APPENDIX F PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - SLR Consulting · Dear Camelia Close Resident As you are aware, the owners of Uitsig Farm, located on Erf 3025 and Erf 9795, Constantia, Meerenhof

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

APPENDIX F1:

PROJECT DATABASE

APPENDIX F2

NOTES ON MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF CONSTANTIA CLUSTER HOME OWNERS’

ASSOCIATION NPC

Proposed expansion of dams on Farm Uitsig, Constantia

1 May 2017

PROPOSED EXPANSION OF DAMS ON UITSIG FARM,

CONSTANTIA

NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 9 MAY 2017, 14:00 AT CAMELIA CLOSE, CONSTANTIA, CAPE TOWN

PRESENT: John Benn Constantia Clusters Home Owners’ Association NPC Chris Rowan-Parry Constantia Clusters Home Owners’ Association NPC Hannes Bouwer Bouwer Architects Jonathan Crowther SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Simon Nicks CNdV Africa (Pty) Ltd 1. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The purpose of the meeting was inter alia to share information regarding the proposed expansion of dams on Uitsig Farm and the Basic Assessment (BA) process being undertaken to apply for Environmental Authorisation (EA).

2. DISCUSSION Hannes Bouwer (HB) and Jonathan Crowther (JC) provided an overview of the proposed dam expansion, as contained in written background information (see Attachment A provided to John Benn). JC also briefly outlined the BA process and that the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) would be made available for review and comment before the end of May 2017. A discussion followed, focusing on key points relating to dam safety; landscaping of the area downstream of the proposed dam; environmental flow requirements to be implemented; and flood control during winter months. John Benn (JB) and Chris Rowan-Perry (CRP) indicated that they were satisfied with the information provided. They would consult with members of the Constantia Clusters Home Owners’ Association NPC and provide feedback in response to the BAR.

3. CLOSURE HB thanked JB and CRP for their time and attention to the matters discussed. The meeting closed at 15h30. Notes compiled by Jonathan Crowther, 9 May 2017 Jobs\MP01UF\Stakeholder docs\Public meetings\Meeting Constantia Clusters HOA NPC - 9 May 2017

Proposed expansion of dams on Farm Uitsig, Constantia

ATTACHMENT A

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Dear Camelia Close Resident As you are aware, the owners of Uitsig Farm, located on Erf 3025 and Erf 9795, Constantia, Meerenhof Properties (Pty) Ltd, obtained approval for the redevelopment of the property as a private home for their family and to use the farm for wine-making and equestrian purposes from Heritage Western Cape (HWC) on 25 January 2016. The City of Cape Town subsequently approved building plans for various elements of the development. The owners now propose to expand existing farm dams in order to increase the water storage capacity on the farm. This additional storage capacity is required to provide a secure source of irrigation water for the redevelopment of the property as a productive wine farm. In the past the water required for irrigation has largely been taken for the tributary of the Grootboschkloof River for direct irrigation in summer, when flow in the river is low. The proposal to expand the existing dam storage capacity would mean that water would be taken from the tributary only during high flow periods and stored in the proposed dam for irrigation during the dry summer months. The proposed project would entail the expansion of two of the three existing small dams on the property in order to provide sufficient water storage capacity for the verified irrigation demand required to redevelop the farm to productive wine farming. The third dam, with a footprint of approximately 5 000 m², located upstream of the tributary, would be retained in order to preserve the wetland above the dam basin. The two existing dams would be contained within the expanded dam (see Figure 1). The proposed dam would be a zoned earthfill dam with a clay core. The dam basin would be sealed with a 500 mm layer of in-situ clay which would tie in with the clay core to limit seepage. The maximum height of the dam wall would be 12.5 m and the length would be approximately 115 m. The proposed spillway would be a 17.5 wide open channel with a concrete sill. The spillway channel would be lined with rip-rap and gabions, and landscaped (see Figure 2). The remaining sections of the stream would be rehabilitated in order to offset the wetland habitat loss and to establish new wetland habitat within the stream corridor, upstream as well as downstream of the proposed dam (see Figures 3 and 4). The process of ensuring dam safety would entail the following: The classification and registration of the expanded farm dam would be undertaken after completion of a Water Use Licence Application process, i.e. once a Water Use Licence has been awarded in terms of the National Water Act, 1998. This would entail submitting the final dam design to the Dam Safety Office, which would issue a Licence to construct a dam and store water. The dam safety category for the proposed expanded dam would likely be a Category II dam. The final dam design and other relevant engineering services would be overseen by iCE Tygerberg (Pty) Ltd during the construction period. They will also ensure adherence to all dam safety requirements. The proposed expansion of the dam would provide a secure water supply for Uitsig Farm. Water security is a prerequisite in order to redevelop the farm so as to restore it to a productive wine farm. The proposed dam would also provide for winter flood control, as it would be operated as a flood retention structure which would control possible flooding to the downstream of the dam. We would appreciate your signature agreeing that you have no objection to the proposed dam expansion, as shown. We appreciate your support.

Figure 1: Layout plan showing the proposed expansion of farm dams on Uitsig Farm (image provided by iCE Tygerberg (Pty) Ltd, March 2017)

Figure 2: Layout plan of the proposed dam (image provided by iCE Tygerberg (Pty) Ltd, March 2017)

Figure 3: Landscape master plan for the proposed dam (image provided by Planning Partners, May 2017)

Figure 4: Artist’s impression of the proposed dam (image provided by Bouwer Architects, May 2017)

APPENDIX F3

SITE NOTICE AND ADVERTISEMENT

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

PROPOSED EXPANSION OF DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA

NOTICE NO: MP01UF 04/2017 DEA&DP REF NO. 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2050/17

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE NEMA EIA REGULATIONS 2014, AS AMENDED

APPLICANT: MEERENHOF PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER: SLR CONSULTING (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD (“SLR”).

LOCATION: UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA (REMAINDER OF ERF 9795 AND ERF 3025), ON THE CORNER OF SPAANSCHEMAT AND NOVA CONSTANTIA ROADS, CONSTANTIA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND EXISTING FARM DAMS IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR STORAGE CAPACITY, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A SECURE WATER SUPPLY FOR IRRIGATION OF VINEYARDS AND GARDENS.

APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION TO UNDERTAKE THE FOLLOWING LISTED ACTIVITIES: IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT NOTICE (GN) R327 (LISTING NOTICE 1): ACTIVITIES 19 & 48.

OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A BASIC ASSESSMENT PROCESS IS BEING UNDERTAKEN FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. IF YOU AND/OR YOUR ORGANISATION WISH TO REGISTER ON THE PROJECT DATABASE, REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR WISH TO COMMENT ON THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT (BAR), PLEASE CONTACT SLR AT THE BELOW CONTACT DETAILS. THE BAR WILL BE AVAILABLE (AT THE TOKAI PUBLIC LIBRARY AND ON SLR’s WEBSITE) FOR A 30-DAY COMMENT PERIOD FROM 3 NOVEMBER TO 4 DECEMBER 2017. COMMENTS MUST REACH SLR BY NO LATER THAN 4 DECEMBER 2017.

