ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMP) TENTED … S24G/Koensrust... · ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMP) TENTED CAMP ON THE ... (NEMA) 107 of 1998 on 28 ... The National

14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMP)

TENTED CAMP ON THE DUIWENHOKS RIVER,

‘KOENSRUST’ 502, VERMAAKLIKHEID

JULY 2013

Prepared by

CHARL DE VILLERS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

14 Bradwell Road VREDEHOEK 8001

Ph 083 785 0776 * [email protected] * Fax 086 553 9256

in collaboration with

REGALIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

and

BOLANDENVIRO

EMP: KOENSRUST 502 – DEADP Ref 14/2/1/D5/15/Duiwenhoks River, Riversdale

2 | 1 6

1. BACKGROUND

This environmental management programme (EMP) was compiled in support of a section 24G

application1 for the retrospective authorisation of unauthorised activities

2 at the farm ‘Koensrust’

502 in the Hessequa Municipality.

The activities for which retrospective authorisation has been sought relate to the construction of a

tented camp on the banks of the Duiwenhoks River, about 5 km downstream of Vermaaklikheid. The

tented camp, which comprises three, furnished canvas tents placed on a wooden deck with a surface

area of 127 m2, forms an extension to an existing wooden shed/boathouse that was erected in the

1990s (see location map below).

The activities that were undertaken in order to establish the tented camp required environmental

authorisation prior to their commencement (cf. Section 2). It is an offence to commence a listed

activity without environmental authorisation.

The Applicant, Koensrust

Plase (Pty) Ltd, was issued

with a Pre-Compliance in

terms of section 31L of the

National Environmental

Management Act (NEMA)

107 of 1998 on 28 November

2012 on the basis that a

number of listed activities

had been commenced

without environmental

authorisation.

The Applicant was given the options of either ceasing the unauthorised activities, rehabilitating the

site, or submitting an application for retrospective environmental authorisation in terms of section

24G of NEMA. The Applicant chose the latter option and appointed a Certified Environmental

Assessment Practitioner, Mr Charl de Villiers of Charl de Villiers Environmental Consulting, to

1 i.e. in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (as amended).

2 i.e. in terms of s 24 of NEMA, and the 2010 environmental impact assessment regulations (as amended).


3 | 1 6

manage the prescribed environmental assessment process in terms of section 24G of NEMA. A

botanical/terrestrial ecological assessment was undertaken in January 2013 by Mr Jan Vlok of Regalis

Environmental Services. BolandEnviro conducted the public participation process.

This Environmental Management Programme (EMP) is a requirement3 of the s 24G process and

broadly follows the structure for EMPs as prescribed by section 24N of NEMA. It sets out

environmental management objectives for the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp that are premised on:

− Maintaining the current state of environmental quality at the facility;

− Preventing degradation to the receiving environment; and

− Monitoring to ensure timeous detection of, and responses to, of environmental change.

The EMP must be read in conjunction, insofar as this may be relevant to the issues at hand, with the

detailed ‘Guidelines for veld and wildlife management’ for the farms ‘Koensrust’ 502 and

‘Steenkoolfontein’ 501/1 drafted by Messrs Jan Vlok and Ken Coetzee in November 1999.

The EMP is a condition of authorisation and therefore legally enforceable. It may also need to be

amended in order to respond to changing environmental conditions or new information.

Fig 2: View downstream of the Duiwenhoks River,

estuarine wetlands and salt marsh from the wooden

deck at the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp.

Fig 3: The tented camp at ‘Koensrust’, from the south.

Note thicket vegetation in the foreground and

limestone scarp in the distance. The shed and solar

geysers on its roof are visible in the background.

3 s 24G(i)(a)(iv) of NEMA


4 | 1 6

2. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

This EMP was drafted as part of an environmental assessment undertaken in terms of Section 24G of

the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), which relates to the rectification of

the unlawful commencement of listed activities.

A more complete description of the most relevant environmental legislation is provided in the draft

Environmental Assessment Report (Charl de Villiers Environmental Consulting, April 2013).

The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended and the draft Western Cape

rural land regulations (DEAPD 2009) have the most direct bearing on this EMP.

2.1 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) states that everyone has a right to

an environment that is not harmful to their wellbeing, and to have the environment protected for

the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable measures. This includes

preventing pollution and promoting conservation and environmentally sustainable development,

while promoting justifiable social and economic development.

2.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA)

The National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended, makes provision

for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the

environment and which require authorisation from the relevant authorities based on the findings of

an environmental assessment.

