NEMA SECTION 24G EIA Report
Section 24G Application Form for the rectification of unlawful commencement or continuation of listed
activity/ies in terms of the:
National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), (“NEMA”);
Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) (“ECA”);
Specific Environmental Management Acts (“SEMAs”)
July 2012 Form Number: S24GEIAR/07/2012
Kindly note that:
1. This section 24G Environmental Impact Assessment (”EIA”) report must be completed for all section 24G
applications in terms of the above Acts, by an independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (“EAP”).
2. This EIA report is current as of July 2012. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/EAP to ascertain whether
subsequent versions of the EIA report have been published or produced by the competent authority.
Contents:
Section A: Activity Information
Section B: Description of Receiving Environment
Section C: Public Participation Information
Section D: Need and Desirability
Section E: Alternatives
Section F: Preliminary Impact Assessment, Management, Mitigation and Monitoring
Section G: Assessment Methodologies and Criteria, Gaps in Knowledge, under laying Assumptions and
Uncertainties
Section H: Recommendations of the EAP
Section I: Motivation for response to an emergency
Section J: Appendices
3. An Independent EAP must be appointed to complete the section 24G EIA report on behalf of the applicant;
the declaration of independence must be completed by the independent EAP and submitted with this EIA
report. If a specialist report is required, the specialist will also be required to complete the declaration of
independence.
4. Two hard copies and one electronic copy (CD/DVD) of this report must be submitted.
5. The required information must be typed within the spaces provided. The sizes of the spaces provided are not
necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The space provided extend as each
space is filled with typing. A legible font type and size must be used when completing the report. The font size
should not be smaller than 10pt (e.g. Century Gothic 10). A digital copy of the Section EIA Report is available
on the Department’s website (details below).
6. The use of “not applicable” in the EIA report must be done with circumspection.
7. No faxed or e-mailed EIA reports will be accepted.
8. Unless protected by law, all information contained in and attached to this EIA report will become public
information on receipt by the competent authority. Upon request, any Interested and Affected Party (“I&AP”)
should be provided with the information contained in and attached to this EIA report. During any stage of the
application process, the information contained in and attached to it must be provided by the applicant /
EAP.
9. This EIA report must be submitted to the Department at the postal address given below or by delivery thereof
to the Registry Office of the Department. Unnecessary delays will be incurred should the application and
attached information not be submitted to the correct address.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 2
10. PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED:
a) A section 24G Application Form constitutes the initiation of the Section 24G application process. If you
have failed to submit an application form, you may not proceed with the compilation and submission of
this EIA report until such time that a section 24G application form has been submitted to the Department
and subsequently acknowledged.
b) Once the information requirements in respect of the application have been met, a draft EIA report,
which must include an Environmental Management Programme (“EMP”), must first be made available to
the I&APs, including all the relevant State Departments that administer laws relating to a matter
affecting the environment, for comment for a period of 40 (forty) calendar days. Unless otherwise
indicated by the Department, a commenting period of at least 21 (twenty-one) days must be provided
to I&APs, including the relevant State Departments, to comment on any additional information,
documentation or reports (including the final EIR), other than the draft EIR.
c) The draft EIA report must be submitted to the Department in order to meet the requirements of section
24O of the NEMA. The Department will notify the State Departments of the 40 (forty) day commenting
after receipt of the draft EIA report.
d) Upon submission of the final EIA report, the competent authority will reconsider the application and may
undertake a site inspection or request such additional information as the competent authority may
require from the Applicant/EAP.
e) The Department will consider the final EIA report/additional information (if required) to determine the
administrative fine (not exceeding R1 million) and inform the applicant accordingly. The fine must be
paid within 60 days from the date of the fine notice. The applicant is required to provide proof of
payment of the fine to the Department.
f) In accordance with section 24G(2), the competent authority will then:
direct the applicant to cease the activity, either wholly or in part, and to rehabilitate the environment
within such time and subject to such conditions as the Department may deem necessary; or
issue an environmental authorisation to the applicant subject to such conditions as the Department
may deem necessary.
11. Note, failure to comply with a directive calling for information to be submitted within a specified period may
result in the institution of appropriate legal action as is deemed necessary by this Department and as provided
for in the legislation.
12. A person failing to comply with a directive or contravening or failing to comply with a condition of
environmental authorisation is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to a penalty of a fine not
exceeding R5 million or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or to both such fine and such
imprisonment.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 3
DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBER(S) (for official use)
Department of Environmental Affairs
and Development Planning,
Directorate: Environmental Compliance
& Enforcement,
Attention: Sub-directorate: Section 24G
Applications
Private Bag X9086
Cape Town, 8000
Registry Office
1st Floor Utilitas Building
1 Dorp Street, Cape Town
Queries should be directed to the Sub-
directorate: Section 24G Applications
at:
Tel: (021) 483-8019 Fax: (021) 483-4033
View the Department’s website on http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp for the latest version of the documents
DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT
Applicant Name: Mr. Marc Doms Contact Person Mr. Marc Doms
RSA Identity Number/
Passport Number: 7908025228088
Trading name (if any):
Company Registration Number:
Postal address: P.O. Box 400 Robertson Postal code: 6705
Telephone: ( ) Cell: 082 964 4761 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: ( )
DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP)
Environmental Assessment
Practitioner (EAP): Guillaume Nel Environmental Consultants (GNEC)
Contact person: Guillaume Nel Postal address: P.O. Box 2632
Paarl Postal code: 7620 Telephone: (021) 870 1874 Cell: 072 157 1321
E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (021) 870 1873
EAP Qualifications
MSc En Man (PUK), B(Hons) EN Man (US), B Geography (US), Certificate- Environmental Law (PUK), Certificate – EIA (PUK), Certificate– EMS 14000 (PUK), Certificate– Air Quality Management (PUK), Certificate– Environmental Auditing (SABS). Guillaume Nel has fourteen years relevant experience as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner.
EAP Registrations/Associations SAATCA Certified Environmental Auditor, No. (EMA 375) (2003)
File Reference number (S24G)
File Reference number
(Enforcement), if applicable
File reference number (EIA), if
applicable:
File reference number (Waste), if
applicable:
File reference number (Other):
ENV number:
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 4
SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION
1. PROJECT TITLE
SARATOGA WATER PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION ON FARM PORTION 14 OF THE
FARM KLAAS VOOGDS RIVIER, FARM NO. 40, ROBERTSON, WESTERN CAPE
2. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
(Cross out the appropriate box “” and provide a description where required).
(a) Is/are the activity(ies) complete or is/are the activity(ies) still to be completed? Completed Incomplete
In July 2013 the client Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4 of
farm 40) from owner Mr. Pat Busch. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr.
Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) was also purchased. An existing 110 mm pipeline from the dam was
offered to Mr. Doms, however this volume would not meet his future water requirement needs. A servitude
was then purchased from Mr. Busch for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close proximity to the
existing PVC 110 mm pipeline. The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally
constructed in November 2013, within 32 meters from a watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental
authorization, legally required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, (Act no. 107 of 1998).
This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports anchored by
concrete foundations. During an unexpected flooding event triggered by heavy rainfall in January 2014 the
Doring River flooded its banks and the 160 mm pipeline was severely damaged and some sections of the
original existing 110 mm pipeline was also damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing
a new river course, along the alignment of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into the first row of
an adjacent vineyard. There was however no damage to the pipeline between the dam and where it meets the
river (the northern section). The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning was notified
and a pre-compliance notice was issued to Mr. Doms in February 2016.
The illegally constructed pipeline’s construction is complete, although a replacement pipeline is required. A
preferred and an alternative new PVC pipeline route (± 0.9 km in length) has been proposed to replace the
damaged pipeline and to supply water to the agricultural fields. Both these newly proposed pipeline route will
attach to the existing 160 mm pipeline well above where the flood damage to the pipeline occurred (more than
32 m from the river). Both the preferred and alternative pipeline routes will follow the same route and be
placed underneath a planted pasture field towards the farm homestead. The preferred replacement route will
continue through the farm homestead underneath a gravel/dirt road towards the connecting point on Saratoga
farm. The alternative replacement route will bypass around the homestead, adjacent to indigenous vegetation
and a vineyard. The alternative route will merely bypass the homestead and then again join onto the same
dirt/gravel road as the preferred route where both routes will run towards the connecting point on Saratoga
underneath the gravel/dirt road. Both these potential replacement routes will have minimal environmental,
geographical and/or no impacts on any heritage resources of the farm, however it is foreseen that the
preferred route will have less environmental impacts. Both these routes will not be visually impairing as the
pipeline will be placed underground. Both these proposed replacement pipeline routes are expected not to
trigger any EIA regulations as they will be an estimated 900 m long and will be placed more than 32 m from a
watercourse. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
Reshaping and rehabilitation of the river banks with indigenous vegetation is also recommended once
environmental authorization has been granted. During the flooding event parts of the pipeline were broken and
some segments remain within the watercourse and/or are entangled within the riverine vegetation. These
damaged pipes are still currently within the watercourse and will be removed and disposed of at the nearest
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 5
licenced landfill site once authorization is given to remove them. This is because the pre-compliance notice
that was issued to Mr. Doms instructed all listed activates to cease immediately. It is recommended that
erosion protection measures, such as the reshaping of eroded banks and the installation of erosion protection
structures be implemented at the point where the pipeline crossed the river.
(b) Is/was the project a new development or an upgrade of an existing development? Also
indicate the date (e.g. 2 August 2010) when the activity commenced as well as the
original date of commencement if the application is an upgrade.
New Upgrade
The illegal construction of a water pipeline occurred in November 2013.
(c) Clearly describe the activity and associated infrastructure commenced with, indicating what has been completed and
what still has to be completed.
In July 2013 the client Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4
of farm 40) from owner Mr. Pat Busch. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr.
Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) was also purchased. An existing 110 mm pipeline from the dam was
offered to Mr. Doms, however this volume would not meet his future water requirement needs. A servitude
was then purchased from Mr. Busch for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close proximity to the
existing PVC 110 mm pipeline. The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally
constructed in November 2013, within 32 meters from a watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental
authorization, legally required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, (Act no. 107 of 1998).
This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports anchored by
concrete foundations. During an unexpected flooding event triggered by heavy rainfall in January 2014 the
Doring River flooded its banks and the 160 mm pipeline was severely damaged and some sections of the
original existing 110 mm pipeline was also damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by
establishing a new river course, along the alignment of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into
the first row of an adjacent vineyard. There was however no damage to the pipeline between the dam and
where it meets the river (the northern section). The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development
Planning was notified and a pre-compliance notice was issued to Mr. Doms in February 2016.
The illegally constructed pipeline’s construction is complete, although a replacement pipeline is required. A
preferred and an alternative new PVC pipeline route (± 0.9 km in length) has been proposed to replace the
damaged pipeline and to supply water to the agricultural fields. Both these newly proposed pipeline route will
attach to the existing 160 mm pipeline well above where the flood damage to the pipeline occurred (more
than 32 m from the river). Both the preferred and alternative pipeline routes will follow the same route and be
placed underneath a planted pasture field towards the farm homestead. The preferred replacement route will
continue through the farm homestead underneath a gravel/dirt road towards the connecting point on Saratoga
farm. The alternative replacement route will bypass around the homestead, adjacent to indigenous vegetation
and a vineyard. The alternative route will merely bypass the homestead and then again join onto the same
dirt/gravel road as the preferred route where both routes will run towards the connecting point on Saratoga
underneath the gravel/dirt road. Both these potential replacement routes will have minimal environmental,
geographical and/or no impacts on any heritage resources of the farm, however it is foreseen that the
preferred route will have less environmental impacts. Both these routes will not be visually impairing as the
pipeline will be placed underground. Both these proposed replacement pipeline routes are expected not to
trigger any EIA regulations as they will be an estimated 900 m long and will be placed more than 32 m from a
watercourse. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
Reshaping and rehabilitation of the river banks with indigenous vegetation is also recommended once
environmental authorization has been granted. During the flooding event parts of the pipeline were broken
and some segments remain within the watercourse and/or are entangled within the riverine vegetation. These
damaged pipes are still currently within the watercourse and will be removed and disposed of at the nearest
licenced landfill site once authorization is given to remove them. This is because the pre-compliance notice
that was issued to Mr. Doms instructed all listed activates to cease immediately. It is recommended that
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 6
erosion protection measures, such as the reshaping of eroded banks and the installation of erosion protection
structures be implemented at the point where the pipeline crossed the river.
(d) Please provide details of all components of the activity and attach diagrams (e.g. architectural drawings or perspectives,
engineering drawings, process flow charts etc.).
Buildings YES NO
Provide brief description:
No buildings will be constructed.
Infrastructure (e.g. roads, power and water supply/ storage) YES NO
Provide brief description:
Water Supply:
A roughly 1.6 km long, 160 mm water supply pipeline was illegally constructed in November 2013, within 32
meters from a watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental authorization. During an unexpected
flooding event in January 2014 the Doring River flooded its banks and the 160 mm pipeline was severely
damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing a new river course, along the alignment
of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into the first row of an adjacent vineyard. There was
however no damage to the pipeline between the dam and where it meets the river (the northern section).
The illegally constructed pipeline’s construction is complete, although a replacement pipeline is required. A
preferred and an alternative new PVC pipeline route (± 0.9 km in length) has been proposed to replace the
damaged pipeline and to supply water to the agricultural fields. Both these newly proposed pipeline route will
attach to the existing 160 mm pipeline well above where the flood damage to the pipeline occurred (more
than 32 m from the river). Both the preferred and alternative pipeline routes will follow the same route and be
placed underneath a planted pasture field towards the farm homestead. The preferred replacement route will
continue through the farm homestead underneath a gravel/dirt road towards the connecting point on Saratoga
farm. The alternative replacement route will bypass around the homestead, adjacent to indigenous vegetation
and a vineyard. The alternative route will merely bypass the homestead and then again join onto the same
dirt/gravel road as the preferred route where both routes will run towards the connecting point on Saratoga
underneath the gravel/dirt road. Both these potential replacement routes will have minimal environmental,
geographical and/or no impacts on any heritage resources of the farm, however it is foreseen that the
preferred route will have less environmental impacts. Both these routes will not be visually impairing as the
pipeline will be placed underground. Both these proposed replacement pipeline routes are expected not to
trigger any EIA regulations as they will be an estimated 900 m long and will be placed more than 32 m from a
watercourse. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
Reshaping and rehabilitation of the river banks with indigenous vegetation is also recommended once
environmental authorization has been granted. During the flooding event parts of the pipeline were broken
and some segments remain within the watercourse and/or are entangled within the riverine vegetation. These
damaged pipes are still currently within the watercourse and will be removed and disposed of at the nearest
licenced landfill site once authorization is given to remove them. This is because the pre-compliance notice
that was issued to Mr. Doms instructed all listed activates to cease immediately. It is recommended that
erosion protection measures, such as the reshaping of eroded banks and the installation of erosion protection
structures be implemented at the point where the pipeline crossed the river.
Processing activities (e.g. manufacturing, storage, distribution) YES No
Provide brief description:
Storage facilities for raw materials and products (e.g. volume and substances to be stored)
Provide brief description YES No
Storage and treatment facilities for solid waste and effluent generated by the project Yes No
Provide brief description
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 7
(d) Other activities (e.g. water abstraction activities, crop planting activities) Yes No
Provide brief description
In July 2013 the client Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4
of farm 40) from owner Mr. Pat Busch. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr.
Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) was also purchased. An existing 110 mm pipeline from the dam was
offered to Mr. Doms, however this volume would not meet his future water requirement needs. A servitude
was then purchased from Mr. Busch for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close proximity to the
existing 110 mm pipeline. The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in
November 2013, within 32 meters from a watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental authorization.
Water was however legally abstracted from the dam on Mr. Busch’s farm for a short period of time until the
pipeline was damaged.
3. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY
Indicate the physical spatial size of the activity as well as associated infrastructure (footprints): m2
Indicate the area that has been transformed / cleared to allow for the activity as well as associated
infrastructure:
Area disturbed by construction of a 1.6 km pipeline. Approx. 1600
m2
Total area:
Total area disturbed by construction of a 1.6 km pipeline. Approx. 1600
m2
4. SITE ACCESS
Was there an existing access road? YES No
If NO, what was the distance over which the new access road was built? m
Describe the type of access road constructed:
The access to the site where the pipeline was constructed was gained on from existing farm dirt/gravel roads
and over a pasture field.
Please Note: indicate the position of the access road on the site plan (See Section 5 below)
5. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken of the site and from the site), both before (if available) and after the
activity commenced, with a description of each photograph, must be attached to this application. The vantage points from
which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or locality plan as applicable. If available, please also
provide past and recent aerial photographs. It should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the
site. Date and source of photographs must be included. Photographs must be attached as an appendix to this form.
6. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES
Please list all legislation, policies and/or guidelines that were or are relevant to this activity.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 8
LEGISLATION ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY
TYPE
Permit/ license/
authorization/comment
DATE
(if already obtained):
In terms of sections 24 and 24D of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (EIA Regulations GN R. No. 982 [4 Dec 2014])
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP)
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORIZATION
Pending
In terms of section 38 of the National Heritage Resource Act No. 25 of 1999.