SLR CONTACT DETAILS UNIT 39, ROELAND SQUARE, 30 DRURY LANE, CAPE TOWN, 8000 ATTENTION: ENA DE VILLIERS TEL: (021) 461 1118/9 FAX: (021) 461 1120 EMAIL: [email protected]

NOTICE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS PROPOSED EXPANSION OF DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA

NOTICE NO: MP01UF 03/2017 DEA&DP REF NO. 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2050/17 Notice is hereby given of a public participation process in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2014, as amended. Applicant: Meerenhof Properties (Pty) Ltd Environmental Assessment Practitioner: SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SLR). Location: Uitsig Farm, Constantia (Remainder of Erf 9795 and Erf 3025), located on the corner of Spaanschemat and Nova Constantia Roads. Project description: The Applicant is proposing to expand existing farm dams for increased storage capacity for irrigation purposes. Application for Environmental Authorisation (EA) to undertake the following listed activities: The proposed project triggers Listed Activities in terms of the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended, namely: Government Notices (GN) R327 (Listing Notice 1): Activities 19 and 48. A Basic Assessment is required in order to apply for EA. Opportunity to participate: You and/or your organisation are hereby invited to register as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP) and comment on the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) for the proposed project. The BAR will be available (at the Tokai Public Library and SLR’s website) for a 30-day comment period from 3 November to 4 December 2017 Please contact SLR (at the contact details below) should you wish to register as an I&AP. Any comment should be submitted by no later than 4 December 2017. SLR Consulting Contact Details: Unit 39 Roeland Square, 30 Drury Lane, CAPE TOWN, 8001 Tel: (021) 461 1118 Fax: (021) 461 1120 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.slrconsulting.com/za Date of advertisement: 2 November 2017

MP01UF/Stakeholder docs/Advert_Notice/ Advert – dam expansion (30 Oct 2017)

APPENDIX F3

NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS DURING PRE-APPLICATION PHASE

NOTIFICATION - HAND DELIVERED VERSION

Project Reference: 7TS.13069.00001 File Ref. Let – BAR notification (23May17)

23 May 2017 Dear Sir/Madam PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA (DEA&DP REF. NO: 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2017/17): NOTIFICATION OF COMBINED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS IN TERMS OF NEMA EIA REGULATIONS 2014 AND NWA WULA REGULATIONS 2017 This letter provides information regarding a Basic Assessment and a Water Use Licence Application (WULA) process for the above-mentioned project. Meerenhof Properties (Pty) Ltd, the owner of Uitsig Farm, Constantia, is proposing to expand existing farm dams by building one larger dam to increase the water storage capacity. This would entail the expansion of the two of the three existing small dams on the property, which have a combined capacity of approximately 19 000 m³, to one large dam with a capacity of approximately 120 000 m³. This additional storage capacity is required to provide a secure source of irrigation water for the redevelopment of the property as a productive wine farm. SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SLR) has been appointed as the independent environmental assessment practitioner responsible for undertaking the required Environmental Authorisation processes for the proposed project. Authorisation for relevant water uses in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) (NWA) is also required. The Applicant has commenced with an application process in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2014, as amended, promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA). On 31 March 2017, an application to undertake a Basic Assessment process was submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. A Water Use Licence Application Application (WULA) has also been submitted to the Department of Water and Sanitation. Notice is hereby given of the commencement of a combined public participation process in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations 2014, as amended, as well as the WULA Regulations 2017, promulgated in terms of NWA. In accordance with these Regulations, you are hereby invited to register as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP) and comment on the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) and the WULA for the proposed project. Please contact SLR (see contact details overleaf) should you wish to register as an I&AP. The BAR has been made available for a 30-day public and authority review and comment period from 23 May to 23 June 2017 (including one additional day to cover the intervening public holiday). 2/…

APPENDIX F4

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT 1 – COMMENTING AUTHORITIES

Proposed expansion of dams on Uitsig Farm, Constantia

SLR Ref. 7TS.13069.00001 October 2017 BAR Comments and Responses Report 1 – Authorities

1

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT 1 – AUTHORITIES As stated in Section C of the Basic Assessment Report, an Application for Environmental Authorisation for the proposed project was initially submitted in March 2017. The prescribed public participation process was undertaken in respect to the Basic Assessment (BA) process, whereafter the final BAR was submitted to DEA&DP. The Application subsequently had to be withdrawn on 20 October 2017 as it was not possible to submit the final comment from Heritage Western Cape (HWC) in response to the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) within the authority timeline of 107-days provided for in the EIA legislation. As the project proposal remains unchanged, the public participation undertaken in respect to the initial Application remains relevant to the new Application and is thus regarded as a pre-application process for the purposes of new application process. This Comments and Responses Report presents the issues raised by commenting authorities and responses thereto. Written submissions were received from the following commenting authorities:

SUBMITTED BY METHOD AND DATE 1. Department of Water and Sanitation – Neels du Boisson and D Daniels Letter by email – 7 and 8 June 2017

Email – 26 June 2016 2. Heritage Western Cape – Andrew September and Mxolisi Dlamuka Letter by email – 13 and 19 June 2017 3. City of Cape Town – Joy Garman and Andy Greenwood Letter by email – 23 June 2017 4. South African National Parks: Table Mountain National Park –

Chad Cheney Letter by email – 23 June 2017

5. CapeNature – Rhett Smart Letter by email – 7 July 2017 Copies of the written comments are attached as Attachment A to this report, arranged according to the order indicated in the table above. The comments received are presented in Table 1 below and have been categorised as follows: 1. Comments from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)

1.1 Covering email 1.2 Introduction and closing remarks 1.3 Water Use Licence application (WULA) process 1.4 Comments on BAR

2. Comments from Heritage Western Cape (HWC) 2.1 Covering email 2.2 Introduction and closing remarks 2.3 Heritage Impact Assessment

3. Comments from the City of Cape Town (CoCT) 3.1 Covering email 3.2 Introduction and closing remarks 3.3 Comments from the Environmental Management Department: Environmental Management

Section 3.4 Comments from the Environmental Management Department: Heritage Resources Section 3.5 Comments from the Catchment and Stormwater Management Office

4. Comments South African National Parks: Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) 4.1 Covering email 4.2 Introduction and closing remarks 4.3 Property number 4.4 Support for responsible use of water resource 4.5 Water source for fire fighting

5. Comments from CapeNature 5.1 Covering email 5.2 Introduction and closing remarks 5.3 No impacts on terrestrial biodiversity


SLR Ref. 7TS.13069.00001 October 2017 BAR Comments and Responses Report 1 – Authorities

2

5.4 Potential improvement to freshwater environment 5.5 No objection and support for proposed rehabilitation

No importance should be given to the order in which the categories are presented.


SLR Ref. 7TS.13069.00001 October 2017 Comments and Responses Report 1 – Authorities

3

Table 1: Summary table of comments received on the draft BAR, with responses from SLR and the project technical team, as appropriate

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE

1. COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION (DWS) 1.1 Covering email N du Buisson 2017.06.08 Herewith attached our input on the BAR ref DEADP

16/3/1/A6/2017/17 as requested. These comments have been noted.

1.2 Introduction and closing remarks

D Daniels 2017.06.07 Reference is made to your letter dated 23 May 2017 with reference number DEADP 16/3/3/1IA6/16/2017/17. For more information on the content of this communication, feel free to contact the Department at any stage.

These comments have been noted.

1.3 Water Use Licence application (WULA) process

D Daniels 2017.06.07 A pre water use license meeting must be arranged with the Department (Mr W Dreyer [email protected]) to present the proposed development and to establish which information must be presented and which water uses must be included in the Water Use License Authorisation application. At this stage the Department reserve[s] further comment as they will engage with the applicant through the Water Use Licence Application (WULA) process.

At a meeting with DWS on 12 June 2017, the responsible consultant, Ms Hester Lyons of HDL Consulting, clarified that the WULA had been submitted on 23 May 2017. Mr Rudi van Wyk, who is responsible for processing the WULA application, and Mr Du Buisson represented DWS at the meeting. As stated in the BAR, a pre-application meeting and site visit took place on 12 October 2016 with DWS officials. The advice and requirements that the participating DWS officials had communicated was taken into consideration in devising the proposed approach to the dam expansion. Details in this regard are included in the WULA documentation and will be supplemented as necessary during the process of DWS considering the application. Mr Du Buisson subsequently confirmed this in writing – see Comment 1.5 below.

1.4 Comments on BAR

D Daniels 2017.06.07 The Department take[s] note of the content of the Basic Assessment Report. Please note the following: • The Department is not in favour of in-stream dams due to

the complexity of environmental releases to be accommodated in a sustainable operational plan.

• The alternative of an off take weir, at the boundary of the property where the stream enter the property, to off channel storage on the left bank by increasing and combining existing dam 2 and 3 must be investigated.

• A water balance must be done to indicate the difference between the available water in the stream (MAR - Upstream use - Environmental requirement) and the irrigation demand on a monthly basis to establish the storage requirement.