In this case, the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

(DEA&DP) is the competent authority as defined by the Act.

2.3 NEMA CHAPTER 1: THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

Chapter 1 of NEMA (the National Environmental Management Principles) lays down principles4 that

apply the actions of all organs of state that may significantly affect the environment. These principles

serve as guidelines by reference to which any organ of state must exercise any function when taking

4 Section 2, Act 107 of 1998 as amended


5 | 1 6

any decision in terms of any statutory provision concerning the protection of the environment, such

as the implementation of zoning regulations.5

The principles that would have particular relevance to decisions relating to the transformation of

undisturbed habitats and ecosystems are those that require that environmental management must

(in paraphrased format):

− Avoid, minimise or remedy disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity;

− Avoid degradation of the environment;

− Avoid jeopardising ecosystem integrity;

− Pursue the best practicable environmental option by means of integrated environmental

management; and

− Pay specific attention to management and planning procedures pertaining to sensitive,

vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems.6

2.4 NEMA CHAPTER 7: THE DUTY OF CARE

Chapter 7 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 prescribes a general ‘duty of

care’ and requirement to remediate environmental damage. Section 28(1) of NEMA states:

Every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the

environment must take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution or degradation from

occurring, continuing or recurring, or, insofar as such harm to the environment is authorised

by law or cannot reasonably be avoided or stopped, to minimise and rectify such pollution or

degradation of the environment....

The Duty of Care can, inter alia, be enforced through directives issued by the competent authority.7

This EMP aims specifically to give effect to the Applicant’s Duty of Care with regard to the use and

enjoyment of the tented camp at ‘Koensrust’.

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

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

7 s 28(4), NEMA


6 | 1 6

2.5 LISTED ACTIVITIES THAT MAY NOT COMMENCE WITHOUT ENVIRONMENTAL

AUTHORISATION

The following activities listed in the 2010 NEMA EIA regulations were triggered by the unauthorised

construction of the tented camp at ‘Koensrust’:

Activities triggered in terms of Listing Notice 1 (GN R. 544)

Paraphrased definition of activity Aspect of the development that triggered the

listed activity

11(xi) Construction of infrastructure covering ≥50 m2 within

32 m of a watercourse

The wooden decks exceed the stipulated

threshold. They are also within 32 m of the

floodplain of the Duiwenhoks River.

16(vi) Construction of infrastructure covering ≥50 m2 within

100 m of an estuary8

The wooden decks exceed the stipulated

threshold and are within 100 m of an estuary.

40(iv) Expansion of infrastructure by >50 m2 within 32 m of a

watercourse

The wooden decks entail expansion of the built

facilities at the ‘Koensrust’ campsite in excess

of the stipulated threshold. They are also

within 32 m of the floodplain of the

Duiwenshoks River.

45(vi) Expansion of facilities within 100 m inland of high

water mark of an estuary for infrastructure exceeding

50 m2

The wooden decks entail expansion of the built

facilities at the Koensrust campsite in excess of

the stipulated threshold, and are within 100 m

ofthe HWM of an estuary.

Activities triggered in terms of Listing Notice 3 (GN R. 546)

Paraphrased definition of activity Aspect of the development that triggered the

listed activity

5(g)(iv) Construction of tourism accommodation that sleeps

<15 people 100 m from the edge of a watercourse in

the Western Cape

The tented camp can accommodate eight

people within 100 m of the Duiwenhoks River.

16(iv)(d)(i) The construction of infrastructure covering ≥10 m2

within 32 m of a watercourse in an estuary in the

Western Cape

The wooden deck exceeds both thresholds:

both in terms of its size, and distance from the

estuarine component of the Duiwenhoks

River.

8 The National Water Act 36 of 1998 (section 1, ‘Definitions’) defines an ‘estuary’ as a “partially or fully

enclosed body of water... which is open to the sea permanently or periodically... and within which the sea

water can be diluted, to an extent that is measurable, with fresh water drained from land....” The tented camp

is located above the terrestrial margin of the salt marsh, in a fynbos-thicket mosaic. No activities therefore

took place in an estuary as defined above.


7 | 1 6

2.6 THE NEMA S 24G PROCESS

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

activities. The ‘rectification process’ entails submission of an EIA to the competent authority that, in

turn, can have two potential outcomes:

− An instruction to cease the activity, either wholly or in part, and to rehabilitate the

environment;9 or

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

(i.e. continuation).10

A decision will not be taken on a section 24G application until the Applicant has paid an

administrative fine, which may not exceed R1-million.11

2.7 THE DRAFT WESTERN CAPE RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

The draft Western Cape Rural Land-use Planning and Management Guidelines (DEA&DP 2009)12

are

based on the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework, an approved section 4(6)

structure plan in terms of the Land-use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985.