Heritage Western Cape (HWC)
Comment / Consent / Decision (ROD)
Received 30 May 2016
POLICY/ GUIDELINES ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY
Provincial Spatial Development Framework Western Cape Provincial Government
Spatial Development Framework 2014 Langeberg Municipality
Integrated Development Plan 2014 Langeberg Municipality
DEA&DP NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series Guideline on Public Participation July 2006
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DEA&DP NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series Guidelines on specialist input
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DEA&DP NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series Guideline on Alternatives July 2006
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DEA&DP Guideline for environmental decision-making by municipalities in the Western cape
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 9
SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
Site/Area Description
For linear activities (pipelines, etc) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete copies of this
section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section
C and indicate the area which is covered by each copy No. on the site plan.
Section C Copy No. (e.g. 1, 2, or 3):
1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE
Indicate the general gradient of the site(s) (cross out the appropriate box).
Flat Flatter than 1:10 1:10 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5
2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE
Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site (cross out (“”) the appropriate box(es).
Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of
hill/mountain
Closed
valley
Open
valley Plain
Undulating
plain/low hills Dune
Sea-
front Other
The site where the illegal construction of a 160 mm PVC pipeline occurred is located on Portion 14 of farm
No. 40, within a valley bottom and covers approximately 101.58 hectares (33°46'41.88" S19°59'41.54" E).
The farm is zoned agriculture and falls outside the urban edge of Robertson. A natural occurring semi-
permanent watercourse, the Doring River (a tributary of the Breede River), runs through the property. This
watercourse serves as a habitat for various terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna that can be deemed as a
natural resource. It is expected that the newly proposed construction of the pipeline will have a minimal
impact on the watercourse. A freshwater ecological study and a botanical study have been conducted and the
results thereof are included in this Section 24G Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Report.
According to the 1:250 00 Geological Series Map 3319 (Worcester) the site is located over Shale of the
Noree Formation, Malmesbury group. The soils are accumulations of alluvium. There is a mountain range
adjacent to the farm, the Langeberg-Wes Mountain Catchment Protected Area, which will increase the
aesthetic appeal of the area and surrounding landscape and could be deemed a heritage resource, however
the adjacent natural vegetation will not be impacted upon by the proposed construction of the new pipeline
route. A notice of intent to develop has been submitted to Heritage Western Cape (HWC), and they have
issued a positive Record of Decision, to permit the proposed construction on the 30th of May 2016. This is
because the newly proposed route encompasses predominantly on pasture fields and an existing dirt/gravel
road. The farm is located within a valley meaning that it will not be very visible from afar. The farm is also
located at the end of a cul-de-sac road (Klaasvoogds wes road) meaning that little to no through traffic can be
expected.
3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE
3.1 GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)
Is the site(s) located on or near any of the following (cross out (“”) the appropriate boxes)?
Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO UNSURE
Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO UNSURE
Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO UNSURE
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 10
Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO UNSURE
Soils with high clay content YES NO UNSURE
Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO UNSURE
An area sensitive to erosion YES NO UNSURE
3.2 GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE (POST-COMMENCEMENT)
Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO UNSURE
Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO UNSURE
Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO UNSURE
Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO UNSURE
Soils with high clay content YES NO UNSURE
Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO UNSURE
An area sensitive to erosion YES NO UNSURE
If any of the answers to the above are “YES” or “unsure”, specialist input may be requested by the Department.
(Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it does not exists,
the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used).
The pipeline was constructed parallel to the Doring River in the floodplain. This pipeline crossed the river in two
places where it was suspended on wooden supports anchored by concrete foundations. During an unexpected
flooding event triggered by heavy rainfall in January 2014 the Doring River flooded its banks and the 160 mm
pipeline was severely damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing a new river course,
along the alignment of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into the first row of an adjacent vineyard.
This will require reshaping and rehabilitation of the river banks with appropriate indigenous vegetation to stabilize
them and to reduce possible further erosion. It is recommended that erosion protection measures, such as the
reshaping of eroded banks and the installation of erosion protection structures be implemented at the point
where the pipeline crossed the river. The proposed alternative route for a new pipeline does not occur on
unstable soil as it will be places underneath an existing dirt/gravel road.
4. SURFACE WATER
4.1 SURFACE WATER (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)
Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (cross out (“”) the appropriate boxes)?
Perennial River YES NO UNSURE
Non-Perennial River YES NO UNSURE
Permanent Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Seasonal Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES NO UNSURE
The perceived reference state of the site according to FCG is as follows. Prior to agricultural development within
the area, on portion 14 of farm 40 Klaas Voogds Rivier, the Doring River would have been less confined than it
currently is. It would most likely have been characterised by having multiple channels or would have been a
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 11
mobile channel that periodically shifted its position across the valley floor. This is in contrast to the present-day
situation of a single channel running along the western edge property. The original reference state cannot be
confirmed as the oldest dated aerial photographs dates back to 1966 and by this time the Doring River valley
had already been developed by agriculture and the river was confined to a single channel. A Present Ecological
State (PES) assessments was completed by FCG for the presumed ecological state of the river before the illegal
construction of the pipeline. This pre-pipeline PES indicated that the instream component of the Doring River
was rated to be “largely modified” (PES Class D, Freshwater Ecology Impact Assessment Appendix 1), and the
riparian zone was rated to be “moderately to largely modified” (PES Class C/D Freshwater Ecology Impact
Assessment Appendix 1). This impacts on the instream component is believed to be due to an altered flow
regime from water abstraction from the feeder dam and also because of the modification of the river bed,
channel and banks that resulted from previous agricultural practices. The impacts on the riparian zone is
believed to be due to channel modification, a decrease in indigenous vegetation within the riparian zone and an
increase in alien vegetation.
4.2 SURFACE WATER (POST-COMMENCEMENT)
Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (cross out (“”) the appropriate boxes)?
Perennial River YES NO UNSURE
Non-Perennial River YES NO UNSURE
Permanent Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Seasonal Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES NO UNSURE
The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in November 2013, in parts
parallel and within 32 m of a natural occurring watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental
authorization. This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports
anchored by concrete foundations. The present state (assessed by FCG on 12 May 2016, 2 years after the
pipeline construction) of the Doring River was rated to be marginally better than the pre-impact state in terms of
the instream component of the river (PES Class C/D – “moderately to largely modified”), although marginally
worse in terms of the riparian component (PES Class D – “largely modified”). This improvement in the state of
the instream component of the river after the January 2014 flood is because the river established a new flow-
path, along the line where the unauthorised water pipeline had been placed from where it crossed the river. This
new river course bypassed the section of the river channel that was clearly an original diversion due to
agricultural activities in the valley according to the FCG. This new river course and river bed currently has a
more natural substrate of cobbles compared to the narrow densely vegetated old bypass route (which adjoined
the Doring River at nearly a 90 degree angle), further improving the new river course’s instream component. The
reason for the slightly poorer ecological condition of the riparian zone after the construction of the pipeline and
subsequently the January 2014 flood was due to an increase in the degree of channel modification and,
especially, increased bank erosion. The erosion that occurred on the Doring River bank, particularly where the
pipeline crossed the river, is considered to be significantly greater than the natural levels of erosion that would
have been observed during naturally-occurring flood events. This erosion will however be rectifiable with
appropriate bank reshaping and rehabilitation. The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Doring River
was also assessed by FCG and indicated that the overall EIS rating of this system is of low-to-moderate
importance and sensitivity.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 12
5. VEGETATION AND/OR GROUNDCOVER
Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the
site and potential impact(s) of the activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and the
ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also available on compact disc (“cd”) from
the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) 799 8698. This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP’s
responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of
the habitat conditions as per (b) below) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as an appendix to
this form.
5.1 VEGETATION AND/OR GROUNDCOVER (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)
Cross out (“”) the block and describe (where applicable) the vegetation types / groundcover present on the site before
commencement of the activity.
Indigenous Vegetation - good
condition
Indigenous Vegetation with
scattered aliens X Indigenous Vegetation with heavy
alien infestation
Describe the vegetation type above:
Describe the vegetation type
above:
The vegetation type of the construction area is listed as FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld according to Mucina,L. & Rutherford, M.C.(eds) 2006. A more recent classification of this vegetation was undertaken by Helme (2007) who referred to it as Klaasvoogds Thicket Renosterveld. The riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus (invasive cat. 2), Salix (Weeping willow), Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum) (cat. 1b) etc.
There is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site. No threatened plant species or species of conservation concern were found on the site. The site has been transformed due to farming activities. The absence of this vegetation type was confirmed by a botanical specialist.
Describe the vegetation type above:
Provide ecosystem status for above:
Provide ecosystem status for above:
Provide ecosystem status for above:
Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation type is listed to be Vulnerable
Indigenous Vegetation in an
ecological corridor or along a soil
boundary / interface
Veld dominated by alien species
Distinctive soil conditions (e.g. Sand over
shale, quartz patches, limestone, alluvial
deposits, termitaria etc.) – describe
Bare soil
Building or other structure
Sport field
Other (describe below) Cultivated land Paved surface
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 13
(a) Highlight the applicable pre-commencement biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate the reason(s)
provided in the biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category.
Systematic Biodiversity Planning Category If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for its selection in biodiversity
plan
Critical
Biodiversity
Area
(CBA)
Ecological
Support
Area (ESA)
Other
Natural
Area (ONA)
No Natural
Area
Remaining
(NNR)
A portion of the site falls within an ESA as the pipeline was
constructed in close proximity to the Doring River. There is
no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on
site. No threatened plant species or species of conservation
concern were found on the site. The absence of this
vegetation type was confirmed by a botanical specialist.
There are also large amounts of alien species present on the
site.
The site does not fall or impact on any Critical Biodiversity
Areas.
(b) Highlight and describe the habitat condition on site.
Habitat Condition
Percentage of
habitat condition
class (adding up
to 100%)
Description and additional Comments and Observations
(including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land management
practises, presence of quarries, grazing/harvesting regimes etc).
Natural
10% Acacia thicket (Vachellia karoo) typical of riparian thicket (azonal
vegetation) in the river valley on the south of the Langeberg. This
vegetation is not threatened.
Near Natural
(includes areas with low
to moderate level of alien
invasive plants)
0%
Degraded
(includes areas heavily
invaded by alien plants)
20% The riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the
presence of alien species such as Populus (invasive cat. 2), Salix
(Weeping willow), Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum) (cat. 1b) etc.
Transformed
(includes cultivation,
dams, urban, plantation,
roads, etc)
70% There is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on
site. The area has largely been utilized for agricultural purposes with
the surrounding area being dominated by pasture fields and
vineyards. The absence of this vegetation type was confirmed by a
botanical specialist.
(c) Complete the table to indicate:
(i) the type of vegetation, including its ecosystem status, that was previously present on the site; and
(ii) whether an aquatic ecosystem was previously present on site.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems
Ecosystem threat status as per the National
Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act
(Act No. 10 of 2004)
Critical Wetland (including rivers,
depressions, channelled
and unchanneled
wetlands, flats, seeps
pans, and artificial
wetlands)
Estuary Coastline Endangered
Vulnerable
Least
Threatened YES NO UNSURE YES NO YES NO
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 14
(d) Please provide a description of the vegetation type and/or aquatic ecosystem present on site, including any important
biodiversity features/information identified on site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats)
The majority of the illegally constructed pipeline occurred within the FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld (VU)
vegetation type, according to Mucina,L. & Rutherford, M.C.(eds) 2006. A more recent classification of this
vegetation was undertaken by Helme (2007) who referred to it as Klaasvoogds Thicket Renosterveld. The
riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus
canescens (invasive cat. 2), Salix babylonica (Weeping willow), Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow), Senna
didymibotrya (Peanut butter cassia), Solanum sisymbriifolium (Sticky nightshade), Arundo donax (Spanish reed)
Cirsium vulgare (Spear thistle) and Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum clandestinum) (cat. 1b). There is no true Breede
Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site. No threatened plant species or species of conservation concern
were found on the site. The site has been transformed due to farming activities. The absence of this vegetation
type was confirmed by a botanical specialist, Dr Dave McDonald of Bergwind Botanical Surveys and Tours. This
botanical assessment also noted that the vegetation on the banks of the Doring River around the site has been
strongly influenced by invasive species and this is a contributing factor to the instability of the soils and played a
role in the flood damage as a result. Where not invaded by alien species Acacia thicket (Vachellia karoo) typical
of riparian thicket (azonal vegetation) is present in the river valley on the south of the Langeberg. This vegetation
is not threatened.
The perceived reference state of the site according to FCG is as follows. Prior to agricultural development within
the area, on portion 14 of farm 40 Klaas Voogds Rivier, the Doring River would have been less confined than it
currently is. It would most likely have been characterised by having multiple channels or would have been a
mobile channel that periodically shifted its position across the valley floor. This is in contrast to the present-day
situation of a single channel running along the western edge property. The original reference state cannot be
confirmed as the oldest dated aerial photographs dates back to 1966 and by this time the Doring River valley had
already been developed by agriculture and the river was confined to a single channel. A Present Ecological State
(PES) assessments was completed by FCG for the presumed ecological state of the river before the illegal
construction of the pipeline. This pre-pipeline PES indicated that the instream component of the Doring River was
rated to be “largely modified” (PES Class D, Freshwater Ecology Impact Assessment Appendix 1), and the
riparian zone was rated to be “moderately to largely modified” (PES Class C/D Freshwater Ecology Impact
Assessment Appendix 1). This impacts on the instream component is believed to be due to an altered flow
regime from water abstraction from the feeder dam and also because of the modification of the river bed, channel
and banks that resulted from previous agricultural practices. The impacts on the riparian zone is believed to be
due to channel modification, a decrease in indigenous vegetation within the riparian zone and an increase in
alien vegetation.
The mountain range adjacent to the farm, the Langeberg-Wes Mountain Catchment Protected Area, is
predominantly made up of FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld (VU) and FFh4 Breede Shale Fynbos (VU),
although this vegetation was not disturbed by the construction of the pipeline.
5.2 VEGETATION AND/OR GROUNDCOVER (POST-COMMENCEMENT)
Cross out (“”) the block and describe (where required) the vegetation types / groundcover present on the site after
commencement of the activity.
Indigenous Vegetation - good
condition
Indigenous Vegetation with
scattered aliens X Indigenous Vegetation with heavy
alien infestation
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 15
Describe the vegetation type above:
Describe the vegetation type
above:
The vegetation type of the construction area is listed as FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld according to Mucina,L. & Rutherford, M.C.(eds) 2006. A more recent classification of this vegetation was undertaken by Helme (2007) who referred to it as Klaasvoogds Thicket Renosterveld. The riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus (invasive cat. 2), Salix (Weeping willow) Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum) (cat. 1b) etc.
Describe the vegetation type above:
There is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site. No threatened plant species or species of conservation concern were found on the site. The site has been transformed due to farming activities. The absence of this vegetation type was confirmed by a botanical specialist.
A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route is mapped as the Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem. This vegetation type also no longer occurs here due to the current presence of a planted pasture field and a farm homestead.
Provide ecosystem status for above:
Provide ecosystem status for above:
Provide Ecosystem status for above:
FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation type is listed to be Vulnerable. Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem is listed as Vulnerable.
Indigenous Vegetation in an
ecological corridor or along a soil
boundary / interface
Veld dominated by alien species
Distinctive soil conditions (e.g. Sand over
shale, quartz patches, limestone, alluvial
deposits, termitaria etc.) – describe
Bare soil
Building or other structure
Sport field
Other (describe below) Cultivated land Paved surface
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 16
(a) Highlight and describe the post-construction habitat condition on site.
Habitat Condition
Percentage of
habitat condition
class (adding up
to 100%)
Description and additional Comments and Observations
(including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land management
practises, presence of quarries, grazing/harvesting regimes etc).
Natural
10% Acacia thicket (Vachellia karoo) typical of riparian thicket (azonal
vegetation) in the river valley on the south of the Langeberg. This
vegetation is not threatened.
Near Natural
(includes areas with low
to moderate level of alien
invasive plants)
0%
Degraded
(includes areas heavily
invaded by alien plants)
15% The riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the
presence of alien species such as Populus (invasive cat. 2), Salix
(Weeping willow), Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum) (cat. 1b) etc.
Transformed
(includes cultivation,
dams, urban, plantation,
roads, etc)
75% There is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on
site. The area has largely been utilized for agricultural purposes with
the surrounding area being dominated by pasture fields and
vineyards. The absence of this vegetation type was confirmed by a
botanical specialist.
The site was also altered by erosion from the flooding event that
took place not long after the construction of the pipeline. A proposed
preferred and alternative new route for a replacement pipeline will
result in minimal impacts on the environment as it will be
constructed in a pasture field and underneath an existing road, all of
which have been previously transformed.
(b) How have the vegetation and/or aquatic ecosystem(s) present on site (including any important biodiversity features
identified on site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats)) been affected by the commencement of the listed
activity(ies)?
