CEN INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNIT Environmental and Rural Development Specialist

FOR SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

ACTIVITIES UNLAWFULLY CARRIED OUT ON PORTION 3 OF FARM KLIPPEDRIFT NO. 732, OYSTER BAY, IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ACT 107 OF 1998) (NEMA) EIA REGULATIONS AND WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 24 G OF NEMA

DEDEAT REFERENCE NUMBER: AWAITING REFERENCE NUMBER

PREPARED FOR: Mr Hans Verstrate Farm Klipdrift 732 / 3 6300 Kouga Local Municipality

PREPARED BY: CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit 36 River Road Walmer, Port Elizabeth. 6070 South Africa Phone (041) 581-2983 • Fax (041) 581-2983 Email : [email protected]

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift no. 732, Oyster bay Executive Summary Introduction Mr Hans Verstrate purchased Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732 in 1998. The property is approximately 64.64 hectares in extent and located approximately 1.8 km north west of Oyster Bay Village within Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. When the property was purchased it was unoccupied and neglected and some infrastructure (i.e. farmhouse, dairy and milking courtyard, laborer’s cottages) was in place at the time of the purchase. In 1999, Mr Verstrate began to renovate existing structures and transformed them into hospitality and tourist facilities. In 2000, a tourism establishment (Oyster Bay Lodge) was officially opened and could accommodate 12 guests. Between 2000 and 2006, further renovations and additional development took place on the property. The establishment can currently accommodate a maximum of 33 guests; no new development or expansion is proposed. The tourism establishment operates on approximately 15.27 hectares of the property. These activities commenced unlawfully in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) EIA 2006 regulations (GNR 386 and GNR 387). CEN IEM Unit was appointed to carry out a retrospective impact assessment and apply for rectification of environmental authorisation in terms of Section 24 G of the NEMA.

Retrospective impact assessment A retrospective impact assessment was carried out for the tourism establishment. Impacts associated with tourism facility were separated into impacts related to construction / renovation (construction phase) and impacts related to the operation (operational phase). The hospitality and tourism facilities have already been constructed / renovated and therefore, any construction phase impacts have already taken place. The impacts typically associated with construction / renovation of the facilities were identified; if any of these impacts were found to still be evident on site, additional measures were recommended to rectify any problems. Impacts associated with the operation of the facilities were identified and mitigation measures recommended to address identified impacts. All recommended mitigation measures are included in the operational environmental management plan (OEMP).

Executive Summary: Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 1

Identified impacts and mitigation measures An unnecessary negative impact on economic resources, due to unauthorised commencement of activities, was identified as having a medium significance. Mitigation includes applying for a Section 24G NEMA rectification, putting in place the environmental operational management programme and ensuring that future activities do not commence prior to ensuring all relevant legislative requirements are met. Impacts identified during the construction phase were found to have a low or negligible impact on the environment. All measures to rectify low negative construction phase impacts are included in the operational environmental management programme. Employment creation was found to have a low positive impact as local labor / suppliers were used for construction and renovation. Impacts identified during the operational phase were found to have a low negative impact or a negligible impact on the environment with mitigation measures in place. Several positive impacts, such as employment creation, use of solar power, use of solar geysers and ongoing eradication of alien invasive vegetation, were identified. Many of the recommended mitigation measures to reduce negative impacts and enhance positive impacts are already in place at the tourism establishment.

Conclusion The tourism establishment has been in operation for 18 years. There is no evidence that significant negative impacts occurred as a result of the construction phase. The tourism establishment is managed in an environmentally sound manner and overall, has a positive impact on the surrounding environment. Rectification of environmental authorisation is recommended, on condition that the operational environmental management plan is implemented, to ensure all recommended measures can have a legal standing.

Executive Summary: Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 5

2. Location of Activity ...... 5

3. Descripiton of Activity ...... 6

4. Listed activities in terms of NEMA ...... 9

5. Description Of Environment ...... 11

5.1 Land Capability ...... 11

5.2 Land use ...... 11

5.3 Geology and soils ...... 12

5.4 Water Resources ...... 13

5.5 Terrestrial Environment: Flora and fuana ...... 14

5.3.1 Flora ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.6 Air Quality ...... 16

5.7 Heritage ...... 17

5.8 Job Creation and Economic Impact ...... 17

6. Public participation ...... 19

7. Impact Assessment Methodology ...... 22

7.1 Definitions...... 22

7.2 Method for assessing the overall significance of impacts ...... 23

8. Impact Assessment and Mitigation ...... 29

8.1 Planning and Design Phase ...... 29

8.2 Construction Phase ...... 29

8.3 Operational Phase ...... 34

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 1

9. Environmental impact statement ...... 42

10. Recommendations ...... 42

11. Conclusion ...... 42

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Locality Map ...... 6 Figure 2: Size of area on which development and renovations have taken place ...... 8

Figure 3: Area intended for rezoning ...... 11

Figure 4: Map showing quaternary catchment area and rivers ...... 13

Figure 5: Vegetation Types (Veg Map 2006, Mucina and Rutherford) ...... 15

Figure 6: Photographs showing typical vegetation on the property...... 16

Figure 7: Advert placed in Die Burger and The Herald ...... 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Commencement of unlawful activities in terms of NEMA Listed Activities ...... 9

Table 3: Impact Assessment Rating methodology...... 26

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Site Plan Appendix B: Public Participation Activities Appendix C: Operational Environmental Management Programme

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DEDEAT Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism EMP Environmental Management Programme DWS Department of Water and Sanitation GIS Geographic Information Systems IAP Interested and Affected Party IDP Integrated Development Plan LSDF Local Spatial Development Framework MAR Mean Annual Runoff Mamsl Metres above mean sea level ML Mega Litres Mm Millimetres NEMA National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998) NEMWA National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No 59 of 2008) NMBM Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality NHRA National Heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999) PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow R/E Remaining Extent SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SABS South African Bureau of Standards SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency SANS South African National Standards SDF Spatial Development Framework WMA Water Management Area

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 4

Rectification of unlawful activities carried on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape

1. INTRODUCTION

Mr Hans Verstrate purchased Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732 in 1998. A few years before Mr Verstrate acquired the property, the previous owner had left, and the farm was consequently unoccupied and neglected. The following infrastructure was in place at the time of the purchase of the farm: • Farmhouse with garages • Dairy and milking courtyard • Two existing boreholes • Laborer’s cottages • Sheep stable and sheep dip kraal

In 1999, Mr Verstrate began to renovate existing structures and transformed them into hospitality and tourist facilities. In 2000 Oyster Bay Lodge was officially opened and could accommodate 12 guests. Between 2000 and 2006, further renovations and additional development took place on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift 732. Oyster Bay Lodge can currently accommodate a maximum of 33 guests. No new development or expansion is proposed. These activities commenced unlawfully in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) EIA 2006 regulations (GNR 386 and GNR 387) and require rectification in terms Section 24 G of the NEMA.

2. LOCATION OF ACTIVITY

The tourism establishment (Oyster Bay Lodge) is a four-star lodge which offers tourism and hospitality facilities. The lodge is located on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732 which is approximately 64.64 hectares in extent. The tourism establishment is situated within Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa (Figure 1). The lodge is located approximately 1.8 km north west of Oyster Bay Village. The central coordinates of the site are 34° 9'48.75"S; 24°38'0.73"E (Figure 1).

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 5

Figure 1: Locality Map

3. DESCRIPITON OF ACTIVITY

A description of the infrastructure that has been developed on the property with an indication the development footprint and when it was developed / renovated is provided in the table below.