They among others delineate Spatial Planning Categories (SPCs) in terms of the biodiversity

categories that are used by CapeNature’s Critical Biodiversity Area maps13

for Western Cape

municipalities. Such SPCs indicate the type of land use that should be accommodated in the SPC and

where these land use should take place. CBA maps, in turn, provide desired management objectives

for the various mapped biodiversity categories that underpin SPCs.

The tented camp at ‘Koensrust’ is located within the buffer of an aquatic CBA, and adjacent to the

channel and floodplain of the Duiwenhoks River which are depicted as a terrestrial CBA on the CBA

map for the Hessequa and Mossel Bay municipalities (cf. Maree and Vromans, 2010). The affected

land should be designated as a ‘Core 2’ spatial planning category as it comprises the mapped buffer

area for an aquatic CBA and would contribute to ecological connectivity.

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

10 s 24G(2(b), NEMA

11 s 24G(2A)

12 http://www.capegateway.gov.za/other/2009/9/wcpsdf_rural_guidelines_may_09_draft_3.pdf

13 Cf. http://bgis.sanbi.org


8 | 1 6

3. THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

3.1 LOCATION

The property is located on the left (eastern) bank of the Duiwenhoks River, about midway between

Vermaaklikheid and the mouth of the estuary. The ‘Koensrust’ camp site is about 5 km upstream of

Puntjie, where the Duiwenhoks River enters the Indian Ocean (see Figure 1).

The southern reaches of the Duiwenhoks River are situated within the South Western Coastal Belt

ecoregion of the Gourits Water Management Area. The region receives about rainfall of about 500

mm of rainfall a year. Rainfall is bimodal, i.e. rain can be expected in winter and summer.

Farm 502 (‘Koensrust’) consists of two sections either side of the road that connects Vermaaklikheid

with Puntjie. The unauthorised activities occurred on the western section of the property, i.e. that

part of the farm that lies between the Duiwenhoks River and the latter road.

The centrepoint of the unauthorised tented camp is at: 34o

20‘21.06“ S 21o01‘26.10“E.

3.2 DISTINCTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES

The tented camp is located at the base of one of several steep valleys that incise the limestone

escarpment directly east of the Duiwenhoks River between the feature known as ‘Die Hoek’ and the

mouth of the estuary at Puntjie.

The Duiwenhoks River lies directly to the west of the limestone scarp below which the tented camp

is located. The scarp drops steeply to the river, from an altitude of about 160 masl over a distance of

a kilometre to virtually sea level in the channel of the Duiwenhoks River. The tented camp is located

on a narrow raised bench, about 20 m wide, between the base of the scarp and the salt flats of the

river. An access track, seep-fed dam and large lawned area lie to the north-east.

3.3 LAND USE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

The riverside campsite at Koensrust has been in private use since the early 1980s. Most of the

development on the property took place in the mid-to late 1990s. Infrastructure and facilities that

were established in this period included an access road, jetty, a wooden shed and gazebo, a slipway

and a pit Iatrine which is located behind the shed, about 50 m from the upper margin of the salt

marsh.


9 | 1 6

The jetty, slipway and upgraded road were authorised by Cape Nature Conservation in September

1998.

Previously, about 2 300 m2 of the property at the base of the local limestone scarp seems to have

been cleared for agricultural purposes (apparently vegetables were cultivated) and an earth dam is

still visible at the north-eastern extremity of this open grassed area. The dam is fed naturally by a

seep and provides water for domestic use. Water is filtered by an informal system of two 500 litre

settling tanks before flowing into a single, 2 500 litre tank, which supplies the campsite with potable

water.

The property has been cleared of invasive alien plants – including dense stands of rooikrans Acacia

cyclops and Spanish reed Arundo donax, which previously infested the dam. Alien management is

ongoing, and appears to be very effective. The area occupied by the shed and newly-built tented

camp had also previously been under aliens, which have been removed.

A water pipeline, which conveys water from the Oshoek kloof to Kleinfontein about 1.5 km to the

south-west of the Koensrust campsite, crosses the lower-lying parts of the Koensrust property. The

pipeline servitude runs directly adjacent to the shed and through the area where wooden decking

was installed between September 2010 and November 2011.