The majority of the illegally constructed pipeline occurred within the FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld (VU)
vegetation type, according to Mucina,L. & Rutherford, M.C.(eds) 2006. A more recent classification of this
vegetation was undertaken by Helme (2007) who referred to it as Klaasvoogds Thicket Renosterveld. The
riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus
canescens (invasive cat. 2), Salix babylonica (Weeping willow), Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow), Senna
didymibotrya (Peanut butter cassia), Solanum sisymbriifolium (Sticky nightshade), Arundo donax (Spanish
reed) Cirsium vulgare (Spear thistle) and Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum clandestinum) (cat. 1b). There is no true
Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site. No threatened plant species or species of
conservation concern were found on the site. The site has been transformed due to farming activities. The
absence of this vegetation type was confirmed by a botanical specialist, Dr Dave McDonald. This botanical
assessment also noted that the vegetation on the banks of the Doring River around the site has been strongly
influenced by invasive species and this is a contributing factor to the instability of the soils and played a role in
the flood damage as a result.
The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in November 2013, in parts
parallel and within 32 m of a natural occurring watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental
authorization. This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports
anchored by concrete foundations. This watercourse serves as a habitat for various terrestrial and aquatic flora
and fauna that can be deemed a natural resource. A freshwater ecological assessment was also conducted to
determine the impact of the pipeline on the aquatic diversity of the Doring River by the Dean Ollis of the
Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG). The present state (assessed by FCG on 12 May 2016, 2 years after the
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 17
pipeline construction) of the Doring River was rated to be marginally better than the pre-impact state in terms of
the instream component of the river (PES Class C/D – “moderately to largely modified”), although marginally
worse in terms of the riparian component (PES Class D – “largely modified”). This improvement in the state of
the instream component of the river after the January 2014 flood is because the river established a new flow-
path, along the line where the unauthorised water pipeline had been placed from where it crossed the river.
This new river course bypassed the section of the river channel that was clearly an original diversion due to
agricultural activities in the valley according to the FCG. This new river course and river bed currently has a
more natural substrate of cobbles compared to the narrow densely vegetated old bypass route (which adjoined
the Doring River at nearly a 90 degree angle), further improving the new river course’s instream component.
The reason for the slightly poorer ecological condition of the riparian zone after the construction of the pipeline
and subsequently the January 2014 flood was due to an increase in the degree of channel modification and,
especially, increased bank erosion. The erosion that occurred on the Doring River bank, particularly where the
pipeline crossed the river, is considered to be significantly greater than the natural levels of erosion that would
have been observed during naturally-occurring flood events. This erosion will however be rectifiable with
appropriate bank reshaping and rehabilitation. The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Doring River
was also assessed by FCG and indicated that the overall EIS rating of this system is of low-to-moderate
importance and sensitivity.
This freshwater study also indicated that the flood-related damage to the Doring River was not attributable to
the unauthorised water pipeline construction. This is evident from the magnitude of damage caused by the
flood, which extends well beyond the reach of the river that could have been affected by the pipeline and was
clearly a major flood event, which would have resulted in extensive erosion-related damage along the Doring
River whether the unauthorised pipeline had been present or not. However flood-related ecological impacts
were exacerbated by the presence of the unauthorised pipeline, in particular, more intensive bank erosion
occurred at the point where the pipeline crossed the river. The excavation of a trench for the pipeline alongside
the Doring River would also have facilitated the modification of the channel that resulted in a new river course.
The overall significance of these impacts was rated by FCG to be low-to-medium without rectification and would
become low with rectification. The negative impacts associated with the flood-related modifications to the river
must, however, be weighed up against the positive impact of the improvement of the instream habitat within the
new channel.
A proposed preferred new route for a replacement pipeline will result in minimal impacts and will not further
impact on the surrounding vegetation. This is because the newly proposed routes encompasses predominantly
on pasture fields and an existing dirt/gravel road. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly
proposed routes. A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route
is mapped as the Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem. This vegetation type also no longer
occurs here due to the current presence of a planted pasture field and a farm homestead. Reshaping and
rehabilitation of the river banks with indigenous vegetation is also recommended once environmental
authorization has been granted.
5.3 VEGETATION / GROUNDCOVER MANAGEMENT
(a) Describe any mitigation/management measures that were adopted and the adequacy of these:
The FCG recommended that no rectification measures are necessary to restore the instream habitat because
the modification of the river course has been a positive impact. This new river course will (and has already
begun to) stabilise itself over time. For the localised bank erosion that occurred at the point where the
unauthorised pipeline crossed the Doring River, rectification is recommended by the FCG. This should be
done by bank reshaping and rehabilitation in the areas indicated in the figure below by FCG. Guillaume Nel
Environmental Consultants should be consulted to design and oversee the implementation of the reshaping
and rehabilitation. It is in the opinion of the EAP that reshaping and rehabilitation of the river banks with
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 18
indigenous vegetation should also be undertaken once environmental authorization is granted. The banks will
need to be reshaped to a 45 degree angle to reduce erosion. Existing rocks from the river bed should be
utilized to stabilize the banks where necessary. Hydroseeding and replanting of indigenous appropriate
riparian vegetation must then take place to establish the banks.
Figure 8 from the FCG report: Recent Google Earth image of Farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (from March 2016) showing the recommended
locations for the implementation of erosion protection measures.
It is suggested that these rehabilitation activities be conducted in accordance with the attached Environmental
Management Programme (EMP) and River Maintenance Management Plan (RMMP). A RMMP for the entire
Klaasvoogds-oos and Klaasvoogds-wes rivers has been conducted by the Southern Waters Ecological
Research and Consultants cc., and our RMMP and EMP is in line with this report. The RMMP includes the
repair of infrastructure, including where pipelines have been damaged due to flood events, as well as
sediment reworking to repair river berms and banks. Method statements and activity mitigation measures for
each of these activities have been included as part of this RMMP.
The riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus
canescens (invasive cat. 2), Salix babylonica (Weeping willow), Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow), Senna
didymibotrya (Peanut butter cassia), Solanum sisymbriifolium (Sticky nightshade), Arundo donax (Spanish
reed) Cirsium vulgare (Spear thistle) and Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum clandestinum) (cat. 1b). This alien
vegetation on the banks of the Doring River would have contributed to the instability of the soils which could
likely have led to the flood damage as a result. It is therefore important that alien clearing within the
watercourse and the river catchment area be strictly implemented.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 19
6. LAND USE OF THE SITE (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)
Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the
area and potential impact(s) of the activity/ies.
Untransformed area Low density
residential
Medium density
residential
High density
residential Informal residential
Retail Commercial &
warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial
Power station Office/consulting
room
Military or police
base/station/compound
Casino/entertainment
complex
Tourism &
Hospitality facility
Open cast mine Underground
mine Spoil heap or slimes dam
Quarry, sand or
borrow pit Dam or reservoir
Hospital/medical center School Tertiary education facility Church Old age home
Sewage treatment plant Train station or
shunting yard Railway line
Major road (4 lanes or
more) Airport
Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station
Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation Agriculture River, stream or
wetland
Nature
conservation area
Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archeological site
Other land uses (describe):
An existing 110 mm pipeline was present. The construction of a 160 mm followed
this pipeline route.
(a) Please provide a description.
The land use of the surrounding farms are predominantly for agricultural purposes. They include the farming of
wine grapes, Blueberries under tunnels, Olives, Pomegranates, Stone fruit, Citrus fruit and pasture fields. The
farm is located within a valley meaning that it will not be very visible from afar. The surrounding mountain
range adjacent to the farm, the Langeberg-Wes Mountain Catchment Protected Area, is predominantly made
up of FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld (VU) and FFh4 Breede Shale Fynbos (VU), although will not be
affected by the construction. The illegal pipeline was constructed parallel and adjacent to a natural occurring
semi-permanent watercourse. This watercourse serves as a habitat for various terrestrial and aquatic flora and
fauna that can be deemed as a natural resource. There is a dam on Mr. Busch’s farm supplying the water to
the pipeline however the pipeline was not damaged near to this point. The new replacement pipeline will be
proposed to be connected approximately 200m from the dam and run underneath a gravel road where it
previously diverted into a pasture field and then to continue along an existing gravel road towards the current
connecting point on the border between portion 14 and portion 4 of farm 40, Klaas Voogds Rivier. The farm is
also located at the end of a cul-de-sac road (Klaasvoogds wes road) meaning that little to no through traffic
can be expected.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 20
7. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)
Cross out (“”) the block that reflects the past land uses and/or prominent features that occur/red within +/- 500m radius of the
site and neighbouring properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site. Please note: The Department may request
specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and impact(s) of the activity/ies.
Untransformed area Low density
residential
Medium density
residential
High density
residential Informal residential
Retail Commercial &
warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial
Power station Office/consulting
room
Military or police
base/station/compound
Casino/entertainment
complex
Tourism &
Hospitality facility
Open cast mine Underground
mine Spoil heap or slimes dam
Quarry, sand or
borrow pit Dam or reservoir
Hospital/medical center School Tertiary education
facility Church Old age home
Sewage treatment plant Train station or
shunting yard Railway line
Major road (4 lanes or
more) Airport
Harbour
Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station
Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation Agriculture River, stream or
wetland
Nature
conservation area
Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archaeological
site
Other land uses (describe): Residential associated with Agricultural
8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA (POST-COMMENCEMENT)
Cross out (“”) the block that reflects the current land uses and/or prominent features that occur(s) within +/- 500m radius of the
site and neighbouring properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site. Please note: The Department may request
specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and impact(s) of the activity/ies.
Untransformed area Low density
residential
Medium density
residential
High density
residential Informal residential
Retail Commercial &
warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial
Power station Office/consulting
room
Military or police
base/station/compound
Casino/entertainment
complex
Tourism &
Hospitality facility
Open cast mine Underground
mine Spoil heap or slimes dam
Quarry, sand or
borrow pit Dam or reservoir
Hospital/medical center School Tertiary education
facility Church Old age home
Sewage treatment plant Train station or
shunting yard Railway line
Major road (4 lanes or
more) Airport
Harbour
Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station
Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation Agriculture River, stream or
wetland
Nature
conservation area
Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archaeological
site
Other land uses (describe): Residential associated with Agricultural
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 21
SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Please highlight the appropriate box to indicate whether the specific requirement will be undertaken or whether deviation from
such a requirement has been requested.
Has any public participation been done prior to this application, which the Applicant/EAP feels can
be considered to have fulfilled the requirements outlined in the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2010? YES NO
Please provide a description.
No Public Participation process for the EA process has yet been undertaken.
Which State Departments were consulted?
Heritage Western Cape (HWC)
Details of Public Participation to be conducted in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2010:
1. Will all potential interested and affected parties be notified of the application by –
(a) fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to the public at the boundary or on the fence of -
(i) the site where the activity to which the application relates is to be undertaken; and YES NO DEVIATION
(ii) any alternative site mentioned in the application; YES NO DEVIATION
(b) giving written notice to –
(i) the owner or person in control of that land if the applicant is not the owner or person in
control of the land; YES NO DEVIATION
(ii) the occupiers of the site where the activity is to be undertaken and to any alternative site
where the activity is to be undertaken; YES NO DEVIATION
(iii) owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is to be undertaken
and to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken; YES NO DEVIATION
(iv) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site and alternative site is situated and
any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area; YES NO DEVIATION
(v) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area; YES NO DEVIATION
(vi) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and YES NO DEVIATION
(vii) any other party as required by the competent authority; YES NO DEVIATION
(c) placing an advertisement in -
(i) one local newspaper; and YES NO DEVIATION
(ii) any official Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing public notice
of applications or other submissions made in terms of these Regulations; YE S NO DEVIATION
(d) placing an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper or national newspaper, if the
activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the boundaries of the
metropolitan or local municipality in which it is or will be undertaken.
YE S NO DEVIATION
2. What other Public Participation will be done?
The public participation includes:
Fixing of Notice boards around and at the site of activity.
Registered letters will be sent to all relevant I&AP’s.
Background information documents (BID) will be given to members of the community around the site
of activity.
A hard copy of the Draft Section 24G EIA Report will be made available at the Robertson public
librarie.
An Advertisement to invite the public to comment will be placed in the Breederivier Gazette (Local
Newspaper)
This Draft Section 24G EIA Report will be made available for comment from 12th July 2016 to the 15th
August 2016.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 22
Please note:
A list of all the potential interested and affected parties, including the organs of State must be opened,
maintained and made available to any person requesting access to the register, in writing.
All comments of interested and affected parties on the Application Form and Additional Information must be
recorded, responded to and included in the Comments and Responses Report attached as Appendix F to the
report. The Comments and Responses Report must also include a description of the Public Participation
Process followed.
The minutes of any meetings held by the EAP with interested and affected parties and other role players which
record the views of the participants must also be submitted as part of the public participation information to
be attached to the additional information/Environmental Impact Report as Appendix F.
Proof of all the notices given as indicated, as well as of notice to the interested and affected parties of the
availability of the draft Environmental Impact Report/Additional Information must be submitted as part of the
public participation information to be attached to the report as Appendix F.
Please be advised that the draft Environmental Impact Report/Additional Information must first be submitted
to the Department where after it must be made available to the public and all State Departments that
administer laws relating to a matter affecting the environment for comment for a period of 40 days. The
applicant/EAP is required to inform this Department in writing upon submission of the draft Environmental
Impact Report/Additional Information to the relevant State Departments. Upon receipt of this confirmation, this
Department will in accordance with Section 24 O (2) & (3) of the NEMA inform the relevant State Departments
of the commencement date of the 40 day commenting period or 60 days in the case of the Department of
Water Affairs for waste management activities which also require a license in terms of the National Water Act,
1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998). Please be further advised that a commenting period of 21 days will apply to all
requests for comment on any information, documentation or reports (including the final Environmental Impact
Report/Additional Information) other than the draft report, unless an alternative commenting period is
specified by this Department.
3. Provide a list of all the state departments that has been / will be consulted:
Department of Agriculture
Breede-Gouritz Catchement Management Agency
Cape Winelands District Municipality
Langeberg Municipality
CapeNature
Heritage Western Cape (HWC)
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 23
SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY
Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Guideline on Need and Desirability (October 2011f)
available on the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).
1. Was the activity permitted in terms of the property’s land use rights at the time
of commencement? YES NO Please explain
The current land use of the property has been assigned to Agricultural Zone 1. The construction of the pipeline
and subsequently the new construction of a replacement pipeline will promote agriculture on the farm as an
important economic resource and complies with the principles of the land use zoning scheme.
2. Was the activity in line with the following?
(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES NO Please explain
The construction of the illegal pipeline and subsequently the new construction of a replacement pipeline would
allow for more effective utilization of the current agricultural environment by providing water to previously
unirrigated areas. This will lead to short and long term job creation opportunities, which will provide a much
needed economic injection into the local community. If the newly proposed replacement pipeline is constructed
in a sensitive manner, it will lead to long term contribution to local economic development in the district and
complies with the principles of sustainable development, one of the principles of the WCSDF. Another of the
key concerns of the Western Cape Spatial Development Framework (WCSDF) is food security and to promote
sustainable agriculture. The construction of the pipeline and subsequently the new construction of a
replacement pipeline, if done in a sensitive manner, will also help build the local food security of this country.
(b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES NO Please explain
The development on Portion 14 of Farm 40 is situated outside the Robertson Urban Edge.
(c) Integrated Development Plan and Spatial Development Framework of the
Local Municipality (e.g. would the approval of this application have
compromised the integrity of the existing approved and credible municipal
IDP and SDF?).
YES NO Please explain
The construction of the 160mm pipeline is not entirely in line with the IDP of the Langeberg Municipality.
However it does comply with the strategic objective to promote economic development within the municipal
area, by creating jobs in the agricultural segment. It is in our opinion that the construction of the pipeline
complies with the principles contained in the WCSDF. The Langeberg Municipality’s draft final Spatial
Development Framework (SDF) of 2014 confirms that the Agricultural industry is Langeberg Municipality’s
most important economic and employment sectors. Langeberg is fortunate in that its agricultural resources are
mostly intensive, comprising vineyards, orchards and pastures (all present on Mr. Doms, Saratoga farm).
Together with the magnificent scenery these resources and agricultural activities, especially wine-making form
the basis of its vibrant tourism industry. Agricultural resources should therefore be retained and improved and
not converted in the Langeberg region.
(d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES NO Please explain
The construction of the 160mm pipeline is not entirely in line with the IDP of the Langeberg Municipality.
However it does comply with the strategic objective to promote economic development within the municipal
area, by creating jobs in the agricultural segment. It is in our opinion that the construction of the pipeline
complies with the principles contained in the Western Cape Spatial Development Framework (WCSDF).
(e) An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted by the Department
(e.g. Would the approval of this application have compromised the integrity of the
existing environmental management priorities for the area and if so, can it be
justified in terms of sustainability considerations?)
YES NO Please explain
This assessment process being followed in this Section 24G Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Report
conforms to the principles of the Environmental Management Framework Regulations as this study takes into
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 24
consideration the full impacts upon the biophysical and socio-cultural systems. The process attempts to
identify all potential impacts as well as identify practical means by which the developer can develop the
necessary mitigation measures to manage these impacts. The EIA process is structured in a way to identify
environmental risks, social-economic conditions, lessen community conflict by actively promoting public
participation, propose the means to minimise adverse environmental affects and inform all relevant
government decision makers. The impact assessment will ensure that all environmental assessments are
integrated into all aspects of the proposed project’s life cycle, construction/operation and decommissioning.