Facility Description Footprint Date Lodge The existing farmhouse was The development 1999 renovated to the lodge. Additional footprint (existing) of minor renovations took place in the lodge and Minor 2005. associated facilities renovation The lodge is comprised of: is ~1000 m². 2005 • Restaurant (40 seats) and function venue (includes ablution and kitchen facilities)

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 6

Facility Description Footprint Date • Ladies bar • Swimming pool with deck • 4 en-suite rooms (2 person per room) • 1 en-suite room (3 persons per room) Access Roads Access roads and parking area - Existing and parking were in place prior to purchase of area property Chalets 4 freestanding chalets (2 persons The footprint of each 2005 per chalet) were built on the chalet is ~120 m². footprint of the run-down laborer’s The total footprint of cottages, sheep stable and dip the four chalets kraal. Boardwalks were put in (including place leading from the lodge to boardwalks) is each chalet. ~660 m². Guest rooms The old dairy was renovated to The footprint 2005 create 3 guest rooms (2 persons (existing) of the guest per room) and 2 Family guest rooms is ~700 m². rooms (4 persons per room). Footpaths / Footpaths / boardwalks were also boardwalks have an put in place. additional footprint of ~100 m². Reception A reception office (including The footprint of the 2005 office ablutions and parking area) was reception facility developed on the north eastern (including parking) is corner of the property. ~1000 m². Saddle house A saddle house including a laundry The footprint of the 2005 facility and store room was saddle house facility developed. is ~220 m². Staff Staff accommodation was The footprint of the 2005 accommodation developed to the north of the lodge staff accommodation facilities and includes 6 rooms, is ~350m². communal kitchen, dining area and 2 full bathrooms.

No new roads have been developed; only existing roads that were already in place at the time of property transfer are used to access the site and facilities on site. Access to the site

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 7

is from the Oyster Bay / Humansdorp gravel road (DR1763) via a 6-meter-wide right of way on the adjacent properties registered in favor of the subject property.

Supporting infrastructure (water, sewage, electricity services) have been installed. The footprint of new structures developed at the site is approximately 2110 m²; the footprint of existing structures that were renovated into lodge facilities is approximately 1700 m². The size of the area on which these facilities occurs is approximately 12 hectares (this is including the access roads that were in place when the property was purchased by the applicant) (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Size of area on which development and renovations have taken place

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 8

4. LISTED ACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF NEMA

The renovations and / or development which took place on the property between 1999 – 2005 was a listed activity in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations effective between 1997 –2002 and in the EIA regulations effective between 2002 – 2006, published in terms of section 21 of the Environment Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989) (ECA). Similar listed activities (Activity 5, 6, 17) are contained within Listing 3 (GNR 985) of the NEMA 2014 EIA regulations (as amended, 2017). As such, these activities have commenced unlawfully in terms of the NEMA and require rectification in terms Section 24 G of the NEMA.

Table 1: Commencement of unlawful activities in terms of NEMA Listed Activities ECA (1997) EIA NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations, as Listed Activity 1 (m) – the construction or amended 2017 upgrading of public and private resorts Listing Notice 3: GNR 985 and associated infrastructure. Activity 5 The development of resorts, lodges, hotels, [and] tourism or hospitality facilities that sleep less than 15 people. a) Eastern Cape iii) Outside urban areas: (aa) Critical Biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; (bb) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 1 kilometre from the high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined; (cc) Areas within a watercourse or wetland, or within 100 metres of a watercourse or wetlands; NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations, as amended 2017 Listing Notice 3: GNR 985 Activity 6 The development of resorts, lodges, hotels, [and] tourism or hospitality facilities that sleeps15 people or more.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 9

a) Eastern Cape i) Outside urban areas: (ee) Critical Biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; (hh) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 1 kilometre from the high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined; (ii) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 metres from the edge of a watercourse where no setback line has been determined; ECA (2002) EIA NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations, as Listed Activity 1 (m) – the construction, amended 2017 erection or upgrading of public and Listing Notice 3: GNR 985 private resorts and associated Activity 17 infrastructure. The expansion of a resort, lodge, hotel and tourism or hospitality facilities where the development footprint will be expanded. (b) In Eastern Cape: ii. Outside urban areas, in: (ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; (gg) Areas within 10 kilometres from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 kilometres from any other protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core area of a biosphere reserve;

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 10

5. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT

5.1 LAND CAPABILITY Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732 is currently zoned as Agricultural 1. No agricultural activities have been exercised on the property for more than 20 years. The applicant intends to rezone a portion of Portion 3 of farm Klippedrift No. 732, from Agricultural Zone 1 to Resort Zone 1. The extent of the portion intended for rezoning is approximately 15.27 hectares (Figure 3). No subdivision is proposed.

Figure 3: Area intended for rezoning

5.2 LAND USE The property is approximately 64.64 hectares in extent with approximately 15.27 hectares used as a tourism and hospitality destination, known Oyster Bay lodge. The lodge attracts national and international tourists and offers four-star lodge accommodation, a restaurant, function venue and various activities including beach horse rides, mountain biking, hiking trails and river kayaking.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 11

The property is fairly flat with a gentle downward slope from east to west (average slope of 0.5%) and from north to south (average slope of 0.3%). The property is situated in a rural area and surrounding land uses include commercial agriculture, wind farms and tourist facilities. The regional area is characterised by dairy farms, game farms, nature reserves, tourism activities and accommodation as well as the coastal towns of Oyster Bay, Cape St Francis and St. France Bay. When the property was first acquired by Mr Verstrate, the farm was neglected and invaded by alien vegetation. Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732 is now run as a coastal reserve; an eradication programme was launched in 1998 to remove dense stands of alien invasive trees (i.e. Inkberry, Rooikrans, Port Jackson, Blackwattle); management is ongoing to keep the coastal reserve free of invaders.

5.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The geology of the area consists of underlying sedimentary rock formation. The area is characterised with aeolianites (dune sands) of the Nanaga Formation of the Algoa Group (Ca) and there is some influence of quartzitic sandstone (Arenites) of the Table Mountain Group (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Map showing geology of property (Geology map RSA, Lesotho, Swaziland, 2008)

The land type soil pattern of the area is Ha51. The soils are strongly associated with the parent geology. The soils are classed as imperfectly drained sandy soils. The sandy soils (<5% clay) are derived from aeolianite and regic sands. The soils may be highly erodible in the absence of vegetation cover.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 12

5.4 WATER RESOURCES Surface Water The property falls within the Fish to Tsitsikamma Water Management Area and quaternary catchment K80F. The property is situated approximately 20 metres above sea level, and at an approximate distance of 900 meters form the sea. In terms of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan, 2007 (ECBCP) the property does not fall within an Aquatic CBA. The Klipdrift river traverses the property dividing the resort facilities to the east from the remainder of the property to the west. The Klipdrift river is classified as a class C (moderately modified) river by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) Project. According to the 1:50 000 topographical map 3424 BA Kruisfontein, a non-perennial river runs north of the chalets and Lodge, traversing the site from east to west. The site is situated within 1 km from the high-water mark of the sea. The staff accommodation facility is located approximately 33 m from the Klipdrift river (Figure 4). The gradient of the terrain from the river to the staff facility is steep and gradually levels out before the start of the facility. The staff facility is at no risk of flooding from the river and there is minimal risk of erosion due to the level area on which the staff facility is located and the dense vegetation occurring on the sloped embankment.