It is the latter infrastructure and, potentially, three furnished tents that were subject to a section

24G application for the rectification of unauthorised activities.

A maximum of 250 m2 of vegetation was cleared to establish the decking, which forms a veranda on

the riverside aspect of the shed and extends to the south (i.e. seawards) for about 30 m. The total

area of decking amounts to 127 m2. The deck houses an open ‘braai’ area just south of the shed and

supports three canvas tents arranged in a row to the south. The tents are equipped with basic

furnishings. There are four single beds in the tent closest to the shed, and a double bed in each of

the remaining tents. This additional infrastructure covers an area of roughly 300 m2 in extent. There

is another sunken ‘braai’ place on the ground to the west of the decking.

The shed and tented camp are on raised ground that is separated from the terrestrial margin of the

estuary by a distinct slope some 1.5 m in height and therefore do not intrude into estuarine habitat.

There are no components of the affected property that would come into contention as elements of

the ‘National estate’ as defined by Chapter 1 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999.


10 | 1 6

3.4 THE BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT

The broad study area is located within the Cape Floristic Region, one of 34 global biodiversity

‘hotspots’, i.e. areas of great natural wealth that are under extreme pressure. At a regional scale,

ecosystems and habitats would be those associated with the south-western parts of the Fynbos

Biome and western outliers of the azonal Albany Thicket Biome. Both these biomes are national

priority areas for biodiversity conservation action in South Africa.

3.4.1 Vegetation types

The fine-scale vegetation map for the

Riversdale conservation planning domain

(Figure 4, Vlok and De Villiers, 2007;

Maree and Vromans, 2010) indicates that

a thicket-fynbos mosaic occurs in the

area, namely Vermaaklikheid Thicket-

Limestone Fynbos (Vlok, 2013; Appendix

G of the final EIR). The tented camp is

exclusively located in a thicket clump (i.e.

the fynbos element of this vegetation

type is not locally present).

The Vegetation Map for South Africa,

Lesotho and Swaziland (Figure 5, Mucina

et al., (eds), 2005) (right), which depicts

vegetation types at a much smaller scale

(1:1 000 000) than the 1:50 000

biodiversity sector plan for the Mossel

Bay and Hessequa municipalites (Maree

and Vromans, 2010), places the site on a

boundary between Eastern Rûens Shale

Renosterveld and Cape Coastal Lagoons.

Ground-truthing by the botancial

specialist, Jan Vlok, found that the

national vegetation map had, in fact,

erred and that the site did not support renosterveld, but the aforementioned thicket-fynbos mosaic

Fig 4: Vegetation at the Koensrust tented camp – fine-scale plan for

the Riversdale Plain (Vlok and De Villiers, 2007)

Fig 5: Vegetation at the Koensrust tented camp – national

vegetation map (Mucina et al., 2005)


11 | 1 6

(see the final environmental impact assessment – botanical assessment, Appendix G, as well as

photographs in Appendix C of the habitat and vegetation that occur at the site). The immediate

environs of the site that was used to develop the tented camp would have comprised, at most,

about 1 350 m2

of the thicket-limestone fynbos vegetation type. The developable area is probably

considerably less than this owing to the proximity of the river and a steep slope directly to the south.

The camp is situated about 10 or 12 m from the edge of salt marsh component of the Duiwenhoks

River estuarine wetland.

3.4.2 Ecological corridors, boundaries and gradients

The tented camp is located on the left bank of the Duiwenhoks River, about 5 km upstream from the

estuary. The river, tidal wetlands and riparian vegetation would form part of an important sub-

regional ecological corridor.

3.4.3 Ecosystem status of affected vegetation

Eastern Rûens Shale Renosterveld is classified as Critically Endangered and Cape Coastal Lagoons as

not threatened by the national list of threatened ecosystems and ecosystems in need of protection

(DEA, 2011). However, as previously noted, the national vegetation map edited by Mucina et al.

(2005) has incorrectly depicted the site as supporting renosterveld whereas, in fact, it supports a

matrix of limestone fynbos interspersed with discreet clumps of thicket. Neither of the vegetation

units that comprise this mosaic are threatened (Vlok 2013, Appendix G). The ‘Koensrust’ tented

camp is located exclusively in the thicket component of the Vermaaklikheid Thicket-Limestone

Fynbos mosaic, which is not threatened.

3.4.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas

The area in question is depicted as a buffer of an aquatic CBA selected due to the potential presence

of seeps (there is a seep, which provides water for the property, about 100 m to the south-east).