The EIA process identified all possible impacts. These impacts were evaluated to determine the actual impact
on the environment. The triple bottom approach was taken whereby the socio, economic and environmental
impacts were assessed. This also ensured that Section 2(3) of NEMA was adhered to. Section 2(4) of NEMA
was further taken into consideration to ensure that ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or,
where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied.
The construction of the illegal pipeline could have impacted upon indigenous vegetation although a botanical
assessment, performed by Dr Dave McDonald, indicated that there is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld
vegetation present on site and that the pipeline would have only minimally impacted upon this vegetation.
There is also a significant amount of alien invasive vegetation on site that would have contributed to the
instability of the soils which could likely have led to the erosion of the river bank as a result. The indigenous
vegetation has largely been transformed due to agricultural activities. Reshaping of the eroded river banks and
rehabilitating them with appropriate indigenous vegetation is recommended to mitigate the effects of the illegal
pipeline construction and to reduce any further erosion and damage. This will be enforced according to the
attached EMP and RMMP.
A full public participation as per Section 54 is being undertaken as part of this application to invite all interested
and affected parties to participate in providing meaningful comments regarding the construction of the pipeline.
(f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) YES NO Please explain
3. Was the land use (associated with the activity for which rectification is sought)
considered within the timeframe intended by the existing approved Spatial
Development Framework (SDF) agreed to by the relevant environmental
authority (i.e. was the development in line with the projects and programmes
identified as priorities within the relevant IDP)?
YES NO Please explain
The construction of the illegal pipeline and subsequently the new construction of a replacement pipeline would
allow for more effective utilization of the current agricultural environment by providing water to previously
unirrigated areas. This will lead to short and long term job creation opportunities, which will provide a much
needed economic injection into the local community, fitting into the timeframes of increased job creation as a
long term SDF goal. If the newly proposed replacement pipeline is constructed in a sensitive manner, it will
lead to long term contribution to local economic development in the district and complies with the principles of
sustainable development, one of the principles of the WCSDF. Another of the key concerns of the Western
Cape Spatial Development Framework (WCSDF) is food security and to promote sustainable agriculture. The
construction of the pipeline and subsequently the new construction of a replacement pipeline, if done in a
sensitive manner, will also help build the local food security of this country
4. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned
in terms of this land use (associated with the activity being applied for) have
occured here when activities commenced?
YES NO Please explain
The site where the illegal construction of the 160 mm pipeline occurred was on a privately owned farm ± 10 km
from the town of Robertson and ± 8.4 km from Ashton. It therefore falls well outside the urban edge and is
therefore not identified as an area of urban growth demands according to the Langeberg Municipality’s SDF.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 25
5. Did the community/area need the activity and the associated land use
concerned (was it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as
local level (e.g. development is a national priority, but within a specific local
context it could be inappropriate.)
YES NO Please explain
The site where the illegal construction of the 160 mm pipeline occurred was on a privately owned farm ± 10 km
from the town of Robertson and ± 8.4 km from Ashton. The community/area did not need the associated land
use concerned as it was on private land not with public access. The construction of the pipeline will be used
for irrigation of agricultural fields, allowing for a more effective utilization of the current land parcel situated in
an agricultural environment. This will create short and long term job opportunities, providing a much needed
economic injection into the local community.
6. Were the necessary services with adequate capacity available (at the time of
commencement), or was additional capacity created to cater for the
development? (Confirmation by the relevant Municipality in this regard must
be attached to the Application Form / additional information as an
appendix, where applicable.)
YES NO Please explain
The construction and maintenance of the pipeline will not require any municipal services as the pipeline is
gravity fed from the dam on Mr. Busch’s farm. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on
Mr. Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) was purchased. The farm however does have the necessary services
from Eskom (see Addendum D, for recent electricity and water bill).
7. Is/was this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the
municipality, and if not what was/will the implication be on the infrastructure
planning of the municipality (priority and placement of services and
opportunity costs)? (Comment by the relevant Municipality in this regard must
be attached to the Application Form / additional information as an
appendix, where applicable.)
YES NO Please explain
The construction and maintenance of the pipeline will not require any municipal services as the pipeline is
gravity fed from the dam on Mr. Busch’s farm. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on
Mr. Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) was purchased. The farm however does have the necessary services
from Eskom (see Addendum D, for recent electricity and water bill).
8. Was this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national
concern or importance? YES NO Please explain
N/A
9. Did location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied
for) at this place? (This relates to the contextualisation of the land use on this
site within its broader context.)
YES NO Please explain
The development of the water pipeline on Portion 14 of Farm 40 is situated in an area historically dominated
by agricultural land use. The area can be defined as part of the Western Cape’s agricultural hub. The pipeline
was constructed on a farm between Robertson and Ashton, and situated on a site with a history of agricultural
use. It is therefore considered compatible with the surrounding land use and not expected to impact on
Cultural and Historic aspects.
10. How did/does the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied
for, impact on sensitive natural and cultural areas (built and rural/natural
environment)?
YES NO Please explain
The majority of the illegally constructed pipeline occurred within the FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld (VU)
vegetation type, according to Mucina,L. & Rutherford, M.C.(eds) 2006. The riparian vegetation has been
significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus canescens (invasive cat. 2), Salix
babylonica (Weeping willow), Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow), Senna didymibotrya (Peanut butter
cassia), Solanum sisymbriifolium (sticky nightshade), Arundo donax (Spanish reed) Cirsium vulgare (Spear
thistle) and Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum clandestinum) (cat. 1b). A botanical assessment, performed by Dr
Dave McDonald, indicated that there is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site. No
threatened plant species or species of conservation concern were found on the site. The site has been
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 26
transformed due to farming activities. The vegetation on the banks of the Doring River around the site has
been strongly influenced by invasive species and this is a contributing factor to the instability of the soils and
played a role in the flood damage as a result.
The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in November 2013, in parts
parallel and within 32 m of a natural occurring watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental
authorization. This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports
anchored by concrete foundations. This watercourse serves as a habitat for various terrestrial and aquatic
flora and fauna that can be deemed a natural resource. A freshwater ecological assessment was also
conducted to determine the impact of the pipeline on the aquatic diversity of the Doring River by the Dean Ollis
of the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG). The present state (assessed by FCG on 12 May 2016, 2 years
after the pipeline construction) of the Doring River was rated to be marginally better than the pre-impact state
in terms of the instream component of the river (PES Class C/D – “moderately to largely modified”), although
marginally worse in terms of the riparian component (PES Class D – “largely modified”). This improvement in
the state of the instream component of the river after the January 2014 flood is because the river established a
new flow-path, along the line where the unauthorised water pipeline had been placed from where it crossed
the river. This new river course bypassed the section of the river channel that was clearly an original diversion
due to agricultural activities in the valley according to the FCG. This new river course and river bed currently
has a more natural substrate of cobbles compared to the narrow densely vegetated old bypass route (which
adjoined the Doring River at nearly a 90 degree angle), further improving the new river course’s instream
component. The reason for the slightly poorer ecological condition of the riparian zone after the construction of
the pipeline and subsequently the January 2014 flood was due to an increase in the degree of channel
modification and, especially, increased bank erosion. The erosion that occurred on the Doring River bank,
particularly where the pipeline crossed the river, is considered to be significantly greater than the natural levels
of erosion that would have been observed during naturally-occurring flood events. This erosion will however be
rectifiable with appropriate bank reshaping and rehabilitation. The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS)
of Doring River was also assessed by FCG and indicated that the overall EIS rating of this system is of low-to-
moderate importance and sensitivity.
This freshwater study also indicated that the flood-related damage to the Doring River was not attributable to
the unauthorised water pipeline construction. This is evident from the magnitude of damage caused by the
flood, which extends well beyond the reach of the river that could have been affected by the pipeline and was
clearly a major flood event, which would have resulted in extensive erosion-related damage along the Doring
River whether the unauthorised pipeline had been present or not. However flood-related ecological impacts
were exacerbated by the presence of the unauthorised pipeline, in particular, more intensive bank erosion
occurred at the point where the pipeline crossed the river. The excavation of a trench for the pipeline alongside
the Doring River would also have facilitated the modification of the channel that resulted in a new river course.
The overall significance of these impacts was rated by FCG to be low-to-medium without rectification and
would become low with rectification. The negative impacts associated with the flood-related modifications to
the river must, however, be weighed up against the positive impact of the improvement of the instream habitat
within the new channel.
A notice of intent to develop has been submitted to HWC, and they have issued a positive Record of Decision,
to permit the proposed construction on the 30th of May 2016, whereby no cultural or heritage resources is
believed to be impacted upon.
11. How did/does the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing
(e.g. in terms of noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, etc)? YES NO Please explain
No noise and odour impacts occurred during the construction of the water pipeline as these activities were
only temporary in nature. The visual character of the site was only minimally altered because the pipeline was
installed underneath the ground. The visual impact is thus considered to be not significant. The visual aspect
of the site was however altered as a result of a flooding event in January 2014 that caused erosion of the river
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 27
banks. Mr. Karl Reinecke (Southers Waters Ecological Research and Consulting cc), the freshwater
consultants that have prepared a River Maintenance and Management Plan for the entire Klaasvoogds river
area. He was consulted for a site visit on the 6th of October 2014 to assess the erosion damage and to discuss
potential causes thereof and rehabilitation measures. Mr. Reinecke indicated that it would however be
impossible to attribute the reasons or cause for the flood damage without having been present at the time of
the flood. The construction of the water pipeline is not expected to alter the sense of place and character of the
site, as it fits into the current land use being utilized for agriculture.
12. Did/does the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity
applied for, result in unacceptable opportunity costs? YES NO Please explain
The construction of the water pipeline, in addition, allows for a more effective utilization of the current dormant
land parcel situated in an agricultural environment which will, with the short and long term job creation
opportunities, provide a much needed economic injection into the local community.
13. What were the cumulative impacts (positive and negative) of the land use
associated with the activity applied for? YES NO Please explain
The cumulative negative effect of the construction of the pipeline was the likely transformation of a portion of
riverine vegetation and Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation type. The botanical assessment, performed
by Dr Dave McDonald, indicated that there is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site
and that the pipeline would have only minimally impacted upon this vegetation. This assessment also indicated
that alien vegetation is present on the banks of the Doring River and would have contributed to the instability
of the soils which could likely have led to the flood damage as a result. No threatened plant species or species
of conservation concern were found on the site. The vegetation was therefore not in a pristine state and the
impact on the indigenous vegetation would have been minimal. The site was however transformed due to
agricultural purposes. Very little temporally visual and noise impacts associated with the construction of the
pipeline would have however also have added to the cumulative impact. The visual aspect of the site was
however altered as a result of a flooding event in January 2014 that caused erosion of the river banks. Mr. Karl
Reinecke (Southers Waters Ecological Research and Consulting cc), the freshwater consultants that have
prepared a River Maintenance and Management Plan for the entire Klaasvoogds river area. He was consulted
for a site visit on the 6th of October 2014 to assess the erosion damage and to discuss potential causes thereof
and rehabilitation measures. Mr. Reinecke indicated that it would however be impossible to attribute the
reasons or cause for the flood damage without having been present at the time of the flood.
The cumulative positive impacts were the short and long term job opportunities that were created by the
construction and the subsequent operation of the farming activities that would have been established as a
result of the construction of the pipeline. This pipeline will allow Mr. Doms to further expand on the agricultural
activities on his farm, potentially leading to additional job creation and financial injection in the local
community.
14. Is/was the development the best practicable environmental option for this
land/site? YES NO Please explain
The construction of the pipeline on portion 14 of farm 40 is situated in an area historically dominated by
agricultural land use. The area can be defined as part of the Western Cape’s agricultural hub and is located
between Robertson and Ashton. It is therefore considered compatible with the surrounding land use and not
expected to impact on Cultural and Historic aspects. However, during the site visit conducted on the 6th of
October 2014 the previous pipeline route (that was destroyed in the flood) was assessed in terms of its viability
in order to replace the 160 mm pipeline along the same route. It was the opinion of both GNEC and Mr. Karl
Reinecke that this route is not a viable option as any possible future flooding could result in the same
detrimental outcome. The costs for constructing such a pipeline is very high and it would be a significant risk to
replace the pipeline along the same route. It is the contention of GNEC that this route should never have been
deemed a viable option in terms of environmental impact.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 28
17. Please describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in section 23 of NEMA
were taken into account:
The Impact Assessment process conforms to the principles of Integrated Environmental Management (IEM).
The process attempts to identify all potential impacts as well as identify practical means by which the
developer can develop the necessary mitigation measures to manage these impacts. The EIA process is
structured in a way to identify environmental risks, social-economic conditions, lessen community conflict by
actively promoting public participation, propose the means to minimise adverse environmental affects and
inform all relevant government decision makers.
The impact assessment will ensure that all environmental assessments are integrated into all aspects of the
proposed project’s life cycle, construction/operation and decommissioning. The EIA process identified all
possible impacts. These impacts were evaluated to determine the actual impact on the environment. The triple
bottom approach was taken whereby the socio, economic and environmental impacts were assessed. This
also ensured that Section 2(3) of NEMA was adhered to. Section 2(4) of NEMA was further taken into
consideration to ensure that ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or, where they cannot be
altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied.
The construction of the illegal pipeline has impacted upon indigenous vegetation although the site has
previously been transformed due to agricultural activities. Reshaping of the eroded river banks and
rehabilitating them with appropriate indigenous vegetation is recommended to mitigate the effects of the illegal
pipeline construction and to reduce any further erosion and damage. This will be enforced according to the
attached EMP and RMMP.
It is not foreseen that any National or Cultural heritage resources were disturbed by the construction or will be
disturbed by the proposed replacement pipeline. Heritage Western Cape have issued a positive Record of
Decision, to permit the proposed construction on the 30th of May 2016, whereby no cultural or heritage
resources is believed to be impacted upon.
A full public participation as per Section 54 is being undertaken as part of this application to invite all interested
and affected parties to participate in providing meaningful comments regarding the construction of the pipeline.
The preferred replacement and alternative route for a new 160 mm pipeline is said to have minimal impacts on
the environment and is thus considered to be the best practicable environmental option. A positive Record of
Decision, to permit the proposed construction of the new pipeline was granted from HWC on the 30th of May
2016, whereby no cultural or heritage resources is believed to be impacted upon.
15. What are/were the benefits to society in general and to the local communities? Please explain
The cumulative positive impacts were the short and long term job opportunities that were created by the
construction and the subsequent operation of the farming activities that would have been established as a
result of the construction of the pipeline. This pipeline will allow Mr. Doms to further expand on the agricultural
activities on his farm, potentially leading to additional job creation and financial injection in the local
community. At current the farm provides employment to 40 permanent and 200 seasonal employees, all of
which are previously disadvantaged individuals.
16. Any other need and desirability considerations related to the activity? Please explain
N/A
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 29
18. Please describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in section 2 of NEMA were taken into
account:
The EIA process identified all possible impacts. These impacts were evaluated to determine the actual impact
on the environment. The triple bottom approach was taken whereby socio, economic and environmental
impacts were assessed. This ensured that Section 2(3) of NEMA was adhered to.
Section 2(4) of NEMA was further taken into consideration to ensure that ecosystems and loss of biological
diversity are avoided, or, where they cannot be avoided, are minimised and remedied. This is to ensure that
development is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.
This 24G Environmental Impact Assessment Report will be conducted in such a way as to ensure that further
degradation of the environment is avoided by enforcing the attached EMP and RMMP. Rehabilitation as a
mitigation measure is recommended to restore the riverine vegetation into a once again ecologically stable
and suitable state.
It is not foreseen that any National or Cultural heritage resources were disturbed by the construction or will be
disturbed by the proposed replacement pipeline. Cultural and heritage resource impacts were assessed and
deemed to be insignificant by Heritage Western Cape, whereby they issued a positive Record of Decision, to
permit the proposed construction on the 30th of May 2016.
A full public participation as per Section 54 is being undertaken as part of this application to invite all interested
and affected parties to participate in providing meaningful comments regarding the construction of the pipeline.
1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT (PRE-COMMENCEMENT) Describe the pre-commencement social and economic characteristics of the community in order to provide baseline
information.
In July 2013 the client Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4 of
farm 40) from owner Mr. Pat Busch. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr.
Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) was also purchased. An existing 110 mm pipeline from the dam was
offered to Mr. Doms, however this volume would not meet his future water requirement needs. A servitude was
then purchased from Mr. Busch for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close proximity to the existing
110 mm pipeline. The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in November
2013. This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports anchored by
concrete foundations. During an unexpected flooding event in January 2014 the Doring River flooded its banks
and the 160 mm pipeline was severely damaged and some sections of the original existing 110 mm pipeline
was also damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing a new river course, along the
alignment of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into the first row of an adjacent vineyard. There
was however no damage to the pipeline between the dam and where it meets the river (the northern section).
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning was notified and a pre-compliance notice
was issued to Mr. Doms in February 2016.