Figure 5: Map showing quaternary catchment area and rivers

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 13

Groundwater Oyster Bay lodge makes use of borehole water for its operations. Two boreholes are in place, one is at a depth of 78 m and the other at a depth of 100 m. A pump house has been installed to managed water supply from two existing boreholes on the property. Solar power is used to abstract water from the 100m deep borehole; Eskom electricity is used to abstract water from the 78m deep borehole. Borehole water is abstracted at 2 000 liter per hour and stored in water reservoirs with a capacity of 10 000 liter. The recharge value of groundwater in the area is estimated to be between 50-100 mm /a. The area is characterised by aquifers which are fractured and / or intergranular. The soil texture of the area is loamy sand or sandy loam. The slope of the area is gentle varying from 6 – 12%. The property falls into the Group D (Table Mountain) Vadose zone, which has an impact rating of 1.38. The overall vulnerability of groundwater in the area, with regards to susceptibility to pollution, is moderate to high (Groundwater vulnerability map for South Africa, Council for Geoscience, 2011). The Electrical conductivity of groundwater in the area averages from 70 – 150 ms/m which means that the quality of the groundwater is fairly good with only a slightly salty taste (Groundwater quality of South Africa, 2012). The area falls within an aquifer region which has a moderately-yielding aquifer system (Aquifer classification of South Africa, 2012). The surrounding farming activities could result in a non-point source of pollution on groundwater.

5.5 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT: VEGETATION The property falls within the Fynbos Biome. Mucina and Rutherford, 2012, have mapped the vegetation on the property as Southern Cape Dune Fynbos FFd11 vegetation and Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos FFs20 vegetation (See Figure 6). Southern Cape Dune Fynbos is assigned a conservation status of Least Threatened and a protection status of Poorly Protected (Conservation target: 36%; Protected: 20%). Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos is assigned a conservation status of Vulnerable vegetation type and a protection status of Poorly Protected (Conservation target: 23%; Protected: 40%) Erosion is considered low within both vegetation types. The typical vegetation of the coastal dune cordons of the Southern Cape is a sclerophyllous fynbos heath, with restioid understorey. Where undisturbed, this shrubland vegetation is dominated by Olea exasperata and Phylica litoralis and the important understorey species, Ischyrolepis eleocharis.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 14

Figure 6: Vegetation Types (Mucina and Rutherford, 2012)

The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Project (2006), which has largely been used to inform CBA layers of the ECBCP (2007), identifies the vegetation on the property as Humansdorp Grassy Fynbos, a least threatened ecosystem. Least Threatened ecosystems are ecosystems which cover most of their original extent and which are mostly intact, healthy and functioning’ (Pierce, 2006). Least Threatened ecosystems are able to withstand some loss of, and disturbance to, natural areas. Humansdorp Grassy Fynbos is grassy throughout, proteas (Protea neriifolia) are rare and conebushes (Leucadendron salignum) and ericas (Erica glandulosa) common and it occurs mostly on stony soils (STEP, 2006). The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004): National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011) indicates that the study area is not categorised as a threatened ecosystem. In terms of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP), the lodge facilities fall within a Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) 2 (Coast T2, Corridor 1, STEP T2). Terrestrial CBA2 areas are included within Biodiversity Land Management Class 2: Near-natural landscapes. The recommended land use objectives for BLMC 2 areas are to ‘maintain biodiversity in a near natural state with minimal loss of ecosystem integrity. No transformation of natural habitat should be permitted’ (Berliner et al., 2007). The typical fynbos vegetation that is expected to occur on site has been transformed though past agricultural activities. The exclusion of fire may also have played a role in the displacement of fynbos vegetation with woody species. The property was heavily invaded with alien vegetation such as Inkberry (Ilex glabra), Rooikrans (Acacia cyclops), Port Jackson (Acacia saligna), Blackwattle (Acacia mearnsii) and Eucalyptus trees. The species

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 15

Acacia cyclops has been found to act as a pre-cursor for the development of thicket vegetation in areas where fynbos or coastal dune vegetation previously occurred (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Currently, the vegetation on the property consists of elements of southern dune fynbos vegetation, renosterveld, thicket and the site is grassy throughout. Some alien invasive vegetation, such as Rooikrans and Eucalyptus species are present, but as mentioned, the property is now run as a coastal reserve and the eradication programme launched in 1998 to remove dense stands of alien vegetation is an ongoing programme to keep the coastal reserve free of invaders.

Photo 1 Elements of Thicket Photo 2 Elements of renosterveld

Photo 3 Grassy layer Photo 4 Alien vegetation

Figure 7: Photographs showing typical vegetation on the property.

5.6 AIR QUALITY The air quality in the area is considered to be good. Sources of air emissions are minimal and include vehicle entrainment on gravel roads.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 16

5.7 HERITAGE The palaeontological fossil map indicates that the tourism facility is located in area with a very high palaeontological sensitivity. However, due to the nature of the development (i.e. renovation and minimal construction) it is expected that the impact on the bedrock was negligible and therefore unlikely that palaeontological resources were disturbed during the development of new facilities. An archaeological impact assessment was carried out for two alternative Eskom power line routes for the nearby Gibson Bay Wind Farm. Alternative 2 in this assessment included the property on which the tourism facility is located. The assessment found that the area on which the property occurs is a relatively unspoilt stretch of a significant pre-colonial cultural landscape (Nilssen, 2013). The following infrastructure was in place at the time of the purchase of the farm: • Farmhouse with garages • Dairy and milking courtyard • Two existing boreholes • Laborer’s cottages • Sheep stable and sheep dip kraal

The above-mentioned structures are all in place on the property. Some structures (farmhouse and labourers cottages) have been renovated to serve as tourist accommodation facilities. It must be noted that only the interior of these buildings was upgraded, and the integrity of all structures remains intact. The dairy, milkyard courtyard and an old toilet have been preserved and adds character to the tourist establishment.

5.8 JOB CREATION AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS The use of the property as a tourism destination has contributed job creation. The renovation and construction activities entailed the use of local labor. The operation of the resort has created employment opportunities; 3 managers are employed on a full-time basis and employment opportunities have been created for waiters, kitchen staff, security, maintenance (including ongoing alien vegetation removal). In the high season (September – April), there are 12 employees, in the low season there are 6 employees. The lodge further supports the supply chain for the catering industry. The tourism facility has also contributed to enhancing the Kouga Municipality tourism industry and contributes to the municipal rate base.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 17

5.9 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Solid waste is collected from the cottages, guest rooms, staff house and kitchen. Recyclable waste is separated from the general waste. The solid waste is transported to the Oyster Bay Transfer Station where it is collected by the Kouga Local Municipality and transported to either the Humansdorp or Hankey landfill site.

5.10 SEWAGE WASTE MANAGMENT Sewage waste is treated though gravitation to septic tanks with an overflow into a French drain system. There are six septic tanks and accompanying French drains servicing the following facilities: ▪ Main building ▪ Chalet 1+2 ▪ Chalet 3 + 4 ▪ Dairy ▪ Staff ▪ Reception

5.11 ENERGY ESKOM supplies the property with electricity via a 100KVa powerline. To date, a total of nine solar geysers have been installed at the following facilities: ▪ Staff accommodation ▪ Reception area ▪ 4 chalets ▪ 3 dairy rooms

Solar power is used to abstract water from the 100m deep borehole.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 18

6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The following activities were carried out as part of the public participation process for the rectification of activities commenced unlawfully on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift 732: ❖ On 3 April 2018 Written notice and a background information document was distributed to the following: • Owner / applicant • Owners of land adjacent to the site where the activity was undertaken • Kouga Municipality Ward 1 Councillor • WESSA • Representatives of the Kouga Local Municipality which has jurisdiction in the area • Representatives of organs of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity and includes: ▪ Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism ▪ Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (SAHRA) ▪ Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ▪ Department of Water and Sanitation

Registration and / or comments on the BID was requested to be submitted within 30 days of the Notice (i.e. 4 May 2018).

