The Freshwater Consulting Group - Cape EAPrac Uitkyk/EIR/G1 Freshwater... · 3.1 Description of the...

7

Client Mr Wouter Muller

Vredehof, Herbertsdale

Main Environmental Consultant Cape EAPrac

S24G application for rectification or authorization of a sump constructed on the Langtou River, Western Cape

Specialist freshwater ecosystem report

DRAFT REPORT

December 2015 Prepared by:

Liz Day Freshwater Consulting cc

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

7

The Freshwater Consulting Group

6 Flamingo Crescent

Zeekoevlei 7941

E-mail: [email protected]

VAT No: 444 024 7122 7 December 2015

DECLARATION OF SPECIALIST INDEPENDENCE

I, Elizabeth (Liz) Day as a partner of Freshwater Consulting cc (t/a The Freshwater Consulting Group / FCG), hereby confirm my independence as a specialist and declare that I do not have any interest, be it business, financial, personal or other, in any proposed activity, application or appeal in respect of which Cape EAPrac was appointed as environmental assessment practitioner in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), other than fair remuneration for work performed, specifically in connection with the S24G Specialist Report compiled by FCG to assess the need for rectification and/or mitigation of the effects of the unauthorized construction of an irrigation sump in the Langtou River, Herbertsdale. ______________________________ Full Name: Elizabeth Day Freshwater Consulting Group [email protected] Title / Position: Dr Qualification(s): BA, BSc, BSc Hons, PhD Experience: over 20 years working in freshwater ecosystems, specializing in river and wetland rehabilitation and management, with a good knowledge of the function, structure and importance of the rivers and wetlands in the Langtou River, having previously compiled the river and wetland Baseline Report and the River Maintenance and Management Plan for the Langtou River and its catchment. Liz has experience in wetland assessment, mapping and delineation, including the DWAF (2005) delineation methodology. Registration(s): Member of IAIA; Member of SAIEES; Registered Professional Natural Scientist by SACNASP (Reg No 400270/08) for fields of Biological Science, Ecological Science and Zoological Science

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Terms of reference 2 1.3 Activities informing this study 3 1.4 Site location 3 1.5 Definitions and terminology 3

2 The Langtou River Maintenance and Management Plan 5

2.1 Langtou River Catchment 5 2.2 Conservation importance of the Langtou River and its wetlands 6 2.3 Context of the Langtou River Maintenance and Management Plan 6 2.4 Objectives 6 2.5 Recommendations with regard to irrigation sumps 7 2.6 Recommendations regarding irrigation abstraction 7

3 Effects of sump construction on the Langtou River 1

3.1 Description of the river in its reaches affected by construction of the illegal sump 1 3.2 Water quality issues of relevance to this study 1 3.3 Description of the new sump and associated infrastructure 2 3.4 Alignment of sump construction with the MMP 2 3.5 Impacts of sump construction 2

4 Recommended rehabilitation and/or rectification activities 3 5 Conclusions 4 6 References 5

S24G Report on a sump in the Langtou River – Farm Vredehof 203, Herbertsdale – Freshwater ecosystems assessment

2

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The owner of Farm Vredehof 203, Herbertsdale (Mr Wouter Muller), has been issued with a pre-compliance notice by the Western Cape’s Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) (DEADP Reference 14/1/1/E3/8/6/3/L759/15) in terms of Section 31L of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). The notice was issued as a result of Mr Muller’s construction of a sump in the Langtou River, for the purpose of withdrawing irrigation water from further upstream, after the quality of water in his existing sump had deteriorated.

Construction of the sump triggered listed Activity 19 of Government Notice R983 of 4 December 2014, namely:

“The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic meters into, or the dredging , excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic meters from -

(i) A watercourse (ii) … (iii) …

But excluding where such infilling, depositing, dredging, excavation, removal or moving - (a) Will occur behind a development setback; (b) Is for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management

plan, or […] “.

Given that a maintenance and management plan does in fact exist for the Langtou River (De Villiers and Day 2012), the landowner undertook the construction of the sump in the understanding that his activities were authorised in terms of the above exclusion, and provided the authorities with written notice of his intention to construct the sump (see correspondence of 1 May 2015).

Although it is my understanding that the landowner received no response from DEADP to his letter, on commencing sump construction he was issued with the above-cited pre-compliance notice, with DEADP being of the opinion that these works were not included in the activities sanctioned by the MMP.