Saratoga farm is a fully functioning farm specializing in growing blueberries and provides employment for 40
permanent and 200 seasonal staff, all of which are previously disadvantaged individuals. The pipeline was
initially installed to provide water to a portion of these Blueberry orchards on the farm. Due to the increased
demand for speciality fruit such as blueberries, a need has arisen for more growing facilities, where the
industry shows tremendous growth of about 30% per annum in South Africa. The climatic conditions within the
area are also optimally suited towards the growing of Blueberries, resulting in good yields. The farming of
berries has a very high labour requirement due to the fact that the berries can only be picked by hand and
cannot be picked by machine. This therefore provides large employment opportunities to previously
disadvantaged individuals. This pipeline will allow Mr. Doms to further expand on the agricultural activities on
his farm, potentially leading to additional job creation and financial injection in the local community.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 30
1.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT (POST-COMMENCEMENT) Describe the post commencement social and economic characteristics of the community in order to determine any change.
Where differences between pre- and post-commencement exist, state which are as a result of the activity(ies) for which
rectification is being applied for.
The 160mm water pipeline was constructed alongside an existing 110 mm pipeline in November 2013, it
was not in service for long before it was severely damaged in a flood event in January 2014. The benefits to
the agricultural fields that it fed would therefore not have been immediately apparent. This newly proposed
replacement pipeline will however facilitate the expansion the farm and result in an increased production
yield that would lead to local economic growth. This increase in production and economic growth will also
lead to an increase in job creation. Saratoga farm is a fully functioning farm specializing in growing
blueberries and provides employment for 40 permanent and 200 seasonal staff, all of which are previously
disadvantaged individuals. This pipeline could support further future expansion of the agricultural activities
on Saratoga farm, potentially leading to additional job creation and financial injection in the local community.
The construction costs of such a pipeline can be significant and would have led to a short term economic
boost in the local economy.
2. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS
(a) Please be advised that if section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), is applicable to your
development, then you are requested to furnish this Department with written comment from Heritage Western Cape as part
of your public participation process. Section 38 of the Act states as follows: “38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections
(7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as-
(a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier
exceeding 300m in length;
(b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length;
I 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,
must at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and
furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.”
(b) The impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2), excluding the national estate contemplated in section
3(2)(i)(vi) and (vii), of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), must also be investigated, assessed
and evaluated. Section 3(2) states as follows: “3(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the national estate may
include—
(a) places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance;
(b) places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage;
(c) historical settlements and townscapes;
(d) landscapes and natural features of cultural significance;
(e) geological sites of scientific or cultural importance;
(f) archaeological and palaeontological sites;
(g) graves and burial grounds, including—
(i) ancestral graves;
(ii) royal graves and graves of traditional leaders;
(iii) graves of victims of conflict;
(iv) graves of individuals designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette;
(v) historical graves and cemeteries; and
(vi) other human remains which are not covered in terms of the Human Tissue Act, 1983 (Act No. 65 of 1983);
(h) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa;
(i) movable objects, including—
(i) objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and palaeontological objects
and material, meteorites and rare geological specimens;
(ii) objects to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage;
(iii) ethnographic art and objects;
(iv) military objects;
(v) objects of decorative or fine art;
(vi) objects of scientific or technological interest; and
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 31
(vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or sound
recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa
Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996).”
Is section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, applicable to the development? YES NO
UNCERTAIN
If YES, explain:
The illegal construction of a 160 mm pipeline exceeds 300 m in length (is approximately
1300m). A Notice of Intent to Develop (NID) has been submitted to Heritage Western Cape
(HWC).
Heritage Western Cape have issued a positive Record of Decision, to permit the proposed
construction on the 30th of May 2016, whereby no cultural or heritage resources is believed
to be impacted upon. If any heritage resources, including archaeological material,
palaeontological material, graves or human remains are encountered, work must cease
immediately and must be reported to HWC.
Did/does the development impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2) of the
National Heritage Resources Act, 1999?
YES NO
UNCERTAIN
If YES, explain:
Was any building or structure older than 60 years affected in any way? YES NO UNCERTAIN
If YES, explain:
Please Note: If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 32
SECTION E: ALTERNATIVES
Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Guideline on Alternatives (October 2011) available on
the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).
“Alternatives”, in relation to a activity, means different means of meeting the general purposes and requirements of the activity,
which may include alternatives to –
(a) the property on which, or location where, it is to undertake the activity/the activity was undertaken;
(b) the type of activity to be undertaken;
(c) the design or layout of the activity;
(d) the technology to be used in the activity;
(e) the operational aspects of the activity; and
(f) the option of not implementing the activity.
The NEMA prescribes that the procedures for the investigation, assessment and communication of the (potential) consequences
or impacts of activities on the environment must, inter alia, with respect to every application for environmental authorisation –
ensure that the general objectives of integrated environmental management laid down in NEMA and the National
Environmental Management Principles set out in NEMA are taken into account; and
include an investigation of the potential consequences or impacts of the 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.
The general objective of integrated environmental management is, inter alia, to “identify, predict and evaluate the actual and
potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and consequences and
alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimising negative impacts, maximising benefits, and
promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management” set out in NEMA.
1. In the sections below, please provide a description of any considered alternatives and alternatives that were found to be
feasible and reasonable.
Please note:
Detailed written proof of the investigation of alternatives must be provided and motivation if no reasonable or feasible
alternatives exist.
Alternatives considered for a Section 24G application are used to determine if the development was the best practicable
alternative (environmenally, socially, economically) for the property.
(a) Property and location/site alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise
positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4 of farm 40) from owner
Mr. Pat Busch. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr. Busch’s farm (portion 14 of
farm 40) and a servitude for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close proximity to the existing PVC
110 mm pipeline was also purchased. A 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally installed in
November 2013 (triggering EIA Regulations) and was severely damaged by a flood in January 2014.
Saratoga farm is a fully functioning farm specializing in the growing of blueberries and provides employment
for 40 permanent and 200 seasonal staff, all of which are previously disadvantaged individuals. The illegally
constructed pipeline was initially installed to provide water to a portion of these Blueberry orchards on the
farm. Due to the increased demand for speciality fruit such as blueberries, a need has arisen for more growing
facilities, where the industry shows tremendous growth of about 30% per annum in South Africa. The climatic
conditions within the area are also optimally suited towards the growing of Blueberries, resulting in good
yields. The farming of berries has a very high labour requirement due to the fact that the berries can only be
picked by hand and cannot be picked by machine. This therefore provides large employment opportunities to
previously disadvantaged individuals. It is the opinion of both GNEC and Mr. Karl Reinecke (Southers Waters
Ecological Research and Consulting cc) that the route where the pipeline was initially installed was not a
viable option as possible future flooding could result in the same detrimental outcome, and this route should
never have been deemed a viable option in terms of environmental impact. A replacement pipeline route is
therefore required to provide water to these agricultural fields, which will have a positive socio-economic
impact and not result in further negative impacts on the physical environment.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 33
A preferred and an alternative new PVC pipeline route (± 0.9 km in length) has been proposed to replace the
damaged pipeline and to supply water to the agricultural fields (see map in Addendum B). Both these newly
proposed pipeline route will attach to the existing 160 mm pipeline well above where the flood damage to the
pipeline occurred (more than 32 m from the river), proposed to be connected approximately 200m from the
dam. Both the preferred and alternative pipeline routes will follow the same route and be placed underneath a
planted pasture field towards the farm homestead. The preferred replacement route will continue through the
farm homestead underneath a gravel/dirt road towards the connecting point on Saratoga farm. The alternative
replacement route will bypass around the homestead, adjacent to indigenous vegetation and a vineyard. The
alternative route will merely bypass the homestead and then again join onto the same dirt/gravel road as the
preferred route where both routes will run towards the connecting point on Saratoga underneath the gravel/dirt
road. Both these potential replacement routes will have minimal environmental, geographical and/or no
impacts on any heritage resources of the farm, however it is foreseen that the preferred route will have less
environmental impacts. Both these routes will not be visually impairing as the pipeline will be placed
underground. Both these proposed replacement pipeline routes are expected not to trigger any EIA regulations
as they will be an estimated 900 m long and will be placed more than 32 m from a watercourse. No rivers or
wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route is mapped as
the Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem. However, the botanical assessment also
indicated this vegetation type no longer occurs here due to the current presence of a planted pasture field and
a farm homestead. Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of
erosion protection structures on the river banks are also recommended once environmental authorization has
been granted. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
(b) Activity alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or
detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
The construction activity for the preferred and the alternative replacement pipeline route will be the same as
the original illegal activity (to construct a pipeline to transfer water), however both these proposed replacement
pipeline routes are expected not to trigger any EIA regulations as they will be an estimated 900 m long and will
be placed more than 32 m from a watercourse. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly
proposed routes. A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route
is mapped as the Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem. However, the botanical assessment
also indicated this vegetation type no longer occurs here due to the current presence of a planted pasture field
and a farm homestead. Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of
erosion protection structures on the river banks are also recommended once environmental authorization has
been granted.
(c) Design or layout alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive
impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
The construction activity for the preferred and the alternative replacement pipeline route will have an altered
design/layout. This is because both GNEC and Mr. Karl Reinecke (Southers Waters Ecological Research and
Consulting cc) propose that the route where the pipeline was initially installed was not a viable option as
possible future flooding could result in the same detrimental outcome, and this route should never have been
deemed a viable option in terms of environmental impact. A replacement pipeline route is therefore required to
provide water to these agricultural fields, which will have a positive socio-economic impact and not result in
further negative impacts on the physical environment.
A preferred and an alternative new PVC pipeline route (± 0.9 km in length) has been proposed to replace the
damaged pipeline and to supply water to the agricultural fields (see map in Addendum B). Both these newly
proposed pipeline route will attach to the existing 160 mm pipeline well above where the flood damage to the
pipeline occurred (more than 32 m from the river). Both the preferred and alternative pipeline routes will follow
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 34
the same route and be placed underneath a planted pasture field towards the farm homestead. The preferred
replacement route will continue through the farm homestead underneath a gravel/dirt road towards the
connecting point on Saratoga farm. The alternative replacement route will bypass around the homestead,
adjacent to indigenous vegetation and a vineyard. The alternative route will merely bypass the homestead and
then again join onto the same dirt/gravel road as the preferred route where both routes will run towards the
connecting point on Saratoga underneath the gravel/dirt road. Both these potential replacement routes will
have minimal environmental, geographical and/or no impacts on any heritage resources of the farm, however
it is foreseen that the preferred route will have less environmental impacts. They are also not expected to
trigger any EIA regulations as they will be an estimated 900 m long and will be placed more than 32 m from a
watercourse. Both these routes will not be visually impairing as the pipeline will be placed underground. No
rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route is mapped as
the Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem. However, the botanical assessment also
indicated this vegetation type no longer occurs here due to the current presence of a planted pasture field and
a farm homestead. Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of
erosion protection structures on the river banks are also recommended once environmental authorization has
been granted. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
(d) Technology alternatives (e.g. to reduce resource demand and resource use efficiency) to avoid negative impacts, mitigate
unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives
exist:
The EAP is not aware of any alternatives that were considered feasible prior to undertaking the said activities.
(e) Operational alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts,
or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
The EAP is not aware of any alternatives that were considered feasible prior to undertaking the said activities.
(f) The option of ceasing the activity (the refusal of the activity(ies) and/or rehabilitation of the site):
Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4 of farm 40) from owner
Mr. Pat Busch. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr. Busch’s farm (portion 14 of
farm 40) and a servitude for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close proximity to the existing PVC
110 mm pipeline was also purchased. A 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally installed in
November 2013 (triggering EIA Regulations) and was severely damaged by a flood in January 2014.
Saratoga farm is a fully functioning farm specializing in the growing of blueberries and provides employment
for 40 permanent and 200 seasonal staff, all of which are previously disadvantaged individuals. The illegally
constructed pipeline was initially installed to provide water to a portion of these Blueberry orchards on the
farm. Due to the increased demand for speciality fruit such as blueberries, a need has arisen for more growing
facilities, where the industry shows tremendous growth of about 30% per annum in South Africa. The climatic
conditions within the area are also optimally suited towards the growing of Blueberries, resulting in good
yields. The farming of berries has a very high labour requirement due to the fact that the berries can only be
picked by hand and cannot be picked by machine. This therefore provides large employment opportunities to
previously disadvantaged individuals. It is the opinion of the EAP that the refusal to replace the pipeline with a
suitable alternative route is not the outcome, as the pipeline will ultimately provide water to agricultural land
that will in turn create job opportunities. Both these potential replacement routes will have minimal
environmental, geographical and/or no impacts on any heritage resources of the farm, however it is foreseen
that the preferred route will have less environmental impacts. They are also not expected to trigger any EIA
regulations as they will be an estimated 900 m long and will be placed more than 32 m from a watercourse.
Both these routes will not be visually impairing as the pipeline will be placed underground.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 35
(g) Other alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or
detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
The EAP is not aware of any alternatives that were considered feasible prior to undertaking the said activities.
(h) Please provide a summary of the alternatives investigated and the outcomes of such investigation:
Please note: If no feasible and reasonable alternatives exist, the description and proof of the investigation of alternatives,
together with motivation of why no feasible or reasonable alternatives exist, must be provided.
A preferred and an alternative new PVC pipeline route (± 0.9 km in length) has been proposed to replace the
damaged pipeline and to supply water to the agricultural fields (see map in Addendum B). Both these newly
proposed pipeline route will attach to the existing 160 mm pipeline well above where the flood damage to the
pipeline occurred (more than 32 m from the river). Both the preferred and alternative pipeline routes will follow
the same route and be placed underneath a planted pasture field towards the farm homestead. The preferred
replacement route will continue through the farm homestead underneath a gravel/dirt road towards the
connecting point on Saratoga farm. The alternative replacement route will bypass around the homestead,
adjacent to indigenous vegetation and a vineyard. The alternative route will merely bypass the homestead and
then again join onto the same dirt/gravel road as the preferred route where both routes will run towards the
connecting point on Saratoga underneath the gravel/dirt road. Both these potential replacement routes will
have minimal environmental, geographical and/or no impacts on any heritage resources of the farm, however
it is foreseen that the preferred route will have less environmental impacts. Both these routes will not be
visually impairing as the pipeline will be placed underground. Both these proposed replacement pipeline routes
are expected not to trigger any EIA regulations as they will be 900 m long and will be placed more than 32 m
from a watercourse. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 36
SECTION F: PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT,
MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES
Please note, the impacts identified below refer to general impacts commonly associated with
development activities. The list below is not exhaustive and may need to be supplemented. Where
required, please append the information on any additional impacts to this application.
Please note: The information in this section must be duplicated for all the feasible and reasonable alternatives (where relevant).
1. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT HAS IMPACTED ON THE
FOLLOWING ASPECTS:
(a) Geographical and physical aspects:
Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4 of farm 40) from owner
Mr. Pat Busch. An existing 110 mm water pipeline was offered to Mr. Doms, however this volume would not
meet his future water requirement needs. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr.
Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) and a servitude for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close
proximity to the existing PVC 110 mm pipeline was also purchased. A 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently
illegally installed in November 2013, within 32 meters from a watercourse (the Doring River) without
environmental authorization. This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden
supports anchored by concrete foundations. During an unexpected flooding event in January 2014 the Doring
River flooded its banks and the 160 mm pipeline was severely damaged and some sections of the original
existing 110 mm pipeline was also damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing a new
river course, along the alignment of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into the first row of an
adjacent vineyard, changing the geographical and physical aspects of the property. There was however no
damage to the pipeline or the physical aspect of the property between the dam and where it meets the river
(the northern section).
As a method of restoring the damaged pipeline we propose a preferred and an alternative new pipeline route
(± 0.9 km in length) to replace the damaged pipeline and to supply water to Mr. Doms agricultural fields. These
replacement routes have been selected as they will provide a positive socio-economic impact and not result in
further negative impacts on the physical environment. Reshaping of the eroded river banks, rehabilitation with
appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are
recommended to mitigate the effects of the illegal pipeline and to reduce any further erosion and damage. This
will be enforced according to the attached EMP and RMMP. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these
newly proposed routes.
(b) Biological aspects:
Has the development impacted on critical biodiversity areas (CBAs) or ecological support areas (CSAs)? YES NO
If yes, please describe:
A portion of the site falls within an Ecological Support Area (ESA) as the pipeline was constructed in close
proximity to the Doring River. There is no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site. No
threatened plant species or species of conservation concern were found on the site. The absence of this
vegetation type was confirmed by a botanical specialist. The present ecological state (PES) (assessed by FCG
on 12 May 2016, 2 years after the pipeline construction) of the Doring River was rated by FCG to be
marginally better than the pre-impact state in terms of the instream component of the river (PES Class C/D –
“moderately to largely modified”), although marginally worse in terms of the riparian component (PES Class D
– “largely modified”).
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 37
The overall significance of the impacts of the pipeline constructing was rated by FCG to be low-to-medium
without rectification and would become low with rectification. The negative impacts associated with the flood-
related modifications to the river must, however, be weighed up against the positive impact of the improvement
of the instream habitat within the new channel.