As indicated in Response 1.3 above, the issues raised in these comments are being addressed as part of the WULA process. In respect to the first bullet item, it can be confirmed that the proposed dam design includes the installation of the necessary mechanisms to regulate automatic releases in the dam outlet pipe located underneath the embankment. Such automatic releases would ensure compliance with the flow requirement even when the dam does not spill. A flow meter would also be installed within the flow release mechanism to monitor the actual flow releases, as recommended by the freshwater consultant. This would ensure adherence to the freshwater specialist’s



4

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE recommendation that the practical implementation of the

environmental flow requirements should be such that it can be achieved passively rather than requiring active management in order to ensure that the correct percentage flow and volume of water are released at the correct time. In respect to the second bullet item, the engineering consultants investigated various alternatives, as described in the BAR. This included an off-channel storage dam, which was not considered feasible for the reasons described in the BAR – see Section E(c). The alternative location of an off-channel dam mentioned in the comments is also not feasible as the area on the left bank would be too small to accommodate a larger dam. In addition, the freshwater specialist identified the existing hillslope wetland as an essential part of the wetland offset plan. In relation to the last bullet item, the monthly water balance had in the meantime been submitted to DWS for evaluation of the WULA.

1.5 Confirmation of receipt of WULA

N du Buisson 2017.06.26 I do confirm that a water use license application was received by the Department and that the issues highlighted in our comment will be addressed through the water use license application process.

These comments have been noted. The WULA process is ongoing.

2. COMMENTS FROM HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE (HWC) 2.1 Covering email A September 2017.06.19 See attached for the NID response. These comments have been noted. 2.2 Introduction and

closing remarks M Dlamuka 2017.06.13 NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP: PROPOSED

EXPANSION DAMS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON ERF 9795, CONSTANTIA UITSIG, CONSTANTIA, SUBMITTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 38(8) OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT (ACT 25 OF 1999) CASE NUMBER: 17050209AS0515E The matter above has reference. Heritage Western Cape is in receipt of your application for the above matter received on 17 May 2017. This matter was discussed at the Heritage Officers meeting held on 08 June 2017.




5

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE HWC reserves the right to request additional information as required. Should you have any further queries, please contact the official above and quote the case number.

2.3 Heritage Impact Assessment

M Dlamuka 2017.06.13 You are hereby notified that, since there is reason to believe that the proposed development will impact on heritage resources, HWC requires that a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) that satisfies the provisions of section 38(3) of the NHRA be submitted. This HIA must have specific reference to the following: • Impact to archaeological heritage resources. • Visual impacts to the cultural landscape. The required HIA must have an integrated set of recommendations. The comments of relevant registered conservation bodies and the relevant Municipality must be requested and included in the HIA where provided. Proof of these requests must be supplied.

This request was received on 19 June 2017. The heritage practitioner updated the HIA to incorporate relevant detail requested by HWC (see Appendix H3 of the BAR). The HIA was submitted to HWC for consideration during the Impact Assessment Committee meeting scheduled for 8 November 2017. HWC’s final comment will be included in the final BAR which will be submitted to DEA&DP for decision-making.

3. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN (CoCT) 3.1 Covering email J Garman 2017.06.23 Please find the City’s collated comments for the

abovementioned application attached. These comments have been noted.


A Greenwood 2017.06.23 COMMENT ON THE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM IN CONSTANTIA DEA&DP REF NO: E16/3/3/1IA6/16/2017/17 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN'S INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS: [Note: The comments are presented in Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 below.] Please note that these comments are based on the information that this office has received to date. Should any new information be provided to this office, then this office reserves the right to review the comments as deemed appropriate.




6

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE

3.3 Comments from the Environmental Management Department: Environmental Management Section 3.3.1 Water-sensitive

Urban Design (WSUDS) approach to farming practises and water usage

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 Currently Cape Town is experiencing a severe drought. Major water shortages are predicted to continue into the future as a result of climate change. In light of this EMS supports a Water-sensitive Urban Design (WSUDS) approach to farming practises and water usage. This approach aims to protect the environment and reduce water wastage, flooding and pollution. An assessment should be undertaken of present and future water demand for the farm and areas should be identified where water can be saved, e.g. the planting of waterwise and locally indigenous plant species. If an exercise such as this has not been undertaken, it should be carried out before a decision is made to increase the capacity of the dams.

The WULA includes an assessment of the existing and future water demand for the farm. The gardens that are being developed in the public precinct and the Master Landscape Plan developed for the rehabilitation of the riparian zones and associated wetland areas upstream and downstream of the proposed dam focus on appropriate indigenous plants in order to optimise water usage. Uitsig Farm also supports the Biodiversity and Wine Initiative (BWI), which inter alia entails a focus on waterwise farming practices. For example, a process is under way to ensure that the farm is as free of alien vegetation as possible. The largest portion of the water demand is for irrigation of the vineyards over the full operational extent of the farm.

3.3.2 City's Southern District Plan

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 In terms of the City's Southern District Plan (SOP) this site has a Spatial Planning Category of "Core 2" as all rivers and wetlands fall within this category. Activities in these areas should be low impact and focus on conservation. According to the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) forming part of the SOP, activities that include abstraction of water directly from rivers for domestic/private use are undesirable activities for these areas.

The City’s SOP, including the EMF, were taken into consideration in the relation to the need and desirability of the proposed activity, as described in Sections D2(c) and (d) of the BAR. The spatial planning categories described in the Plan include “Intensive agriculture”, with the Constantia-Tokai Winelands area specifically designated as “high potential and unique agricultural land”. The associated district development guidelines include to “[e]ncourage activities that reinforce primary agricultural use of these areas, and that support local employment creation”. Furthermore, the primary spatial development objectives for Sub-district 2 – Bischopscourt-Constantia-Tokai, include “[t]o maintain and enhance the unique sense of place and character of these valleys” One of the supporting development guidelines state the following: ”Support viticulture production through restricting fragmentation and encouraging consolidation, and where possible expanding agricultural development.” Within this context, the proposed expansion of dams on Uitsig Farm would reinforce the farm’s primary agricultural use as a reliable water source is a prerequisite for the cultivation of vineyards and thus for continuing the tradition of viable wine-making on the farm. The Environmental Impact Management Zones identified in



7

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE the EMF include a Cultural and Recreational Resources Zone, which specifically lists the Constantia Winelands Cultural Landscape. The Constantia Valley is also listed in the Natural Economic Resources Zone. The kinds of activities, developments and uses that are considered relevant, even though they may potentially have a significant impact, are listed for each zone. This includes agriculture infrastructure in the Cultural and Recreational Resources Zone, and dams, weirs and water abstraction in the Natural Economic Resources Zone. These activities correspond with the applicable listed activities in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended), and as such their significance has been assessed by means of the BA process currently under way. As indicated above, Uitsig Farm falls within the “Intensive agriculture” zone in terms of the Spatial Development Plan of the SOP. It is located outside of the urban edge. Thus the property as such is not included in the “Core 2” conservation zone. Even though the tributary and wetlands in the northern part of the farm may be considered part of “Core 2” by virtue of being water bodies, their existing transformed and degraded state should be taken into consideration. Thus the conservation goal of “Core 2” would be supported by the rehabilitation of the riparian zone and wetlands upstream and downstream of the proposed dam. Also refer to Response 3.3.3 below.

3.3.3 City's Bioregional Plan of 2015

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 In terms of the City's BIONET, the wetlands on this site are classified as CESA's (Critical Ecological Support Areas}. These are sites required for consolidation, connectivity and ecological support of other biodiversity elements. According to the City's Bioregional Plan of 2015, which was adopted as Council policy on 19 August 2015, an objective for these sites is to maintain natural ecosystems, restore degraded portions to improve ecological functioning and manage for reduced levels of impact on remaining natural systems.

Section B6(a) of the BAR notes that the valley bottom wetland and semi-natural seep wetland areas associated with the Grootboschkloof Tributary traversing Uitsig Farm are mapped as wetland CESAs, as stated in this comment. The degraded and transformed state of the stream and associated wetlands is also described. The proposed rehabilitation of the riparian zone and wetland areas up- and downstream of the proposed expanded dams would thus be in line the City’s policy objective of restoring degraded portions of the natural ecosystems.

3.3.4 Impacts on the Western Leopard

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 The watercourses under discussion on Constantia Uitsig Farm fall within the distribution range of the Endangered

The freshwater specialist indicated that the relevant public records of the past nine years have not identified Uitsig



8

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE Toad. Western Leopard Toad. These dams/wetlands are

confirmed breeding sites for these toads. Section F:1(b) of the report needs to be amended to include impacts on the Western Leopard Toad. A Western Leopard Toad expert must be appointed to assess the impacts of this proposal on the toads.