One of the measures specified by DEADP to correct the “non-compliance” activity was the compilation by a suitably qualified environmental assessment practitioner of a report that assesses and evaluates the environmental impact caused by the illegal activity and identifies remedial and/or mitigation measures.

Cape EAPrac was appointed by the landowner to undertake this assessment process. Since the affected environment included the Langtou River, FCG was appointed to provide specialist input into the project. This report presents the resultant specialist Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed activities.

1.2 Terms of reference

FCG’s terms of reference for this project required that the specialist:

Assess the impact of the unauthorized sump construction on aquatic ecosystems;

Comment on the activity with reference to the MMP objectives for the Langtou River catchment;

Make recommendations for impact mitigation where necessary – these could include removal and relocation of the sump;

Include the above in a formal S24G assessment report.


3

1.3 Activities informing this study

This study was informed by the following activities, namely:

A once-off visual inspection of the sites of both the original and the new sumps on 6 November 2015, accompanied by Mr Wouter Muller;

Consideration of the findings of the Langtou River Baseline Study (Day and De Villiers 2012);

Consideration of the recommendations of the Langtou River MMP (De Villiers and Day 2012);

Discussions with Mr John Roberts (DWS) regarding irrigation water allocations in the Langtou River;

Compilation of the (present) S24G specialist report.

1.4 Site location

The new sump constructed by Mr Muller is located on the eastern (1left hand) bank of the Langtou River, some 4.5 km by road south of the small agricultural town of Herbertsdale, in the Western Cape (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Location of sump

1.5 Definitions and terminology

The definitions for watercourses and wetlands that have been used by FCG in this study are those specified by the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998), which defines a “watercourse” as:

(a) a river or spring;

(b) a natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently;

(c) a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows; and

1 By convention, left or right as seen when facing downstream


4

(d) any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks.

Wetlands themselves are defined in the Act as:

“land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil.”


5

2 THE LANGTOU RIVER MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.1 Langtou River Catchment

The Langtou River is a minor tributary of the lower Gouritz River, which drains into the sea near Gouritzmond (Figure 2). It lies within the Breede-Gouritz Water Management Area.

Figure 2 Langtou River catchment showing rivers (thick blue lines) and wetlands (blue polygons), identified in the CAPE Fine Scale Conservation Plan for the Riversdale Planning Domain (Job et al 2008). Mapped wetlands identified

as CBA wetlands; Langtou River (main stem) identified as an OESA system. Orange polygons represent sub-catchments of the Langtou River catchment. Figure after De Villiers and Day (2012).


6

2.2 Conservation importance of the Langtou River and its wetlands

Although both Finescale Planning and National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) data indicate that the Langtou River is edged by wetlands of high conservation status (Present Ecological State A or B) throughout most of its reaches (see Figure 2), De Villiers and Day (2012) found that these wetlands, if once present, no longer remained, with the main stem of the Langtou River having been eroded and disturbed throughout its reaches. An overall PES Category E was accorded to the Langtou River throughout its reaches in the catchment. This score, indicating a Seriously Modified system, was derived from the following individual PES components:

Hydrology: PES Category F (critically modified)

Geomorphology: PES Category F (critically modified)

Water Quality: PES Category B (largely natural with few modifications)

Vegetation alteration: PES Category D (largely modified).

No change in the above status was evident in the river during the present site assessment, at least in the reaches downstream of Herbertsdale.

2.3 2Context of the Langtou River Maintenance and Management Plan

Prior to the compilation of the Langtou River Maintenance and Management Plan (MMP), extensive flood damage had occurred in the region, prompting local landowners as well as various governmental departments to instigate various ad hoc repair and containment measures, including replacement and /or repair of damaged bridges, drifts and weirs, stabilising of eroded banks and channels, removal of flood debris and sediments and attempts to control river flows and minimise the likelihood of further losses to infrastructure and farming areas.

Many of these measures, as well as some long-standing, routine approaches to agricultural and other activities in the area, including the construction of instream irrigation sumps, constituted triggers for application for authorisation from DEADP in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) as well as from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) in terms of the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA).

The Langtou MMP was compiled in order to address ongoing river maintenance activities such that (once the MMP was approved) their implementation would be deemed to be in compliance with NEMA. The EMP was also intended to provide guidelines as to activities that do not fall into the ambit of ongoing river maintenance, and would thus require separate authorisation by DEADP, as well as those requiring separate authorisation by DWS.