A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route is mapped as
the Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem. However, the botanical assessment also
indicated this vegetation type no longer occurs here due to the current presence of a planted pasture field and
a farm homestead. Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of
erosion protection structures on the river banks are also recommended once environmental authorization has
been granted. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes. This will be enforced
according to the attached EMP and RMMP.
Has the development impacted on terrestrial vegetation, or aquatic ecosystems (wetlands, estuaries or the
coastline)? YES NO
If yes, please describe:
It may be possible that the construction of the pipeline impacted on the FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld
vegetation type as this is the dominant vegetation type that occurred where the pipeline was installed. Large
majority of this pipeline was however installed underground on land that has previously been transformed due
to agricultural (planted pasture field, gravel/dirt road and along the edge of a vineyard). There is however no
true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation present on site. No threatened plant species or species of
conservation concern were found on the site. The absence of this vegetation type was confirmed by a
botanical specialist, Dr Dave McDonald. This botanical assessment also noted that the vegetation on the
banks of the Doring River around the site has been strongly influenced by invasive species and this is a
contributing factor to the instability of the soils and played a role in the flood damage as a result. Where not
invaded by alien species Acacia thicket (Vachellia karoo) typical of riparian thicket (azonal vegetation) is
present in the river valley on the south of the Langeberg. This vegetation is not threatened.
The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in November 2013, in parts
parallel and within 32 m of a natural occurring watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental
authorization. This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports
anchored by concrete foundations. This watercourse serves as a habitat for various terrestrial and aquatic
flora and fauna that can be deemed a natural resource. A freshwater ecological assessment was also
conducted to determine the impact of the pipeline on the aquatic diversity of the Doring River by the Dean Ollis
of the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG). The present state (assessed by FCG on 12 May 2016, 2 years
after the pipeline construction) of the Doring River was rated to be marginally better than the pre-impact state
in terms of the instream component of the river (PES Class C/D – “moderately to largely modified”), although
marginally worse in terms of the riparian component (PES Class D – “largely modified”). This improvement in
the state of the instream component of the river after the January 2014 flood is because the river established a
new flow-path, along the line where the unauthorised water pipeline had been placed from where it crossed
the river. This new river course bypassed the section of the river channel that was clearly an original diversion
due to agricultural activities in the valley according to the FCG. This new river course and river bed currently
has a more natural substrate of cobbles compared to the narrow densely vegetated old bypass route (which
adjoined the Doring River at nearly a 90 degree angle), further improving the new river course’s instream
component. The reason for the slightly poorer ecological condition of the riparian zone after the construction of
the pipeline and subsequently the January 2014 flood was due to an increase in the degree of channel
modification and, especially, increased bank erosion. The erosion that occurred on the Doring River bank,
particularly where the pipeline crossed the river, is considered to be significantly greater than the natural levels
of erosion that would have been observed during naturally occurring flood events. This erosion will however be
rectifiable with appropriate bank reshaping and rehabilitation.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 38
The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Doring River was also assessed by FCG and indicated that
the overall EIS rating of this system is of low-to-moderate importance and sensitivity.
This freshwater study also indicated that the flood-related damage to the Doring River was not attributable to
the unauthorised water pipeline construction. This is evident from the magnitude of damage caused by the
flood, which extends well beyond the reach of the river that could have been affected by the pipeline and was
clearly a major flood event, which would have resulted in extensive erosion-related damage along the Doring
River whether the unauthorised pipeline had been present or not. However flood-related ecological impacts
were exacerbated by the presence of the unauthorised pipeline, in particular, more intensive bank erosion
occurred at the point where the pipeline crossed the river. The excavation of a trench for the pipeline alongside
the Doring River would also have facilitated the modification of the channel that resulted in a new river course.
The overall significance of these impacts was rated by FCG to be low-to-medium without rectification and
would become low with rectification. The negative impacts associated with the flood-related modifications to
the river must, however, be weighed up against the positive impact of the improvement of the instream habitat
within the new channel.
Has the development impacted on any populations of threatened plant or animal species, and/or on any
habitat that may contain a unique signature of plant or animal species? YES NO
If yes, please describe:
The construction of the illegal pipeline would have possibly impacted the FRs8 Breede Shale Renosterveld
vegetation type that historically occurs in the area and which consists of the following endemic taxa:
Low shrubs: Aspathalus macrocarpa, Cliffortia varians,Lotononis rigida.
Succulent shrubs: Acrodon purpureostylus, Drosanthemum aureopurpureum, D. hallii, Lampranthus hurlingii.
Geophytic herb: Babiana villosa, Freesia fuctata, Ixia vanzijliae, I. vinacea, Moraea incurve, M. radians.
However please note that the site where the 160mm pipeline was constructed is located in an already
transformed agricultural area, and in a large part is laid parallel to an existing 110mm pipeline. Previous land
use has already transformed the property though agricultural practices. No threatened plant species or species
of conservation concern were found on the site. The absence of this vegetation type was confirmed by a
botanical specialist, Dr Dave McDonald. This botanical assessment also noted that the vegetation on the
banks of the Doring River around the site has been strongly influenced by invasive species and this is a
contributing factor to the instability of the soils and played a role in the flood damage as a result. Where not
invaded by alien species Acacia thicket (Vachellia karoo) typical of riparian thicket (azonal vegetation) is
present in the river valley on the south of the Langeberg. This vegetation is not threatened.
A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route is mapped as
the Breede Alluvium Renosterveld threatened ecosystem. However, the botanical assessment also
indicated this vegetation type no longer occurs here due to the current presence of a planted pasture field and
a farm homestead. Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of
erosion protection structures on the river banks are also recommended once environmental authorization has
been granted. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes. This will be enforced
according to the attached EMP and RMMP.
Please describe the manner in which any other biological aspects were impacted:
A vineyard and a planted pasture (perennial) field’s vegetation was also damaged by the river eroding and
changing its course.
(c) Socio-Economic aspects:
What was the capital value of the activity on completion? R
What is the (expected) yearly income or contribution to the economy that is/will be generated by or as a
result of the activity?
R
Has/will the activity contributed to service infrastructure? YES NO
How many new employment opportunities were/will be created in the construction phase of the activity?
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 39
What was the value of the employment opportunities during the construction phase? R
What percentage of this accrued to previously disadvantaged individuals? %
How was this ensured and monitored (please explain):
Not Known at this stage
How many permanent new employment opportunities were/will be created during the operational phase
of the activity?
What is the current/expected value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years? R
What percentage of this accrued/will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? %
How was/will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):
Not Known at this stage
Any other information related to the manner in which the socio-economic aspects was/will be impacted:
This newly proposed replacement pipeline will however facilitate the expansion the farm and result in an
increased production yield that would lead to local economic growth. This increase in production and
economic growth will also lead to an increase in job creation. Saratoga farm is a fully functioning farm
specializing in growing blueberries and provides employment for 40 permanent and 200 seasonal staff, all of
which are previously disadvantaged individuals. This pipeline could support further future expansion of the
agricultural activities on Saratoga farm, potentially leading to additional job creation and financial injection in
the local community. The construction costs of such a pipeline can be significant and would have led to a short
term economic boost in the local economy.
(d) Cultural and historic aspects:
The illegal construction of a 160mm pipeline on Portion 14 of Farm 40 is situated in an area historically
dominated by agricultural land use. It is therefore highly unlikely that the construction of this illegal pipeline
would have unearthed any archaeological sites of importance being predominantly on agricultural land. The
potential impact to the surrounding environment and any heritage recourses is deemed to be minimal in nature
for the newly proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route as this new pipeline will be buried
underground in a pasture field and underneath an existing gravel/dirt road. It will therefore not be visually
impairing to negatively affect the aesthetic aspect of the surrounding environment. A notice of intent to develop
has been submitted to Heritage Western Cape, and they have issued a positive Record of Decision, to permit
the proposed construction on the 30th of May 2016. If any heritage resources, including archaeological
material, palaeontological material, graves or human remains are encountered, work must cease immediately
and must be reported to HWC.
2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS
(a) Waste (including effluent) management
Did the activity produce waste (including rubble) during the construction phase? YES NO
If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and
estimated quantity per type? M3
Does the activity produce waste during its operational phase? YES NO
If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and
estimated quantity per type? M3
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 40
Where and how was/will the waste be treated / disposed of (describe)?
During an unexpected flooding event in January 2014 the Doring River flooded its banks and the newly
constructed 160mm pipeline was severely damaged. Parts of the pipeline were broken and some segments
remain within the watercourse and/or are entangled within the riverine vegetation. These damaged pipes are
still currently within the watercourse and will be removed and disposed of at the nearest licenced landfill site
once authorization is given to remove them. This is because the pre-compliance notice that was issued to Mr.
Doms instructed all listed activates to cease immediately.
Has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of
the waste (to be) generated by this activity(ies)? If yes, provide written confirmation from Municipality or
relevant authority.
The solid PVC waste from the damaged pipeline will be disposed of at the nearest licenced
landfill site once environmental authorization is given. The quantity of damaged pipe is not
known by the EAP, although is considered not to be a significant amount. Sufficient capacity
at the municipal landfill should be available.
YES NO
Does/will the activity produce waste that is/will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility other than
into a municipal waste stream? YES NO
If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the waste (to be)
generated by this activity(ies)? Provide written confirmation from the facility and provide the following
particulars of the facility:
YES NO
Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the license.) YES NO
Facility name:
Contact person:
Postal address:
Postal code:
Telephone: Cell:
E-mail: Fax:
Describe the measures that were/will be taken to reduce, reuse or recycle waste:
(b) Emissions into the atmosphere
Does/will the activity produce emissions that will be disposed of into the atmosphere? YES NO
If yes, does it require approval in terms of relevant legislation? YES NO
Describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration and how it is/will be treated/mitigated:
3. WATER USE
Please indicate the source(s) of water for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es)
Municipal Water board Groundwater River, Stream,
Dam or Lake Other
The activity did/does/will not use
water
If water was extracted from a groundwater source, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate
the volume that was extracted per month: 12500 m3
In July 2013 the client Mr. Marc Doms of Saratoga Farm purchased the farm Klaas Voogds Rivier (portion 4 of
farm 40) from owner Mr. Pat Busch. A 30% share in water use rights to the existing dam situated on Mr.
Busch’s farm (portion 14 of farm 40) was also purchased. An existing 110 mm pipeline from the dam was
offered to Mr. Doms, however this volume would not meet his future water requirement needs. A servitude was
then purchased from Mr. Busch for a 160 mm pipeline leading from the dam in close proximity to the existing
110 mm pipeline. The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in November
2013. See Addendum D for recent water bill from the Klaasvoogds Water Users Association.
Please provide proof of assurance of water supply (eg. Letter of confirmation from municipality / water user associations, yield
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 41
of borehole)
Did/does the activity require a water use permit / license from DWA? YES NO
If yes, please submit a certified copy of the water use permit/license or submit the necessary application to Department of
Water Affairs and attach proof thereof to this application, whichever is applicable.
See Addendum D for recent water bill from the Klaasvoogds Water Users Association. Guillaume Nel
Environmental Consultants will submit an application to confirm the applicability of General
Authorisation GN 1199 or a Water Use License Application to the Breede-Gouritz Catchment
Management Agency (BGCMA) (see Addendum D).
Describe the measures that were/ will be taken to reduce water demand, and measures to reuse or recycle water:
Guidelines and measures taken with respect to water efficiency is not yet known to the EAP.
4. POWER SUPPLY
Please indicate the source of power supply eg. Municipality / Eskom / Renewable energy source
The water pipeline is gravity fed and therefore does not require electricity. A portable generator will be used for
the construction of a new replacement pipeline, if authorization is granted. The electricity on the farm is
however supplied by Eskom. See Addendum D for recent electricity bill from the Langeberg Municipality.
If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced from?
A portable generator will be used for the construction of a new replacement pipeline, if authorization is
granted. The use thereof must be enforced according to the attached EMP.
5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:
Guidelines and measures taken with respect to energy efficiency is not known to the EAP.
Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any:
Guidelines and measures taken with respect to alternative energy sources is not known to the EAP.
6. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO AND AFTER
MITIGATION
Please note:
While sections are provided for impacts on certain aspects of the environment and certain impacts,
the sections should also be copied and completed for all other impacts.
Mitigation measures that were implemented and mitigation measures that are to be implemented should be clearly
distinguished.
(a) Impacts that resulted from the planning, design and construction phases (briefly describe and compare the impacts (as
appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that
occurred as a result of the planning, design and construction phases.
Impacts on geographical and physical aspects:
Nature of impact: Localized bank erosion where the pipeline crossed the Doring River
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 42
Extent and duration of impact: Local Long Term
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low – Medium Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low – Medium
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation:
Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are recommended to mitigate the effects of the illegal pipeline construction and to reduce any further erosion. Hydroseeding with appropriate endemic riparian vegetation is also recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Very Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Very Low
Impacts on geographical and physical aspects:
Nature of impact: Channel modification and establishment of a new river course
Extent and duration of impact: Local Long Term
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low positive Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation:
No rectification required for positive impacts. Reshaping of the eroded banks and rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation are recommended to. Hydroseeding with appropriate endemic riparian vegetation is also recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Impact on biological aspects:
Nature of impact: Impacts on biological aspects
Extent and duration of impact: Regional Long Term
Probability of occurrence: Likely
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium - High
Proposed mitigation:
All activities on site must comply with:
The regulations of the Animal Protection Act, 1962 (Act No. 71 of 1962); and Marine Living Resources Act, 1998 (Act No. 18 of 1998). All workers must be informed that the intentional killing of any animal is not permitted as faunal species are a benefit to society. Poaching is illegal and it must be a condition of employment that any employee caught poaching will be dismissed. Employees must be trained on how to deal with fauna species as intentional killing will not be tolerated. In the case of a problem animal e.g. a large snake a specialist must be called in to safely relocate the animal if the EO or ECO is not able to.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 43
Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Impacts on socio-economic aspects:
Nature of impact: Provision of Temporary Jobs
Extent and duration of impact: Site Short Term - construction
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: N/A
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Positive Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low Positive
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A, do not want to mitigate positive impacts.
Proposed mitigation: N/A, do not want to mitigate positive impacts.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Positive Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low Positive
Impacts on cultural-historical aspects:
Nature of impact: No impacts on the cultural/historical aspects are expected.
Extent and duration of impact: Site Long Term
Probability of occurrence: Improbable
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low
Proposed mitigation:
Should any heritage artefacts, including archaeological material, palaeontological material, graves or human remains be encountered during demolition or construction, work in this area must cease immediately and the ECO as well as the Local Council shall be notified within 24 hours.
Upon receipt of such notification, the ECO will arrange for the excavation to be examined by an Archaeologist. Only once authorisation from Heritage Western Cape has been granted can work again commence.
Under no circumstances shall archaeological artefacts be removed, destroyed or interfered with.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Noise impacts:
Nature of impact: Construction activities of the pipeline
Extent and duration of impact: Site Short term - will be for a short time and not be excessively noisy.
Probability of occurrence: Low
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low - Medium Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low - Medium
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 44
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low - Medium
Proposed mitigation:
Since the construction of the pipeline and subsequently the proposed replacement pipeline construction occur on an active agricultural farm it is not expected that the noise impacts during the construction phase would be significant. All construction vehicles must be in a good working order to reduce possible noise pollution. Work hours during the construction phase will be enforced unless permission was given (07H00 – 18H00). Permission should be granted without consultation with the local community. No work to be done on Sundays.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Visual impacts / Sense of Place:
Nature of impact: Construction activities of the pipeline
Extent and duration of impact: Construction - Short term
Probability of occurrence: Low
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low to Medium Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low
Proposed mitigation:
Since the construction of the pipeline and subsequently the proposed replacement pipeline construction occur on an active agricultural farm it is not expected that the visual impacts during the construction phase would be significant. The damaged pipelines within the riverine vegetation should be removed and disposed of at the nearest registered municipal landfill.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
(b) Impacts that result from the operational phase (briefly describe and compare impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of
impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the
operational phase.
Impacts on the geographical and physical aspects:
Nature of impact: Impacts on the geographical and physical aspect due to infrastructure constructed
Extent and duration of impact: Site Permanent
Probability of occurrence:
Improbable – the pipeline was placed underground and so will the proposed replacement pipeline. There are no expected impacts during operation.
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Unlikely
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation:
The pipeline was installed underground and so will the proposed replacement pipeline. Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are recommended to mitigate the effects of the illegal pipeline construction and to reduce any further erosion. Hydroseeding with appropriate endemic
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 45
riparian vegetation is also recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Impact on biological aspects:
Nature of impact: Transformation of natural vegetation
Extent and duration of impact: Site Permanent
Probability of occurrence: Low – the pipeline will not impact any biological aspects during operation.
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium - High Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation:
Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are recommended to reduce any further erosion. Hydroseeding with appropriate endemic riparian vegetation is also recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low - Medium Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low - Medium
Impacts on the socio-economic aspects:
Nature of impact: Positive impacts - Permanent and temporary jobs during the operational phase.
Extent and duration of impact: Long term – operational phase.
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: N/A
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Positive Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low Positive
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A, do not want to mitigate positive impacts.