Farm as a breeding site for Western Leopard Toads (WLT). Only a few sightings of WLT have been recorded on neighbouring farms. It was thus not considered necessary to include impacts on the WLT. Subsequently, an amphibian specialist study was undertaken, which could also not confirm this site as a WLT breeding site. The improved wetland ecosystems on Uitsig Farm that would result from restoration of the stream and wetlands upstream and downstream of the proposed dam would provide a bigger and more protected environment that would be sensitive to the WLT as well as other wetland species and other aquatic biota (refer to Appendix H2 for the full specialist report).

3.3.5 Potential impact on biota downstream of proposed dam

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 A limitation specified in the Freshwater Ecological Report is that detailed habitat and biota assessments were not undertaken. The effects of the change in ambient temperature on the biota downstream ha [ve] not been assessed. Many riverine organisms depend on certain levels of ambient temperature to regulate their growth and reproduction. This can impact on downstream food chains and life cycles. An intervention such as the water from the dam being released as diffused flow which regains the ambient temperature as it meanders, must be implemented.

The dam engineer has indicated that the environmental flow releases would be effected by means of a top draw-off system as it would be linked to the irrigation system. Thus there would be little difference in water temperature that would impact on biota downstream of the dam.

3.3.6 Increase in mean annual rainfall

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 On page 30 of the report under 7.4 Hydrology and Environmental Water Requirements, reference is made to the city rainfall grid which indicates an increase in the mean annual rainfall when taking the effects of climate change into account. Please confirm that this is correct and that a decrease in mean annual rainfall is not predicted, albeit an increase in the intensity of rainfall events.

The freshwater specialist provided the following response to this comment:

Two aspects regarding the hydrology of the catchment are referred to in this section. The first refers to hydrological modelling of the runoff which was by means of WR90, WR2005 and WR2012. The modelled runoff for the catchment for these models has increased based on measured rainfall data for the area. The second aspect is the City rainfall grid (also measured rainfall data) which indicates even higher rainfalls than that indicated by the modelled data utilised by the Department of Water and Sanitation. The comments thus relate to increase in the existing measured rainfall data that has been utilised to determine the mean annual runoff for the dam and not the predicted climate change in rainfall for the area.



9

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE 3.3.7 Recommended

mitigation measures

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 • Key to the successful implementation of this proposal is to ensure that the environmental flow requirements for the downstream environment are met. The mitigation measures as proposed by the Freshwater Ecologist must be implemented which include that the flow requirements must be achieved passively rather than actively and that flow meter must be installed within the flow release mechanism to monitor flow releases. The flow releases should be audited on an annual basis and the report supplied to the relevant authorities.

• The stream corridor within the property, as well as the wetland offset areas must be rehabilitated.

These mitigation measures as recommended by the freshwater specialist have been included in the BAR and would be implemented should the proposed activity be authorised. It is also anticipated that these measures would be included as conditions in a Water Use Licence if the application in this regarded is approved, and that DWS would require annual independent audits of the records in this regard.

3.3.8 Activities and timing of River MMP

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 Activities to be undertaken i.t.o. the River Maintenance Management Plan should be pinned down to timeframes as much as possible. These activities and the timing thereof must take into account the ecological needs and life cycle of the Endangered Western Leopard Toad (WLT).

These comments have been noted. The River MMP restricts maintenance activities such that they should be undertaken during the low flow period. This would thus also address the concerns with regards to the needs and life cycle of the WLT in terms of not undertaking the activities within breeding season during the period July to November. Please also refer to Response 3.3.4 above.

3.3.8 WULA A Greenwood 2017.06.23 The application for a water use license should run concurrently to the NEMA process.

The WULA process is being undertaken in parallel to the BA process. Also refer to Response 1.3 above.

3.4 Comments from the Environmental Management Department: Heritage Resources Section 3.4.1 Compliance with

National Heritage Resources Act

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 As correctly identified in the report, the proposal triggers activities identified in terms of section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999. As a result, the applicant is required to obtain the Final Comment from the Provincial Heritage Authority i.e. Heritage Western Cape (HWC). A heritage specialist (Henry Aikman) was appointed to prepare the required Notification of Intent to Develop which has been submitted to HWC, however, the response from HWC is still awaited. HWC's response will either provide the necessary Final Comment or will request additional information required i.e. a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) as well as the specific concerns that the HIA must address. Although the response has not yet been received, a HIA (Aikman, May 2017) has already been prepared. The Heritage Resource Section (HRS) will comment in

These comments have been noted. The HIA was updated to cover the detail mentioned in these and other comments and includes comments from the CoCT’s Heritage Resources Section (see Appendix H3 of the BAR). The updated HIA was submitted to HWC for consideration (see Appendix H3).



10

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE more detail on the HIA once it has been circulated to HRS for comment as part of the HWC submission process, however, at this point in time the issues of concern are the loss of the historic water furrows, the impact the 12.5 m high dam wall will have not only on the Uitsig werf but also the Nova Constantia werf and the visual impact from the access road to the adjacent Buitenverwachting as well as from Nova Constantia Road. HRS will provide further comment once the HIA process has been finalised and the Final Comment from HWC has been received.

.5 Comments from the Catchment and Stormwater Management Office 3.5.1 Compliance with

the National Water Act

A Greenwood 2017.06.23 Herewith response from the Catchment and Stormwater Management Office (this office). • The information provided to this office indicates that the

proposed activity is not for developmental purposes (residential, industrial etc.) but primarily for irrigation (agricultural activities and garden) purposes.

• The proposed development does not trigger any Catchment and Stormwater Management Branch's polic[i]es namely; Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy and Floodplain and River Corridor Management, but does trigger the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998); therefore this application should be forwarded to the National Department of Water and Sanitation.

• A suitably qualified Engineering Professional must be engaged with by the developer to certify that the proposed expansion is in accordance with the National Water Act.

These comments have been noted. It can be confirmed that the proposed activity is for irrigation purposes in support of the agricultural activities on the farm. The proposed dam design has been undertaken by appropriately qualified engineering consultants. A WULA has been submitted in order to comply with the National Water Act and the process is being undertaken in parallel to the Basic Assessment process. Also refer to Responses 1.3 and 3.3.8 above.

4. COMMENTS FROM SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL PARKS: TABLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK (TMNP) 4.1 Covering email C Cheney 2017.06.23 Attached is a short comment from the Table Mountain

National Park. These comments have been noted.

4.2 Introduction C Cheney 2017.06.23 Proposed Expansion Of Existing Farm Dams On Uitsig Farm, Constantia (DEA&DP Ref. No: 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2017/17). Having reviewed [the] Executive Summary of the BAR




11

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE (May 2017), the Table Mountain National Park makes the following comments on the above mentioned application.

4.3 Property number C Cheney 2017.06.23 1. Property number. Nowhere in the Executive Summary is the actual property number listed. We assume it to be Erf 9795 Constantia.

Uitsig Farm comprises the remainder of Erf 9795 and Erf 3025, Constantia. This is indicated in the project description (see Section 3 of the Executive Summary and Section A1 and 2(b) of the BAR).

4.4 Support for responsible use of water resource

C Cheney 2017.06.23 2. The removal the pine plantation and on-going removal of alien vegetation within the Table Mountain National Park, on the eastern slopes of Constantiaberg Mountain, has seen an increase in water flow in many of the streams in this catchment. The Park supports the responsible use of this water resource and the improved socio-economic benefit that it would have on landowners adjacent to the Park.

The positive contribution of alien vegetation removal has been taken into consideration in the calculations of the available water supply in the relevant catchment area. The support for the responsible use of the available water resource has been noted.

4.5 Water source for fire fighting

C Cheney 2017.06.23 3. The Park requests that provision be made for the use of the enlarged dam as a source of water, if required, for fire-fighting activities in the area. This may include the filling of aerial fire-fighting ‘Bambi’ buckets as well as ground tankers.

The owner of Uitsig Farm has indicated his willingness to consider contributing to fire-fighting activities if necessary. The management of TMNP is welcome to approach them in this regard should approval for the expansion of the dams be obtained.

