Enviroserv Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Wetland, Soil and Land Capability Specialist Study Report

ENVIROSERV

CHLOORKOP LANDFILL SITE EXPANSION PROJECT WETLAND, SOIL AND LAND CAPABILITY SPECIALIST STUDY REPORT

Report No.: JW100/19/6007-25

May 2019

Internet presence: www.jaws.co.za

Synopsis

EnviroServ Waste Management (Pty) Ltd own the existing Chloorkop Landfill Site (CLS) and operate it in terms of a waste management licence (Ref: 16/2/7/A230/D17/Z1). Municipal solid waste is received from the Midrand area, including the City of Johannesburg and the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. The CLS is located in the Chloorkop Industrial area on Portion 63 of Klipfontein 12-IR and is accessed from Marsala Road. The waste body at the CLS has finite airspace, defined by the permitted footprint, height and design parameters and will not be able to receive waste once it reaches airspace capacity. EnviroServ is proposing to expand the CLS in order to provide additional airspace for ongoing disposal of municipal solid waste. The proposal is to expand the Chloorkop Landfill Site onto adjacent properties (Erf 334 and 335 of Chloorkop Extension 6), CLS Expansion Project. The concept is to establish engineered, Class B waste disposal cells on the target properties for ongoing disposal of municipal solid waste. The additional waste disposal cells would join with the current CLS waste body. The facility will include a small Material Recovery Facility for the separation of clean recyclables from the waste. Supporting infrastructure would be integrated with the CLS and/or redeveloped as appropriate. A municipal road, Anker Street, separates part of the expansion area from the CLS and thus a phased approach is likely. Phase 1A would entail the development and use of waste disposal cells between the current CLS and Anker Street. Phase 1B would involve the development and use of waste disposal cells on the portion of the site north of Anker street, connecting with the CLS and the Phase 1A. Phase 1B would only proceed if Anker Street had been relocated or closed (subject to municipal engagement and approvals). SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd was appointed by EnviroServ to prepare the relevant applications for environmental authorisation and licensing for the proposed CLS Expansion Project. As part of the environmental authorisation process, a number of specialist investigations are required. EnviroServ have appointed Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd (J&W) to undertake a wetland, soils and land capability assessment for the site. The CLS Expansion project area is located within an urban area (i.e. light industries, existing CLS landfill, quarry) that is highly altered. The phase 1A footprint is currently occupied by light industrial development with the topography altered and the soils compacted. The Phase 1B footprint is occupied on the west by a large area of illegal dumping of waste material, mainly building rubble, that is over 8 m deep in places. The eastern portion of the Phase1B footprint is wetland habitat. The findings of the assessment are summarised below. Soils and land capability The soils on site were mapped using transect field samples by hand augering to refusal or 1,2m depth. No natural soils remained in the phase 1A footprint as the entire footprint has been transformed by urban activities. The Phase 1B footprint has been extensively impacted by waste dumping over the bulk of the site, with some natural soils remaining in the northern and eastern sections of the site. The Phase 1B footprint included wetland soils with signs of wetness within the top 50cm of the soil, as well as waterlogged areas on the eastern perimeter. These soils are responsive in terms of the local hydropedological system, as they are in the low point in the landscape with water accumulating along several flow paths. The limited natural soils remaining upstream indicated a shallow rock layer in the profile, allowing water to move sideways in the profile, before daylighting in the lower sections of the slope. The wetland and waterlogged soils identified should be regarded as sensitive and avoided if possible.

Wetlands The presence of wetlands on site was determined using both desktop and in-field methodologies. No wetlands were identified within the phase 1A footprint. Three wetland HGM units were identified within the Phase 1B footprint. There is no natural watercourse upstream of the proposed Phase 1B site. All water from the upstream catchment enters the site as either stormwater or as seep from the adjacent quarry. The wetland HGM units identified on site include: • Un-channelled valley bottom Un-channelled valley bottom systems can sometimes have short sections of natural channels within them. The presence or absence of channels could not be confirmed in the field as the wetland is dominated by extensive stands of Typha capensis and Phragmites australis. The un-channelled valley bottom system has been artificially enhanced due to the discharge of stormwater, from the upstream catchment, at point locations into the system. The discharge of stormwater has resulted in a system that is seasonal to permanent in nature and would have likely been a more temporary seep associated with a seasonal channelled valley bottom system. • Channelled valley bottom. A channelled valley bottom system was identified on the northern boundary of the Phase 1B CLS Expansion site. • Seep. The seep identified on site feeds into the channelled valley bottom wetland via diffuse sub-surface flow. The current fill on the Phase 1B site is impacting the downstream seep wetland, resulting in a more seasonal to permanent system. The wetland on site were Moderately to Seriously modified, with the main impacts including: • Highly altered upstream catchment consisting isolated dirty water catchment areas, for example the existing CLS facility and of hardened surfaces, with the resultant impact on the Mean Annual Runoff entering the wetlands on site and the floodpeaks. • Gullies and drainage channels: The stormwater entering the Phase 1B site has resulted in the development of erosion channels, specifically on the eastern and western boundary of the site. • Modifications to existing channel. The discharge of stormwater at point locations, the deposition of fill within the wetland and the seepage of water from the adjacent quarry has modified the wetland system and likely increased the cross-sectional area of the unchannelled valley bottom system. Prior to the development of the catchment it is uncertain what HGM unit/s would have been present on the site, it is possible that the wetland (immediately downstream of Anker Street) would have been a more confined channelled valley bottom system flanked by a seep (as further downstream). • Surface roughness. There has likely been an increase in surface roughness due to a change in the seasonality of the wetland and the nutrient load entering the wetland, which has resulted in a dominance of species such as Phragmites australis. • Impeding features, for example the wall on the eastern boundary, between the quarry and the CLS Expansion site, and the downstream culvert entering the underground stormwater pipes. Immediately downstream of the site, the water enters a culvert and an underground stormwater pipe. • Increased on-site water use due to the alien invasive bushclumps consisting of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Acacia mearnsii which constitute 10% of the

iii

wetland area. These tree species are alien invasive species and are higher water users than natural vegetation. • Deposition/infilling or excavation. Sixty eight percent of the Phase 1B CLS Expansion site has been impacted on by illegal dumping and the deposition of fill material. The extent of wetland that occurs beneath these areas is unknown. • Water quality. The impacts on surface water quality re discussed in detail in the J&W surface water specialist study (JW090/19/6007-24). In summary the following constituents were raised as elements of concern in relation to the SANS 241:2015 Drinking Water Standards and/or the 2017 RWQO for IUA 1, Resource Unit 1_7 as determined by DWS: Electrical conductivity (EC), Manganese (Mn), Chloride (Cl), Sulfate (SO4), Boron (B), Fluoride (F), Sodium (Na), Ammonia (N) and Ortho- Phosphate (P), E. coli and Total Coliforms. The main services supplied by the wetland HGM Units are the indirect benefits related to water quality enhancement and flood attenuation. This is largely due to the extent of vegetation cover present, specifically in the Unchannelled valley bottom system. As mentioned previously, the type of vegetation cover present in this HGM Unit and in Seep 2 has been altered due to the change in hydrological regime (more seasonal to permanent wetland system) and extent in the HGM Unit which has been increased in size due to the point source discharge of stormwater into the system. Opportunity to provide the service is also in many cases high due to the upstream catchment and the quality of stormwater entering the site. The maintenance of biodiversity is supplied at an Intermediate level mainly due to the rare wetland type and level of protection of the wetland HGM Units. At a quaternary catchment scale, the A21C catchment has a Moderate Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS). At a local scale, the EIS was assessed for the three HGM units (Seep, Un-channelled Valley Bottom and Channelled Valley Bottom). The Seep 1 - Moderate overall EIS and Seep 2, Unchannelled valley bottom and the channelled valley bottom – High overall EIS. Way Forward Taking into consideration the current impacts present on site and the mitigation measures proposed, the soils and wetland specialists are of the opinion that if the proposed mitigation measures for the Phase 1A expansion are successfully implemented including the mitigation measures proposed in the surface water, groundwater, aquatic and biodiversity assessments, the project will have an Insignificant and Very Low impact on the soils and the downstream wetlands respectively. In line with the mitigation hierarchy and the initial project discussions held between GDARD and the EAP, the main mitigation measure for Phase 1B is to have no net loss in wetland functionality and therefore to ensure that the footprint for Phase 1B is reduced in size to not be located within the wetland area. The Phase 1B footprint is therefore to be located within the area covered by the existing informal dump of building rubble. The soils and wetland specialists are of the opinion that if the proposed mitigation measures for the Phase 1B expansion are successfully implemented the project will have a Very Low to Low impact on the soils and surrounding wetlands respectively. Based on the limited airspace for waste management in the province, rehabilitation alternatives in downstream wetlands could be investigated should this option be re-visited in the future.

DOCUMENT APPROVAL RECORD

Report No.: JW100/19/6007-25

ACTION FUNCTION NAME DATE SIGNATURE

Prepared Wetland Ecologist K. Taggart 3/5/2019

Prepared Soil Scientist K. Kruger 3/5/2019

Reviewed Environmental Scientist T. Hopkins 3/5/2019

Revised Environmental Scientist K. Taggart 6/5/2019

Updated Environmental Scientist K. Taggart 21/5/2019

Reviewed Environmental Scientist T. Hopkins 3/6/2019

Updated Environmental Scientist K. Taggart 11/06/2019

Updated Soil Scientist K. Kruger 11/06/2019

LOCATION: Lat: - 26.039400 (Decimal Degrees) Long: 28.166387

RECORD OF REVISIONS AND ISSUES REGISTER

Date Revision Description Issued to Issue Format No. Copies

Internal review of baseline 3/5/2019 A T. Hopkins Electronic N/A assessment

Client review of baseline 7/5/2019 0 M. Hemming Electronic N/A assessment

Internal review of impact 03/06/2019 1a T. Hopkins Electronic N/A assessment

Client review of impact 04/06/2019 1 M. Hemming Electronic N/A assessment

24/06/2019 2 Final for Client M. Hemming Electronic N/A

NEMA Appendix 6 requirements

Regulation: GNR Section in 982, December Description the Report 2014, as amended Specialist Report A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain— Section 2 & details of— Appendix A Appendix 6 (a) the specialist who prepared the report; and the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae; A declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by Appendix 6 (b) Page VII the competent authority; Appendix 6 (c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; Section 1.1 Appendix 6 (cA) An indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; Section 5 A description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed Section 6.4 Appendix 6 (cB) development and levels of acceptable change; & Section 7 The duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the Section 5 Appendix 6 (d) season to the outcome of the assessment; Appendix 6 (e) A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out Section 5 the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; Appendix 6 (f) Section 4.9, Details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to Section 6.3 the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, & Figure inclusive of a, site plan identifying site alternatives; 1.1.b Appendix 6 (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers Figure 6.3.d Appendix 6 (h) A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and Figure 6.3.d infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; Appendix 6 (i) A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in Section knowledge; 5.7.2 Appendix 6 (j) A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the Section 7 impact of the proposed activity or activities; Appendix 6 (k) Section 7 & Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 8 Appendix 6 (l) Section 7 & Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 8 Appendix 6 (m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental Section 8 authorisation; Appendix 6 (n) A reasoned opinion— Section 9 i.whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; (iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and ii.if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; Appendix 6 (o) A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course N/A of preparing the specialist report; Appendix 6 (p) A summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation N/A process and where applicable all responses thereto; and Appendix 6 (q) Any other information requested by the competent authority. N/A

vi SPECIALIST DECLARATION

I, Kathy Taggart and Konrad Kruger, hereby 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 Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity. • I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other 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. • I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Kathy Taggart Konrad Kruger

A detailed CV of the authors are included in Appendix A.

vii

ENVIROSERV

CHLOORKOP LANDFILL SITE EXPANSION PROJECT WETLAND, SOIL AND LAND CAPABILITY SPECIALIST STUDY REPORT REPORT NO: JW100/19/6007-25

CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Terms of Reference ...... 2

2. PROJECT TEAM 5

3. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION 5

4. SITE DESCRIPTION 7 4.1 Site Locality ...... 7 4.2 Climate ...... 7 4.3 Topography ...... 8 4.4 Geology...... 9 4.5 Soils ...... 11 4.6 Land Use ...... 11 4.7 Regional Vegetation ...... 14 4.8 Hydrology ...... 14 4.9 Conservation Importance ...... 16

5. METHODOLOGY 21 5.1 Soil Classification ...... 21 5.2 Land Capability Classification ...... 21 5.3 Wetland Classification ...... 22 5.4 Wetland Extent ...... 23 5.5 Wetland Assessment Tools ...... 24 5.6 Hydropedology ...... 27 5.7 Impact and Risk Assessment ...... 28 5.8 Limitations and assumptions ...... 32

6. RESULTS 33 6.1 Soil Types ...... 33 6.2 Land Capability ...... 35 6.3 Wetland Identification and Classification ...... 39 6.4 Wetland Present Ecological State ...... 43 6.5 Ecosystem Services ...... 63 6.6 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity ...... 64 6.7 Hydropedology ...... 66