2.4 Objectives

The strategic activities outlined in the MMP are based on meeting the following overarching objectives, namely to:

1. Halt the loss of wetlands that are of high conservation/biodiversity importance;

2. Prevent the loss of valuable agricultural land, resources and infrastructure as a result of damage through erosion, sedimentation and flooding;

3. Rehabilitate areas undergoing active degradation that threatens agricultural lands, infrastructure or the provision of ecosystem services;

2 This section summarised from De Villiers and Day (2012)


7

4. Facilitate the ongoing (sustainable) use of wetland resources for agricultural purposes while maintaining minimal essential levels of freshwater ecosystem function and services (that is, wetland/river systems that are in a Present Ecological State that is better than a Category E (i.e. Category D or better)).

2.5 Recommendations with regard to irrigation sumps

Of the above, Management Objective 4 is applicable to the maintenance of agricultural infrastructure. The part of the associated management strategy that is most relevant to the current assessment is that which refers to a set of Best Practice measures, which are outlined in the MMP.

The stipulated Best Practice Measures as related to irrigation sumps are repeated in Table 1, extracted directly from the MMP.

2.6 Recommendations regarding irrigation abstraction

Although not part of the DEADP pre-compliance notice, another aspect of the MMP included in Table 1 has relevance to this assessment, and that is the paragraph under the heading “Maintenance of

abstraction sumps” that notes that: “Abstraction rates should moreover be informed by the findings of an Ecological Reserve Determination for the Langtou River, which specify minimum flow requirements to maintain river function at a particular desired level”. This is relevant in that the reason for the applicant’s construction of a new sump was rooted in issues around resource quality, related to water abstraction rates.

The issue of abstraction is also raised in the strategy for achieving Management Objective 3, which includes the following measure to:

“(6) Implement effective controls on the quantity of abstraction from the Langtou River, to ensure that instream processes are maintained, and indeed improved, in the river particularly over summer, in order to bring about rehabilitation of stabilising wetland systems, through the following:

a. liaison with DWA [now DWS] regarding the need to undertake a Reserve Determination in for the Langtou River

b. investigation of the impact of abstraction on low flows in the Langtou River

c. implementation of wetland rehabilitation and protection measures as per MOs 1 to 3, in order to bring about improved water retention in the system during dry periods”.

Table 1 Best Practice Measures for Infrastructure: Sumps . After De Villiers and Day (2012).

INFRASTRUCTURE

Maintenance of abstraction sumps The location of sumps, particularly those associated with berms that alter flow patterns under flood conditions, precipitating extensive erosion, is not ecologically desirable, and there should be a movement away from this strategy for accessing water. Abstraction rates should moreover be informed by the findings of an Ecological Reserve Determination for the Langtou River, which specify minimum flow requirements to maintain river function at a particular desired level.

Excavation of sediment

Location Keep existing abstraction sumps where they are If sumps are damaged by floods or clogged by flood debris and need to be re-excavated, retain existing location unless this is not advised in terms

of these guidelines (that is, unless existing sumps are located in the channel, in which case they should be moved into the floodplain). Obtain specialist input, with reference to these guidelines, if sumps need to be moved, or if new sumps are to be excavated.

Design No sumps may be created in the active low flow channel No sumps may be located in any areas of the catchment within extant wetlands – these wetlands have been lost from virtually the entire

catchment and require sensitive management Sumps should ideally not be placed in the broader eroded channel either, as they contribute to ongoing instability of this area. A concerted effort

must therefore be made to find alternative means of abstraction from the river – the viability of sinking well-points into the floodplain abutting the unstable channel should be explored as a matter of urgency, as should the potential for off-channel storage of high-flow water

o Sumps that are located in the broader eroded section of the channel must be treated as follows: indigenous vegetation must not be damaged during excavations;

o Disturbance to the natural structure of channels, sand and gravel banks in the river bed to be minimised – i.e. no bulldozing beyond the boundaries of the sump;

o Sumps must be dug parallel to the direction of flow – but should not be in main channels, and no closer than 20m from the channel edge (this allows for some channel movement without interfering with the sump)

o Sumps should not be bermed, as berms alter the flow of water across the floodplain – the top edge of sumps should thus be level with the ground surface - this applies to sumps on the floodplain and in the eroded channels

o sumps should not be constructed in secondary flow pathways – these are usually dry during base flows but take flows during slightly elevated flows

Maintenance Use only one access point to the channel when maintaining sumps Avoid damage to indigenous vegetation Large debris (rocks, large branches and trees etc.) excavated from clogged sumps must be removed from the channel and deposited outside of

the channel and the floodplain Sand/gravel excavated from the sumps should be deposited downstream of the sumps, spread across the floodplain or deposited on the inside

bends of the channel Implement all the measures relating to the location and design of sumps.