Proposed mitigation: N/A, do not want to mitigate positive impacts.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Positive Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low Positive
Impacts on the cultural-historical aspects:
Nature of impact: No impacts on the cultural/historical aspects are expected during the operational phase.
Extent and duration of impact: Site Permanent
Probability of occurrence: Improbable
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low
Proposed mitigation:
Should any heritage artefacts, including archaeological material, palaeontological material, graves or human remains be encountered during the operational phase, work in this area must cease immediately and the ECO as well as the Local Council shall be notified.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Noise impacts:
Nature of impact: No noise impacts are expected during the operational phase.
Extent and duration of impact: Site Permanent
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 46
Probability of occurrence: Improbable
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: No need to mitigate as there will not be noise impacts during operation.
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low
Proposed mitigation: Enforcement of acceptable working hours
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Visual impacts / Sense of Place:
Nature of impact: No visual impacts are expected during the operational phase.
Extent and duration of impact: Site Permanent
Probability of occurrence: Improbable – the pipeline was placed underground and so will the proposed replacement pipeline
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: No need to mitigate as there will not be visual impacts during operation.
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low
Proposed mitigation: The pipeline was placed underground and so will the proposed replacement pipeline.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
(c) Impacts that may result from the decommissioning and closure phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts
(as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that
are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase.
Potential impacts on the geographical and physical aspects:
Nature of impact: Appearance and scarring of site due to removal/decommissioning of the pipeline.
Extent and duration of impact: Site Long Term
Probability of occurrence: Highly Likely – if pipeline is removed/decommissioned.
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Low
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium – High Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium – High
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation:
Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are recommended to mitigate the effects of decommission to reduce any further erosion. Hydroseeding with appropriate endemic riparian vegetation is also recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low-medium Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low-medium
Potential impact on biological aspects:
Nature of impact: Impacts on biological aspects
Extent and duration of impact: Regional Long Term
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 47
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium
Proposed mitigation:
Educate employees about environmental impacts and the potential impacts associated with the removal/decommission of the pipeline. Reshaping of the river banks and rehabilitating them with appropriate indigenous vegetation is recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects:
Nature of impact: Loss of Temporary and Permanent Jobs
Extent and duration of impact: Permanent
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: N/A
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High Negative Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) N/A
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A
Proposed mitigation: N/A
Cumulative impact post mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) N/A
Potential impacts on the cultural-historical aspects:
Nature of impact: No impacts on the cultural/historical aspects are expected.
Extent and duration of impact: Site Long Term
Probability of occurrence: Low
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Improbable
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low
Proposed mitigation:
Should any heritage artefacts, including archaeological material, palaeontological material, graves or human remains be encountered during the removal or decommissioning phase, work in this area must cease immediately and the ECO as well as the Local Council shall be notified.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) N/A
Potential noise impacts:
Nature of impact: Demolition of structures
Extent and duration of impact: Short term
Probability of occurrence: High
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low - Medium Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Low
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low-medium
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low-medium
Proposed mitigation:
All construction vehicles must be in a good working order to reduce possible noise pollution. Work hours during the construction phase will be enforced unless permission was given (07H00 – 18H00). Permission
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 48
should be granted without consultation with the local community. No work to be done on Sundays.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Potential visual impacts:
Nature of impact: Demolition of structures
Extent and duration of impact: Short Term
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: N/A
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low-medium
Proposed mitigation:
Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are recommended to mitigate the effects of decommission to reduce any further erosion. Hydroseeding with appropriate endemic riparian vegetation is also recommended.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low-medium Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low-medium
(d) Any other impacts:
Potential impact: N/A
Nature of impact: N/A
Extent and duration of impact: N/A
Probability of occurrence: N/A
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of
resources: N/A
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) N/A
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A
Proposed mitigation: N/A
Cumulative impact post mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) N/A
Please note: If any of the above information is not available, specialist input may be requested.
7. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Please note: Specialist inputs/studies that will be undertaken as part of this application. These specialist inputs/studies must
take into account the Department’s relevant Guidelines on the Involvement of Specialists in EIA Processes available on
the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp). A summary of all the specialist inputs/studies must be
provided with the additional information / Environmental Impact Report.
Specialist inputs/studies and recommendations:
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 49
The site where the illegal construction of the 160 mm pipeline was installed occurred on the Breede Shale
Renosterveld vegetation type, which is listed as vulnerable according to the National Environmental
Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). The site has however largely been transformed due to
agricultural purposes. Dr Dave McDonald was appointed as the independent botanist to perform a botanical
assessment and indicated that no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation was present on site. No
threatened plant species or species of conservation concern were found on the site. The riparian vegetation has
been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus canescens (invasive cat. 2),
Salix babylonica (Weeping willow), Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow), Senna didymibotrya (Peanut butter
cassia), Solanum sisymbriifolium (Sticky nightshade), Arundo donax (Spanish reed) Cirsium vulgare (Spear
thistle) and Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum clandestinum) (cat. 1b). The site has been transformed due to farming
activities.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 50
This botanical assessment also noted that the vegetation on the banks of the Doring River around the site has
been strongly influenced by invasive species and this is a contributing factor to the instability of the soils and
played a role in the flood damage as a result. A portion of the pipeline also forms part of an Ecological Support
Area (ESA) being in a river riparian zone, however no threatened plant species or species of conservation
concern were however found on the site. Where not invaded by alien species Acacia thicket (Vachellia karoo)
typical of riparian thicket (azonal vegetation) is present in the river valley on the south of the Langeberg. This
vegetation is however not threatened.
A freshwater ecological assessment was required to i) determine the impact of the pipeline on the aquatic
diversity of the Doring River, ii) assess the erosion damage, iii) to discuss potential causes thereof and iv)
propose potential rehabilitation measures. Mr Dean Ollis from the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) was
appointed as the independent freshwater ecologist to perform a freshwater ecological assessment. His report
indicated that the perceived reference state of the site according to FCG is as follows. Prior to agricultural
development within the area, on portion 14 of farm 40 Klaas Voogds Rivier, the Doring River would have been
less confined than it currently is. It would most likely have been characterised by having multiple channels or
would have been a mobile channel that periodically shifted its position across the valley floor. This is in
contrast to the present-day situation of a single channel running along the western edge property. The original
reference state cannot be confirmed as the oldest dated aerial photographs dates back to 1966 and by this
time the Doring River valley had already been developed by agriculture and the river was confined to a single
channel. A Present Ecological State (PES) assessments was completed by FCG for the presumed ecological
state of the river before the illegal construction of the pipeline. This pre-pipeline PES indicated that the
instream component of the Doring River was rated to be “largely modified” (PES Class D, Freshwater Ecology
Impact Assessment Appendix 1), and the riparian zone was rated to be “moderately to largely modified” (PES
Class C/D Freshwater Ecology Impact Assessment Appendix 1). This impacts on the instream component is
believed to be due to an altered flow regime from water abstraction from the feeder dam and also because of
the modification of the river bed, channel and banks that resulted from previous agricultural practices. The
impacts on the riparian zone is believed to be due to channel modification, a decrease in indigenous
vegetation within the riparian zone and an increase in alien vegetation.
The roughly 1.6 km 160 mm PVC pipeline was subsequently illegally constructed in November 2013, in parts
parallel and within 32 m of a natural occurring watercourse (the Doring River) without environmental
authorization. This pipeline crossed the river in two places where it was suspended on wooden supports
anchored by concrete foundations. During an unexpected flooding event in January 2014 the Doring River
flooded its banks and the 160 mm pipeline was severely damaged and some sections of the original existing
110 mm pipeline was also damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing a new river
course, along the alignment of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into the first row of an adjacent
vineyard. There was however no damage to the pipeline between the dam and where it meets the river (the
northern section). The present ecological state (assessed by FCG on 12 May 2016, 2 years after the pipeline
construction) of the Doring River was rated to be marginally better than the pre-impact state in terms of the
instream component of the river (PES Class C/D – “moderately to largely modified”), although marginally
worse in terms of the riparian component (PES Class D – “largely modified”). This improvement in the state of
the instream component of the river after the flood is because the river established a new flow-path, along the
line where the unauthorised water pipeline had been placed from where it crossed the river. This new river
course bypassed the section of the river channel that was clearly an original diversion due to agricultural
activities in the valley according to the FCG. This new river course and river bed currently has a more natural
substrate of cobbles compared to the narrow densely vegetated old bypass route (which adjoined the Doring
River at nearly a 90 degree angle), further improving the new river course’s instream component. The reason
for the slightly poorer ecological condition of the riparian zone after the construction of the pipeline and
subsequently the flood was due to an increase in the degree of channel modification and, especially,
increased bank erosion. The erosion that occurred on the Doring River bank, particularly where the pipeline
crossed the river, is considered to be significantly greater than the natural levels of erosion that would have
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 51
been observed during naturally-occurring flood events. This erosion will however be rectifiable with appropriate
bank reshaping and rehabilitation. The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Doring River was also
assessed by FCG and indicated that the overall EIS rating of this system is of low-to-moderate importance and
sensitivity.
This freshwater study also indicated that the flood-related damage to the Doring River was not attributable to
the unauthorised water pipeline construction. This is evident from the magnitude of damage caused by the
flood, which extends well beyond the reach of the river that could have been affected by the pipeline and was
clearly a major flood event, which would have resulted in extensive erosion-related damage along the Doring
River whether the unauthorised pipeline had been present or not. However flood-related ecological impacts
were exacerbated by the presence of the unauthorised pipeline, in particular, more intensive bank erosion
occurred at the point where the pipeline crossed the river. The excavation of a trench for the pipeline alongside
the Doring River would also have facilitated the modification of the channel that resulted in a new river course.
The overall significance of these impacts was rated by FCG to be low-to-medium without rectification and
would become low with rectification. The negative impacts associated with the flood-related modifications to
the river must, however, be weighed up against the positive impact of the improvement of the instream habitat
within the new channel.
A small portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route is mapped as
the FRa1 Breede Alluvium Renosterveld ecosystem, which is listed as a threatened ecosystem according to
the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). However, the botanical
assessment also indicated this vegetation type no longer occurs here due to the current presence of a planted
pasture field and a farm homestead. Reshaping, rehabilitation with appropriate indigenous vegetation and the
installation of erosion protection structures on the river banks are also recommended once environmental
authorization has been granted. This is to mitigate the effects of the illegal pipeline construction and to reduce
any further erosion and damage. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly proposed routes.
This will be enforced according to the attached EMP and RMMP.
8. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Briefly describe the impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, mitigation and significance rating of impacts of the
activity. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts.
Please note: This is a preliminary impact statement. The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the type
and nature of the impact(s) of the activity/ies.
Impacts
Significance rating of impacts after
mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-
High, High, Very High):
The transformation of indigenous Breede Shale Renosterveld and an
ESA. Please note that previous land use already transformed the
property though agricultural practices. No true Breede Shale
Renosterveld vegetation was present on site and no threatened plant
species or species of conservation concern were noted.
Low
During an unexpected flooding event in January 2014 the Doring River
flooded its banks and the 160 mm pipeline was severely damaged and
some sections of the original existing 110 mm pipeline was also
damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing a
new river course, along the alignment of the unauthorised pipeline and
eroded the bank into the first row of an adjacent vineyard.
Low to medium
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 52
Improvement of the instream habitat along the affected reach of the
Doring River. Low positive
The construction of a preferred and alternative replacement pipeline
route. Significant indigenous vegetation no longer occurs on the
preferred and alternative route due to the current presence of a planted
pasture field and a farm homestead. No rivers or wetlands were
identified along these newly proposed routes.
Low
9. IMPACT SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
Please fill in the table below, by crossing out (“”) the appropriate box(es):
9.1 Socio-Economic Benefit Index (e.g. Municipal Infrastructure)
9.1.1 The development provides no direct social service to the affected community and /or will have little, or no,
positive impact on job creation and/or poverty alleviation in the area; or
9.1.2 The development provides little direct social service to the affected community and/or will have little, or
minor, positive impacts on job creation and/or poverty alleviation in the area; or
9.1.3 The development provides some social service to the affected community and/or will have a possible
positive impacts on job creation and/or poverty alleviation in the area; or X
9.1.4 The development provides a social service and/or will have a possible positive impact on job creation
and/or poverty alleviation in the area; or
9.1.5 The development provides an important social service and/or will have a measurable positive impact on
job creation and/or poverty alleviation in the area; or
9.1.6 The development provides an essential social service (immediately required/ emergency) and will have a
measurable positive impact on job creation and/or poverty alleviation in the area
Please provide motivation for the impact rating of the above impact index:
Saratoga farm is a fully functioning farm specializing in growing blueberries and provides employment for 40
permanent and 200 seasonal staff, all of which are previously disadvantaged individuals. The pipeline was
initially installed to provide water to a portion of these Blueberry orchards on the farm. The farming of berries
has a very high labour requirement due to the fact that the berries can only be picked by hand and cannot be
picked by machine. This therefore provides large employment opportunities to previously disadvantaged
individuals. This pipeline will allow Mr. Doms to further expand on the agricultural activities on his farm,
potentially leading to additional job creation and financial injection in the local community. A replacement
pipeline route is therefore required to provide water to these agricultural fields, which will have a positive
socio-economic impact and not result in further negative impacts on the physical environment.
9.2 Socio Economic Impact Index
9.2.1 The development will not give rise to any significant negative socio-economic impacts; or X
9.2.2 The development could give rise to negative socio-economic, but highly localised, impacts
9.2.3 The development could give rise to significant negative socio-economic, and regionalized impacts
9.2.4 The development could result in wide-scale socio-economic hardship.
Please provide motivation for the impact rating of the above impact index:
The construction of an illegal pipeline occurred on an agricultural field and did not have any dust or noise
impacts on any communities. The construction of a replacement pipeline will enable water to be provided to
an increased area of agricultural field, resulting in a positive impact on the local community as there will be an
increase in job opportunities. No noise and odour impacts occurred during the construction of the water
pipeline as these activities were only temporary in nature.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 53
9.3 Biodiversity Impact Index
9.3.1
The development will give rise to insignificant impacts on biodiversity; or X
9.3.2 The development could give rise to significant, but localised biodiversity impacts
9.3.3 The development could give rise to significant, but regional biodiversity impacts
9.3.4 The development is likely to permanently/ irreversibly transform/ destroy a recognised biodiversity ‘hot-spot’
or threaten the existence of a species or sub-species.
Please provide motivation for the impact rating of the above impact index:
The construction could have impacted upon indigenous Breede Shale Renosterveld and an ESA, although
previous land use already transformed the property though agricultural practices. A botanical assessment,
performed by Dr Dave McDonald, confirmed that no true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation is present
on site. No threatened plant species or species of conservation concern were found on the site. The riparian
vegetation has been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species such as Populus canescens
(invasive cat. 2), Salix babylonica (Weeping willow), Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow), Senna
didymibotrya (Peanut butter cassia), Solanum sisymbriifolium (Sticky nightshade), Arundo donax (Spanish
reed) Cirsium vulgare (Spear thistle) and Kikuyu grass (Pennistetum clandestinum) (cat. 1b). Where not
invaded by alien species Acacia thicket (Vachellia karoo) typical of riparian thicket (azonal vegetation) is
present in the river valley on the south of the Langeberg. This vegetation is however not threatened. A small
portion (± 50 m) of the proposed preferred and alternative replacement pipeline route is mapped as the FRa1
Breede Alluvium Renosterveld ecosystem, which is listed as a threatened ecosystem. However, the
botanical assessment also indicated this vegetation type no longer occurs here due to the current presence of
a planted pasture field and a farm homestead. No rivers or wetlands were identified along these newly
proposed routes.
During an unexpected flooding event in January 2014 the Doring River flooded its banks and the 160 mm
pipeline was severely damaged and some sections of the original existing 110 mm pipeline was also
damaged. This flood also modified the river channel by establishing a new river course, along the alignment
of the unauthorised pipeline and eroded the bank into the first row of an adjacent vineyard. There was
however no damage to the pipeline between the dam and where it meets the river (the northern section). The
present ecological state (assessed by FCG on 12 May 2016, 2 years after the pipeline construction) of the
Doring River was rated to be marginally better than the pre-impact state in terms of the instream component
of the river (PES Class C/D – “moderately to largely modified”), although marginally worse in terms of the
riparian component (PES Class D – “largely modified”). This improvement in the state of the instream
component of the river after the flood is because the river established a new flow-path, along the line where
the unauthorised water pipeline had been placed from where it crossed the river. This new river course
bypassed the section of the river channel that was clearly an original diversion due to agricultural activities in
the valley according to the FCG. This new river course and river bed currently has a more natural substrate of
cobbles compared to the narrow densely vegetated old bypass route (which adjoined the Doring River at
nearly a 90 degree angle), further improving the new river course’s instream component.