7. IMPACT AND RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES 69 7.1 Phase 1A ...... 69 7.2 Phase 1B ...... 76

8. MONITORING MEASURES 84 8.1 Phase 1A ...... 84 8.2 Phase 1a & Phase 1B ...... 85

viii

9. WAY FORWARD 86

10. REFERENCES 87

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Applicable environmental legislation or guideline ...... 5 Table 4-1: Average rainfall and evaporation (WR90) depths ...... 8 Table 5-1: Agricultural Potential Criteria (ARC, 2002) ...... 22 Table 5-2: Impact Scores and Present Ecological State (Macfarlane et al, 2008) ...... 25 Table 5-3: Trajectory of change classes, scores and symbols (Macfarlane et al, 2008) ...... 25 Table 5-4: Ecosystem services assessed using the WET-EcoServices model (Kotze et al. 2008a) ...... 26 Table 5-5: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied (Kotze et al. 2008a) ...... 27 Table 5-6: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories for wetlands (Rountree et al., 2013)...... 27 Table 5-7: Hydropedological soil classes (a hydrological response classification of South African soil forms, adapted from Van Tol et al., 2013) ...... 28 Table 5-8: Impact definitions and criteria (provided by SLR) ...... 29 Table 5-9: Determining Consequence (provided by SLR) ...... 30 Table 5-10: Determining Significance (provided by SLR) ...... 31 Table 5-11: Interpretation of significance (provided by SLR) ...... 31 Table 5-12: Risk Rating Table ...... 32 Table 6-1: Natural Soil Forms Identified...... 34 Table 6-2: Summary of the land capability of the soil forms in the study area ...... 36 Table 6-3: Present Ecological State ...... 43 Table 6-4: Peak flows determined for catchments within the CLS Expansion site ...... 45 Table 6-5: Dominant Species found within the three main zones ...... 55 Table 6-6: Possible Conservation Important Species ...... 56 Table 6-7: Surface Water quality baseline survey data (March 2019 sample run) – CLS Expansion (inorganic and organic constituents) ...... 61 Table 6-8: Ecosystem Services supplied by the wetlands at the CLS Expansion site ...... 64 Table 6-9: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity ...... 65 Table 6-10: Hydro-functional Importance ...... 65 Table 6-11: Direct human benefits ...... 66 Table 7-1: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A – pre-mitigation ...... 70 Table 7-2: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A – post-mitigation ...... 71 Table 7-3: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A – pre-mitigation ...... 73 Table 7-4: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A – post-mitigation ...... 74 Table 7-5: Wetland Risk Assessment – Phase 1A ...... 75 Table 7-6: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A & 1B – pre-mitigation...... 76 Table 7-7: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A & 1B – post-mitigation ...... 78 Table 7-8: Hectare Equivalents – Current and Predicted State ...... 79 Table 7-9: Scores for ecosystem services...... 79 Table 7-10: Predicted Change in WET-Ecoservices ...... 81 Table 7-11: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A and Phase 1B – pre-mitigation .... 82 Table 7-12: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A and Phase 1B – post-mitigation ... 83 Table 8-1: Surface water monitoring locations – Phase 1A ...... 84 Table 8-2: Surface water monitoring locations – Phase 1A & 1B ...... 85

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1.a: Regional Locality Plan ...... 3 Figure 1.1.b: CLS Expansion Project ...... 4 Figure 4.2.a: Mean monthly rainfall and evaporation ...... 7 Figure 4.3.a: Height difference representation between the informal dump and the lower lying wetland area ...... 9 Figure 4.4.a: Regional geology ...... 10 Figure 4.6.a: Geotechnical sampling locations ...... 12 Figure 4.6.b: Land Types ...... 13 Figure 4.8.a: Quaternary Catchments ...... 15 Figure 4.9.a: NFEPA Wetlands ...... 18 Figure 4.9.b: Threatened Ecosystem ...... 19 Figure 4.9.c: Gauteng C-Plan ...... 20 Figure 5.4.a: Simple depiction of terrain units (adapted from DWAF, 2005) ...... 23 Figure 5.4.b: Land form for land type Bb1 ...... 24 Figure 6.1.a: Site Photographs of human disturbed soils ...... 34 Figure 6.2.a: Soil Type Map ...... 37 Figure 6.2.b: Land Capability Map ...... 38 Figure 6.3.a: Examples of soil wetness indicators ...... 40 Figure 6.3.b: Examples of wetland vegetation indicators ...... 40 Figure 6.3.c: Wetland Sampling Points ...... 41 Figure 6.3.d: Wetland HGM Units ...... 42 Figure 6.4.a: Hydrological impacts - catchment ...... 44 Figure 6.4.b: Hydrological impacts – Increased floodpeaks ...... 44 Figure 6.4.c: Catchment boundaries and nodes ...... 46 Figure 6.4.d: 1:100 year floodlines ...... 47 Figure 6.4.e: Hydrological impact – drainage channels ...... 49 Figure 6.4.f: Hydrological impacts – Impeding features ...... 50 Figure 6.4.g: Hydrological Impacts – deposition/infilling ...... 51 Figure 6.4.h: Geomorphological Impacts – Erosional features ...... 52 Figure 6.4.i: Historical and Current Imagery (2003/2019, Google Earth) ...... 52 Figure 6.4.j: Photographic representation of the Eucalyptus – Acacia mearnsii bushclumps 53 Figure 6.4.k: Photographic representation of the Pennisetum clandestrium (Kikuyu) patches 54 Figure 6.4.l: Broad Vegetation Units within the defined onsite wetland ...... 57 Figure 6.4.m: Surface water quality sampling locations ...... 60 Figure 6.7.a: Conceptual cross section of the hydropedological profile observed on site ...... 67 Figure 6.7.b: Hydropedological map of the site ...... 68 Figure 7.a: Mitigation hierarchy (Macfarlane et al., 2016) ...... 69

APPENDICES

Appendix A CV’S

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYM / ABBREVIATION MEANING

ARC Agricultural Research Council

BA Basic Assessment

BEEH Bio-resources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

CLS Chloorkop Landfill Site cm centimetre

CR Critically endangered

DDT Data Deficient - Taxonomically Problematic

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (now DWS)

DWS Department of Water and Sanitation

EA Environmental Authorisation

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity

EN Endangered

ESA Ecological Support Area

FEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area

GA General Authorisation

GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

GN Government Notice

GPS Global Positioning System ha hectare

HGM Hydro-geomorphic

ICFR Institute for Commercial Forestry Research

ISO International Organisation for Standardisation

ACRONYM / ABBREVIATION MEANING

J&W Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd km kilometre km2 Squared kilometres m metre m3/s Cubic metres per second

MAE Mean Annual Evapotranspiration

MAR Mean Annual Runoff mbgl metres below ground level mm millimetre

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NEMPAA National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act

NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area

NPA National Priority Area

NPAES National Protected Area Expansion Strategy

NSS Natural Scientific Services

NWA National Water Act

PES Present Ecological State

REC Recommended Ecological Category

SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio

SAWS South African Weather Service

VU Vulnerable

WML Waste Management Licence

WRC Water Research Council

WUL Water Use Licence

WULA Water Use Licence Application

xii Jones & Wagener Engineering & Environmental Consultants 59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South Africa tel: 00 27 11 519 0200 www.jaws.co.za email: [email protected]

ENVIROSERV

CHLOORKOP LANDFILL SITE EXPANSION PROJECT WETLAND, SOIL AND LAND CAPABILITY SPECIALIST STUDY REPORT REPORT NO: JW100/19/6007-25

1. INTRODUCTION

EnviroServ Waste Management (Pty) Ltd own the Chloorkop Landfill Site (CLS) and operate it in terms of a waste management licence (Ref: 16/2/7/A230/D17/Z1). Municipal solid waste is received from the Midrand area, including the City of Johannesburg and the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. The CLS is located in the Chloorkop Industrial area on Portion 63 of Klipfontein 12-IR and is accessed from Marsala Road (Figure 1.1.a). The CLS has been developed over the past two decades with six engineered waste disposal cells that form the waste body. The waste body covers an area of approximately 23.2 ha. In 2016 the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) granted approval for the permitted height of the waste body to be a maximum of 25 m above ground level. The waste body at the CLS has finite airspace, defined by the permitted footprint, height and design parameters. The CLS will not be able to receive waste once it reaches airspace capacity. Given the current and future waste generation potential of the Midrand region, there is an ongoing need for waste disposal services, even with growing levels of waste diversion. Alternative airspace in the Midrand region is limited. EnviroServ is proposing to expand the CLS in order to provide additional airspace for ongoing disposal of municipal solid waste. The proposal is to expand the Chloorkop Landfill Site onto adjacent properties, CLS Expansion Project (Figure 1.1.b). The targeted properties, north of the site, are Erf 334 and 335 of Chloorkop Extension 6, which are approximately 14 ha in extent. EnviroServ is in engagements with the property owner. The concept is to establish engineered, Class B waste disposal cells on the target properties for ongoing disposal of municipal solid waste. The additional waste disposal cells would join with the current CLS waste body. The facility will include a small Material Recovery Facility for the separation of clean recyclables from the waste. Supporting infrastructure would be integrated with the CLS and/or redeveloped as appropriate. A municipal road, Anker Street, separates part of the expansion area from the CLS and thus a phased approach is likely. Phase 1A would entail the development and use of waste disposal cells between the current CLS and Anker Street. Phase 1B would involve the development and use of waste disposal cells on the portion of the site north of Anker street, connecting with the CLS and the Phase 1A. Phase 1B would only proceed if Anker Street had been relocated or closed (subject to municipal engagement and approvals). The process to develop detailed designs for the waste disposal cells has been initiated.

JONES & WAGENER (PTY) LTD REG NO. 1993/002655/07 VAT No. 4410136685

DIRECTORS: GRWardle (Chairman) PrEng MSc(Eng) FSAICE JP van der Berg (CEO) PrEng PhD MEng FSAICE JE Glendinning PrSciNat MSc(Env Geochem) MSAIEG M Rust PrEng PhD MSAICE TM Ramabulana BA(Social Sciences) A Oosthuizen (Alternate) PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE TECHNICAL DIRECTORS: D Brink PrEng BEng(Hons) FSAICE NJVermeulen PrEng PhD MEng MSAICE HR Aschenborn PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE M van Zyl PrSciNat BSc(Hons) MIWMSA MW Palmer PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE TG le Roux PrEng MEng MSAICE AJ Bain PrEng BEng MSAICE GB Simpson PrEng MEng FSAIAE JS Msiza PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE MIWMSA G Harli PrEng MEng MSAICE JS Hex PrSciNat MSc(Env Man) ICB-EAPSA PJJ Smit PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE C Cilliers PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE NW Nxumalo PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE F Hörtkorn PrEng Dr.-Ing MSAICE TAL Green PrEng BSc(Eng) MSAICE H Davis PrEng BSc(Hons) GDE FSAICE ASSOCIATES: RA Nortjé PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE MIWMSA J Breyl PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE N Malepfana PrEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE CONSULTANTS: PW Day PrEng DEng HonFSAICE JA Kempe PrEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE AIStructE BR Antrobus PrSciNat BSc(Hons) MSAIEG PG Gage PrEng CEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE AIStructE FINANCIAL MANAGER: CJ Ford BCompt ACMA CGMA

The primary support services and infrastructure associated with the proposed expansion of the CLS include the site entrance and access controls, weigh bridge, leachate and stormwater management and landfill gas management. The process to develop detailed designs for the supporting infrastructure has been initiated. Access to the facility would be via Marsala Road, off the M38. Potable water and electricity would be sourced from the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality via existing connections. Effluent from the site will be disposed to the municipal sewage system. At the CLS all current waste cells have already been approved, whereas at the CLS Expansion, the future waste cells and associated infrastructure will require the necessary environmental authorisations. SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd was appointed by EnviroServ to prepare the relevant applications for environmental authorisation and licensing for the proposed CLS Expansion Project. As part of the environmental authorisation process, a number of specialist investigations are required. EnviroServ have appointed Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd (J&W) to undertake a wetland (including conceptual hydropedological investigation), soils and land capability assessment for the site. This report details the methodology and findings of the wetland, soils and land capability assessment, the impact assessment and associated management measures.

1.1 Terms of Reference A wetland, soils and land capability assessment are required in support of the required regulatory processes and the objective is to establish the baseline and determine the potential impact associated with the CLS Expansion Project on the wetlands, soils and land capability of the area and immediate surrounds. The terms of reference therefore includes the following aspects: • Baseline assessment: o Wetland assessment and delineation; o Conceptual hydropedological assessment; o Soils assessment; and o Land capability assessment • Impact assessment and identification of management/mitigation measures and monitoring requirements.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

President Park ±

R101")

Rabie Ridge

N1") 101") Austin View

Unnamed tributary of the Jukskei River

)"R39

Jukskei River

Modderfonteinspruit

Buccleuch

Chloorkop

)" N3

Klondike Legend

Modderfonteinspruit Rivers Roads CLS Northern Expansion Existing Chloorkop Landfill Site

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,0 CNES/Airbus DS,750 USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,1 500 IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Locality Map Figure 1.1.a ±

Northern Expansion 1B

Anker Street Northern Expansion 1A

Marsala Road

Chloorkop Landfill Site

Legend Northern Expansion 1A Northern Expansion 1B Chloorkop Landfill Site Surface Water Flow Roads Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,0 CNES/Airbus50 DS,100 USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,200 IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project CLS Northern Expansion Project Figure 1.1.b 5

2. PROJECT TEAM The wetland, soils and land capability assessment was managed and undertaken by J&W. The following key J&W personnel have been responsible for the project: • Project Manager & Wetland Ecologist Kathy Taggart (Pr Sci Nat Ecology & Environmental Science) • Soil Scientist Konrad Kruger (B.Sc Hons) • Project Director Jacqui Hex (Pr Sci Nat Environmental Science) • Reviewer Tolmay Hopkins (Pr Sci Nat Environmental Science)

The vegetation component of the wetland assessment was undertaken by Natural Scientific Services CC (NSS). The following key personnel from NSS were involved in the project: • Terrestrial Ecologist Susan Abell (Pr Sci Nat Ecology & Environmental Science)

The CVs of the relevant personnel are included in Appendix A.

3. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION Environmental legislation in South Africa was promulgated with the aim of, at the very least, minimising and at the most preventing environmental degradation. The Acts, regulations and guidelines listed in Table 3-1 are applicable to the proposed project. The list is not exhaustive and other pieces of legislation, not included, may have relevance. Table 3-1: Applicable environmental legislation or guideline TITLE OF LEGISLATION OR GUIDELINE APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT International The Ramsar Convention, of which South Africa is a signatory, is an intergovernmental treaty that embodies the commitments of its member The Ramsar Convention, 1971 countries to maintain the ecological character of their Wetlands of International Importance but also to plan for the "wise use", or sustainable use, of all of the wetlands in their territories International legally binding treaty with three main goals; conserve biological Convention on Biological Diversity, 1995 diversity (or biodiversity); ensure sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. National This Act aims to regulate the use of water and activities which may impact on water resources through the categorisation of ‘listed water uses’ encompassing inter alia water extraction, flow attenuation within catchments, as well as, the potential contamination of water resources. Should activities trigger a water use listed in Section 21 of the NWA, a Water Use Licence (WUL) is required. Potential Section 21 water uses triggered include: - 21(c) impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse; and National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998), (NWA) - 21(i) altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse. GN No 1198 of 18 December 2009 – General Authorisation in terms of section 39 of the National Water Act, 1998 in terms of section 21(c) and (i) for the purpose of rehabilitating a wetland for conservation purposes. GN No 509 of 26 August 2016 – General Authorisation in terms of Section 39 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No.36 of 1998) for water uses as defined in Section 21 (c) or Section 21 (i).

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

TITLE OF LEGISLATION OR GUIDELINE APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT The NEMA can be regarded as the most important piece of general environmental legislation. It provides a framework for environmental law reform and covers three areas, namely: • Land, planning and development; • Natural and cultural resources, use and conservation; and • Pollution control and waste management. In particular for this project: Section 28 – Duty of care and remediation of environmental damage The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations, 2014, as National Environmental Management Act (Act amended, and promulgated under the NEMA, are divided into four parts: 107 of 1998), (NEMA) 1. Government Notice Regulation (GNR) 326 Regulatory procedures, such as requirements for conducting assessments and timeframes for approvals, etc.; 2. GNR 327: Listing notice 1 – which lists activities requiring a Basic Assessment (BA) process; 3. GNR 325: Listing notice 2 – which lists activities requiring Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process; and 4. GNR R324: Listing Notice 3 – which lists activities requiring a BA process according to geographical areas/provinces with specific environmental attributes.

To provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes; for the establishment of a national register of all national, National Environmental Management provincial and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) accordance with national norms and standards; for intergovernmental co- operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas; and for matters in connection therewith. Controls for the effective protection and utilisation of the environment, The Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 littering, noise and various other activities, which may have a detrimental of 1989) effect on the environment. Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or Constitution of the Republic of South Africa well-being and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present (Act 108 of 1996) and future generations. This project involves the rehabilitation of eroded areas. All aspects related to fauna and flora management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of the NEMA and the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection. The National Environmental Management: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004: Threatened Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) and Protected Species Regulations National list of Ecosystems Threatened and in need of Protection under Section 52(1)(a) of the Biodiversity Act (GG 34809, GN 1002, 9 December 2011) The conservation of soil, water resources and vegetation is promoted. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act Management plans to eradicate weeds and invader plants must be (Act 43 of 1983) established to benefit the integrity of indigenous life. Provincial The Gauteng Conservation Plan (Gauteng C-Plan) serves as the primary decision support tool for the biodiversity component of the EIA process that Gauteng Conservation Plan forms a basis for development of bioregional plans in municipalities within Gauteng.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

4. SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 Site Locality The CLS Expansion Project is a brownfields project located directly to the north of the existing CLS within the town of Edenvale, Johannesburg. The CLS Expansion site is located on Erf 334 and 335 of Klipfontein 12-IR, and falls within the City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, in the Gauteng Province, in. The location of the project area in relation to the general setting is presented in Figure 1.1.a.

4.2 Climate As discussed in the surface water specialist assessment undertaken by J&W (JW090/19/C6007-24), the Mean Annual Precipitation, for the area is 773 mm with the high rainfall months between November and April (Figure 4.2.a). Average monthly rainfall is presented, together with monthly evaporation, is presented in Table 4-1 and Evaporation data for the site was taken directly from the WR90 report, which indicates the MAE for sub-catchment A21C as 1684 mm.

Figure 4.2.a: Mean monthly rainfall and evaporation

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 4-1: Average rainfall and evaporation (WR90) depths

Month Average rainfall (mm) Average evaporation (mm)

October 69.1 194.0 November 116.3 194.3 December 133.5 199.7 January 143.2 188.6 February 118.4 154.9 March 100.8 143.1 April 47.0 107.4 May 19.7 85.4 June 7.2 67.2 July 6.7 77.8 August 9.1 114.2 September 23.6 157.3

Annual Total 794.7 1684.0*

The annual mean temperature for OR Tambo International Airport is 15.9°C. The average daily maximum temperatures range from 25.3°C in January to 16.0°C in June, with daily minimum values ranging from 14.3°C in January to 4°C in June and July.

4.3 Topography The topography of Erf 334 is split into two: the western section is characterised by an informal dump of building rubble, rocks and rubbish whilst the eastern section is characterised by a lower lying area that is relatively flat, gently undulating with an average dip of 5.2% to the north. Erf 335 is relatively flat, gently undulating with the natural topography altered due to the development of light industry.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Figure 4.3.a: Height difference representation between the informal dump and the lower lying wetland area

4.4 Geology According to the published 1:250 000 geological map, sheet 2628 East Rand, the site is underlain by granite and granitic rock of the Pretoria to Johannesburg Dome (Zh). Lineaments are indicated close to the site. Residual granites are generally sandy although there may be more silt and clay where amphibolite structures outcrop. The granitic areas are usually covered with a 0.5m to 1m thick layer of topsoil. Light brown to reddish brown sandy clays, clayey sands, silt and sand with occasional ferricrete may underlie the topsoil to a depth ranging between 1.5m to 3m. Perched water levels are sometimes associated with ferricrete layers in the soil horizon. The granites are not homogenous or uniform and display gneissic banding with foliation that trend in a NW-SE direction and with steep dips. The granites have undergone extensive weathering and were also subjected to tectonic deformation. Two lineaments are located around the CLS Expansion site, one on the eastern border and the other approximately 100m west of the site. Geophysical studies carried out during this investigation indicated the presence of east west trending dolerite dykes in the northern portion of the landfill. The regional geology is indicated in Figure 4.4.a.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

C-Pd Rietvlei Vt C-Pd C-Pd ±

Vt CLS Northern Legend Zhh Expansion Vm International boundary Rivers Jukskei Pv Secondary Rivers Vbr Impoundments Geology LITHO-1 Vbr Andesite Zhh Arenite Dolerite Zhh Dolomite Gneiss Lutaceous Arenite Zhh Migmatite Vbr Quartzite Shale Rh Tillite Pv

Jukskei Rk

Modderfontein Pv C-Pd Z Z

Braamfonteinspruit Zhh C-Pd Rh Zhh VANRYN Sandspruit Rg

Rk Rh Rj Rg

Rjo Rh Rj Rg Jd Rg Pv Rj Elsburgspruit

Rjo 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 Rt C-Pd Kilometers Rt ROSHERVILLE Jd JAN SMUTS ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Regional Geology Figure 4.4.a 11

4.5 Soils According to the Department of Agriculture’s Land Types of South Africa, Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural Resources of South Africa, the greater study area falls within the Ab11 and Bb1 land types as indicated on Figure 4.6.b. In the case of the CLS Expansion site, the land type is exclusively Bb1. This land type has a land capability class of Class IV – which is classified as grazing. Shallow and rocky soils comprise 35% of the land type, while 40% is made up of deeper apedal soils. The remaining soils are associated with the valley bottoms where clay and sand accumulated adjacent to streams. 4.5.1 Geotechnical Soil Profile As part of the overall project for the CLS Expansion J&W undertook a geotechnical investigation for the site (6007-23-19-JW070 - Rev 0). The investigation identified two areas: a poorly drained area in the east of the site with a potential wetland portion, TPCH01 to TPCH04 and TPCH08, and an informal dump area to the west, TPCH05 to TPCH07 (Figure 4.6.a). The poorly drained area was covered by fill and underlain by transported material followed by residual granite which refused mostly on medium hard rock granite. The informal dump area is underlain by thick fill material underlain by residual granite and medium hard rock granite, at depth. To the north of the site along the stream granite outcrops were identified. 4.5.1.1 Poorly drained area The general soil profile within the poorly drained area comprises fill down to a depth of between 0.7 m to 1.4 m. The fill material is generally a silty gravelly sand with scattered cobbles, boulders, rubble and rubbish. A silty sand transported horizon underlies the wetland area and is present down to a depth of between 0.8 m to 2.2 m with a loose to medium dense consistency. Closer to the wetland a transported horizon with soft to firm sandy clay and interlayers of silty clay was encountered. The horizon indicated signs of ferruginisation. A silty/gravelly sand, residual granite, underlies the transported horizon down to a depth of between 1.25 m and 3.0 m. The thickness ranges between 0.15 m to 1.2 m. Zones of sandy clay were also encountered. Ferruginisation in the form of ferricrete nodules and cobbles are present. The residual granite transitions into very soft rock or soft rock granite in three test pits. The majority of test pits terminated on medium hard rock granite at a depth of between 1.5 m to 2.7 m, except for TPCH08 which terminated in soft rock granite at a depth of 2.8 m. Slight seepage was only encountered in TPCH04 at a depth of 2.7 m. 4.5.1.2 Informal Dump The informal dump area contained a gravelly sandy fill with abundant rubble and rubbish from surface down to a depth of 2.1 m and in excess of 5.2 m. The presence of rubble and household rubbish are more prominent than in the poorly drained area. The silty/gravelly sand, residual granite, was only encountered in TPCH05 and TPCH06 to a depth of 3.1 m and 4.0 m respectively. Refusal occurred on medium hard rock at a depth of 3.2 m and 4.1 m, except for TPCH07 which terminated at 5.2 m in fill. It is important to note that the depths over the informal dump area are above the ground level of the wetland area. No seepage was encountered in the informal dump area.

4.6 Land Use The site is located within the industrial area of Klipfontein 12-IR, Midrand. Surrounding industrial land uses include the existing CLS, warehouses, rock and sand quarries and some industry. The industrial area is surrounded by the high-density residential areas of Klipfontein View, Commercia and Chloorkop. Very little natural habitat remains.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

GRANITE OUTCROP 2 GRANITE OUTCROP 1 TP CH08

POORLYAREA DRAINED TP CH04

POTENTIAL WETLAND TP CH06 TP CH07 TP CH02

TP CH01 INFORMAL DUMP AREA TP CH03

TP CH05

Jones & Wagener ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-23 Engineering & Environmental Consultants Chloorkop Landfill Site Extension Project PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South Africa Tel: +27 11 519-0200 Fax: +27 11 519-0201 Geotechnical Sampling Positions Figure 4.6a Legend Chloorkop Landfill Expansion Study Area Land Type Type Ab11 Land Capability - 2 (Cultivation) Type Bb1 Land Capability - 4 (Grazing)

Coordinate System: Cape Lo29 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Cape Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus0 DS, USDA, 195USGS, AEX, 390 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-28 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Land Type Map Figure 4.6.b Document Path: C:\GIS\6007 - Chloorkop\mxd\Chloor_LandType.mxd 14

4.7 Regional Vegetation The CLS Expansion Project falls within the Endangered Egoli Granite Grassland. According to Mucina and Rutherford (2006), the area is characterised by moderately undulating plains and low hills supporting tall grasslands, usually dominated by Hyparrhenia hirta. The rocky habitats support a high diversity if woody species, which occur on the form of scattered shrub groups or solitary small trees. More than two-thirds of the vegetation unit has already undergone transformation mainly due to urbanisation or cultivation.

4.8 Hydrology 4.8.1 Catchment description The CLS Expansion Project is located within Quaternary sub-catchment A21C (Figure 4.8.a) of the Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area. At a quaternary catchment scale (A21C), the Jukskei River has a Present Ecological State of E (Seriously Modified), (DWS, 2017). The CLS Expansion Project is situated in the upper reaches of an unnamed tributary to the Jukskei River, approximately 5.7 km upstream of the confluence with the Jukskei River. This tributary flows through the eastern portion of the Phase 1B site and along the northern boundary of Phase 1B, in a north, north-westerly direction. Upstream of the site, the catchment is severely disturbed, a significant portion having been removed by the quarrying activities to the east of the existing CLS, which itself comprises a large portion of the catchment. No natural stream channel exists upstream of the site, with stormwater being directed into the watercourse on site by means of informal stormwater drainage on the southern boundary of the site (Anker Street). Downstream of the site, the watercourse is also severely disturbed and fragmented, having been converted into underground culverts and pipes at two locations, with a combined length of over 600 m. In addition to the fragmentation, a large portion of the site (approximately two-thirds) has been infilled with building rubble and it is unknown whether wetland habitat was present historically in this area. 4.8.2 Hydrogeological setting As part of the overall project for the CLS Expansion J&W undertook a hydrogeological and contaminated land assessment for the site (JW109/19/6007-22). Based on a review of the previous investigations undertaken in the study area, it is evident that three aquifers typically underlie the project area. These are: • A shallow perched aquifer in the lower lying areas or depressions where a low, permeable, clayey ferricrete layer is overlain by alluvium and transported hillwash material. Wetlands commonly occur in these areas. • A weathered aquifer, which extends to depths of approximately 15 mbgl, depending on the depth of weathering. In the study area, this aquifer is expected to be silty to sandy, with comparatively elevated aquifer parameters; and • A deeper fractured rock aquifer, which is characterised by fractures, faults and contact zones with dolerite intrusions in the granitic basement rock. This aquifer underlies the weathered aquifer. .