3 EFFECTS OF SUMP CONSTRUCTION ON THE LANGTOU RIVER

3.1 Description of the river in its reaches affected by construction of the illegal sump

The Langtou River in its reaches affected by the sump construction activities under consideration here is classified by NFEPA data as an upper foothill river, although in its reaches past the present study area, the channel would in fact be better classified as a lower foothill river. On the basis of reference condition information, Day (2012) describes the system as a whole in these reaches as a naturally channelled valley bottom wetland. All of its wetland character has however been lost (Day 2012), and only channel features remain.

The river in these reaches has, like in most of the reaches of the Langtou River, been highly disturbed, with erosion and sedimentation variously contributing to the high level of degradation associated with its Category E Present Ecological State (PES). Since the 2011 assessment of the above report, alien invasion appeared to have increased significantly along the river banks and in sedimented in-channel bars (see Photo A), with extensive stands of the invasive alien Arundo donax (Spanish reed) lining long sections of the river bank.

In the reaches immediately abutting the new sump constructed by Mr Muller, the riparian fringe of the river comprises a mix of indigenous and alien shrub and tree species, with indigenous riverine sedges including Cyperus textilis, Isolepis prolifer, Juncus kraussii and Juncus lomatophyllus occurring along the wetted edge of the low flow channel. The low flow channel itself was, at the time of the site visit, wide, slow flowing and relatively shallow within the main lowflow channel, with a secondary channel meandering along its margins, separated by shallow, in places alien vegetation lined, sand bars.

The secondary channel in this reach gave way to a vegetated, disturbed floodplain, which included a sandy / gravel access road and, in the reaches further downstream, agricultural lands extending to the edge of the low flow channel. On Mr Wouter Muller’s land further downstream, a riverine buffer area some 10m wide or more has been protected from grazing by cattle and left as a protective zone of largely indigenous vegetation, between agricultural impacts and the river.

In the area abutting the new sump (and upstream of Mr Muller’s farm boundary), the outer edge of the floodplain is steep sided and vegetated with mixed alien and indigenous shrubs, creepers and trees. Construction activities associated with laying of a new pipeline to convey water pumped from the new sump back to Mr Muller’s farm has resulted in removal of vegetation and the creation of a steep, unstable, unvegetated slope down to the floodplain from the main access road above (Photo C).

3.2 Water quality issues of relevance to this study

Day (2012) described the Langtou River as characterized by increasing dissolved salt concentrations (measured as Electrical Conductivity (EC)) with distance downstream. The report noted however, on the basis of limited data, that water in the river remained “fresh” (that is, below 450 mS/m), with once-off EC measurements in the vicinity of the present study area reported as 56.4 mS/m. Longer-term data summarised by Mr Muller indicated that EC values in the existing sump in the vicinity of his farm, from where he has historically abstracted irrigation water, were somewhat higher than this, with levels of around 65 mS/m being the norm during periods of abstraction when the river was flowing and values up to 229 mS/m during drought periods when only subsurface flows were abstracted. In 2015, EC values increased markedly however, to 720 mS/m – a salinity in excess of salt tolerance thresholds for irrigation or drinking water (W. Muller pers. comm).

The reason provided by Mr Muller for the dramatic increase in salinity in abstracted sump water in 2015 is a suggested recent increase in abstraction rate by upstream landowners, resulting in an increase in the relevant contribution of more saline groundwater reaching the river, compared with the upstream contribution of fresher water. Water abstracted from the new (unauthorised) sump was in the range 344-107 mS/m (Mr Muller pers. comm.).


2

Although no abstraction, river flow or water quality data are available to test this assertion, historical GOOGLE imagery (Figure 3) do support the statement that the extent of land under agricultural use immediately upstream of Mr Muller’s original / pre 2015 sump has increased.

3.3 Description of the new sump and associated infrastructure

The new sump constructed upstream of Uitkyk Farm has been excavated into the lowflow channel of the Langtou River. A low earth berm has been constructed at the downstream end of the sump. The sump is protected from flows in the river channel by a higher earth berm, using material excavated from the sump.

