)) is repeated in full here:

“This environmental assessment has focused exclusively on potential impacts and issues

relating to the application by the Vleesbaai Bootklub for the Noordstrand launching site to

be licensed in terms of the ORV regulations – a state of affairs that has been confirmed, in

writing, by the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning. If public parking, or the lack of it, is viewed as an issue affecting public enjoyment

of the coastal zone, this needs to be addressed on the basis of a proper and environmentally

justifiable planning process, initiated by the owners of the land in question, Vleesbaai

Aandeblok Beperk, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. That is not the responsibility

of the Vleesbaai Bootklub. It would be inappropriate and capricious for a decision subject to

a clearly defined regulatory process to be held ransom to another process that is not being

contemplated, has not been required by any authority, has not been agreed to by the

affected landowner, and the need for which has not been conclusively established. The

chapter dealing with the receiving environment (Ch 7 of the environmental assessment) has,

however, for the sake of completeness, been amended to reflect the issues of public parking

and ablution facilities at Noordstrand – even though these matters have no substantial or

procedural bearing on this environmental assessment process, or the decision that it must

inform…”

9.9 Copies of comment received from interested and affected parties

Only written comment was received. A full record of this correspondence, i.e. comments

received on or after 5 February 2010 when the public participation process formally

commenced, is contained in Appendix 8.



10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section summarises the conclusions of the draft environmental assessment, and offers

recommendations with respect to the implementation and management of the preferred

option, were it to be approved.

10.1 Conclusions: The preferred option

From the foregoing it is concluded that Alternative 1 (i.e. retention of Noordstrand as the

launching site at Vleesbaai) represents the best practicable environmental option because:

− Its impacts can be effectively mitigated and have a limited environmental cost

that is well within the limits of acceptable change for the affected biophysical

and social contexts; and

− It represents the most feasible and reasonable alternative with respect to

meeting the general purpose, requirements and needs of the activities conducted

by the Vleesbaai Bootklub since the early 1970s.

10.2 Recommendations

It is therefore recommended that:

− The Noordstrand beach and Noordkloof access route be retained as a site for

launching boats at Vleesbaai; and

− All recommendations and mitigation measures included in the environmental

assessment be reflected in the Record of Decision; and

− Implementation of the appended environmental management programme be

recorded as a condition of authorisation.

10.3 Draft EMP for the Noordstrand launching site

The treatment of impact management and monitoring is approached from the point of

view that (a) it is difficult to completely exclude human activities from sensitive coastal

areas, but (b) that human interactions with coastal environments can be managed so as to

ensure the long-term persistence and integrity of these dynamic and potentially

threatened systems while meeting people’s needs (CMPP, 1999; Defeo et al., 2008). It is

also accepted that areas of relatively natural, unaffected beach – such as characterise

much of the Vlees Bay littoral active zone over its 32 km sweep – can be interspersed with

areas where recreational activities can be permitted, including launching of boats.



The DEA&DP Guideline for Environmental Management Plans (Lochner, 2005) guides the

preparation and implementation of effective EMPs. Chapter 3 of the EMP guideline deals

with the preparation and implementation of the EMP.

The following elements should be addressed in the preparation of an EMP:

− An overview of the proposed activity and the local context;

− A summary of impacts associated with the proposed activity;

− The project proponent’s environmental management policies and commitments;

− Institutional arrangements: Roles and responsibilities;

− Legal requirements;

− Implementation programme; and

− Cost estimate and financial resources.

Implementation of an EMP should, in turn, provide for:

− Training and environmental awareness;

− Documentation and record-keeping;

− Reporting procedures;

− Stakeholder engagement;

− Auditing;

− Responding to non-compliance;

− Transfer of EMP requirements to other implementers; and

− Management review and revision of the EMP.

There is no standard format for EMPs, and the format and level of detail for an EMP needs

to fit the circumstances for which it is to be developed (Lochner, 2005, p. 12). In this

instance, the EMP is approached with the understanding that the environmental effects of

the activity in question are well-understood, can be effectively mitigated, and therefore hold

little long-term environmental risk.

The DEA&DP has identified issues that must be addressed in the EMP for the Vleesbaai boat-

launching site (cf. letter dated 12 October 2009, Appendix 4). Not all of these apply to

circumstances at Vleesbaai, however. The issue thus identified are:

− The maximum number of vessels that the site is able to accommodate (limited to the

parking facilities available for vehicles);

− Measures to mitigation erosion of the slipway and maintenance of facilities;

− Measures to be implemented should and fuel leakages occur;

− Emergency measures to be implemented;

− Security measures to be implemented;

− Issues relating to poaching-related activities;



− Measures taken to ensure compliance by vehicle users with general fishing permit

conditions and the provision of the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998;

− Property and reliable monitoring of impacts on the environment;

− Measures to minimise impacts associated with vehicle use in the boat launching site,

including measures to control vehicle access to the boat launching site;

− Measures to be implemented during the ‘peak’ holiday season; and

− Possible conflict between user groups.

A revised draft EMP is included in Appendix 5.



11. REFERENCES

CapeNature (2008) CapeNature’s requirements and recommendations with respect to

applications for environmental, mining, agriculture, water, and planning-related

authorisations. CapeNature: Scientific Services, Jonkershoek.

Clark B and de Villiers C (2005) Sandy beaches and dune systems, 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.

Coastal Management Policy Programme (CMPP) (1999) Draft White Paper for Sustainable

Coastal Development in South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs and

Tourism, Pretoria.

Council for the Environment (1991) A policy for coastal zone management in the Republic of

South Africa: Part 2 – Guidelines for Coastal Land-use. Council for the Environment,

Pretoria.