5. COMMENTS FROM CAPENATURE 5.1 Covering email R Smart 2017.07.07 Please can you forward on our comment on the Final Basic

Assessment Report to the relevant DEA&DP case officer? I was unable to find a reference to the relevant case officer.

The comment was forwarded to the DEA&DP case officer as requested.


R Smart 2017.07.07 CapeNature would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development and would like to make the following comments. Please note that our comments only pertain to the biodiversity related impacts and not to the overall desirability of the development. CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additional information that may be received.


5.3 No impacts on terrestrial biodiversity

R Smart 2017.07.07 The proposed footprint for the expansion of the three separate farms into one large dam does not contain any natural vegetation according to the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan and the Biodiversity Network for the City of Cape Town. This is verified by the freshwater specialist report and site photographs and we are satisfied

CapeNature’s confirmation that the proposed project would not result in any impacts on terrestrial biodiversity has been noted.



12

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE that there will not be any impacts on terrestrial biodiversity.

5.4 Potential improvement to freshwater environment

R Smart 2017.07.07 The three existing dams are located off-stream adjacent to the Grootboschkloof River. There are additionally wetlands associated with the watercourse. A freshwater specialist study has been undertaken which has described the freshwater environment on the property which has been significantly modified through agricultural activities over a very long period of time. As the proposed dam footprint will encompass existing wetlands, a wetland offset has been proposed in terms of the water use license application (WULA). This entails wetland rehabilitation in the areas directly downstream and around the periphery of the proposed dam. As the freshwater environment is currently highly modified and impacted, should the proposals be implemented as recommended, this can result in an improved ecological condition compared to the current status.

These comments, which reiterate the contents of the freshwater assessment, have been noted.

5.5 No objection and support for proposed rehabilitation

R Smart 2017.07.07 In conclusion, CapeNature does not object to the proposed development and supports the implementation of the wetland rehabilitation plan, environmental management plan and maintenance management plan.

The fact that CapeNature does not object to the proposed project as well as the support for the implementation of the proposed wetland rehabilitation, Construction EMP and River MMP have been noted.

ATTACHMENT A

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM COMMENTING AUTHORITIES

From: Du Buisson Neels Johannes (BVL)To: Ena de VilliersSubject: RE: Basic Assessment Report - Proposed expansion of farm dams on Uitsig Farm, Constantia ref DEADP

16/3/1/A6/2017/17Date: 26 June 2017 09:33:23 AMAttachments: image004.png

image005.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.png

Dear Ena De VilliersI do confirm that a water use license application was received by the Department and that the issueshighlighted in our comment will be addressed through theWater uses license application process.RegardsNeels du BuissonDepartment of Water & Sanitation, Private Bag X16, Sanlamhof, 7532.Telephone: 021 941 6012 Cell: 082 8022896 E-mail:[email protected]

From: Ena de Villiers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 12:22 PMTo: Du Buisson Neels Johannes (BVL)Cc: 'Hester Lyons'; A Belcher ([email protected])Subject: FW: Basic Assessment Report - Proposed expansion of farm dams on Uitsig Farm, Constantia Dear Mr Du Buisson I would like to confirm our telephone conversation today regarding the attached letter commentingon the BAR for the proposed expansion of farm dams on Uitsig Farm, Constantia, as follows:

The Department had received the Water Use Licence Application (WULA) and is in theprocess of considering it. Thus a pre-application meeting regarding the WULA process as wellas a site visit had already occurred. Thus issues raised in the comments are being handled aspart of the WULA, namely consideration of alternatives and environmental releasesassociated with in-stream dams, which are described in the WULA documentation. Themonthly water balance requested will be supplied to the Department for consideration aspart of the WULA process.

I would appreciate if you could please confirm the above by return email; you are of course welcometo amend any details if necessary. Many thanks and best regards,Ena

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Ena de VilliersEnvironmental Consultant-

+27 21 461 1118

[email protected]

SLR ConsultingSLR Consulting (Cape Town office)Unit 39, Roeland SquareCnr Roeland Street and Drury Lane, Cape Town, Western Cape, 8001-

Confidentiality Notice and DisclaimerThis communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusiveuse of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete theemail from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLRManagement Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated.

From: Du Buisson Neels Johannes (BVL) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 June 2017 10:28 AMTo: Ena de VilliersSubject: Basic Assessment Report Dear EnaHerewith attached our input on the BAR ref DEADP 16/3/1/A6/2017/17 as requested.RegardsNeels du BuissonDepartment of Water & Sanitation, Private Bag X16, Sanlamhof, 7532.Telephone: 021 941 6012 Cell: 082 8022896 E-mail:[email protected]

DISCLAIMER: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for theaddressee. If you have received this message in error, please notify the systemmanager/sender. Any unauthorized use, alteration or dissemination is prohibited. TheDepartment of Water and Sanitation further accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss,whether it be direct, indirect or consequential, arising from this e-mail, nor for anyconsequence of its use or storage.

ZAEXC1S

DISCLAIMER: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solelyfor the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please notify thesystem manager/sender. Any unauthorized use, alteration or dissemination isprohibited. The Department of Water and Sanitation further accepts no liabilitywhatsoever for any loss, whether it be direct, indirect or consequential, arising fromthis e-mail, nor for any consequence of its use or storage.

mailto:[email protected]://www.slrconsulting.com/http://www.twitter.com/http://www.slrconsulting.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

From: Andrew T SeptemberTo: Henry Aikman; Ena de VilliersCc: "Hannes Bouwer"Subject: RE: Constantia Uitsig Dam - follow-up on NIDDate: 19 June 2017 10:07:29 AMAttachments: S38 NID RESPONSE #17050209AS0515E.pdf

Dear Henry

See attached for the NID response.

Kind Regards

Andrew September (Heritage Officer)Heritage Western Cape3rd Floor Protea Assurance BuildingGreenmarket SquareCape Town8001

-----Original Message-----From: Henry Aikman [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 15 June 2017 03:08 PMTo: 'Ena de Villiers' Cc: 'Hannes Bouwer' ; Andrew T September

Subject: RE: Constantia Uitsig Dam - follow-up on NID

Case officer Andrew September has promised to send!!Henry

-----Original Message-----From: Ena de Villiers [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, 14 June 2017 9:10 AMTo: 'Henry Aikman'Cc: Hannes Bouwer ([email protected])Subject: FW: Constantia Uitsig Dam - follow-up on NID

Hi Henry

This is a follow-up enquiry regarding the HWC’s reaction to the NID; you submitted on 15 May thusyou should have received feedback by now in terms of the 3 weeks you indicated below? I am stillkeen that we have some form of consolidated feedback from HWC before the closure of the BARcomment period on 23 June 2017.

Thanks and best regards,Ena

From: Henry Aikman [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: 30 May 2017 05:09 PMTo: Ena de VilliersCc: 'Hannes Bouwer'Subject: RE: Constantia Uitsig Dam - feedback on updated HIA

Sorry nothing from HWC. They used to say that one could enquire after 10 days bur currently say 3weeks. I’ll keep trying. Best wishes Henry

From: Ena de Villiers [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 30 May 2017 9:39 AMTo: Henry AikmanCc: Hannes Bouwer ([email protected])Subject: RE: Constantia Uitsig Dam - feedback on updated HIA
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

From: Joy GarmanTo: Ena de VilliersSubject: FW: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA: NOTIFICATION

OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESSDate: 23 June 2017 09:00:51 AMAttachments: imagea71acb.PNG

image3a8d76.PNGimaged72735.PNGimage304715.PNGimaged49fd1.PNGimage005.pngConstantia Uitsig Dams BAR.pdf

Dear Ena Please find the City’s collated comments for the abovementioned application attached. Regards Joy GarmanSenior Environmental ProfessionalEnvironmental Management DepartmentEnvironmental and Heritage Management Branch

Ground floor, Plessey Building3 Victoria Road, Plumstead, 7800

T + 27 21 444 2606F + 27 21 444 3802

E [email protected] www.capetown.gov.za

From: Joy Garman Sent: 22 June 2017 12:29 PMTo: '[email protected]'Cc: Andy GreenwoodSubject: FW: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA:NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Dear Ena We will send through our comments tomorrow. Regards Joy GarmanSenior Environmental Professional