Clearing of vegetation on the floodplain and upper floodplain bank was also included in construction activities, as a result of installation of a pipeline from the portable pump beside the sump, up the steep bank.

Photos B to D illustrate these activities.

3.4 Alignment of sump construction with the MMP

Table 1 outlines the treatment of sumps in terms of the MMP. Of most relevance to the present sump construction is the following:

“Sumps should ideally not be placed in the broader eroded channel either, as they contribute to ongoing instability of this area. A concerted effort must therefore be made to find alternative means of abstraction from the river – the viability of sinking well-points into the floodplain abutting the unstable channel should be explored as a matter of urgency, as should the potential for off-channel storage of high-flow water o Sumps that are located in the broader eroded section of the channel must be treated as follows:

Indigenous vegetation must not be damaged during excavations; Disturbance to the natural structure of channels, sand and gravel banks in the river bed to be

minimised – i.e. no bulldozing beyond the boundaries of the sump; Sumps must be dug parallel to the direction of flow – but should not be in main channels,

and no closer than 20m from the channel edge (this allows for some channel movement without interfering with the sump)

Sumps should not be bermed, as berms alter the flow of water across the floodplain – the top edge of sumps should thus be level with the ground surface - this applies to sumps on the floodplain and in the eroded channels;

Sumps should not be constructed in secondary flow pathways – these are usually dry during base flows but take flows during slightly elevated flows.

The previous sections indicate that the new sump constructed by Mr Muller is not in alignment with the specifications of the MMP, as it:

1. Is constructed in a secondary channel;

2. Is considerably closer than 20m from the main channel;

3. Has been bermed;

4. Has resulted in damage to indigenous (and alien) vegetation on the floodplain and steep upper floodplain bank.

Given the above, the new sump cannot be considered authorized in terms of the approved MMP for the Langtou River.

Figure 3 Sequence of GOOGLE Earth images showing landuse changes in the vicinity of Uitkyk between 2005 and 2013

(new areas under cultivation arrrowed in 2013 photo), as well as the locations of the original /pre 2015 (“existing”) sump on Uitkyk Farm and the new sump, constructed upstream in 2015.


2

3.5 Impacts of sump construction

Construction of the sump is associated with the following impacts, some of which would only manifest during flood conditions:

Disturbance of the river channel as a result of adjacent excavation and the piling of loose sediment in the wetted channel margins between the sump and the river channel – it is very likely that this would have resulted in a short-term increase in turbidity in the river, which is a negative impact, but of very low magnitude given the existing state of riverine degradation and apparent loss of all fauna and flora likely to be negatively impacted by increased turbidity and associated suspended solids;

Disturbance of the river floodplain as a result of excavation of the pipeline route – this resulted in short term loss of vegetation on the floodplain itself, and a high risk of creation of an erosion gulley on the steep-sided upper floodplain bank, from where vegetation has been removed;

Periodic disturbance of the river bank and channel as a result of ongoing maintenance of the sump, by removal of accumulated sediment particularly after floods – this impact is considered localized and likely to be of a low magnitude only;

Potential triggering of river bank and/or bed erosion during flood events, as a result of the elevated berm between the sump and the river channel – during flood events, low flows along both the secondary channel and the low flow channel are likely to be deflected onto one or other of the river banks, precipitating localized and downstream erosion and contributing to the further destabilisation of the Langtou River and perpetuation of its current status of Seriously Modified. Although this impact has not yet occurred, if it did occur, the impact is likely to be of a high magnitude, and it is moreover highly likely that this impact would occur at some point, particularly given the heightened recent propensity of the river to flooding.

Of the above impacts, all but the last are considered of low negative significance, occurring at a low magnitude and generally likely to be of short-term duration, other than in the case of disturbance of the steep upper floodplain bank. The last impact, although it has not yet manifest itself, would however be considered of high negative significance, and is the reason that the construction of bermed in-channel or on secondary channel sumps is specifically excluded from the authorized MMP activities.

The following section outlines activities to rectify the present high-risk situation.


3

4 RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION AND/OR RECTIFICATION ACTIVITIES

The overall impacts associated with the unauthorized sump are considered of high negative significance, on the basis of the high risk of long term disturbance (erosion), likely to occur at a high magnitude as a result of the raised berm around the new sump. The other impacts are considered likely to be associated with impacts of a lower magnitude and/or duration.