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Centurion

A21H RIETVLEI ps o Hen n ± A21A

A21B codi Cro le Jukskei

CLS Northern Expansion Legend A21E CLS Northern Expansion Rivers 3 Crocodile Impoundments (West) and A Primary catchments Marico Secondary catchments Tertiary catchments C r Quaternary catchments oc od Water Management Areas i le A21C Major towns and cities

ndike Klo A21A

kei -Juks Johannesburg M in o le d K d t e i rfontein u r p

t ui ands Klip pr S ns tei fon C21D am Bra

it u r p s Water ei g C22A sk r Juk u Research C22B lsb Commission WR 2012 E 0 1 2 4 6 8 C 8 Upper Vaal Kilometers Soweto ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Site in Relation to its Quaternary Catchments Figure 4.8.a 16

4.9 Conservation Importance When assessing the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of a wetland and the ecosystem services supplied by a particular wetland, the conservation importance of the wetland and wetlands immediately downstream are taken into consideration. These factors contributing to the conservation importance of the system are discussed briefly below: 4.9.1 National 4.9.1.1 Protected Areas No protected areas, in terms of either the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act, Act 57 of 2003 or the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) were identified within the immediate vicinity of the CLS Expansion Project. 4.9.1.2 Watercourse The National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA) is the principle legal instrument relating to water resource management in South Africa. All watercourses1 are protected under the NWA. In addition, South Africa has various pieces of legislation governing activities in and around wetlands2 under International, Regional and National legislation and Guidelines. Wetlands were identified within the CLS Expansion Project area and immediately downstream and are discussed in detail in Section 6. 4.9.1.3 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) project (Driver et al., 2011) provides strategic spatial priorities for conserving freshwater ecosystems and supporting sustainable use of water resources in South Africa. Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) were identified using a range of criteria dealing with the maintenance of key ecological processes and the conservation of ecosystem types and species associated with rivers, wetlands and estuaries. The NFEPA guidelines indicate that FEPAs should be regarded as ecologically important and as generally sensitive to changes in water quality and quantity, owing to their role in protecting freshwater ecosystems and supporting sustainable use of water resources. FEPAs that are in a good condition should remain so, and FEPAs that are not in a good condition should be rehabilitated to their best attainable ecological condition. Land-use practices or activities that will lead to deterioration in the current condition of a FEPA are considered unacceptable, and land-use practices or activities that will make rehabilitation of a FEPA difficult or impossible, are also considered unacceptable. The NFEPA spatial data indicates that no Category 1 or Category 2 wetland FEPAs were identified within the CLS Expansion Project area. The Pollution Control Dams, for the existing CLS, were identified as Category 6 FEPA’s (Figure 4.9.a). As discussed by Driver et al (2011) FEPA maps should be ground-truthed by a suitably qualified specialist as PCDs should not be highlighted as FEPA systems.

1 A watercourse as defined by the NWA (1998) means - (a) a river or spring; (b) a natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently; (c) a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows; and (d) any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks.”

2 A wetland as defined by the NWA (1998) means “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”

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

As discussed in the aquatic assessment (NWU, 2019), the FEPA categories do not only include wetlands, but also include river FEPA’s and associated sub-quaternary catchments, fish support areas and associated sub-quaternary catchments, fish sanctuaries, phase 2 FEPA’s and associated sub-quaternary catchments, as well as upstream management areas (Driver et al., 2011). The CLS Expansion site is located within the upstream support area of the Jukskei River. The freshwater environment at the site therefore needs to be managed so that the downstream FEPA is not degraded further. All precautions should be taken to ensure that no loss or degradation of the downstream systems is allowed. Even though the current locations fall within highly impacted urban areas, care should be taken to not degrade freshwater ecosystems any further. 4.9.1.4 Threatened Ecosystems The first National list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems for South Africa was gazetted on 9 December 2011 [National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act: National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection, (G 34809, GN 1002), 9 December 2011]. The Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) provides for listing of threatened or protected ecosystems in one of four categories: Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) or Protected. The CLS Expansion Project falls within the Endangered Egoli Granite Grassland, although the presence of species representative of this Threatened Ecosystem were not identified on site. Endangered ecosystems have lost significant habitat or experienced significant deterioration in condition, with loss of structure and function. Any further loss or deterioration should be avoided. 4.9.1.5 Important Bird Area The CLS Expansion Project is not located within the vicinity of any Important Bird Areas. 4.9.2 Regional Gauteng C-Plan V33 (2011) identified no areas of conservation importance associated with the CLS Expansion Project. Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) and Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) are present further downstream on the un-named tributary of the Jukskei (Figure 4.9.c). CBAs can be defined as areas required to meet biodiversity targets for ecosystems, species or ecological processes, as identified in a systematic biodiversity plan. These areas may be terrestrial or aquatic. ESAs support the ecological functioning of CBAs and/or provide ecosystem services. ESAs need to stay functional in order to maintain the integrity of the CBAs, but do not need to be maintained in a natural state to do so as long as their natural function is retained. In Gauteng, ESAs include dolomite outcrops, rivers, wetlands, pans, corridors for climate change and species migration, rocky ridges, and low-cost areas for Johannesburg and Tshwane (GDARD, 2011).

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Unnamed Tributary of the Jukskei Rivier

Jukskei

Modderfontein

ike d lon K

Jukskei

Legend NFEPA Wetlands - Rank 6 CLS Northern Expansion Modderfontein Nature Reserve Rivers Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,0 CNES/Airbus DS,0.75 USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,1.5 IGN, and the GIS User Community Kilometers ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Figure 4.9.a ±

Unnamed Tributary of the Jukskei Rivier

Jukskei

Egoli Granite Grassland

Modderfontein

ike d lon K

Jukskei

Legend CLS Northern Expansion Modderfontein Nature Reserve Rietvleiriver Highveld Threatened Ecosystem (SANBI, 2011) Grassland Egoli Granite Grassland Rietvleiriver Highveld Grassland

Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,0 CNES/Airbus DS,0.75 USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,1.5 IGN, and the GIS User Community Kilometers ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Threatened Ecosystem Figure 4.9.b ±

Unnamed Tributary of the Jukskei Rivier

Jukskei

Modderfontein

ike d lon K

Jukskei

Legend CLS Northern Expansion Modderfontein Nature Reserve Rivers Gauteng C-Plan - Category Critical Biodiversity Area Ecological Support Area

5. METHODOLOGY The wetland and soils field investigation was undertaken over two site visits, the initial site visit was undertaken in December 2018, which included a walk-over of the site and preliminary identification of wetland indicators. A follow up, detailed investigation, including in-field delineation, was undertaken in March 2019.

5.1 Soil Classification The study area was assessed at a detailed level according to the methodology from the Chamber of Mines/Coaltech document “Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Mined Land, November 2007”. Where possible, soils were augered at 50 m intervals across the study area using a 150 mm bucket auger, up to refusal or 1.2m. Soils was identified according to “Soil Classification; a Natural and Anthropogenic System for South Africa” (Soil Classification Working Group, 2018). The following soil characteristics will be documented: • Soil form and family; • Soil horizons, colour and depth, • Soil texture (Field determination); • Wetness; • Occurrence of concretions or rocks; • Land Use; and • Underlying material (if possible). No sampling or laboratory analysis were included in the study.

5.2 Land Capability Classification The above soil data was used to determine the land capability units as prescribed by the Chamber of Mines. The main land capability classes are agriculture, wilderness, wetland and grazing land. The criteria for this classification are set out below: • Criteria for Wetland o Land with organic soils or supporting hygrophilous vegetation where soil and vegetation processes are water determined. • Criteria for Arable land o Land, which does not qualify as a wetland; o The soil is readily permeable to a depth of 750 mm; o The soil has a pH value of between 4.0 and 8.4; o The soil has a low salinity and SAR; o The soil has less than 10% (by volume) rocks or pedocrete fragments larger than 100 mm in the upper 750 mm; o Has a slope (in %) and erodibility factor (K) such that their product is <2.0; and o Occurs under a climate of crop yields that are at least equal to the current national average for these crops. • Criteria for Grazing land

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

o Land, which does not qualify as wetland or arable land; o Has soil, or soil-like material, permeable to roots of native plants, that is more than 250 mm thick and contains less than 50 % by volume of rocks or pedocrete fragments larger than 100 mm; and o Supports, or is capable of supporting, a stand of native or introduced grass species, or other forage plants utilisable by domesticated livestock or game animals on a commercial basis. • Criteria for Wilderness land o Land, which does not qualify as wetland, arable land or grazing land. The land capability was also classified according to the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) – Institute for Soil, Climate and Water on behalf of Department of Agriculture (2002), Development and Application of a Land Capability Classification System for South Africa, to ensure that the requirements of both Agriculture and Mining are met. According to the ARC land capability methodology, the potential for a soil to be utilised for agriculture is based on a wide number of factors. These are listed in the table below along with a short description of each factor. These factors have been evaluated for each soil type in order to determine the land capability class.

Table 5-1: Agricultural Potential Criteria (ARC, 2002) Criteria Description If a soil type has prevalent rocks in the upper sections of the soil it is a Rock Complex limiting factor to the soil’s agricultural potential The risk of flooding is determined by the closeness of the soil to water Flooding Risk sources. The erosion risk of a soil is determined by combining the wind and water Erosion Risk erosion potentials. Slope The slope of the site could potentially limit the agricultural use thereof. Texture The texture of the soil can limit its use by being too sandy or too clayey. The effective depth of a soil is critical for the rooting zone for agricultural Depth crops. The capability of a soil to drain water is important as most grain crops do not Drainage tolerate submergence in water. Mechanical Mechanical limitations are any factors that could prevent the soil from being Limitations tilled or ploughed. The pH of the soil is important when considering soil nutrients and hence pH fertility. Soil Capability This section highlights the soil type’s capability to sustain agriculture. The climate class highlights the prevalent climatic conditions that could Climate Class influence the agricultural use of a site. The land capability or agricultural potential rating for a site combines the soil Land Capability / capability and the climate class to arrive at the sites potential to support Agricultural Potential agriculture.

5.3 Wetland Classification Wetlands were defined using the “Classification system for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa” by Ollis et al. (2013), hereafter referred to as “the Classification System.” Ecosystems included by the Classification System encompass all those that are listed under the Ramsar Convention as “wetlands,” and include all

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

freshwater (non-marine) systems. The Classification System recognizes three broad inland systems: rivers, wetlands and open water bodies. Like Kotze et al’s (2008a) classification of wetlands based on hydro-geomorphic (HGM) units, the Ollis et al. (2013) Classification System asserts that the functioning of an inland aquatic ecosystem is determined fundamentally by hydrology and geomorphology. The Classification System has a six-tiered structure where under the determination of a system’s HGM unit (Level 4) is the most fundamental: • Level 1 – Type of Systems (Marine, estuarine or inland); • Level 2 – Regional Setting (Level 1 Ecoregions; NFEPA WetVeg units, etc.); • Level 3 – Landscape Unit (Valley Floor, Slope, Plain, Bench); • Level 4 – Hydro-geomorphic (HGM) Unit; • Level 5 – Hydrological Regime; and • Level 6 – Descriptors (e.g. Natural vs Artificial, Salinity, pH, etc.).

5.4 Wetland Extent The wetland delineation methods used in the field were the same as those outlined in the DWS field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands, and riparian areas (DWAF, 2005). The following three indicators described by DWAF (2005) were used where possible: • Terrain Unit Indicator: The topography of the area was used to determine where in the landscape wetlands were likely to occur. MacVicar et al. (1977) defines five terrain units. Most wetlands will be found in valley bottoms (unit 5), but can occur on crests, mid slopes and foot slopes (units 1, 3 and 4), (Figure 5.4.a). The topography of the typical Land Type profile for Bb1 was also taken into consideration (Figure 5.4.b).

Figure 5.4.a: Simple depiction of terrain units (adapted from DWAF, 2005)

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Figure 5.4.b: Land form for land type Bb1

• Soil Wetness Indicator: The soil wetness and duration of wetness are indicated by the colour of the soil. A grey soil matrix such as a G-horizon is an indication of wetness for prolonged periods of time and mottles indicate a fluctuating water table. In terms of the DWS guidelines (DWAF, 2005), signs of soil wetness must be found within the top 50 cm of the soil surface to classify as a wetland. The permanent zone of a wetland is therefore characterised by grey soil, the seasonal zone has a high frequency of low chroma mottles, and the temporary zone has less, high chroma, mottles. These mottles are normally most prominent just below the A-horizon. Mottles may occur in non-wetland soils that have a high chroma matrix, and the colour of the matrix must always be considered in conjunction with the presence of mottles.

• Vegetation Indicator: Vegetation is a key component of the wetland definition in the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998), and vegetation can be used as an indicator of wetland conditions. The presence / absence of hydrophytes provides a useful additional criterion in determining the boundaries of wetlands.

Due to the site being a brownfields site, with extensive disturbance across the site, all of the above-mentioned indicators could not be used, for example the western portion of the site was covered with fill material to considerable depths, portions of the eastern section of the site had patches of fill material and access was denied to the north eastern section of the site. The accessible areas of the study site were traversed, on foot, with soil samples, within the top 50 cm of the soil profile, taken using a hand auger along transects leading away from the watercourse. The soil samples were assessed for the above wetland indicators. Each auger point sampled was marked with a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device (Geographic projection, WGS 84 Datum).

5.5 Wetland Assessment Tools 5.5.1 Wetland Present Ecological State The Present Ecological State (PES) of the wetlands was assessed using the Level 1 WET-HEALTH tool, as described by Macfarlane et al (2008). Wetland health is defined as a measure of the similarity of a wetland to a natural or reference condition. The WET- HEALTH tool examines deviation from the natural reference condition for three components of health: hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation. The method is based on the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach to wetland classification, providing a PES score for a wetland within each of the three modules, and a combined overall score. The score provides a quantitative measure of the extent, magnitude and intensity of deviation from

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

the reference or unimpacted condition. The score places the wetland in a wetland health category, A – F (Table 5-2). Using a combination of threat and/or vulnerability, an assessment is also made in each module on the likely Trajectory of Change within the wetland (Table 5-3). Overall health of the wetland is then presented for each module by jointly representing the Present State and likely Trajectory of Change. This approach not only provides an indication of hydrological, geomorphological and vegetation health, but also highlights the key causes of wetland degradation. As discussed by MacFarlane et al (2009) WET-Health does not have a specific module for assessing impacts of altered water quality on wetlands and their biota. However, the same approach can be used as discussed above, whereby the extent of the wetland affected by increased solute levels and the intensity of the impact on the affected area is assessed. The surface water assessment undertaken by J&W discusses the quantitative impacts on surface water quality (refer to report JW090/19/6007-24), with the findings summarised in this report in Section 6.4.4.