Proof of distribution of the written notice and background information document is provided in Appendix B.

No registrations or comments have been received. The above-mentioned parties were sent the draft report for a 30-day review period and were encouraged to comment. No comments have been received.

Proof of distribution of the Draft Report is provided in Appendix B.

❖ Notice boards (size of 60 x 42 cm) were placed: • at the entrance road to the tourist facility • at the start of the access road (DR1763)

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 19

Photo 5: Notice board at entrance to property Photo 6: Notice board at access road

❖ An advert was placed in Die Burger and The Herald to inform the public of the process and encourage registration of any interested and affected parties. ❖ The posters and adverts were placed on 12 March 2018 and registration was requested to be submitted be submitted within 30 days of placement of the advert / poster (excluding public holidays) i.e. 16 April 2018. No registrations or comments have been received.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 20

Figure 8: Advert placed in Die Burger and The Herald

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 21

7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

A retrospective impact assessment was carried out for the hospitality and tourism facilities. Impacts associated with tourism facility were separated into impacts related to construction / renovation (construction phase) and impacts related to the operation (operational phase). The hospitality and tourism facilities have already been constructed / renovated and therefore, any construction phase impacts have already taken place. The impacts typically associated with construction / renovation of the facilities were identified; if any of these impacts were found to still be evident on site, additional measures were recommended to rectify any problems. Impacts associated with the operation of the facilities were identified and mitigation measures recommended to address identified impacts. All mitigation measures proposed to rectify construction phase impacts and address operational phase impacts are included in an operational environmental management plan (OEMP). The purpose of this impact assessment is to assign a qualified significance to impacts which have occurred due to the construction phase and which may be occurring in the operational phase as a result of the operation of the various aspects of the tourism and hospitality facility.

7.1 DEFINITIONS

Activity: A distinct process or task undertaken by an organisation for which a responsibility can be assigned. Activities also include facilities or pieces of infrastructure that are controlled by an organisation.

Aspect: An element of an organisations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment. The interaction of an aspect with the environment may result in an impact. Aspects associated with the proposed project are differentiated into construction and operation phases of the project. The nature of the impact is described. Once this has been undertaken the significance of the impact is determined.

Receptors: Comprise, but are not limited to, people or human-made systems, such as local residents, communities and social infrastructure, as well as components of the biophysical environment such as soil, water, flora.

Identifying significant environmental impacts: Environmental impacts refer to the consequences of aspects on environmental resources or receptors of particular value

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 22

or sensitivity, for example, disturbance due to noise and health effects due to poorer air quality. The significant environmental impacts are identified using three sources of information: • The nature of the receiving environment (the environment includes the social, cultural and biophysical environment) • A review and understanding of the aspects associated with the activity. • Comments received from interested and affected parties during the public participation process. The issues raised will be described giving consideration to the associated activity and the aspect of that activity that is likely to result in an impact.

Nature of the impact: Impacts on the environment can lead to changes in existing conditions; the nature of the impact can be direct, indirect or cumulative. • Direct impacts refer to changes in environmental components that result from direct cause-effect consequences of interactions between the environment and project activities. The direct impact is caused by the action and occurs at the same time and place. • Indirect (Secondary) impacts result from cause-effect consequences of interactions between the environment and direct impacts. The indirect impact is caused by the action and occurs later in time or is further removed in distance. • Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of changes to the environment caused by multiple human activities over space and time. Cumulative impact is the sum of existing conditions and the direct / indirect impacts resulting from the project. Example: A single cut in the forest is unlikely to have a detectable change, however increasing multiple cuts in the forest caused by a number of human activities is likely to decrease fauna and flora and increase soil erosion. Cumulative effects can thus be additive or synergistic. A synergistic effect refers to when the combined effect is greater than the sum of individual effects.

7.2 METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS The overall significance of the impact is critical for defining mitigation and monitoring strategies. The qualified significance of predicted impacts assists to determine the manner in which aspects should be managed in order to avoid or minimise the predicted impacts.

Overall significance of the impacts is determined through systematically rating the following criteria of the impacts: • The status of the impact • The spatial extent of the impact • The severity of negativity or degree of positivity of the impact Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 23

• The duration of the impact • The frequency of the impact • The intensity of the impact • The consequence of the impact • The probability of the impact occurring

Impact Status A qualitative rating of positive or negative is assigned to impact status.

Spatial Extent The spatial extent for each aspect, receptor and impact is defined. The geographical coverage (spatial extent) description will take account of the following factors: • The physical extent / distribution of the aspect • The physical extent / distribution of the receptor • The proposed impact as a result of the aspect • The nature of the baseline environment within the area of impact

For example, the impacts of noise are likely to be confined to a smaller geographical area than the impacts of atmospheric emissions, which may be experienced at some distance. The significance of impacts also varies spatially; noise may be significant in the immediate vicinity. A quantitative value ranging from 1 – 6 is assigned to the rating.

Duration The duration refers to the length of time that an aspect of a proposed project may cause change on the receiving environment. The receiving environment could refer to either the social or cultural or biophysical environment. A quantitative value ranging from 1 – 6 is assigned to the rating.

Frequency The frequency of the impact occurring refers to how often the aspect results in a given impact on the receiving environment. The receiving environment could refer to either the social or cultural or biophysical environment. A value ranging from 1 – 6 is assigned to the rating.

Intensity The intensity refers to the magnitude of the impact experienced by the receiving environment. The environment could refer to either the social or cultural or biophysical environment. The impact experienced may be a positive or negative impact. A qualitative description is assigned to the rating. A quantitative value ranging from 1 – 6 is assigned to the rating.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 24

Severity / Degree The severity of an impact is equal to the intensity + duration + frequency. A quantitative value ranging from 3 – 18 is assigned to the rating. If the impact is positive, the degree of positivity is determined.

Consequence The consequence is the sum of the Severity (Intensity + Duration + Frequency) and Spatial Extent. A quantitative value ranging from 4 – 24 is assigned to the rating.

Probability To determine the significance of the impact, the probability of the impact occurring must first be rated. The probability refers to the likelihood that an impact will result from the aspect in question. A qualitative description is assigned as well as a quantitative value ranging from 1 – 6.

Overall Significance A definition of a “significant impact‟ for the purposes of the study is: “An impact which, either in isolation or in combination with others, could, in the opinion of the specialist, have a material influence on the decision-making process, including the specification of mitigating measures.” A qualitative description is assigned to the rating. The significance is the sum of the Consequence and Probability. A quantitative value ranging from 5 - 30 is assigned to the rating. A value of 5, 6 or 7 represents a low significance and described as “not harmful”. A value of 30 presents a Very High Significance and is described as an “environmental disaster”.

Mitigation The Mitigation ratings are described qualitatively according to the success and feasibility of the mitigation option in question. An overall significance rating is assigned to the impact in question without mitigation measures in place and with mitigation measures in place, where applicable.

Confidence The confidence of the EAP is assigned a qualitative value.