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.capetown.gov.za/

Environmental Management DepartmentEnvironmental and Heritage Management Branch

Ground floor, Plessey Building3 Victoria Road, Plumstead, 7800

T + 27 21 444 2606F + 27 21 444 3802

E [email protected] www.capetown.gov.za

From: Ena de Villiers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 June 2017 12:13 PMTo: Ena de VilliersSubject: FW: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA:NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Dear Sirs and Madam Please be reminded that the comment period for the above-mentioned proposed project closestomorrow, 23 June 2017, as per the below email message and attached notification letter. Thisemail notification was followed up with a covering letter and electronic copy (on CD) of the fullreport addressed to the relevant contact person and delivered to the physical address of eachcommenting authority. I would appreciate it if you would provide an email copy of your comment to this email address(in addition to a hard copy by post as the latter will reach us too late for inclusion in the finalBAR). Please feel free to contact me with any enquiries. Best regards,Ena de Villiers

Ena de VilliersEnvironmental Consultant-

+27 21 461 1118

mailto:[email protected]://www.capetown.gov.za/mailto:[email protected]

From: Chad CheneyTo: Ena de VilliersSubject: RE: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA: NOTIFICATION

OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESSDate: 23 June 2017 04:42:33 PMAttachments: image003.png

image005.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage010.pngimage011.pngimage012.pngBAR Erf 9795-Constantia SANParks.pdf

Good Day Ena,Attached is a short comment from the Table Mountain National Park,RegardsChad EIS CoordinatorPlanning Dept.Table Mountain National Park A Park For All, Forever...iPaka yoluntu lonke ngonaphakade…'n Park vir Almal, vir Altyd…(tel.) ++27 +21 712 0527www.TMNP.co.za

From: Ena de Villiers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 June 2017 12:13 PMTo: Ena de VilliersSubject: FW: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA:NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Dear Sirs and Madam Please be reminded that the comment period for the above-mentioned proposed project closestomorrow, 23 June 2017, as per the below email message and attached notification letter. Thisemail notification was followed up with a covering letter and electronic copy (on CD) of the fullreport addressed to the relevant contact person and delivered to the physical address of eachcommenting authority. I would appreciate it if you would provide an email copy of your comment to this email address(in addition to a hard copy by post as the latter will reach us too late for inclusion in the finalBAR). Please feel free to contact me with any enquiries. Best regards,Ena de Villiers

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.tmnp.co.za/mailto:[email protected]

TABLE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK Address:

P O Box 37 CONSTANTIA

7848 Tel: +27 021 701-0527 Fax: +27 021 701-8773 E-mail:[email protected]

Ref: TMNP01/ERF9795Con

23 June 2017 Via E-Mail: Ena de Villiers SLR Consulting (Pty) Ltd Unit 39, Roeland Square 30 Drury Lane, Cape Town, 8001 Telephone: (021) 461 1118/9 Facsimile: Fax: (021) 461 1120 Email: [email protected] Attention: Ena de Villiers Proposed Expansion Of Existing Farm Dams On Uitsig Farm, Constantia (DEA & DP Ref. No: 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2017/17). Having reviewed Executive Summary of the BAR (May 2017), the Table Mountain National Park makes the following comments on the above mentioned application. 1. Property number.

Nowhere in the Executive Summary is the actual property number listed. We assume it to be Erf 9795 Constantia.

2. The removal the pine plantation and on-going removal of alien vegetation within the Table Mountain National Park, on the eastern slopes of Constantiaberg Mountain, has seen an increase in water flow in many of the streams in this catchment. The Park supports the responsible use of this water resource and the improved socio-economic benefit that it would have on landowners adjacent to the Park.

3. The Park requests that provision be made for the use of the enlarged dam as a source of water, if required, for fire-fighting activities in the area. This may include the filling of aerial fire-fighting ‘Bambi’ buckets as well as ground tankers.

Regards Chad Cheney For: Manager Planning

From: Rhett SmartTo: Mandy KulaCc: Ena de VilliersSubject: RE: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA: SUBMISSION OF

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORTDate: 07 July 2017 05:57:16 PMAttachments: image002.png

image003.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.png13029_dam_Constantia_20170707.pdf

Importance: High

Dear Mandy Please can you forward on our comment on the Final Basic Assessment Report to the relevantDEA&DP case officer. I was unable to find a reference to the relevant case officer. Also, just to clarify, should we address all correspondence to SLR Consulting? Does CCAEnvironmental still exist? I have noticed for the past few years it was interchangeable, based onthe project. Regards Rhett

From: Mandy Kula [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 July 2017 03:40 PMTo: Mandy Kula Subject: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA:SUBMISSION OF BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT Dear Sirs and Madams

PROPOSED EXPANSION OF EXISTING FARM DAMS ON UITSIG FARM, CONSTANTIA (DEA&DPREF. NO: 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2017/17): SUBMISSION OF BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

We refer to the above-mentioned project and to our previous notification dated 22 May 2017regarding the availability of a Basic Assessment Report (BAR) for public review and comment.

After closure of the comment period on the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) on 23 June 2017 thereport was updated to a Final BAR, taking comments received into account. The Final BAR hasnow been submitted to DEA&DP for decision-making. The Final BAR, including Comments andResponses Reports, has been made available on our website for information purposes, at thefollowing link: http://slrconsulting.com/za/slr-documents/uitsig-farm-constantia. Best regards, -

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://slrconsulting.com/za/slr-documents/uitsig-farm-constantia

The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board trading as CapeNature

Board Members: Ms Merle McOmbring-Hodges (Chairperson), Dr Colin Johnson (Vice Chairperson), Mr Mervyn Burton, Prof Denver Hendricks,

Dr Bruce McKenzie, Adv Mandla Mdludlu, Mr Danie Nel, Prof Aubrey Redlinghuis, Mr Paul Slack

SLR Consulting P.O. Box 10145 Caledon Square 7905

Attention: Mandy Kula By email: [email protected] Dear Mandy Final Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Expansion of Existing Dams on Erf 13029, Constantia Uitsig Wine Estate, Constantia, Cape Town (DEA&DP ref. no. 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2017/17)

CapeNature would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development and would like to make the following comments. Please note that our comments only pertain to the biodiversity related impacts and not to the overall desirability of the development. The proposed footprint for the expansion of the three separate farms into one large dam does not contain any natural vegetation according to the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan and the Biodiversity Network for the City of Cape Town. This is verified by the freshwater specialist report and site photographs and we are satisfied that there will not be any impacts on terrestrial biodiversity. The three existing dams are located off-stream adjacent to the Grootboschkloof River. There are additionally wetlands associated with the watercourse. A freshwater specialist study has been undertaken which has described the freshwater environment on the property which has been significantly modified through agricultural activities over a very long period of time. As the proposed dam footprint will encompass existing wetlands, a wetland offset has been proposed in terms of the water use license application (WULA). This entails wetland rehabilitation in the areas directly downstream and around the periphery of the proposed dam. As the freshwater environment is currently highly modified and impacted, should the proposals be implemented as recommended, this can result in an improved ecological condition compared to the current status. In conclusion, CapeNature does not object to the proposed development and supports the implementation of the wetland rehabilitation plan, environmental management plan and maintenance management plan CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additional information that may be received.

SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

postal Private Bag X5014 Stellenbosch 7599

physical Assegaaibosch Nature Reserve Jonkershoek

website www.capenature.co.za

enquiries Rhett Smart

telephone +27 21 866 8000 fax +27 21 866 1523

email [email protected]

reference SSD14/2/6/1/4/5/13029_dam_Constantia

date 7 July 2017

mailto:[email protected]

Yours sincerely

Rhett Smart For: Manager (Scientific Services)

The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board trades as CapeNature

The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board trading as CapeNature Board Members: Ms Merle McOmbring-Hodges (Chairperson), Dr Colin Johnson (Vice Chairperson), Mr Mervyn Burton, Prof Denver Hendricks,

Dr Bruce McKenzie, Adv Mandla Mdludlu, Mr Danie Nel, Prof Aubrey Redlinghuis, Mr Paul Slack

SLR Consulting P.O. Box 10145 Caledon Square 7905 Attention: Mandy Kula By email: [email protected] Dear Mandy Final Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Expansion of Existing Dams on Erf 13029, Constantia Uitsig Wine Estate, Constantia, Cape Town (DEA&DP ref. no. 16/3/3/1/A6/16/2017/17) CapeNature would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development and would like to make the following comments. Please note that our comments only pertain to the biodiversity related impacts and not to the overall desirability of the development. The proposed footprint for the expansion of the three separate farms into one large dam does not contain any natural vegetation according to the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan and the Biodiversity Network for the City of Cape Town. This is verified by the freshwater specialist report and site photographs and we are satisfied that there will not be any impacts on terrestrial biodiversity. The three existing dams are located off-stream adjacent to the Grootboschkloof River. There are additionally wetlands associated with the watercourse. A freshwater specialist study has been undertaken which has described the freshwater environment on the property which has been significantly modified through agricultural activities over a very long period of time. As the proposed dam footprint will encompass existing wetlands, a wetland offset has been proposed in terms of the water use license application (WULA). This entails wetland rehabilitation in the areas directly downstream and around the periphery of the proposed dam. As the freshwater environment is currently highly modified and impacted, should the proposals be implemented as recommended, this can result in an improved ecological condition compared to the current status. In conclusion, CapeNature does not object to the proposed development and supports the implementation of the wetland rehabilitation plan, environmental management plan and maintenance management plan CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additional information that may be received.

SCIENTIFIC SERVICES postal Private Bag X5014 Stellenbosch 7599 physical Assegaaibosch Nature Reserve Jonkershoek website www.capenature.co.za enquiries Rhett Smart telephone +27 21 866 8000 fax +27 21 866 1523 email [email protected] reference SSD14/2/6/1/4/5/13029_dam_Constantia date 7 July 2017

mailto:[email protected]

Yours sincerely

Rhett Smart For: Manager (Scientific Services)

The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board trades as CapeNature

APPENDIX F5

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT 2 – INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES


SLR Ref. 7TS.13069.00001 October 2017 Comments and Responses Report 2 – I&APs

1

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT 2 – INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&APs)

As stated in Section C of the Basic Assessment Report, an Application for Environmental Authorisation for the proposed project was initially submitted in March 2017. The prescribed public participation process was undertaken in respect to the Basic Assessment (BA) process, whereafter the final BAR was submitted to DEA&DP. The Application subsequently had to be withdrawn on 20 October 2017 as it was not possible to submit the final comment from Heritage Western Cape (HWC) in response to the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) within the authority timeline of 107-days provided for in the EIA legislation. As the project proposal remains unchanged, the public participation undertaken in respect to the initial Application remains relevant to the new Application and is thus regarded as a pre-application process for the purposes of new application process. This Comments and Responses Report presents the issues raised by I&APs and responses thereto. Written submissions were received from the following I&APs:

SUBMITTED BY METHOD AND DATE Other I&APs 1. Buitenverwachting –Lars Maack Email – 22 May 2017 2. Badgemore Homeowners Association (HOA) – Dr PJ Alberts

and Ross Holing Letter submitted by email – 30 May 2017 and 8 June 2017

3. Zandvlei Trust –Gary Lawson Email – 22 June 2017 4. Mary and John Drake Email – 23 June 2017 5. Constantia Ratepayers’ & Residents’ Association – John Hesom Letter submitted by email – 23 June 2017 6. Constantia Ratepayers’ & Residents’ Association – John Hesom Letter submitted by email – 22 August 2017

Copies of the written comments are attached as Attachment A to this report, arranged according to the order indicated in the table above. The comments received are presented in Table 1 below and have been categorised as follows:

1. Support/opposition. 2. Potential impacts on freshwater ecosystems and habitats. 3. Rationale for dam expansion. 4. Potential impact on groundwater. 5. Diverse issues. 6. General/administration

No importance should be given to the order in which the categories are presented.



2

Table 1: Summary table of comments received on the draft BAR, with responses from SLR and the project technical team, as appropriate

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE 1. SUPPORT / OPPOSITION 1.1 Full support L Maack,

Buitenverwachting 2017.05.22 I am in full support of the proposed Uitsig dam. Do you

require any documentation from us as neighbours confirming our approval?

SLR acknowledged receipt of the comment and responded by e-mail on 24 May 2017, as follows:

“While the comment you provided will be included in the comments report we will prepare after the closure of the comment period, you are welcome to submit a more formal response to confirm your support.”

1.2 Opposition PJ Alberts & R Holing, Badgemore Homeowners Association (HOA)

2017.05.30 The Badgemore Estate (comprised of 17 homeowners) strongly [o]pposes the above planned development for the following reasons: [Note: The listed reasons have been included in relevant categories below. Original numbering as in the letter has been retained for easy reference.]

This comment has been noted. We have provided responses to the concerns and issues raised in relevant categories below.

1.3 Cannot support the application

John Hesom, CRRA

2017.06.23 At this stage [we] cannot support the application, however we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this aspect further with the relevant consultants.

Responses are provided responses to the concerns and issues raised in relevant categories below. The dam engineer subsequently met with representatives of CRRA for further discussion as requested, whereafter CRRA formally indicated their support for the application – see Comment 1.4 below.

1.4 Support for the application

John Hesom, CRRA

2017.06.23 Our letter of 23 June 2017 in which we did not support the application refers. Subsequent to that letter, this Association has had further consultations with experts in the field of dam engineering and their professionals and we are satisfied with the recommendations contained in your Basic Assessment Report. We hereby withdraw our letter of 23 June 2017 and support the application.

These comments have been noted

2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS AND HABITATS A number of comments received relate to the potential impact of the proposed dam expansion on the freshwater ecosystems and habitats on the farm as such, on the river system immediately downstream of the proposed dam as well as on the broader context of the catchment area. A detailed response is provided here which presents key information included in the BAR that cover these aspects. More detail has been provided to specific comments below where necessary. Potential impact on the Grootboschkloof Tributary and associated wetlands on Uitsig Farm: It is important to recognise the historical background and current context of Uitsig Farm as one of the few remaining wine farms which form the agricultural core of the Constantia-Tokai Valley. It is zoned for agriculture and is located just outside of the urban edge. As such it forms part of the Cape Winelands Cultural Landscape, a Grade 1 Heritage Site. Due to its historical and cultural significance, attempts by previous owners to subdivide the farm for urban development were unsuccessful. The current owners are in the process of