Day L and Job N (2005) Freshwater Ecosystems: Wetlands, 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.

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.

Defeo O, McLachlan A, Schoeman DS, Schlacher TA, Dugan J, Jones A, Lastra M and Scapini F

(2009) Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf

Science 81, 1-12.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) (2007) Guideline

on alternatives, in NEMA environmental impact assessment regulations guideline and

information document series. DEADP, Cape Town.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) (2009a) Western

Cape PSDF: Rural Land-use Planning and Management Guidelines. DEA&DP, Cape

Town.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) (2009b)

Guideline on public participation: NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information

Document Series. DEA&DP, Cape Town.

Fuggle RF and Rabie MA (eds) (1996) Environmental Management in South Africa. Juta & Co,

Kenwyn.

Helme N (2005) Strandveld, Dune Thicket and Dune Fynbos, 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.

Job N, Snaddon K, Day L, Nel J and Smith-Adao L (2008) C.A.P.E. Fine-scale Planning Project:

Aquatic ecosystems of the Riversdale coastal plain planning domain. The Freshwater

Consulting Group, Cape Town, and CSIR, Stellenbosch.



Lochner P (2005) Guideline for Environmental Management Plans. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C-

2005-053 H. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape,

Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Lombard AT, Strauss T, Harris J, Sink K, Attwood C and Hutchings L (2004) South African

National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume 4: Marine

Component, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Lubke R (1998) Marine ecology, in Lubke and De Moor (eds) Field Guide to the Eastern and

Southern Cape Coasts. University of Cape Town Press, Rondebosch

Lubke R and De Moor I (1998) Field Guide to the Eastern and Southern Cape Coasts.

University of Cape Town Press, Rondebosch.

Lubke RA and McLachlan A (1998) Sandy beach ecology, in Lubke and De Moor (eds) Field

Guide to the Eastern and Southern Cape Coasts. University of Cape Town Press,

Rondebosch.

Malan JA, Viljoen JHA, Siegfried HP and Wickens H de V (1994) Die geologie van die gebied

Riversdale: Toeligting tot Riversdale Blad 3420, Skaal 1:250 000. Raad vir

Geowetenskap, Geologiese Opname van Suid-Afrika. Government Printer, Pretoria.

Margules CR and Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning, Nature 405, 243-253.

Mucina L and Rutherford MC (eds) (2006) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Mucina L, Adams JB, Knevel IC, Rutherford MC, Powrie LW, Bolton JJ, van der Merwe JH,

Anderson RJ, Bornman T, le Roux A and Janssen JAM (2006) Coastal vegetation of

South Africa, in Mucina and Rutherford (eds) Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Pearsall J (ed) (1998) The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pence GQK (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.

Pierce, SM (2003) The STEP Mapbook, part of the STEP Handbook: Integrating the natural

environment into land use decisions at the municipal level: towards sustainable

development. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report No. 47. University of Port

Elizabeth, South Africa

Preston GR, Robins N and Fuggle RF (1996) Integrated Environmental Management, in

Fuggle and Rabie (eds) Environmental Management in South Africa. Juta & Co,

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) Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.

Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Rust IC (1998) Geology and geomorphology, in Lubke and De Moor (Eds) Field Guide to

the Eastern and Southern Cape Coasts. University of Cape Town Press, Rondebosch.



Stone AW, Weaver A v B and West WO (1998) Climate and Weather, in Lubke and De

Moor (Eds) Field Guide to the Eastern and Southern Cape Coasts. University of Cape

Town Press, Rondebosch.

Taylor, Van Rensburg and Van der Spuy (2005) Mossel Bay Municipality: Spatial

Development Framework – Final Draft Volume 1: Proposals. TV3, Stellenbosch.

Te Roller KS and Vromans DC (2009) The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Hessequa and

Mossel Bay Municipalities. Supporting land-use planning and decision making in

Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development.

Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale Biodiversity Planning

Project. Kirstenbosch

Tinley KL (1985) Coastal dunes of South Africa, South African national Scientific Programmes

Report No 109. CSIR, Pretoria.

Webley L and Hall S (1998) Archaeology and early history, in Lubke and De Moor (Eds) Field

Guide to the Eastern and Southern Cape Coasts. University of Cape Town Press,

Rondebosch.

ends



APPENDIX 1

RULES OF THE VLEESBAAI BOOTKLUB



APPENDIX 2

VLEESBAAI AANDELEBLOK BPK (VAB) – PERMISSION TO VLEESBAAI

BOOTKLUB TO USE AN ACCESS ROUTE VIA VAB’S PROPERTY



APPENDIX 3

QUOTE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SLIPWAY AT DIE HOEK



APPENDIX 4

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING



APPENDIX 5

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE VLEESBAAI

BOAT LAUNCHING SITE, NOORDSTRAND, VLEES BAY



APPENDIX 6

KONSEP-OMGEWINGSBESTUURSPLAN VIR DIE BOOTLANSERINGSPLEK

TE NOORDSTRAND, VLEESBAAI



APPENDIX 7

ORV APPLICATION FORM AND CHECKLIST IN TERMS OF

REGULATION 7 AND 9 OF THE REGULATIONS: CONTROL OF

VEHICLES IN THE COASTAL ZONE (“ORV REGULATIONS”)

(GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO. 1399 OF 21 DECEMBER 2001), AS

AMENDED, IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1998) (“NEMA”)



APPENDIX 8

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS I

5 FEBRUARY 2010 – 19 MARCH 2010



APPENDIX 9

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS II

14 APRIL 2010 – 7 MAY 2010

Bootklub_EA_FINAL_080510

Documents

final environmental

environmental attributes

site charl

impact assessment

alternatives ch

mitigation ch

uncertainty ch

receiving environment