See Table 2.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 25

Table 2: Impact Assessment Rating methodology Impact Status Rating Negative Positive An impact is rated negative if any degree of An impact is rated positive if any degree of negative change will occur in the receiving positive change will occur in the receiving environment as a result of any aspect of the environment as a result of any aspect of the proposed project. proposed project. Description The environment refers to the social The environment refers to the social environment or the cultural environment or environment or the cultural environment or the the biophysical environment. biophysical environment. Negative impacts are to be avoided, Positive impacts are to be enhanced. minimised, or mitigated. Scale (Spatial Extent) Refers to the spatial area the aspect will impact on the environment. The impact may be positive or negative. Activity Local area Provincial / Rating Site specific Municipal International specific Specific National Impact extends Impact only Impact Impact Impact beyond experienced extends extends extends to municipal Impact extends on area beyond site beyond local Description the entire area into beyond national where into area into site of the provincial area activity is surrounding municipal project and may located areas areas extend nationally Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 Duration Refers to the length of time that the aspect may cause a change on the environment. The change may be positive or negative. Short - Very Short Medium Medium - Rating Short term Medium Long term term term Long term term 1 day to 3 3 months to One year to Three years Life of Extends beyond Description months one year three years to ten years operation post closure Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 Frequency Refers to how often the aspect may impact on the environment. The impact may be positive or negative. Rating Rarely Infrequent Seldom Regular Often Continuously Could occur Could occur Description within 6 Monthly Weekly Daily Non stop annually months Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 Intensity (Magnitude / Size) Refers to the intensity of the impact experienced by the receiving environment. The impact may be positive or negative. Low to Medium to Rating Low Medium High Very High medium High High Low intensity Low – Medium to Medium intensity on Very high experienced medium high intensity intensity on receiving intensity on only by intensity on on receiving receiving environment receiving receiving receiving environment environment and / or environment Description environment environment and / or and / or occurs within and / or within and / or and / or occurs within occurs 500 – 5000 – 10 000 metres occurs within occurs 100 – 1000 – 5000 1000 metres 10 000 or beyond of 100 metres 500 metres metres of of activity metres of the activity of activity of activity activity activity Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 Severity of negative impact Severity (Intensity + Duration + Frequency) The severity of an environmental aspect is determined by the degree of change to the baseline environment, and considers the following: The reversibility of the negative impact, Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 26

The sensitivity of the receptor to the stressor, The impact duration, its permanency and whether it increases or decreases with time. Medium - Low Medium High Very High Rating Negligible High Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative The aspect The aspect The aspect There will be will result in a will result in will result in The aspect will There will be a minor moderate a high a high result in a negligible impact as a impact. impact. impact. severe impact. Description impact as a result of the Reversibility Reversibility Reversibility Reversibility of result of the aspect. This of the impact of the impact of the impact the impact not aspect is easily easy but possible but difficult and likely. reversible. costly. costly. costly. Value 3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 Degree of positive impact Degree (Intensity + Duration + Frequency) The severity of an environmental aspect is determined by the degree of change to the baseline environment, and considers the following: The enhancement of the positive impact, The sensitivity of the receptor to the opportunity, The impact duration, its permanency and whether it increases or decreases with time. Medium Low Medium High Very High Rating Negligible High Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive There will be There will be The aspect The aspect The aspect The aspect will negligible a minor will result in a will result in will result in result in a very Description impact as a impact as a moderate a high a high high positive result of the result of the impact. impact. impact. impact. aspect aspect. Value 3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 Negative Consequence Consequence = (Severity + Spatial extent) Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Very Rating Negligible Medium low Medium High High High Impact requires in Impact has Impact situ insignificant Impact Impact requires in mitigation, consequence requires in requires in situ receptor on receiving situ situ mitigation, Impact is to be Description mitigation environment. mitigation mitigation receptor avoided and repair or Requires and receptor and receptor mitigation restoration little or no mitigation. mitigation and repair or and possible mitigation. restoration. compensatio n. Value 4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17-20 20-24 Positive Consequence Consequence = (Degree + Spatial extent) Positive Positive Positive Positive Very Rating Negligible Positive low Medium Medium High High High Impact has Impact has a Impact has a Impact has a Impact has a Widespread / insignificant positive positive positive positive substantial consequence consequence consequence consequence consequence beneficial on receiving ; ; ; ; effect. No environment. management management management management alternative ways required to required to required to required to to achieve Description enhance enhance enhance maintain same benefits. positive positive positive positive Management outcomes. outcomes. outcomes. outcomes. required to maintain positive outcomes. Value 4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17-20 20-24 Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 27

Probability Refers to the likelihood that an impact will result from the aspect in question. The impact may be positive or negative. Rating Slim Slight Plausible Probable Expected Anticipated 0 - 9% 10 – 25 % 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 90% 91 - 100 % Description likelihood likelihood likelihood likelihood likelihood likelihood Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 Negative Significance (Consequence + Probability) Medium Rating Negligible Low Medium High Very High High Slightly Considerably Description Not harmful Harmful Very Harmful Disaster harmful Harmful Value 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Positive Significance (Consequence + Probability) Medium Rating Negligible Low Medium High Very High High Positive but Substantial Slightly Description Insignificant Positive not positive Necessity positive substantial. impact. Value 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Mitigation of negative impact Rating None Likely Possible Difficult Unlikely Not possible Impact can Impact can Mitigation not be avoided be minimised required. with Difficult or Difficult and and Impact cannot Description Impact mitigation costly to costly to managed be mitigated remains the which has mitigate. mitigate with same. proven mitigation results. Management of positive impact Rating None Likely Possible Difficult Unlikely Not possible Impact can be easily Management enhanced Impact can Difficult or not required. Difficult and with be enhanced costly to Impact cannot Description Impact costly to management with enhance but be enhanced remains the enhance which has management possible same. proven results. Confidence Refers to the confidence level the EAP has in predicting the impact. Medium Rating Low Medium low Medium High Very High High

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 28

8. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

8.1 PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE

Aspect Measures not put in place during planning phase to attain environmental authorisation prior to construction. Unauthorised commencement of activities. Impact Economic impact Nature of Impact Direct Description of impact Negative impact on economic resources due to unauthorised commencement of activities.

Mitigation Measures • Do not commence with any activities prior to ensuring all legislative requirements are met • Ensure all necessary permits and licenses are obtained for respective activities from relevant authorities. • Implement Operational environmental management plan.

Impact Status Negative impact Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Site 2 - - Duration Short term 2 - - Frequency Rarely 1 - - Intensity Medium 3 - - Severity Medium 6 - - Consequence Low 8 - - Probability Plausible 3 - - Impact Significance Medium 11 NA - Mitigation NA Confidence High

8.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Aspect Mitigation measures not legally in place to minimise harm to fauna and flora. Impact Disturbance to flora and fauna Nature of Impact Direct

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 29

Description of impact Mucina and Rutherford, 2012, have mapped the vegetation on the property as Southern Cape Dune Fynbos and Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos. In 1998, when the property was purchased, the property was heavily invaded with alien vegetation such as Inkberry (Ilex glabra), Rooikrans (Acacia cyclops), Port Jackson (Acacia saligna), Blackwattle (Acacia mearnsii) and Eucalyptus trees and the typical fynbos vegetation expected to occur on site had already been transformed by the previous agricultural activities. The exclusion of fire may also have played a role in the displacement of fynbos vegetation with woody species. The structures constructed between 1998 and 2006 have an approximate development footprint of 2110 m² and the structures that were renovated have an approximate footprint of 1700 m². The size of the area on which these facilities occur is approximately 12 hectares (including the access roads that were in place when the property was purchased by the applicant). Therefore only 16 % of the lodge facilities area was developed into new structures. The newly developed structures include the reception area, staff accommodation and boardwalks; the staff accommodation and reception area were developed on areas characterised by a grassy layer and no trees seem to have been disturbed as these are still visible on google earth imagery before and after the construction took place. The boardwalks were developed to keep foot traffic off the vegetation. All renovations occurred on an existing development footprint. Measures such as animal search and rescue operations, and safe removal and relocation of flora species of special concern was not a legal requirement and it can therefore not be determined whether such species were harmed during construction. The renovation and construction activities may have temporarily disturbed any birds / reptiles in the near vicinity of works. However, since the construction phase took place over a period of 8 years and there was no blanket clearing of vegetation, a minimal disturbance to habitat is expected to have occurred in the construction phase. Owing to the small disturbance footprint in relation to the greater area it is expected that a low impact on fauna and habitats occurred.

Mitigation Measures • None proposed for construction. • Measures to mitigate impacts on fauna and flora included in Operational Environmental Management Plan.

Impact Status Negative Impact Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Activity 1 - - Duration Short 2 - - Frequency Rarely 2 - - Intensity Low 1 - - Severity Low 5 - - Consequence Low 6 - - Probability Probable 4 - - Impact Significance Low 10 NA - Mitigation Not possible; Construction phase completed. Confidence High

Aspect Mitigation measures were not legally in place during construction to prevent soil erosion and soil destabilisation. Impact Erosion and destabilisation of soil Nature of Impact Direct

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 30

Description of impact Mucina and Rutherford, 2012, have mapped the vegetation on the property as Southern Cape Dune Fynbos and Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos. Both vegetation types occur on soils with low erosion. The land type soil pattern of the area is Ha51 and the soils are classed as imperfectly drained sandy soils and may be susceptible to erosion in the absence of vegetation cover. There is very little evidence of erosion or other degradation on site that may have been a result of past construction activities. Minimal erosion is probably due to the low erodibility of the soils and the dense surface cover of vegetation. Mitigation measures to address any signs of erosion are provided in the operational management plan.

Mitigation Measures • None proposed for construction. • Measures to mitigate erosion impacts are included in Operational Environmental Management Plan.

Impact Status Negative Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Activity 1 - - Duration Short 2 - - Frequency Seldom 3 - - Intensity Low 1 - - Severity Low 6 - - Consequence Low 7 - - Probability Plausible 3 - - Impact Significance Low 10 NA - Mitigation Not possible; Construction phase completed. Confidence High

Aspect Mitigation measures were not legally in place during construction to prevent nuisances caused by noise. Impact Noise impact on receptors Nature of impact Direct Description of impact Noise levels in the area are low. Typical noise sources during construction would have included delivery vehicles and construction work. Minimal construction work was carried out. Very little excavation and site levelling would have occurred. The nearest residence is located approximately 1.5 km from the property. Receptors to any noise impacts would have been limited to fauna, reserve staff, and visitors to the area. Given the temporary and short-term duration of these impacts and the limited receptors in the area, the significance of the noise impact is rated as low.

Mitigation Measures • No mitigation measures proposed as any impacts would have already occurred.

Impact Status Negative Impact Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 31

Spatial Activity 1 - - Duration Very short 1 - - Frequency Regular 4 - - Intensity Low 1 - - Severity Low 6 - - Consequence Low 7 - - Probability Slight 2 - - Impact Significance Low 9 NA - Mitigation Not possible; Construction phase completed. Confidence High

Aspect Mitigation measures were not legally in place during construction to prevent impacts on air quality. Impact: Air pollution through generation of dust Nature of impact: Direct Description of impact Air quality in the area can be described as good. Vegetation clearing, levelling activities, stockpiling and vehicle entrainment on exposed areas creates dust. Given the temporary and short-term duration of these impacts and the small scale of the development, the impact on air quality considered to be of low significance.

Mitigation Measures • No mitigation measures proposed as any impacts would have already occurred. • Measures to prevent dust are included in the operational environmental management plan.

Impact Status Negative Impact Impact Criteria Impact significance Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Activity 1 - - Duration Very short 1 - - Frequency Regular 4 - - Intensity Low 1 - - Severity Low 6 - - Consequence Low 7 - - Probability Slight 2 - - Impact Significance Low 9 NA - Mitigation Not possible; Construction phase completed. Confidence High

Aspect Construction disturbing heritage resources. Impact Impact on Heritage Nature of Impact Direct Description of impact The palaeontological fossil map indicates that the tourism facility is located in area with a very high palaeontological sensitivity. However, due to the nature of the development (i.e. renovation and minimal

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 32

construction) it is expected that the impact on the bedrock was negligible and therefore unlikely that palaeontological resources were disturbed during the development of new facilities. An archaeological impact assessment carried out for two alternative Eskom power line routes for the nearby Gibson Bay Wind Farm found that the area on which the property occurs is a relatively unspoilt stretch of a significant pre-colonial cultural landscape (Nilssen, 2013). The following infrastructure was in place at the time of the purchase of the farm: • Farmhouse with garages • Dairy and milking courtyard • Two existing boreholes • Laborer’s cottages • Sheep stable and sheep dip kraal

All structures in place at the time of the purchase of the property are still in place with some structures (farmhouse and labourers cottages) being renovated to serve as tourist accommodation facilities. It must be noted that only the interior of these buildings was upgraded, and the integrity of all structures remains intact. The dairy, milkyard courtyard and an old toilet have been preserved and adds character to the tourist establishment.

No mitigation measures are proposed as the impact on heritage resources as a result of the construction phase is insignificant.

Impact Status Negligible impact Mitigation NA Confidence High

Aspect Mitigation measures were not legally in place during construction to ensure effective waste management. Impact Impact on Natural environment Nature of impact Direct Description of impact A common construction impact is poor waste management, resulting in dumping of rubble and other wastes in open space areas. It is vital that all solid waste, including excavated material that is not re-used as fill material, be removed from site to a registered waste disposal site. The construction phase entailed renovation of existing structures and the development of new structures (staff accommodation, reception, boardwalks). Minimal construction took place on the property. It is anticipated that the amount of rubble generated was minimal. The construction rubble was collected into a waste bin and transported offsite to Humansdorp landfill. No evidence of construction rubble was observed on the property. Waste management during construction phase No mitigation measures are proposed as the impact on the natural environment as a result of the waste management in the construction phase is insignificant. Mitigation measures to manage waste in the operational phase are included in operational environmental management plan.

Impact Status Negligible impact Mitigation NA Confidence High

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 33

Aspect Personnel required for construction phase of development. Mitigation measures were not legally enforced to ensure use of local labour. Impact: Employment creation Nature of Impact Direct Description of impact The construction phase resulted in the creation of approximately 10 unskilled positions. Owing to the temporary nature of this impact, the small scale of development and the impact is rated as a positive impact but of low significance. Local labour was used.

Mitigation Measures • Not mitigation measures proposed to rectify impacts in construction phase as impacts have already taken place. • Measures to ensure the use of local labour are included in the operational environmental management plan.

Impact Status Positive impact Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Local 3 - - Duration Short 2 - - Frequency Rarely 1 - - Intensity Low 1 - - Degree Low 4 - - Consequence Low 7 - - Probability Plausible 3 - - Impact Significance Low 10 NA - Mitigation Not possible; Construction phase completed. Confidence High

No indirect or cumulative impacts are likely to have occurred during the construction phase as a result of the development.

8.3 OPERATIONAL PHASE Renovations began in 1998, the first guests were welcomed in 2000. Renovation and construction was completed by 2006. Guests have been accommodated at the tourism establishment for 18 years.

Aspect Operation of tourism facilities. Impact: Removal of alien vegetation Nature of Impact Direct Impact Description of impact Mucina and Rutherford, 2012, have mapped the vegetation on the property as Southern Cape Dune Fynbos and Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos. In 1998, when the property was purchased, the property was heavily invaded with alien vegetation such as Inkberry (Ilex glabra), Rooikrans (Acacia cyclops), Port Jackson

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 34

(Acacia saligna), Blackwattle (Acacia mearnsii) and Eucalyptus trees. The typical fynbos vegetation expected to occur on site had already been transformed by the previous agricultural activities. The exclusion of fire may also have played a role in the displacement of fynbos vegetation with woody species. In 1998, when the property was purchased by Mr Verstrate, an eradication programme was launched to remove these dense stands of alien invasive trees (i.e. Inkberry, Rooikrans, Port Jackson, Blackwattle). The Acacia cyclops may have acted as a pre-cursor for the development of thicket vegetation occurring in some parts of the property where fynbos vegetation previously occurred. Currently, the vegetation on the property consists of elements of southern dune fynbos vegetation, renosterveld, thicket and is generally grassy throughout. Some alien invasive vegetation, such as Rooikrans and Eucalyptus species are present, but the property is currently operated as a coastal reserve and management is ongoing to keep the coastal reserve free of invaders. With ongoing removal of alien vegetation, the impact is rated as positive of medium significance.

Mitigation Measures • Alien vegetation must be removed from the property on an ongoing basis. • Removal techniques should include hand removal and biological control, where feasible • Remove aliens using manual methods (Young and small invaders can be removed from the soil with hands. The plants should be stacked responsibly to prevent regrowth.) • Remove aliens using mechanical methods (hatchet, panga, bowsaw or chainsaw can be used). • Use ring-barking method (Removing a 30–40cm strip of bark around trunks to prevent food going to the leaves). • Use only registered herbicides if necessary, in combination with a manual or mechanical removal method (i.e. ring-barking and then spraying a registered herbicide on the stump) • Vegetation removed should be used as firewood where possible or removed offsite to registered landfill.

Impact Status Positive Impact Negative Impact Impact Significance Impact Significance Impact Criteria With mitigation Without mitigation Spatial Site 2 Site 2 Duration Medium – long 5 Medium – long 5 Frequency Infrequent 2 Infrequent 2 Intensity Low - medium 2 Low - medium 2 Degree Medium 9 Medium 9 Consequence Medium 11 Medium 11 Probability Plausible 3 Plausible 3 Impact Significance Medium 14 Medium 14 Mitigation Likely Unlikely that mitigation will not continue Confidence High High

Aspect Operation of tourism facilities. Impact: Employment creation Nature of Impact Direct Impact Description of impact

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 35

The operation of the tourist facilities has resulted in the creation of 6 employment positions in low season and 12 employment positions in high season. Local persons are employed at the lodge. The lodge further supports the supply chain for the catering industry, contributes to enhancing the Kouga Municipality tourism industry and contributes to the municipal rate base. With the ongoing use of local labour, the impact is rated as positive with medium significance as employment is created in the area and a transfer of skills.

Mitigation Measures • Ensure the use of local labour • Staff training to ensure transfer of skills • Where possible, use local suppliers

Impact Status Positive Impact Negligible Impact Criteria Impact significance With mitigation Without mitigation Spatial Activity 1 - - Duration Short – medium 3 - - Frequency Rarely 1 - - Intensity Medium - High 4 - - Severity Medium 8 - - Consequence Medium 9 - - Probability Probable 4 - - Impact Significance Medium 13 - - Mitigation Likely; local persons are employed Unlikely that mitigation will not continue Confidence High

Aspect Sewage management and hazardous materials storage Impact Surface water, ground water and soil contamination Nature of Impact Direct Description of impact The Klipdrift river traverses the property dividing the resort facilities to the east from the remainder of the property to the west. The Klipdrift river is classified as a class C (moderately modified) river by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) Project. A non-perennial river runs north of the chalets and Lodge, traversing the site from east to west. The site is situated within 1 km from the high-water mark of the sea. The nearest facility to the Klipdrift river is the staff facility, located approximately 33m south east of the river. The gradient of the terrain from the river to the staff facility is steep and gradually levels out before the start of the facility. Intact vegetation occurs throughout the site. There are no signs of erosion on the property and no risk of sedimentation to the river The geology of the area consists of underlying sedimentary rock formation. The area is characterised with aeolianites (dune sands) of the Nanaga Formation and there is some influence of quartzitic sandstone of the Table Mountain Group. Oyster Bay lodge makes use of borehole water for its operations. Two boreholes are in place, one is at a depth of 78 m and the other at a depth of 100 m. Sewage waste is treated though gravitation to septic tanks with an overflow into a French drain system.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 36

There are six septic tanks and accompanying French drains servicing the following facilities: • Main building • Chalet 1+2 • Chalet 3 + 4 • Dairy • Staff • Reception

Any fuels and other hazardous substances (oils, paints etc.) are stored within a locked area, on an impermeable and bunded surface which prevents risk of soil contamination. A total of six septic tanks with accompanying French drains is effectively servicing the tourism facilities. The overflow of liquid waste from the septic tank is released to the French drain where it moves through long, wide, perforated pipes buried underground; the wastewater is released gradually into the soil where it is broken down and sanitized by microbes. Due to the depth of the boreholes on the property, a significant impact on groundwater is not expected to occur as microbes will break down the organic waste before reaching any groundwater. Mitigation measures currently in place to ensure the correct storage of hazardous substances must continue. Mitigation measures to ensure the correct functioning of the septic tank / French drain system must be in place. An impact with very low significance is expected to occur with mitigation in place.

Mitigation Measures • Hazardous materials storage area to be situated on impermeable surface which is bunded and secured under lock and key • Any vehicle refuelled, serviced or repaired on the site may only take place on a designated bunded area • Refrain from use of strong synthetic chemicals for cleaning of toilets / kitchens as this could destroy microbes and bacteria in septic tank system breaking down organic waste. • Where possible, use cleaning products compatible with septic tanks (i.e. probiotic, enzyme-based products) • Where possible, supply sulphate-free products to guests (soaps, shampoos etc.). • Inform visitors and staff that no plastics, nappies, and synthetic materials may be disposed of in toilet / sinks as this may cause a blockage in the system. • Ensure septic systems are monitored on an ongoing basis to detect any problems (i.e. slow flushing, slow draining, odours etc.) • Where possible, make use of products that can assist to ensure healthy functioning of septic system (i.e. probiotics) • Ensure ongoing maintenance of septic tanks and French drains

Impact Status Negative Impact Negative Impact Impact significance Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Activity 1 Activity 1 Duration Short 2 Very short 1 Frequency Seldom 3 Rarely 1 Intensity Low – medium 2 Low 1 Severity Medium 7 Negligible 3 Consequence Low 8 Negligible 4 Probability Plausible 3 Slight 2 Impact Significance Medium 10 Low 6

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 37

Mitigation Likely; most mitigation measures are already in place Confidence High

Aspect Operation of tourism establishment Impact: Disturbance to flora and fauna and soil erosion Nature of Impact Direct Impact Description of impact Mucina and Rutherford, 2012, have mapped the vegetation on the property as Southern Cape Dune Fynbos FFd11 vegetation and Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos FFs20 vegetation. Both vegetation types are associated with soils with low erosion. A variety of fauna including birds, amphibians, reptiles, insects, arachnids and small mammals occupy the coastal reserve area. Visitors, staff, maintenance work carried out on the property could lead to disturbance of flora, fauna and result in unnecessary soil erosion on site. Vegetation is currently intact throughout the site and no erosion was visible on site. By implementing the mitigation measures, the tourist establishment can ensure that it’s operations continue to take place in an environmentally sound manner and impacts on the surrounding flora, soil and habitats can be prevented.