3

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE redeveloping the farm in order to restore it to a productive and economically viable wine farm. This redevelopment of the farm is in line with the development planning policies and objectives at provincial, municipal and local district level, which focus on the cultural, tourism and recreational value of the conservation of agriculture in the Constantia-Tokai Valley and its significance as a productive viticulture area and tourist attraction. As described in the HIA appended to the BAR (see Appendix D2), Uitsig Farm had been cultivated since 1685 and was eventually subdivided from Buitenverwachting in 1914. Cultivation initially centred on areas along tributaries of the Spaanschemat and Diep Rivers and the rivers themselves. The farming pattern the early settlers followed was to create straight perched furrows for flood irrigation of crops with water diverted from the streams and rivers by means of weirs. The consequence was that the original streams were narrowed and straightened while the riparian zones and wetland areas were transformed to farmland and/or largely degraded. This pattern persisted on Uitsig Farm until well into the previous century. In 1983 kikuyu grass replaced vineyards to serve as paddocks in the valley as part of the establishment of an equestrian estate. New owners sought to re-establish the farm as a wine estate in 1988. Subsequently, the stream and wetlands in the valley have not been rehabilitated. Thus the Grootboschkloof Tributary remains a modified fairly narrow incised channel with a largely modified riparian zone as a result of the removal of the riparian vegetation and its replacement with alien invasive plant species. The majority of the wetland areas are also considered to be in a moderately to largely modified ecological state due to cultivation activities upstream and within the wetland areas. Only the hillslope seep wetland north of the stream remains in a largely natural ecological state. The fact that the valley bottom wetland and semi-natural seep wetland areas associated with the Grootboschkloof Tributary are mapped as Critical Ecological Support Areas in the City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network highlights the need to restore degraded portions so as to improve ecological functioning and manage for reduced levels of impact on remaining natural systems in pursuit of the objective to maintain these areas as natural ecosystems. Against the above background, it is proposed to rehabilitate the stream within the property and to establish new wetland habitat within the stream corridor upstream and downstream of the proposed dam. This would offset the wetland habitat loss as a result of the proposed dam and restore the degraded watercourse to an improved ecological state. It should be emphasised that the recommended wetland offset areas would exceed the wetland offset targets and thus there will be no nett loss of wetlands (refer to Table 24 and Section 11.3 of the Freshwater Impact Assessment Report in Appendix D1 of the BAR). Thus the potential impact of loss of wetland and riparian habitat and modification of the bed and banks of the Grootboschkloof Tributary would be of LOW (POSITIVE) significance after mitigation. This improved wetland ecosystems on Uitsig Farm would provide a bigger and more protected environment that would be sensitive to the Western Leopard Toad as well as other wetland species and other aquatic biota. Potential impact on the river system downstream of Uitsig Farm: As a tributary of the Grootboschkloof River, the stream traversing Uitsig Farm partially contributes to the flow in this larger river. Ongoing abstraction throughout the river catchment as well as a drier than usual preceding winter and summer have resulted in the current low flows. The purpose of the proposed dam is to store higher winter flows for use in summer. It would also serve the purpose of reducing winter high flows that pose a flood risk for downstream residents as it would operate as a flood retention structure which would control possible flooding to the residential area downstream of the dam. During summer the environmental flow requirements that have been determined for the stream would ensure that the environmental water needs of the stream downstream of the dam are met. The regime of automated flow releases in accordance with the environmental flow requirements would ensure that constant flows are maintained. This would provide the seasonal flows required in order to sustain the freshwater ecosystem. Potential impact on the broader catchment area: The tributary has a small catchment area of approximately 3.1 km and thus only has a small contribution to the broader Zandvlei catchment of approximately 92 km ². To the extent that it does, its contribution is anticipated to improve with the regularised environmental flow releases from the proposed dam. It is clearly stated in Section B4(b) of the BAR that the main freshwater feature on site is the lower reach of a tributary of the Grootboschkloof River, which discharges within the Spaanschemat River within the Diep/Sand River system, and that



4

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE Uitsig Farm is located within the G22D quaternary catchment as defined by the Department of Water & Sanitation (DWS). The stream and associated wetlands are described in detail in the Freshwater Impact Assessment Report (see Appendix D1). 2.1 Potential aquatic

impacts PJ Alberts & R Holing, Badgemore HOA

2017.05.30 1. The potential impact and loss of habitat to the wetland ecosystem which harbors Leopard Toad breeding areas and many other species of indigenous wildlife.

2. Stagnation of the wetland and impact on the surrounding landscape / aesthetics. The current flow of the Grootboschkloof River has been seriously threatened recently.

3. Downstream habitat interruption from Constantia to Sandvlei.

The overarching response covers all these aspects.

2.2 Zandvlei Catchment

G Lawson, Zandvlei Trust

2017.06.22 The following comment is on behalf of the Zandvlei Trust. 1. In the BAR Executive summary; item 4. Affected

Environment. "No Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area wetlands or river catchments were identified within the Uitsig Farm area." The Zandvlei Catchment is a well defined network of river systems feeding into Zandvlei (Muizenberg). It has a Management Plan under the City of Cape Town, the responsible authority. It has had an operational Catchment Forum since 1998. All the Constantia wine farms have been consistently invited to the Zandvlei Catchment Forum meetings and only a Buitenverwachting representative attended a couple of meetings during the mid 2000's. Uitsig Farm and its streams, rivers and wetlands definitely falls within the Zandvlei Catchment. It is well known that the collective "Constantia wine farm" practices and "new developments" high up on the slopes of the Peninsula have caused many tons of top soil to wash off into the catchment river systems for years and into Zandvlei which is Protected Estuary Nature Reserve.

The referenced sentence simply states that Uitsig Farm itself does not contain any Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPA) wetlands or subcatchments in terms of the National FEPA mapping system which assigns priority status to freshwater features. As such it does not intend to describe the broader context of the catchment area within which the stream and wetlands on Uitsig Farm is located. The rehabilitation and maintenance of riparian zones and associated wetland areas upstream and downstream of the dam is expected to reduce the potential for sedimentation (see Appendix J, Section 1.2.3 of the BAR). As mentioned above, the catchment of the stream that runs through Uitsig Farm is 3.1 km² in extent. This is a very small area of the larger catchment of 92 km² that feeds into Zandvlei. Thus, should there be any sediment generated, which as indicated above is not expected, it would be a very small end contribution of what originates across the larger catchment. The proposed dam would act as a sediment sink for its upstream catchment and would thus reduce the sediment load from the catchment upstream of the property on the downstream aquatic ecosystem. In



5

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE There is numerous photographic evidence of the colour of the clay soils suspended in the waters of Zandvlei during winter rainfall runoffs. This adds to the silting up of Zandvlei which is steadily becoming shallower and less viable for the water sport and recreational users, including all the living organisms which make up the estuary. Dredging is being discussed currently and the Rand costs are high for the full removal of these sediments via the appropriate responsible systems. It also effects the natural environment of the waterbody inhabitants. Zandvlei is well known to have a large annual nursery of White Steenbras fish stock. This is an important nursery for the National coastal fisheries. This is just one example of how an activity which occurs further up in a catchment can impact further down and especially in an estuary which is a complex living system.

addition, the wetland areas would be created both upstream and downstream of the proposed dam to reduce sedimentation and erosion impacts associated with the site.

2.3 Low flow management for downstream catchment


2017.06.22 2. Concerns [Note: The listed concerns reasons have been included in relevant categories; original numbering as in the submission has been retained for easy reference.] 1. Most important in priority is the low flow management

and flow outlet of the dam for the downstream catchment.

• Who will be responsible for keeping the accurate long term records of the suggested outflows for the low flow periods in the season?

• Where will these be recorded, backed up in digital format and available to be audited by a responsible authority?

The Zandvlei Catchment Forum would like annual access to these records if the proposed dam building is granted.

The River MMP and operational rules of the dam describe the measures the landowner must implement in relation to environmental flow management and the monitoring thereof. Detail regarding monitoring and recordkeeping of environmental flow requirements would be included as conditions in a Water Use Licence (WUL) if DWS approves the application. The WUL is also expected to require an annual independent audit of the prescribed record keeping to ensure compliance with the conditions. The Zandvlei Catchment Forum is welcome to request access to these records from the landowners should approval for the expansion of the dams be obtained.

2.4 River Management Plan


2017.06.22 2. It is important to implement a Management Plan for the river system on the farm property, which deals with the removal of all invasive alien vegetation and

The River MMP provides for ongoing maintenance of the river system on the farm. The removal of alien vegetation is included as stipulated in Sectons 6.1 and



6

NO. ISSUE NAME DATE COMMENT RESPONSE have it incorporated into the written Farm Management Plan, as a working document. Does the farm have such a written working document? When was it last reviewed and updated, if so?

Annexure 1 of the River MMP (see Appendix G2). Also refer to Response 5.2 below.

2.5 Grootbosch Tributary downstream of Uitsig Farm

M & J Drake, Camelia Close

2017.06.23 We are particularly interested in the Freshwater Ecology aspects of the BAR downstream of Uitsig Farm both during the construction and operational phases and the need to keep Grootbosch Tributary stream clear of alien vegetation, clean and flowing.

Please refer to the detailed response above. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Construction EMP includes specific measures to prevent and limit construction-phase impacts on Camelia Close.

2.6 Impact further downstream

J Hesom, CRRA 2017.06.23 It is our contention that the effect of the dam and the decreased volume available in the riverine system below the dam is not sufficiently addressed in this application. Flushing of the riverine system is not addressed. The effect on the wetlands is described only close to the dam and at the time of construction of the dam. This water feeds into wetlands which gave name to Bergvliet and remains, together with “Die Oog”, an important ecological and historical part of the valley.

Please refer to the general response above. The Freshwater Assessment Report states that the storage of the proposed dam would equate to approximately 16% of the Mean Annual Runoff for the catchment of the tributary. The dam is thus likely to spill in winter a

Documents

APPENDIX F PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - SLR Consulting · Dear Camelia Close Resident As you are aware, the owners of Uitsig Farm, located on Erf 3025 and Erf 9795, Constantia, Meerenhof