Table 5-2: Impact Scores and Present Ecological State (Macfarlane et al, 2008) IMPACT PRESENT IMPACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION STATE SCORE CATEGORY RANGE None Unmodified, natural A 0-0.9 Small Largely natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem processes is discernible and a small loss of B 1-1.9 natural habitats and biota may have taken place. Moderate Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat has taken place but the C 2-3.9 natural habitat remains predominantly intact. Large Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and D 4-5.9 loss of natural habitat and biota has occurred. Serious Seriously modified. The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota is great but some remaining E 6-7.9 natural habitat features are still recognizable. Critical Critically modified. Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been modified completely F 8-10 with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.

Table 5-3: Trajectory of change classes, scores and symbols (Macfarlane et al, 2008) TRAJECTORY CHANGE CLASSRANGE* DESCRIPTION SYMBOL CLASS SCORE Condition is likely to improve 2 1.1 to 2 Improve substantially over the next five  markedly years Condition is likely to improve over 1 .3 to 1 Improve  the next five years Remains Condition is likely to remain stable 0 -0.2 to +0.2  stable over the next five years Deterioration Condition is likely to deteriorate -1 -0.3 to -1  slight slightly over the next five years Condition is likely to deteriorate -2 -1.1 to 2 Deterioration substantially over the next five  substantial years * Used when determining a trajectory score for a wetland comprising several HGM units

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

5.5.2 Wetland Ecosystem Services The ecosystem services provided by the wetland were assessed using the WET– EcoServices tool as described by Kotze et. al. (2008a). This tool has been designed for inland palustrine wetlands, i.e. marshes, floodplains, vleis and seeps and has been developed to help assess the goods and services that individual wetlands provide to support planning and decision-making. The wetland benefits included in the WET-EcoServices model are selected based on their importance for South African wetlands, and how readily these can be assessed. Benefits such as groundwater recharge / discharge and biomass export may be important but are difficult to characterise at a rapid assessment level and have thus been excluded. Table 5-4 identifies and describes the ecosystem services assessed during the rapid field assessment. The likely extent to which a specific environmental service is being supplied is then determined (Table 5-5).

Table 5-4: Ecosystem services assessed using the WET-EcoServices model (Kotze et al. 2008a) The spreading out and slowing down of floodwaters in the Flood attenuation wetland, thereby reducing the severity of floods downstream Streamflow regulation Sustaining streamflow during low flow periods Sediment The trapping and retention in the wetland of sediment trapping carried by runoff waters

Phosphate Removal by the wetland of phosphates carried by runoff assimilation waters Nitrate Removal by the wetland of nitrates carried by runoff waters assimilation Toxicant Removal by the wetland of toxicants (e.g. metals, biocides Water quality quality Water

enhancements assimilation and salts) carried by runoff water

Indirect Benefits Benefits Indirect Controlling of erosion at the wetland site, principally through Erosion control the protection provided by vegetation The trapping of carbon by the wetland, principally as soil Regulating & supporting benefits supporting benefits & Regulating Carbon storage organic matter Through the provision of habitat and maintenance of natural Biodiversity maintenance process by the wetland, a contribution is made to maintaining biodiversity Biodiversity maintenance is not an ecosystem service as such, but encompasses attributes widely acknowledged as having potentially high value to society

Provision of water for The provision of water extracted directly from the wetland for human use domestic, agriculture or other purposes

Provision of The provision of natural resources from the wetland, harvestable resources including livestock grazing, craft plants, fish, etc.

Provision of cultivated The provision of areas in the wetland favourable for the Ecosystem Services supplied by Wetlands Wetlands by supplied Services Ecosystem

Provisioning benefits Provisioning foods cultivation of foods Direct Benefits Benefits Direct Places of special cultural significance in the wetland, e.g., Cultural heritage for baptisms or gathering of culturally significant plants Sites of value for tourism and recreation in the wetland, Tourism and recreation often associated with scenic beauty and abundant birdlife

Education and research Sites of value in the wetland for education or research Cultural benefits Cultural

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 5-5: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied (Kotze et al. 2008a)

Score Rating of the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied <0.5 Low 0.5-1.2 Moderately Low 1.3-2.0 Intermediate 2.1-2.8 Moderately High >2.8 High 5.5.3 Wetland Ecological Importance and Sensitivity The outcomes of the Wet-Ecoservices assessment were then used to inform an assessment of the overall importance and sensitivity of the wetland using the Wetland EIS assessment tool of Rountree and Kotze (2013). The tool includes an assessment of three suites of importance criteria, namely: • Traditional ecological importance and sensitivity (biodiversity support, landscape scale importance and the sensitivity of the wetland to change);

• Hydrological and functional importance (water quality, flood attenuation and sediment trapping ecosystem services that the wetland may provide), and

• Human benefits (subsistence and cultural use of the wetland).

The maximum score for each suite of importance criteria was taken to be the overall EIS category for the wetland, as described in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories for wetlands (Rountree et al., 2013). Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories Range of EIS Score Very high: Wetlands that are considered ecologically important and sensitive on a >3 and <=4 national or even international level. The biodiversity of these systems is usually very sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a major role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers. High: Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive. The >2 and <=3 biodiversity of these systems may be sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers. Moderate: Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive on >1 and <=2 a provincial or local scale. The biodiversity of these systems is not usually sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a small role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers. Low/marginal: Wetlands that are not ecologically important and sensitive at any >0 and <=1 scale. The biodiversity of these systems is ubiquitous and not sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play an insignificant role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

5.6 Hydropedology The soil forms identified on site were classified into hydropedological units using the following guideline - Developing wetland distribution and transfer functions from land type

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

data as a basis for the critical evaluation of wetland delineation guidelines by inclusion of soil water flow dynamics in catchment areas - Vol 2: Preliminary Guidelines to Apply Hydropedology in Support of Wetland Assessment and Reserve Determination, Report to WRC, January 2019. According to the guideline, various authors have illustrated the value of soil classification in predicting the soil water regime. Drawing on the evidence of soil morphology, soil chemistry and terrain evaluation properties, soil types may be grouped according to their hydrological response (Van Tol et al., 2011, 2013) as shown in Table 5-7 below. The soil forms identified on site were evaluated according to the criteria given in the guideline and classified as either recharge, interflow or response hydropedological units.

Table 5-7: Hydropedological soil classes (a hydrological response classification of South African soil forms, adapted from Van Tol et al., 2013)

5.7 Impact and Risk Assessment 5.7.1 Impact Assessment The impact assessment methodology used for this assessment was supplied by SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. The impacts are discussed and quantified in Section 7 and presented in tabular format. A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology has been used to describe the impacts for each of the impact assessment criteria listed in Table 5-8. The impacts can be either positive or negative.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

The consequence is a function of the intensity, spatial extent and duration of the potential impacts associated with each phase. The consequence scale is rated according to criteria set out in Table 5-9.

Significance = consequence x probability. The significance ratings are provided in Table 5-10 with the guideline on the interpretation of the significance provided in Table 5-11.

Table 5-8: Impact definitions and criteria (provided by SLR)

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 5-9: Determining Consequence (provided by SLR)

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 5-10: Determining Significance (provided by SLR)

Table 5-11: Interpretation of significance (provided by SLR)

5.7.2 Wetland Risk Assessment The wetland risk assessment methodology has been based on the DWS (2014) “Risk based water use: authorisation approach and delegation protocol for Section 21(c) and (i) water uses.” A risk assessment refers to the documented risk of environmental impact(s) due to a change in the receiving environment by an activity either intentionally or unintentionally. For section 21(c) and (i) water uses it will refer to changes in the water resource quality. The formula used to determine risk is indicated hereunder and explained below.

RISK = CONSEQUENCE x LIKELIHOOD

CONSEQUENCE = SEVERITY + SPATIAL SCALE + DURATION LIKELIHOOD = FREQUENCY OF THE ACTIVITY + FREQUENCY OF THE IMPACT + LEGAL ISSUES + DETECTION

Risk is based on the likelihood of occurrence and the consequence it poses to the characteristics of a watercourse. The likelihood is a factor of the mechanisms in place to detect failure, the frequency that the activity is undertaken, legal implications of failure and the frequency of impact occurrence on the watercourse(s). The consequence is measured in terms of severity, duration and spatial scale. The amount of risk involved will trigger the requirement of certain measures to be implemented in order to reduce the risk, like an EMP, and a subsequent re-scoring of the risk assessed. The process is based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO14001 (2004). The estimation of the risk is based on the ratings highlighted in Table 5-12.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 5-12: Risk Rating Table Severity How severe does the aspects impact on the environment and resource quality characteristics (flow regime, water quality, geomorphology, biota, habitat)? Insignificant / non-harmful 1 Small / potentially harmful 2 Significant / slightly harmful 3 Great / harmful 4 Disastrous / extremely harmful and/or wetland(s) involved 5 Spatial Scale How big is the area that the aspect is impacting on? Area specific 1 Whole site 2 CONSEQUENCE Regional / neighbouring areas 3 National 4 Global 5 Duration How long does the aspect impact on the environment and resource quality? One day to one month, PES, EIS and REC not impacted 1 One month to one year, PES, EIS and REC impacted but no 2 change in status One year to 10 years, PES, EIS and REC impacted to a lower 3 status but can be improved over this period through mitigation Life of the activity, PES, EIS and REC permanently lowered 4 More than life of the organisation/facility, PES and EIS scores an 5 E or F Add severity, spatial scale and duration figures to obtain the total Consequence. Frequency of the Activity How often do you do the specific activity? Annually or less 1 6 monthly 2 Monthly 3 Weekly 4 Daily 5 Frequency of the Incident/Impact How often does the activity impact on the environment? Almost never / almost impossible / >20% 1 Very seldom / highly unlikely / >40% 2 Infrequent / unlikely / seldom / >60% 3 Often / regularly / likely / possible / >80% 4 Daily / highly likely / definitely / >100% 5 Legal Issues LIKELIHOOD How is the activity governed by legislation? No legislation 1 Fully covered by legislation (wetlands are legally governed) 5 Detection How easily is the activity’s impact on the environment observed? Immediately 1 Without much effort 2 Need some effort 3 Remote and difficult to observe 4 Covered 5

5.8 Limitations and assumptions Limitations and assumptions made include: • Sections of the site were inaccessible due to land ownership and security not allowing the project team access;

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

• The presence of wetland indicators could not be assessed in certain areas due to disturbance on surface, for example large areas where illegal dumping has occurred, and fill material was present; • GPS accuracy ±10m; and • Wetland extent has been highly modified due to anthropogenic influences on site and therefore areas that are showing signs of wetness may be due to anthropogenic influences and not the natural status quo.

6. RESULTS

6.1 Soil Types A distinct relationship between topography and dominant soil forms in the area was noted during the investigation. The soil forms in the study area are summarised below and shown in Figure 6.2.a. The soil auger holes are also indicated on the map. A section of the site was not visited due to land ownership and security not allowing the project team access. This area is marked in red on the figure. 6.1.1 Disturbed Soils The site is dominated by disturbed soils which comprise 10.64ha (68.6%) out of the total 15.5ha study area (excluding the existing CLS). The new soil classification system for South Africa now includes a classification system for anthropogenic soils. In the case of the study area the main anthropogenic (human-altered) soil identified was an urban technosol (Johannesburg) which is defined as: • Soils and other material present in an urban environment where significant areas are disturbed or covered by means or constructions including but not limited to roads, buildings, sports fields and waste dumps: • Manufactured layers such as asphalt and geotextiles. During the site assessment, three separate areas of Johannesburg soil were identified. The first is the area of the CLS. This area is classified as a Johannesburg 1200 soil – urban waste covered with ex-natural topsoil. The second area was the industrial areas to the south of Anker Street, proposed Phase 1A of the Expansion Project. This area is classified as a Johannesburg – 2200 – other urban uses soil. Lastly the area to the north of Anker Street, proposed Phase 1B of the Expansion Project, has been extensively covered with building rubble. This area is classified as a Johannesburg 1100 soil – uncovered urban waste. Photographs of the three areas are provided in Figure 6.1.a. The areas covered by each of the soil types are: • Johannesburg 1200 – urban waste covered with ex-natural topsoil 24.4ha* (*not included in stats above – existing CLS) • Johannesburg 2200 – other urban land uses 6.1ha • Johannesburg 1100 – uncovered urban waste 4.5ha

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Top of building rubble dominated by alien invasive Side slope of building rubble on northern area (Phase 1B) species (Phase 1B)

Industrial area south of Anker Street (Phase 1A) Existing CLS Figure 6.1.a: Site Photographs of human disturbed soils

6.1.2 Natural Soils The natural soils on site are restricted to the upper northern corner of the study area (Phase 1B), in places where the building rubble described above did not cover the natural soils (Phase 1B). Table 6-1 below lists the six soil forms identified, as well as the various soil horizons present in each soil form. These soils are also shown in Figure 6.1.a.

Table 6-1: Natural Soil Forms Identified. Topsoil Horizon Subsoil Horizons Soil Form Map Code Gley* - Katspruit Ka Albic* Gley Kroonstad Kd Albic* Soft Plinthic Longlands Lo Orthic Yellow-Brown Soft Plinthic Avalon Av Apedal Hard Rock Carolina* Ca Hard Rock - Mispah Ms

* Denotes soil forms updated/new in the 2018 Soil Classification, a Natural and Anthropogenic System for South Africa.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

6.1.2.1 Shallow Rocky Soils The shallow soils are confined to the north-western corner of the site where shallow quartzite and granite outcrops limit the depth of soil formation. The Carolina and Mispah soil forms were identified and returned effective rooting depths of between 100 and 400mm. The effective soil depth is restricted resulting in reduced soil volumes and as a result in depletion in the water holding capacity as well as nutrient availability. These are mapped as the poorer land capability units and comprise 8.4% (1.3ha) of the study area. It is imperative that good management of these soils is implemented, both in terms of erosion as well as compaction. 6.1.2.2 Valley Bottom Soils The soils of the alluvial plain are deeper and lighter coloured. The Kroonstad and Katspruit soils are characterised by A horizons either underlain by a washed-out albic horizon over a firm gleyed G-horizons or just the G-horizon (Katspruit). The Kroonstad and Katspruit soil forms are found associated exclusively with the wetland and vlei areas. The hydromorphic nature of these soils renders them highly susceptible to compaction and erosion. In the Longlands soils the G-horizon is replaced with a soft-plinthic B horizon, while the Avalon also includes an apedal B-horizon above the soft plinthic horizon. A fluctuating water table has resulted in the accumulation of ferric oxides sufficient to form the soft plinthic B horizon in the lower part of what would otherwise have been a thick E horizon. Intermittent wetness may limit productivity in wetter seasons although in drier years the plinthic horizon could function as a reservoir for deep rooted crops. The water table was often mapped close to the surface within the level of the subsoil horizon and pronounced mottling on grey background colours was observed in most of these soil profiles. By definition, these soils vary in the degrees of wetness at the base of their profile, i.e. the soils are influenced by a rising and falling water table, hence the mottling within the lower portion of the profile. Depths of utilisable agricultural soil (to top of mottled horizon) vary from 400mm to 600mm. The valley bottom soils comprise 19.3% (3ha) of the study area.

6.2 Land Capability The land capability criteria for each of the soil groups have been summarised in Table 6-2 below and are shown in Figure 6.2.b.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 6-2: Summary of the land capability of the soil forms in the study area

Soil Valley Bottom Soils Johannesburg Shallow Rocky Soils % on Site 19.3% 68.6% 8.4% Rock Complex None Yes Yes – granite and quartzite Flooding Risk High No High Erosion Risk Moderate High High Slope % 4% 2 – 25% 3-4% Texture Sandy Clay Mixed Sandy Effective Depth > 60 cm < 10 cm < 30 cm Drainage Imperfect - Saturated Imperfect Good Mechanical Limitations None Building rubble / waste Yes – rock layer pH Unknown Unknown Unknown Soil Capability Class IV VIII VII Climate Class Mild Mild Mild Land Capability ARC Class IV – Grazing Class VIII – Wildlife Class VIII – Light Grazing/Wildlife Land Capability DMR Grazing/Wetland Wilderness Wilderness

No limitation Low Moderate High Very Limiting

From the table it can be seen that none of the soils found on site are suited to cultivation. The bulk of the site is classified as wilderness land due to the disturbed nature of the site. There are no sensitivities from a land capability perspective assuming that the wetland component will cover the wet soils found on site.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Legend Site Waypoints

Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Soil Form Access Restricted Avalon Carolina Johannesburg - Urban Technosol Katspruit Kroonstad/Longlands Mispah

1100 - Uncovered urban waste

2200 - Other urban uses

1200 - Urban waste covered with topsoil

Coordinate System: Cape Lo29 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Cape Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus0 DS, USDA, USGS,75 AEX, 150 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-28 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Soil Type Map Figure 6.2.a Document Path: C:\GIS\6007 - Chloorkop\mxd\Chloor_Soil.mxd Legend Phase 1A and 1B Expansion Land Capability Access Restricted Grazing Wetland Wilderness

Coordinate System: Cape Lo29 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Cape Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus0 DS, USDA, USGS,75 AEX, 150 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-28 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Land Capability Map Figure 6.2.b Document Path: C:\GIS\6007 - Chloorkop\mxd\Chloor_LandCap.mxd 39

6.3 Wetland Identification and Classification The presence of wetlands on site was determined using both desktop and in-field methodologies, with the sampling points indicated in Figure 6.3.c The presence of wetland was based on both soil wetness indicators and wetland vegetation where access was possible. As mentioned previously, the site was significantly disturbed with over two- thirds of the site covered by informal dumping (in excess of 5 m deep in places), the remainder of the site also had areas of fill material present in the soil profile, rendering the identification of soil wetness indicators impossible. Examples of wetland indicators present within the study site have been highlighted in Figure 6.3.a and Figure 6.3.b. The wetland vegetation identified on site is further discussed under Section 6.4.3. The CLS Expansion site falls within the wetland vegetation unit Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3 (Nel and Driver 2012). Three wetland HGM units were identified within the study site (Ollis et al. 2013), (Figure 6.3.d): • Un-channelled valley bottom - wetland systems characterized by their location on valley floors, an absence of distinct channel banks and the prevalence of diffuse flows. Un-channelled valley bottom systems can sometimes have short sections of natural channels within them. The presence or absence of channels could not be confirmed in the field as the wetland is dominated by extensive stands of Typha capensis and Phragmites australis. The un-channelled valley bottom system identified on the CLS Expansion site has been artificially enhanced due to the discharge of stormwater, from the upstream catchment, at point locations into the system. Stormwater channels extend into the wetland areas at some of the discharge points. The discharge of stormwater has resulted in a system that is seasonal to permanent in nature and would have likely been a more temporary seep associated with a seasonal channelled valley bottom system. • Channelled valley bottom – wetland systems associated with a distinct stream passing through it. A channelled valley bottom system was identified on the northern boundary of the CLS Expansion site. • Seep - wetland areas located on gently to steeply sloping land and dominated by colluvial (i.e. gravity driven), unidirectional movement of water and material down- slope. The seep identified on site feeds into the channelled valley bottom wetland via diffuse sub-surface flow. One section of the seep (Seep 2, Figure 6.3.d) is fed mainly from water within the areas of fill that is seeping out downstream. At the toe of the infill, water was present on surface during the March 2019 field investigations. Un-channelled and Channelled valley bottom wetlands and seeps within the Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3 vegetation unit are classified as Critically Endangered (CR) in terms of ecosystem threat status and not protected (Nel and Driver, 2012).

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Figure 6.3.a: Examples of soil wetness indicators

Typha capensis Leersia hexandra Persicaria spp Figure 6.3.b: Examples of wetland vegetation indicators

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Legend Wetland Sampling Locations Dry Fill Points Wetland Soils Wetland Vegetation Wetland may extend beyond this point Access Denied Area Wetland CLS Northern Expansion River Centre Line Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus0 DS, USDA,50 USGS, AeroGRID,100 IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Wetland Sampling Points Figure 6.3.c ±

Seep 1

Seep 2

Legend

Wetland may extend beyond this point Channelled Valley Bottom Wetland Seep Unchannelled Valley Bottom Wetland Access Denied Area

Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) CLS Northern Expansion Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus0 DS, USDA,45 USGS, AeroGRID,90 IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project HGM Units Figure 6.3.d 43

6.4 Wetland Present Ecological State The findings of the WET-Health assessment are summarised in Table 6-3 and discussed in further detail in below sections.

Table 6-3: Present Ecological State

Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation HGM Unit Ha Extent (%) Overall Score Impact Score Impact Score Impact Score

Moderately Seep 1 0.31 10 4.0 1.6 5.7 Modified Largely Seep 2 0.22 7 7.0 3.0 4.8 Modified Channelled Largely 0.02 1 7.0 2.7 5.6 Valley Bottom Modified Unchannelled Seriously 2.66 83 7.0 6.0 6.3 Valley Bottom Modified Total Impact Seriously Seriously Seriously 3.21 100 Score* Modified Largely Modified Modified Modified Unmodified, Largely modified natural Largely natural Seriously modified Moderately Critically modified modified * The total impact score for the wetland as a whole is calculated by summing the area-weighted HGM scores for each HGM unit.

6.4.1 Hydrology 6.4.1.1 Catchment Activities The CLS Expansion is located within an urban area (i.e. light industries, existing CLS landfill, quarry) that is highly altered (Figure 6.4.a). There is no natural watercourse upstream of the proposed site. All water from the upstream catchment enters the site as either stormwater or as seep from the adjacent quarry (Figure 6.4.e). The CLS as well as adjacent quarry area to the east, occupies a large portion of the catchment (i.e. 45% of the catchment collectively), which therefore reduces the contribution to the water in the stream. This has therefore resulted in a decrease in the Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) entering the downstream system. Although there has been a reduction in MAR reaching the system, the water entering the system has entered at point locations as opposed to diffuse flow, which has altered the seasonality of the system from what was likely to have been a temporary/season system to a permanent system. The increase in hardened areas in the upstream catchment (excluding the CLS and the quarry) has resulted in an increase in flood peaks for the system on site due to the large volumes of stormwater entering the site (Figure 6.4.b). The J&W surface water specialist study calculated the flood peaks for catchments within the CLS Expansion site (Figure 6.4.c and Table 6-4) and floodlines for the CLS Expansion site (Figure 6.4.d) (refer to report number JW090/19/6007-24).

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Seep

Quarry

Residential Development

CLS

Industrial Development

Upstream catchment - developed Figure 6.4.a: Hydrological impacts - catchment

Anker Street Marsala Road Stormwater entering site from upstream catchment Figure 6.4.b: Hydrological impacts – Increased floodpeaks

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 6-4: Peak flows determined for catchments within the CLS Expansion site

Catchment Area (km2) Recurrence interval Flood Peaks (m3/s)

50 year 21 Node 1 0.83 100 year 33 50 year 20 Node 2 0.78 100 year 32

50 year 1.50 Node 3 0.04 100 year 2.02 50 year 0.37 Node 4 0.31 100 year 0.44 50 year 20 Node 5 0.73 100 year 31

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

1 ± 2 3 4 5

Chloorkop Landfill Site

Legend

Nodes Flow Paths Catchments CLS Catchments CLS Northern Expansion 5m Contours Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) )"Projection:R39 Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 0CNES/Airbus DS,0.125 USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,0.25 IGN, and the GIS User Community Kilometers ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Catchment Boundaries and Nodes Figure 6.4.c ±

PCD Area MRF Area

Northern Expansion 1B

Northern Expansion 1A CSWD 1 Leachate Dam

Legend Chloorkop Expansion 1:100 Year Floodline Culvert Over Topping Northern Expansion 1A Northern Expansion 1B CLS Northern Expansion Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,0 CNES/Airbus DS,50 USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,100 IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project 1:100 Year Floodlines Figure 6.4.d 48

6.4.1.2 Activities within Wetlands A number of impacts were identified that would impact the water distribution and retention patterns within the wetland, these are discussed further below: • Gullies and drainage channels: A number of drainage channels were identified on site, specifically at the point locations where stormwater enters the property (Figure 6.4.e). • Modifications to existing channel. The discharge of stormwater at point locations, the deposition of fill within the wetland and the seepage of water from the adjacent quarry has modified the wetland system and likely increased the cross-sectional area of the unchannelled valley bottom system. Prior to the development of the catchment it is uncertain what HGM unit/s would have been present on the site, it is possible that the wetland (immediately downstream of Anker Street) would have been a more confined channelled valley bottom system flanked by a seep (as further downstream). • Surface roughness. As discussed in Section 6.4.3 below, there has likely been an increase in surface roughness due to a change in the seasonality of the wetland and the nutrient load entering the wetland, which has resulted in a dominance of species such as Phragmites australis. • Impeding features. Impeding features identified within the wetland include (Figure 6.4.f): o Wall on the eastern boundary, between the quarry and the CLS Expansion site. Although the project team did not access the wetland on the upstream side of the wall, seepage was evident coming through the wall. The wall is therefore definitely acting as an impeding structure. o Downstream culvert entering the underground stormwater pipes. Immediately downstream of the site, the water enters a culvert and an underground stormwater pipe. As discussed in the J&W surface hydrology specialist report (JW090/19/6007-24), this culvert is called a hydraulic control point. A hydraulic control point is a location along a watercourse where the flow is constricted. A control point will typically result in raised water levels upstream of the control and reduced water levels downstream with associated high velocity flow immediately downstream of the control. • Increased on-site water use. As discussed in Section 6.4.3 below, bushclumps consisting of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Acacia mearnsii constitute 10% of the wetland area. These tree species are alien invasive species and are higher water users than natural vegetation. • Deposition/infilling or excavation. Sixty eight percent of the CLS Expansion site has been impacted on by illegal dumping and the deposition of fill material (Figure 6.4.g). The extent of wetland that occurs beneath these areas is unknown.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Stormwater channels directing water flow on site Figure 6.4.e: Hydrological impact – drainage channels

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Downstream catchment – stream diverted in stormwater pipes

Seepage from neighbouring site Immediately downstream of CLS Expansion site the stream enters impeded by boundary wall underground stormwater pipes Figure 6.4.f: Hydrological impacts – Impeding features

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Figure 6.4.g: Hydrological Impacts – deposition/infilling

6.4.2 Geomorphology Many of the impacts on the geomorphological driver have been discussed above, for example: • Flow volumes (MAR) and increased flood peaks; Additional impacts on the geomorphological driver are related to erosion and deposition. • Drainage gullies, mainly related to the stormwater channels discussed in Section 6.4.1; • Erosion of the channelled valley bottom system. As can be seen in Figure 6.4.h, the banks of the channelled valley bottom system are eroded and not vegetated.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Erosion within stormwater channels Erosion in channelled valley bottom system Figure 6.4.h: Geomorphological Impacts – Erosional features

6.4.3 Vegetation The vegetation component of the wetland assessment was undertaken by Natural Scientific Services (CC) and the findings summarised below. As mentioned previously, the CLS Expansion site over time has been under pressure from surrounding industrial development. Dumping on site has increased since 2003 and has rapidly transformed the wetland system and the vegetation therein (Figure 6.4.i). This, as well as possible contaminants entering the system from surrounding industry, increasing nutrient levels and thereby increasing dominance from species such as Phragmites australis. As discussed in the J&W surface water hydrology report (JW090/19/6007-24) microbiological constituents namely E. coli and Total Coliforms were tested at two locations on the CLS Expansion site: stormwater inlet to the site and the downstream point prior to the stream entering the underground stormwater pipes. Both of these sites displayed highly elevated counts of E. coli and Total Coliforms. It is important to note that a sewer pipeline route runs along Anker Street which separates part of the CLS Expansion area from the CLS. The elevated counts of E. coli and Total Coliforms may therefore be due to a leak in the pipeline.

2003 2019 Figure 6.4.i: Historical and Current Imagery (2003/2019, Google Earth)

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

From onsite investigations the following main communities were identified within the wetland: Eucalyptus-Acacia Alien Bushclumps, Exposed Rocky area, Pennisetum Mixed Grassland and the Phragmites-Typha Reedbed (Figure 6.4.l). 6.4.3.1 Eucalyptus – Acacia mearnsii Bushclumps These bushclumps constitute 10% of the wetland area and mainly consist of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Acacia mearnsii. Limited growth occurs beneath the canopy with aliens such as Bidens pilosa and Tagetes minuta dominating. Species tolerant of shade include Panicum maximum and along the fringes - Hyparrhenia hirta. Although situated within the wetland, there is very little in terms of vegetation indicators to assist in determining wetland extent (Figure 6.4.j).

Alien Bushclumps Acacia mearnsii Figure 6.4.j: Photographic representation of the Eucalyptus – Acacia mearnsii bushclumps 6.4.3.2 Pennisetum mixed grassland Approximately 24% of the wetland consists of a mixture of both alien and indigenous grass species. Pennisetum clandestrium (Kikuyu) is found (Figure 6.4.k) throughout this unit with wetland indicator species such as Juncus, Cyperus, Agrostis and Typha capensis scattered throughout. Closer to the stream bed, wetland indicators include Leersia hexandra, Persicaria and an increase in alien wetland related species including Verbena (Verbena bonariensis and Verbena brasiliensis) as well as Paspalum urvillei.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Figure 6.4.k: Photographic representation of the Pennisetum clandestrium (Kikuyu) patches 6.4.3.3 Phragmites Reedbeds. An area that covers almost 63% of the defined wetland, is dominated by Phragmites australis reeds with scattered Typha capensis. These areas are more inundated with water and are therefore more permanent in nature. Species diversity within these areas are lower than that of the surrounding grassland. Species identified within the different zones are highlighted in Table 6-5.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 6-5: Dominant Species found within the three main zones Acacia Acacia Eucalyptus- Grassland Pennisetum Reedbeds Phragmites Bushclumps

Growth Species Alien Family forms

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia pendulina (Jacq.) Moffett Tree

APOCYNACEAE Araujia sericifera Brot. * Climber Bidens pilosa L. * Herb Campuloclinium macrocephalum (Less.) DC.) * Herb

Flaveria bidentis (L.) Kuntze * Herb ASTERACEAE Hypochaeris radicata L. * Herb Pseudognaphalium luteo-album (L.) Hilliard & B.L.Burtt * Herb

Tagetes minuta L. * Herb

CANNABACEAE Celtis sinensis Pers. * Shrub, tree

CHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium album L. * Herb

CONVOLVULACEAE Cuscuta spp * Parasite

CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth * Climber Cyperus congestus Vahl Cyperoid

CYPERACEAE Cyperus esculentus L. var. esculentus Cyperoid

Kyllinga erecta Schumach. var. erecta Cyperoid

FABACEAE Acacia mearnsii De Wild. * Tree

JUNCACEAE Juncus oxycarpus E.Mey. ex Kunth Helophyte Dwarf MALVACEAE Sida dregei Burtt Davy shrub

MELIACEAE Melia azedarach L. * Tree

MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus camadulensis Dehnh. * Tree

ONAGRACEAE Oenothera rosea L'Hér. ex Aiton * Herb

PHYTOLACCACEAE Phytolacca octandra L. * Succulent

Agrostis lachnantha Nees var. lachnantha Graminoid

Andropogon eucomus Nees Graminoid

Chloris virgata Sw. Graminoid Cortaderia jubata (Lemoine ex Carriere) Stapf * Graminoid

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Graminoid

Digitaria eriantha Steud. Graminoid

POACEAE Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees Graminoid

Eragrostis gummiflua Nees Graminoid

Hyparrhenia hirta (L.) Stapf Graminoid

Hyparrhenia tamba Graminoid

Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch. Graminoid

Leersia hexandra Sw. Graminoid

Melinis repens (Willd.) Zizka subsp. repens Graminoid

Panicum maximum Jacq. Graminoid Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

56 Acacia Acacia Eucalyptus- Grassland Pennisetum Reedbeds Phragmites Bushclumps

Growth Species Alien Family forms

Paspalum dilatatum Poir. * Graminoid

Paspalum urvillei Steud. * Graminoid Pennisetum clandestinum Hochst. ex Chiov. * Graminoid Sporobolus africanus (Poir.) Robyns & Tournay Graminoid

Urochloa panicoides P.Beauv. Graminoid

Persicaria spp * Helophyte POLYGONACEAE Rumex crispus L. * Herb

Datura stramonium L. * Shrub SOLANACEAE Solanum mauritianum Scop. * Shrub, tree

TYPHACEAE Typha capensis (Rohrb.) N.E. Br. Reed

Verbena aristigera S.Moore * Herb

VERBENACEAE Verbena bonariensis L. * Herb

Verbena brasiliensis Vell. * Herb

6.4.3.4 Conservation Important Species Due to the transformed nature of the CLS Expansion site and the extensive use and changes that have occurred on the property for many decades, it is not expected that any Conservation Important species occur within the wetland boundary. However, species such as Drimia elata and Hypoxis hemerocallidea may be found in the surrounding grassland (Table 6-6).

Table 6-6: Possible Conservation Important Species ONSITE THREAT FLOWERING OCCURREN FAMILY SPECIES STATUS TIMES HABITAT CE Acalypha In grassland, caperonioides Brachystegia woodland Baill. var. Spring - and at margins of vleis, EUPHORBIACEAE caperonioides DDT Summer typically after grass fires Unlikely Possible in Drimia elata September - surrounding HYACINTHACEAE Jacq. DDT January Grassland and Bushveld grassland Occurs in a wide range of habitats, from sandy hills on the margins of dune forests to open rocky grassland; also grows on Hypoxis dry, stony, grassy slopes, hemerocallidea mountain slopes and Possible in Fisch., C.A.Mey. plateaux; appears to be surrounding HYPOXIDACEAE & Avé-Lall. Declining Summer drought and fire tolerant. grassland Was not Myrothamnus detected on flabellifolius September - In shallow soil over the exposed MYROTHAMNACEAE Welw. DDT November sheets of rock rock areas

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Legend Vegetation Units (Natural Scientific Cleared / Dumping areas Eucalyptus-Acacia Alien Bushclumps Exposed Rock Pennisetum Mixed Grassland Phragmites-Typha Dominated CLS Expansion Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 0 50 100 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Wetland Vegetation Units Figure 6.4.l 58

6.4.4 Water quality The surface water quality points sampled by J&W are indicated on Figure 6.4.m, with the results below extracted from the J&W surface water specialist study (JW090/19/6007-24). The results are based on only a single sample run undertaken in March 2019. Further sampling will be undertaken, and results included in the updated report for the Impact Assessment phase. Monitoring location Chloor WQ3, no sample could be taken due to accessibility problems. There are various standards and objectives in terms of surface water quality, depending on what the end use is to be. Some of these include the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Domestic Use Guidelines and the SANS 241:2015 Drinking Water Standard . In some cases, however, there are more specific standards in terms of the catchment itself, as determined by the Catchment Management Agency (CMA). The DWS has published in 2017 the proposed classes of water resources and the proposed Resource Water Quality Objectives (RWQO) for the Mokolo, Matlabas, Crocodile (West) and Marico catchments. In this document, the catchment is divided into various Integrated Unit of Analysis (IUA) areas and Resource Units. Each IUA has a set of water quality constituents for which limits have been set. The CLS Expasnion area fall within IUA 1, which is referred to as the Upper Crocodile/Hennops/Hartebeespoort river system and within Resource Unit 1_7, which is described as follows (DWS, 2017): “This RU includes the headwaters of Jukskei. The river reach can be classified as an urban river. Includes parts of the northern and western suburbs of Johannesburg, Sandton, Alexandra, Randburg. There are several WWTWs located both upstream and downstream of the Jukskei and Klein Jukskei river systems. The systems are highly impacted from nutrient input thus threatening the biotic integrity of the systems. Serious water quality problems exist as the rivers are severely impacted by WWTWs discharges (largest being Johannesburg Water Northern Works), urbanisation and industrial effluent. Sedimentation is also problem.” All inorganic surface water quality monitoring data for CLS Expansion monitoring locations have been compared to the SANS 241:2015 Drinking Water Standards, as well as the 2017 RWQO for IUA 1, Resource Unit 1_7 as determined by DWS. All organic surface water quality monitoring data for the CLS Expansion monitoring locations have been compared to the Dutch Intervention Limit and where not available, the USEPA Region 3 screening guideline was used. These results are provided in Table 6-7. Values in red indicate where the guidelines limits are exceeded. Elements of concern are discussed briefly below. • Electrical conductivity (EC) is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current, which is as a result of the presence of charged ions such as carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, potassium, calcium and magnesium (DWAF, 1996). It is therefore an indicator of the salinity, or total salt content, of water. Accumulation of salts can influence the potential to use the water downstream by water users, such as irrigation for agriculture, as well as livestock watering. Elevated EC for offsite location Chloor WQ1, the most downstream location of the CLS Expansion area, was noted. The EC value exceeded the RWQ objective of 65 mS/m, but was within the SANS 241: 2015 guideline of 170 mS/m. These elevated EC values may be attributed to potential discharges or dirty stormwater run-off from the light industries in the area with a resultant impact on water quality. • Manganese (Mn) is a relatively abundant element which constitutes 0.10% of the earth’s crust. The median concentration in fresh water is 8.0 µg/ℓ, with a range of Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

0.020 to 130 µg/ℓ (DWAF, 1996). Mn concentrations exceeded the RWQ objective of 0.15 mg/ℓ at Chloor WQ1 but was within the SANS 241 2015 guideline of 0.40 mg/ℓ. Elevated Mn concentrations may be attributed to potential discharges or dirty stormwater run-off from the light industries in the area with a resultant impact on water quality. • Other inorganic constituents that were elevated included: Chloride (Cl), Sulfate (SO4), Boron (B), Fluoride (F), Sodium (Na), Ammonia (N) and Ortho-Phosphate (P). These may be attributed to potential discharges or dirty stormwater run-off from the light industries in the area with a resultant impact on water quality. • Microbiological constituents namely E. coli and Total Coliforms were observed at Chloor WQ1 and Chloor WQ2, with both sites having highly elevated counts of E. coli and Total Coliforms. It is important to note that the sewer pipeline route, into which the CLS Stormwater Dams pump into, runs along Anker Street which separates part of the CLS Expansion area from the CLS. Chloor WQ2 monitoring location is along this route and therefore elevated counts of E. coli and Total Coliforms may be due to a leak in the pipeline. • Organic constituents. The following was noted: o At Chloor WQ1 and Chloor WQ2 traces of volatile organic hydrocarbons were detected but were within the guideline limit. o At Chloor WQ2 traces of the following organic constituents were noted: . Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected but did not exceed the guideline limit. . Polycyclic Aromatic hydrocarbons were detected but did not exceed the guideline limit. . Nitrogen Pesticides were detected but did not exceed the guideline limit. . Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected but did not exceed the guideline limit. . Traces of volatile halogenated hydrocarbons, namely Bromodichloromethane was detected and exceeded the USEPA guideline of 0.13 µg/L. This may be attributed to the various light industries in the surrounding area.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Chloor WQ 1

Northern Expansion 1B

Chloor WQ 3

Chloor WQ 2

Northern Expansion 1A

Legend

Surface Water Monitoring Locations Pipes Sewer Connection Municipal Sewer Line Northern Expansion 1A Northern Expansion 1B Coordinate System: Hartebeesthoek94 Lo29 (E-N) Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus0 DS, USDA,50 USGS, AeroGRID,100 IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-25 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Project Surface Water Monitoring Locations Figure 6.4.m 61

Table 6-7: Surface Water quality baseline survey data (March 2019 sample run) – CLS Expansion (inorganic and organic constituents) Guidelines Sample Locations RWQO Constituents Unit Crocodile SANS 241 Dutch Intervention Limit and Chloor WQ1 Chloor WQ2 Chloor WQ3 UIA 1, RU 2015 USEPA 1_7 Date Sampled 19/03/2019 19/03/2019 No Sample Inorganic Constituents pH 6.5-9.0 5.5 - 9.7 ! NG 7.9 7.2 Electrical conductivity (25°C) mS/m 65 170 ! NG 131 40 Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 1 200 ! NG 888 230 Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l NG NG 400 152 Ammonia as N mg/l 0.10 1.5 ! NG <0.10 6.0 Nitrate as N mg/l 11 ! NG 1.0 2.2 Chloride as Cl mg/l 60 300 ! NG 141 21

4 Sulfate as SO mg/l 70 500 ! NG 125 24 Fluoride as F mg/l 1.5 ! NG 0.40 0.20 Ortho-Phosphate as P mg/l 0.125 NG NG <0.10 1.5 Sodium as Na mg/l 70 200 ! NG 93 18 Potassium as K mg/l NG NG 23 7.8

Calcium as Ca mg/l NG NG 132 33

Magnesium as Mg mg/l NG NG 35 9 Boron as B mg/l 2.4 ! NG 0.030 0.17 Iron (Fe) (Dissolved) mg/l 0.30 2.0 ! NG <0.025 0.03 Manganese (Mn) (Dissolved) mg/l 0.15 0.40 ! NG 0.40 <0.025 Trace Elements Arsenic (As) µg/L 10 ! 60 $ 1.0 1.0 Barium (Ba) µg/L 700 ! 625 $ 68 125 Cadmium (Cd) µg/L 3.0 ! 6.0 $ <3.0 <3.0

Copper (Cu) µg/L 2 000 ! 75 $ <10 <10 Chromium (Cr) Total µg/L 50 ! 30 $ <25 <25

Chromium (Cr6+) Hexavalent µg/L NG NG <10 <10

Lead (Pb) µg/L 10 ! 75 $ <10 <10 Mercury (Hg) µg/L 6.0 ! 0.30 $ <1.0 3.0 Vanadium (V) µg/L 200 ! NG Analysed but not detected 2.8 Microbiological E. Coli Count per 100ml 130 0 NG 34 000 330 Total Coliforms Count per 100ml 10 NG 87 000 11 000