The adjacent channel and salt marsh/floodplain of the Duiwenhoks River are depicted as a terrestrial

CBA in a mostly natural or near-natural condition. A vegetation clump directly to the north of the

grassed area described above is also designated as a terrestrial CBA. Although located within the

broad precincts of the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp, these thicket clumps were not affected by the

tented camp.


12 | 1 6

The management objectives for CBAs require that further degradation of these features must

prevented and, if the CBA is not in a natural condition, it must be restored to a natural or at least

near-natural condition. These objectives are incorporated into this EMP.

3.4.5 Impacts and rehabilitation potential of degraded terrestrial habitats

The tented camp largely confines trampling-related impacts to surface of the wooden deck, which

means that rehabilitation is not a priority for this facility. If the deck and tented camp were to be

decommissioned and demolished, the residue would be an open area of some 300 m2. Some

recovery of thicket may be expected if rootstocks have not been damaged – see Helme on post-

disturbance recovery of strandveld and dune thicket (De Villiers et al., 2005, pp 32-37).

3.4.3 Guidelines for alien clearance

The tented camp at ‘Koensrust’ and its immediate surrounds is effectively clear of invasive alien

plants. The alien management guidelines recommended by Vlok and Coetzee (1999, p 17) must

continue to be implemented as advised.

4. CONSOLIDATED IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The environmental impact report identified various impacts associated with the construction of the

tented camp, namely:

− Impacts on Critical Biodiversity Areas and other important biodiversity features;

− Impacts on socio-economic aspects; and

− Visual or noise-related impacts that may detract from a ‘sense of place’.

Table 1 provides a summary of the significance of key impacts associated with the development. A

significance rating is provided for each impact with and without mitigation. Refer to the final EIA

Report for a more detailed discussion on the identification, assessment and evaluation methodology

that was used.


13 | 1 6

Table 1: Summary of impact significance

Alternative 1

(The ‘no go’ option)

Alternative 2

(Tented camp on lawn)

Alternative 3

(The status quo)

Before

mitigation

After

mitigation

Before

mitigation

After

mitigation

Before

mitigation

After

mitigation

Impacts on Critical

Biodiversity Areas Nil Nil Nil Nil

Neutral to

Very low (-)

Neutral to

Very low (-)

Socio-economic

impacts Nil Nil Very low (+) N/A Very low (+) N/A

Impacts that may

detract from a

‘sense of place’

Nil Nil Very low (-) Very low (-) Very low (-) Very low (-)

4.1 BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT

The most significant associated with this development were, potentially, those associated with the

loss of indigenous vegetation. The key findings of the botanical/biodiversity assessment are:

− The unauthorised establishment of a tented camp had not impacted on rare or threatened

plant species or the vegetation of the adjacent estuarine wetland.

− The development had not resulted in loss of habitat in a Critical Biodiversity Area.

− The affected vegetation type (‘ecosystem’) was not threatened, and the removal of a

maximum of 250 m2 of thicket vegetation did not pose any threat to the maintenance of

ecological processes that function at a landscape, supra-site scale.

− Salt marsh vegetation in the vicinity of the jetty and slipway had also not shown signs of

recent degradation.

− The programme to remove invasive alien plants from the property was very effective, as was

the fire management plan.

− Overall, the farm ‘Koensrust’ 502 was being managed to a very high ecological standard.

− However, the existing ablution facilities at the tended camp had to be upgraded to an

environmentally-acceptable standard.

The positive impact of an upgraded sewage system would outweigh any negative impacts associated

with the development.


14 | 1 6

4.2 OVERALL FINDINGS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Viewed overall, impacts associated with the unauthorised tented camp at ‘Koensrust’ have ‘very

low’ negative significance with respect to biodiversity and the ‘sense of place’. Impacts on

biodiversity would be close to neutral if weighed against the positive contribution of the property to

responsible alien and fire management. The development may have a slightly positive socio-

economic effect.

The key environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures are presented below. Current

management practices at the tented camp appear to be very effective and no change in

management is therefore recommended. This is subject to a decision on whether the pit latrine

needs to upgraded.

4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES: INDIGENOUS VEGETATION

Removal of ≤250 m2

of non-threatened thicket vegetation did not have an impact on rare or

threatened species and would not have an effect on ecological processes that function beyond site

and property boundaries at a landscape scale.