The reason for the slightly poorer ecological condition of the riparian zone after the construction of the
pipeline and subsequently the flood was due to an increase in the degree of channel modification and,
especially, increased bank erosion. The erosion that occurred on the Doring River bank, particularly where
the pipeline crossed the river, is considered to be significantly greater than the natural levels of erosion that
would have been observed during naturally-occurring flood events. This erosion will however be rectifiable
with appropriate bank reshaping and rehabilitation. The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Doring
River was also assessed by FCG and indicated that the overall EIS rating of this system is of low-to-
moderate importance and sensitivity.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 54
9.4 Sense of Place (including visual) Impact Index
9.4.1 The development is in keeping with the surrounding environment X
9.4.2 The development is not in keeping with the surrounding environment and will have a significant localised
impact on the affected area's sense of place
9.4.3 The development is not in keeping with the surrounding environment, but will have a significant regionalised
impact on the affected area's sense of place
9.4.4 The development is completely out of keeping with the surrounding environment and will have a significant
impact on the affected area's sense of place
Please provide motivation for the impact rating of the above impact index:
The illegal pipeline was constructed underground and placed parallel to an existing 110 mm pipeline. The
subsequent construction of a replacement pipeline will also occur underground and be located underneath a
planted pasture field and an existing dirt/gravel road. The visual character of the site was only minimally
altered because the pipeline was installed underneath the ground. The construction of the water pipeline is
not expected to alter the sense of place and character of the site, as it fits into the current land use being
utilized for agriculture. The visual impact is thus considered to be not significant. The visual aspect of the site
was however altered as a result of a flooding event in January 2014 that caused erosion of the river banks.
The botanical assessment also noted that the vegetation on the banks of the Doring River around the site has
been strongly influenced by invasive species and this is a contributing factor to the instability of the soils and
played a role in the erosion damage as a result.
9.5 Noise Impact Index
9.5.1 The development is unlikely to give rise to any significant noise X
9.5.2 The development may lead to significant noise pollution, limited to the site.
9.5.3 The development will give rise to significant noise pollution, affecting the surrounding community
Please provide motivation for the impact rating of the above impact index:
No noise and odour impacts occurred during the construction of the water pipeline as these activities were
only temporary in nature. There will also not be any noise impacts during the operational phase as the
pipeline will be gravity fed and therefore not require the use of a pump. The construction of a replacement
pipeline will also not result in significant noise or odour impacts as these impacts will only be temporary in
nature. The site is predominantly surrounded by agricultural land use.
9.6 Pollution and Waste Impact Index
9.6.1 The development will not give rise to any significant quantities of waste or pollution; or X
9.6.2 The development could give rise to quantities of pollution or waste that could have significant, but
localised (immediate community and environment)impacts.
9.6.3 The development could give rise to quantities of pollution or waste that could have significant, but regional
(beyond immediate environment and community) impacts.
9.6.4 The development is likely to give rise to a significant quantity of prioritised pollutants or waste streams (e.g.
greenhouse gases, hazardous substances, radioactive waste, etc.).
Please provide motivation for the impact rating of the above impact index:
A non-significant amount of waste would have been produced during the construction of the 160 mm pipeline.
During an unexpected flooding event in January 2014 the Doring River flooded its banks and the newly
constructed 160mm pipeline was severely damaged. Parts of the pipeline were broken and some segments
remain within the watercourse and/or are entangled within the riverine vegetation. These damaged pipes are
still currently within the watercourse and will be removed and disposed of at the nearest licenced landfill site
once authorization is given to remove them. This is because the pre-compliance notice that was issued to Mr.
Doms instructed all listed activates to cease immediately. The construction of a replacement 160 mm pipeline
will also not produce a significant amount of waste.
Please note: Section 9 is to be completed after all specialist studies and input from Interested and Affected Parties have been
obtained.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 55
10. OTHER MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES
(a) Over and above the mitigation measures described above, please indicate any additional management, mitigation and
monitoring measures.
Full compliance with the Environmental Management Programme as compiled for this specific 24G EIA
Report.
(b) Describe the ability of the applicant to implement the management, mitigation and monitoring measures.
The applicant has the finances, resources and knowledge to implement the EMP.
Please note: A draft ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME must be attached this report as appendix F.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 56
SECTION G: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND CRITERIA, GAPS IN
KNOWLEDGE, UNDERLAYING ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES
(a) Please describe adequacy of the assessment methods used.
The assessment methods used for the proposed project were adequate as all possible impacts were assessed
in detail.
(b) Please describe the assessment criteria used.
The criteria for the description and assessment of environmental impacts were drawn from the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No.107 of 1998).
The level of detail was somewhat fine-tuned by assigning specific values to each impact. In order to establish a coherent framework within which all impacts could be objectively assessed it is necessary to establish a rating system, which is consistent throughout all criteria. For such purposes each aspect was assigned a value, ranging from 1-5, depending on its definition.
1 Potential Impact
This is an appraisal of the type of effect the proposed activity would have on the affected environmental component. Its description should include what is being affected and how it is being affected.
2 Extent
The physical and spatial scale of the impact is classified as:
Local
The impacted area extends only as far as the activity, e.g. a footprint.
Site
The impact could affect the whole, or a measurable portion of the site.
Regional
The impact could affect the area including the neighbouring erven and/or farms, the transport routes and the adjoining towns.
3 Duration
The lifetime of the impact, which is measured in relation to the lifetime of the proposed base.
Short term
The impact will either disappear with mitigation or will be mitigated through a natural process in a period shorter than any of the phases.
Medium term
The impact will last up to the end of the phases, where after it will be entirely negated.
Long term
The impact will continue or last for the entire operational lifetime of the Development, but will be mitigated by direct human action or by natural processes thereafter.
Permanent
This is the only class of impact, which will be non-transitory. Mitigation either by man or natural process will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact can be considered transient.
4 Intensity
The intensity of the impact is considered here by examining whether the impact is destructive or benign, whether it destroys the impacted environment, alters its functioning, or slightly alters the environment itself. These are rated as:
Low
The impact alters the affected environment in such a way that the natural processes or functions are not affected.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 57
Medium
The affected environment is altered, but functions and processes continue, albeit in a modified way.
High
Function or process of the affected environment is disturbed to the extent where it temporarily or permanently ceases.
This will be a relative evaluation within the context of all the activities and the other impacts within the framework of the project.
5 Probability
This describes the likelihood of the impacts actually occurring. The impact may occur for any length of time during the life cycle of the activity, and not at any given time. The classes are rated as follows:
Improbable
The possibility of the impact occurring is none, due either to the circumstances, design or experience.
Possible
The possibility of the impact occurring is very low, due either to the circumstances, design or experience.
Likely
There is a possibility that the impact will occur to the extent that provisions must therefore be made.
Highly Likely
It is most likely that the impacts will occur at some stage of the Development. Plans must be drawn up before carrying out the activity.
Definite
The impact will take place regardless of any prevention plans, and only mitigation actions or contingency plans to contain the effect can be relied on.
6 Determination of Significance – Without Mitigation
Significance is determined through a synthesis of impact characteristics, and is an indication of the importance of the impact in terms of both physical extent and time scale. The significance of the impact “without mitigation” is the prime determinant of the nature and degree of mitigation required. Where the impact is positive, significance is noted as “positive”. Significance is rated on the following scale:
No significance
The impact is not substantial and does not require any mitigation action.
Low
The impact is of little importance, but may require limited mitigation.
Medium
The impact is of importance and is therefore considered to have a negative impact. Mitigation is required to reduce the negative impacts to acceptable levels.
High
The impact is of great importance. Failure to mitigate, with the objective of reducing the impact to acceptable levels, could render the entire development option or entire project proposal unacceptable. Mitigation is therefore essential.
7 Determination of Significance – With Mitigation
Significance is determined through a synthesis of impact characteristics. It is an indication of the importance of the impact in terms of both physical extent and time scale, and therefore indicates the level of mitigation required. In this case the prediction refers to the foreseeable significance of the impact after the successful implementation of the suggested mitigation measures. Significance with mitigation is rated on the following scale:
No significance
The impact will be mitigated to the point where it is regarded to be insubstantial.
Low
The impact will be mitigated to the point where it is of limited importance.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 58
Low to medium
The impact is of importance, however, through the implementation of the correct mitigation measures such potential impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels.
Medium
Notwithstanding the successful implementation of the mitigation measures, to reduce the negative impacts to acceptable levels, the negative impact will remain of significance. However, taken within the overall context of the project, the persistent impact does not constitute a fatal flaw.
Medium to high
The impact is of great importance. Through implementing the correct mitigation measures the negative impacts will be reduced to acceptable levels.
High
The impact is of great importance. Mitigation of the impact is not possible on a cost-effective basis. The impact continues to be of great importance, and, taken within the overall context of the project, is considered to be a fatal flaw in the project proposal. This could render the entire development option or entire project proposal unacceptable.
(c) Please describe the gaps in knowledge.
There are no known gaps in the knowledge to the EAP.
(d) Please describe the underlying assumptions.
Due to the fact that the area surrounding the site where the pipeline was constructed has previously been
transformed due to agriculture, it is difficult to determine whether there are any archaeological artefacts were
present on site, however this is highly unlikely. A notice of intent to develop has been submitted to Heritage
Western Cape (HWC), and they have issued a positive Record of Decision, to permit the proposed
construction on the 30th of May 2016. This is because the newly proposed route encompasses predominantly
on pasture fields and an existing dirt/gravel road.
(e) Please describe the uncertainties.
It is uncertain if the construction would have had an impact on any cultural or archaeological artefacts in the
area.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 59
SECTION H: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EAP
In my view (EAP), the information contained in this Application Form and the documentation attached
hereto is sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for. YES NO
If “NO”, list the aspects that should be further assessed through additional specialist input/assessment:
N/A
If “YES”, please indicate below whether in your opinion the applicant should be directed to cease the activity or if it should be
authorised:
Applicant should be directed to cease the activity: YES NO
Please provide reasons for your opinion
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 60
1. The construction of the 160 mm pipeline occurred in close proximity to an existing 110 mm pipeline
and would not have significantly impacted upon the existing vegetation as the area had already be
transformed due to agriculture. No true Breede Shale Renosterveld vegetation was present on site and
no threatened plant species or species of conservation concern were found on the site by the
botanical assessment.
2. Historically the Doring Rivers would have been characterised by having multiple channels or a
periodically shifting channel across the valley floor. The ecological state of the Doring River before the
pipeline was constructed indicated that its instream component was already largely modified due to an
altered flow regime and agricultural practices. The present ecological state (after the pipeline
construction and flood) was rated to be marginally better than the pre-impact state in terms of the
instream component, bypassing a heavily vegetated previously diverted section of river and having a
more natural substrate of cobbles. The present ecological state is however marginally worse in terms
of the riparian component as a result of an increase in the degree of channel modification and bank
erosion.
3. The flood-related damage to the Doring River was not attributable to the pipeline construction and
was likely a result of a major flood event. The river erosion was however exacerbated by the presence
of the unauthorised pipeline. The overall significance would become low with rectification. The
negative impacts of the flood-related modifications to the river must be weighed up against the
positive impact of the improvement of the instream habitat within the new channel.
4. Negative impacts with regards to the disturbed indigenous vegetation and the erosion of the Doring
River can be mitigated to acceptable levels by the implementation of rehabilitation according to the
EMP and RMMP. The existing PVC segments of the damaged pipeline must be removed from within
riverbanks and be disposed of at a licenced landfill. The river banks must then be reshaped and
rehabilitated with appropriate indigenous riverine vegetation. This erosion will however be rectifiable
with appropriate bank reshaping and rehabilitation at the point where the pipeline crossed the river.
Guillaume Nel Environmental Consultants should be consulted to design and oversee the
implementation of the reshaping and rehabilitation.
5. A replacement pipeline is required whereby a preferred and an alternative replacement pipeline
route has been proposed to have positive socio-economic impacts and minimal environmental
damage. Both the preferred and the alternative replacement route will not trigger any National
Environmental Management Act: Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations GN R. 982 of 2014
listed activities, however it is foreseen that the preferred route will be more cost efficient and have less
environmental impacts.
6. No negative impact on any Cultural/Historical aspects occurred during the illegal construction of the
160 mm pipeline and are subsequently not expected to occur when constructing the replacement
pipeline. This is because it will be placed underneath a planted pasture field and an existing dirt/gravel
road.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 61
7. The construction of the illegal pipeline and subsequently the replacement pipeline is in line with the
provincial and Municipal Spatial Development Frameworks as it promotes agricultural activities and
job creation.
8. The construction of a replacement pipeline will result in the expansion of agricultural activities and
increase the farm’s production, which will lead to the creation of short and long-term employment
opportunities and inject necessary capital into the local community.
9. The riparian vegetation has been significantly altered due to the presence of alien species and is a
contributing factor to the instability of the soils and could have played a role in the erosion damage as
a result. The Doring River banks will therefore require regular alien clearing within the watercourse
and the river catchment area.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 62
SECTION I: MOTIVATION FOR RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY This section is only applicable to instances where Section 24F (3) of NEMA applies. Please list all steps that where taken in
response to the emergency.
N/A
Please note: Section 30 of NEMA deals with the procedures to be followed for the control of emergency incidents.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 63
SECTION J: APPENDICES The following appendices must, where applicable, be attached to this report:
Appendix
Tick the box
if Appendix
is attached
Appendix A: Project plan
Appendix B: Locality map, Site map, Vegetation map, Biodiversity overlay
map, Preferred and Alternative site map and Topographical map.
Appendix C: Photographs
Appendix D: Permit(s) / license(s) from any other organ of state including
service letters from the municipality
Appendix E: Specialist Report(s)
Appendix F: Environnemental Management Programme
River Maintenance Management Plan
Appendix G: Certified copy of Identity Document of Transgressor/Applicant
Appendix H: Any Other (if applicable): Pre-compliance notice
Appendix I:
Public participation information: including a copy of the register
of interested and affected parties, the comments and responses
report, proof of notices, advertisements and any other public
participation information as required in Section C above.
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 64
DECLARATIONS
The applicant
I …………………………………., in my personal capacity or duly authorised as ………………………….
(state capacity) by …………….................................………………… thereto hereby declare that I:
regard the information contained in this report to be true and correct, and
am fully aware of my responsibilities in terms of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73
of 1989) and the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 (“NEMA”) (Act No. 107 of 1998),
the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (“EIA Regulations”) in terms of NEMA, and the
relevant specific environmental management Act(s), and that failure to comply with these
requirements may constitute an offence in terms of the environmental legislation;
appointed the environmental assessment practitioner as indicated above, which meet all the
requirements in terms of Regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543, to act as the independent Environmental
Assessment Practitioner for this application;
have provided the environmental assessment practitioner and the competent authority with
access to all information at my disposal that is relevant to the application;
am fully aware of the administrative fine to be paid before a decision with respect to the
continuation of the listed activity(ies) for which rectification is sought will be made;
will be responsible for the costs incurred in complying with the environmental legislation including
but not limited to –
o costs incurred in connection with the appointment of the environmental assessment
practitioner or any person contracted by the environmental assessment practitioner;
o costs incurred in respect of the undertaking of any process required in terms of this application;
o costs in respect of any fee prescribed by the Minister or MEC in respect of the regulations;
o costs in respect of specialist reviews, if the competent authority decides to recover costs;
o the provision of security to ensure compliance with the applicable management and
mitigation measures; and
o fine costs
am responsible for complying with the conditions that might be attached to any decision(s) issued
by the competent authority;
am aware that I may be issued with a directive and that I must comply with such a directive;
have the ability to implement the applicable management, mitigation and monitoring measures;
hereby indemnify, the government of the Republic, the competent authority and all its officers,
agents and employees, from any liability arising out of, inter alia, the content of any report, any
procedure or any action for which the applicant or environmental assessment practitioner is
responsible; and
Please Note: If acting in a representative capacity, a certified copy of the resolution or power of
attorney must be attached.
Signature of the applicant:
Name of company:
Date:
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 65
The independent environmental assessment practitioner (“EAP”)
I ……………………………………, as the appointed independent environmental practitioner (“EAP”)
hereby declare that I:
act/ed as the independent EAP in this application;
regard the information contained in this report to be true and correct, and
do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than
remuneration for work performed in terms of the ECA , the NEMA, the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations and any specific environmental management Act(s);
have and will not have any vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;
have disclosed, to the applicant and competent authority, any material information that have or
may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of
any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act(s);
am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations (specifically in terms of Regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific
environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may
constitute and result in disqualification;
have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application was
distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that
participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested
and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide
comments;
have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties were considered, recorded
and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application;
have kept a register of all interested and affected parties that participated in the public
participation process;
have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the
application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and
Note: The terms of reference must be attached.
Signature of the environmental assessment practitioner:
Name of company:
Date:
NEMA SECTION 24G EIA REPORT
S24GEIAR/07/2012 66
The independent PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A
SPECIALIST PROCESS
I ……………………………………, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I:
act/ed as the independent specialist in this application;
regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true
and correct, and
do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than
remuneration for work performed in terms of the ECA, the NEMA, the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations and any specific environmental management Act(s);
have and will not have any vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;
have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that
have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the
objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations and any specific environmental management Act(s);
am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations (specifically in terms of Regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific
environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may
constitute and result in disqualification;
have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study
was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that
participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested
and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide
comments on the specialist input/study;
have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study
were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the
application;
have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the
specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who
participated in the public participation process;
have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the
application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and
Note: The terms of reference must be attached.
Signature of the specialist:
Name of company:
Date: