Draft Basic Assessment Report

DRAFT BASIC

ASSESSMENT REPORT HUGOSDALE FARM (RE/141)

DAM 2 EXPANSION, GREYTON

PROPOSED HUGOSDALE FARM (RE/141) DAM 2 EXPANSION, GREYTON, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE.

REFERENCE: 16/3/3/1/E4/5/1028/19

DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

Prepared for:

Wijnberg Farm Trust

Prepared by:

The Point, Suite 408, 4th Floor 76 Regent Road, Sea Point Cape Town, 8060 South Africa

Also in Grahamstown, Port Elizabeth, East London, Johannesburg and Maputo www.cesnet.co.za

May 2019

REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE

CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule

Draft Basic Assessment Report: Proposed Hugosdale Farm (RE/141) Dam Document Title 2 expansion, Greyton, Western Cape Province. Client Name & Wijnberg Farm Trust Address Document Reference 16/3/3/1/E4/5/1028/19

Status Draft BAR for Client Review

Issue Date May 2019

Lead Author Michael Johnson

Ms Amber Jackson CES Reviewers Dr Ted Avis CES Study Leader or Registered Environmental Assessment Dr Ted Avis CES Practitioner Approval No. of hard No. electronic Circulated to copies copies

Allan Wijnberg 0 1 Report Distribution DEADP 2 1 Cape Nature 1 1 BGCMA 1 1 Greyton Library 1 0

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of CES’s appointment and contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of CES. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. This document is prepared exclusively for use by CES’s client. CES accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part), use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written [email protected] permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality, www.cesnet.co.za copyright, trade secrets rules and intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1998) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED)

October 2017

PROJECT TITLE

The proposed Enlargement of Dam 2 on Hugosdale Farm (No. RE/141), near Greyton in the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality.

November 2018

REPORT TYPE CATEGORY REPORT REFERENCE NUMBER DATE OF REPORT Pre-Application Basic Assessment Report (if applicable)1 Draft Basic Assessment Report2 16/3/3/1/E4/5/1028/19 14 May 2019 Final Basic Assessment Report3 or, if applicable Revised Basic Assessment Report4 (strikethrough what is not applicable)

Notes:

1. In terms of Regulation 40(3) potential or registered interested and affected parties, including the Competent Authority, may be provided with an opportunity to comment on the Basic Assessment Report prior to submission of the application but must again be provided an opportunity to comment on such reports once an application has been submitted to the Competent Authority. The Basic Assessment Report released for comment prior to submission of the application is referred to as the “Pre-Application Basic Assessment Report”. The Basic Assessment Report made available for comment after submission of the application is referred to as the “Draft Basic Assessment Report”. The Basic Assessment Report together with all the comments received on the report which is submitted to the Competent Authority for decision-making is referred to as the “Final Basic Assessment Report”.

2. In terms of Regulation 19(1)(b) if significant changes have been made or significant new information has been added to the Draft Basic Assessment Report , which changes or information was not contained in the Draft Basic Assessment Report consulted on during the initial public participation process, then a Final Basic Assessment Report will not be submitted, but rather a “Revised Basic Assessment Report”, which must be subjected to another public participation process of at least 30 days, must be submitted to the Competent Authority together with all the comments received.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 3 of 90

DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBER(S)

Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/1/E4/5/1011/18 Pre-application reference number: Date of Issue: 2018-03-13 File reference number (EIA): 16/3/3/1/E4/5/1028/19 NEAS reference number (EIA): -

File reference number (Waste): N/A NEAS reference number (Waste): N/A

File reference number (Air Quality): N/A NEAS reference number (Air Quality): N/A

Application currently underway – Status: Pre-application enquiry (see File reference number (Other): Addendix E4) NEAS reference number (Other): -

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 4 of 90

CONTENT AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Note that: 1. The content of the Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the “One Environmental Management System” and the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Regulations, 2014 (as amended), any subsequent Circulars, and guidelines must be taken into account when completing this Basic Assessment Report Form. 2. This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report format which, in terms of Regulation 16(3) of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) must be used in all instances when preparing a Basic Assessment Report for Basic Assessment applications for an environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (“NEMA”)and the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) and/or a waste management licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) (“NEM:WA”), and/or an atmospheric emission licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) (“NEM:AQA”) when the Western Cape Government: Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (“DEA&DP”) is the Competent Authority/Licensing Authority. 3. This report form is current as of October 2017. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/ Environmental Assessment Practitioner (“EAP”) to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the report form have been released by the Department. Visit the Department’s website at http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp to check for the latest version of this checklist. 4. The required information must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The tables may be expanded where necessary. 5. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection. All applicable sections of this report form must be completed. Where “not applicable” is used, this may result in the refusal of the application. 6. While the different sections of the report form only provide space for provision of information related to one alternative, if more than one feasible and reasonable alternative is considered, the relevant section must be copied and completed for each alternative. 7. Unless protected by law, all information contained in, and attached to this report, will become public information on receipt by the competent authority. If information is not submitted with this report due to such information being protected by law, the applicant and/or EAP must declare such non-disclosure and provide the reasons for believing that the information is protected. 8. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, one hard copy and one electronic copy of this report must be submitted to the Department at the postal address given below or by delivery thereof to the Registry Office of the Department. Reasonable access to copies of this report must be provided to the relevant Organs of State for consultation purposes, which may, if so indicated by the Department, include providing a printed copy to a specific Organ of State. 9. This Report must be submitted to the Department and the contact details for doing so are provided below. 10. Where this Department is also identified as the Licencing Authority to decide applications under NEM:WA or NEM:AQA, the submission of the Report must also be made as follows, for- • Waste management licence applications, this report must also (i.e., another hard copy and electronic copy) be submitted for the attention of the Department’s Waste Management Directorate (tel: 021-483-2756 and fax: 021-483-4425) at the same postal address as the Cape Town Office. • Atmospheric emissions licence applications, this report must also be (i.e., another hard copy and electronic copy) submitted for the attention of the Licensing Authority or this Department’s Air Quality Management Directorate (tel: 021 483 2798 and fax: 021 483 3254) at the same postal address as the Cape Town Office.

DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS

CAPE TOWN OFFICE GEORGE REGIONAL OFFICE REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 (City of Cape Town & West Coast District) (Cape Winelands District & Overberg District) (Central Karoo District & Eden District)

Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Development Planning Development Planning Attention: Directorate: Development Attention: Directorate: Development Attention: Directorate: Development Management (Region 1) Management (Region 2) Management (Region 3) Private Bag X 9086 Private Bag X 9086 Private Bag X 6509 Cape Town, Cape Town, George, 8000 8000 6530

Registry Office Registry Office Registry Office 1st Floor Utilitas Building 1st Floor Utilitas Building 4th Floor, York Park Building 1 Dorp Street, 1 Dorp Street, 93 York Street Cape Town Cape Town George

Queries should be directed to the Queries should be directed to the Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Development Management Directorate: Development Management Directorate: Development Management (Region 1) at: (Region 2) at: (Region 3) at: Tel.: (021) 483-5829 Tel.: (021) 483-5842 Tel.: (044) 805-8600 Fax: (021) 483-4372 Fax: (021) 483-3633 Fax: (044) 805 8650

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 5 of 90

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Section Page(s) Section A: Project Information 8-20 Section B: Description of the Receiving Environment 21-33 Section C: Public Participation 34-36 Section D: Need and Desirability 37-42 Section E: Details of all the Alternatives considered 43-46 Section F: Environmental Aspects Associated with the Alternatives 47-51 Section G: Impact Assessment, Impact Avoidance, Management, Mitigation and Monitoring 52-80 Measures Section H: Recommendations of the EAP 81-82 Section I: Appendices 83; 89- Section J: Declarations 84-88

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT AND APPENDICES:

BAR Basic Assessment Report CBA Critical Biodiversity Area DEA National Department of Environmental Affairs DEA&DP Western Cape Government: Environmental Affairs and Development Planning DWS National Department of Water and Sanitation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMPr Environmental Management Programme ESA Ecological Support Area HWC Heritage Western Cape I&APs Interested and Affected Parties NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) NEM:AQA National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) NEM:ICMA National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act No. 24 of 2008) NEM:WA National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) NHRA National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999) PPP Public Participation Process

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 6 of 90

DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT

Applicant / Organisation / Organ Wijnberg Farm Trust of State: Contact person: Allan Wijnberg Postal address: 3 Sunnybrae Road, Rondebosch, Cape Town Telephone: (021) 418 3830 Postal Code: 7700 Cellular: 082 784 7458 Fax: (N/A) E-mail: [email protected]

DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (“EAP”)

Name of the EAP organisation: Coastal and Environmental Services (CES) Person who compiled this Report: Dr Anthony Mark Avis EAP Reg. No.: Please see Appendix K1 Contact Person (if not author): Mr Michael Johnson Postal address: Suite 408, 4th floor, The Point, 76 Regent Road, Sea Point, Cape Town Telephone: (021) 045 0900 Postal Code: 8000 Cellular: 082 746 4380 Fax: 046 622 6564 E-mail: [email protected]

EAP Qualifications: BSc, BSc (Hons); PhD

Please provide details of the lead EAP, including details on the expertise of the lead EAP responsible for the Basic Assessment process. Also attach his/her Curriculum Vitae to this BAR.

Dr A.M (Ted) Avis Ted Avis is a leading expert in the field of Environmental Impact Assessments, having project-managed numerous large-scale ESIAs to international standards (e.g. International Finance Corporation). Ted was principle consultant to Corridor Sands Limitada for the development of all environment aspects for the US$1billion Corridor Sands Project. He has managed ESIA studies and related environmental assessments of similar scope in Kenya, Madagascar, Egypt, Malawi, Zambia and South Africa. Ted has worked across Africa, and also has experience in large scale Strategic Environmental Assessments in southern Africa, and has been engaged by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) on a number of projects.

Ted was instrumental in establishing the Environmental Science Department at Rhodes University whilst a Senior lecturer in Botany, based on his experience running honours modules in EIA practice and environmental. He is an Honorary Visiting Fellow in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rhodes. He was one of the first certified Environmental Assessment Practitioner in South Africa, gaining certification in April 2004. He has delivered papers and published in the field of EIA, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Integrated Coastal Zone Management and has been a principal of CES since its inception in 1990, and Managing Director since 1998.

Ted holds a PhD in Botany, and was awarded a bronze medal by the South African Association of Botanists for the best PhD adjudicated in that year, entitled “Coastal Dune Ecology and Management in the Eastern Cape”. Ted is a Certified Environmental Assessment Practitioner (since 2002) and a professional member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professionals (since 1993).

SACNASP: South African Council for Natural Scientific Profession EAPSA: Environmental Assessment Practitioner Southern Africa Royal Society of South Africa Visiting Fellow – Dept. of Environmental Science, Rhodes University Botanical Society of South Africa SAAB: South African Association of Botanists South African Institute of Ecologists & Environmental Scientists International Association of Impact Assessment

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 7 of 90

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT:

CES was contracted by the applicant, Wijnberg Farm Trust, to conduct a Basic Assessment. This Basic Assessment is for the proposed expansion of dam 2 on Hugosdale Farm (RE/141), near Greyton in the Western Cape.

Project description

The proposed dam 2 expansion is required so that the Wijnberg Farm Trust can increase the water available for irrigation on the farm (for the new deciduous fruit trees and grass fed cattle) and reduce electricity consumption, by increasing gravity fed irrigation. This will allow the farm operations to expand, and make available for irrigation the total approved water allocation.

Currently water sources for the farm include surface water runoff from the farm catchments and summer and winter enlistment (i.e. water abstracted from the Sonderend River) under the Zonderendrivier Water Users Association (ZWUA). The existing water use rights in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (ACT 36 of 1998), for Hugosdale Farm includes:

Section Type of Water Use Existing Lawful Water Use of NWA Volume Source Irrigation Board or Water User (m3/annum) * Association Scheme 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 180 000 WUA/IB Scheme Zonderendrivier WUA (Summer) 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 80 000 WUA/IB Scheme Zonderendrivier WUA (Winter) 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 335 940 Surface Water 21 (b) Storage of water 56 965

The proposed expansion of dam 2 will increase the: • Total farm capacity from 56 965 m3 to 500 000 m3 i.e. an increase of 443 035 m3 • Water surface area of dam 2 from approximately 5 500m2 to 65 500 m2 i.e. increase of 60 000 m2 • Construction of a New Dam wall 22 m in height i.e. increase of 17 m

The following infrastructure will be required as part of the proposed activity: • Dam wall • Spillway • Laydown area • Pipeline

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 8 of 90

Figure 1: Figure summarizing the proposed project infrustructure

Site/Area description

Location Remaining Extent (RE) of Farm 141 Hugosdale Farm is located between Greyton (5 km) and Riveirsonderend (37 km), along the R406. This area is comprised primarily of farmland with the Riviersonderend Mountain range to the north. There are a number of streams and farm dams in the surrounding area. The most significant river is the Sonderend River which runs between Greyton and Riviersonderend.

Current Land use The property is zoned as agriculture. The farm is currently used to graze cattle and has some fruit orchards in the southern region, near the access road. The area that the dam enlargement will inundate is in a near natural state along the hill slopes and completely transformed by invasive alien species in the stream bed. Only cattle grazing occurs in this area.

Climate Greyton has a warm and temperate climate and falls within a winter rainfall area, with an average annual rainfall of 490mm. The average annual temperature is 16.6oC with the warmest months occur in January and February and the coolest month in July.

Topography The dam is located in the foothills of the Riviersonderend mountain range, in a valley that slopes down towards the stream and current dam site. The hills on either side of the proposed dam have gentle to moderate slopes and the altitudinal range between the highest immediate slope and the stream bed is approximately 60-70m.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 9 of 90

Geology The site falls completely within the Peninsula Formation (also often referred to as Table Mountain Sandstone) which consists of thickly layered quartzitic sandstone. These sandstones are very hard and erosion resistant. They therefore form the bulk of the mountains, steep cliffs and rugged crags of the Cape Fold Belt. Table Mountain Sandstone generally contains no fossils.

Flora A site visit, conducted by a botanical specialist, confirmed that there are three vegetation types within the project area, namely Greyton Shale Fynbos (Endangered) and Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld (Critically Endangered) on the slopes surrounding the existing dam and stream, and Alien Woodland along the stream that flows through the site. Five species of conservation concern, which are listed as Schedule 4 species on the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) list, were recorded. These species will therefore require permits for their removal.

Fauna Approximately 23 reptile species, 12 amphibian species, 29 mammal species and 353 bird species could occur on site (Pool- Stanvliet, 2017) of which 4 mammal and 22 bird are of conservation concern. No reptile and amphibian SCC are likely to occur on site. During the site visit, the faunal specialist found two adult Cape River Frogs, Dainty Frog tadpole and Clicking Stream Frog (cf.) tadpole. Twenty species of birds were seen on site during the field visit, inter alia, the Blue Crane, Malachite Sunbird, Cape Sugarbird, Yellow-billed duck, Cape Grass Bird, Double collared sunbird and Cape Robin-chat. Scat from three mammal species were found on site, namely Cape Clawless Otter, Caracal/Leopard and fresh Porcupine scat.

Aquatic Ecosystems Aquatic ecosystems present on site include wetlands, a non-perennial stream and man-made dams. The drainage features and streams are considered aquatic corridors and Ecological Support Areas (ESAs).

The Present Ecological State (PES) of the mountain stream on the site varies in relation to the existing dam. Above the dam, it is in an unmodified natural state. The section nearest to the dam, is in a largely modified state and the section below the dam is in a state that is largely natural with a few modifications.

Socio-economic description The site is situated in the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality, within the Overberg District Municipality, Western Cape Province. The nearest towns include Greyton (6 km) and Genadendal (11 km) to the West and Riviersonderend (25 km) to the East. The economic activities that take place on the farm include the production cultivation of fruit trees and animal husbandry (cattle).

Theewaterskloof Municipality The Theewaterskloof Municipality is located approximately 70km from Cape Town. The municipality covers approximately 3 259 km2 and includes the towns Bot River, Caledon/Myddleton, Genadendal, Grabouw, Greyton, Riviersonderend, Tesselaarsdal and Villiersdorp. The main two economic sectors include finance, insurance, real estate and business services (30.1%) and agriculture, forestry and fishing (21.3%).

Population Distribution The total population is approximately 117 109 people living in formal and informal settlement areas. In terms of population distribution by population group, in 2016 the Coloured population group had the highest percentage, followed by Black Africans, Whites and Indians and Asians.

Age and Gender Structure A majority of Theewaterskloof’s population (67.7 %) falls within the economically viable age group (age 15-64 years), indicating a large supply of labour. The dependency ratio within Theewaterskloof is 47.8%, meaning that every person comprising this age group supports 0.478 people, which are the economically inactive age groups (youth and elderly).

The gender profile of the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality indicates a relatively even split between males (50.6%) and females (49.4%).

Level of Education Only 3.7% of the total adult population living within the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality have not received any schooling. 42.2% have some secondary education, 22.5% have completed matric and 8.7% have some form of higher education.

Employment Levels In 2015, the unemployment rate in the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality was 11.5%. It was estimated that this increased to 11.9 per cent in 2016, which was lower than that of the Overberg District (13.5%) and significantly lower than that of the Province (18.7% in 2016).

Household Access to Services In Theewaterskloof, access to formal housing and services is measured against the total number of households. In 2016, the number of households was 33 097. The types of housing consist of 77.5% formal dwellings, 20.35% informal dwellings and 1.25% other dwellings. 90.1% of households have access to electricity as a source of lighting. 94.8% of households have access to regional or local water schemes and 92.8% of households have access to flush toilets that are connected to a sewer system. 78.7% of households have waste removed by local authorities at least weekly.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 10 of 90

Impact Summary

The following impacts were identified:

Significance rating of Impacts impacts after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, Very High): Planning, design and construction phases 1. Erosion Low - 2. Dust Low - 3. Noise Low - 4. Visual Low - 5. General On-site Fire Risk Low - 6. Hazardous Substances Low - 7. Construction Waste & Litter Low - 8. Sanitation Low - 9. Creation of temporary jobs Moderate + 10. Loss of vegetation communities 10a: Loss of Shale Fynbos Moderate - 10b: Loss of Shale Renosterveld High- 10c: Loss of Alien Woodland Moderate + 11. Ecological Loss of Biodiversity Low - 12. Loss of Plant Species of Conservation Concern Low - 13. Habitat Fragmentation Negligible 14. Invasion of Invasive Alien Plant Species Low - 15. Loss of Faunal Habitat Moderate - 16. Sedimentation and elevated turbidity Low - 17. Contamination from pollutants Low - Aquatic 18. Habitat Modification Low - 19. Flow Modification Negligible Operational phase 20. Temporary flooding due to failure of dam wall Low - General 21. Creation of permanent jobs High + 22. Dam Wall Failure and Release of Invasive Alien Plant Species Seedbanks Low - 23. Ecological Effect of alteration of river flow downstream of dam on faunal habitats Low - 24. Increase in dam and vegetated fringe habitat Moderate + 25. Sedimentation and elevated turbidity Low - Aquatic 26. Flow Modification Moderate -

Conclusion

Wijnberg Farm Trust have proposed the expansion of an existing farm dam (dam 2) on Hugosdale Farm (RE/141). The impacts associated with the dam expansion with and without mitigation measures have been assessed.

• In terms of the General Impacts o All negative impacts can be adequately mitigated to reduce the risk or significance to low. o There are both moderately and highly beneficial impacts with regards to job creation. o The fruit produced on the farm is destined for export so there would be additional foreign currency benefits for the country.

• In terms of the Ecological Impacts o Since the majority of the site is transformed (by the existing dam and invasive alien plant species) and that portions of natural vegetation are degraded as a result of edge effects and encroachment of invasive alien plant species, the overall impact of the dam on the terrestrial fauna and flora will be of moderate significance. The loss of 1.4ha of Shale Renosterveld and 0.5ha of Shale Fynbos is unlikely to significantly affect the survival of these vegetation types. o The proposed dam is a safety related structure and therefore is designed by a specialist dam engineer with an associated very low probability of failure. Meaning that although the release of invasive alien plant species seedbanks due to dam wall failure would be highly negative, the likelihood of dam wall failure is very low.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 11 of 90

o Although there are Moderate negative impacts relating to the loss of shale fynbos and faunal habitats, there will also be moderately beneficial impacts relating to the removal of invasive alien plan species and the increase in dam and vegetated fringe habitat.

• In terms of the Aquatic Impacts o Except for flow modification during operation, which has been identified as a moderately negative impact, all other aquatic impacts can be reduced to low or negligible with mitigation.

Therefore, given that: • That there are no fatal flaws associated with the proposed development and that all impacts can be adequately mitigated to reduce the risk or significance to an acceptable level; • The significance of the benefits associated with the proposed development outweigh the significance of the negative aspects; • The project will make a positive contribution to sustainable infrastructure development in the Theewaterskloof Municipality; and • The Basic Assessment Report contains sufficient information to allow DEA&DP to make an informed decision.

It is recommended that, based on the available information, the project should receive Environmental Authorisation in terms of the EIA Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998, as amended), provided that the specified mitigation measures stated herein are effectively implemented.

Recommendations

All mitigation measures which have been outlined in this report as well as in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) must be fully adhered to. The following recommendations are emphasised:

Pre-Construction • Notice must be given to surrounding land owners and businesses informing them of the intended date of commencement of construction;

Construction Phase • An ECO must be employed to ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area and that no unauthorised activities occur; • The ECO should submit monthly site audits detailing the applicant’s compliance with the EMPr; • An efficient stormwater management system must be implemented during construction; • Workers must be educated on environmental management aspects; • It is highly recommended that ALL invasive alien plant species upstream of the dam are removed. These species utilise more water than the surrounding fynbos and with their removal, the amount of water reaching downstream users will be increased. Once species upstream of the dam have been removed, individuals downstream of the dam should start to be removed. An invasive alien plant management plan must be drafted and implemented as a condition of the EMPr for this site. • A water monitoring programme should be implemented. Should the monitoring results indicate a significant increase in water turbidity and/or a change in Ecological Flow Reserve, immediate corrective action will have to be taken in order to reduce the impacts on the stream and aquatic environment. • In the highly unlikely event that heritage resources such as archaeological material, paleontological material, graves or human remains are encountered during construction, works must cease and findings immediately report Heritage Western Cape.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 12 of 90

SECTION A: PROJECT INFORMATION

1. ACTIVITY LOCATION

Location of all proposed Hugosdale Farm, Remaining Extent of Farm 141, near Greyton in the Western Cape sites:

Farm / Erf name(s) and number(s) (including Portions Hugosdale Farm, Remaining Extent of Farm 141 thereof) for each proposed site:

Property size(s) in m2 for 5 405 400 m2 each proposed site:

Area of water surface at full supply level (inundation area): 64 000m2 Development footprint Footprint of the dam wall that will not be covered by water: 8050m2 size(s) in m2: Total development footprint: 72 050m2

Surveyor General (SG) 21 digit code for each C013 0000 00000141 00000 proposed site:

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

(a) Is the project a new development? If “NO”, explain: YES NO

The proposed development is for the expansion of one of the existing dams, Dam 2, on Hugosdale farm (RE/141), near Greyton in the Western Cape.

Figure 2: Proposed expansion of the existing dam 2.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 13 of 90

(b) Provide a detailed description of the scope of the proposed development (project).

The applicant, Wynberg Farm Trust, has proposed the expansion of an existing dam (dam 2) on Hugosdale farm (RE/141), near Greyton in the Western Cape. The reason for the proposed expansion is to increase the water available for irrigation on the farm (for the new deciduous fruits and grass fed cattle) and reduce electricity consumption, by increasing gravity fed irrigation.

The Farm has 5 dams with a combined storage capacity of less than 56 965 m3. Water sources include surface water runoff from the farm catchments and summer and winter enlistment (i.e. water abstracted from the Sonderend River) under the Zonderendrivier Water Users Association (ZWUA). The existing water use rights in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (ACT 36 of 1998), for Hugosdale Farm includes:

Section Type of Water Use Existing Lawful Water Use of NWA Volume Source Irrigation Board or Water User (m3/annum) * Association Scheme 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 180000 WUA/IB Scheme Zonderendrivier WUA (Summer) 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 80000 WUA/IB Scheme Zonderendrivier WUA (Winter) 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 335940 Surface Water 21 (b) Storage of water 56965 * In the case of Storage, the Existing Lawful Water Use is in m3

The proposed dam will have a new dam wall of 22m high, and will increase the storage capacity of up to 500 000m3 and water surface area to 65 500 m2.

Dam 2 is currently fed by a non-perennial (seasonal flow) mountain stream that flows in a north-east south-west direction as well as by surrounding run-off. The stream is a tributary of the Sonderend river. Following the expansion, the dam will continue to be filled by the stream and surrounding surface water run-off. In addition to this, water (summer and winter enlistment) will be pumped into the dam from the Sonderend River.

• Surface water run-off will contribute 335 940 m3 per annum to the dams storage capacity. • The balance of the dam’s storage capacity (164 060 m3) will be abstracted/pumped from the Sonderend River.

Construction is planned for the summer dry season of November 2019 – March 2020 to be completed before the wet season of 2020.

The following infrastructure will be required as part of the proposed activity: • Dam wall • Spillway • Laydown area • Pipeline

Figure 3: Photograph of the proposed site showing the existing dam and the location of the proposed dam wall

Please note: This description must relate to the listed and specified activities in paragraph (d) below.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 14 of 90

(i) the period within which commencement must occur, Within 2 years of the date of authorisation (ii) the period for which the environmental authorisation should be granted and the date by which the activity must have been The EA must be valid for no less than 5 concluded, where the environmental authorisation does not include years. Commencement of the activity operational aspects; will enforce the EA.

(iii) the period that should be granted for the non-operational aspects of the environmental authorisation; and 7 years

(iv) the period that should be granted for the operational aspects of the environmental authorisation. The life of the scheme

Please note: The Department must specify the abovementioned periods, where applicable, in an environmental authorisation. In terms of the period within which commencement must occur, the period must not exceed 10 years and must not be extended beyond such 10 year period, unless the process to amend the environmental authorisation contemplated in regulation 32 is followed.

(d) List all the listed activities triggered and being applied for.

Please note: The onus is on the applicant to ensure that all the applicable listed activities are applied for and assessed as part of the EIA process. Please refer to paragraph (b) above.

EIA Regulations Listing Notices 1 and 3 of 2014 (as amended):

Identify if the activity is Describe the portion of the Listed Describe the relevant Basic Assessment development / development development that relates to the Activity Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 1 and operational / applicable listed activity as per the No(s): (GN No. R. 983) decommissioning / expansion project description. / expansion and operational. 19 The infilling or deposition of any material of The proposed expansion of the dam Development / Expansion more than 10 cubic metres into, or the wall will require deposition of more dredging, excavation, removal or moving of than 10 m3. The proposed dam wall soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of occurs within a watercourse. more than 10 cubic metres from a watercourse;

27 The proposed expansion of the dam Development / Expansion will increase the water surface area by approximately 5.5 ha. It is The clearance of an area of 1 hectares or anticipated that the proposed more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous activity will have vegetation vegetation clearance of more than 1ha but not exceeding 20 ha.

48 The expansion of- The proposed expansion of the dam Expansion and Operational (ii) Dams, where the dam, including will be approximately 55 000 m2. The infrastructure and water surface area, is proposed expansion occurs within a expanded by 100 square metres or more; water course. where such expansion occurs-

(a) within a watercourse;

66 The expansion of a dam where- The proposed expansion of the dam Expansion i. the highest part of the dam wall, as will require a new dam wall to be measured from the outside toe of the built of 22 meters high. The current wall, was originally 5 meters or higher and dam wall is 5 meters high. where the height of the wall is increased by 2,5 meters or more;

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 15 of 90

12 The clearance of an area of 300 square Development / Expansion The proposed expansion of the dam meters or more of indigenous vegetation will increase the water surface area

by approximately 55 000 m2. It is i. Western Cape anticipated that the proposed i. Within any critically endangered or activity will have vegetation endangered ecosystem listed in terms of clearance of more than 10 000 m2 section 52 of the NEMA or prior to the but not exceeding 200 000 m2. publication of such list, within an area

that has been identified as critically

endangered in the National Spatial The site falls within Greyton Shale Biodiversity Assessment 2004; Fynbos, which is an endangered ii. Within critical biodiversity areas ecosystem listed in terms of section identified in bioregional plans; 52 of the NEMBA.

23 The expansion of- Expansion

(i) dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface area exceeds 10 square metres; or (ii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 10 square metres or more; The proposed expansion of the dam where such a development occurs- will be approximately 55 000m2. The (a) within a watercourse; proposed expansion occurs within a (c) if no setback has been adopted, water course. within 32 meters of a watercourse measured form the edge of The site falls within Greyton Shale watercourse; Fynbos, which is an endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section i. Western Cape 52 of the NEMBA. i. outside urban areas: (ff) Critical biodiversity areas or ecosystem service area as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans;

Waste management activities in terms of the NEM: WA (GN No. 921): Category A Describe the relevant Category A waste management Describe the portion of the development that relates to Listed activity in writing as per GN No. 921 the applicable listed activity as per the project Activity description No(s): N/A N/A N/A Note: If any waste management activities are applicable, the Listed Waste Management Activities Additional Information Annexure must be completed and attached to this Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I.

Atmospheric emission activities in terms of the NEM: AQA (GN No. 893): Listed Describe the relevant atmospheric emission activity in Describe the portion of the development that relates to Activity writing as per GN No. 893 the applicable listed activity as per the project No(s): description. N/A N/A N/A

(e) Provide details of all components (including associated structures and infrastructure) of the proposed development and attach diagrams (e.g., architectural drawings or perspectives, engineering drawings, process flowcharts, etc.).

Buildings YES NO Provide brief description below: No Building will be built Infrastructure (e.g., roads, power and water supply/ storage) YES NO Provide brief description below:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 16 of 90

Proposed Project Infrastructure

Dam: • Dam Wall: The new dam wall will be 22m high and have a footprint of approximately 13 760m2 and will be located as seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5 below. • Storage capacity: Increase from 6 600 m3 to 500 000 m3 • Water Surface area: Increase from approximately 5 500m2 to 65 500 m2 i.e. increase of 60 000 m2 and will inundate the existing 5m wall.

Laydown area: The laydown area for the proposed project will be located just below the existing dam within the inundation area of the proposed expansion (Figure 5).

Pipeline: An extension of the existing pipelines from the Sonderend River is also required to pump winter and summer enlistment into the dam. Currently water is pumped from the Sonderend River to the small dam shown on Figure 4. The additional pipeline, shown in red, will be approximately 1 844m and will comprise of 200mm PVC pipe that will be buried underground. The planned pipeline route can be seen in Figure 4 below

Roads: Existing dirt roads will be used to access the site.

Figure 4: Proposed dam expansion and pipeline route

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 17 of 90

Figure 5: Proposed dam wall and laydown area

Processing activities (e.g., manufacturing, storage, distribution) YES NO Provide brief description below: N/A Storage facilities for raw materials and products (e.g., volume and substances to be stored) YES NO Provide brief description below: N/A Storage and treatment facilities for effluent, wastewater or sewage: YES NO Provide brief description below: N/A Storage and treatment of solid waste YES NO Provide brief description below: N/A Facilities associated with the release of emissions or pollution. YES NO Provide brief description below: N/A Other activities (e.g., water abstraction activities, crop planting activities) – YES NO Provide brief description below:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 18 of 90

Water abstraction activities: Water sources on Hugosdale Farm include surface water runoff from the farm catchments and summer and winter enlistment (i.e. water abstracted from the Sonderend River) under the Zonderendrivier Water Users Association (ZWUA). The existing water use rights in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (ACT 36 of 1998), for Hugosdale Farm (RE/141) include:

Section Type of Water Use Existing Lawful Water Use of NWA Volume Source Irrigation Board or Water User (m3/annum) * Association Scheme 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 180000 WUA/IB Scheme Zonderendrivier WUA (Summer) 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 80000 WUA/IB Scheme Zonderendrivier WUA (Winter) 21 (a) Taking of water for irrigation purposes 335940 Surface Water 21 (b) Storage of water 56965 * In the case of Storage, the Existing Lawful Water Use is in m3

In addition to the existing water rights outlined above, the applicant is currently applying for additional "storage of water" in terms of Section 21(b) of the National Water Act (NWA). This application, for additional storage, is intended to increase the farms total storage to 500 000m3. The WULA Application is include in Appendix E4 of this report.

Following the expansion, surface water run-off will contribute 335 940 m3 per annum to the dams storage capacity. The balance of the dam’s storage capacity (164 060 m3) will be abstracted/pumped from the Sonderend River.

Crop planting activities: The total hectares at present under irrigation on Hugosdale Farm (RE/141) are 13 ha of deciduous fruit and 25 ha of pastures. There are existing non-irrigated crop lands on which the applicant would like to change to deciduous fruit farming. No new areas would be cleared for cultivation, and hence no listed activities would be triggered by the development of additional irrigation areas.

3. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

(a) Property size(s): Indicate the size of all the properties (cadastral units) on which the development 5 405 400 m2 proposal is to be undertaken

(b) Size of the facility: Indicate the size of the facility where the development proposal is to be undertaken 71 711.13 m2

(c) Development footprint: Indicate the area that will be physically altered as a result of undertaking any development proposal (i.e., the physical size of the development together with all its associated 71 711.13 m2 structures and infrastructure)

(d) Size of the activity: Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the development proposal 71 711.13 m2

(L) 1844 m (e) For linear development proposals: Indicate the length (L) and width (W) of the development proposal (W) 0.2 m

(f) For storage facilities: Indicate the volume of the storage facility 500 000 m3

(g) For sewage/effluent treatment facilities: Indicate the volume of the facility m3 (Note: the maximum design capacity must be indicated

4. SITE ACCESS

(a) Is there an existing access road? YES NO (b) If no, what is the distance in (m) over which a new access road will be built? m

(c) Describe the type of access road planned: The property is accessed from the R406 (Greyton – Riviersonderend) and the proposed site will be accessed via existing internal farm roads.

Please note: The position of the proposed access road must be indicated on the site plan.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 19 of 90

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY(IES) ON WHICH THE LISTED ACTIVITY(IES) ARE TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND THE LOCATION OF THE LISTED ACTIVITY(IES) ON THE PROPERTY

5.1 Provide a description of the property on which the listed activity(ies) is/are to be undertaken and the location of the listed activity(ies) on the property, as well as of all alternative properties and locations (duplicate section below as required).

The proposed development would take place on Hugosdale farm (RE/141). This property is owned and farmed by the applicant and thus no alternatives are proposed. Hugosdale Farm is located 5km south east of Greyton, along the R406. The greater area is comprised primarily of farmland.

The project area is located on the foothills of the Riviersonderend Mountain range, which is located to the north, and falls within the Riviersonderend Mountain Catchment Area, in quaternary catchment H60F. The proposed dam site is located in a valley that slopes down towards an existing dam (dam 2) and within a non-perennial mountain stream that flows in a south-west direction. The stream is a tributary of the Sonderend river which borders the south-western boundary of the property and runs in a south-easterly direction.

There are a number of dwellings and outbuildings in use on Hugosdale Farm. They are clustered in two areas located approximately 700m and 1km south of the proposed Dam 2 expansion.

Hugosdale farm (RE/141) is zoned Agricultural Zone 1. Currently both beef and deciduous fruit are farmed on the property. The total area under irrigation includes 13 ha of fruit orchards and 25 ha of pastures. There are also large areas (>170 ha) of non-irrigated pastures/crop fields.

Figure 6: Landuse map for Hugosdale Farm

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 20 of 90

Latitude (S): (deg.; min.; sec) Longitude (E): (deg.; min.; sec.) Coordinates of all the proposed activities on the property or properties (sites): 34° 4΄ 4.50" 19o 40‘ 22.49“

Note: For land where the property has not been defined, the coordinates of the area within which the development is proposed must be provided in an addendum to this report.

5.2 Provide a description of the area where the aquatic or ocean-based activity(ies) is/are to be undertaken and the location of the activity(ies) and alternative sites (if applicable).

It has been proposed that the existing dam 2 be expanded. The site is located in a valley that contains a non-perennial tributary of the Sonderend River. The tributary forms part of the Breede River System. The source of this tributary is within the Riviersonderend Mountain Catchment Area located to the north of Hugosdale Farm. The tributary flows in a south westerly direction, through the proposed site, towards the Sonderend River. The Sonderend River flows along the south western boundary of Hugosdale Farm.

Currently the existing dam is filled by the stream and surrounding surface water run-off. Following the expansion, this will continue with additional water (summer and winter enlistment) being pumped into the dam from the Sonderend River.

The area where the dam will be situated is in a near natural state along the hill slopes and completely transformed by invasive alien species in the stream bed. Only cattle grazing occurs in this area.

Latitude (S): (deg.; min.; sec) Longitude (E): (deg.; min.; sec) Coordinates of the boundary /perimeter of all 34° 04' 07.14" 19o 40' 18.47" proposed aquatic or ocean-based activities 34° 04' 10.24" 19o 40' 22.95" (sites) (if applicable): 34° 04' 08.93" 19o 40' 26.81" 34° 03' 56.01" 19o 40' 30.60"

5.3 For a linear development proposal, please provide a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the proposed development will be undertaken (if applicable).

An extension of the existing pipelines from the Sonderend River is required in order to pump winter and summer enlistment into the dam. The pipeline will be approximately 1844m long and will comprise of 200mm PVC pipe that will be buried underground.

For linear activities: Latitude (S): (deg.; min.; sec) Longitude (E): (deg.; min.; sec) • Starting point of the activity 34o 04‘ 48.17“ 19o 39‘ 40.47“ • Middle point of the activity 34o 04‘ 34.85“ 19o 40‘ 10.64“ • End point of the activity 34o 04‘ 10.25“ 19o 40‘ 22.93“

Note: For linear development proposals longer than 1000m, please provide an addendum with co-ordinates taken every 250m along the route. All important waypoints must be indicated and the GIS shape file provided digitally. Please see Appendix B.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 21 of 90

5.4 Provide a location map (see below) as Appendix A to this report that shows the location of the proposed development and associated structures and infrastructure on the property; as well as a detailed site development plan / site map (see below) as Appendix B to this report; and if applicable, all alternative properties and locations. The GIS shape files (.shp) for maps / site development plans must be included in the electronic copy of the report submitted to the competent authority.

The scale of the locality map must be at least 1:50 000. For linear development proposals of more than 25 kilometres, a smaller scale e.g., 1:250 000 can be used. The scale must be indicated on the map. The map must indicate the following: • an accurate indication of the project site position as well as the positions of the alternative sites, if any; • road names or numbers of all the major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the site(s) • a north arrow; • a legend; Locality Map: • a linear scale; • the prevailing wind direction (during November to April and during May to October); and See • GPS co-ordinates (to indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point Appendix A of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes. The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection).

For an ocean-based or aquatic activity, the coordinates must be provided within which the activity is to be undertaken and a map at an appropriate scale clearly indicating the area within which the activity is to be undertaken.

Coordinates must be provided in degrees, minutes and seconds using the Hartebeesthoek94; WGS84 co-ordinate system.

Detailed site development plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. The site plans must contain or conform to the following: • The detailed site plan must preferably be at a scale of 1:500 or at an appropriate scale. The scale must be indicated on the plan, preferably together with a linear scale. • The property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50m of the site must be indicated on the site plan. • The current land use (not zoning) as well as the land use zoning of each of the adjoining properties must be indicated on the site plan. • The position of each element of the application as well as any other structures on the site must be indicated on the site plan. • Services, including electricity supply cables (indicate aboveground or underground), water supply pipelines, boreholes, sewage pipelines, storm water infrastructure and access roads that will form part of the development must be indicated on the site plan. Site Plan: • Servitudes and an indication of the purpose of each servitude must be indicated on the site plan. • Sensitive environmental elements within 100m of the site must be included on the site plan, including (but See not limited to): Appendix B o Watercourses / Rivers / Wetlands - including the 32 meter set back line from the edge of the bank of a river/stream/wetland; o Flood lines (i.e., 1:100 year, 1:50 year and 1:10 year where applicable; o Ridges; o Cultural and historical features; o Areas with indigenous vegetation (even if degraded or infested with alien species). • Whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, a contour map of the site must be submitted. • North arrow

A map/site plan must also be provided at an appropriate scale, which superimposes the proposed development and its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred and alternative sites indicating any areas that should be avoided, including buffer areas.

The GIS shape file for the site development plan(s) must be submitted digitally.

6. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken on the site and taken from outside the site) with a description of each photograph. The vantage points from which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or locality plan as applicable. If available, please also provide a recent aerial photograph. Photographs must be attached as Appendix C to this report. The aerial photograph(s) should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site. Date of photographs must be included. Please note that the above requirements must be duplicated for all alternative sites.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 22 of 90

SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

Site/Area Description

For linear development proposals (pipelines, etc.) as well as development proposals that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete copies of this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section B and indicate the area that is covered by each copy on the Site Plan.

1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE

Indicate the general gradient of the sites (highlight the appropriate box).

Flat Flatter than 1:10 1:10 – 1:4 Steeper than 1:4

2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE

(a) Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site (highlight the appropriate box(es).

Side slope of Closed Undulating Ridgeline Plateau Open valley Plain Dune Sea-front hill / mountain valley plain/low hills

(b) Provide a description of the location in the landscape.

Climate Greyton has a warm and temperate climate and falls within a winter rainfall area with an average annual rainfall of 490mm. The average annual temperature is 16.6oC with the warmest months occurring in January and February and the coolest month in July.

Topography The dam is located in the foothills of the Riviersonderend mountain range, in a valley that slopes down towards the stream and current dam site. The hills on either side of the proposed dam are gentle to moderate and the altitudinal range between the highest immediate slope and the stream bed is approximately 60-70m.

Figure 7: Topography of the surrounding landscape

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 23 of 90

3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE

(a) Is the site(s) located on or near any of the following (highlight the appropriate boxes)?

Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO UNSURE Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO UNSURE Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO UNSURE Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO UNSURE Soils with high clay content YES NO UNSURE Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO UNSURE An area sensitive to erosion YES NO UNSURE An area adjacent to or above an aquifer. YES NO UNSURE An area within 100m of a source of surface water YES NO UNSURE An area within 500m of a wetland YES NO UNSURE An area within the 1:50 year flood zone YES NO UNSURE A water source subject to tidal influence YES NO UNSURE

(b) If any of the answers to the above is “YES” or “UNSURE”, specialist input may be requested by the Department. (Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local authorities. The 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used).

Granite Shale Sandstone Quartzite Dolomite Dolorite Other (describe) Provide a description.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 24 of 90

The site fall completely within the Peninsula Formation (also often referred to as Table Mountain Sandstone) which consists of thickly layered quartzitic sandstone. These sandstones are very hard, and erosion resistant. They therefore form the bulk of mountains and steep cliffs and rugged crags of the Cape Fold Belt. It contains no fossils.

Figure 8: Underlying Geology

4. SURFACE WATER

(a) Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (highlight the appropriate boxes)?

Perennial River YES NO UNSURE Non-Perennial River YES NO UNSURE Permanent Wetland YES NO UNSURE Seasonal Wetland YES NO UNSURE Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE Estuarine / Lagoon YES NO UNSURE

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 25 of 90

(b) Provide a description.

As can be seen in the figure below, the following surface water features are present on or adjacent to the proposed site: • An existing dam (artificial and permanent wetland); and • A non-perennial mountain stream that flows in a south-westerly direction (Non-perennial River and permanent wetland).

Figure 9: Surface water

5. THE SEAFRONT / SEA

(a) Is the site(s) located within any of the following areas? (highlight the appropriate boxes). If the site or alternative site is closer than 100m to such an area, please provide the approximate distance in (m).

If “YES”: Distance to AREA YES NO UNSURE nearest area (m) An area within 100m of the high water mark of the sea YES NO UNSURE An area within 100m of the high water mark of an estuary/lagoon YES NO UNSURE An area within the littoral active zone YES NO UNSURE An area in the coastal public property YES NO UNSURE Major anthropogenic structures YES NO UNSURE An area within a Coastal Protection Zone YES NO UNSURE An area seaward of the coastal management line YES NO UNSURE An area within the high risk zone (20 years) YES NO UNSURE An area within the medium risk zone (50 years) YES NO UNSURE An area within the low risk zone (100 years) YES NO UNSURE An area below the 5m contour YES NO UNSURE An area within 1km from the high water mark of the sea YES NO UNSURE

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 26 of 90

A rocky beach YES NO UNSURE A sandy beach YES NO UNSURE

(b) If any of the answers to the above is “YES” or “UNSURE”, specialist input may be requested by the Department. (The 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used).

6. BIODIVERSITY

Note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the site and potential impact(s) of the proposed development. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and the ecosystem status, consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected] . Information is also available on compact disc (“cd”) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Tel.: (021) 799 8698. This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP’s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of the habitat conditions as per (b) below) must be provided as an overlay map on the property/site plan as Appendix D to this report.

(a) Highlight the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on preferred and alternative sites and indicate the reason(s) provided in the biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category. Also describe the prevailing level of protection of the Critical Biodiversity Area (“CBA”) and Ecological Support Area (“ESA”) (how many hectares / what percentages are formally protected).

No Natural Area Systematic Biodiversity Planning Other Natural CBA ESA Remaining Category Area (“ONA”) (“NNR”) CBA Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) 1 are areas that are in a natural conditional that are required to meet biodiversity targets, for species, ecosystems or ecological processes and infrastructure. The management objective of these areas it to maintain them in a natural to near natural state with no further loss of natural habitat. Degraded areas should also be rehabilitated and only low-impact, biodiversity sensitive land uses are appropriate.

The expansion of the dam will impact a (CBA) 1. However, CBA 1 within which this site falls is considered to be highly degraded due to heavy infestation of invasive alien plant species such as Black Wattle and Pine trees.

If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for ESA its selection in biodiversity plan and the Ecological Support Areas (ESA) 2 are areas that are not essential for meeting biodiversity conservation management objectives targets, but that play an important role in supporting the functioning of PAs or CBAs and are often vital for delivering ecosystem services. The management of these areas should be to “restore and/or minimize impact on ecological processes and ecological infrastructure functioning, especially soil and water-related services, and to allow for faunal movement”. The inundation of the Dam on the vegetation present is considered to be a low impact activity.

The expansion of the dam will impact on an Ecological Support Area (ESA) 2. The area is included as an ESA 2 as it contains critically endangered vegetation, endangered vegetation, a watercourse and a water source. The aquatic resources, including the non-perennial stream and the seasonal wetlands, are considered to be of high importance in terms of Biodiversity Conservation. Majority of the drainage features are ESAs. Terrestrial CBA 1 Total area within the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality = 29 577.407 ha Describe the site’s CBA/ESA Area the will be affected = 0.084 ha quantitative values (hectares/percentage) in relation to Aquatic CBA 1 the prevailing level of protection of CBA Total area within the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality = 11 359.573 ha and ESA (how many hectares / what Area the will be affect = 3.792 ha percentages are formally protected locally and in the province) ESA 2 Total area within the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality = 25 307.352 ha Area the will be affected = 1.711 ha

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 27 of 90

(b) Highlight and describe the habitat condition on site.

Percentage of habitat Description and additional comments and observations (including additional Habitat Condition condition class (adding insight into condition, e.g. poor land management practises, presence of up to 100%) and area of quarries, grazing/harvesting regimes, etc.) each in square metre (m2) The vegetation on the slopes on either side of the stream are covered by

natural vegetation. The footprint of the proposed development covers Natural 26.16% 18 763.23 m2 approximately 13 282.01 m2 of Shale Renosterveld and 5481.22 m2 of Shale

Fynbos. Near Natural (includes areas with low to moderate 0% 0 m2 N/A level of alien invasive plants) Degraded The stream that flows through the site is severely infested with invasive alien (includes areas 67.35% 48 295.15 m2 plants, including a mixture of Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii), Long-leafed heavily invaded by Acacia (Acacia longifolia), Hakea (Hakea sericea) and some pine trees. alien plants) Transformed (includes cultivation, dams, urban, 6.49% 4 652.75m2 The current dam 2 covers an area of 4 652.75 m2. plantation, roads, etc.) Total: 100% 71 711.13 m2

(c) Complete the table to indicate: (i) the type of vegetation present on the site, including its ecosystem status; and (ii) whether an aquatic ecosystem is present on/or adjacent to the site.

Description of Ecosystem, Vegetation Type, Original Extent, Threshold Terrestrial Ecosystems (ha, %), Ecosystem Status Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld – less than 9% of its original area Critically remains intact Ecosystem threat status as per the Endangered Greyton Shale Fynbos – less than 38% of its original area remains intact National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of Vulnerable N/A 2004)

Least N/A Threatened

Aquatic Ecosystems

Wetland (including rivers, depressions, channelled and unchannelled wetlands, flats, seeps pans, and Estuary Coastline artificial wetlands)

YES NO UNSURE YES NO YES NO

(d) Provide a description of the vegetation type and/or aquatic ecosystem present on the site, including any important biodiversity features/information identified on the site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats). Clearly describe the biodiversity targets and management objectives in this regard.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 28 of 90

Vegetation

Three vegetation types occur within the project area: Shale Fynbos, Shale Renosterveld and Alien Woodland.

Figure 10: Vegetation types recorded on site

Shale Fynbos (Endangered): This vegetation type is characterised by moderately tall proteoid shrubland of 1.5-2m with an understorey of grasses, restios, ericas and asteraceas. Dominant species include Protea repens, Berzelia lanuginose, Leucadendron salignum, Leucadendron spissifolium, Erica cruenata, Erica paniculata, Asparagus capensis and Eragrostis sp. There was some evidence of infestation by Hakea sericea, Acacia cyclops and Pinus sp. which became more heavily infested towards the stream and existing dam. This vegetation type is in near natural condition upstream of the proposed dam and degraded in the immediate vicinity of the dam where the shrubland species thin out and are replaced by lower growing shrubs, restios and grasses.

Shale Renosterveld (Critically Endangered): This vegetation type is characterised by the presence of renosterbos (Elytropappus rhinocerotis),and is in a moderate to degraded state due to grazing. There is evidence of pine infestations into this vegetation type. Other than renosterbos, other dominant species are similar to those in the Shale Fynbos and include Leucadendron salignum, Leucadendron spissifolium, Erica cruenata, Erica paniculata, Asparagus capensis and restio species as well as Oxalis polyphylla, Athanasia sp., Helichrysum petiolare, Muraltia caledonensis, cf Ficinia sp. and Hypperhenia hirta.

Alien Woodland: The stream that feeds the dam is heavily infested with invasive alien species that include a mixture of Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii), Long-leafed Wattle (Acacia longifolia), Hakea (Hakea sericea) and some pine trees. There were some arum lillies (Zantedeschia aetheopica) and Iridaceae species, that couldn’t be identified without a flower, along the banks of the stream. The vegetation along this stream is entirely transformed by invasive alien plants species.

Species of Conservation Concern: Five species of conservation concern, which are listed as Schedule 4 species on the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) list, were recorded. These species will therefore require permits for their removal.

Aquatic Ecosystems Aquatic ecosystems present on site include wetlands, a non-perennial stream and a man-made dam. The drainage features and streams are considered aquatic corridors and Ecological Support Areas (ESAs).

The Present Ecological State (PES) of the mountain stream on the site varies in relation to the existing dam. Above the dam, it is in an unmodified natural state. The section nearest to the dam, is in a largely modified state, and the section below the dam is in a state that is largely natural with a few modifications.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 29 of 90

The PES scores further supports the sharp decline in quality that was observed by the aquatic specialist between site S1 and site S2, as well as the observation that the modification and impacts recorded at site S2 are largely removed at site S3. This indicates that the natural biological action and functioning remains mostly intact further downstream from the existing dam. The figure below illustrates the site sensitivity based on the PES.

Figure 11: Aquatic sensitivity based on the SASS5 PES categories for the three sampling site.

The habitat within the stream ranges from a mountain stream to a cobble-bed foothill stream. No fish species were observed during the site visit. Due to the seasonal nature of the stream, the gradient of the stream and its lack of connectivity with the Sonderend River, it is unlikely that any fish occur within the stream reach where the dam is proposed.

7. LAND USE OF THE SITE

Note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed development.

Low density Untransformed area Medium density residential High density residential Informal residential residential Commercial & Retail Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial warehousing Office/consulting Military or police Casino/entertainment Tourism and Power station room base/station/compound complex Hospitality facility Quarry, sand or borrow Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes dam Dam or reservoir pit Hospital/medical School Tertiary education facility Church Old age home centre Sewage treatment Train station or Major road (4 lanes and Railway line Airport plant shunting yard more) Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 30 of 90

Landfill or waste Nature Plantation Agriculture River, stream or wetland treatment site conservation area Mountain, koppie or Archaeological Museum Historical building Graveyard ridge site Other land uses N/A (describe):

(a) Provide a description.

The property is zoned as agriculture. The farm is currently used to graze cattle and has some fruit orchards in the southern region, near the access road. The area that the dam enlargement will inundate is in a near natural state along the hill slopes and completely transformed by invasive alien species in the stream bed. Only cattle grazing occurs in this area.

8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA

(a) Highlight the current land uses and/or prominent features that occur within +/- 500m radius of the site and neighbouring properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site.

Note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed development.

(describe):

(b) Provide a description, including the distance and direction to the nearest residential area, industrial area, agri-industrial area.

Remaining Extent (RE) of Farm 141 Hugosdale Farm is located between Greyton (5 km) and Riveirsonderend (37 km), along the R406. This area is comprised primarily of farmland with the Riviersonderend Mountain range to the north. There are a number of streams and farm dams in the surrounding area. The most significant river is the Sonderend River which runs between Greyton and Riviersonderend.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 31 of 90

9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS a) Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the community in the vicinity of the proposed site, in order to provide baseline information (for example, population characteristics/demographics, level of education, the level of employment and unemployment in the area, available work force, seasonal migration patterns, major economic activities in the local municipality, gender aspects that might be of relevance to this project, etc.).

The site is situated in the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality, within the Overberg District Municipality, the Western Cape Province. The nearest towns include Greyton (6 km) and Genadendal (11 km) to the West and Riviersonderend (25 km) to the East. The economic activities that take place on the farm include the cultivation of fruit trees and animal husbandry (cattle).

Theewaterskloof Municipality The Theewaterskloof Municipality is located approximately 70km from Cape Town. The municipality covers approximately 3 259 km2 and includes the towns of Bot River, Caledon/Myddleton, Genadendal, Grabouw, Greyton, Riviersonderend, Tesselaarsdal and Villiersdorp. The main two economic sectors are Finance, insurance, real estate and business services (30.1%) and Agriculture, forestry and fishing (21.3%).

Population Distribution The total population is approximately 117 109 people living in formal and informal settlement areas. Table 1 shows the population distribution of people residing in the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality by population group. In 2016 the Coloured population group had the highest percentage, followed by Black Africans, Whites and Indians and Asians.

Table 1: Population Distribution by Population Group in Theewaterskloof Local Municipalict (2016)

Population Group Number Percentage Black African 29005 24.8% Coloured 76374 65.2% Indian or Asian 578 0.5% White 11152 9.5% Total 117109 100%

Age and Gender Structure A majority of Theewaterskloof’s population (67.7 %) falls within the economically viable age group (age 15-64 years), indicating a large supply of labour. The dependency ratio within Theewaterskloof is 47.8%, meaning that every person comprising this age group supports 0.478 people comprising the economically inactive age groups (youth and elderly).

The gender profile of the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality indicates a relatively even split between males (50.6%) and females (49.4%).

Table 2: Access to Services (% of Households) Type of Service Percentage Housing Formal dwellings 77.5% Informal dwellings 20.35% Other dwellings 1.25% Water Access to piped water inside the dwelling, yard or within 200 metres 94.8% from the yard. Sanitation Households with access to a flush toilet connected to the sewerage 92.8% system. Electricity Households with access to electricity 90.1% as the primary source of lighting. Refuse Removal Households who have waste removed by local authorities at least 78.7% weekly.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 32 of 90

10. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS

(a) Please be advised that if section 38 of the NHRA is applicable to your proposed development, you are requested to furnish this Department with written comment from Heritage Western Cape as part of your public participation process. Heritage Western Cape must be given an opportunity, together with the rest of the I&APs, to comment on any Pre-application BAR, a Draft BAR, and Revised BAR.

Section 38 of the NHRA states the following: “38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as- (a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length; (b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site- (i) exceeding 5 000m2 in extent; or (ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority, must at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development”.

(b) The impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2), excluding the national estate contemplated in section 3(2)(i)(vi) and (vii), of the NHRA, must also be investigated, assessed and evaluated. Section 3(2) states the following: “3(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the national estate may include— (a) places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance; (b) places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage; (c) historical settlements and townscapes; (d) landscapes and natural features of cultural significance; (e) geological sites of scientific or cultural importance; (f) archaeological and palaeontological sites; (g) graves and burial grounds, including— (i) ancestral graves; (ii) royal graves and graves of traditional leaders; (iii) graves of victims of conflict; (iv) graves of individuals designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette; (v) historical graves and cemeteries; and (vi) other human remains which are not covered in terms of the Human Tissue Act, 1983 (Act No. 65 of 1983); (h) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa; (i) movable objects, including— (i) objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and paleontological objects and material, meteorites and rare geological specimens; (ii) objects to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage; (iii) ethnographic art and objects; (iv) military objects; (v) objects of decorative or fine art; (vi) objects of scientific or technological interest; and (vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996)”.

Is Section 38 of the NHRA applicable to the proposed development? YES NO UNCERTAIN

In terms of Section 38 of the Heritage Resources Act, 1999, any person who intends to undertake a development If YES or categorised as any development or other activity which will change the character of a site exceeding 5 000m2 UNCERTAIN, in extent must notify the responsible heritage resources authority (Heritage Western Cape) of the location, nature explain: and extent of the development. A notice of intent to develop has been submitted to HWC. Will the development impact on any national estate referred to in Section 3(2) of the YES NO UNCERTAIN NHRA?

If YES or UNCERTAIN, N/A explain:

Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO UNCERTAIN

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 33 of 90

If YES or UNCERTAIN, N/A explain:

Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the NHRA, including Archaeological or paleontological sites, on or close YES NO UNCERTAIN (within 20m) to the site?

If YES or UNCERTAIN, N/A explain:

Note: If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided and Heritage Western Cape must provide comment on this aspect of the proposal. (Please note that a copy of the comments obtained from the Heritage Resources Authority must be appended to this report as Appendix E1).

11. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES, CIRCULARS AND/OR GUIDELINES

(a) Identify all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks, and instruments that are applicable to the development proposal and associated listed activity(ies) being applied for and that have been considered in the preparation of the BAR.

TYPE Permit/license/authorisation/comment LEGISLATION, POLICIES, PLANS, / relevant consideration (e.g. rezoning GUIDELINES, SPATIAL TOOLS, ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY DATE or consent use, building plan approval, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT and how it is relevant to this (if already Water Use License and/or General PLANNING FRAMEWORKS, AND application obtained): Authorisation, License in terms of the INSTRUMENTS SAHRA and CARA, coastal discharge permit, etc.) The Constitution of South Africa The Constitutional Court of South Environmental rights and social

(Act 108 of 1996) Africa development National Environmental Department of Environmental Principles of environmental Management Act (107 of 19989) Affairs (DEA) and Department of management, procedures to be

(NEMA) and Environmental Impact Environmental Affairs and followed in a Basic Assessment process Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2010 Development Planning (DEA&DP) and Environmental Authorisation Department of Water Affairs and Safety Registration for the Dam and National Water Act (36 of 1998) Sanitation amendment to Water Use License National Heritage Resources Act Heritage Western Cape (HWC) An Notice of Intent to Develop will be

(25 of 1999) submitted to HWC License/ permit may be required for the Environmental Conservation Cape Nature removal of Species of Conservation Ordinance (No. 19 of 1974) Concern (SCC) Western Cape Nature Department of Environmental License/ permit may be required for the Conservation Laws Amendment Affairs and Development Planning removal of Species of Conservation Act (No. 3 of 2000) (DEA&DP) Concern (SCC) Conservation of Agricultural Department of Agriculture, Comment from DAFF Resources Act (CARA) Forestry and Fisheries Theewaterskloof Integrated Theewaterskloof Local Relevant consideration in the

Development Plan (IDP) Municipality assessment of need and desirability Theewaterskloof Spatial Theewaterskloof Local Relevant consideration in the

Development Plan (SDF) Municipality assessment of need and desirability Overberg District Municipality Relevant consideration in the Overberg District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) assessment of need and desirability DEA&DP Guideline on Alternatives DEA&DP Relevant consideration (2010) DEA&DP Guideline on Public DEA&DP Relevant consideration Participation (2010) DEA&DP Guideline on Need & DEA&DP Relevant consideration Desirability (2010 DEA&DP Guideline for Environmental Management Plans DEA&DP Relevant consideration (2005)

(b) Describe how the proposed development complies with and responds to the legislation and policy context, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks and instruments.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 34 of 90

LEGISLATION, POLICIES, PLANS, GUIDELINES, SPATIAL TOOLS, Describe how the proposed development complies with and responds: MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FRAMEWORKS, AND INSTRUMENTS The proposed development will promote ecologically sustainable development and social The Constitution of South Africa (Act development while upholding environmental rights. This will happen through the 108 of 1996) implementation of the environmental management plan. This Basic Assessment will be submitted to the DEADP to ensure that the national environmental principles, fair decision making and integrated environmental management approach is applied throughout the process. The basic assessment and National Environmental associated environmental management plan aim to prevent pollution and ecological Management Act (107 of 19989) degradation, promote conservation (through alien cleating)and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development, as outlined in the Act. The proposed development triggers listed activities in R544 (R983) and R546 (R985) and is GN No. R 544 of 2010 deemed to have a potential impact on natural ecosystems and therefore requires a Basic Assessment for approval of development activities. The appropriate applications for water permits/licenses will be made. A freshwater and National Water Act (36 of 1998) hydrological specialist impact assessment was done. National Heritage Resources Act (25 To ensure that the project adheres to the National Heritage Resources Act A Notice of of 1999) Intent to Develop was submitted to Heritage Western Cape. To ensure that the project adheres to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act to Conservation of Agricultural identify necessary measures to protect agricultural resources the Department of Resources Act (43 of 1983) Agriculture was informed of the proposed development and will be requested to comment on this draft Basic Assessment. A botanical, freshwater and hydrological impact assessment was done to identify any endangered flora and fauna in the area and to determine if any nature reserves are in Environmental Conservation close proximity to the proposed project area, as well as suggest appropriate mitigation Ordinance (No. 19 of 1974) measures to protect natural flora and fauna. Cape Nature was informed of the proposed development and will be requested to comment on this draft Basic Assessment. The Theewaterskloof Municipality IDP was consulted to check that the proposed project Theewaterskloof Local Municipality was in accordance with the goals set out in the document. The Theewaterskloof Integrated Development Plan (IDP) Municipality was informed of the proposed development and will be requested to comment on this draft Basic Assessment. The Theewaterkloof SDF was consulted to check that the proposed project was in Theewaterskloof Spatial accordance with the goals set out in the document. The Theewaterskloof Municipality was Development Framework (SDF) informed of the proposed development and will be requested to comment on this draft Basic Assessment. The Overberg District Municipality IDP was consulted to check that the proposed project Overberg District Municipality was in accordance with the goals set out in the document. The Overberg District Integrated Development Plan (IDP) Municipality was informed of the proposed development and will be requested to comment on this draft Basic Assessment. DEA&DP Guidelines Application to various components in the Basic Assessment process

Note: Copies of any comments, permit(s) or licences received from any other Organ of State must be attached to this report as Appendix E.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 35 of 90

Section C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The PPP must fulfil the requirements outlined in the NEMA, the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) and if applicable, the NEM: WA and/or the NEM: AQA. This Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the “One Environmental Management System” and the EIA Regulations, any subsequent Circulars, and guidelines must also be taken into account.

1. Please highlight the appropriate box to indicate whether the specific requirement was undertaken or whether there was an exemption applied for.

In terms of Regulation 41 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) - (a) fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to and accessible by the public at the boundary, on the fence or along the corridor of - (i) the site where the activity to which the application relates, is or is to be undertaken; and YES EXEMPTION (ii) any alternative site YES EXEMPTION N/A (b) giving written notice, in any manner provided for in Section 47D of the NEMA, to – (i) the occupiers of the site and, if the applicant is not the owner or person in control of the site on which the activity is to be undertaken, the owner or person in control of the site YES EXEMPTION N/A where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken; (ii) owners, persons in control of, and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be YES EXEMPTION undertaken; (iii) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site or alternative site is situated and YES EXEMPTION any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area; (iv) the municipality (Local and District Municipality) which has jurisdiction in the area; YES EXEMPTION (v) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and YES EXEMPTION (vi) any other party as required by the Department; YES EXEMPTION N/A (c) placing an advertisement in - (i) one local newspaper; or YES EXEMPTION (ii) any official Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing public notice YES EXEMPTION N/A of applications or other submissions made in terms of these Regulations; (d) placing an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper or national newspaper, if the activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the boundaries of the YES EXEMPTION N/A metropolitan or district municipality in which it is or will be undertaken (e) using reasonable alternative methods, as agreed to by the Department, in those instances where a person is desirous of but unable to participate in the process due to— (i) illiteracy; YES EXEMPTION N/A (ii) disability; or (iii) any other disadvantage. If you have indicated that “EXEMPTION” is applicable to any of the above, proof of the exemption decision must be appended to this report. Please note that for the NEM: WA and NEM: AQA, a notice must be placed in at least two newspapers circulating in the area where the activity applied for is proposed. If applicable, has/will an advertisement be placed in at least two newspapers? YES NO If “NO”, then proof of the exemption decision must be appended to this report.

2. Provide a list of all the State Departments and Organs of State that were consulted:

Date request Support / not in support State Department / Organ of State Date comment received: was sent: District Municipality: Overberg 08/08/2018 Theewaterskloof Local Municipality 08/08/2018 Western Cape Department of 08/08/2018 Agriculture Department of Environmental Affairs 08/08/2018 and Development Planning (DEADP) Department of Water and Sanitation 08/08/2018 (DWS) Breede-Gouritz Catchment 10/12/2018 06/02/2019 Management Agency (BGCMA) Department of Economic Development 08/08/2018 and Tourism CapeNature 08/08/2018

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 36 of 90

3. Provide a summary of the issues raised by I&APs and an indication of the manner in which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for not including them. (The detailed outcomes of this process, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs must be included in a Comments and Response Report to be attached to the BAR (see note below) as Appendix F).

One email received thus far – summary of the issue raised: Neighbour indicated concern about the dam restricting water onto her property. CES requested location of property and source of water entering property, and assessed this issue in the Basic Assessment.

4. Provide a summary of any conditional aspects identified / highlighted by any Organs of State, which have jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the relevant activity.

Applicability of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations A request was submitted to DEA&DP, attached in Appendix E2, to determine the applicability of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (as amended) in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (“NEMA”).

A response was received from DEA&DP, attached in Appendix E2, as to the listed activities triggered (Reference: 16/3/3/6/1/E4/5/1011/18) indicating that the Basic Assessment process should be followed.

Ecological Flow Reserve determination The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) and the Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency (BGCMA) were consulted as to whether an Ecological Flow Reserve Determination Study was required (see correspondence attached in Appendix E6). BGCMA responded as follows:

“Reserve Study is not the responsibility of the applicant but the responsibility of DWS. The applicant must do all the necessary studies required for Water Use License Application. From the my side a Freshwater Assessment must be done and submitted with the application.”

BGCMA request to be an I&AP Email and letter attached in Appendix E6. Reference No: 4/10/2/H60F/Hugosdale (Rem) 141, Greyton

Note: Even if pre-application public participation is undertaken as allowed for by Regulation 40(3), it must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements set out in Regulations 3(3), 3(4), 3(8), 7(2), 7(5), 19, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44.

If the “exemption” option is selected above and no proof of the exemption decision is attached to this BAR, the application will be refused.

A list of all the potential I&APs, including the Organs of State, notified and a list of all the registered I&APs must be submitted with the BAR. The list of registered I&APs must be opened, maintained and made available to any person requesting access to the register in writing.

The BAR must be submitted to the Department when being made available to I&APs, including the relevant Organs of State and State Departments which have jurisdiction with regard to any aspect of the activity, for a commenting period of at least 30 days. Unless agreement to the contrary has been reached between the Competent Authority and the EAP, the EAP will be responsible for the consultation with the relevant State Departments in terms of Section 24O and Regulation 7(2) – which consultation must happen simultaneously with the consultation with the I&APs and other Organs of State.

All the comments received from I&APs on the BAR must be recorded, responded to and included in the Comments and Responses Report included as Appendix F of the BAR. If necessary, any amendments made in response to comments received must be effected in the BAR itself. The Comments and Responses Report must also include a description of the PPP followed.

The minutes of any meetings held by the EAP with I&APs and other role players wherein the views of the participants are recorded, must also be submitted as part of the public participation information to be attached to the final BAR as Appendix F.

Proof of all the notices given as indicated, as well as notice to I&APs of the availability of the Pre-Application BAR (if applicable), Draft BAR, and Revised BAR (if applicable) must be submitted as part of the public participation information to be attached to the BAR as Appendix F. In terms of the required “proof” the following must be submitted to the Department: • a site map showing where the site notice was displayed, a dated photographs showing the notice displayed on site and a copy of the text displayed on the notice; • in terms of the written notices given, a copy of the written notice sent, as well as: o if registered mail was sent, a list of the registered mail sent (showing the registered mail number, the name of the person the mail was sent to, the address of the person and the date the registered mail was sent); o if normal mail was sent, a list of the mail sent (showing the name of the person the mail was sent to, the address of the person, the date the mail was sent, and the signature of the post office worker or the post office stamp indicating that the letter was sent); o if a facsimile was sent, a copy of the facsimile report; o if an electronic mail was sent, a copy of the electronic mail sent; and

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 37 of 90

o if a “mail drop” was done, a signed register of “mail drops” received (showing the name of the person the notice was handed to, the address of the person, the date, and the signature of the person); and • a copy of the newspaper advertisement (“newspaper clipping”) that was placed, indicating the name of the newspaper and date of publication (of such quality that the wording in the advertisement is legible).

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 38 of 90

SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY

Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the “One Environmental Management System” and the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), any subsequent Circulars, and guidelines available on the Department’s website: http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp). In this regard, it must be noted that the Guideline on Need and Desirability in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2010 published by the national Department of Environmental Affairs on 20 October 2014 (GN No. 891 on Government Gazette No. 38108 refers) (available at: http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/38108__891.pdf) also applied to EIAs in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

1. Is the development permitted in terms of the property’s existing land use rights? YES NO Please explain

The proposed development falls on land which is zoned as Agricultural Land (Zone 1). The objective of this zone is to promote and protect agriculture on large farms as an important economic, environmental and cultural resource. The proposed development promotes agricultural activities as it will increase the water availability on the farm for the irrigation of new deciduous fruit trees and grass fed cattle that will be established.

2. Will the development be in line with the following? (a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (“PSDF”). YES NO Please explain

This development is aligned with the guiding principles of the PSDF (2014) discussed under “Sustainability and Resilience” (Section 1.5.2) which encourages land development that is spatially compact, resource-frugal, compatible with cultural and scenic landscapes, and should not involve conversion of high potential agricultural land or compromise the ecosystem. It also promotes developments that are resilient (i.e. developments that have the capacity to withstand shocks and disturbances such as climate change or economic crisis).

The PSDF highlights the importance of the agricultural sector in its Spatial Framework (Section 3), in particular Section 3.1 which speaks about the Sustainable use of the Western Cape’s spatial assets. In this section, the PSDF states that the Western Cape’s economy is founded on the Province’s unique asset base. These include farming resources that make the Western Cape the country’s leading exporter of agricultural commodities and whose value chains (e.g. agri-processing) underpin the Province’s industrial sector.

The significance of the Province’s spatial asset base stems from the fact that it, among other things, underpins the economy, particularly agriculture which provides food security, sustains rural livelihoods and draws income into the Province.

In order to ensure sustainable resource management, the PSDF includes the following resource management policy objectives (section 3.1.2) i. Protect biodiversity and agricultural resources; ii. Minimise the consumption of scarce environmental resources, particularly water; and iii. Conserve and strengthen the sense of place of important productive landscapes.

Section 3.1.4 of the PSDF discusses the key challenges regarding water resources and goes on to state that water is a key determinant of future provincial economic growth.

Policy R2 is: “Safeguard inland water and coastal water resources, and manage the sustainable use of water”. Point 4 of Policy R2 particularly speaks to the proposed development as it highlights the need to adopt an approach to water demand management – maximising efficiencies and optimising storage capacity.

The proposed project is considered to align with the principles and objectives of the PSDF. The proposed development involves expanding an existing dam to increase the amount of water that can be stored on the farm. This would ensure that sustainable agricultural practices are achieved through water conservation measures and through the use of gravity fed options of water supply for irrigation purposes over electricity or use of generators to transport water, which is neither energy efficient nor financially sound for the agricultural sector. In doing so, the development will ensure sustainable water use for agriculture by optimising storage capacity and maximising efficiencies through the use of drip irrigation and sophisticated control mechanisms that minimise water use. The entire irrigation is system is setup to measure the exact amount of water required by the trees based on electronic probes and regular auger moisture tests. The drip system minimizes water losses and all trees are mulched. Furthermore, the development will ensure a secure water supply, when water resources may be scarce (i.e. resilience in a drought).

(b) Urban edge / edge of built environment for the area. YES NO Please explain

The proposed activity is located in a rural setting

(c) Integrated Development Plan and Spatial Development Framework of the Local Municipality (e.g., would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of YES NO Please explain the existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF?).

The approval of this application WILL NOT compromise the integrity of the existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF.

IDP: The Theewaterskloof Municipality IDP developed five Strategic Focus Areas (SFA) with eight Strategic Objectives (SO’s).

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 39 of 90

In terms of SFA V: Local Economic Development (LED) and SO8, the Municipality encourages local economic developments through creating/enabling the environment favourable for economic and human development in a sustainable manner.

The dam will secure water for the farm, enabling the development of fruit orchards. This will increase the farms economic return and will create new job opportunities for people in the local communities.

The proposed development recognizes that an environmental assessment should be undertaken to ensure that the environment is protected from harm emanating from the project, and to ensure sustainable development.

Theewaterskloof Local Municipality is an agricultural economy and in order to maintain this, the IDP stipulates that the municipality must explicitly focus on retaining farming activities. The proposed development seeks to ensure that sustainable agricultural practices can be achieved through water conservation measures and through energy efficient alternatives such as gravity fed irrigation.

SDF: The proposed activity takes into account the spatial planning categories along with the policies and strategies discussed under the Theewaterskloof SDF, specifically part C of the second volume which proposes sectoral strategies. In part C, Strategy 1.7 proposes the need for developments to take into account the impacts of their proposed activities and that they should be planned and implemented in such a way that they have minimum negative impacts on biodiversity, aesthetic, heritage or sense of place attributes. Furthermore, it promotes the use of energy and water efficient technologies. The proposed development achieves both these objectives.

The proposed development recognizes that an environmental assessment should be undertaken to assess the impacts that the proposed activity will have on the environment.

Furthermore, the proposed development seeks to ensure that sustainable agricultural practices are achieved through water conservation measures, through energy efficient alternatives such as moving away from use of generators to pump water, and through sophisticated drip irrigation technology. The proposed dam expansion would increase water security and storage on the farm as well as allow for the development of a gravity fed irrigation system. This will allow for additional areas on the farm to be irrigated at a lower cost (i.e. increasing viability) and would result in an increase in production on the farm. The proposed development is therefore in line with the following policies stated in Chapters 8 and 11 of the Theewaterskloof SDF:

• Policy 8.2: Improve the viability of farming by facilitating diversification of farm economy and promote sustainable farming practices; • Policy 8.6: Strengthen the rural economy through facilitating development of agricultural production in suitable locations throughout the rural landscape; and • Policy 11.47: Potential and existing high production potential agricultural areas must be protected.

(d) An Environmental Management Framework (“EMF”) adopted by this Department. (e.g., Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing YES NO Please explain environmental management priorities for the area and if so, can it be justified in terms of sustainability considerations?)

While the SDF looks at the spatial developments, the EMF is essentially an early identification of biophysical and socio-economic attributes of the area where the activity is being proposed. Currently there is no adopted EMF for the region, however the Overberg District Municipality SDF does delineate Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs).

This proposal recognises that an environmental assessment is necessary to ensure that the negative effects of the development on sensitive environments are minimised and that, where necessary, mitigation measures are recommended to safe guide the environment. It has been noted that CBAs and ESAs are present within the site and therefore an Ecological Specialist and an Aquatic Specialist were sent into the field to assess the impacts that the proposed development would have on these areas, and to highlight ways to minimise and mitigate negative impacts as well as optimise benefits. An Environmental Management Program has also been developed and is attached as Appendix H.

Based on the findings of the environmental assessment, the approval of this application would not compromise the integrity of the existing environmental management priorities for the area, and thus can be justified in terms of sustainability considerations.

(e) Any other Plans (e.g., Integrated Waste Management Plan (for waste management YES NO Please explain activities), etc.)).

No other plans are known at this stage

3. Is the land use (associated with the project being applied for) considered within the timeframe intended by the existing approved SDF agreed to by the relevant YES NO Please explain environmental authority (in other words, is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as priorities within the credible IDP)?

The development of agricultural production in suitable locations has been identified as a priority in the 2012 SDF. The subject land is currently zoned for agricultural use (Agriculture I). The proposed development will not compromise any projects or programmes identified as priorities within the IDP. Refer to 2a and 2c above.

Furthermore Chapter 2 of the Overberg District Municipality IPD has identified one of the challenges of the agricultural sector to be water management. It goes on to highlight the need to expand water sources to put more arable land under irrigation as well as the need to increase water-user licence processing.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 40 of 90

4. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned in terms of this land use (associated with the activity being applied for) occur on the proposed YES NO Please explain site at this point in time?

The Western Cape agricultural sector contributes 24% of the total national agricultural GDP. However, the recent drought in the Western Cape has made generating a sustainable income for farmers very challenging. Production decreases in the 2017/18 season led to monetary losses at a primary production level totalling R 5.9 billion, while job losses amounted to approximately 30 000. This has highlighted the need for increased resource efficiency.1

Dam 2 already exists. The majority of the area surrounding the dam is heavily infested with invasive alien plant species. The increase in the dam wall will streamline and increase the efficiency of water use and storage on the farm, assisting Wijnberg Farm Trust with their water supply and irrigation demands. The intention of the upgrade to the dam is to increase the productivity of the agricultural land and ensure that the farm will be able to continue to operate sustainably, particularly with respect to the interests of existing and future employees (job creation and stability).

1 Source: https://www.green-cape.co.za/assets/Uploads/GreenCape-Sustainable-Agriculture-MIR-FINAL-WEB-24-5-2018.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2018.

5. Does the community/area need the project and the associated land use concerned (is it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g., development YES NO Please explain is a National Priority, but within a specific local context it could be inappropriate.)

The agricultural sector is the biggest employer in the region and accounts for over 20% of the region’s GDP directly, and just under half if one takes into account the agro-processing value chain activity. The sector is a significant employer, despite labour cuts in the last few years, employing almost a third of all labour.

Furthermore, the proposed development would increase the water available for irrigation on the farm for the new deciduous fruit trees and grass fed cattle. It is anticipated that the new deciduous fruit orchards would create 50 new permanent jobs as well as an additional 150 seasonal jobs.

6. Are the necessary services available together with adequate unallocated municipal capacity (at the time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater YES NO Please explain for the project? (Confirmation by the relevant municipality in this regard must be attached to the BAR as Appendix E.)

Municipal services are not required by this activity.

7. Is this project provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality and if not, what will the implication be on the infrastructure planning of the municipality (priority YES NO Please explain and placement of services and opportunity costs)? (Comment by the relevant municipality in this regard must be attached to the BAR as Appendix E.)

The development has not been provided for in the municipal infrastructure planning. But this will have no implication on the infrastructure planning for the municipality as the infrastructure is not municipal property and no municipal services will be required.

8. Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or YES NO Please explain importance?

Economic development has been identified as a national issue and Agriculture, Employment and Food Security, are key sectors for spearheading economic development. The proposed project will therefore contribute to economic development.

The National Development Plan (NDP) aims to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030. The plan focuses extensively on the notion on capabilities and the development and improvement of such capabilities to improve people’s lives. The NDP proposes the following strategies to address these goals:

1. Creating jobs and improving livelihoods; 2. Expanding infrastructure; 3. Transition to a low-carbon economy; 4. Transforming urban and rural spaces; 5. Improving education and training; 6. Providing quality health care; 7. Fighting corruption and enhancing accountability; and 8. Transforming society and uniting the nation.

The proposed project is therefore aligned with the NDP as it will create temporary and permanent job opportunities and will subsequently contribute to the improvement of livelihoods in the surrounding local community. Furthermore the proposed activity will allow for energy efficient irrigation alternatives such as moving away from generators to pump water and relying on gravity fed option.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 41 of 90

9. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the development proposal and associated listed activity(ies) applied for) at this place? (This relates to the YES NO Please explain contextualisation of the proposed land use on the proposed site within its broader context.)

The proposed development is in line with the current land use of the properties and surrounding area, i.e. Agriculture 1. The development will therefore not detract from the land use or sense of place. A smaller dam already exists within the proposed site, thus the proposed development is a dam expansion.

The proposed location for expanding the farms’ water storage capacity is also highly favourable from an economic and security of supply perspective. The enlarged dam will increase the Applicant’s water storage capacity, and will reduce the current electricity consumption related to pumping additional water required during peak periods. The new dam will lower electricity consumption, thus lower the Applicant’s electricity costs, promote water and electricity efficiency and support intensive farming in the Greyton agricultural area

Furthermore, the majority of the area surrounding the dam is heavily infested with invasive alien plant species.

10. Will the development proposal or the land use associated with the development proposal applied for, impact on sensitive natural and cultural areas (built and YES NO Please explain rural/natural environment)?

There were no sensitive cultural or heritage sites such as grave sites, rural areas, areas used for cultural practices or other such cultural environments identified within the project footprint.

A biodiversity and sensitivity assessment (maps attached in Appendix D) was conducted to determine the sensitive natural areas, including aquatic and terrestrial areas with sensitive flora, fauna and ecosystems, were identified for the project area and its surroundings.

Ecological Sensitivity Although the riparian areas and wetlands are important process areas for ecosystem functioning, the high level of infestation by invasive alien species has resulted in its degradation and some loss of function. These areas were classified as an area of moderate sensitivity.

The Shale Fynbos has a relatively high biodiversity and is near intact. In addition, this vegetation type is listed as endangered and is threatened by the transformation of land for agriculture and as a result of infestations of invasive alien species. This vegetation type was classified as one of high sensitivity.

The Shale Renosterveld, although degraded in some areas, still provides ecosystem functioning and is in a condition that it can be rehabilitated back to its natural state. This vegetation type is listed as critically endangered since 87% has already been transformed by cultivation. It is therefore classified as an area of high sensitivity.

None of the area has been classified as low sensitivity.

Aquatic Sensitivity The Present Ecological State (PES) of the mountain stream on the site varies in relation to the existing dam. Above the dam, it is in an unmodified natural state (Very High Sensitivity). The section nearest to the dam, is in a largely modified state (Low Sensitivity) and the section below the dam is in a state that is largely natural with a few modifications (High Sensitivity).

The proposed project may impact these sensitive environments through the construction and operation of the proposed development. However, with careful mitigation and management during the construction and operation, the impacts are likely to be low.

11. Will the development impact on people’s health and well-being (e.g., in terms of YES NO Please explain noise, odours, visual character and ‘sense of place’, etc.)?

The proposed development is not anticipated to negatively impact on people’s health or wellbeing. The project will not generate significant noise, odours or waste. The development is consistent with the surrounding land use and will not detract from the sense of place of the area. The dam will be registered with DWS Dam Safety to ensure integrity of the dam wall construction.

12. Will the proposed development or the land use associated with the proposed YES NO Please explain development applied for, result in unacceptable opportunity costs?

The proposed activity is not expected to result in an unacceptable opportunity cost. The current land use of the property portions under application will continue and the dam expansion will not compromise these.

The proposed activity entails the expansion of an existing lawful land use (dams for irrigation purposes), and in an area that is already partially disturbed and degraded.

The proposed location for expanding the farms’ water storage capacity is also highly favourable from an economic and security of supply perspective. The enlarged dam will increase the Applicant’s water storage capacity, and will reduce the current electricity consumption related to pumping additional water required during peak periods. By lowering electricity consumption the Applicant’s electricity costs are reduced.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 42 of 90

The opportunity cost of expanding the dam as opposed to implementing the no-go option must be considered due to the potential impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial flora, fauna and ecosystem processes in comparison to no impacts. These potential impacts, described in Section G below, are weighed against the benefits associated with the proposed development. The impacts are expected to be low, once mitigation measures are implemented. The opportunity cost is therefore considered to be relatively insignificant.

13. What will the cumulative impacts (positive and negative) of the proposed land use associated with the development proposal and associated listed activity(ies) applied for, be?

Decrease in catchment runoff water absorption (-‘ve cumulative impact) Decreasing runoff from the mountain and increasing the uptake of Dam 2 on Hugosdale farm will incrementally decrease the absorption of that runoff by the catchment, which during times of drought will exacerbate the lack of water availability.

Increased water availability through an effective alien invasive clearing plan (+’ve cumulative impact) Ongoing monitoring and management of invasive alien plants within the freshwater features and within the larger property would reduce the uptake of water by the alien invasive species and free the water to either enter the Wijnberg Farm Trust irrigation system, thus reducing their demand on external sources, or increase the runoff entering the stream and Sonderend river. Cumulative impacts of alien invasive clearing include increased water security.

14. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site? YES NO Please explain

The proposed development will increase the sustainability of the farming operations and is consistent with the current land use on the property and surrounding areas. The majority of the proposed site is already transformed by the infestation of invasive alien plant species and the presence of an existing dam.

15. What will the benefits be to society in general and to the local communities? Please explain

The dam expansion will promote sustainable farming in the Greyton area through the use of gravity fed irrigation, and will also have a positive spin-off for society in general by contributing to the more sustainable utilisation of resources. This is becoming an environmental and socio-economic priority in the face of environmental threats such as global warming, which force farmers to find ways of farming more sustainably.

Local communities will benefit from the increased employment opportunities (50 new jobs) and thus income generation. The proposed activity will also contribute to the national strategic goals by contributing to capacity building. Source material from the activity will also be sourced locally, and thus contribute to the local economy.

16. Any other need and desirability considerations related to the proposed development? Please explain None 17. Describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in Section 23 of the NEMA have been taken into account:

This report has identified and assessed potential impacts associated with the dam capacity increase, in line with S23 requirements. Further, all public participation requirements have been addressed, but have gathered insignificant comments from various stakeholders and IAPs, including all tiers of government and relevant line function departments. The associated EMPr for the project has taken the assessment findings into consideration and appropriate management and mitigation measures are detailed therein.

18 Describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in Section 2 of the NEMA have been taken into account:

The principles of environmental management, as set out in Sections 2, of the NEMA (No. 107 of 1998) are considered throughout this environmental impact assessment process.

Applicable principles emphasize consideration of the following:

• Sustainable development

o The main objective of the proposed project is to make the Hugosdale Farm more environmentally and economically sustainable.

o Impacts associated with the proposed project are herewith identified, assessed and appropriate mitigation measures proposed in order to achieve maximum sustainability. Construction and operational management and mitigation measures, based on anticipated impacts, are included in the attached EMPr to assist in ensuring sustainable development;

o Recommendations will be made to reduce pollution and degradation of the environment. With the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in this report, it is not anticipated that significant pollution or environmental degradation will occur.

• Responsible use of non-renewable natural resources

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 43 of 90

o The proposed project aims to make the irrigation system more energy and water efficient, thus making more responsible use of non-renewable resources. o The proposed project will allow for the release water required for the downstream Ecological Reserve Flow

• Interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties (I&APs)

o This process provides potential I&Aps, key stakeholders and state departments with adequate opportunity for comment, review and input on the process and available documentation. Details of the Public Participation Process undertaken are described in Section C and Appendix F of this report.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 44 of 90

SECTION E: DETAILS OF ALL THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) defines “alternatives” as “ in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of fulfilling the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to the— (a) property on which or location where the activity is proposed to be undertaken; (b) type of activity to be undertaken; (c) design or layout of the activity; (d) technology to be used in the activity; or (e) operational aspects of the activity; (f) and includes the option of not implementing the activity;”

The NEMA (section 24(4)(a) and (b) of the NEMA, refers) prescribes that the procedures for the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential consequences or impacts of activities on the environment must, inter alia, with respect to every application for environmental authorisation – • ensure that the general objectives of integrated environmental management laid down in the NEMA and the National Environmental Management Principles set out in the NEMA are taken into account; and • include an investigation of the potential consequences or impacts of the alternatives to the activity on the environment and assessment of the significance of those potential consequences or impacts, including the option of not implementing the activity.

The general objective of integrated environmental management (section 23 of NEMA, refers) is, inter alia, to “identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and consequences and alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimising negative impacts, maximising benefits, and promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management” set out in the NEMA.

The identification, evaluation, consideration and comparative assessment of alternatives directly relate to the management of impacts. Related to every identified impact, alternatives, modifications or changes to the activity must be identified, evaluated, considered and comparatively considered to: • in terms of negative impacts, firstly avoid a negative impact altogether, or if avoidance is not possible alternatives to better mitigate, manage and remediate a negative impact and to compensate for/offset any impacts that remain after mitigation and remediation; and • in terms of positive impacts, maximise impacts.

1. DETAILS OF THE IDENTIFIED AND CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND INDICATE THOSE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE FOUND TO BE FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE

Note: A full description of the investigation of alternatives must be provided and motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exists.

(a) Property and location/site alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 45 of 90

Property Alternatives This application is for expansion of Dam 2 on Hugosdale farm (RE/141.) The reason for the proposed expansion is to increase the water available for irrigation on the farm (for the new deciduous fruit trees and grass fed cattle) and reduce electricity consumption, by increasing gravity fed irrigation. The applicant owns this property and an alternative property is therefore not financially viable. Thus, no Property Alternatives are being proposed. Site Alternatives Four dam site alternatives were identified for enlargement to 500 000 m³ on Hugosdale Farm, namely: 1. Dam 2 2. Dam 5 3. Intermediate dam 4. East-valley dam

Dam 2 is situated on a tertiary river at an elevation of 264m in Greyton Shale Fynbos. The majority of this dam site is vegetated with alien invasive species, mainly black wattle.

Intermediate dam and East-valley dam are situated on separate tertiary rivers at an elevation of 258m and 260m respectively. The majority of these dam sites are vegetated with alien invasive species and portions of Greyton Shale Fynbos and/or Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld.

Dam 5 is situated at a lower elevation of 216m on a secondary river below where the two tertiary rivers converge, the majority of this site is agricultural land and has some Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld.

The figure below illustrates the locations of all the dam sites investigated:

Figure 12: Site Alternatives

Dam 2 Enlargement Alternative: Dam 2 enlargement (preferred option) can hold approximately 500 000 m³, will accumulate natural run-off and would significantly reduce electricity costs by irrigating under gravity due to the higher elevation compared to that of Dam 5. It has a better water/wall ratio compared to that of the intermediate dam site. The enlargement of Dam 2, would be a better suited option with limited disturbance of critical areas.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 46 of 90

Dam 5 Enlargement Alternative: Dam 5 enlargement can hold approximately 500 000 m³, would be the best suited to accumulate natural run-off and would be the most economical option based on basin characteristics (water/wall ratio). However, due to the lower elevation the enlargement of Dam 5 would increase pumping and electrical costs. Intermediate dam Enlargement Alternative: Intermediate dam is situated on a tertiary river at 258m elevation, and vegetated with mostly invasive alien plant species and a small portion Shale Renosterveld. The proposed enlargement can hold approximately 500 000 m³ but is the least cost-effective dam to build given it requires a 27m high wall.

East-valley dam Enlargement Alternative: East-valley dam is situated on a tertiary river at 260m elevation situated in Invasive Alien Woodland and small portions of Shale Fynbos and Shale Renosterveld. This is not proposed for enlargement due to the low run-off volume from the smaller catchment area and disturbance of Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA).

(b) Activity alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

This application is for the expansion of the existing Dam on Hugosdale farm. The Applicant requires the proposed expansion of the dam at this point in time to increase existing capacity for irrigation, increase the systems energy efficiency and save costs.

Boreholes can be considered as an alternative activity, however in this case the pumps used to abstract the water from the ground, circulate the water around the farm and irrigate the land would decrease the systems energy efficiency and increase running costs. Therefore borehole is not a viable option.

Should the development not be authorised, the status quo will result in current lower security of water supply and over time increased pumping costs.

Therefore no feasible or reasonable activity alternatives exist.

(c) Design or layout alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

Design requirements for a dam of this nature follow dam safety regulations and as such no alternatives are considered.

(d) Technology alternatives (e.g., to reduce resource demand and increase resource use efficiency) to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

No technology alternatives are being considered as part of this proposal.

(e) Operational alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

The Applicant is only considering increasing the volume of the existing dam in order to increase existing capacity for irrigation, save on the cost of pumping and improve security of water supply. Therefore no reasonable or feasible operational alternative exist.

(f) The option of not implementing the activity (the ‘No-Go’ Option):

The no-go option is assessed in this Basic Assessment as the option of not implementing the proposed activity. This implies that the proposed dam enlargement would not go ahead.

The impacts associated with the project will not occur, including potential loss of terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, loss of biodiversity, disturbance to wildlife, water quality impairment, flow modification and disruption to ecosystems and processes. These potential impacts are expected to be low with mitigation. The benefits associated with the project, economic development and job creation, will not be experienced with the no-go option.

The No-Go option would result in high water pumping costs in terms of electricity consumption as well as a lower security of water supply. It is also likely that the planned increase in fruit tree orchards will not occur.

Although it is essential to consider this option, the recommendation is that the proposed dam should be constructed, provided the proposed mitigation measures are implemented and the development is in accordance with environmental and other relevant legislative requirements.

(g) Other alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

None

(h) Provide a summary of all alternatives investigated and the outcome of each investigation:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 47 of 90

The following alternative types were initially considered during the project design phase: • Property; • Site/Location; • Activity; • Associated technology; • Design and layout; and • Operational.

However, besides the site alternatives, no other technically and practically feasible alternatives exist for the proposed project (see reasons above), and as such, these were not further investigated.

Summary of site alternative analysis:

The dam sites were compared in terms of construction cost, elevation relative to irrigation areas and impact of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s). All dam enlargements can hold approximately 500 000 m³.

• Dam 5 enlargement would be the best suited to accumulate natural run-off and would be the most economical option based on basin characteristics (water/wall ratio). However, due to the lower elevation the enlargement of Dam 5 would increase pumping and electrical costs. • East-valley dam enlargement site is not proposed due to the low run-off volume from the smallest catchment area, as well as the disturbance of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA). • Intermediate dam enlargement is the least cost effective dam to build. • Dam 2 enlargement (preferred option) will accumulate natural run-off and would significantly reduce electricity costs by irrigating under gravity due to the higher elevation compared to that of Dam 5. It has a better water/wall ratio compared to that of the intermediate dam site. The enlargement of Dam 2 would be a better suited option with limited disturbance of critical areas. Therefore it was decided that the proposed development would be the enlargement of Dam 2.

(i) Provide a detailed motivation for not further considering the alternatives that were found not feasible and reasonable, including a description and proof of the investigation of those alternatives:

Please see Sections (a) – (h) above.

2. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

(a) Provide a concluding statement indicating the preferred alternative(s), including preferred location, site, activity and technology for the development.

Dam 2 enlargement (preferred option) can hold approximately 500 000 m³, will accumulate natural run-off and would significantly reduce electricity costs by irrigating under gravity due to the higher elevation. It has a better water/wall ratio compared to that of the other dam site. The enlargement of Dam 2 would be a better suited option with limited disturbance of critical areas.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 48 of 90

SECTION F: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATIVES

Note: The information in this section must be DUPLICATED for all the feasible and reasonable ALTERNATIVES.

1. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ITS ALTERNATIVES, FOCUSING ON THE FOLLOWING:

(a) Geographical, geological and physical aspects:

The upgrade of the Dam 2 will increase its physical footprint (inundation area and dam wall) from 5 500m2 to 71 711.13m2

There is a stream that run through the proposed site. The majority of the vegetation within the proposed site is alien woodland. The vegetation on the slopes on either side of the stream are covered to be natural vegetation. The footprint of the proposed development covers approximately 13 282.07 m2 of Shale Renosterveld and 5 481.22 m2 of Shale Fynbos.

No new roads will be constructed, only existing roads and tracks will be used for construction.

(b) Ecological aspects:

Will the proposed development and its alternatives have an impact on CBAs or ESAs? If yes, please explain: YES NO Also include a description of how the proposed development will influence the quantitative values (hectares/percentage) of the categories on the CBA/ESA map. The CBA map below illustrates the CBA 1 and ESA 2 areas within the proposed project site. Any development in these areas should be undertaken with caution, and impacts should be minimised

CBAs are considered to be essential in terms of meeting biodiversity targets, and in terms of maintaining current levels of ecological connectivity across an already fragmented landscape. The area within the site that is designated as CBA1 is heavily infested with invasive alien species such as Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii), Long-leafed Wattle (Acacia longifolia) and Pine trees (Pinus sp.). This site is therefor considered transformed.

ESAs are “Areas that are not essential for meeting biodiversity targets, but that play a supporting role in the functioning of protected areas or CBAs, and are often vital for delivering ecosystem services. A small area designated as ESA2 (because it contains “critically endangered or endangered vegetation, a watercourse and water source”) will be affected by the inundation of the dam. These areas are considered to be near natural. Although 1.9 ha will be lost, the inundation of the dam on existing mainly alien vegetation is considered to be a low-impact activity.

Figure 13: Critical Biodiversity and Ecological Support Areas

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 49 of 90

Will the proposed development and its alternatives have an impact on terrestrial vegetation, or aquatic ecosystems (wetlands, estuaries or the coastline)? YES NO If yes, please explain:

The project could potentially have the following impacts on terrestrial vegetation/ecosystems: • Loss of vegetation communities; o Loss of Shale Fynbos o Loss of Shale Renosterveld o Loss of Alien Woodland • Loss of Biodiversity; • Loss of Plant Species of Conservation Concern; • Habitat Fragmentation; • Invasion of Invasive Alien Plant Species; • Loss of Faunal Habitat; • Dam Wall Failure and Release of Invasive Alien Plant Species Seedbanks; • Effect of alteration of river flow downstream of dam on faunal habitats; and • Increase in dam and vegetated fringe habitat.

The project could potentially have the following impacts on aquatic systems: • Sedimentation and elevated turbidity; • Contamination from pollutants; • Habitat modification; and • Flow Modification.

Will the proposed development and its alternatives have an impact on any populations of threatened plant or animal species, and/or on any habitat that may contain a unique signature of plant or animal species? YES NO If yes, please explain: During the site visit, it was noted that two of the vegetation types occurring within the project area are either Endangered (Greyton Shale Fynbos) or Critically Endangered(Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld).

Five species of conservation concern, which are listed as Schedule 4 species on the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) list, were recorded. These species will therefore require permits for their removal.

Describe the manner in which any other biological aspects will be impacted: N/A Will the proposed development also trigger section 63 of the NEM: ICMA? YES NO If yes, describe the following: (i) the extent to which the applicant has in the past complied with similar authorisations; (ii) whether coastal public property, the coastal protection zone or coastal access land will be affected, and if so, the extent to which the proposed development proposal or listed activity is consistent with the purpose for establishing and protecting those areas; (iii) the estuarine management plans, coastal management programmes, coastal management lines and coastal management objectives applicable in the area; (iv) the likely socio-economic impact if the listed activity is authorised or is not authorised; (v) the likely impact of coastal environmental processes on the proposed development; (vi) whether the development proposal or listed activity— (a) is situated within coastal public property and is inconsistent with the objective of conserving and enhancing coastal public property for the benefit of current and future generations; (b) is situated within the coastal protection zone and is inconsistent with the purpose for which a coastal protection zone is established as set out in section 17 of NEM: ICMA; (c) is situated within coastal access land and is inconsistent with the purpose for which coastal access land is designated as set out in section 18 of NEM: ICMA; (d) is likely to cause irreversible or long-lasting adverse effects to any aspect of the coastal environment that cannot satisfactorily be mitigated; (e) is likely to be significantly damaged or prejudiced by dynamic coastal processes; (f) would substantially prejudice the achievement of any coastal management objective; or (g) would be contrary to the interests of the whole community; (vii) whether the very nature of the proposed activity or development requires it to be located within coastal public property, the coastal protection zone or coastal access land; (viii) whether the proposed development will provide important services to the public when using coastal public property, the coastal protection zone, coastal access land or a coastal protected area; and (ix) the objects of NEM: ICMA, where applicable.

N/A

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 50 of 90

What is the expected capital value of the project on completion? ± R6 million In year 9 of planting, R285 What is the expected yearly income or contribution to the economy that will be generated by or as a result of 000 per ha will the project? flow to the farm (2018 value) Will the project contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO Is the project a public amenity? YES NO How many new employment opportunities will be created during the development phase? ± 15 What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the development phase? ± R2 million What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 100% How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain): The landowner would give preference to contractors with previously disadvantaged workers for work opportunities on the farm. It will be monitored via compliance with the EMPr. How many permanent new employment opportunities will be created during the operational phase of the ± 50 project? What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years? ± R40 million What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 100% How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain): The landowner would give preference to previously disadvantaged workers for work opportunities on the farm. This would be guided by and monitored via compliance with an Operational EMPr. All employment activities are monitored by Department of Labour and Global Gap compliance for fruit exports. Any other information related to the manner in which the socio-economic aspects will be impacted: The construction and (possibly) operational phases of the proposed development would create employment and skills development opportunities.

(d) Heritage and Cultural aspects:

No known cultural or historical aspects. Refer to Heritage Screener in Appendix G3.

2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS

(a) Waste (including effluent) management

Will the development proposal produce waste (including rubble) during the development phase? YES NO If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per type? Construction Waste Any construction solid waste generated by the project will be gathered and stored in an appropriate, central ± 10m3 area on site. Where possible the construction waste will be reused on site. The remainder will be disposed of at the nearest appropriate landfill site. Solid Waste/ Litter Solid waste generated will be collected and stored in weather and scavenger proof containers on site. It will be ± 3m3 recycled where possible. The remainder will be disposed of at the nearest appropriate landfill site.

Will the development proposal produce waste during its operational phase? YES NO If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per type?

N/A N/A

Will the development proposal require waste to be treated / disposed of on site? YES NO If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per type per phase of the proposed development to be treated/disposed of? N/A N/A If no, where and how will the waste be treated / disposed of? Please explain. Indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per type per phase of the proposed development to be treated/disposed of? Construction waste and solid waste/litter will be recycled where possible otherwise disposed of at an As above appropriately licensed landfill site. Has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient capacity exists for treating / disposing of the waste to be generated by the development proposal? YES NO If yes, provide written confirmation from the municipality or relevant authority.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 51 of 90

Will the development proposal produce waste that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility other YES NO than into a municipal waste stream?

If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exists for treating / disposing of the waste to be generated by the development proposal? YES NO Provide written confirmation from the facility.

Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the licence.) YES NO

Facility name: N/A Contact person: N/A Cell: N/A Postal address: N/A Telephone: N/A Postal code: N/A Fax: N/A E-mail: N/A

Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce, reuse or recycle waste: The appointed contractor will be responsible for the establishment of a waste control and removal system (Waste Management Plan) that is acceptable to the Engineer and Environmental Control Officer (ECO). A method statement would be required in this regard. Wherever possible, materials used or generated by construction activities should be recycled. Containers for glass, paper and metals should be provided separately to general waste bins.

(b) Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the development proposal produce emissions that will be released into the atmosphere? YES NO If yes, does this require approval in terms of relevant legislation? YES NO If yes, what is the approximate volume(s) of emissions released into the atmosphere? m3 Describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration and how these will be avoided/managed/treated/mitigated: During construction phase, emissions into the atmosphere will be limited to construction dust and those produced by construction vehicles and/or machinery on site. These will be low in both quantity and severity.

3. WATER USE

(a) Indicate the source(s) of water for the development proposal by highlighting the appropriate box(es).

River, Stream, The project will not Municipal Water board Groundwater Other Dam or Lake use water

Note: Provide proof of assurance of water supply (e.g. Letter of confirmation from the municipality / water user associations, yield of borehole). Refer to the verification of existing lawful use, included as Appendix E3. The status of the WULA Application for the project is also included within Appendix E4 of this Basic Assessment Report.

(b) If water is to be extracted from a groundwater source, river, stream, dam, lake or any other 13 671.67 m3 natural feature, please indicate the volume that will be extracted per month:

(c) Does the development proposal require a water use permit / license from DWS? YES NO If yes, please submit the necessary application to the DWS and attach proof thereof to this application as an Appendix.

(d) Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce water demand, and measures to reuse or recycle water: During construction water will be used sparingly.

Irrigation and water management is conducted on the farm with the use of moisture probes which measure soil moisture. These ensure that wastage of water is avoided and minimised wherever possible. All water used for irrigation purposes is recorded electronically. Moisture probes in the orchards confirm water demand. The drip system minimizes water losses and all trees are mulched

4. POWER SUPPLY

(a) Describe the source of power e.g. municipality / Eskom / renewable energy source.

The existing pump station on the Riversonderend River uses Eskom power. No new pumps will be installed at this point.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 52 of 90

(b) If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced?

N/A

5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY

(a) Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the development proposal will be energy efficient:

One of the aims of the proposed project is to reduce electricity consumption, by increasing gravity fed irrigation.

(b) Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the project, if any:

N/A

6. TRANSPORT, TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

Describe the impacts in terms of transport, traffic and access.

The site can be accessed from the R406 and existing farm roads. It is our understanding that these roads are able to accommodate vehicles associated with the construction phase. It is anticipated that the potential traffic impact would be negligible.

7. NUISANCE FACTOR (NOISE, ODOUR, etc.)

Describe the potential nuisance factor or impacts in terms of noise and odours.

During construction there may potentially be temporary noise impacts from construction activities, however, it is anticipated that the large distances between the proposed site and potential receptors on neighbouring farms will mitigate this impact.

Note: Include impacts that the surrounding environment will have on the proposed development.

8. OTHER

N/A

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 53 of 90

SECTION G: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, IMPACT AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

1. METHODOLOGY USED IN DETERMINING AND RANKING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATIVES

(a) Describe the methodology used in determining and ranking the nature, significance consequences, extent, duration and probability of potential environmental impacts and risks associated with the proposed development and alternatives.

The assessment methods used include the desktop analysis of the site and alternatives, a site visit and identification of impacts. The identified impacts were then assessed using the CES impact assessment methodology as described below. These assessment methods are considered to be adequate for the basic assessment report.

Impact Assessment Methodology Four factors need to be considered when assessing the significance of impacts, namely: 1. Relationship of the impact to temporal scales - the temporal scale defines the significance of the impact at various time scales, as an indication of the duration of the impact. 2. Relationship of the impact to spatial scales - the spatial scale defines the physical extent of the impact. 3. The severity of the impact - the severity/beneficial scale is used in order to scientifically evaluate how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system (for ecological impacts) or a particular affected party. The severity of impacts can be evaluated with and without mitigation in order to demonstrate how serious the impact is when nothing is done about it. The word ‘mitigation’ means not just ‘compensation’, but includes concepts of containment and remedy. For beneficial impacts, optimization means anything that can enhance the benefits. However, mitigation or optimization must be practical, technically feasible and economically viable. 4. The likelihood of the impact occurring - the likelihood of impacts taking place as a result of project actions differs between potential impacts. There is no doubt that some impacts could occur (e.g. loss of vegetation), but other impacts are not as likely to occur (e.g. vehicle accident), and may or may not result from the proposed development. Although some impacts may have a severe effect, the likelihood of them occurring may affect their overall significance.

Each criterion (Table 1) is ranked with scores to determine the overall significance of an activity. The criterion is then considered in two categories, viz. effect of the activity and the likelihood of the impact. The total scores recorded for the effect and likelihood are then read off the matrix presented in Table 2, to determine the overall significance of the impact (Table 3). The overall significance is either negative or positive.

The environmental significance scale is an attempt to evaluate the importance of a particular impact. This evaluation needs to be undertaken in the relevant context, as an impact can either be ecological or social, or both. The evaluation of the significance of an impact relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of especially a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society.

Prioritising The evaluation of the impacts, as described above is used to prioritise which impacts require mitigation measures.

Negative impacts that are ranked as being of “VERY HIGH” and “HIGH” significance will be investigated further to determine how the impact can be minimised or what alternative activities or mitigation measures can be implemented. These impacts may also assist decision makers i.e. numerous HIGH negative impacts may bring about a negative decision.

For impacts identified as having a negative impact of “MODERATE” significance, it is standard practice to investigate alternate activities and/or mitigation measures. The most effective and practical mitigations measures will then be proposed.

For impacts ranked as “LOW” significance, no investigations or alternatives will be considered. Possible management measures will be investigated to ensure that the impacts remain of low significance.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 54 of 90

Table 1: Ranking of Evaluation Criteria

Temporal Scale Short term Less than 5 years Medium term Between 5-20 years Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective also permanent Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always be there Spatial Scale Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs Regional District and Provincial level National Country International Internationally Severity Severity Benefit Slight impacts on the affected system(s) or Slightly beneficial to the affected system(s) Slight party(ies) and party(ies) Moderate impacts on the affected system(s) Moderately beneficial to the affected Moderate or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies) Severe/ Severe impacts on the affected system(s) or A substantial benefit to the affected Beneficial party(ies) system(s) and party(ies) Very Severe/ Very severe change to the affected A very substantial benefit to the affected

Beneficial system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies) EFFECT

Likelihood

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur LIKELIHOOD

* In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the severity of an impact thus it may be determined: Don’t know/Can’t know

Table 2: Matrix used to determine the overall significance of the impact based on the likelihood and effect of the impact

Effect 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Likelihood

Table 3: Description of Environmental Significance Ratings and associated range of scores

Significance Description Score Rate Low An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself 4-8 is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to prevent the development being approved. These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Moderate An important impact which requires mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent 9-12 the implementation of the project but which in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation. These impacts will usually result in either a positive or negative medium to long-term effect on the social and/or natural environment. High A serious impact, if not mitigated, may prevent the implementation of the project (if it is a 13-16 negative impact). These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually a long- term change to the (natural &/or social) environment and result in severe effects or beneficial effects. Very High A very serious impact which, if negative, may be sufficient by itself to prevent 17-20 implementation of the project. The impact may result in permanent change. Very often these impacts cannot be mitigated and usually result in very severe effects, or very beneficial effects.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 55 of 90

(b) Please describe any gaps in knowledge.

There are no known gaps of knowledge in this report. All required information has been provided by the applicant, engineers and specialists.

The following assumptions are applicable to the studies undertaken within this Basic Assessment Process: • This basic assessment report and supporting documentation was compiled under the impression that all information provided by the Applicant to CES Coastal and Environmental Services was correct, accurate and valid at the time it was provided. • Assumption that the construction, operation and decommissioning phases will be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. • It is assumed that Stakeholders and Interested and Affected Parties notified during the public participation process will submit all relevant comments within the designated 30days review and comment period, so that these can included in the Final BAR and can be timeously submitted to DEAD&DP.

(d) Please describe the uncertainties.

None. This report has been compiled with a high degree of certainty and is based on the applicant’s, engineers’, EAPs’ and specialists’ expertise.

(e) Describe adequacy of the assessment methods used.

The assessment methods used adhere to the strict guidelines stipulated by the DEA&DP and include the following:

• Site visits in order to determine the nature and sensitivity of the site and the surrounding environment. • Consultation with the Applicant to gain an understanding of the need and desirability for the proposed activity. • Consultation with the Applicant & Project Engineers regarding the technical and feasibility of the various alternatives proposed (Appendix K3). • Consultation with relevant commenting authorities. • Obtaining botanical input from a botanical specialist (Appendix G2). • Obtaining input for an fresh water aquatic specialist (Appendix G1) • Obtaining cultural input from Heritage Western Cape (underway to be included in Appendix G3). • Obtaining input on the Flow Reserve(Appendix E6) • Consulting with the DEA&DP (Appendix E2). • Consideration of the applicable Legislation, Guidelines and Policies.

The assessment methods proved adequate to determine the nature and extent of all potential impacts on the environment that would be associated with the proposed development.

2. IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND RANKING OF IMPACTS TO REACH THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE SITE

Note: In this section the focus is on the identified issues, impacts and risks that influenced the identification of the alternatives. This includes how aspects of the receiving environment have influenced the selection.

(a) List the identified impacts and risks for each alternative.

Alternative 1: General, Surface water and Aquatic, Ecological and Heritage Alternative 2: Alternative x: No-go Alternative:

(b) Describe the impacts and risks identified for each alternative, including the nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts, including the degree to which these impacts can be reversed; may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and can be avoided, managed or mitigated.

The following table serves as a guide for summarising each alternative. The table should be repeated for each alternative to ensure a comparative assessment. (The EAP has to select the relevant impacts identified in blue in the table below for each alternative and repeat the table for each impact and risk).

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 56 of 90

ALTERNATIVE 1 : GENERAL IMPACTS PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES Potential impact and risk: Erosion Nature of impact: Exposed land might be sensitive to wind and water erosion. Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Short term Consequence of impact or risk: Loss of top soil and soil structure Probability of occurrence: Probably Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal loss of resource loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Partially reversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • Construction of the dam should take place during the dry season • Take measures to counter erosion. • Roads and stormwater gulleys must be maintained. • Cleared areas should be exposed for the minimum amount of time Proposed mitigation: possible. • Any erosion sites should be rehabilitated as soon as possible and water run-off directed to a safe collection point should erosion become evident on site.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Negligible Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Air quality and dust control During the construction phase dust generated from construction Nature of impact: activities could be a nuisance during windy conditions. Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Short term Consequence of impact or risk: None Probability of occurrence: May Occur Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable No Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Irreversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Negligible Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • Dust levels should be kept to a minimum to avoid smothering of sensitive areas by windblown sediments. • During windy periods un-surfaced and un-vegetated areas should be dampened down. • Vegetation should be retained where possible as this will reduce dust travel. Proposed mitigation: • Excavations and other clearing activities must only take place during agreed working times and permitted weather conditions to avoid drifting of sand and dust into neighbouring areas. • Any complaints or claims emanating from dust issues must be attended to immediately.

Residual impacts: None

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 57 of 90

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Negligible Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Noise During the construction phase construction activity and movement of Nature of impact: heavy vehicles could result in an increase in ambient noise levels and become a nuisance for surrounding residents. Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Short term Consequence of impact or risk: None Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable No loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Irreversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Negligible Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Low Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low • During construction, activities which include the movement of construction vehicles and the operation of machinery should be Proposed mitigation: restricted to normal working hours (07:00am – 17:00pm).

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: None Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Visual During the construction phase construction activity and the presence and use of large machinery on site and along access roads will result in Nature of impact: a visual disturbance of the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, land clearing and soil preparation could create a temporary negative visual impact. Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Short Term Consequence of impact or risk: None Probability of occurrence: May Occur Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable No Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Reversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • The remote location of the development site means it is only visible to the applicant and their staff. • The Applicant should only clear the land necessary to Proposed mitigation: accommodate the development. • Any disturbed area sites should be rehabilitated as soon as possible

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Negligible Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: On-site fire risk Inadequate attention to fire safety awareness and available fire safety Nature of impact: equipment during the construction phase

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 58 of 90

Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Long-term Uncontrolled fires, posing a threat to animals, vegetation and the Consequence of impact or risk: surrounding landowners. Probability of occurrence: May Occur Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal loss of resource (fire is a natural part of fynbos regeneration) loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Reversible Indirect impacts: Loss of vegetation and grazing land as a result of a runaway fire. Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Loss of biodiversity Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: High Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • All flammable substances must be stored in dry areas which do not pose an ignition risk to the flammable substances. • Smoking must not be permitted near flammable substances. • All cooking must be done in demarcated areas with a low fire risk. • No open fires will be allowed on site, unless in a demarcated area. Proposed mitigation: • The construction personnel must be educated regarding fires and fire management. • Fire extinguishers and other firefighting equipment deemed suitable must be available onsite.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Negligible Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Hazardous substances During the construction phase, spillages of hazardous substances (such Nature of impact: as used oils, paint, diesel etc.) may result in pollution of the surrounding environment including surface and groundwater resources. Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Short-term Pollution of surrounding environment including surface and groundwater Consequence of impact or risk: resources and a loss of biodiversity. Probability of occurrence: May occur Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Reversible Indirect impacts: Downstream pollution and loss of biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: High Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • During the construction phase all oils, fuel and other maintenance equipment and supplies must be stored in a secure area with a compacted surface. • Maintenance of vehicles or machinery should not take place within 50 m of any watercourse and drip trays must be used. Ideally all maintenance must take place at the homestead where such Proposed mitigation: maintenance is normally done. • Spill kits must be kept on-site and maintained. • Cement and concrete must only be mixed in designated areas and on an impermeable surface. No concrete mixing must take place within 32 m of any watercourse.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 59 of 90

Potential impact and risk: Construction waste & litter Small amounts of waste construction material is expected. Construction Nature of impact: camp and workers will produce domestic waste and litter. Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Short-term Degradation of the natural areas surround the site. Solid waste can also Consequence of impact or risk: cause harm to plants and animals. Probability of occurrence: May Occur Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable No Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Reversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: High Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • There must be sufficient waste bins provided throughout the construction site for collecting waste. • No waste must be buried or burned on site. • Any waste or building rubble generated during the construction Proposed mitigation: phase should be recycled, where possible. • Rubble or vegetation debris should not be dumped onto adjacent natural vegetation. • Personnel should be instructed not to litter on site.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Sanitation During the construction phase the lack of sufficient sanitation facilities Nature of impact: and the inappropriate siting and servicing of the sanitation facilities could result in contamination of surface and ground water. Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Short-term Consequence of impact or risk: Contamination of surface and ground water Probability of occurrence: May Occur Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Reversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: High Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • During the construction phase adequate sanitary facilities must be provided for construction workers. • The facilities must be regularly serviced to reduce the risk of Proposed mitigation: surface or groundwater pollution.

• Sanitation facilities must not be located within 100 metres of any watercourse. Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Creation of temporary jobs

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 60 of 90

During the construction phase temporary job opportunities will be Nature of impact: created. Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Short Term Consequence of impact or risk: None Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable No Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Moderate (+) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: N/A Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • It is recommended that where possible, the labour force required during construction should be sourced from the local communities. Proposed mitigation: • Skills development in the form of training should also be implemented where possible.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Moderate (+) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Moderate (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

OPERATIONAL PHASE Potential impact and risk: Temporary flooding due to failure of dam wall Nature of impact: Flooding of area below dam wall Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Short Term The impact of the dam wall failing is highly unlikely but would cause Consequence of impact or risk: temporary flooding of downstream vegetation and infrastructure. Probability of occurrence: Unlikely Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable None. The resources are not irreplaceable loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: The impact cannot be reversed Erosion and/or sedimentation of streams Indirect impacts: Safety risks to staff and the public Flooding and damage to roads Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: High Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • The dam must be designed by an experienced and suitably experienced registered civil engineer. • The design must be fully compliant with all DWS dam safety requirements and must have the required registrations with DWS. • The dam must be constructed in compliance with all engineering design specifications. • The dams spillway must likewise be designed by a civil engineer, and its design must be able to accommodate all possible flood events. Proposed mitigation: • The dam must be registered and have the appropriate water use licences prior to construction commencing • The dam must be designed so that it can release water from the spillway. • The dam must have a safe freeboard when at its specified full supply level. • The final construction must be signed off by a dam safety engineer.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Very Low(-)

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 61 of 90

Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Creation of permanent jobs During the operation phase there will likely be 50 permanent Nature of impact: employment opportunities. The dam expansion will be used to irrigate new fruit orchards. These orchards will require additional staff. Extent and duration of impact: Regional, Long Term Consequence of impact or risk: None Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable No Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High (+) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: N/A Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • It is recommended that where possible, the labour force required during operational phase should be sourced from the local Proposed mitigation: communities.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: High (+) Significance rating of impact after mitigation High (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE Potential impact and risk: Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Consequence of impact or risk: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Indirect impacts: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Degree to which the impact can be managed: Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Residual impacts: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

ALTERNATIVE 1 : SURFACE WATER & AQUATIC IMPACTS PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES Potential impact and risk: Sedimentation and elevated turbidity Resulting from exposed soils that potentially lead to a number of impacts such as erosion, sediment production and loss of topsoil.

Nature of impact: May result from accumulation of sediment and organic debris in watercourses, increased nutrient loads and changes to stream flows, which may affect aquatic biota.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 62 of 90

Caused by vegetation clearing which results in the soils becoming more prone to erosion as there are fewer stabilizing structures within the soils, such as root systems and plant cover, to contain the water and bind the soil. This results in a net increase of surface water runoff, which can lead to excessive erosion. A secondary impact linked to this is the loss of topsoil. Topsoil is critical to successful plant growth and must be conserved at all times. Once lost, topsoil is extremely difficult to restore.

Increased erosion could lead to increased sedimentation of the watercourses into which surface runoff flows. Sedimentation can have severe negative impacts on surrounding aquatic environments Extent and duration of impact: Regional, Medium term Increased turbidity (which decreases light penetration into water, thereby reducing photosynthetic activities in the water column), Consequence of impact or risk: reduced oxygen concentration in the water column and benthic environment, smothering of benthic biota resulting in loss of food and smothering of spawning beds. Probability of occurrence: Probable/ Likely Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Moderate to high Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Indirect impacts: Loss of topsoil Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: None Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • Undertake construction activities during the dry summer months. • Prevent or strongly limit disturbance to water resources during the planning phase. • Suitable temporary berms must be constructed prior to clearing in order to contain any soils that may be eroded by heavy rainfall. These soils should be rehabilitated as soon as possible in order to prevent ingress into surrounding water courses. • Surface drainage that does not allow ponding and does not result in an increase in flow rates should be established. Proposed mitigation: • Maximum vegetation cover should be maintained outside the immediate area to be cleared, particularly in riparian areas, to act as silt traps. • Natural drainage lines must not be impeded or otherwise interfered with. • Erosion should be monitored over the entire site and, where initial indications of erosion are detected, appropriate remedial measures must be taken as soon as possible. Temporary berms may be needed to direct stormwater containing eroded material away from the river.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: None Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential Impact and Risk: Contamination from pollutants: Hazardous materials and chemical pollutants such as hydrocarbons from construction machinery and vehicles, uncured cement and waste material associated construction activities could pollute both groundwater and surface water which can be harmful to aquatic biota Nature of impact: and impact on drinking water quality downstream.

Washing detergents and soap, poorly-treated domestic effluents from the construction camp, and construction workers using riparian zones for ablutions, could all pollute both groundwater and surface water. Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Medium term The pollutants could be harmful to aquatic biota and impact on drinking Consequence of impact or risk: water quality downstream. Probability of occurrence: Probable

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 63 of 90

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Moderate Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Reversible Indirect impacts: Downstream pollution and loss of biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: High Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • Strict management of hazardous chemicals must be implemented. • Prevention of hydrocarbon spills from machinery and vehicles by the use of drip-trays and permanent bunded areas for overnight parking. This should include any temporary workshops envisaged for the project. In addition, workshops should be fitted with oil traps and sumps to ensure that no contaminated water/hydrocarbons are Proposed mitigation: allowed to escape. • Domestic effluent from the construction camps should be stored temporarily in a safe manner (unlikely to leak or be breached), and should be removed by approved contractors weekly. • All contaminated water run-off from the site must be contained and treated prior to discharge.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential Impact and Risk: Habitat Modification:

During construction and operation, earthworks associated with Nature of impact: construction will alter the natural topography.

Extent and duration of impact: Localised, long term This could destroy drainage lines and/or alter natural flow patterns within Consequence of impact or risk: the project area. Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Moderate Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Partly Reversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • Where appropriate, slash and debris should be stockpiled above the new high water mark to prevent materials from entering the dam during maintenance activities. This material must NEVER be disposed of in stream/river courses or in riparian zones. • Minimise the number and size of stream crossings for vehicle movement within the riparian zones outside of the dam basin area (i.e. outside of the high water mark after construction). Where Proposed mitigation: crossings are necessary, international best practice in the use of bridges, hardened fords, pipes and culverts should be adopted. Recommended stream crossing measures should include: o Minimise vehicular movement over streams (perennial and intermittent). Where crossing is necessary, a right angle approach should be used in addition to use of bridges, fords, pipe culverts, and other techniques to minimize impacts to stream banks, flow, water quality.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 64 of 90

o Crossing structures such as bridges, culverts and fords should be designed to withstand peak flows of high intensity storms, and ensure that movement of aquatic species is not impaired. o Vehicle movement over unprotected streambeds should be prevented. If crossing is necessary, a hard rock stream bottom is preferable. o Road drainage should be diverted to vegetation and not into the stream. o Approaches to crossing should be stabilized with aggregate to avoid increased sediment entering the stream. o Where possible, employ the access road to the west of the site, where one formal crossing point further downstream exists and can be utilised. This will reduce the need for vehicles to cross the existing stream area.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential Impact and Risk: Flow Modification During construction it may be necessary to divert, restrict or halt flow Nature of impact: down the landscape temporarily to allow for construction vehicles, machinery and materials to operate.

Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Medium term This could destroy drainage lines and alter the natural flow patterns, Consequence of impact or risk: locations and ecosystems within the project area. Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Partially Reversible Indirect impacts: Loss of biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Moderate (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate(-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • Plan construction within the dry months of the year to reduce the sediment load and stormwater flow across site and into the stream. • Plan construction phases and activities to minimise the disruption to the stream location and hydrological regime, by: o Avoid diverting flow as far as possible (if unavoidable, please see the measure below); o Should the stream be flowing during the construction period, ensure continuous water supply from the stream is allowed to Proposed mitigation: flow past the construction zone. Should this necessitate diverting the stream, as far as possible employ non-mechanised means such as piping the flow (wide diameter pre-cast concrete or PVC piping as a temporary measure), as opposed to mechanical pumping which will harm the aquatic biota. • Plan access for vehicles and materials via the western access road, to reduce the amount of crossing required over the stream.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Very low (Negligible) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Very low (Negligible) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

OPERATIONAL PHASE Potential impact and risk: Sedimentation and elevated turbidity in streams/dams: During operation, Dam 2 will trap sediment contained within the stream, Nature of impact: concentrating it in areas where the flow velocity reduces significantly.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 65 of 90

Sediment load and turbidity around the outlet and immediately downstream thereof will be elevated, altering the local aquatic environment.

Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Medium Term Consequence of impact or risk: There will be an alteration of local aquatic environment Probability of occurrence: May occur Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Partly Reversible Indirect impacts: Loss of Biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Low Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • The spillway must be designed to ensure an even, slow release of water from the dam when it is at full supply level (FSL), to reduce any erosion of the spillway. • Appropriate engineering designs must be implemented to reduce Proposed mitigation: spillway erosion and minimise flood risks, including the use of concrete step designs and geotextiles to trap ejected sediment (or another suitable design).

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low(-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Flow modification: The damming of water from the river will require a run-of-river scheme going forward. In addition, the new capacity of the proposed dam will Nature of impact: be much greater than at present. All of these aspects will reduce the flow period and quantity of flow downstream of the proposed development.

Extent and duration of impact: Long Term, Study Area Reduced flow period and quantity of flow downstream of the proposed Consequence of impact or risk: development resulting in a loss of aquatic habitat. Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Moderate Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Partially reversible Indirect impacts: Loss of biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Moderate (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • Ensure that the Ecological Flow Reserve (EFR) is maintained, no matter the water level of the dam. Proposed mitigation: • Ensure that the design accounts for the release of water to meet the EFR.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Moderate (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE Potential impact and risk: N/A Nature of impact: N/A

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 66 of 90

Extent and duration of impact: N/A Consequence of impact or risk: N/A Probability of occurrence: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable N/A loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Indirect impacts: N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation N/A (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: N/A Degree to which the impact can be managed: N/A Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A Proposed mitigation: N/A Residual impacts: N/A Cumulative impact post mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation N/A (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

ALTERNATIVE 1 : ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE Potential impact and risk: Loss of Vegetation Communities: a. Loss of Shale Fynbos Approximately 0.5 ha of Shale Fynbos will be lost as a result of the inundation of the dam. The portion that will be lost occurs on the edge of this vegetation type, where invasive alien species have started to invade and where there are impacts from an existing access road. As such, the severity of the impact will be slight with an overall significance of moderate negative. b. Loss of Shale Renosterveld Approximately 1.4 ha of Shale Renosterveld will be lost as a result of clearing for the dam wall and the subsequent inundation of the Nature of impact: dam. As with the Shale Fynbos, the portion of this vegetation type that will be lost occurs on the edge of the inundated area, has been disturbed and is in a near natural state. However, since this vegetation type is classified as Critically Endangered the overall significance of the impact is high negative. c. Loss of Alien Woodland Approximately 5.3 ha of Alien Woodland will be lost as a result of clearing for the dam wall and the subsequent inundation of the dam. Since these are invasive species the impact will be slight beneficial. The overall significance will be moderate positive.

Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Permanent Approximately 0.5 ha of Shale Fynbos, 1.4 ha of Shale Renosterveld and Consequence of impact or risk: 5.3 ha of alien woodland will be lost because of the project activities. Higher risk of erosion.

Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Moderate loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Irreversible Indirect impacts: Loss of top soil and soil structure Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: a. Moderate (-), b. High (-), c. Moderate (+) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation a. Moderate (-), b. High (-), c. Moderate (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • Clearing must be kept to a minimum, particularly in the shale fynbos Proposed mitigation: and shale renosterveld vegetation types.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 67 of 90

• Top soil (20 cm, where possible) must be collected and used elsewhere on the farm and for the rehabilitation of lay down areas, the dam wall and other impacted areas. • Lay down areas must not be located in the Shale Renosterveld or Shale Fynbos vegetation types. • Employees must be prohibited from making fires. • An alien management plan must be designed and implemented to prevent the spread of these species.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: a. Moderate (-), b. High (-), c. Moderate (+) Significance rating of impact after mitigation a. Moderate (-), b. High (-), c. Moderate (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Loss of Biodiversity: Clearing for the construction of the dam wall and the inundation of the dam will result in the loss of general biodiversity. However, given that the Nature of impact: majority of the individuals present at the site are alien species, the severity of the impact will be slight with an overall significance of low.

Extent and duration of impact: Localised. Permanent Consequence of impact or risk: Loss of general biodiversity Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Irreversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low(-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • Alien invasive species should be removed from the areas where development will not occur. The area should be actively managed to prevent the return of alien invasive species. • Prohibit all employees from harvesting plants; • Prohibit employees from making fires (e.g. for cooking) within this area, only controlled fires are allowed; Proposed mitigation: • The farm owner and contractor must demarcate areas for use during construction, and to ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area and that no unauthorised activities occur outside of the construction footprint.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern Five species listed as Schedule 4 species on the Western Cape PNCO were recorded at the site. However, all these species are listed as Least Concern by the South African Red Data List. However, there may be a few geophytes that went undetected due to the time of year the Nature of impact: assessment was done. Clearing for the construction of the dam wall and subsequent inundation of the dam could result in the loss of some of these species, but this is unlikely to affect the population’s survival given the small area that will be affected. The overall significance of the impact is therefore low.

Extent and duration of impact: Localised, Permanent Clearing for the construction of the dam wall and subsequent Consequence of impact or risk: inundation of the dam could result in the loss of some of species of

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 68 of 90

conservation concern but unlikely to affect the population’s survival given the small area that will be affected Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Irreversible Indirect impacts: Potential loss of biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High • Alien invasive species should be removed from the areas where development will not occur. The area should be actively managed to prevent the return of alien invasive species. • Prohibit all employees from harvesting plants; • Prohibit open fires; Proposed mitigation: • An ECO must be employed to demarcate areas for use during construction, and to ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area and that no unauthorised activities occur outside of the construction footprint.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Habitat Fragmentation Fragmentation is one of the most important impacts on vegetation as it creates breaks in previously continuous vegetation, causing a reduction in the gene pool and a decrease in species richness and diversity. This impact occurs when more and more areas are cleared for agriculture and road construction resulting in the isolation of functional ecosystems, which results in reduced biodiversity and reduced movement due to the absence of ecological corridors. Edge effects may occur along the boundary of development and roads Nature of impact: which may further compound the impacts associated with fragmentation, and further reduce population numbers to below sustainable thresholds, potentially causing local extinctions. The proposed development is unlikely to increase habitat fragmentation any further as the dam is replacing the alien woodland which is currently acting as a barrier. It is possible that the dam could even facilitate the movement of indigenous seeds and amphibians, in which case this will be a positive impact.

Extent and duration of impact: N/A • Creates breaks in previously continuous vegetation, causing a reduction in the gene pool and a decrease in species richness and Consequence of impact or risk: diversity • Dam has a potential to facilitate seed and amphibian movement

Probability of occurrence: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable N/A loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Indirect impacts: N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation N/A (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: N/A Degree to which the impact can be managed: N/A Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 69 of 90

• Alien species around the dam edge must be actively monitored and Proposed mitigation: removed as and when they appear.

Residual impacts: N/A Cumulative impact post mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation N/A (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Invasion of Invasive Alien Plant Species The majority of the stream and associated banks is currently infested with four invasive alien plant species. As a consequence, there is a large seedbank containing seeds from this species. Disruption of habitats often Nature of impact: exacerbates the infestation of alien species unless these are controlled. Areas that are disturbed during the construction phase are vulnerable to infestations unless rehabilitated to prevent invasive alien plant species from establishing themselves. Extent and duration of impact: Localised; Permanent impact If not controlled, the disruption of habitats often exacerbates the Consequence of impact or risk: infestation of alien species Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Moderate Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Reversible Indirect impacts: Loss of biodiversity and reduction in stream flow Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Moderate (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • An invasive alien plant management plan must be designed and implemented to remove the alien species upstream of the dam. This plan must designate management units and prescribe the most Proposed mitigation: effective method of removing the species. • Once the aliens upstream of the dam have been removed, then the individuals downstream of the dam should be removed.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Loss of Faunal habitat: The inundation of the dam will remove a number of micro habitats within the riparian habitat, including the large established trees (although these Nature of impact: are alien species, they are structurally significant and therefore still offer a forest habitat), forest floor, stream and existing dam with fringe habitat. Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Permanent Consequence of impact or risk: Loss of numerous micro habitats within riparian habitat Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Partially reversible Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • Construction should take place in the dry season when hibernating Proposed mitigation: species are not in hibernation.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 70 of 90

• Clearing of alien trees should take place in later winter months, to prevent birds and bats establishing nesting grounds and starting to breed and rear young in the spring and summer months. • All clearing activities must deploy search and rescue teams in-front of clearing machinery to assist in relocating slower moving faunal species e.g. tortoises.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

OPERATIONAL PHASE Dam Wall Failure and Release of Invasive Alien Plant Species Potential impact and risk: Seedbanks: In the unlikely event of a dam wall failure, the dam could release a large seedbank of invasive alien species into the downstream environment, Nature of impact: which would further exacerbate the infestation of alien species downstream. The impact associated with this event would be high, however the risk of the dam wall failing, is low Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Permanent Consequence of impact or risk: Exacerbation of downstream infestation of alien species. Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable High loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Indirect impacts: Loss of Biodiversity and reduction in stream flow Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) High. The proposed dam is a safety related structure and therefore is Degree to which the impact can be avoided: designed by a specialist dam engineer with an associated very low probability of failure. Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High (dam wall failure), Low (release of seedbank should dam wall fail) • Mitigation measures must be put in place to avoid dam wall failure. However, it is worth noting that the dam will be designed to internationally recognized best practice in respect of dam safety, and that compliance with safety standards is controlled by DWS. Hence the risk of dam wall failure is already mitigated. • There are no mitigation measures should the seedbank be released Proposed mitigation: downstream. However, the farm has an ongoing alien plant removal programme with specific attention to water courses. Any additional seed dispersal arising from possible releases from the dam itself will be included in this programme. This existing process effectively deals with this risk .

Residual impacts: N/A Cumulative impact post mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Effect of alteration of river flow downstream of dam on faunal habitats: Downstream habitats include stream, stream fringe, small impoundments and the river habitat. All will receive less water during inundation and operation of the dam when water will be drawn for irrigation. The 3km stretch from the dam to the Riviersonderend River will receive less water Nature of impact: from upstream during the dry season, but will continue to receive runoff from surrounding areas. This may delay environmental cues that amphibians require for breeding. The impact associated with this event would be high. However this is not a new impact for the system and is only expected to be slightly exacerbated. Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, may occur Consequence of impact or risk: Reduced water flow downstream

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 71 of 90

Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Marginal Loss loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Partially reversible Indirect impacts: Loss of biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • As far as possible water released from the dam should replicate the natural flow of the river during operation. Proposed mitigation: • The amount of water to be released (the minimum flow) must be determined and included in the dam’s operational protocol.

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (-) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: Increase in dam and vegetated fringe habitat: The increase in extent of the existing dam will increase the area of vegetated shallow bank available to amphibians for breeding, and Nature of impact: aquatic birds for foraging. The impact associated with this event is Moderately beneficial. Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Permanent Potentially beneficial impact through increased area of vegetated Consequence of impact or risk: shallow bank available to amphibians for breeding, and aquatic birds for foraging Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable Moderate loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Moderate Indirect impacts: Increased biodiversity Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low (+) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Moderate (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Low Degree to which the impact can be managed: Moderate Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Moderate • Remove aquatic vegetation immediately prior to inundation, replant Proposed mitigation: and irrigate daily until dam has filled

Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low (+) Significance rating of impact after mitigation Moderate (+) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 72 of 90

Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Degree to which the impact can be managed: Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Residual impacts: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

ALTERNATIVE 1 : HERITAGE IMPACTS PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES Potential impact and risk: Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Consequence of impact or risk: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Indirect impacts: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) OPERATIONAL PHASE Potential impact and risk: Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Consequence of impact or risk: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Indirect impacts: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE Potential impact and risk: Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Consequence of impact or risk: Probability of occurrence:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 73 of 90

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Indirect impacts: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ALL PHASES Potential impact and risk: No-go Option – Biological Impacts The “no-go” option should always be considered as an alternative. The “No-go” alternative entails maintaining the status quo. In other words, the Nature of impact: proposed expansion of the dam would not go ahead, and current land uses would continue as before (i.e. existing dam and unirrigated agricultural land with an infestation of Invasive Alien Plants). Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Long Term Consequence of impact or risk: None Probability of occurrence: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable N/A loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Indirect impacts: N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation None (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: N/A Degree to which the impact can be managed: N/A Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A Proposed mitigation: N/A Residual impacts: None Cumulative impact post mitigation: None Significance rating of impact after mitigation N/A (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact and risk: No-go Option – Social Impacts From a socio-economic perspective the development may contribute to some extent to socio-economic upliftment. Therefore should the Nature of impact: development not proceed, the positive socio-economic impacts related to the development would not occur. Extent and duration of impact: Study Area, Long Term Loss of potential job-creation benefits, loss of opportunity to add to the Consequence of impact or risk: security of agricultural resources and water in the region. Probability of occurrence: N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable N/A loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: N/A Loss of potential job-creation opportunities associated with the additional Indirect impacts: orchards that will be irrigated by water from the proposed dam Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: None Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation None (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be avoided: N/A Degree to which the impact can be managed: N/A

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 74 of 90

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: N/A Proposed mitigation: N/A Residual impacts: N/A Cumulative impact post mitigation: None Significance rating of impact after mitigation None (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Note: The EAP may decide to include this section as Appendix J to the BAR.

N/A – No Site Alternative were comparatively assessed in the BAR.

(d) Outcome of the site selection matrix.

N/A – No Site Alternative were comparatively assessed in the BAR.

3. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Note: Specialist inputs/studies must be attached to this report as Appendix G and must comply with the content requirements set out in Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended). Also take into account the Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the “One Environmental Management System” and the EIA Regulations, 2014, any subsequent Circulars, and guidelines available on the Department’s website (http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp).

Provide a summary of the findings and impact management measures identified in any specialist report and an indication of how these findings and recommendations have been included in the BAR.

In summary, the main findings of the freshwater, ecological and heritage (NID Screening Assessment specialist studies were as follows:

Aquatic Impact Assessment

The aquatic impacts were determined by assessing the invertebrate composition of the adjacent river to the existing Dam 2. This was done to establish the baseline status and general health of the river. These sites included an upstream site (S1), midstream site (S2) and Downstream site (S3). The South African Scoring System (SASS) version 5 method was employed to establish the invertebrate composition at the three sample sites identified and this method was also used to determine the ecological condition or the present ecological state (PES) found on each sampled site. The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) Taxa Richness Metric was employed to indicate the level of degradation of a site and the levels used to determine the EPT richness scores for each site.

The analysis of the data input collected from the sample sites found that a total of 32 aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa occurred within the sampled stream which reflected an overall highly diverse community of invertebrates within this stream. The SASS Scores, associated PES results as well as the EPT Scores obtained during this assessment indicate that the overall state of the stream is good, with natural biological structure and function still largely intact, particularly southwards of existing Dam 2. The scores also provided further support for the overall good water and ecosystem quality within this system. Site S1, the upstream site, showed the greatest ecological function, with a PES category of A – Natural. Site S2, the midstream site, showed poor water quality, potentially due to reduced visibility (greater turbidity and poorer clarity), as well as sedimentation and changes to the hydrological regime in the existing dam. Site S3, the downstream site, showed good and clear water quality with a recovered taxa composition.

The results indicate that the existing dam impacts the water quality, in terms of invertebrate taxa and composition, to a limited extent. Impacts are largely corrected again at the S3 location downstream, indicating that the impacts of the dam are reduced further downstream, and that the system is resilient enough to recover from any impacts associated with the current dam.

Of the six impacts identified, three were rated as HIGH, two as MODERATE and one as LOW before mitigation, reduced to one MODERATE, four LOW and one NEGLIBILE respectively after mitigation.

Recommendations:

Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the severity of potential aquatic impacts. These can be seen Subsection 2 (b) above.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 75 of 90

It is further recommended that a monitoring programme should be implemented. Should the monitoring results indicate a significant increase in water turbidity and/or a change in Ecological Flow Reserve, immediate corrective action will have to be taken in order to reduce the impacts on the stream and aquatic environment.

Ecological Impact Assessment

A site visit was conducted on the 31 July 2018 to assess the site-specific ecological state, current land-use, identify potential sensitive ecosystems and identify plant species associated with the proposed project activities. The site visit also served to identify potential impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding ecological environment.

The field survey noted three vegetation types on site; Shale Fynbos, Shale Renosterveld and Alien Woodland.

Indigenous species recorded at the site were compared to the South African Red Data List, the Threatened and Protected Species list and the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance Act (PNCO) (No. 19 of 1974). Only five species (Erica cruenata, Erica paniculata, Leucadendron salignum, Leucadendron spissifolium and Protea repens) of conservation concern, which are listed as Schedule 4 species on the PNCO list, were recorded. These species will require permits for their destruction.

Approximately 23 reptile species, 12 amphibian species, 29 mammal species and 353 bird species could occur on site (Pool- Stanvliet, 2017) of which 4 mammal and 22 bird are of conservation concern. No reptile and amphibian SCC are likely to occur on site. During the site visit two adult Cape River Frogs, Dainty Frog tadpole and Clicking Stream Frog (cf.) tadpole were found. Twenty species of birds were seen on site during the field visit, including the Blue Crane, Malachite Sunbird, Cape Sugarbird, Yellow-billed duck, Cape Grass Bird, Double collared sunbird and Cape Robin-chat. Scat from three mammal species was found on site, namely Cape Clawless Otter, Caracal/Leopard and fresh Porcupine scat.

The sensitivity map was developed by identifying areas of high, medium and low sensitivity. Although the stream is important for ecosystem functioning, the high level of infestation by invasive alien species has resulted in its degradation and some loss of function. This has therefore been classified as an area of moderate sensitivity.

The Shale Fynbos has a relatively high biodiversity and is near intact. In addition, this vegetation type is listed as vulnerable, and is threatened by the transformation of land for agriculture and infestation by invasive alien species. This vegetation type was classified as having high sensitivity.

The Shale Renosterveld, although degraded in some areas, still provides ecosystem functioning and is in a state that can be rehabilitated back to its natural state. This vegetation type is listed as critically endangered since 87% has already been transformed by cultivation. It is therefore classified as an area of high sensitivity.

Ten impacts were identified. Two impacts have a low negative significance, four have a moderate significance, two have a high significance and two are moderately positive. With mitigation measures two impacts can be reduced from moderate negative to low negative significance.

The dam wall and inundated area will affect approximately 0.5 ha of Shale Fynbos, 1.4 ha of Shale Renosterveld and 5.3 ha of alien woodland. Since the majority of the site is infested with invasive alien plant species and the portions of natural vegetation are degraded as a result of edge effects and encroachment of invasive alien plant species, the overall impact of the dam on the terrestrial fauna and flora will be of moderate significance. The loss of 1.4ha of Shale Renosterveld and 0.5ha of Shale Fynbos is unlikely to significantly affect the survival of these vegetation types.

Recommendations:

Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the severity of potential ecological impacts. These can be seen Subsection 2 (b) above.

It is highly recommended that ALL invasive alien plant species upstream of the dam are removed. These species utilise more water than the surrounding fynbos and with their removal, the amount of water reaching downstream users will be increased. Once species upstream of the dam have been removed, individuals downstream of the dam should start to be removed. An invasive alien plant management plan must be drafted and implemented as a condition of the EMPr for this site.

Heritage Desktop Assessment

The village of Greyton was the subject of a heritage inventory in 2016.

The area around the farm has not been subject to many Heritage Impact Assessments. In 2006, Kaplan conducted an assessment for a 66kV powerline just outside of Greyton. In his assessment, Kaplan identified some Early and Middle Stone Age artefacts, all out of context, which he determined to have low archaeological significance. In 2005, Van Schalkwyk conducted an assessment for a proposed upgrade to an existing road near Genadendal. He found no heritage resources of significance during his assessment. As the proposed development entails the expansion of an existing dam on an actively farmed property, and based on the available information, the likelihood of the proposed development impacting on significant archaeological heritage resources is very low.

The area proposed for the dam expansion is underlain by geology of the Klipbokkop Formation. The Klipbokkop Formation forms part of the Traka sub-group which is of very high palaeontological sensitivity. This formation is known for its evidence of fish (sharks, acanthodians, placoderms, bony fish, recorded especially from Da), bivalves, vascular plants (psilophytes, lycopods), common but low diversity traces, including Spirophyton, and rare brachiopods. In addition, this formation is known for its

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 76 of 90

biostratigraphically and palaeoecologically important fossil assemblages from high palaeoaltitudes. However, as the proposed development will not entail any excavation as the dam will be expanded through the extension and heightening of the existing dam wall, it is unlikely that any significant palaeontological resources will be impacted by the proposed development.

Recommendations:

The heritage resources in the area proposed for development are sufficiently recorded. Based on the available information, including the scale and nature of the proposed development, it is unlikely that any significant heritage resources will be impacted by the proposed development and as such it is recommended that no further heritage studies are required.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Provide an environmental impact statement of the following:

(i) A summary of the key findings of the EIA.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Wynberg Farm Trust proposes the expansion of an existing dam (dam 2) on Hugosdale farm (RE/141), near Greyton in the Western Cape. The reason for the proposed expansion is to increase the water available for irrigation on the farm (for the new deciduous fruits and grass fed cattle) and reduce electricity consumption, by increasing gravity fed irrigation.

The proposed expansion of dam 2 will increase the: • Total farm capacity from 56 965 m3 to 500 000 m3 i.e. increase of 443 035 m3 • Water surface area from of dam 2 from approximately 5 500m2 to 65 500 m2 i.e. increase of 60 000 m2 • Construction of a New Dam wall 22 m in height i.e. increase of 17 m

The following infrastructure will be required as part of the proposed activity: • Dam wall • Spillway • Laydown area • Pipeline

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives were assessed as part of the Basic Assessment:

Property alternative – the proposed property was the only alternative assessed in the EIA as the applicant owns this property and an alternative property is therefore not practically or financially viable. As such this is the only property that is available for the applicant to utilise.

Site alternative - Four dam sites were initially compared in terms of construction cost, elevation relative to irrigation areas and impact of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s).

• Dam 5 enlargement can hold approximately 500 000 m³, would be the best suited to accumulate natural run-off and would be the most economical option based on basin characteristics (water/wall ratio). However, due to the lower elevation the enlargement of Dam 5 would increase pumping and electrical costs. • East-valley dam enlargement site is not proposed due to the low run-off volume from the smallest catchment area, as well as the disturbance of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA). • Intermediate dam enlargement can hold approximately 500 000 m³ but is the least cost effective dam to build. • Dam 2 enlargement (preferred option) can hold approximately 500 000 m³, will accumulate natural run-off and would significantly reduce electricity costs by irrigating under gravity due to the higher elevation compared to that of Dam 5. It has better water/wall ratio compared to that of the intermediate dam site. The enlargement of Dam 2, would be a better suited option with limited disturbance of critical areas. Therefore it was decided that the proposed development would be the enlargement of Dam 2.

Activity alternative (land use) – the proposed activity for the site was the only alternative assessed in terms of different land use options. The proposed development is for the expansion of an existing Dam on Hugosdale farm. The Applicant requires the proposed expansion of the dam at this point in time to increase existing capacity for irrigation, increase the systems energy efficiency and save costs. Therefore no feasible or reasonable activity alternatives exist.

Design/Layout alternative - Design requirements for a dam of this nature follow dam safety regulations and as such no alternatives are considered.

Technology alternative – None.

The No-Go option was also assessed.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (ALL IMPACTS AND BENEFITS THAT ARE HIGH PRE-MITIGATION)

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 77 of 90

PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES

Significance Significance Impacts Type of Impact Theme pre-mitigation post-mitigation

On-site fire risk During the construction phase, inadequate attention to fire safety awareness and available fire safety equipment could result in uncontrolled fires, posing a threat to High Negative Low Negative General animals, vegetation and the surrounding landowners.

Sedimentation and Resulting from exposed soils that potentially lead to a number of Elevated Turbidity High Negative Low Negative Aquatic impacts such as erosion, sediment production and loss of topsoil. Habitat Modification During construction and operation, earthworks associated with High Negative Low Negative Aquatic construction will alter the natural topography. Loss of shale renosterveld Approximately 1.4 ha of Shale Renosterveld will be lost as a result of clearing for the dam wall and the subsequent inundation of the dam. As with the Shale Fynbos, the portion of this vegetation type that will be lost occurs on the edge of the inundated High Negative High Negative Ecological area, has been disturbed and is in a near natural state. However, since this vegetation type is classified as Critically Endangered the overall significance of the impact is high negative.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

Significance Significance Theme Impacts Type of Impact pre-mitigation post-mitigation

Temporary flooding due to During the operational phase failure failure of dam wall of sanitation systems, lack of infrastructural maintenance coupled with poor operation may lead to High Negative Low Negative General sewage overflows resulting in contamination of the ground and surface water. Socio-economic During the operation phase there will likely be permanent employment High Positive High Positive General opportunities. Flow Modification The damming of water from the river will require a run-of-river scheme going forward. In addition, the new capacity of the proposed dam will be Moderate much greater than at present. All of High Negative Aquatic Negative these aspects will reduce the flow period and quantity of flow downstream of the proposed development.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 78 of 90

In the unlikely event of a dam wall failure, the dam could release a large seedbank of invasive alien species into the downstream environment, Dam Wall Failure and which would further exacerbate the Release of Invasive Alien High Negative Low Negative Ecological infestation of alien species Plant Species Seedbanks downstream. The impact associated with this event would be high, however the risk of the dam wall failing, is low

SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT SIGNIFICANCE, PRE- AND POST- MITIGATION

(ii) Has a map of appropriate scale been provided, which superimposes the proposed development and its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site, YES NO indicating any areas that should be avoided, including buffers? (iii) A summary of the positive and negative impacts that the proposed development and alternatives will cause in the environment and community.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 79 of 90

Significance rating of Impacts impacts after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, Very High): Planning, design and construction phases 1. Erosion Low - 2. Dust Low - 3. Noise Low - 4. Visual Low - 5. On-site Fire Risk Low - 6. Hazardous Substances Low - 7. Construction Waste & Litter Low - 8. Sanitation Low - 9. Creation of temporary jobs Moderate + 10. Loss of vegetation communities 10a: Loss of Shale Fynbos Moderate - 10b: Loss of Shale Renosterveld High- 10c: Loss of Alien Woodland Moderate + 11. Loss of Biodiversity Low - 12. Loss of Plant Species of Conservation Concern Low - 13. Habitat Fragmentation Negligible 14. Invasion of Invasive Alien Plant Species Low - 15. Loss of Faunal Habitat Moderate - 16. Sedimentation and elevated turbidity Low - 17. Contamination from pollutants Low - 18. Habitat Modification Low - 19. Flow Modification Negligible Operational phase 20. Temporary flooding due to failure of dam wall Low - 21. Creation of permanent jobs High + 22. Dam Wall Failure and Release of Invasive Alien Plant Species Seedbanks Low - 23. Effect of alteration of river flow downstream of dam on faunal habitats Low - 24. Increase in dam and vegetated fringe habitat Moderate + 25. Sedimentation and elevated turbidity Low - 26. Flow Modification Moderate -

5. IMPACT MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

(a) Based on the assessment, describe the impact management, mitigation and monitoring measures as well as the impact management objectives and impact management outcomes included in the EMPr. The EMPr must be attached to this report as Appendix H.

Impact management and mitigation are all covered in the EMPr along with monitoring of the site in order to adhere to mitigation measure. One of these monitoring methods is having an Environmental Control Officer on site during the construction phase of the project. Monthly site visits will be conducted and reports submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning on a monthly basis.

(b) Describe any provisions for the adherence to requirements that are prescribed in a Specific Environmental Management Act relevant to the listed activity or specified activity in question.

No provisions are required for a Specific Environmental Management Act.

This Basic Assessment will be submitted to the DEADP to ensure that the national environmental principles, fair decision making and integrated environmental management approach is applied through the process. The basic assessment and associated environmental management plan aim to prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecological sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development, as outlined in the Act.

The applicant is committed to ensuring that the development meets all the relevant legal requirements and provides an environmentally sustainable facility. The applicant is aware and has agreed to implement all management, mitigation and

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 80 of 90

monitoring measures required for the development and operation of the proposed dam. All mitigation measures would be implemented and monitored in terms of construction monitoring and in line with the auditing requirements of the NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations (as amended).

The attached EMPr is intended to provide the guidelines needed to ensure all measures put in place are adhered to.

(d) Provide the details of any financial provisions for the management of negative environmental impacts, rehabilitation and closure of the proposed development.

Financial provisions must be made for the appointment of an Environmental Control Officer during the construction phase, and for the required environmental auditing in terms of the NEMA 2014 Regulations, as amended.

(e) Provide the details of any financial provisions for the management of negative environmental impacts, rehabilitation and closure of the proposed development.

As stated in (d) above.

(f) Describe any assumptions, uncertainties, and gaps in knowledge which relate to the impact management, mitigation and monitoring measures proposed.

This report has been compiled with a high degree of certainty and is based on the applicant’s, engineers’, EAPs’ and specialists’ expertise. Refer also to Section G (1) (c) and (d) of this report.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 81 of 90

SECTION H: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EAP AND SPECIALISTS

(a) In my view as the appointed EAP, the information contained in this BAR and the documentation attached YES NO hereto is sufficient to make a decision in respect of the listed activity(ies) applied for.

(b) If the documentation attached hereto is sufficient to make a decision, please indicate below whether, in your opinion, the listed activity(ies) should or should not be authorised: Listed activity(ies) should be authorised: YES NO Provide reasons for your opinion This BA Report has investigated and assessed the significance of the predicted positive and negative impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the dam.

• In terms of the General Impacts: o All negative impacts can be adequately mitigated to reduce the risk or significance to low. o There are both moderately and highly beneficial impacts with regards to job creation. o The fruit produced on the farm is destined for export so there would be additional foreign currency benefits for the country. • In terms of the Ecological Impacts: o Since the majority of the site is transformed (by the existing dam and invasive alien plant species) and that portions of natural vegetation are degraded as a result of edge effects and encroachment of invasive alien plant species, the overall impact of the dam on the terrestrial fauna and flora will be of moderate significance. The loss of 1.4ha of Shale Renosterveld and 0.5ha of Shale Fynbos is unlikely to significantly affect the survival of these vegetation types. o The proposed dam is a safety related structure and therefore is designed by a specialist dam engineer with an associated very low probability of failure. Meaning that although the release of invasive alien plant species seedbanks due to dam wall failure would be highly negative, the likelihood of dam wall failure is very low. o Although there are Moderate negative impacts relating to the loss of shale fynbos and faunal habitats, there will also be moderately beneficial impacts relating to the removal of invasive alien plan species and the increase in dam and vegetated fringe habitat. • In terms of the Aquatic Impacts: o Except for flow modification during operation, which has been identified as a moderately negative impact, all other aquatic impacts can be reduced to low or negligible with mitigation.

It is therefore the opinion of the EAP that • There are no fatal flaws associated with the proposed development and that all impacts can be adequately mitigated to reduce the risk or significance to an acceptable level; • The significance of the benefits associated with the proposed development outweigh the significance of the negative aspects; • The project will make a positive contribution to sustainable infrastructure development in the Theewaterskloof Municipality; and • The Basic Assessment Report contains sufficient information to allow DEA&DP to make an informed decision. • Therefore, provided that the specified mitigation measures stated herein are effectively implemented, it is recommended that the project receive Environmental Authorisation in terms of the EIA Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998, as amended).

In order to ensure the effective implementation of the mitigation and management actions, a EMPr has been compiled and is included in Appendix H of this BA Report. The mitigation measures necessary to ensure that the project is planned, constructed, operated and decommissioned in an environmentally responsible manner are listed in this EMPr. The EMPr is a dynamic document that should be updated regularly and provides clear and implementable measures for the expansion of the dam. (c) Provide a description of any aspects that were conditional to the findings of the assessment by the EAP and Specialists which are to be included as conditions of authorisation. None, apart from the recommended mitigation measures. (d) If you are of the opinion that the activity should be authorised, please provide any conditions, including mitigation measures that should in your view be considered for inclusion in an environmental authorisation. All mitigation measures which have been outlined in this report as well as in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) must be fully adhered to. In addition, the following recommendations have been made:

Pre-Construction: • Notice must be given to surrounding land owners and businesses informing them of the intended date of commencement of construction;

Construction Phase: • An ECO must be employed to ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area and that no unauthorised activities occur; • The ECO should submit monthly site audits detailing the applicant’s compliance with the EMPr; • An efficient stormwater management system must be implemented during construction; • Workers must be educated on environmental management aspects;

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 82 of 90

• It is highly recommended that ALL invasive alien plant species upstream of the dam are removed. These species utilise more water than the surrounding fynbos and with their removal, the amount of water reaching downstream users will be increased. Once species upstream of the dam have been removed, individuals downstream of the dam should start to be removed. An invasive alien plant management plan must be drafted and implemented as a condition of the EMPr for this site. • A water monitoring programme should be implemented. Should the monitoring results indicate a significant increase in water turbidity and/or a change in Ecological Flow Reserve, immediate corrective action will have to be taken in order to reduce the impacts on the stream and aquatic environment. • In the highly unlikely event that heritage resources such as archaeological material, paleontological material, graves or human remains are encountered during construction, works must cease and findings immediately report to Heritage Western Cape. (e) Please indicate the recommended periods in terms of the following periods that should be specified in the environmental authorisation: i. the period within which commencement must occur; Within 2 years of the date of authorisation

ii. the period for which the environmental authorisation is granted and the date on which the development proposal will have been The EA must be valid for 5 years. Commencement of the concluded, where the environmental activity will enforce the EA. authorisation does not include operational aspects;

iii. the period for which the portion of the environmental authorisation that deals with non- 7 years from the date of authorisation operational aspects is granted; and

iv. the period for which the portion of the environmental authorisation that deals with The life of the scheme operational aspects is granted.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 83 of 90

SECTION I: APPENDICES

The following appendices must be attached to this report:

Confirm that APPENDIX Appendix is attached Appendix A: Locality map ✓

Site development plan(s) ✓

Appendix B: A map of appropriate scale, which superimposes the proposed development and its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site, indicating any areas that ✓ should be avoided, including buffer areas;

Appendix C: Photographs ✓

Appendix D: Biodiversity overlay map ✓

Permit(s) / license(s) from any other Organ of State, including service letters from the municipality. ✓ Appendix E:

Appendix E1: Copy of comment from HWC. ✓

Public participation information: including a copy of the register of I&APs, the comments and responses report, proof of notices, advertisements Appendix F: and any other public participation information as is required in Section C ✓ above.

Appendix G: Specialist Report(s) ✓

Appendix H : EMPr ✓ Additional information related to listed waste management activities (if Appendix I: N/A applicable) If applicable, description of the impact assessment process followed to Appendix J: N/A reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site. Any Other (if applicable). • Engineer report/site analysis • Operational rules Appendix K: • Flow reserve calculation ✓ • Alien removal plan

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 84 of 90

SECTION J: DECLARATIONS

THE APPLICANT

Note: Duplicate this section where there is more than one applicant.

I …………………………………………..……….., in my personal capacity or duly authorised thereto, hereby declare/affirm all the information submitted as part of this Report is true and correct, and that I –

• am aware of and understand the content of this report; • am fully aware of my responsibilities in terms of the NEMA, the EIA Regulations in terms of the NEMA (Government Notice No. R. 982, refers) (as amended) and any relevant specific environmental management Act and that failure to fulfil these requirements may constitute an offence in terms of relevant environmental legislation; • have provided the EAP and Specialist, Review EAP (if applicable), and Review Specialist (if applicable), and the Competent Authority with access to all information at my disposal that is relevant to the application; • will be responsible for complying with conditions that may be attached to any decision(s) issued by the Competent Authority; • will be responsible for the costs incurred in complying with the conditions that may be attached to any decision(s) issued by the Competent Authority;

Note: If acting in a representative capacity, a certified copy of the resolution or power of attorney must be attached.

Signature of the Applicant:

Name of Organisation:

Date:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 85 of 90

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

I ………………………………………………………., as the appointed EAP hereby declare/affirm:

• the correctness of the information provided as part of this Report; • that all the comments and inputs from stakeholders and I&APs have been included in this Report; • that all the inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports, if specialist reports were produced, have been included in this Report; • any information provided by me to I&APs and any responses by me to the comments or inputs made by I&APs; • that I have maintained my independence throughout this EIA process, or if not independent, that the review EAP has reviewed my work (Note: a declaration by the review EAP must be submitted); • that I have throughout this EIA process met all of the general requirements of EAPs as set out in Regulation 13; • I have throughout this EIA process disclosed to the applicant, the specialist (if any), the Department and I&APs, all material information that has or may have the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report, plan or document prepared as part of the application; • have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application was distributed or was made available to I&APs and that participation by I&APs was facilitated in such a manner that all I&APs were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments; • have ensured that the comments of all I&APs were considered, recorded and submitted to the Department in respect of the application; • have ensured the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports in respect of the application, if specialist inputs and recommendations were produced; • have kept a register of all I&APs that participated during the PPP; and • am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

Signature of the EAP:

Name of Company:

Date:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 86 of 90

THE REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

I ………………………………………………………., as the appointed Review EAP hereby declare/affirm:

• that I have reviewed all the work produced by the EAP; • the correctness of the information provided as part of this Report; • that I have, throughout this EIA process met all of the general requirements of EAPs as set out in Regulation 13; • I have, throughout this EIA process disclosed to the applicant, the EAP, the specialist (if any), the review specialist (if any), the Department and I&APs, all material information that has or may have the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report, plan or document prepared as part of the application; and • am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

Signature of the Review EAP:

Name of Company:

Date:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 87 of 90

THE SPECIALIST

Note: Duplicate this section where there is more than one specialist.

I ……………………………………, as the appointed Specialist hereby declare/affirm the correctness of the information provided or to be provided as part of the application, and that I :

• in terms of the general requirement to be independent: o other than fair remuneration for work performed in terms of this application, have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the development proposal or application and that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity; or o am not independent, but another specialist (the “Review Specialist”) that meets the general requirements set out in Regulation 13 has been appointed to review my work (Note: a declaration by the review specialist must be submitted); • in terms of the remainder of the general requirements for a specialist, have throughout this EIA process met all of the requirements; • have disclosed to the applicant, the EAP, the Review EAP (if applicable), the Department and I&APs all material information that has or may have the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report, plan or document prepared or to be prepared as part of the application; and • am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

Signature of the Specialist:

Name of Company:

Date:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 88 of 90

THE REVIEW SPECIALIST

I ………………………………………………………., as the appointed Review Specialist hereby declare/affirm:

• that I have reviewed all the work produced by the Specialist(s); • the correctness of the specialist information provided as part of this Report; • that I have, throughout this EIA process met all of the general requirements of specialists as set out in Regulation 13; • I have, throughout this EIA process disclosed to the applicant, the EAP, the review EAP (if applicable), the Specialist(s), the Department and I&APs, all material information that has or may have the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report, plan or document prepared as part of the application; and • I am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

Signature of Review Specialist:

Name of Company:

Date:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 89 of 90