FRESHWATER RESOURCE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE WATER USE LICENSE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED OUTFALL SEWER NETWORK IN HELDERFONTEIN, NEAR MIDRAND, GAUTENG PROVINCE

Prepared for

Nali Sustainable Solutions (Pty) Ltd

March 2017 Revised December 2017

Prepared by: Scientific Aquatic Services Report author: A. Mileson Report reviewer: S. van Staden (Pr. Sci. Nat) Report reference: SAS 217025 Date: March 2017 Revised: December 2017

Scientific Aquatic Services CC CC Reg No 2003/078943/23 Vat Reg. No. 4020235273 PO Box 751779 Gardenview 2047 Tel: 011 616 7893 Fax: 086 724 3132 E-mail: [email protected] SAS 217025 March 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Based on the findings of the freshwater resource assessment and the results of the risk assessment, it is the opinion of the ecologist that although the proposed development poses a risk to a portion of the wetland systems (i.e. where the linear development will cross the systems) and may potentially impact negatively on a very small portion of the riparian zone associated with the Jukskei River, these risks can be satisfactorily mitigated. Adherence to cogent, well-conceived and ecologically sensitive site development plans, and the mitigation measures provided in this report as well as general good construction practice, will greatly reduce the significance of perceived impacts.

It is the opinion of the specialist therefore that the proposed linear development, from a freshwater resource conservation perspective, be considered favourably, with the proviso that strict adherence to mitigation measures is enforced, in order to ensure that the ecological integrity of the freshwater resources is not further compromised.

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Scientific Aquatic Services (SAS) was appointed to conduct a freshwater resource ecological assessment as part of the Water Use License Application (WULA) requirements for the proposed sewer network in Helderfontein, near Midrand, within the Gauteng Province. The planned sewer network comprises two options, specifically Outfall Sewer Option 1 and Outfall Sewer Option 2 (preferred by the proponent), which will henceforth collectively be referred to as the “study area”. The study area is situated immediately south of Erling Road, immediately east of the R511 roadway, approximately 830m east of the Dainfern Valley and 2.3 km south west of the Kyalami Agricultural Holdings (AH). The study area is located within a moderately developed area, with the immediate surrounding areas comprising mainly residential cluster developments and open degraded veld areas. The Jukskei River, a perennial river system, is situated along the entire Outfall Sewer Option 2.

The purpose of this report is to define the ecology of the study area in terms of freshwater resource characteristics, mapping of the freshwater resource, defining areas of increased Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS), and to define the Present Ecological State (PES) of the freshwater resource associated with the study area, as well as to define the socio-cultural and ecological service provision of the freshwater resource and the Recommended Ecological Category (REC) for the freshwater resource. It is a further objective of this study to provide detailed information to guide the proposed project activities in the vicinity of the freshwater resource, to ensure that the ongoing functioning of the ecosystem, such that local and regional conservation requirements and the provision of ecological services in the local area are supported while considering the need for sustainable economic development.

The assessment took the following approach:  A desktop study was conducted, in which possible wetlands/freshwater resources were identified for on-site investigation, and relevant national and provincial databases were consulted. The results of the desktop study are contained in Section 3 of this report;  A field assessment took place in early March 2016, in order to ground-truth the identified freshwater resources within the study area. Three watercourses were identified and classified according to the classification system (Ollis, et al.,2013) within the study area; and  The detailed results of the field assessment are contained in Section 4 of this report and are summarised in the table below.

ii SAS 217025 March 2017

Table A: Summary of the results of the field assessment Recommended Freshwater Present Ecological Ecological function Ecological Importance Ecological Class Resource State (PES) Category and service provision and Sensitivity (EIS) (REC) Eastern wetland E Intermediate C – moderate EIS D system Northern wetland C/D Intermediate C – moderate EIS C system Jukskei River E (IHI) and D (VEGRAI) Intermediate C – moderate EIS D

Following the assessment of the freshwater resources associated with the study area, a risk assessment was performed to ascertain the significance of potential impacts on the receiving environment, and should the proposed linear development proceed. The risk assessment was undertaken based on the revised layout provided by the proponent. In addition, the risk assessment was undertaken based on the assumption that the strict enforcement of well-developed mitigation measures will be implemented throughout all phases of the proposed development. The results of the risk assessment are presented in Section 5 and Appendix F of this report, and are summarised in Tables B and C following the discussion below. Based on the findings of the risk assessment, several recommended mitigation measures are made to minimise the impact on the wetland ecology, as discussed in Section 5 and Appendix F of this report. Key measures include (but are not limited to):  Whilst both Option 1 and Option 2 will impact on the northern wetland system, Option 2 will have a marginally lower impact on the system as it is adjacent to an existing road, and therefore is the “preferred” option;  Areas which are to be cleared of vegetation, including contractor laydown areas, must remain as small as possible, in order to reduce the risk of proliferation of alien vegetation, and in order to retain a level of protection to the freshwater resources during construction (e.g. sediment trapping, slowing of stormwater runoff etc.). Contractor laydown areas are to remain outside of the delineated wetland and riparian zones and their associated buffers, and as much as feasible no natural/indigenous wetland vegetation is to be cleared. It is highly recommended that an alien vegetation management plan be compiled during the planning phase and implemented concurrently with the commencement of construction;  A soil management plan must be compiled during planning, and implemented when construction commences. It is essential that the following be included in the soil management plan:  All exposed soils are to be protected for the duration of the construction phase with a suitable geotextile (e.g. Geojute or hessian sheeting) in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation of the freshwater resources. This is considered essential as the soils in the vicinity are highly dispersive;  No stockpiling of soils is to take place within the wetlands, riparian zone, or associated buffer zones, and stockpiles may not exceed 2m in height; and  Any remaining soils following the completion of construction activities are to be levelled and re-seeded with indigenous flora species to minimise the risk of further sedimentation of the wetland, and to aid in the natural reclamation process.  The pipeline must be encased in precast concrete at the pipe jacked crossing points;  All manholes are to be raised above the 1:100 year floodline; and  Upon the completion of construction the pipeline must be pressure tested. Based on the findings of the freshwater resource assessment and the results of the risk assessment, it is the opinion of the ecologist that although the proposed development poses a risk to a portion of the wetland systems (i.e. where the linear development will cross the systems) and may potentially impact negatively on a very small portion of the riparian zone associated with the Jukskei River, these risks can be satisfactorily mitigated. Adherence to cogent, well-conceived and ecologically sensitive site development plans, and the mitigation measures provided in this report as well as general good construction practice, will greatly reduce the significance of perceived impacts. It is the opinion of the specialist therefore that the proposed linear development, from a freshwater resource conservation perspective, be considered favourably, with the proviso that strict adherence to mitigation measures is enforced, in order to ensure that the ecological integrity of the freshwater resources is not further compromised.

iii SAS 217025 March 2017

Table B: Summary of the results of the risk assessment applied to the Jukskei River.

No. Phases Activity Impact Risk Rating 1 Site clearing prior to commencement of construction Exposure of soils, leading to increased runoff and erosion, and thus increased sedimentation of the river. activities. Increased sedimentation of instream habitat, leading to smothering of aquatic biota and potentially altering surface water quality. L Decreased ecoservice provision. Damage to vegetation, leading to exposed/compacted soils, in turn leading to increased runoff and erosion. Decreased ecoservice provision. L Decreased ability to support biodiversity. 2 Groundbreaking, excavation of trench within the Disturbances of soils leading to increased alien vegetation proliferation, and in turn to further altered riparian habitat. riparian zone Altered runoff patterns, leading to increased erosion and sedimentation of aquatic/riparian habitat. L

3 Construction of a sewer pipeline within the riparian Sedimentation of watercourse zone and the 1:100 year floodline of the Jukskei Erosion of the exposed trench L River, but excluding encroachment of the bed and Removal of vegetation and disturbance of soils, which may enable the recruitment of alien and invasive vegetation banks 4 Potential indiscriminate waste disposal Altered flow regime as a result of solid wastes within the active channel of the river. L Altered water quality due to chemical waste disposal 5 Potential spillage from construction vehicles Possible contamination of riparian soils and water, leading to reduced ability to support biodiversity L

Construction

6 Operations and maintenance of proposed linear Potential contamination of riparian soils, groundwater and surface water L development (i.e. sewer outfall pipeline) within the *Vehicular access to the pipeline resulting in: riparian zone - Soil compaction - Vegetation degradation - Soil and stormwater contamination from oils and hydrocarbons L *Contamination of the riparian zone or the associated aquatic habitat with additional sewage effluent resulting in: - Increased concentration of salts, nitrate and toxic ammonia concentrations, as well as counts of Escheria coli - Potential eutrophication of the system, including anoxic conditions, leading to biodiversity simplification and the excess production of hydrogen sulphide gas as well as increased alien and invasive species encroachment Impacts as per activity 1 and 2 above as applicable depending upon the location of the leak L *Latent impactsː The installed infrastructure will be permanent, and pose an increased risk over time in terms of the concrete weakening and cracking leading to leakages of the sewage. This may result in inputs of sewage effluent entering the aquatic system, and the following impacts: - Increased concentration of salts, nitrate and toxic ammonia concentrations, as well as counts of Escheria coli L - Potential eutrophication of the system, including anoxic conditions, leading to biodiversity simplification and the excess production of hydrogen sulphide gas as well as increased alien and invasive species encroachment.

7 *Cumulative impactː Increased urban development in the area will likely place increased pressure upon the sewerage infrastructure (including the capacity of the receiving waste water treatment works) and may result in overflows from the manholes, and potentially compromise the integrity of the pipeline L itself. This may result in inputs of sewage effluent entering the aquatic system, and impacts similar to those in Activity 6.

iv SAS 217025 March 2017

Table C: Summary of the results of the risk assessment applied to the eastern and northern wetland systems.

No.

Risk Risk

Rating

Impact

Phases Phases

Activity

1 Site clearing prior to commencement of Exposure of soils, leading to increased runoff and erosion, and thus increased sedimentation of the wetlands. construction activities. Increased sedimentation of wetland habitat, leading to smothering of biota and potentially altering surface water quality. M Decreased ecoservice provision.

Damage to vegetation, leading to exposed/compacted soils, in turn leading to increased runoff and erosion. Decreased ecoservice provision.

M Decreased ability to support biodiversity.

2 Groundbreaking, excavation of trench within the Disturbances of soils leading to increased alien vegetation proliferation, and in turn to further altered wetland habitat. M wetland zones Altered runoff patterns, leading to increased erosion and sedimentation of wetland habitat.

3 Construction Construction of a sewer pipeline within the Sedimentation of wetlands. wetland systems Erosion of the exposed trench. M Removal of vegetation and disturbance of soils, which may enable the recruitment of alien and invasive vegetation. 4 Potential indiscriminate waste disposal Altered flow regime as a result of solid wastes within the wetlands. M Altered water quality due to chemical waste disposal. 5 Potential spillage from construction vehicles Possible contamination of wetland soils and water, leading to reduced ability to support biodiversity M

6 Operations and maintenance of proposed linear Potential contamination of wetland soils, groundwater and surface water L development (i.e. sewer outfall pipeline) within *Vehicular access to the pipeline resulting in: the wetland systems - Soil compaction - Vegetation degradation

- Soil and stormwater contamination from oils and hydrocarbons *Contamination of the wetlands with additional sewage effluent resulting in: L - Increased concentration of salts, nitrate and toxic ammonia concentrations, as well as counts of Escheria coli - Potential eutrophication of the system, including anoxic conditions, leading to biodiversity simplification and the excess production of hydrogen sulphide gas as well as increased alien and invasive species encroachment. Impacts as per activity 1 and 2 above as applicable depending upon the location of the leak L

v SAS 217025 March 2017

DOCUMENT GUIDE

Relevant section in report Details of the specialist who prepared the report Appendix G The expertise of that person to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae Appendix G A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority Appendix G An indication of the scope of work, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared Section 1.2 Assumptions and limitations Section 1.3 A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report Appendix C The specific identified sensitivity of the site Section 4 Indicators considered during wetland delineation and parameters adopted in allocating a buffer for the resource Section 4 A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the construction activities, including identified alternatives, on the environment Section 5 Management and mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 5 and Appendix F

Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation Section 5 and Appendix F Conclusion and opinion based on the results and impact assessments Section 6 References utilised for this study Section 7 Indemnity and terms of use of the report Appendix A Legislative requirements Appendix B Present Ecological State (PES), Ecoservices and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) results Appendix E

vi SAS 217025 March 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii DOCUMENT GUIDE ...... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii LIST OF TABLES ...... viii GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... ix ACRONYMS ...... xi 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ...... 5 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 6 1.4 Legislative Requirements and Provincial Guidelines ...... 7 2 ASSESSMENT APPROACH ...... 7 2.1 Freshwater Resource Field Verification ...... 7 2.2 Sensitivity Mapping ...... 8 2.3 Risk Assessment and Recommendations...... 9 3 RESULTS OF THE DESKTOP ANALYSIS ...... 9 3.1 Ecological status of sub-quaternary catchments [Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Resource Quality Services (RQS) PES/EIS database] ...... 16 4 RESULTS: FRESHWATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ...... 19 4.1 Freshwater Resource System Characterisation ...... 19 4.2 Field Verification Results ...... 21 4.3 Delineation and Sensitivity Mapping ...... 30 4.3.1 Delineation ...... 30 4.3.2 Legislative Requirements, national and provincial guidelines pertaining to the application of buffer zones ...... 30 5 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 35 5.1 Risk Analyses ...... 35 5.1.1 Consideration of impacts and application of mitigation measures ...... 35 5.1.2 Impact discussion and essential mitigation measures...... 37 6 CONCLUSION ...... 45 7 REFERENCES ...... 47 APPENDIX A – Terms of Use and Indemnity ...... 49 APPENDIX B – Legislation ...... 50 APPENDIX C – Method of Assessment ...... 51 APPENDIX D – Risk Assessment Methodology ...... 60 APPENDIX E – Results of Field Investigation ...... 64 APPENDIX F – Risk Analysis and Mitigation Measures ...... 71 APPENDIX G – Specialist information ...... 73

vii SAS 217025 March 2017

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: A digital satellite image depicting the location of the study and investigation areas in relation to the surrounding area...... 3 Figure 2: The study and investigation areas depicted on a 1:50 000 topographical map in relation to the surrounding area...... 4 Figure 3: The natural and artificial wetland features associated with the study area according to the NFEPA Database (NFEPA, 2011)...... 11 Figure 4: The Jukskei River associated with the study area according to the NFEPA Database (NFEPA, 2011)...... 12 Figure 5: A Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) associated with the study area according to the Gauteng C-Plan V3.3. (2011)...... 13 Figure 6: River and wetland buffers associated with the study area according to the Gauteng C-Plan V3.3. (2013)...... 14 Figure 7: Wetland features associated with the study area as indicated by the City of Johannesburg Wetland layer (2014)...... 15 Figure 8: Applicable sub-quaternary catchment reach within the Highveld Aquatic Ecoregion, associated with the study area...... 17 Figure 9: The location of the identified freshwater resources, including anthropogenically derived resources, within the investigation area, in relation to the study area and surrounds...... 20 Figure 10: Conceptual illustration of the PES categories applicable to the assessed freshwater resources associated with the study area...... 28 Figure 11: Conceptual illustration of the EIS categories applicable to the freshwater resources associated with the study area...... 29 Figure 12: Conceptual presentation of the GDARD recommended buffer zones, in relation to the study area and freshwater resource delineation...... 33 Figure 13: Conceptual presentation of the zones of regulation in terms of GN509 of 2016 as it relates to the NWA, in relation to the study area and freshwater resource delineations...... 34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Desktop data relating to the character of freshwater resources within the study area and surrounding region...... 10 Table 2: Summary of the ecological status of the sub-quaternary catchment (SQ) reach SQR A21C - 01215 (Jukskei River) based on the DWS RQS PES/EIS database ...... 18 Table 3: Characterisation of the wetland identified within the study area according to the Classification System (Ollis et. al., 2013) ...... 19 Table 4: Summary of the assessment of the portion of the Jukskei River within the study area...... 22 Table 5: Summary of the assessment of the unchannelled valley bottom HGM unit to the east of the study area...... 24 Table 6: Summary of the assessment of the unchannelled valley bottom HGM unit to the north of the study area...... 26 Table 7: Summary of the results of the risk assessment applied to the Jukskei River associated with the proposed linear development...... 39 Table 8: Summary of the results of the risk assessment applied to the northern and eastern wetland systems associated with the proposed linear development...... 42 Table 9: Summary of results of the field assessment as discussed in Section 4...... 45

viii SAS 217025 March 2017

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Alien vegetation: Plants that do not occur naturally within the area but have been introduced either intentionally or unintentionally. Vegetation species that originate from outside of the borders of the biome -usually international in origin. Alluvial soil: A deposit of sand, mud, etc. formed by flowing water, or the sedimentary matter deposited thus within recent times, especially in the valleys of large rivers. Base flow: Long-term flow in a river that continues after storm flow has passed. Biodiversity: The number and variety of living organisms on earth, the millions of plants, animans and micro-organisms, the genes they contain, the evolutionary history and potential they encompass and the ecosystems, ecological processes and landscape of which they are integral parts. Buffer: A strip of land surrounding a wetland or riparian area in which activities are controlled or restricted, in order to reduce the impact of adjacent land uses on the wetland or riparian area. Catchment: The area contributing to runoff at a particular point in a river system. Chroma: The relative purity of the spectral colour which decreases with increasing greyness. Delineation (of a wetland): To determine the boundary of a wetland based on soil, vegetation and/or hydrological indicators. Ecoregion: An ecoregion is a "recurring pattern of ecosystems associated with characteristic combinations of soil and landform that characterise that region”. Ephemeral stream: A stream that has transitory or short-lived flow. Facultative species: Species usually found in wetlands (76%-99% of occurrences) but occasionally found in non-wetland areas. Fluvial: Resulting from water movement. Gleying: A soil process resulting from prolonged soil saturation which is manifested by the presence of neutral grey, bluish or greenish colours in the soil matrix. Groundwater: Subsurface water in the saturated zone below the water table. Hydromorphic soil: A soil that in its undrained condition is saturated or flooded long enough to develop anaerobic conditions favouring the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (vegetation adapted to living in anaerobic soils). Hydrology: The study of the occurrence, distribution and movement of water over, on and under the land surface. Hydromorphy: A process of gleying and mottling resulting from the intermittent or permanent presence of excess water in the soil profile. Hydrophyte: Any plant that grows in water or on a substratum that is at least periodically deficient of oxygen as a result of soil saturation or flooding; plants typically found in wet habitats. Intermittent flow: Flows only for short periods. Indigenous vegetation: Vegetation occurring naturally within a defined area. Mottles: Soils with variegated colour patterns are described as being mottled, with the “background colour” referred to as the matrix and the spots or blotches of colour referred to as mottles. Obligate species: Species almost always found in wetlands (>99% of occurences).

ix SAS 217025 March 2017

Perched water table: The upper limit of a zone of saturation that is perched on an unsaturated zone by an impermeable layer, hence separating it from the main body of groundwater. Perennial: Flows all year round. RAMSAR: The Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat) is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands, i.e., to stem the progressive encroachment on and loss of wetlands now and in the future, recognising the fundamental ecological functions of wetlands and their economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value. It is named after the city of Ramsar in Iran, where the Convention was signed in 1971. RDL (Red Data listed) species: Organisms that fall into the Extinct in the Wild (EW), critically endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) categories of ecological status. Seasonal zone of wetness: The zone of a wetland that lies between the Temporary and Permanent zones and is characterised by saturation from three to ten months of the year, within 50cm of the surface. Temporary zone of wetness: the outer zone of a wetland characterised by saturation within 50cm of the surface for less than three months of the year.

x SAS 217025 March 2017

ACRONYMS

AH Agricultural Holdings BAR Basic Assessment Report CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research DWA Department of Water Affairs DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry DWS Department of Water and Sanitation EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EI Ecological Importance EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity ES Ecological Sensitivity ESA Ecological Support Area EWR Ecological Water Resource FEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HGM Hydro-geomorphic MAP Mean Annual Precipitation NEMA National Environmental Management Act NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas NWA National Water Act PES Present Ecological State REC Recommended Ecological Category RHP River Health Programme RQIS Research Quality Information Services SAIAB South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANParks South African National Parks SAS Scientific Aquatic Services SQR Sub-Quaternary Reach subWMA Sub-Water Management Area WMA Water Management Area WMS Water Management System WRC Water Research Commission WULA Water Use License Application

xi SAS 217025 March 2017

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Scientific Aquatic Services (SAS) was appointed to conduct a freshwater resource ecological assessment as part of the Water Use License Application (WULA) requirements for the proposed sewer network in Helderfontein, near Midrand, within the Gauteng Province. The proposed sewer network comprises two options, specifically Outfall Sewer Option 1 and Outfall Sewer Option 2 (preferred by the proponent), which will henceforth collectively be referred to as the “study area” (Figures 1 & 2) and the “linear development”. In order to identify all potential freshwater resources that may potentially be impacted by the proposed sewer network, a 500m “zone of investigation” around the proposed outfall sewer lines, in accordance with Regulation 509 of 2016 as it relates to the National Water Act (NWA), was used as a guide in which to assess possible sensitivities of the receiving environment. This area – i.e. the 500m zone of investigation around the study area - will henceforth be referred to as the “Investigation Area”.

The study area is situated immediately south of Erling Road, immediately east of the R511 roadway, approximately 830m east of the Dainfern Valley and 2.3 km south west of the Kyalami Agricultural Holdings (AH). The study area is located within a moderately developed area with the immediate surrounding areas comprising mainly residential cluster developments and open degraded veld areas. The Jukskei River, a perennial river system, is situated along the entire length of Outfall Sewer Option 2.

The purpose of this report is to define the ecology of the study area in terms of freshwater resource characteristics, including mapping of the freshwater resources, defining areas of increased Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS), and to define the Present Ecological State (PES) of the freshwater resources associated with the study area. In addition, this report aims to define the socio-cultural and ecological service provision of the freshwater resources and the Recommended Ecological Category (REC) for the freshwater resources. It is a further objective of this study to provide detailed information to guide the proposed project activities in the vicinity of the freshwater resources, to ensure the ongoing functioning of the ecosystems, such that local and regional conservation requirements and the provision of ecological services in the local area are supported while considering the need for sustainable economic development.

1 SAS 217025 March 2017

The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Risk Assessment Matrix was applied to determine the significance of the perceived impacts associated with the development activities, and the operational activities impact on the receiving environment. In addition, mitigatory measures were developed which aim to minimise the impacts, followed by an assessment of the significance of the impacts after mitigation, assuming that they are fully implemented.

This report, after consideration and a description of the ecological integrity of the study area, must guide the relevant authorities, by means of a reasoned opinion and recommendations, as to the viability of the proposed development activities in relation to the freshwater resources.

2 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 1: A digital satellite image depicting the location of the study and investigation areas in relation to the surrounding area.

3 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 2: The study and investigation areas depicted on a 1:50 000 topographical map in relation to the surrounding area.

4 SAS 217025 March 2017

1.2 Scope of Work

Specific outcomes in terms of this report are outlined below:  A background study of relevant national, provincial and municipal datasets (such as the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas [NFEPA] 2011 database; the Department of Water and Sanitation Research Quality Information Services [DWS RQIS PES/EIS], 2014 database and the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development [GDARD] Gauteng Conservation Plan, 2011 database) was undertaken to aid in defining the PES and EIS of the freshwater resources;  Freshwater resources were delineated according to “DWAF1, 2008: A practical Guideline Procedure for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Zones”. Aspects such as soil morphological characteristics, vegetation types and wetness were used to delineate the freshwater resources;  All freshwater resources within 500m of the freshwater resources identified within the study area were delineated on a desktop basis in accordance with Regulation 509 of 2016 as it pertains to the NWA, 2016;  The wetland classification assessment was undertaken according to the Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland systems (Ollis et al., 2013);  The EIS of the freshwater resources were determined according to the method described by Rountree & Kotze, (2013);  The services provided by the freshwater resources associated with the study area were assessed according to the method of Kotze et al. (2009) in which services to the ecology of the site as well as services to the people of the area were defined;  The PES of the freshwater resources was determined according to the resource- directed measures guideline of Macfarlane et al., (2008) and the River EcoClassification: Index of Habitat Integrity (IHI) as advocated by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and DWAF (2008), as applicable;  The impacts on riparian vegetation were determined with the use of the Riparian Vegetation Response Assessment Index (VEGRAI) (Kleynhans et al., 2007);  Freshwater resources were mapped according to the ecological sensitivity of each hydrogeomorphic unit in relation to the study area. In addition to the freshwater

1 The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) was formerly known as the Department of Water Affairs (DWA). At present, the Department is known as the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). For the purposes of referencing in this report, the name under which the Department was known during the time of publication of reference material, will be used.

5 SAS 217025 March 2017

resource boundaries, the appropriate provincial recommended buffers and legislated zones of regulation were depicted where applicable;  Allocation of a suitable REC to the freshwater resources based on the results obtained from the PES, Ecoservices and EIS assessments;  The DWS Risk Assessment Matrix was applied to identify potential impacts that may affect the resources as a result of the proposed sewer line activities, and to aim to quantify the significance thereof; and  To present management and mitigation measures which should be implemented during the various development phases to assist in minimising the impact on the receiving environment.

1.3 Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions and limitations are applicable to this report:  The determination of the freshwater resource boundaries and the assessment thereof, is confined to the study area. All freshwater resources identified within 500m of the study area were delineated in fulfilment of Regulation GN509 of the NWA on a desktop level, however these resources were not assessed individually. The general surroundings were, however, considered in the desktop assessment of the study area;  Due to access constraints relating to property ownership and personal safety concerns, not all freshwater resources within 500m of the study area could be accessed during the site visit, and therefore some delineations were undertaken utilizing historical and current digital satellite imagery and relevant topographic maps. Where field verification was feasible, the desktop delineations proved to be accurate;  The freshwater resource delineations as presented in this report are regarded as a best estimate of the riparian or temporary zone boundaries (as applicable), based on the site conditions present at the time of assessment. Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is inherently inaccurate and some inaccuracies due to the use of handheld GPS instrumentation may occur. If more accurate assessments are required the wetland will need to be surveyed and pegged according to surveying principles;  Wetland, riparian and terrestrial zones create transitional areas where an ecotone is formed as vegetation species change from terrestrial to obligate/facultative species. Within this transition zone, some variation of opinion on the freshwater resource boundary may occur. However, if the DWAF (2008) method is followed, all assessors should get largely similar results; and  With ecology being dynamic and complex, certain aspects (some of which may be important) may have been overlooked. However, it is expected that the proposed

6 SAS 217025 March 2017

development activities have been accurately assessed and considered, based on the field observations and the consideration of existing studies and monitoring data in terms of riparian and wetland ecology.

1.4 Legislative Requirements and Provincial Guidelines

The following legislative requirements and relevant provincial guidelines were taken into consideration during the assessment. A detailed description of these legislative requirements is presented in Appendix B:  National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998);  National Water Act (NWA) (Act No. 36 of 1998);  General Notice 509 as published in the Government Gazette 40229 of 2016 as it relates to the NWA (Act 36 of 1998); and  The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s (GDARD) Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, Version 3 (GDARD, 2014).

2 ASSESSMENT APPROACH

2.1 Freshwater Resource Field Verification

For the purposes of this investigation, the definition of riparian and wetland systems were taken as per that in the National Water Act (1998). The definitions are as follows:

Riparian habitat includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterized by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species with a composition and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent areas. Wetland habitat is “land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil.”

Due to some access restrictions relating to land ownership and personal security concerns, it was not possible to access the entire extent of all the freshwater resources identified within the investigation area; thus, use was made of aerial photographs, digital satellite imagery, topographic maps and available provincial and national wetland databases to aid in the

7 SAS 217025 March 2017

delineation of the resource following the field assessment. The following was taken into consideration when utilizing the above during delineation:  Riparian vegetation: a distinct increase in density as well as tree size near drainage lines;  Hue: with drainage lines and outcrops displaying soils of varying chroma created by varying vegetation cover and soil conditions identified; and  Texture: with areas displaying various textures, created by varying vegetation cover and soil conditions being identified.

The freshwater resource delineations were verified in the field, and this delineation took place according to the method presented in the “Updated manual for the identification and delineation of wetland and riparian resources” (DWAF, 2008). The foundation of the method is based on the fact that freshwater resources have several distinguishing factors including the following:

 Landscape position;  The presence of water at or near the ground surface;  Distinctive hydromorphic soils;  Vegetation adapted to saturated soils; and  The presence of alluvial soils in stream systems.

A field assessment was undertaken in early March 2017, during which the presence of any riparian or wetland characteristics as defined by DWAF (2008) and by the NWA, were noted (please refer to Section 4 of this report). In addition to the delineation process, detailed assessments of the delineated freshwater resources were undertaken, at which time factors affecting the integrity of the freshwater resources were taken into consideration and aided in the determination of the functioning and the ecological and socio-cultural services provided by the freshwater resource. A detailed explanation of the methods of assessment undertaken is provided in Appendix C of this report.

2.2 Sensitivity Mapping

All freshwater resources associated with the study area were delineated with the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS). Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to project these features onto digital satellite imagery and topographic maps. The sensitivity map presented in Section 4.4 should guide the design and layout of the development.

8 SAS 217025 March 2017

2.3 Risk Assessment and Recommendations

Following the completion of the assessment, a risk assessment was conducted (please refer to Appendix D for the method of approach) and recommendations were developed to address and mitigate impacts associated with the proposed development. These recommendations also include general ‘best practice’ management measures, which apply to the proposed development as a whole, and which are presented in Appendix F. Mitigation measures have been developed to address issues in all phases throughout the life of the operation including planning, construction and operation. The detailed site specific mitigation measures are outlined in Section 5 of this report.

3 RESULTS OF THE DESKTOP ANALYSIS

The following section contains data accessed as part of the desktop assessment and are presented as a “dashboard” report below (Table 1). The dashboard report aims to present concise summaries of the data on as few pages as possible in order to allow for integration of results by the reader to take place. Where required, further discussion and interpretation is provided, and information that was considered to be of particular importance was emboldened.

It is important to note that although all data sources used provide useful and often verifiable, high quality data, the various databases used do not always provide an entirely accurate indication of the study area’s actual site characteristics at the scale required to inform the environmental authorisation and/or water use licencing processes. However, this information is considered to be useful as background information to the study. Thus, this data was used as a guideline to inform the assessment and to focus on areas and aspects of increased conservation importance.

9 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table 1: Desktop data relating to the character of freshwater resources within the study area and surrounding region. Aquatic ecoregion and sub-regions in which the linear development is located Detail of the linear development in terms of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) (2011) database Ecoregion Highveld The linear development is located within a subWMA considered to be an upstream management area. FEPACODE = FEPACODE 4. Upstream Management Catchment required to prevent the downstream degradation of FEPAS and Fish Support Catchment Limpopo Areas. Quaternary Catchment A21C According to the NFEPA database there is one natural and one artificial wetland feature located directly adjacent WMA Crocodile (West) & Marico NFEPA Wetlands (east) to Outfall Sewer Option 2 (Figure 3). According to NFEPA the natural wetland is classified as an unchannelled subWMA Upper Crocodile valley bottom wetland and the artificial wetland is classified as a channelled valley bottom wetland. Dominant characteristics of the Highveld Ecoregion Level 2 (11.01) (Kleynhans et al., Wetland Vegetation 2007) Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3 (Critically Endangered). Type Dominant primary terrain morphology Plains; Low Relief Rocky Highveld Grassland Dominant primary vegetation types The Jukskei River is located directly adjacent to Outfall Sewer Option 2. According to the NFEPA database Jukskei Mixed Bushveld NFEPA Rivers River is considered to be in a Class D ecological condition, indicating that the river is largely modified (Figure 4). Altitude (m a.m.s.l) 1300-1900 MAP (mm) 500 to 700 Detail of the linear development in terms of the Gauteng Conservation Plan (C-Plan V3.3, 2011) (Figure 5 & 6) Coefficient of Variation (% of MAP) 20 to 34 The majority of the linear development is located within a CBA, which is considered important for “Red” and “Orange” Rainfall concentration index 55 to 64 Critical Biodiversity listed plant habitat, red listed mammal habitat and for primary vegetation. A CBA is an area considered important for Area (CBA) the survival of threatened species and includes valuable ecosystems such as wetlands, untransformed vegetation and Rainfall seasonality Early to mid-summer ridges. Mean annual temp. (°C) 14 to 18 Ecological Support A small portion of Outfall Sewer Option 2 is situated within an ESA. An ESA provides connectivity and important Winter temperature (July) 0 – 20 C Area (ESA) ecological processes between CBAs and is therefore important in terms of habitat conservation. Summer temperature (Feb) 12 – 30 C Median annual simulated runoff (mm) 20 to 60 According the Gauteng C-Plan the linear development is situated within a wetland buffer, most likely the riparian Wetland habitat of the Jukskei River. In addition, portions of both options are indicated to be situated within a pan buffer. Ecological Status of the most proximal sub-quaternary reach (DWS, 2014) (Figure 8) However, no pans were identified within the study area or the immediate surrounds. A river buffer is indicated by the Gauteng C-Plan to be located directly adjacent to Outfall Sewer Option 2. This river Sub-quaternary reach A21C - 01215 (Jukskei River) River buffer corresponds with the location of the Jukskei River. Proximity to study area Directly adjacent to Sewer Outfall Option 1 The study area is not located within the Urban Edge according to the C-Plan V3 (2011). Although the Urban Edge was Assessed by expert? Yes Urban Area rescinded as a policy document in the Gauteng Spatial Development Framework (2011), it nevertheless remains a PES Category Median E useful indicator of where the concentration [of development] should occur. Mean Ecological Importance (EI) Class Low Mean Ecological Sensitivity (ES) Class Moderate Detail of the linear development in terms of the City of Johannesburg Wetlands Database (CoJ, 2014) (Figure 7) Stream Order 3 According to the CoJ Wetland Database (2014) the linear development is situated within a wetland feature, thus corresponding with the Wetland Default Ecological Class (based on Moderate (Class C) Buffer of the Gauteng Conservation Plan (2011). median PES and highest EI or ES mean) Underlying Geology of the study area Detail of the study area in terms of the Municipal Biodiversity Summary Project (MBSP, 2010) According to the City of Johannesburg MBSP Database, there are two wetland features situated adjacent to Outfall Sewer Option 2, as indicated The study area is underlain by Gneiss, migmatite rock formations. by the NFEPA Database (2011). CBA = Critical Biodiversity Area; CoJ = City of Johannesburg; DWS = Department of Water and Sanitation; EI = Ecological Importance; ES = Ecological Sensitivity; ESA = Ecological Support Area; m.a.m.s.l = Metres Above Mean Sea Level; MAP = Mean Annual Precipitation; MBSP = Municipal Biodiversity Summary Project; NFEPA = National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas; PES = Present Ecological State WMA = Water Management Area

10 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 3: The natural and artificial wetland features associated with the study area according to the NFEPA Database (NFEPA, 2011).

11 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 4: The Jukskei River associated with the study area according to the NFEPA Database (NFEPA, 2011).

12 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 5: A Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) associated with the study area according to the Gauteng C-Plan V3.3. (2011).

13 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 6: River and wetland buffers associated with the study area according to the Gauteng C-Plan V3.3. (2013).

14 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 7: Wetland features associated with the study area as indicated by the City of Johannesburg Wetland layer (2014).

15 SAS 217025 March 2017

3.1 Ecological status of sub-quaternary catchments [Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Resource Quality Services (RQS) PES/EIS database]

The PES/EIS database, as developed by the DWS RQS department, was utilised to obtain additional background information on the project area. The PES/EIS database has been made available to consultants since mid-August 2014. The information from this database is based on information at a sub-quaternary catchment reach (subquat reach) level with the descriptions of the aquatic ecology based on the information collated by the DWS RQIS department from all reliable sources of reliable information such as SA RHP sites, EWR sites and Hydro WMS sites.

Key information on background conditions associated with the proposed sewer line development, as contained in this database and pertaining to the Present Ecological State (PES), ecological importance and ecological sensitivity for the sub-quaternary catchment reach (SQR) (A21C – 01215) Jukskei River is tabulated in Table 2 and indicated in Figure 8.

The Ecological Importance (EI) data for SQR A21C – 01215 (Jukskei River) indicates that the following fish species are expected to occur at this site:

Barbus trimaculatus Peters, 1852 Labeo cylindricus Peters, 1852 Barbus paludinosus Peters, 1852 Labeo molybdinus Du Plessis, 1963 Barbus unitaeniatus Gunther, 1866 Oreochromis mossambicus Peters, 1852 Clarias gariepinus Burchell, 1822 Pseudocrenilabrus philander Weber, 1897 Labeobarbus Marequensis Smith, 1841 Tilapia sparrmani, Smith, 1840

The Ecological Importance (EI) data for SQR A21C – 01215 (Jukskei River) indicate that the following macro-invertebrate species are expected to occur at this site: Ancylidae Dytiscidae Oligochaeta Baetidae 1 sp. Gerridae Potamonautidae Belostomatidae Gomphidae Pleidae Ceratopogonidae Gyrinidae Physidae Chironomidae Hirudinea Simuliidae Coenagrionidae Hydropsychidae 1sp. Tipulidae Corixidae Libellulidae Veliidae/Mesoveliidae Culicidae Muscidae Caenidae Notonectidae

16 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 8: Applicable sub-quaternary catchment reach within the Highveld Aquatic Ecoregion, associated with the study area.

17 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table 2: Summary of the ecological status of the sub-quaternary catchment (SQ) reach SQR A21C - 01215 (Jukskei River) based on the DWS RQS PES/EIS database

Synopsis SQR A21C - 01215 (Jukskei River) PES1 category Mean EI2 class Mean ES3 class Length Stream order Default EC4 median D Low Moderate 12.47 3 C

PES details

Instream habitat continuity MOD Large Riparian/wetland zone MOD Large

RIP/wetland zone continuity MOD Large Potential flow MOD activities Serious

Potential instream habitat MOD Potential physico-chemical MOD Serious Serious activities activities

EI details

Fish spp/SQ 4.00 Fish average confidence 1.00 Fish representivity per secondary Very Low Fish rarity per secondary class Very Low class Invertebrate taxa/SQ 25.00 Invertebrate average confidence 2.76 Invertebrate representivity per Invertebrate rarity per secondary Moderate Moderate secondary class class EI importance: riparian-wetland- instream vertebrates (excluding Low Habitat diversity class Very Low fish) rating Habitat size (length) class Very Low Instream migration link class Moderate Riparian-wetland zone migration Riparian-wetland zone habitat Moderate Moderate link integrity class Riparian-wetland natural vegetation Instream habitat integrity class Low rating based on percentage natural Low vegetation in 500m Riparian-wetland natural vegetation rating based on expert rating High

ES details Fish physical-chemical sensitivity Low Fish no-flow sensitivity Moderate description Invertebrates physical-chemical Moderate Invertebrates velocity sensitivity Very High sensitivity description Riparian-wetland-instream vertebrates (excluding fish) intolerance water level/flow changes Low description Stream size sensitivity to modified flow/water level changes description Low

Riparian-wetland vegetation intolerance to water level changes description High 1 PES = Present Ecological State; confirmed in database that assessments were performed by expert assessors; 2 EI = Ecological Importance; 3 ES = Ecological Sensitivity 4 EC = Ecological Category; default based on median PES and highest of EI or ES means.

18 SAS 217025 March 2017

4 RESULTS: FRESHWATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

4.1 Freshwater Resource System Characterisation

In preparation for the field assessment, aerial photographs, digital satellite imagery and provincial and national wetland databases (as outlined in Section 3 of this report) were used to identify areas of interest at a desktop level. All possible measures were undertaken to ensure all freshwater resources were identified, assessed and delineated within the study area. The locality of the identified freshwater features – both natural and anthropogenically derived (e.g. artificial water features incorporated into the landscaping of neighbouring properties) are indicated in Figure 9 below. Numerous anthropogenically derived water features were identified during the desktop assessment (e.g. the quarries within close proximity of the study area), however it should be noted that these were not assessed during this study, since they are not considered to contribute to local or regional wetland conservation targets, nor are they considered to contribute significantly to the ecological functioning of the area. Furthermore, the focus of the study was on those resources located on the eastern side of the R511, since these resources are most at risk of potential impacts arising from the proposed linear development.

One primary freshwater system was identified, namely the Jukskei River, and two associated unchannelled valley bottom freshwater resources. These resources are located to the east of Sewer Outfall Option 2, and the other is located north of Sewer Outfall Option 1, parallel to Dorothy Road. For the purposes of this report, these unchannelled valley bottom resources are referred to as the “eastern wetland system” and the “northern wetland system”. Please refer to Figure 9 below for the locality of these resources in relation to the study area.

The identified freshwater resources were classified according to the classification system (Ollis, et al., 2013) as Inland Systems, falling within the Highveld Aquatic Ecoregion, and the Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3 WetVeg (wetland vegetation) group.

Table 3: Characterisation of the wetland identified within the study area according to the Classification System (Ollis et. al., 2013) Freshwater resource Level 3: Landscape unit Level 4: HGM Type Unchannelled valley bottom wetland: Eastern and northern wetland Valley floor: The typically gently A valley-bottom wetland without a river systems sloping, lowest surface of a valley. channel running through it River: a linear landform with clearly Valley floor: The typically gently discernible bed and banks, which Jukskei River sloping, lowest surface of a valley. permanently or periodically carries a concentrated flow of water

19 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 9: The location of the identified freshwater resources, including anthropogenically derived resources, within the investigation area, in relation to the study area and surrounds.

20 SAS 217025 March 2017

4.2 Field Verification Results

The tables below summarise the findings of the field verification in terms of relevant aspects (hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation components) of freshwater ecology, for the Jukskei River and the two associated unchannelled valley bottom wetland systems. The details pertaining to the method of assessment used to assess the various features is contained in Appendix C of this report. It should be noted that whilst consideration is given to water quality in line with the requirements of the DWS, the water quality assessment was based on information contained within available databases, as well as the anticipated impacts of the surrounding land uses within the catchment on water quality, as comprehensive water quality testing did not form part of the scope of this study.

The results of the PES and EIS assessments are conceptually presented in the figures which follow the assessment tables.

21 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table 4: Summary of the assessment of the portion of the Jukskei River within the study area. Ecological & socio-cultural service provision graph:

IHI Riparian PES Category: E An upstream view of a portion of the Jukskei River (left) showing significant alien VEGRAI Category: C/D floral invasion within the riparian zone, and a view of a portion of the riparian Altered soil profiles resulting from historical disturbances, as well as the Fatal Flaw? N Photograph notes zone (right) illustrating the extent of woody species (both indigenous and alien prevalence of exotic / alien vegetation within the catchment, have resulted species) which are not representative of the natural vegetation of a Highveld in the significant modification of riparian vegetation assemblages. In riparian zone. PES and particular the composition of the floral community has been significantly Watercourse characteristics: VEGRAI altered with the proliferation of woody species in the riparian zone, a) Hydraulic regime discussion whereas historically, graminoid and forb species would have dominated. The hydraulic regime of the watercourse has been altered both at the assessment site and throughout its reach as a result of historical and Additionally, altered flood peaks and increased water inputs to the system current modifiers, including altered flow patterns as a result of infrastructure such as weirs and bridge crossings within the active channel, are likely to have contributed to the changed floral communities, as less significantly increased water inputs and stormwater velocity resulting from extensive hardening of the catchment, altered channel capacity water-tolerant species are displaced by water-loving (mostly alien) due to bank incision, and debris and solid wastes transported from upstream areas causing blockages and impeding flow. species.

Intermediate b) Water quality Despite the significantly decreased ecological integrity, functioning Whilst testing of detailed water quality parameters did not take place since this was not within the scope of this investigation, it can be surmised remains at an intermediate level, particularly in terms of eco-services such that due to the odour of sewage, the presence of suspended solids and solid wastes such as litter within the channel and the grey colour of as flood attenuation, sediment trapping, toxicant assimilation, erosion the water, the water has likely been moderately to significantly impaired by pollutants, and most likely will not meet acceptable standards for Ecoservice control and streamflow regulation. However, it should be noted that the potable water. According to the City of Johannesburg’s State of the Rivers Report (Iliso Consulting, 2010) the water quality in both the Upper provision relatively high scores obtained for sediment trapping and flood attenuation and Lower Jukskei River was found to be severely degraded, as a result of sewage and urban runoff.

are due in part to the increased opportunity (due to urbanisation) to perform c) Geomorphology and sediment balance these functions, and is not necessarily a reflection of the capacity to do so. The primary modifier of the watercourse in terms of geomorphology is stream bank and stream bed incision and erosion, resulting primarily Socio-cultural service provision is deemed to be moderately low to low, from the increased velocity of stormwater inputs arising from increased impermeable surfaces and loss of vegetation in the catchment. largely as a result of the urban environment surrounding the river, reducing Increased sediment loads entering the system are also anticipated due to the extent and proximity of ongoing developments adjacent to the

22 SAS 217025 March 2017

the opportunity to provide services such as water for human use, tourism river (both at the assessment site and within the catchment) and this additional sediment may either contribute to stream bed scouring, or be and recreation, and biodiversity maintenance. deposited within the river where flow is impeded, resulting in blockages and/or altered channel capacity. Altered topography as a result of historical earthworks and historical disposal of waste rock was also noted during the site assessment. EIS Category: C (Moderately important). d) Habitat and biota Although the results of the EIS assessment indicate that an EIS Category Disturbances relating to rapid and extensive urbanisation in the catchment, as well as historical agricultural practices, have resulted in the C is applicable, this is largely due to the conservation and protection status proliferation of alien and invasive floral species, although some indigenous species remain. The vegetation of the riparian zone is dominated EIS of the applicable WetVeg group. A more accurate reflection of the by woody species, which would typically have not occurred within the riparian zone prior to urbanisation. Whilst some indigenous species discussion ecological importance and sensitivity is a Category D, due to the remain, such as Searsia pyroides and Celtis africana, these are dominated by alien invasive species such as Acacia mearnsii, Populus x significantly impaired ecological integrity of the portion of the river canescens and Salix babylonica. Whilst some of these may nevertheless provide suitable habitat for less-sensitive avifauna, some, such as assessed. A. mearnsii, are considered to be “sterile” and of little ecological value in the context of riparian habitat.

Possible significant impacts, Business case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements:

REC Category: D. Due to the lowered ecological integrity and sensitivity of the watercourse, and assuming that a high level of mitigation takes place, the results Further degradation of the watercourse and its associated riparian zone of the risk assessment indicate that during construction, impacts are likely to be of low levels, since the proposed linear development will only should not be permitted. Mitigation measures should be implemented traverse a very small area of riparian zone in the north-east. . Nevertheless, strict adherence to the recommended mitigation measures must REC during all phases of the proposed linear development to minimise the risk take place, in order to minimise impacts on the receiving environment. Category of further negative impacts on the watercourse, and wherever possible, to improve the conditions of the portion of the riparian zone associated with For detailed discussion regarding the impact significance, and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to Section 5 and Appendix F the development. of this report.

23 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table 5: Summary of the assessment of the unchannelled valley bottom HGM unit to the east of the study area. Ecological & socio-cultural service provision graph:

PES Category: E Representative photographs of a portion of the eastern unchannelled valley bottom wetland Fatal The system has historically been extensively altered, primarily by means of N Photograph notes system, showing impoundments and a recently upgraded gravel road atop one of the dam Flaw? impounding sections of it, as well as the construction of gravel roads in walls. several places along the length of the system, thus altering the natural Watercourse characteristics: geomorphology and impacting on hydraulic connectivity. The e) Hydraulic regime PES impoundments in turn will have resulted in the loss of vegetation, although The hydraulic connectivity has been significantly compromised in several sections of the system, primarily as a result of the installation of dam discussion the floral community appeared to be fairly resilient and has adapted to the walls when the area was extensively farmed, resulting in a significant reduction in water movement from upgradient to downgradient portions of changes over time. Nevertheless, alien invasive flora has encroached in the system. Within the assessed areas, very little (or no) surface connectivity between the impoundments could be discerned and therefore the some areas of the system, and this encroachment is likely to intensify as a hydrology of the system is deemed to be severely altered from a natural condition. result of disturbances relating to the rapid urbanisation of the surrounding area.

Intermediate f) Water quality Despite the modifications to the system and therefore the lowered Detailed testing of water quality parameters did not take place since this was not within the scope of this investigation; and no surface water ecological integrity thereof, the system is deemed to provide moderate was present in the dam closest to the proposed linear development. Whilst urban development in the catchment is not extensive at this time, levels of ecological functioning, particularly flood attenuation, streamflow development is rapidly occurring and it is therefore likely that water quality is impaired to an extent, for example contaminated runoff from roads. regulation, erosion control, sediment trapping and nutrient and toxicant assimilation. Biodiversity maintenance is also considered an important g) Geomorphology and sediment balance Ecoservice provision of the system, primarily due to the cumulative loss of ‘natural’ As with the hydraulic regime, the impounding of the system has resulted in significant alterations to the geomorphology of the system. provision habitat in the catchment and surrounding areas, thus increasing the Nevertheless, the impoundments have been in place for a number of years, and therefore the system is likely to have adapted to these importance of relatively un-developed areas. However, due to the urban circumstances. Furthermore, although not immediately observable, when attempting to take soil samples during the delineation process it nature of the surrounding areas, the system is not considered to have became apparent that infilling and disposal of waste rock has occurred within the wetland areas, thus altering geomorphology and possibly significant value in terms of direct benefits to the community such as extent of the wetland. Additionally, disturbances in the catchment relating to ongoing and rapid urbanisation of the area are deemed highly likely provisioning of water for domestic use, harvestable resources or crop to contribute to increased sediment inputs, which may result in scouring, or increased sediment deposition, leading to – for example - altered cultivation. Whilst educational and recreational services are deemed to be flow patterns or changes to the vegetation community.

24 SAS 217025 March 2017

low at this time, the potential exists for both to be offered in future, in particular recreational activities such as birding and fishing, due to the presence of the dams within the system. Additionally, the Helderfontein estate (located within 100m of the wetland system) will contain a school, therefore potential for educational uses of the system is increased.

EIS Category C a) Habitat and biota Although the ecological integrity of the system has been significantly Although the hydraulic connectivity and geomorphology of the system has been historically altered, the system nevertheless provides habitat compromised, it is nevertheless deemed important for hydrological and refugia for a number of less sensitive smaller faunal species. In addition, whilst some invasive alien floral species were observed during the EIS discussion functioning (such as flood attenuation and nutrient/toxicant assimilation). site assessment, indigenous vegetation is still dominant. Furthermore, the system may be sensitive to changes in flood peaks and/or water quality, hence an EIS Category C was obtained. Category D Possible significant impacts, business case, conclusion and mitigation requirements: As per the method of assessment (for the REC), “A freshwater feature may Since the wetland is located upgradient of the proposed pipeline, the proposed linear development poses minimal risk to the eastern wetland receive the same class for the PES as the REC if the freshwater feature is system, with the exception of the area where the linear development will traverse the system. Thus, the risk assessment was applied with this deemed in good condition, and therefore must stay in good condition. in mind, and the mitigation measures contained in this report are aimed at reducing the potential impacts which may arise at the crossing point. Otherwise, an appropriate REC should be assigned in order to prevent any The results of the risk assessment indicate that the significance of impacts during the construction phase will be of medium levels, whilst further degradation as well as enhance the PES of the freshwater feature”. operational risks are deemed to be of low levels, assuming that a high level of mitigation takes place throughout all stages of the proposed development. Thus, since the PES of the system is a Category E (“seriously modified”, an REC Category REC Category D was assigned. Whilst it is acknowledged that the most significant modifiers of the system are the alterations caused by the historical impounding of the system, efforts by all relevant stakeholders should be made to improve the ecological integrity of the system where feasible, and without causing further harm. Recommendations include a well-designed and implemented alien vegetation control programme, and restoration of hydrological connectivity where feasible, for example by the removal (or partial removal) of dam walls.

25 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table 6: Summary of the assessment of the unchannelled valley bottom HGM unit to the north of the study area. Ecological & socio-cultural service provision graph:

PES Category: C/D Representative photographs of a portion of the northern unchannelled valley bottom wetland Fatal The northern wetland system has undergone historical alterations relating N Photograph notes system, showing largely natural vegetation, although some waste was observed within the Flaw? to agriculture, and in recent years, activities relating to ongoing urbanisation wetland as shown in the photograph on the left. have resulted in further alterations. These activities include the historical Watercourse characteristics: impounding of the system, as well as the construction of Dorothy and Erling h) Hydraulic regime PES Roads, which are situated adjacent to the wetland system (and Erling Road The hydraulic connectivity of the system has been significantly impacted primarily as a result of ongoing urbanisation in the catchment. Analysis discussion transects the system). The associated impacts of these include increased of digital satellite imagery indicates the total loss of a portion of the wetland system upgradient of the study area. Furthermore, the hydraulic runoff – which is likely to be contaminated with toxicants and sediment - connectivity and flow patterns have been moderately altered as a result of impediments such as road crossings and culverts. entering the system, altered flow regime as a result of culverts, and changed vegetation communities as a result of alien floral encroachment (due to disturbances). Intermediate i) Water quality The system is deemed to provide intermediate levels of ecological service No surface water was present at the time of the assessment within this wetland system; however, due to the ongoing urbanisation of the provision, primarily in terms of flood attenuation, sediment trapping, erosion catchment it can be surmised that water quality is likely to be impaired as a result of sediment and toxicants contained in stormwater runoff from control and nutrient and toxicant assimilation. However it should be noted adjacent roads. Ecoservice that due to the relatively small size of the wetland, and the impacts on j) Geomorphology and sediment balance provision connectivity, although the opportunity exists for it to perform certain services The geomorphology of this wetland system has been impacted by activities relating to the ongoing urban development in the immediate vicinity, (e.g. toxicant assimilation, since there are likely to be increase toxicant including the construction of Dorothy and Erling Roads and their associated stormwater management systems. Increased sediment loads are inputs as a result of the urban setting) the capacity to perform these services anticipated which may cause bed modifications although scouring is not anticipated due to the low gradient of the wetland and the current is reduced. vegetation cover. EIS Category C: b) Habitat and biota As with the eastern wetland system, the northern system is deemed to be Due to the location of the wetland system within an increasingly urbanised area, as well as it’s relatively small size, the system is unlikely to EIS discussion of importance for the ecological service provisioning related to hydrological provide suitable habitat for any Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), either floral or faunal. However, it provides limited habitat to less functions e.g. flood attenuation. sensitive species, particularly avifauna.

26 SAS 217025 March 2017

Category C: Possible significant impacts, business case, conclusion and mitigation requirements: Although this wetland system is deemed to be moderately modified, no The proposed linear development poses minimal risk to the northern wetland system. As with the eastern system, this wetland is located further degradation should be permitted. Thus, during construction and any upgradient of the proposed pipeline, and therefore the primary impacts will be at the crossing point. Please refer to Section 5 for details of the REC Category necessary maintenance activities, efforts must be made to minimise the risk analysis and mitigation measures. associated impacts and where feasible, small-scale rehabilitation (such as re-vegetating with natural vegetation) must be implemented.

27 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 10: Conceptual illustration of the PES categories applicable to the assessed freshwater resources associated with the study area.

28 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 11: Conceptual illustration of the EIS categories applicable to the freshwater resources associated with the study area.

29 SAS 217025 March 2017

4.3 Delineation and Sensitivity Mapping

4.3.1 Delineation

Due to the access limitations experienced during the site assessment as previously discussed, the freshwater resources were partially delineated in the field, and the delineations subsequently refined with the use of aerial photographs, digital satellite imagery and topographical maps. The delineations as presented in this report are thus regarded as a best estimate of the riparian and wetland temporary zone boundaries based on the site conditions present at the time of assessment.

During the assessment, the following indicators were used to delineate the boundaries of the temporary wetland zones and riparian zones of the freshwater features:  Terrain units were used to determine in which parts of the landscape freshwater resources would most likely occur in. Due to the extent of historical impacts – such as the impoundment of the eastern wetland system, this was utilised as a the primary indicator;  The vegetation indicator was utilised extensively in the identification of the riparian boundary in particular, as the riparian zone was well defined and easily discernible in most instances. This indicator was also considered useful in defining the boundaries of the temporary wetland zones, through the identification of the distribution of facultative and obligate wetland vegetation, including species such as Phragmites australis, and Typha capensis; and  The soil form indicator was considered, however due to changed soil profiles as a result of historical agricultural activities in the area, and extensive infilling and discarding of rubble within wetland areas, was not considered useful as the soil profiles did not show the typical mottling or gleying that can be expected in wetland areas.

4.3.2 Legislative Requirements, national and provincial guidelines pertaining to the application of buffer zones

According to Macfarlane et al. (2015) the definition of a buffer zone is variable, depending on the purpose of the buffer zone, however in summary, it is considered to be “a strip of land with a use, function or zoning specifically designed to protect one area of land against impacts from another”. Buffer zones are considered to be important to provide protection of basic ecosystem processes (in this case, the protection of aquatic and wetland ecological services), reduce impacts on water resources arising from upstream activities (e.g. by removing or filtering

30 SAS 217025 March 2017

sediment and pollutants), provision of habitat for aquatic and wetland species as well as for certain terrestrial species, and a range of ancillary societal benefits (Macfarlane et. al, 2015). It should be noted however that buffer zones are not considered to be effective mitigation against impacts such as hydrological changes arising from stream flow reduction, impoundments or abstraction, nor are they considered to be effective in the management of point-source discharges or contamination of groundwater, both of which require site-specific mitigation measures (Macfarlane et. al, 2015).

Legislative requirements were first taken into consideration when determining a suitable buffer zone for the HGM unit. The definition and motivation for a regulated zone of activity as well as buffer zone for the protection of the freshwater resource can be summarised as follows:  Activity 12 (xii) (c) of GN983 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (2014), of the NEMA, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) must be considered in defining the relevant regulated zone associated with any watercourse (including wetlands as well as rivers). This Listed Activity states that any development exceeding 100 m2 within a watercourse, in front of a development setback or, if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse, excluding where such development occurs within an urban area, will require an Environmental Authorisation (EA) in terms of the NEMA, 1008 (Act 107 of 1998);  In terms of the NEMA, the definition of an “urban area” means “areas situated within the urban edge (as defined or adopted by the competent authority), or in instances where no urban edge or boundary has been defined or adopted, it refers to areas situated within the edge of built-up areas.”  In accordance with GN509 of 2016 as it relates to the NWA, a regulated area of a watercourse for section 21c and 21i of the NWA, 1998 is defined as:  the outer edge of the 1 in 100 year flood line and/or delineated riparian habitat, whichever is the greatest distance, measured from the middle of the watercourse of a river, spring, natural channel, lake or dam;  in the absence of a determined 1 in 100 year flood line or riparian area the area within 100 m from the edge of a watercourse where the edge of the watercourse is the first identifiable annual bank fill flood bench; or  a 500 m radius from the delineated boundary (extent) of any wetland or pan.

The relevant provincial guidelines were then taken into consideration. In this regard, the following is applicable:

31 SAS 217025 March 2017

 According to the GDARD Minimum Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments (2014), a specific buffer zone is recommended for wetlands and rivers, depending on the location of the wetland in relation to Urban Areas. According to the Gauteng C- Plan (2011), the study area is located inside of the Urban Edge, thus in terms of the GDARD guidelines, a 30m buffer is applicable to the wetland systems, whilst a 32m buffer is recommended for the river.

Figures 12 and 13 below illustrates the respective GDARD recommended buffer zones and zones of regulations relevant to the freshwater resources associated with the study area.

32 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 12: Conceptual presentation of the GDARD recommended buffer zones, in relation to the study area and freshwater resource delineation.

33 SAS 217025 March 2017

Figure 13: Conceptual presentation of the zones of regulation in terms of GN509 of 2016 as it relates to the NWA, in relation to the study area and freshwater resource delineations.

34 SAS 217025 March 2017

5 RISK ASSESSMENT

This section presents the significance of potential impacts on the riparian and wetland ecology of the freshwater resources identified within the study area. In addition, it also indicates the required mitigatory measures needed to minimise the perceived impacts of the proposed development, and presents an assessment of the significance of the impacts taking into consideration the available mitigatory measures and assuming that they are fully implemented.

The risk assessment was initially based on the initial layout as provided by the proponent. Which indicated that the linear development will directly traverse both the northern and eastern unchannelled valley bottom wetlands, and in some sections is located within the delineated riparian zone associated with the Jukskei River. It was thus recommended that the alignment of the portion of the pipeline adjacent to the Jukskei River be considered during planning, and if feasible, be re-aligned to avoid the riparian zone as much as possible. This recommendation was followed, and the re-alignment now only traverses a small portion of the riparian zone in the north-east. The pipeline (Option 2) remains within the 32m GDARD setback area, however it is acknowledged that total avoidance thereof is not necessarily feasible due to space constraints associated with neighbouring developments and local topography which poses engineering challenges in terms of the installation of the pipeline. From a freshwater resource conservation point of view, both Option 1 and Option 2 are considered to have similar impacts, and similar impact significance, although it is likely that Option 2 will have a marginally lower impact since it is adjacent to the road and therefore existing impacts. Nevertheless, it is imperative that strict mitigation measures be implemented throughout all phases of the proposed linear development, particularly during construction, in order to reduce the impact significance of associated activities on the wetlands and the riparian zone associated with the Jukskei River.

5.1 Risk Analyses

5.1.1 Consideration of impacts and application of mitigation measures

Following the assessment of the HGM unit, the DWS approved Risk Assessment Matrix (2016) was applied to ascertain the significance of perceived impacts on the key drivers and receptors (hydrology, water quality, geomorphology, habitat and biota) of the wetland within the study area. These results are summarised in Table 7 presented at the end of Section 5.1.2 of this report.

35 SAS 217025 March 2017

Following the risk assessment, mitigation measures were compiled to serve as guidance throughout the construction and operational phases. The points below summarise the considerations undertaken:  The risk assessment was applied assuming that a high level of mitigation is implemented;  The risk assessment was applied twice: once to the Jukskei River, and once to the two unchannelled valley bottom wetland systems (since perceived impacts and significance thereof on each system will be similar);  At the time of this assessment, the wetlands and riparian zone associated with the Jukskei were considered to be in moderately to severely modified ecological states, and of moderate importance and sensitivity. However, the severity of the impact in the wetlands cannot be calculated precisely using the Risk Assessment Tool – because the watercourse is a wetland the severity of all potential impacts must be rated at the highest significant level (level 5, disastrous/extremely harmful) when occurring within wetlands;  The activities are all highly site specific, not of a significant extent relative to the area of the wetland assessed, and therefore have a limited spatial extent;  While the operation of the pipeline will be a permanent activity, the construction thereof is envisioned to take no more than a few months. However, the frequency of the construction impacts may be daily during this time;  Most impacts are considered to be easily detectable, with the exception of contamination of surface and groundwater which will require some effort and;  The considered mitigation measures are easily practicable;  The risk assessment was not applied to the numerous anthropogenically derived waterbodies in the 500m radius of the proposed linear development, since it is considered to be a relatively low-impact activity. Additionally due to the natural topography of the area as well as man-made barriers such as roads and walls, the proposed linear development is considered highly unlikely to have a direct impact on any of the surrounding waterbodies;  It is highly recommended that the proponent make provision for small-scale rehabilitation of the areas of the riparian and wetland areas which may be directly impacted upon by construction activities. The area must preferably be rehabilitated to conditions as close as possible to the “natural” state, not the pre-construction state since the state of both the Jukskei River and the two wetland systems are deemed to be significantly altered from their reference condition. This is especially applicable to the revegetation of the affected areas. This will ensure that the ecological service

36 SAS 217025 March 2017

provision of all affected freshwater resources are maintained and where feasible, improved.

5.1.2 Impact discussion and essential mitigation measures

There are four key ecological impacts on watercourses that are anticipated to occur namely,  Loss of freshwater feature habitat and ecological structure;  Changes to the sociocultural and service provision;  Impacts on the hydrology and sediment balance of the freshwater features; and  Impacts on water quality.

Various activities and development aspects (tabulated in Appendix E) may lead to these impacts, however, these impacts can be adequately minimized or avoided provided the mitigation measures provided in this report are implemented and adhered to.

Assuming that strict enforcement of cogent, well-developed mitigation measures takes place, the significance of impacts arising from the proposed linear development is likely to be of medium to low levels during the construction phase. Similarly, during the operational phase most perceived impacts are likely to be of medium to low significance assuming that a high level of mitigation takes place.

Based on the findings of the freshwater ecological assessment, several recommended mitigation measures are made to minimise the impact on the wetland ecology:  Whilst both Option 1 and Option 2 will impact on the northern wetland system, Option 2 will have a marginally lower impact on the system as it is adjacent to an existing road, and therefore is the “preferred” option;  Areas which are to be cleared of vegetation, including contractor laydown areas, must remain as small as possible, in order to reduce the risk of proliferation of alien vegetation, and in order to retain a level of protection to the freshwater resources during construction (e.g. sediment trapping, slowing of stormwater runoff etc.). Contractor laydown areas are to remain outside of the delineated wetland and riparian zones and their associated buffers, and as much as feasible no natural/indigenous wetland vegetation is to be cleared;  It is highly recommended that an alien vegetation management plan be compiled during the planning phase and implemented concurrently with the commencement of construction;

37 SAS 217025 March 2017

 A soil management plan must be compiled during planning, and implemented when construction commences. It is essential that the following be included in the soil management plan:  All exposed soils are to be protected for the duration of the construction phase with a suitable geotextile (e.g. Geojute or hessian sheeting) in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation of the freshwater resources. This is considered essential as the soils in the vicinity are highly dispersive;  No stockpiling of soils is to take place within the wetlands, riparian zone, or associated buffer zones, and stockpiles may not exceed 2m in height; and  Any remaining soils following the completion of construction activities are to be levelled and re-seeded with indigenous flora species to minimise the risk of further sedimentation of the wetland, and to aid in the natural reclamation process.  The pipeline must be encased in precast concrete at the pipe jacked crossing points;  All manholes are to be raised above the 1:100 year floodline; and  Upon the completion of construction the pipeline must be pressure tested.

Additional “good practice” mitigation measures applicable to a project of this nature are provided in Appendix F of this report.

38 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table 7: Summary of the results of the risk assessment applied to the Jukskei River associated with the proposed linear development.

No.

level level

Impact

Aspect

Phases Phases

Activity

Confidence Confidence

Risk Rating Risk

Significance

Likelihood Control Measures 1 Site clearing prior to commencement of Removal of vegetation and Exposure of soils, leading to - Contractor laydown areas and construction activities. associated disturbances to soils. increased runoff and erosion, and thus stockpiles to be established outside of increased sedimentation of the river. the wetland zones and the applicable Increased sedimentation of instream buffer zones in consultation with the 10 50 L 90 habitat, leading to smothering of appropriate authority aquatic biota and potentially altering - Vehicles to be serviced at the surface water quality. contractor laydown area, and concrete Decreased ecoservice provision. shall also be mixed in that area so Possible indiscriminate driving Damage to vegetation, leading to much as is possible. Concrete may through riparian areas by exposed/compacted soils, in turn require additional mixing onsite, and construction vehicles leading to increased runoff and when this occurs batter boards must be erosion. 10 50 L 90 used an sheeting shall be laid down to Decreased ecoservice provision. ensure concrete does not mess outside Decreased ability to support of the trenches biodiversity. - The wetland areas must be clearly demarcated with dangertape by an

2 Groundbreaking, excavation of trench Removal of topsoils and creation of Disturbances of soils leading to ECO and marked as a no-go area within the riparian zone soil stockpiles increased alien vegetation - When trenching, soil must only be proliferation, and in turn to further piled on the eastern and northern altered riparian habitat. 10 52.5 L 90 edges of the excavation in order to limit Construction Altered runoff patterns, leading to potential sedimentation of the wetlands increased erosion and sedimentation - All manholes should be raised above of aquatic/riparian habitat. the 1:100 year floodline 3 Construction of a sewer pipeline within a Digging and trenching Sedimentation of watercourse - Soil must be recompacted to a depth portion of the riparian zone and the Mixing and casting of concrete Erosion of the exposed trench of 450 mm, and all construction 1:100 year floodline of the Jukskei River, Miscellaneous activities by Removal of vegetation and material must be removed from site but excluding encroachment of the bed construction personnel disturbance of soils, which may 10 55 L 90 upon the completion of construction and banks Digging and trenching leading to enable the recruitment of alien and - Santiation services must be provided stockpiling of soil directly adjacent invasive vegetation for construction personnel, whereby at to the excavation least one portable toilet will be 4 Potential indiscriminate waste disposal Disposal of construction-related Altered flow regime as a result of solid provided per ten personnel and will be wastes (such as rubble, hazardous wastes within the active channel of the emptied regularly chemicals and litter) river. - Construction personnel must be Altered water quality due to chemical 10 52.5 L 90 informed that no firewood is to be waste disposal. harvested, all litter must be stored immediately and only in closed

39 SAS 217025 March 2017

5 Potential spillage from construction Spills / chemical leaks from Possible contamination of riparian dustbins, including cigarette ends, and vehicles construction vehicles soils and water, leading to reduced no litter is to remain behind on site ability to support biodiversity following completion of construction 10 47.5 L 90 activities

6 Operations and maintenance of Potential failure of infrastructure, Potential contamination of riparian proposed linear development (i.e. sewer resulting in blockages or leakages soils, groundwater and surface water outfall pipeline) within the wetland and possible contamination of 8 30 L 80 systems surface and ground water The pipeline must be encased in Unblocking the pipeline (accessed *Vehicular access to the pipeline concrete along its entire length, and via manholes) resulting in: pressure tested for integrity upon the - Soil compaction completion of construction - Vegetation degradation It is recommended that the managing - Soil and stormwater contamination authority test the integrity of the from oils and hydrocarbons pipeline at least once every five years *Contamination of the wetlands with or more often should there be any sign additional sewage effluent resulting in: or reports of a leak - Increased concentration of salts, Should a blockage occur all possible

steps are to be taken to prevent the nitrate and toxic ammonia 10 45 L 80 concentrations, as well as counts of pollution of the watercourse during Escheria coli repair, including the placement of - Potential eutriophication of the sheeting around the manhole used for system, including anoxic conditions, access as well as containment barrels leading to biodiversity simplification for any effluent withdrawn and the excess production of Should repair of the pipeline be hydrogen sulphide gas as well as required to address a leak, mitigations increased alien and invasive species as per activity 1 and 2 above as encroachment applicable depending upon the location of the leak Repair of the pipeline in the event of Impacts as per activity 1 and 2 above leaks detected as applicable depending upon the 10 40 L 80 location of the leak

40 SAS 217025 March 2017

Operation of the pipeline *Latent impactsː The installed infrastructure will be permanent, and pose an increased risk over time in terms of the concrete weakening and cracking leading to leakages of the sewage. This may result in inputs of sewage effluent entering the aquatic system, and the following impacts: - Increased concentration of salts, 10 45 L 80 nitrate and toxic ammonia concentrations, as well as counts of Escheria coli - Potential eutrophication of the system, including anoxic conditions, leading to biodiversity simplification and the excess production of hydrogen sulphide gas as well as increased alien and invasive species encroachment 7 *Cumulative impactː Increased urban development in the area will likely place increased pressure upon the sewerage infrastructure (including the capacity of the receiving waste water treatment works) and may result in overflows 10 45 L from the manholes, and potentially compromise the integrity of the pipeline itself. This may result in inputs of sewage effluent entering the aquatic system, and impacts similar to those in Activity 6.

41 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table 8: Summary of the results of the risk assessment applied to the northern and eastern wetland systems associated with the proposed linear development.

No.

level level

Impact

Aspect

Phases Phases

Activity

Confidence Confidence

Risk Rating Risk

Significance

Likelihood Control Measures 1 Site clearing prior to commencement of Removal of vegetation and associated Exposure of soils, leading to increased - Contractor laydown areas and stockpiles construction activities. disturbances to soils. runoff and erosion, and thus increased to be established outside of the wetland sedimentation of the wetlands. zones and the applicable buffer zones in Increased sedimentation of wetland consultation with the appropriate authority 10 90 M 90 habitat, leading to smothering of biota - Vehicles to be serviced at the contractor and potentially altering surface water laydown area, and concrete shall also be quality. mixed in that area so much as is possible. Decreased ecoservice provision. Concrete may require additional mixing Possible indiscriminate driving through Damage to vegetation, leading to onsite, and when this occurs batter boards wetland areas by construction vehicles exposed/compacted soils, in turn leading must be used an sheeting shall be laid to increased runoff and erosion. 10 80 M 90 down to ensure concrete does not mess Decreased ecoservice provision. outside of the trenches Decreased ability to support biodiversity. - The wetland areas must be clearly demarcated with dangertape by an ECO 2 Groundbreaking, excavation of trench Removal of topsoils and creation of Disturbances of soils leading to and marked as a no-go area within the wetland zones soil stockpiles increased alien vegetation proliferation,

- When trenching, soil must only be piled and in turn to further altered wetland on the eastern and northern edges of the habitat. 10 80 M 90 excavation in order to limit potential Altered runoff patterns, leading to sedimentation of the wetlands increased erosion and sedimentation of - All manholes should be raised above the

Construction wetland habitat. 1:100 year floodline Construction of a sewer pipeline within the Digging and trenching Sedimentation of wetlands 3 - Soil must be recompacted to a depth of wetland systems Mixing and casting of concrete Erosion of the exposed trench 450 mm, and all construction material Miscellaneous activities by Removal of vegetation and disturbance must be removed from site upon the construction personnel of soils, which may enable the 10 80 M 90 completion of construction Digging and trenching leading to recruitment of alien and invasive - Sanitation services must be provided for stockpiling of soil directly adjacent to vegetation construction personnel, whereby at least the excavation one portable toilet will be provided per ten 4 Potential indiscriminate waste disposal Disposal of construction-related Altered flow regime as a result of solid personnel and will be emptied regularly wastes (such as rubble, hazardous wastes within the wetlands 10 70 M 90 - Construction personnel must be chemicals and litter) Altered water quality due to chemical informed that no firewood is to be waste disposal harvested, all litter must be stored 5 Potential spillage from construction vehicles Spills / chemical leaks from Possible contamination of wetland soils immediately and only in closed dustbins, construction vehicles and water, leading to reduced ability to 10 80 M 90 including cigarette ends, and no litter is to support biodiversity remain behind on site following completion of construction activities

42 SAS 217025 March 2017

No.

level level

Impact

Aspect

Phases Phases

Activity

Confidence Confidence

Risk Rating Risk

Significance

Likelihood Control Measures 6 Operations and maintenance of proposed Potential failure of infrastructure, Potential contamination of wetland soils, linear development (i.e. sewer outfall resulting in blockages or leakages and groundwater and surface water 8 34 L 80 pipeline) within the wetland systems possible contamination of surface and The pipeline must be encased in concrete ground water along its entire length, and pressure Unblocking the pipeline (accessed via *Vehicular access to the pipeline tested for integrity upon the completion of manholes) resulting in: construction - Soil compaction It is recommended that the managing - Vegetation degradation authority test the integrity of the pipeline at - Soil and stormwater contamination least once every five years or more often from oils and hydrocarbons should there be any sign or reports of a *Contamination of the wetlands with leak additional sewage effluent resulting in: Should a blockage occur all possible steps

- Increased concentration of salts, nitrate 10 52.5 L 80 are to be taken to prevent the pollution of and toxic ammonia concentrations, as the watercourse during repair, including well as counts of Escheria coli the placement of sheeting around the - Potential eutrophication of the system, manhole used for access as well as including anoxic conditions, leading to containment barrels for any effluent biodiversity simplification and the excess withdrawn production of hydrogen sulphide gas as Should repair of the pipeline be required well as increased alien and invasive to address a leak, mitigations as per species encroachment activity 1 and 2 above as applicable Repair of the pipeline in the event of Impacts as per activity 1 and 2 above as depending upon the location of the leak leaks detected applicable depending upon the location 10 50 L 80 of the leak

43 SAS 217025 March 2017

No.

level level

Impact

Aspect

Phases Phases

Activity

Confidence Confidence

Risk Rating Risk

Significance

Likelihood Control Measures Operation of the pipeline *Latent impactsː The installed infrastructure will be permanent, and pose an increased risk over time in terms of the concrete weakening and cracking leading to leakages of the sewage. This may result in inputs of sewage effluent entering the aquatic system, and the following impacts: - Increased concentration of salts, nitrate 10 80 M 80 and toxic ammonia concentrations, as well as counts of Escheria coli - Potential eutrophication of the system, including anoxic conditions, leading to biodiversity simplification and the excess production of hydrogen sulphide gas as well as increased alien and invasive species encroachment

7 *Cumulative impactː Increased urban development in the area will likely place increased pressure upon the sewerage infrastructure (including the capacity of the receiving waste water treatment works) and may 10 80 M result in overflows from the manholes, and potentially compromise the integrity of the pipeline itself. This may result in inputs of sewage effluent entering the aquatic system, and impacts similar to those in Activity 6.

44 SAS 217025 March 2017

6 CONCLUSION

Three primary freshwater resources were identified within the study area, specifically the Jukskei River (and its associated riparian zone), and two unchannelled valley bottom wetland systems, one located north of the study area and one located east of the study area.

These freshwater resources were deemed to be in moderately to seriously modified condition as summarised in the table below:

Table 9: Summary of results of the field assessment as discussed in Section 4. Freshwater Resource PES Ecoservices EIS REC Jukskei River E Intermediate C D East unchannelled valley bottom wetland E Intermediate C D North unchannelled valley bottom wetland C/D Intermediate C C

These resources have been impacted historically by agriculture in the region (as demonstrated by the presence of dams along the wetland systems for example), however recent rapid urbanisation of the area has resulted in extensive impacts on these systems such as increased solid wastes and sewage entering the system, altered vegetation profiles, and altered hydraulic patterns as a result of increased flows and flow-altering instream structures (e.g. culverts). Nevertheless, along the eastern side of the Jukskei River within the study area, naturally occurring grassland floral species still dominate, and the eastern wetland particularly has the potential to be sustainably utilised for educational and recreational purposes if rehabilitated.

Therefore, whilst the construction and operation of the proposed linear development is considered to be a relatively low to medium risk activity, it is considered imperative that suitable mitigation measures, as provided for in Section 5 and Appendix F of this report, are strictly adhered to in order to minimise the impacts associated with the development and decrease the significance of cumulative impacts on these freshwater systems.

Following the assessment of the freshwater resources, the DWS risk assessment matrix was applied in order to ascertain the significance of possible impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed development. The results of this assessment are presented in Section 5 of this report, and show that, assuming mitigation measures are strictly enforced, impact significance is of low to medium levels during both construction and operations phases.

45 SAS 217025 March 2017

From a freshwater resource conservation perspective, both alignment options will have similar impacts, and similar impact significance, on the ecology of the freshwater resources – this is especially pertinent to the wetland crossings. In this regard, Option 2 is considered to be a marginally preferable alignment insofar as the crossing of the northern wetland is concerned, since this alignment is closer to an existing road and therefore the system has already been impacted at this point. However, Option 1 is a viable alignment.

Based on the findings of the freshwater resource assessment and the results of the risk assessment, it is the opinion of the ecologist that although the proposed development poses a risk to a portion of the wetland systems (i.e. where the linear development will cross the systems) and may potentially impact negatively on a very small portion of the riparian zone associated with the Jukskei River, these risks can be satisfactorily mitigated. Adherence to cogent, well-conceived and ecologically sensitive site development plans, and the mitigation measures provided in this report as well as general good construction practice, will greatly reduce the significance of perceived impacts. It is the opinion of the specialist therefore that the proposed linear development, from a freshwater resource perspective, be considered favourably, with the proviso that strict adherence to mitigation measures is enforced, in order to ensure that the ecological integrity of the freshwater resources is not further compromised.

46 SAS 217025 March 2017

7 REFERENCES

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 2008. Updated Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas, prepared by M. Rountree, A. L. Batchelor, J. MacKenzie and D. Hoare. Report no. X. Stream Flow Reduction Activities, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 2005. Final draft: A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and Riparian areas. Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). 2014. A Desktop Assessment of the Present Ecological State, Ecological Importance and Ecological Sensitivity per Sub Quaternary Reaches for Secondary Catchments in South Africa. Secondary: C2 Compiled by RQIS-RDM: Online available: https://www.dwa.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/eco/peseismodel.aspx as retrieved in July 2016 Ellery, W., Grenfell, M., Grenfell, S., Kotze, D., McCarthy, T., Tooth, S., Grundling, P-L., Beckedahl, H., le Maitre, D., Ramsay, L. 2008. WET-Origins: Controls on the distribution and dynamics of wetlands in South Africa. WRC Report TT 334/08. Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). 2011. GIS Data – C-Plan Version 3.3 Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). 2014. Minimum Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments. Version 3. Johannesburg. Kleynhans C.J. 1999. A procedure for the determination of the ecological reserve for the purposes of the national water balance model for South African River. Institute of Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, Pretoria. Kleynhans C.J., Thirion C. and Moolman J. 2005. A Level 1 Ecoregion Classification System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria Kleynhans C.J., Thirion C., Moolman J, Gaulana L. 2007. A Level II River Ecoregion Classification System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria Kleynhans CJ, Louw MD, Graham M. 2008. Module G: EcoClassification and EcoStatus determination in River EcoClassification: Index of Habitat Integrity (Section 1, Technical manual) Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report No. TT 377-08 Kotze D.C., Marneweck G.C., Batchelor A.L., Lindley D.S. and Collins N.B. 2009. WET- EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report No. TT 339/09. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Macfarlane D.M., Kotze D.C., Ellery W.N., Walters D., Koopman V., Goodman P. and Goge C. 2008. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report No. TT 340/08. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) 107 of 1998 National Water Act (NWA) 36 of 1998. Nel, JL, Driver, A., Strydom W.F., Maherry, A., Petersen, C., Hill, L., Roux, D.J, Nienaber, S., Van Deventer, H., Swartz, E. & Smith-Adao, L.B. 2011. Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa: Maps to support sustainable development of water resources. Water Research Commission Report No. TT 500/11, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

47 SAS 217025 March 2017

NFEPA: Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murruy, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J. and Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Water Research Commission. Report No. 1801/1/11. Online available: http://bgis.sanbi.org/nfepa/project.asp Ollis, D.J., Snaddon, C.D., Job, N.M. & Mbona, N. 2013. Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland Systems. SANBI Biodiversity Series 22. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Rountree, M.W. and Kotze, D.C. 2013. Appendix A3: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Assessment. In: Rountree, M. W., Malan, H.L., and Weston, B.C. Eds. Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland Wetlands (Version 2.0). WRC Report No. 1788/1/12. Pretoria. Van Ginkel, C.E., Glen, R.P., Gornon-Gray, K.D., Cilliers, C.J., Muasya, M., van Deventer, P.P. 2011. Easy identification of some South African Wetland Plants. Water Research Commission TT 479/10. Van Oudtshoorn, F. 2004. Second Edition, Third Print. Guide to Grasses of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria, RSA

48 SAS 217025 March 2017

APPENDIX A – Terms of Use and Indemnity

INDEMNITY AND TERMS OF USE OF THIS REPORT

The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on the author’s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as available information. The report is based on survey and assessment techniques which are limited by time and budgetary constraints relevant to the type and level of investigation undertaken and SAS CC and its staff reserve the right to modify aspects of the report including the recommendations if and when new information may become available from ongoing research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation.

Although SAS CC exercises due care and diligence in rendering services and preparing documents, SAS CC accepts no liability and the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies SAS CC and its directors, managers, agents and employees against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expensed arising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by SAS CC and by the use of the information contained in this document.

This report must not be altered or added to without the prior written consent of the author. This also refers to electronic copies of this report which are supplied for the purposes of inclusion as part of other reports, including main reports. Similarly, any recommendations, statements or conclusions drawn from or based on this report must make reference to this report. If these form part of a main report relating to this investigation or report, this report must be included in its entirety as an appendix or separate section to the main report.

49 SAS 217025 March 2017

APPENDIX B - Legislation

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) and the associated Regulations (GNR 982) as amended in 2014, states that prior to any development taking place within a wetland or riparian area, an environmental authorisation process needs to be followed. This could follow either the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process (GNR 983) or the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (GNR 984) process depending on the scale of the impact. Provincial regulations as set out in GNR 985 must also be considered.

National Water Act, 1998 The National Water Act (NWA) (Act 36 of 1998) recognises that the entire ecosystem and not just the water itself in any given water resource constitutes the resource and as such needs to be conserved. No activity may therefore take place within a watercourse unless it is authorised by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). Any area within a wetland or riparian zone is therefore excluded from development unless authorisation is obtained from the DWS in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i).

General Notice 509 as published in the Government Gazette 40229 of 2016 as it relates to the NWA (Act 36 of 1998) In accordance with Regulation GN509 of 2016, a regulated area of a watercourse for section 21c and 21i of the NWA, 1998 is defined as: a) the outer edge of the 1 in 100 year flood line and/or delineated riparian habitat, whichever is the greatest distance, measured from the middle of the watercourse of a river, spring, natural channel, lake or dam; b) in the absence of a determined 1 in 100 year flood line or riparian area the area within 100 m from the edge of a watercourse where the edge of the watercourse is the first identifiable annual bank fill flood bench; or c) a 500 m radius from the delineated boundary (extent) of any wetland or pan.

GDARD Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 3 (GDARD, 2014). The biodiversity assessment must comply with the minimum requirements as stipulated by GDARD Version 3 of 2014 and must contain the following information:  The wetland delineation procedure must identify the outer edge of the temporary zone of the wetland, which marks the boundary between the wetland and adjacent terrestrial areas;  The Delineation must be undertaken according to the DWAF guidelines;  The wetland and a protective buffer zone, beginning from the outer edge of the wetland temporary zone, must be designated as sensitive in a sensitivity map. Rules for buffer zone widths are as follows:  30m for wetlands occurring inside urban areas; and  50m for wetlands occurring outside urban areas.

50 SAS 217025 March 2017

APPENDIX C – Method of Assessment

FRESHWATER RESOURCE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

1. Desktop Study Prior to the commencement of the field assessment, a background study, including a literature review, was conducted in order to determine the ecoregion and ecostatus of the larger aquatic system within which the freshwater features present or in close proximity of the proposed study area are located. Aspects considered as part of the literature review are discussed in the sections that follow.

1.1 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA, 2011) The NFEPA project is a multi-partner project between the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Water Research Commission (WRC), South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), DWA, South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) and South African National Parks (SANParks). The project responds to the reported degradation of freshwater ecosystem condition and associated biodiversity, both globally and in South Africa. It uses systematic conservation planning to provide strategic spatial priorities of conserving South Africa’s freshwater biodiversity, within the context of equitable social and economic development. The NFEPA project aims to identify a national network of freshwater conservation areas and to explore institutional mechanisms for their implementation. Freshwater ecosystems provide a valuable, natural resource with economic, aesthetic, spiritual, cultural and recreational value. However, the integrity of freshwater ecosystems in South Africa is declining at an alarming rate, largely as a consequence of a variety of challenges that are practical (managing vast areas of land to maintain connectivity between freshwater ecosystems), socio-economic (competition between stakeholders for utilisation) and institutional (building appropriate governance and co-management mechanisms). The NFEPA database was searched for information in terms of conservation status of rivers, wetland habitat and wetland features present in the vicinity of or within the proposed study area.

1.2 Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Resource Quality Information Services Present Ecological State / Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (PES/EIS) Database (2012) The PES/EIS database as developed by the DWS RQIS department was utilised to obtain background information on the project area. The PES/EIS database has been made available to consultants since mid-August 2014. The information from this database is based on information at a sub-quaternary catchment reach (subquat reach) level with the descriptions of the aquatic ecology based on the information collated by the DWS RQIS department from all reliable sources of reliable information such as SA RHP sites, EWR sites and Hydro WMS sites. The results obtained serve to summarise this information as a background to the conditions of the watercourse traversed by the proposed linear development.

2. Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa The freshwater features encountered within the proposed study area were assessed using the Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland Systems (Ollis et al., 2013), hereafter referred to as the “Classification System”. A summary of Levels 1 to 4 of the classification system are presented in Table C1 and C2, below.

51 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table C1: Proposed classification structure for Inland Systems, up to Level 3.

WETLAND / AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT LEVEL 1: LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3: SYSTEM REGIONAL SETTING LANDSCAPE UNIT Valley Floor DWA Level 1 Ecoregions OR Slope Inland Systems NFEPA WetVeg Groups Plain OR Other special framework Bench (Hilltop / Saddle / Shelf)

Table C2: Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Unit for the Inland System, showing the primary HGM Types at Level 4A and the subcategories at Level 4B to 4C.

FUNCTIONAL UNIT LEVEL 4: HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) UNIT Longitudinal zonation/ Landform / HGM type Landform / Inflow drainage Outflow drainage A B C Active channel Mountain headwater stream Riparian zone Active channel Mountain stream Riparian zone Active channel Transitional Riparian zone Active channel Upper foothills Riparian zone Active channel River Lower foothills Riparian zone Active channel Lowland river Riparian zone Active channel Rejuvenated bedrock fall Riparian zone Active channel Rejuvenated foothills Riparian zone Active channel Upland floodplain Riparian zone Channelled valley-bottom wetland (not applicable) (not applicable) Unchannelled valley-bottom wetland (not applicable) (not applicable) Floodplain depression (not applicable) Floodplain wetland Floodplain flat (not applicable) With channelled inflow Exorheic Without channelled inflow With channelled inflow Depression Endorheic Without channelled inflow With channelled inflow Dammed Without channelled inflow With channelled outflow (not applicable) Seep Without channelled outflow (not applicable) Wetland flat (not applicable) (not applicable)

52 SAS 217025 March 2017

Level 1: Inland systems From the Classification System, Inland Systems are defined as aquatic ecosystems that have no existing connection to the ocean2 (i.e. characterised by the complete absence of marine exchange and/or tidal influence) but which are inundated or saturated with water, either permanently or periodically. It is important to bear in mind, however, that certain Inland Systems may have had a historical connection to the ocean, which in some cases may have been relatively recent.

Level 2: Ecoregions & NFEPA Wetland Vegetation Groups For Inland Systems, the regional spatial framework that has been included at Level 2 of the classification system is that of DWA’s Level 1 Ecoregions for aquatic ecosystems (Kleynhans et al., 2005). There is a total of 31 Ecoregions across South Africa, including Lesotho and Swaziland. DWA Ecoregions have most commonly been used to categorise the regional setting for national and regional water resource management applications, especially in relation to rivers. The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) groups vegetation types across the country according to Biomes, which are then divided into Bioregions. To categorise the regional setting for the wetland component of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) project, wetland vegetation groups (referred to as WetVeg Groups) were derived by further splitting bioregions into smaller groups through expert input (Nel et al., 2011). There are currently 133 NFEPA WetVeg Groups. It is envisaged that these groups could be used as a special framework for the classification of wetlands in national- and regional-scale conservation planning and wetland management initiatives.

Level 3: Landscape Setting At Level 3 of the Classification System, for Inland Systems, a distinction is made between four Landscape Units (Table C1) on the basis of the landscape setting (i.e. topographical position) within which an HGM Unit is situated, as follows (Ollis et al., 2013):  Slope: an included stretch of ground that is not part of a valley floor, which is typically located on the side of a mountain, hill or valley;  Valley floor: The base of a valley, situated between two distinct valley side-slopes;  Plain: an extensive area of low relief characterised by relatively level, gently undulating or uniformly sloping land; and  Bench (hilltop/saddle/shelf): an area of mostly level or nearly level high ground (relative to the broad surroundings), including hilltops/crests (areas at the top of a mountain or hill flanked by down-slopes in all directions), saddles (relatively high-lying areas flanked by down-slopes on two sides in one direction and up-slopes on two sides in an approximately perpendicular direction), and shelves/terraces/ledges (relatively high-lying, localised flat areas along a slope, representing a break in slope with an up-slope one side and a down-slope on the other side in the same direction).

Level 4: Hydrogeomorphic Units Seven primary HGM Types are recognised for Inland Systems at Level 4A of the Classification System (Table C2), on the basis of hydrology and geomorphology (Ollis et al., 2013), namely:  River: a linear landform with clearly discernible bed and banks, which permanently or periodically carries a concentrated flow of water;  Channelled valley-bottom wetland: a valley-bottom wetland with a river channel running through it;  Unchannelled valley-bottom wetland: a valley-bottom wetland without a river channel running through it;  Floodplain wetland: the mostly flat or gently sloping land adjacent to and formed by an alluvial river channel, under its present climate and sediment load, which is subject to periodic inundation by over-topping of the channel bank;

2 Most rivers are indirectly connected to the ocean via an estuary at the downstream end, but where marine exchange (i.e. the presence of seawater) or tidal fluctuations are detectable in a river channel that is permanently or periodically connected to the ocean, it is defined as part of the estuary.

53 SAS 217025 March 2017

 Depression: a landform with closed elevation contours that increases in depth from the perimeter to a central area of greatest depth, and within which water typically accumulates.  Wetland Flat: a level or near-level wetland area that is not fed by water from a river channel, and which is typically situated on a plain or a bench. Closed elevation contours are not evident around the edge of a wetland flat; and  Seep: a wetland area located on (gently to steeply) sloping land, which is dominated by the colluvial (i.e. gravity-driven), unidirectional movement of material down-slope. Seeps are often located on the side-slopes of a valley but they do not, typically, extend into a valley floor.

The above terms have been used for the primary HGM Units in the classification system to try and ensure consistency with the wetland classification terms currently in common usage in South Africa. Similar terminology (but excluding categories for “channel”, “flat” and “valleyhead seep”) is used, for example, in the recently developed tools produced as part of the Wetland Management Series including WET-Health (Macfarlane et al., 2008), WET-IHI (DWAF, 2007) and WET-EcoServices (Kotze et al., 2009).

3. WET-Health Healthy wetlands are known to provide important habitats for wildlife and to deliver a range of important goods and services to society. Management of these systems is therefore essential if these attributes are to be retained within an ever-changing landscape. The primary purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the eco-physical health of wetlands, and in so doing to promote their conservation and wise management.

Level of Evaluation Two levels of assessment are provided by WET-Health:  Level 1: Desktop evaluation, with limited field verification. This is generally applicable to situations where a large number of wetlands need to be assessed at a very low resolution; or  Level 2: On-site evaluation. This involves structured sampling and data collection in a single wetland and its surrounding catchment.

Framework for the Assessment A set of three modules has been synthesised from the set of processes, interactions and interventions that take place in wetland systems and their catchments: hydrology (water inputs, distribution and retention, and outputs), geomorphology (sediment inputs, retention and outputs) and vegetation (transformation and presence of introduced alien species).

Units of Assessment Central to WET-Health is the characterisation of HGM Units, which have been defined based on geomorphic setting (e.g. hillslope or valley-bottom; whether drainage is open or closed), water source (surface water dominated or sub-surface water dominated) and pattern of water flow through the wetland unit (diffusely or channelled) as described under the Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems above.

Quantification of Present State of a wetland The overall approach is to quantify the impacts of human activity or clearly visible impacts on wetland health, and then to convert the impact scores to a Present State score. This takes the form of assessing the spatial extent of the impact of individual activities and then separately assessing the intensity of the impact of each activity in the affected area. The extent and intensity are then combined to determine an overall magnitude of impact. The impact scores, and Present State categories are provided in the table below.

54 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table C3: Impact scores and categories of Present State used by WET-Health for describing the integrity of wetlands. Impact Present Impact Description score State category range category None Unmodified, natural 0-0.9 A Small Largely natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem 1-1.9 B processes is discernible and a small loss of natural habitats and biota may have taken place. Moderate Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss 2-3.9 C of natural habitats has taken place, but the natural habitat remains predominantly intact. Large Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of 4-5.9 D natural habitat and biota and has occurred. Serious The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota 6-7.9 E is great, but some remaining natural habitat features are still recognisable. Critical Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes 8-10 F have been completely modified with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.

Assessing the Anticipated Trajectory of Change As is the case with the Present State, future threats to the state of the wetland may arise from activities in the catchment upstream of the unit or within the wetland itself or from processes downstream of the wetland. In each of the individual sections for hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation, five potential situations exist depending upon the direction and likely extent of change (table below). Table C4: Trajectory of Change classes and scores used to evaluate likely future changes to the present state of the wetland. HGM Change Class Description change Symbol score Substantial State is likely to improve substantially over the next 5 years 2 ↑↑ improvement Slight improvement State is likely to improve slightly over the next 5 years 1 ↑ Remain stable State is likely to remain stable over the next 5 years 0 → Slight deterioration State is likely to deteriorate slightly over the next 5 years -1 ↓ Substantial State is expected to deteriorate substantially over the next 5 years -2 ↓↓ deterioration

Overall health of the wetland Once all HGM Units have been assessed, a summary of health for the wetland as a whole needs to be calculated. This is achieved by calculating a combined score for each component by area-weighting the scores calculated for each HGM Unit. Recording the health assessments for the hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation components provide a summary of impacts, Present State, Trajectory of Change and Health for individual HGM Units and for the entire wetland.

55 SAS 217025 March 2017

4. Riparian Vegetation Response Index (VEGRAI) Riparian vegetation is described in the NWA (Act No 36 of 1998) as follows: ‘riparian habitat’ includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterised by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species with a composition and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent land areas.

The Riparian Vegetation Response Assessment Index (VEGRAI) is designed for qualitative assessment of the response of riparian vegetation to impacts in such a way that qualitative ratings translate into quantitative and defensible results3. Results are defensible because their generation can be traced through an outlined process (a suite of rules that convert assessor estimates into ratings and convert multiple ratings into an Ecological Category). Table C5: Descriptions of the A-F ecological categories. Ecological Description Score (% of total) category A Unmodified, natural. 90-100 B Largely natural with few modifications. A small change in natural habitat and biota 80-89 may have taken place but the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged. C Moderately modified. Loss and change of natural habitat have occurred, but the 60-79 basic ecosystem functions are still predominately unchanged. D Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem 40-59 functions has occurred. E Seriously modified. The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions 20-39 is extensive. F Critically modified. Modifications have reached a critical level and the lotic system 0-19 has been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worst instances the basic ecosystem functions have been destroyed and the changes are irreversible

5. Index of Habitat Integrity The general habitat integrity of each site was discussed based on the application of the Index of Habitat Integrity (Kleynhans et al. 2008). It is important to assess the habitat at each site in order to aid in the interpretation of the results of the community integrity assessments, by taking habitat conditions and impacts into consideration. This method describes the Present Ecological State (PES) of both the in- stream and riparian habitat at each site. The method classifies habitat integrity into one of six classes, ranging from unmodified/natural (Class A) to critically modified (Class F), as indicated in Table C6 below.

3 Kleynhans et al, 2007

56 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table C6: Classification of Present State Classes in terms of Habitat Integrity [Kleynhans et al. 2008] Class Description Score (% of total) A Unmodified, natural. 90 - 100 B Largely natural with few modifications. The flow regime has been only slightly 80 - 89 modified and pollution is limited to sediment. A small change in natural habitats may have taken place. However, the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged. C Moderately modified. Loss and change of natural habitat and biota have occurred, 60 - 79 but the basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged. D Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem 40 – 59 functions has occurred. E Seriously modified. The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions 20 – 39 is extensive. F Critically / Extremely modified. Modifications have reached a critical level and the 0 - 19 system has been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worst instances the basic ecosystem functions have been destroyed and the changes are irreversible.

6. Wetland Function Assessment “The importance of a water resource, in ecological social or economic terms, acts as a modifying or motivating determinant in the selection of the management class”.4 The assessment of the ecosystem services supplied by the identified freshwater features was conducted according to the guidelines as described by Kotze et al. (2009). An assessment was undertaken that examines and rates the following services according to their degree of importance and the degree to which the service is provided:  Flood attenuation;  Stream flow regulation;  Sediment trapping;  Phosphate trapping;  Nitrate removal;  Toxicant removal;  Erosion control;  Carbon storage;  Maintenance of biodiversity;  Water supply for human use;  Natural resources;  Cultivated foods;  Cultural significance;  Tourism and recreation; and  Education and research.

The characteristics were used to quantitatively determine the value, and by extension sensitivity, of the freshwater features. Each characteristic was scored to give the likelihood that the service is being provided. The scores for each service were then averaged to give an overall score to the freshwater features.

4 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, South Africa Version 1.0 of Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources, 1999

57 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table C7: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied. Score Rating of the likely extent to which the benefit is being supplied <0.5 Low 0.6-1.2 Moderately low 1.3-2 Intermediate 2.1-3 Moderately high >3 High

7. Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) (Rountree & Kotze, 2013)

The purposed of assessing importance and sensitivity of water resources is to be able to identify those systems that provide higher than average ecosystem services, biodiversity support functions or are especially sensitive to impacts. Water resources with higher ecological importance may require managing such water resources in a better condition than the present to ensure the continued provision of ecosystem benefits in the long term (Rountree & Kotze, 2013). In order to align the outputs of the Ecoservices assessment (i.e. ecological and socio-cultural service provision) with methods used by the DWA (now the DWS) used to assess the EIS of other watercourse types, a tool was developed using criteria from both WET-Ecoservices (Kotze, et, al, 2009) and earlier DWA EIA assessment tools. Thus, three proposed suites of important criteria for assessing the Importance and Sensitivity for wetlands were proposed, namely:  Ecological Importance and Sensitivity, incorporating the traditionally examined criteria used in EIS assessments of other water resources by DWA and thus enabling consistent assessment approaches across water resource types;  Hydro-functional importance, taking into consideration water quality, flood attenuation and sediment trapping ecosystem services that the wetland may provide; and  Importance in terms of socio-cultural benefits, including the subsistence and cultural benefits provided by the wetland system. The highest of these three suites of scores is then used to determine the overall Importance and Sensitivity category (Table C8) of the wetland system being assessed. Table C8: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Categories and the interpretation of median scores for biota and habitat determinants (adapted from Kleynhans, 1999). Range of Recommended Ecological EIS Category Mean Management Class Very high Wetlands that are considered ecologically important and sensitive on a >3 and <=4 A national or even international level. The biodiversity of these wetlands is usually very sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. High Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive. >2 and <=3 B The biodiversity of these wetlands may be sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. Moderate Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive >1 and <=2 C on a provincial or local scale. The biodiversity of these wetlands is not usually sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. Low/marginal Wetlands that are not ecologically important and sensitive at any scale. >0 and <=1 D The biodiversity of these wetlands is ubiquitous and not sensitive to flow and habitat modifications.