Although it would be possible to remove the sump entirely from the channel, and reinstate the river to its previous condition, the main impacts associated with the sump concern its raised berm and the destabilisation of the bank down to the floodplain. These can both de addressed without losing all sump function, as outlined below, and complete reinstatement of the pre-impact condition is thus not considered essential, and has not been recommended.

By contrast, the following mitigation measures, in order of importance, are all considered essential to mitigate against or reverse impacts associated with the present unauthorised sump and its infrastructure:

i. Immediate implementation:

a. The raised berm around the sump must be removed with immediate effect, and the material disposed of outside of the river and its floodplain – no raised material should be left in the river channel above the height of the minor sand bar separating the river from its secondary channel river bed – an excavator may be used to accomplish this measure mechanically, provided that:

i. Access is from the existing disturbed area at the downstream end of the sump only;

ii. The machine does not drive into the lowflow channel, but is restricted to the sump and berm area only;

iii. Any disturbance created by the excavator is rectified with immediate effect;

b. Areas of the floodplain, the lowflow river bank and the secondary channel that are disturbed by this process must be reshaped to blend into the upstream and downstream slopes, without raised or laterally protruding areas that might promote erosion knick-points;

c. The steep, unvegetated pipeline corridor leading up the floodplain bank must be terraced and planted (using manual labour only and not machinery), so as to achieve an 80% cover within one year from authorisation of this S24G application (if approved). Locally indigenous vegetation must be used for this process, and indigenous plant species occurring elsewhere on this slope should be used as a template for planting;

ii. Long term implementation

a. The specifications of the authorised MMP for sump maintenance must be implemented, as outlined in Table 1. Note that the fact that the sump in its mitigated form would have no side berms means that maintenance in the form of sediment removal might be more frequent than in terms of the current design.

b. No new berms are to be created.


4

5 CONCLUSIONS

This report has assessed the applicability of the existing Langtou River MMP to the new sump construction, as well as the ecological impacts of the new sump. It was concluded that the sump did not comply with the requirements of the MMP and thus could not be considered authorised in terms of this document. However, the impacts associated with the new sump are considered remediable, mainly by adjusting the design of the sump, so that it has no lateral berms. Measures that address potential erosion points caused by pipeline laying have also been included.

In addition to the above inputs, this project has however highlighted a number of concerns associated with the implementation of and perceptions around the Langtou River MMP. These include the fact that while the MMP provides a mechanism for legal implementation of many activities that are necessary for long-term maintenance of agricultural and other infrastructure and activities, it also includes a number of important provisions for rehabilitation of ecosystem function as well as for the establishment of an equitable abstraction regime, that addresses issues such as downstream changes in water quality as a result of upstream abstraction. The failure to institute a system that makes provision for such equitable and sustainable abstraction was one of the primary triggers for the applicant’s embarking on the unauthorised activities addressed in this report – namely, the creation of a new sump upstream, to access water that is of a quality that can be used for irrigation.

While it is reasonable that the landowner should be sanctioned to some degree for unauthorised activities and required to implement the measures outlined in this document to rectify or mitigate against environmental impacts of concern, it is equally important that the Department of Water and Sanitation involve itself in implementing a system that ensures improved management of water resources, to prevent the likely ongoing reactive responses addressed in this document.


5

6 REFERENCES

Day, E. (Liz). 2011. Development of an environmental management plan for the Langtou River at Herbertsdale, Southern Cape – Draft baseline ecological report. Unpublished Freshwater Consulting Group report prepared for Agri Wes-Cape with the support of the Table Mountain Fund.

De Villiers, C, and Day, E. (Liz). 2012. Environmental Management Plan for the Langtou River at Herbertsdale, Southern Cape. Report prepared for Agri Wes-Cape with the support of the Table Mountain Fund and authorised by DEADP.

Driver, A, Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J. and Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. WRC Report No. 1801/1/11. ISBN 978-1-4312-0147-1. Pretoria.

Job, N., Snaddon, K., Day, E. (Liz), Nel, J. and Smith-Adao, L. 2008. C.A.P.E. fine-scale planning project: Aquatic Ecosystems of the Upper Breede River Valley Planning Domain. Report to CAPE.

The Freshwater Consulting Group - Cape EAPrac Uitkyk/EIR/G1 Freshwater... · 3.1 Description of the...

Documents

Transcript of The Freshwater Consulting Group - Cape EAPrac Uitkyk/EIR/G1 Freshwater... · 3.1 Description of the...