Mitigation Measures • Existing access roads must be used, no new access roads must be created. • Existing footpaths to be used, no new footpaths to be created. • Off-road driving is prohibited. • The recommended speed limit in the reserve is 35 km/hr. Vehicles must not be allowed to speed. • All maintenance contractors must receive training on environmentally safe work methods prior to commencing work. • Movement of workers and any maintenance materials must be limited to areas requiring maintenance work. Undeveloped areas and surrounding areas are to be off limits to maintenance workers and associated materials. • No illegal hunting permitted. Immediate dismissal for any hunting activities should be implemented. • No collection of vegetation or fauna in the area (with exception of supervised alien vegetation removal) • Monitor the property for signs area for erosion. Promptly implement corrective measures as required. • Enhance / re-establish natural ground cover on the property where and when necessary. • Re-establish a native vegetation cover, which is similar in species composition to that which existed before the disturbance or which exists in surrounding areas. • Erosion control is particularly important along roads. Monitor all roads for evidence of erosion. If necessary, implement drainage structures into roads, where run-off water must be well-dissipated to prevent erosion at discharge points. Care must be taken to ensure that runoff is well dispersed so as to limit erosion. When constructing erosion-control structures, it is important that the structure should trap silt, but allow for continued flow of water. If necessary, berms could be used for directional stormwater flow management. • Monitor the property for signs of pooling. Promptly implement corrective measures as required. • Use berms to direct stormwater as necessary. • Make use of a mulch layer as necessary to trap runoff water downslope of the sites and assist to stabilize the soil at the sites and with the revegetation of the area. • Ensure efficient housekeeping of site (i.e. no littering)

Impact Status Negative Impact Negligible

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 38

Impact significance Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Site 2 Activity 1 Duration Short 2 Very short 1 Frequency Seldom 3 Rarely 1 Intensity Low – medium 2 Low 1 Severity Medium 7 Negligible 3 Consequence Medium 9 Negligible 4 Probability Plausible 3 Slim 1 Impact Significance Medium 12 Negligible 5 Mitigation Likely; most mitigation measures are already in place Confidence High

Aspect Waste management Impact: Impact on natural environment. Nature of Impact: Direct Impact Description of impact Poor waste management during the operational phase can have a negative impact on the receiving environment, including flora, fauna, air, soil, surface and ground water. Waste management seems to operate in a sound manner at the tourism establishment. Adequate waste facilities are provided at all facilities. Solid waste is collected from the facilities and recyclable waste is separated from the general waste. The solid waste is then transported to the Oyster Bay Transfer Station where it is collected by the Kouga Local Municipality and transported to either the Humansdorp or Hankey landfill site. The owner of the property accepts accountability for the effective management of waste during the operational phase. Measures are currently in place to effectively manage waste. The impact of waste on the natural environment is considered to be very low.

Mitigation Measures • Adequate waste receptacles to be provided at all facilities. • Waste receptacles to be emptied on ongoing basis. • Waste collected from facilities to be stored in suitable containers that prevents scavenging by wildlife. • Ensure waste storage areas to be regularly cleaned. • Separate recyclable waste from other general waste. • Hazardous waste to be separated from all other waste. • General waste to be transported to Oyster Bay Transfer station • Hazardous waste to be transported to nearest licensed hazardous waste site (i.e. Aloes) • Waste to be removed from waste storage area and transported to transfer station on regular basis. • No burning of waste is permitted. • Job specific training to be provided to those responsible for waste management related tasks. • Ensure the property is free from litter at all times. • Ensure good housekeeping measures at all times.

Impact Status Negative Impact Negligible Impact significance Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Site 2 Activity 1

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 39

Duration Short 2 Very short 1 Frequency Regular 4 Rarely 1 Intensity Medium 3 Low 1 Severity Medium 9 Negligible 3 Consequence Medium 11 Negligible 4 Probability Plausible 3 Slim 1 Impact Significance Medium 14 Negligible 5 Mitigation Likely; most mitigation measures are already in place Confidence High

Aspect Water use Impact: Impact on water resources Nature of Impact Direct Description of impact Oyster Bay lodge makes use of borehole water for its operations. Two boreholes are in place, one is at a depth of 78 m and the other at a depth of 100 m. Borehole water is abstracted at 2 000 liter per hour and stored in water reservoirs with a capacity of 10 000 liter.

Mitigation Measures • Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of taps, pipes, reservoir to ensure no leaks / drips. • Where possible, install bathroom taps and shower heads with reduced flow rate. • Retrofit cisterns to ensure minimal water is used with each flush.

Impact Status Negative Impact Negligible Impact significance Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Activity 1 Activity 1 Duration Very short 1 Very short 1 Frequency Often 5 Rarely 1 Intensity Low - medium 2 Low 1 Severity Medium 8 Negligible 3 Consequence Medium 9 Negligible 4 Probability Plausible 3 Slim 1 Impact Significance Medium 12 Negligible 5 Mitigation Likely; most mitigation measures are already in place Confidence High

Aspect Electricity use Impact: Electricity use and depletion of non-renewable energy resources Nature of Impact Direct Description of impact The overall electrical demand of the tourism establishment is low. Eskom supplies the property with electricity via a 100KVa powerline. Measures have been put in place to reduce electricity consumption. Solar power is used to abstract borehole water from the 100 m deep borehole. Nine solar geysers have been installed on the property to service the staff facility, reception, 4 chalets and 3 dairy guest rooms.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 40

The direct, stand-alone impact from using non-renewable energy resources during operational phase has a negligible impact. The cumulative impact of the facilities on electricity use is considered low.

Mitigation Measures • Make use of alternative power options where possible • Make use of LED Lights • Where possible, make use of ‘Energy star’ certified products • Where possible, ensure taps and shower heads have a reduced flow rate.

Impact Status Negative Impact Negative Impact Impact significance Impact significance Impact Criteria Without mitigation With mitigation Spatial Activity 1 Activity 1 Duration Very short 1 Very short 1 Frequency Often 5 Often 5 Intensity Low - medium 3 Low 1 Severity Medium 9 Negligible 7 Consequence Medium 10 Low 8 Probability Plausible 3 Slim 1 Impact Significance Medium 13 Low 9 Mitigation Likely; most mitigation measures are already in place Confidence High

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 41

9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

All impacts identified during the construction phase were considered to have had a low negative impact or a negligible impact on the natural environment. Any negative impacts associated with the operational phase were found to be of a low or negligible significance with mitigation measures in place. Several positive impacts, such as employment creation, use of solar power, use of solar geysers and ongoing eradication of alien invasive vegetation, were identified. The tourism establishment appears to operate in an environmentally sound manner. Mitigation measures are provided to mitigate identified negative impacts and enhance the identified positive impacts. All mitigation measures are included in the operational environmental management programme. Many of the measures recommended have already been implemented. All measures must continue throughout the life of the operation. With all recommended measures in place, the tourism facility is expected to have an overall positive impact on the environment.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

Ongoing removal of alien vegetation must continue using mostly manual and mechanical techniques. Only registered herbicides should be used, when necessary, and in combination with manual / mechanical removal methods. Site walk arounds should take place regularly to monitor the property for litter and for signs of erosion and pooling. Measures must be implemented to rectify any impact as soon as it is detected. Methods to ensure effective sewage management using the septic tank / French drain system must be put in place and monitoring of the system must take place regularly and measures put in place to rectify any problems detected. The operational environmental management programme must be implemented for the operation of the tourism establishment and be updated as required.

11. CONCLUSION

The tourism establishment has been in operation for 18 years. There is no evidence that significant negative impacts occurred as a result of the construction phase. The tourism establishment is managed in an environmentally sound manner and overall, has a positive impact on the surrounding environment. Rectification of environmental authorisation is recommended, on condition that the operational environmental management plan is implemented, to ensure all recommended measures can have a legal standing.

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 42

Copyright © CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit. All Rights Reserved

No part of the documents may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit. Likewise, the document may not be lent, resold, or otherwise disposed of by way of trade.

Document printed June 2018

Rectification of unlawful activities carried out on Portion 3 of Farm Klippedrift No. 732, Oyster Bay, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape 43