The only mitigation measure would be to keep the immediately adjacent thicket clear of invasive

alien plants. Refer to Section 3.3 of the ‘Guidelines for veld and wildlife management’ for

‘Koensrust’ and ‘Steenkoolfontein’.

4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES: SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The tented camp, if authorised, may occasionally host eight campers. The camp would have a

positive socio-economic impact if high levels of occupancy could be sustained throughout the year. If

this is the case, new employment opportunities are likely to follow. No mitigation is necessary.

4.5 MITIGATION MEASURES: IMPACTS ON ‘SENSE OF PLACE’

Visual and noise-related impacts that may be associated with the tented camp are viewed as slight

and of little consequence with regard to the ‘sense of place’ attached to the broader environment of

‘Koensrust’.

At this stage, pending the publication of the final environmental impact report for public comment,

no mitigation is recommended with respect to impacts on ‘sense of place’.


15 | 1 6

4.6 MITIGATION MEASURES: IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY

The environmental desirability of the existing pit latrine was called into question during the impact

assessment. Its construction did not, however, entail a listed activity and was therefore not subject

to the s 24G application. The owners of the ‘Koensrust’ campsite have indicated their willingness to

replace the pit latrine with a septic tank. The installation of a 2 500 ℓ (suitable for ≤10 persons) or 5

000 ℓ (suitable for ≤20 persons) septic tank would not trigger the licensing requirements of the NEM:

Waste Act 59 of 2008.

Potential impacts on water quality affecting the Duiwenhoks River can be effectively avoided by

installing a suitable sewerage system. What this would entail, and if it’s necessary, would have to be

clarified in discussion with the Hessequa Municipality and the Department of Water Affairs or the

Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency.

5. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES and MONITORING

Management interventions are defined and shaped by their intended objectives.

5.1 Management objectives

The recommended management objectives for the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp would complement the

objectives for vegetation and wildlife management contained in the management guidelines for the

‘Koensrust’ and ‘Steenkoolfontein’ properties (Vlok and Coetzee, 1999).

The management objectives for the ‘Koensrust’ tented camp are:

− Maintain the current state of environmental quality at the facility;

− Prevent degradation to the receiving environment; and

− Monitor the riverside precinct to ensure timeous detection of, and responses to, of

environmental change.

The applicant, Koensrust Plase (Pty) Ltd, is responsible for ongoing management of the site, in terms

of the management guidelines drafted by Vlok and Coetzee (1999).


16 | 1 6

Advice on management and monitoring may also be obtained

from CapeNature Conservation (See box).

5.2 Monitoring

The absence of alien invasive plants would be the key indicator

by which to monitor the effectiveness of environmental

management at the tented camp.

Adhere to the guidelines monitoring and alien clearance recommended by Vlok and Coetzee (1999).

6. REFERENCES

Department of Environmental Affairs (2011) National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in

need of protection. GG 34809 GN R. 1002, 9 December 2011. Government Printer, Pretoria.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2009) Draft Western Cape Rural

Land-use Planning & Management Guideline, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Cape

Town.

De Villiers CC, Brownlie S, Clark B, Day EG, Driver A, Euston-Brown DIW, Helme NA, Holmes PM, Job

N, Rebelo AB (2005) Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the

Western Cape. Fynbos Forum and Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch. ISBN 0-620-

35258-2.

Maree KS and Vromans DC (2010) The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Hessequa and Mossel Bay

Municipalities: Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas

and Ecological Support Areas. Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale

Biodiversity Planning Project. Kirstenbosch.

Mucina L, Rutherford MC and Powrie LW (2005) Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland: 1:1 000 000 scale sheets; in Mucina and Rutherford (eds), Strelitzia 19, South African

National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, pp 749-790.

Vlok J (2013) Specialist botanical impact assessment for the proposed resort facilities on the farm

‘Koensrust’ in the Riversdale district. Unpubl report, Regalis Environmental Services, Oudtshoorn.

Vlok J and Coetzee K (1999) Guidelines for veld and wildlife management:

Koensrust/Steenkoolfontein. Unpubl management guidelines prepared for Messrs F du Plessi and

E de Villiers, November 1999. Regalis Environmental Services and Conservation Management

Services, Oudtshoorn and George.

THE CONSERVATION

SERVICES MANAGER

Garden route Business Unit:

Hessequa section

CapeNature

P O Box 503

RIVERSDALE 6670

Tel 028 7132366

Fax 028 7132366

Documents

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMP) TENTED … S24G/Koensrust... · ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMP) TENTED CAMP ON THE ... (NEMA) 107 of 1998 on 28 ... The National