58 SAS 217025 March 2017

8. Recommended Ecological Category (REC) “A high management class relates to the flow that will ensure a high degree of sustainability and a low risk of ecosystem failure. A low management class will ensure marginal maintenance of sustainability, but carries a higher risk of ecosystem failure.” 5

The REC (Table C9) was determined based on the results obtained from the PES, reference conditions and EIS of the resource (sections above). Followed by realistic recommendations, mitigation, and rehabilitation measures to achieve the desired REC.

A freshwater feature may receive the same class for the PES as the REC if the freshwater feature is deemed in good condition, and therefore must stay in good condition. Otherwise, an appropriate REC should be assigned in order to prevent any further degradation as well as enhance the PES of the freshwater feature. Table C9: Description of REC classes. Class Description A Unmodified, natural B Largely natural with few modifications C Moderately modified D Largely modified

9. Wetland and Riparian Delineation The freshwater resource delineation took place according to the method presented in the “Updated manual for the identification and delineation of wetland and riparian resources” published by DWAF in 2008. The foundation of the method is based on the fact that wetlands and riparian zones have several distinguishing factors including the following:  The presence of water at or near the ground surface;  Distinctive hydromorphic soils;  Vegetation adapted to saturated soils; and  The presence of alluvial soils in stream systems.

According to the DWA (2005) like wetlands, riparian areas have their own unique set of indicators. It is possible to delineate riparian areas by checking for the presence of these indicators. Some areas may display both wetland and riparian indicators, and can accordingly be classified as both. If you are adjacent to a watercourse, it is important to check for the presence of the riparian indicators described below, in addition to checking for wetland indicators, to detect riparian areas that do not qualify as wetlands. The delineation process requires that the following be taken into account:  topography associated with the watercourse;  vegetation; and  alluvial soils and deposited material.

By observing the evidence of these features in the form of indicators, wetlands and riparian zones can be delineated and identified. If the use of these indicators and the interpretation of the findings are applied correctly, then the resulting delineation can be considered accurate (DWA, 2005).

5 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, South Africa Version 1.0 of Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources 1999

59 SAS 217025 March 2017

APPENDIX D – Risk Assessment Methodology

In order for the EAP to allow for sufficient consideration of all environmental impacts, impacts were assessed using a common, defensible method of assessing significance that will enable comparisons to be made between risks/impacts and will enable authorities, stakeholders and the client to understand the process and rationale upon which risks/impacts have been assessed. The method to be used for assessing risks/impacts is outlined in the sections below. The first stage of the risk/impact assessment is the identification of environmental activities, aspects and impacts. This is supported by the identification of receptors and resources, which allows for an understanding of the impact pathway and an assessment of the sensitivity to change. The definitions used in the impact assessment are presented below.  An activity is a distinct process or task undertaken by an organisation for which a responsibility can be assigned. Activities also include facilities or infrastructure that is possessed by an organisation;  An environmental aspect is an ‘element of an organizations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment’6. The interaction of an aspect with the environment may result in an impact;  Environmental risks/impacts are the consequences of these aspects on environmental resources or receptors of particular value or sensitivity, for example, disturbance due to noise and health effects due to poorer air quality. In the case where the impact is on human health or wellbeing, this should be stated. Similarly, where the receptor is not anthropogenic, then it should, where possible, be stipulated what the receptor is;  Receptors can comprise, but are not limited to, people or human-made systems, such as local residents, communities and social infrastructure, as well as components of the biophysical environment such as wetlands, flora and riverine systems;  Resources include components of the biophysical environment;  Frequency of activity refers to how often the proposed activity will take place;  Frequency of impact refers to the frequency with which a stressor (aspect) will impact on the receptor;  Severity refers to the degree of change to the receptor status in terms of the reversibility of the impact; sensitivity of receptor to stressor; duration of impact (increasing or decreasing with time); controversy potential and precedent setting; threat to environmental and health standards;  Spatial extent refers to the geographical scale of the impact; and  Duration refers to the length of time over which the stressor will cause a change in the resource or receptor.

The significance of the impact is then assessed by rating each variable numerically according to the defined criteria (refer to the table below). The purpose of the rating is to develop a clear understanding of influences and processes associated with each impact. The severity, spatial scope and duration of the impact together comprise the consequence of the impact and when summed can obtain a maximum value of 15. The frequency of the activity and the frequency of the impact together comprise the likelihood of the impact occurring and can obtain a maximum value of 10. The values for likelihood and consequence of the impact are then read off a significance rating matrix and are used to determine whether mitigation is necessary7. The assessment of significance is undertaken twice. Initial, significance is based on only natural and existing mitigation measures (including built-in engineering designs). The subsequent assessment takes into account the recommended management measures required to mitigate the impacts. Measures such as demolishing infrastructure, and reinstatement and rehabilitation of land, are considered post-mitigation. The model outcome of the impacts was then assessed in terms of impact certainty and consideration of available information. The Precautionary Principle is applied in line with South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act (No. 108 of 1997) in instances of uncertainty or lack of information, by increasing assigned ratings or adjusting final model outcomes. In certain instances where a variable or

6 The definition has been aligned with that used in the ISO 14001 Standard. 7 Some risks/impacts that have low significance will however still require mitigation

60 SAS 217025 March 2017

outcome requires rational adjustment due to model limitations, the model outcomes have been adjusted. Table D1: Criteria for assessing significance of impacts. LIKELIHOOD DESCRIPTORS

Probability of impact RATING Highly unlikely 1 Possible 2 Likely 3 Highly likely 4 Definite 5 Sensitivity of receiving environment RATING Ecology not sensitive/important 1 Ecology with limited sensitivity/importance 2 Ecology moderately sensitive/ /important 3 Ecology highly sensitive /important 4 Ecology critically sensitive /important 5

CONSEQUENCE DESCRIPTORS

Severity of impact RATING Insignificant / ecosystem structure and function unchanged 1 Small / ecosystem structure and function largely unchanged 2 Significant / ecosystem structure and function moderately altered 3 Great / harmful/ ecosystem structure and function Largely altered 4 Disastrous / ecosystem structure and function seriously to critically altered 5 Spatial scope of impact RATING Activity specific/ < 5 ha impacted / linear features affected < 100m 1 Development specific/ within the site boundary / < 100ha impacted / linear features affected < 100m 2 Local area/ within 1 km of the site boundary / < 5000ha impacted / linear features affected < 1000m 3 Regional within 5 km of the site boundary / < 2000ha impacted / linear features affected < 3000m 4 Entire habitat unit / Entire system/ > 2000ha impacted / linear features affected > 3000m 5 Duration of impact RATING One day to one month 1 One month to one year 2 One year to five years 3 Life of operation or less than 20 years 4 Permanent 5

61 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table D2: Significance rating matrix.

CONSEQUENCE (Severity + Spatial Scope + Duration) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105 Frequencyimpact)of 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 135

LIKELIHOOD(Frequency + activity of 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Table D3: Positive/Negative Mitigation Ratings. Significance Rating Value Negative Impact Management Positive Impact Management Recommendation Recommendation

Very high 126-150 Improve current management Maintain current management

High 101-125 Improve current management Maintain current management

Medium-high 76-100 Improve current management Maintain current management

Medium-low 51-75 Maintain current management Improve current management

Low 26-50 Maintain current management Improve current management

Very low 1-25 Maintain current management Improve current management

The following points were considered when undertaking the assessment:  Risks and impacts were analysed in the context of the project’s area of influence encompassing:  Primary project site and related facilities that the client and its contractors develops or controls;  Areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts for further planned development of the project, any existing project or condition and other project-related developments; and  Areas potentially affected by impacts from unplanned but predictable developments caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location.  Risks/Impacts were assessed for all stages of the project cycle including:  Construction; and  Operation.  If applicable, transboundary or global effects were assessed;  Individuals or groups who may be differentially or disproportionately affected by the project because of their disadvantaged or vulnerable status were assessed; and  Particular attention was paid to describing any residual impacts that will occur after rehabilitation.

62 SAS 217025 March 2017

Mitigation Measure Development The following points present the key concepts considered in the development of mitigation measures for the project.  Mitigation and performance improvement measures and actions that address the risks and impacts8 are identified and described in as much detail as possible. Mitigating measures are investigated according to the impact minimisation hierarchy as follows:  Avoidance or prevention of impact;  Minimisation of impact;  Rehabilitation; and  Offsetting.  Measures and actions to address negative impacts will favour avoidance and prevention over minimisation, mitigation or compensation; and  Desired outcomes are defined, and have been developed in such a way as to be measurable events with performance indicators, targets and acceptable criteria that can be tracked over defined periods, wherever possible.

Recommendations  Recommendations were developed to address and mitigate potential impacts on the wetland ecology associated with the proposed development.

8 Mitigation measures should address both positive and negative impacts

63 SAS 217025 March 2017

APPENDIX E – Results of Field Investigation PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES), ECOSERVICES AND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY (EIS) RESULTS

Table E1: Presentation of the results of the ecosystem services provided by the assessed portion of the Jukskei River associated with the study area.

Ecosystem service Jukskei River Flood attenuation 2.7 Streamflow regulation 2.0 Sediment trapping 3.2 Phosphate assimilation 2.6 Nitrate assimilation 2.1 Toxicant assimilation 3.0 Erosion control 2.4 Carbon Storage 1.3 Biodiversity maintenance 1.1 Water Supply 1.2 Harvestable resources 0.0 Cultivated foods 0.0 Cultural value 0.5 Tourism and recreation 1.4 Education and research 1.8 SUM 25.1 Average score 1.7

Table E2: Presentation of the results of the VEGRAI assessment of the assessed portion of the Jukskei River associated with the study area.

LEVEL 3 ASSESSMENT CALCULATED WEIGHTED METRIC GROUP CONFIDENCE RANK % WEIGHT RATING RATING MARGINAL 47.4 29.6 2.0 1.0 100.0 NON MARGINAL 56.3 21.1 0.0 2.0 60.0 2.0 160.0 LEVEL 3 VEGRAI (%) 50.7 VEGRAI EC D AVERAGE CONFIDENCE 1.0

Table E3: Presentation of the results of the PES (Index of Habitat Integrity) of the assessed portion of the Jukskei River associated with the study area.

64 SAS 217025 March 2017

RIPARIAN IHI Base Flows -0.5 Zero Flows 0.0 Moderate Floods 3.0 Large Floods 4.5 HYDROLOGY RATING 2.3 Substrate Exposure (marginal) 1.0 Substrate Exposure (non-marginal) 1.0 Invasive Alien Vegetation (marginal) 4.0 Invasive Alien Vegetation (non-marginal) 4.0 Erosion (marginal) 3.0 Erosion (non-marginal) 3.0 Physico-Chemical (marginal) 3.0 Physico-Chemical (non-marginal) 2.0 Marginal 4.0 Non-marginal 4.0 BANK STRUCTURE RATING 4.0 Longitudinal Connectivity 3.0 Lateral Connectivity 2.5 CONNECTIVITY RATING 2.8

RIPARIAN IHI % 37.1 RIPARIAN IHI EC E RIPARIAN CONFIDENCE 2.0

65 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table E4: Presentation of the results of the EIS assessment of the assessed portion of the Jukskei River associated with the study area.

Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5) A (average) (average) Biodiversity support 0.00 4.00 Presence of Red Data species 0 4 Populations of unique species 0 4 Migration/breeding/feeding sites 0 4 B (average) (average) Landscape scale 2.00 4.00 Protection status of the wetland 1 4 Protection status of the vegetation type 4 4 Regional context of the ecological integrity 1 4 Size and rarity of the wetland type/s present 3 4 Diversity of habitat types 1 4 C (average) (average) Sensitivity of the wetland 1.00 4.00 Sensitivity to changes in floods 1 4 Sensitivity to changes in low flows/dry season 1 4 Sensitivity to changes in water quality 1 4 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY (max of A,B or C) (average of A, B or C)

Fill in highest score: C 2.00

Hydro-Functional Importance Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5) Flood attenuation 3 4 Streamflow regulation 2 4

Sediment trapping 3 4 Phosphate assimilation 3 4

benefits Nitrate assimilation 2 4 Toxicant assimilation 3 4

Water QualityWater

Enhancement Erosion control 2 4

Regulating & supporting Carbon storage 1 4 HYDRO-FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE 2 4

Direct Human Benefits Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5)

Water for human use 1 4

Harvestable resources 0 4

benefits

Subsistence Cultivated foods 0 4

Cultural heritage 0 4 Tourism and recreation 1 4

Cultural benefits Education and research 2 4 DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS 0.67 4

66 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table E5: Presentation of the results of the ecosystem services provided by the assessed portion of the eastern wetland system associated with the study area.

Ecosystem service UCVB East Flood attenuation 1.8 Streamflow regulation 2.0 Sediment trapping 1.8 Phosphate assimilation 2.6 Nitrate assimilation 2.9 Toxicant assimilation 2.9 Erosion control 2.8 Carbon Storage 1.8 Biodiversity maintenance 2.0 Water Supply 1.0 Harvestable resources 0.0 Cultivated foods 0.0 Cultural value 0.0 Tourism and recreation 1.0 Education and research 0.5 SUM 22.9 Average score 1.5

Table E6: Presentation of the results of the PES assessment (WET-Health) applied to the eastern wetland system associated with the study area.

Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Overall PES Category of PES Trajectory of PES Trajectory of PES Trajectory of the Resource category change category change category change E E → E → F ↓ (area-weighted score = 7.88)

67 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table E7: Presentation of the results of the EIS assessment applied to the eastern wetland system associated with the study area. Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5) A (average) (average) Biodiversity support 0.67 3.00 Presence of Red Data species 1 2 Populations of unique species 0 4 Migration/breeding/feeding sites 1 3 B (average) (average) Landscape scale 1.60 4.00 Protection status of the wetland 1 4 Protection status of the vegetation type 4 4 Regional context of the ecological integrity 1 4 Size and rarity of the wetland type/s present 1 4 Diversity of habitat types 1 4 C (average) (average) Sensitivity of the wetland 2.00 4.00 Sensitivity to changes in floods 2 4 Sensitivity to changes in low flows/dry season 2 4 Sensitivity to changes in water quality 2 4 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY (max of A,B or C) (average of A, B or C)

Fill in highest score: C 2.00

Hydro-Functional Importance Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5) Flood attenuation 2 4 Streamflow regulation 2 4

Sediment trapping 2 4

Phosphate assimilation 3 4

benefits Nitrate assimilation 3 4 Toxicant assimilation 3 4

Water QualityWater

Enhancement

Regulating & supporting Erosion control 3 4 Carbon storage 2 4 HYDRO-FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE 3 4

Direct Human Benefits Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5)

Water for human use 0 4 Harvestable resources 0 4

benefits Cultivated foods 0 4

Subsistence

Cultural heritage 0 4 Tourism and recreation 1 4

Cultural benefits Education and research 1 4 DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS 0.33 4

68 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table E8: Presentation of the results of the ecosystem services provided by the assessed portion of the northern wetland system associated with the study area.

Ecosystem service UCVB North Flood attenuation 2.0 Streamflow regulation 1.8 Sediment trapping 2.2 Phosphate assimilation 2.9 Nitrate assimilation 2.9 Toxicant assimilation 3.1 Erosion control 2.9 Carbon Storage 1.3 Biodiversity maintenance 1.2 Water Supply 0.8 Harvestable resources 0.0 Cultivated foods 0.0 Cultural value 0.0 Tourism and recreation 0.5 Education and research 0.5 SUM 22.0 Average score 1.5

Table E9: Presentation of the results of the PES assessment (WET-Health) applied to the northern wetland system associated with the study area.

Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Overall PES Category of PES Trajectory of PES Trajectory of PES Trajectory of the Resource category change category change category change C/D D → C → C ↓ (area-weighted score = 3.48)

69 SAS 217025 March 2017

Table E10: Presentation of the results of the EIS assessment applied to the northern wetland system associated with the study area. Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5) A (average) (average) Biodiversity support 0.00 3.00 Presence of Red Data species 0 2 Populations of unique species 0 4 Migration/breeding/feeding sites 0 3 B (average) (average) Landscape scale 1.00 4.00 Protection status of the wetland 0 4 Protection status of the vegetation type 4 4 Regional context of the ecological integrity 1 4 Size and rarity of the wetland type/s present 0 4 Diversity of habitat types 0 4 C (average) (average) Sensitivity of the wetland 1.33 4.00 Sensitivity to changes in floods 2 4 Sensitivity to changes in low flows/dry season 1 4 Sensitivity to changes in water quality 1 4 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY (max of A,B or C) (average of A, B or C)

Fill in highest score: C 1.30

Hydro-Functional Importance Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5) Flood attenuation 2 4 Streamflow regulation 2 4

Sediment trapping 2 4

Phosphate assimilation 3 4 Nitrate assimilation 3 4 benefits Toxicant assimilation 3 4

Water QualityWater Enhancement Erosion control 3 4

Regulating & supporting Carbon storage 2 4 HYDRO-FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE 3 4

Direct Human Benefits Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5)

Water for human use 0 4

Harvestable resources 0 4

benefits

Subsistence Cultivated foods 0 4

Cultural heritage 0 4 Tourism and recreation 1 4

Cultural benefits Education and research 1 4 DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS 0.33 4

70 SAS 217025 March 2017

APPENDIX F – Risk Analysis and Mitigation Measures

General construction management and good housekeeping practices Latent and general impacts which may affect the wetland ecology and biodiversity, will include any activities which take place in close proximity to the proposed development that may impact on the receiving environment. Mitigation measures for these impacts are highlighted below and are relevant to the wetland system identified in this report: Development footprint  All development footprint areas should remain as small as possible and should not encroach into wetland areas unless absolutely essential. It must be ensured that the wetland habitat is off-limits to construction vehicles and non-essential personnel;  The boundaries of footprint areas, including contractor laydown areas, are to be clearly defined and it should be ensured that all activities remain within defined footprint areas. Edge effects will need to be extremely carefully controlled;  Planning of temporary roads and access routes should avoid wetland areas and be restricted to existing roads where possible;  Appropriate sanitary facilities must be provided for the life of the construction phase and all waste removed to an appropriate waste facility;  All hazardous chemicals as well as stockpiles should be stored on bunded surfaces and have facilities constructed to control runoff from these areas;  It must be ensured that all hazardous storage containers and storage areas comply with the relevant SABS standards to prevent leakage;  No fires should be permitted in or near the construction area; and  Ensuring that an adequate number of waste and “spill” bins are provided will also prevent litter and ensure the proper disposal of waste and spills. Vehicle access  All vehicles must be regularly inspected for leaks. Re-fuelling must take place on a sealed surface area to prevent ingress of hydrocarbons into the topsoil;  In the event of a vehicle breakdown, maintenance of vehicles must take place with care and the recollection of spillage should be practiced near the surface area to prevent ingress of hydrocarbons into topsoil and subsequent habitat loss; and  All spills should they occur, should be immediately cleaned up and treated accordingly.

Wetland habitat If any infrastructure (such as bridge crossings) is to be placed in the wetland the extent of encroachment into the wetland will need to be extremely well controlled and limited.

Vegetation  Proliferation of alien and invasive species is expected within any disturbed areas. Whilst not considered severe at this time, the vegetation component within the wetland is already transformed to an extent as a result of alien plant invasion; therefore these species should be eradicated and controlled to prevent their spread beyond the project footprint. Alien plant seed dispersal within the top layers of the soil within footprint areas, that will have an impact on future rehabilitation, has to be controlled;  Removal of the alien and weed species encountered on the property must take place in order to comply with existing legislation (amendments to the regulations under the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 and Section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998). Removal of species should take place throughout the construction, operational, and maintenance phases; and  Species specific and area specific eradication recommendations:  Care should be taken with the choice of herbicide to ensure that no additional impact and loss of indigenous plant species occurs due to the herbicide used;  Footprint areas should be kept as small as possible when removing alien plant species; and  No vehicles should be allowed to drive through designated sensitive wetland areas during the eradication of alien and weed species.

71 SAS 217025 March 2017

Soils  Sheet runoff from access roads should be slowed down by the strategic placement of berms;  As far as possible, all construction activities should occur in the low flow season, during the drier winter months;  As much vegetation growth as possible (of indigenous floral species) should be encouraged to protect soils;  No stockpiling of topsoils is to take place within the recommended construction phase buffer zone of 21m around the wetland, and all stockpiles must be protected with a suitable geotextile to prevent sedimentation of the wetland;  All soils compacted as a result of construction activities as well as ongoing operational activities falling outside of project footprint areas should be ripped and profiled; and  A monitoring plan for the development and the immediate zone of influence should be implemented to prevent erosion and incision. Rehabilitation  Construction rubble must be collected and disposed of at a suitable landfill site; and  All alien vegetation in the footprint area as well as immediate vicinity of the proposed development should be removed. Alien vegetation control should take place for a minimum period of two growing seasons after rehabilitation is completed.

Impact ratings on the wetland ecology The tables below serve to summarise the anticipated impacts that might occur during the construction and operational phases as well as the mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the resource. It should be noted that the risk assessment was undertaken based on the proposed layout provided by the proponent, which indicates that development will occur within close proximity (i.e. 15m) of the wetland. Should further planning take place prior to construction, and (as recommended) no infrastructure is placed within wetland habitat or the stipulated buffer zones, the perceived impact significance particularly of construction activities may be further reduced.

72 SAS 217025 March 2017

APPENDIX G – Specialist information

DETAILS, EXPERTISE AND CURRICULUM VITAE OF SPECIALISTS

1. (a) (i) Details of the specialist who prepared the report

Stephen van Staden MSc (Environmental Management) (University of Johannesburg)

Amanda Mileson NDip Nature Conservation (UNISA)

1. (a). (ii) The expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae

Company of Specialist: Scientific Aquatic Services Name / Contact person: Stephen van Staden Postal address: 91 Geldenhuis Rd, Malvern East, Ext 1 Postal code: 1401 Cell: 083 415 2356 Telephone: 011 616 7893 Fax: 011 615 6240/ 086 724 3132 E-mail: [email protected] Qualifications MSc (Environmental Management) (University of Johannesburg) BSc (Hons) Zoology (Aquatic Ecology) (University of Johannesburg) BSc (Zoology, Geography and Environmental Management) (University of Johannesburg) Registration / Associations Registered Natural Professional Scientist at South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) Accredited River Health Practitioner by the South African River Health Program (RHP) Member of the South African Soil Surveyors Association (SASSO) Member of the Gauteng Wetland Forum

73 SAS 217025 March 2017

SCIENTIFIC AQUATIC SERVICES (SAS) – SPECIALIST CONSULTANT INFORMATION

CURRICULUM VITAE OF STEPHEN VAN STADEN

PERSONAL DETAILS

Position in Company Managing member, Ecologist, Aquatic Ecologist Date of Birth 13 July 1979 Nationality South African Languages English, Afrikaans Joined SAS 2003 (year of establishment)

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

Registered Professional Scientist at South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP)

Accredited River Health practitioner by the South African River Health Program (RHP)

Member of the South African Soil Surveyors Association (SASSO)

Member of the Gauteng Wetland Forum

EDUCATION

Qualifications

MSc (Environmental Management) (University of Johannesburg) 2002

BSc (Hons) Zoology (Aquatic Ecology) (University of Johannesburg) 2000

BSc (Zoology, Geography and Environmental Management) (University of Johannesburg) 1999

COUNTRIES OF WORK EXPERIENCE

South Africa – All Provinces Southern Africa – Lesotho, Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe Eastern Africa – Tanzania West Africa – Ghana, Liberia, Angola, Guinea Bissau Central Africa – Democratic Republic of the Congo

SELECTED PROJECT EXAMPLES

74 SAS 217025 March 2017

Development compliance studies  Project co-leader for the development of the EMP for the use of the Wanderers stadium for the Ubuntu village for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).  Environmental Control Officer for Eskom for the construction of an 86Km 400KV power line in the Rustenburg Region.  Numerous Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and EIA exemption applications for township developments and as part of the Development Facilitation Act requirements.  EIA for the extension of mining rights for a Platinum mine in the Rustenburg area by Lonmin Platinum.  EIA Exemption application for a proposed biodiesel refinery in Chamdor.  Compilation of an EIA as part of the Bankable Feasibility Study process for proposed mining of a gold deposit in the Lofa province, Liberia.  EIA for the development of a Chrome Recovery Plant at the Two Rivers Platinum Mine in the Limpopo province, South Africa.  Compilation of an EIA as part of the Bankable Feasibility Study process for the Mooihoek Chrome Mine in the Limpopo province, South Africa.  Mine Closure Plan for the Vlakfontein Nickel Mine in the North West Province. Specialist studies and project management  Development of a zero discharge strategy and associated risk, gap and cost benefit analyses for the Lonmin Platinum group.  Development of a computerised water balance monitoring and management tool for the management of Lonmin Platinum process and purchased water.  The compilation of the annual water monitoring and management program for the Lonmin Platinum group of mines.  Analyses of ground water for potable use on a small diamond mine in the North West Province.  Project management and overview of various soil and land capability studies for residential, industrial and mining developments.  The design of a stream diversion of a tributary of the Olifants River for a proposed opencast coal mine.  Waste rock dump design for a gold mine in the North West province.  Numerous wetland delineation and function studies in the North West, Gauteng and Mpumalanga Kwa-Zulu Natal provinces, South Africa.  Hartebeespoort Dam Littoral and Shoreline PES and rehabilitation plan.  Development of rehabilitation principles and guidelines for the Crocodile West Marico Catchment, DWAF North West. Aquatic and water quality monitoring and compliance reporting  Development of the Resource quality Objective framework for Water Use licensing in the Crocodile West Marico Water management Area.  Development of the Resource Quality Objectives for the Local Authorities in the Upper Crocodile West Marico Water management Area.  Development of the 2010 State of the Rivers Report for the City of Johannesburg.  Development of an annual report detailing the results of the Lonmin Platinum groups water monitoring program.  Development of an annual report detailing the results of the Everest Platinum Mine water monitoring program.  Initiation and management of a physical, chemical and biological monitoring program, President Steyn Gold Mine Welkom.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for several Xstrata Alloys Mines and Smelters.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for several Anglo Platinum Mines.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for African Rainbow Minerals Mines.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for several Assmang Chrome Operations.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for Petra Diamonds.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for several coal mining operations.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for several Gold mining operations.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for several mining operations for various minerals including iron ore, and small platinum and chrome mining operations.  Aquatic biomonitoring program for the Valpre bottled water plant (Coca Cola South Africa).  Aquatic biomonitoring program for industrial clients in the paper production and energy generation industries.  Aquatic biomonitoring programs for the City of Tshwane for all their Waste Water Treatment Works.  Baseline aquatic ecological assessments for numerous mining developments.  Baseline aquatic ecological assessments for numerous residential commercial and industrial developments.  Baseline aquatic ecological assessments in southern, central and west Africa.

75 SAS 217025 March 2017

 Lalini Dam assessment with focus on aquatic fish community analysis.  Musami Dam assessment with focus on the FRAI and MIRAI aquatic community assessment indices.

Wetland delineation and wetland function assessment  Wetland biodiversity studies for three copper mines on the copper belt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Wetland biodiversity studies for proposed mining projects in Guinea Bissau, Liberia and Angola in West Africa.  Terrestrial and wetland biodiversity studies for developments in the mining industry.  Terrestrial and wetland biodiversity studies for developments in the residential commercial and industrial sectors.  Development of wetland riparian resource protection measures for the Hartbeespoort Dam as part of the Harties Metsi A Me integrated biological remediation program.  Priority wetland mammal species studies for numerous residential, commercial, industrial and mining developments throughout South Africa. Terrestrial ecological studies and biodiversity studies  Development of a biodiversity offset plan for Xstrata Alloys Rustenburg Operations.  Biodiversity Action plans for numerous mining operations of Anglo Platinum throughout South Africa in line with the NEMBA requirements.  Biodiversity Action plans for numerous mining operations of Assmang Chrome throughout South Africa in line with the NEMBA requirements.  Biodiversity Action plans for numerous mining operations of Xstrata Alloys and Mining throughout South Africa in line with the NEMBA requirements.  Biodiversity Action plan for the Nkomati Nickel and Chrome Mine Joint Venture.  Terrestrial and wetland biodiversity studies for three copper mines on the copperbelt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Terrestrial and wetland biodiversity studies for proposed mining projects in Guinea Bissau, Liberia and Angola in West Africa.  Numerous terrestrial ecological assessments for proposed platinum and coal mining projects.  Numerous terrestrial ecological assessments for proposed residential and commercial property developments throughout most of South Africa.  Specialist Giant bullfrog (Pyxicephalus adspersus) studies for several proposed residential and commercial development projects in Gauteng, South Africa.  Specialist Marsh sylph (Metisella meninx) studies for several proposed residential and commercial development projects in Gauteng, South Africa.  Project management of several Red Data Listed (RDL) bird studies with special mention of African grass owl (Tyto capensis).  Project management of several studies for RDL Scorpions, spiders and beetles for proposed residential and commercial development projects in Gauteng, South Africa.  Specialist assessments of terrestrial ecosystems for the potential occurrence of RDL spiders and owls.  Project management and site specific assessment on numerous terrestrial ecological surveys including numerous studies in the Johannesburg-Pretoria area, Witbank area, and the Vredefort dome complex.  Biodiversity assessments of estuarine areas in the Kwa-Zulu Natal and Eastern Cape provinces.  Impact assessment of a spill event on a commercial maize farm including soil impact assessments. Fisheries management studies  Tamryn Manor (Pty.) Ltd. still water fishery initiation, enhancement and management.  Verlorenkloof Estate fishery management strategising, fishery enhancement, financial planning and stocking strategy.  Mooifontein fishery management strategising, fishery enhancement and stocking programs.  Wickams retreat management strategising.  Gregg Brackenridge management strategising and stream recalibration design and stocking strategy.  Eljira Farm baseline fishery study compared against DWAF 1996 aquaculture and aquatic ecosystem guidelines.

76 SAS 217025 March 2017

SCIENTIFIC AQUATIC SERVICES (SAS) – SPECIALIST CONSULTANT INFORMATION

CURRICULUM VITAE OF AMANDA MILESON PERSONAL DETAILS Position in Company Ecologist Date of Birth 15 February 1978 Nationality Zimbabwean Languages English Joined SAS 2013

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Member South African Wetland Society Member Gauteng Wetland Forum

EDUCATION Qualifications N.Dip Nature Conservation (UNISA) 2016 Wetland Rehabilitation short learning programme (UFS) 2015

COUNTRIES OF WORK EXPERIENCE South Africa – Gauteng, Mpumalanga, North West, Limpopo, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape Zimbabwe

SELECTED PROJECT EXAMPLES

Wetland Assessments  Wetland assessment as part of the environmental authorisation process for the Anglo Platinum Der Brochen Project, Limpopo Province  Wetland assessment as part of the environmental authorisation process for the proposed Tharisa North eastern waste rock dump, North West Province  Wetland assessment as part of the environmental authorisation process for the proposed Yzermyn Coal Mining Project near Dirkiesdorp, Mpumalanga  Wetland assessment as part of the environmental authorisation process for the Mzimvubu Water Project, Eastern Cape  Wetland assessment as part of the environmental authorisation process for the proposed expansion of mining operations at the Langkloof Colliery, Mpumalanga  Wetland assessment as part of the proposed water management process at the Assmang Chrome Machadodorp Works, Mpumalanga  Wetland assessment as part of the water use licencing process for the proposed development in Rooihuiskraal Ext 24, Centurion, Gauteng  Wetland assessment as part of the environmental authorisation process for the proposed road crossings on The Hills EcoEstate, Midrand, Gauteng  Wetland ecological assessment as part of the Section 24G application process for the Temba Water Purification Plant  Wetland assessment and offset studies for the Optimum Colliery Kwagga North Project, Mpumalanga

77 SAS 217025 March 2017

 Wetland assessment and delineation as part of the environmental authorisation process for the proposed development of a mall adjacent to the M10 Road in Mahube Valley, Mamelodi, Gauteng  Wetland assessment as part of the environmental authorisation process for the proposed construction of a sewer system in Ekangala Township, Gauteng Terrestrial Assessments  Investigation of specialist biodiversity aspects required by GDARD in the vicinity of the Apies River, downstream of the proposed construction of new outlet works at the Kudube (Leeuwkraal) Dam in Temba, Gauteng  Terrestrial Ecological Scan as part of the environmental authorisation process for three proposed bridge upgrades near Edenvale, Gauteng  Terrestrial Ecological Scan as part of the environmental authorisation process for the proposed Dalpark Ext 3 filling station development, Gauteng Rehabilitation Projects  Wetland rehabilitation and management plan for The Hills EcoEstate, Midrand, Gauteng  Riparian rehabilitation and management plan for The Diepsloot River, Riversands, Gauteng  Riparian rehabilitation and management plan for the Apies River in the vicinity of the proposed construction of new outlet works at the Kudube (Leeuwkraal) Dam in Temba, Gauteng Environmental Control Officer  Monthly specialist Environmental Control Officer (ECO) function for the monitoring of riparian crossings at Riversands Country Estate Development, Gauteng

78 SAS 217025 March 2017

1.(b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority I, Stephen van Staden, declare that -  I act as the independent specialist in this application;  I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;  I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;  I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the relevant legislation and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;  I will comply with the applicable legislation;  I have not, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;  I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;  All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct

------

Signature of the Specialist

79