Heterotrophic plate count Count per ml 1000 NG >100 000 13 000 Volatile Organic Hydrocarbons Ethylbenzene µg/L NG 150 $ 0.24 0.19 m,p-Xylene µg/L 0.14 Toluene µg/L NG 1000 $ Analysed but not detected 1.3 p-Cymene µg/L Jones & WagenerNG (Pty) Ltd NG 0.15 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

62 Guidelines Sample Locations RWQO Constituents Unit Crocodile SANS 241 Dutch Intervention Limit and Chloor WQ1 Chloor WQ2 Chloor WQ3 UIA 1, RU 2015 USEPA 1_7 Date Sampled 19/03/2019 19/03/2019 No Sample Phenols 2,4-Dimethylphenol ug/l NG 360 ^ Analysed but not detected 0.030 Volatile halogenated Hydrocarbons Dichloromethane µg/L NG 1000 $ 0.44 Trichloromethane µg/L NG 400 $ Analysed but not detected 2.8 Bromochloromethane µg/L NG 83 ^ 0.10 Bromodichloromethane µg/L NG 0.13 ^ Analysed but not detected 0.32 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Phenanthrene µg/L NG 5.0 $ 0.040

Fluoranthene µg/L NG 1.0 $ Analysed but not detected 0.030 p-Chlorophenol µg/L 0.060 2,4/2,5-Dichlorophenol µg/L 0.020 Nitrogen pesticides Atrazin µg/L NG 150 $ Analysed but not detected 0.080 Terbuthylazine µg/L NG NG 0.10 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH C10-C12 µg/L TPH C12-C16 µg/L

TPH C16-C21 µg/L 47 Analysed but not detected TPH C21-C30 µg/L 88

TPH C30-C35 µg/L 21 TPH C35-C40 µg/L

TPH (sum C10-C40) µg/L NG 600 $ 170

$ Dutch Intervention Limit ^ USEPA NG No Guideline

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

6.5 Ecosystem Services The likelihood that a benefit is being supplied by a specific HGM unit at the CLS Expansion site is summarised in Table 6-8. The main services supplied by the wetland HGM Units are the indirect benefits related to water quality enhancement and flood attenuation. This is largely due to the extent of vegetation cover present, specifically in the Unchannelled valley bottom system. As mentioned previously, the type of vegetation cover present in this HGM Unit and in Seep 2 has been altered due to the change in hydrological regime (more seasonal to permanent wetland system) and extent in the HGM Unit which has been increased in size due to the point source discharge of stormwater into the system. Opportunity to provide the service is also in many cases high due to the upstream catchment and the quality of stormwater entering the site (Section 6.4.4). The maintenance of biodiversity is supplied at an Intermediate level mainly due to the rare wetland type and level of protection of the wetland HGM Units. Within the Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3 wetland vegetation type the seeps, channelled valley bottoms and unchannelled valley bottom wetlands are classified as Critically Endangered and Not Protected (Nel and Driver, 2012). The unchannelled valley bottom system scores slightly lower than the other HGM units due to the presence of alien and invasive tree species, such as Eucalyptus spp, within the unit. In terms of the direct benefits supplied, a number of informal shelters are located on the CLS Phase 1B expansion site, it was assumed that the residents of these shelters are utilising the wetlands, specifically the valley bottom systems, as a water source for washing etc.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 6-8: Ecosystem Services supplied by the wetlands at the CLS Expansion site Channelled Unchannelled Wetland Unit Seep 1 Seep 2 Valley Bottom Valley Bottom Flood attenuation 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.9 Streamflow regulation 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.8 Sediment trapping 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.3

Phosphate trapping 1.8 2.0 1.2 2.2

Nitrate removal 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.4 Toxicant removal Indirect Benefits

Water quality 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.9 Erosion control

enhancement benefits enhancement 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.7 Carbon storage Regulating and supporting and benefitsRegulating 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.3

Biodiversity maintenance 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8

Provision of water for human use 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3

Provision of harvestable resources 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0

benefits Provision of cultivated foods Provisioning Provisioning

Ecosystem services Ecosystem supplied by wetlands 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Cultural significance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Direct Benefits Tourism and recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cultural benefits Education and research 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Overall 19.2 21.2 20.9 23.7 Average 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 Likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied <0.5 Low 1.3-2.0 Intermediate >2.8 High 0.5-1.2 Moderately Low 2.1-2.8 Moderately High

6.6 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity At a quaternary catchment scale, the A21C catchment has a Moderate Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS), (http://www.dwaf.gov.za/WAR/systems.html). This catchment is considered to be unique on either a provincial or local scale due to biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). The rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) are usually not very sensitive to flow modifications and often have a substantial capacity for use. At a local scale, the EIS was assessed for the three HGM units (Seep, Un-channelled Valley Bottom and Channelled Valley Bottom). The EIS was based on the findings of the Ecosystem Services Assessment, National and Provincial data, previous studies undertaken in the region, and the specialist knowledge of the team. The three suites assessed: Ecological Importance & Sensitivity; Hydro-functional Importance and Direct Human Benefits are summarised in Table 6-9, Table 6-10, and Table 6-11 respectively. The overall EIS rating is calculated based on the maximum score for each suite of importance criteria, with the hydro-functional importance scoring the highest for each of the HGM Units: • Seep 1 - Moderate overall EIS. Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive on a provincial or local scale. The biodiversity of these systems is not usually sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

small role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers (Rountree and Kotze, 2013). • Seep 2, Unchannelled valley bottom and the channelled valley bottom – High overall EIS. Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive. The biodiversity of these systems may be sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers (Rountree and Kotze, 2013).

Table 6-9: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Seep 1 Channelled Unchannelled Valley Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Score (0-4) Seep 2 Valley Bottom Bottom Biodiversity support 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Presence of Red Data species 0 0 0 0 Populations of unique species 0 0 0 0 Migration/breeding/feeding sites 0 0 0 0 Landscale scale 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Protection status of the wetland 0 0 0 0 Protection status of the vegetation type 0 0 0 0 Regional context of the ecological integrity 1 1 1 1 Size and rarity of the wetland type/s present 3 3 3 3 Diversity of habitat types 1 1 1 1 Sensitivity of the wetland 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.7 Sensitivity to changes in floods 1 1 2 2 Sensitivity to changes in low flows/dry season 1 1 1 2 Sensitivity to changes in water quality 1 1 1 1 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.7 >0 and <=1 Low >2 and <=3 High >1 and <=2 Moderate >3 and <=4 Very High

Table 6-10: Hydro-functional Importance Seep 1 Channelled Unchannelled Hydro-Functional Importance Score (0-4) Seep 2 Valley Bottom Valley Bottom

Flood attenuation 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.9

Streamflow regulation 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.8

Sediment trapping 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.3

Phosphate assimilation 1.8 2 1.2 2.2

Nitrate assimilation 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.4

Toxicant assimilation 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.9 Regulatingsupporting & benefits

Water Quality Enhancement Erosion control 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.7

Carbon storage 1 1.3 1.7 2.3 HYDRO-FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 >0 and <=1 Low >2 and <=3 High >1 and <=2 Moderate >3 and <=4 Very High

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 6-11: Direct human benefits

Seep 1 Channelled Unchannelled Direct Human Benefits Score (0-4) Seep 2 Valley Bottom Valley Bottom

Water for human use 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3

Harvestable resources 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 benefits Subsistence Cultivated foods 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Cultural heritage 0 0 0 0

Tourism and recreation 0 0 0 0

Culturalbenefits Education and research 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 >0 and <=1 Low >2 and <=3 High >1 and <=2 Moderate >3 and <=4 Very High

6.7 Hydropedology The soil forms identified on site were classified as per the methodology described in Section 5.6 and the results are illustrated in Figure 6.7.a and Figure 6.7.b below. The bulk of the site is covered with urban waste, hence the hydropedology is inferred from those areas not covered with waste. The results show a system where the upper and mid slopes comprise of shallow recharge soils (Mispah and Carolina), that move water underground. The lower slopes and valley bottom comprise of interflow soils (Longlands, Kroonstad), as plinthic horizons become prevalent and the water in the system starts moving sideways in the soil profile. Lastly the response soils are found in the valley bottom (Katspruit) where the water breaches the surface and converts to surface flow. As mentioned in the wetland section above, not all of the sources of water on site could be verified, and unnatural drainage of stormwater could contribute to the system observed on site. Below is an illustration of the conceptual cross section through the site’s hydrological profile, indicating the main directions of water flow through the soil profile.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

water level

Figure 6.7.a: Conceptual cross section of the hydropedological profile observed on site

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Legend Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Hydropedology Unnatural soil/no access Interflow Recharge Response

Profile

Coordinate System: Cape Lo29 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: Cape Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus0 DS, USDA, USGS,75 AEX, 150 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Meters ENVIROSERV Job No: 6007-28 Chloorkop Landfill Site Expansion Hydropedology Map Figure 6.7.b Document Path: C:\GIS\6007 - Chloorkop\mxd\Chloor_Hydroped.mxd 69

7. IMPACT AND RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES The potential impacts on soils, land capability and wetlands have been discussed below under the two project phases, ‘Phase 1A’ and ‘Phase 1A and Phase 1B combined’. The impact on water surface and groundwater has been assessed in detail in the J&W surface and groundwater assessments (JW090/19/6007-24 and JW109/19/6007-22) and has not been repeated in this report. Although the Phase 1B alternative is discussed in this report, a meeting was held between the GDARD and the EAP in May 2019 in which GDARD indicated that, in line with the mitigation hierarchy (Figure 7.a) they will accept no net loss in wetlands in the Province. The mitigation measures for the Phase 1B expansion therefore includes a change in design layout to ensure there is no net loss in wetlands.

Figure 7.a: Mitigation hierarchy (Macfarlane et al., 2016)

7.1 Phase 1A 7.1.1 Soils and Land Capability 7.1.1.1 Construction and Operational Phase The soils found on site for Phase 1A have been classified as Urban Technosols, which inherently have already been disturbed by human activities to the point where they are no longer classifiable as natural soils. The light industrial development of the site (Figure 6.1.a) has compacted the soils, mixed the natural material with building rubble, cleared vegetation and covered several parts of the site with buildings. The impact from the proposed development is rated in Table 7-1 below as Low when considering only the impact of the proposed development. With no discernible difference between the construction and operational phase impacts, these have been assessed in combination.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 7-1: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A – pre-mitigation

IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate

Intensity Duration Extent Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (D) (E)

L L L VH

Low Low Low Definite Low Consequence (C)

Low

7.1.1.2 Management and Mitigation Measures The soil management and mitigation measures for the construction and operational phase for Phase 1A are summarised below: Construction Phase • Excavation and clearing of soils will be limited to the proposed construction footprint. No clearing, excavations or removal of soil allowed outside of these areas. • Stockpiling of soils will be kept to a minimum and within the construction footprint only. • Stormwater control measures as prescribed by the surface water specialist will be adhered to, in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation. • No routine repairs or servicing of construction vehicles will be permitted on site. Emergency repairs to construction vehicles will take place only in dedicated areas that are equipped with drip trays. • Bunded containment and settlement facilities will be provided for hazardous materials, such as fuel and oil. • Spill-sorb or a similar product will be kept on site and used to clean up hydrocarbon spills in the event that they should occur. • Erosion protection measures will be implemented at steep areas. • A waste management plan will be developed in-house by EnviroServ for the construction phase. • If erosion is evident, water management around the construction areas will be reviewed and upgraded. • Upslope runoff will be diverted around construction activities. Operational Phase • Progressive rehabilitation and capping of the waste cells will be implemented. No dirty water will be allowed to infiltrate natural soils. • All spills will be contained within dedicated bunded areas (at wash bays, workshops, waste handling areas, chemicals handling areas, etc.).

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

• All oils, chemicals and other hazardous materials will be stored in covered, bunded areas. • All contaminated runoff and spills that escape the bunded areas will be collected and contained within the contaminated stormwater system and directed to the CSWD. • Adequate erosion protection will be provided at the clean canal discharge locations. • All pipeline routes will be inspected regularly to enable early detection of leaks.

Based on the successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures discussed above, and the monitoring measures discussed in Section 8, there will be no impact on the remaining natural soils on site. The overall impact on soils, after mitigation is therefore assessed as very low (Table 7-4).

Table 7-2: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A – post-mitigation

IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate Intensity Extent Duration (D) Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (E) L VL L M Very Low Very Low Low Conceivable Insignificant Consequence (C) Very Low

7.1.2 Wetlands 7.1.2.1 Construction and Operational Phase Phase 1A will result in no direct loss of wetland habitat as all activities will be restricted to Erf 335 upon which no wetlands were identified. The current land use on Erf 335 includes light industrial development which has resulted in the clearing of vegetation, compaction of surfaces and construction of infrastructure. Based on the fact that the construction footprint is already impacted, with vegetation cleared, soils compacted and the assumption that stormwater management infrastructure will be constructed first, the impacts associated with the construction and operation phase will be very similar and have been assessed together. Although no wetlands will be directly impacted on by the Phase 1A expansion, there will be a potential indirect effect on the functionality of the downstream wetlands due to potential impacts on the wetland drivers: hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation. The potential impact on surface and groundwater have been discussed in detail in the respective specialist reports and summarised below. As discussed under Section 6.4 and Section 6.7 the existing activities within the wetlands downstream have resulted in a number of impacts on the wetland drivers, with the current hydrological and vegetation driver being Seriously Modified and the geomorphological driver Largely Modified (Table 6-3).

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Potential impacts on these downstream wetland drivers, due to the Phase 1A expansion, include: • Hydrology. Reduction in flow to the downstream wetland due to the containment of runoff from the CLS Phase 1A dirty water areas. As discussed in the J&W surface water assessment, the Phase 1A expansion will result in a 0.1% reduction in catchment area for the downstream wetlands, with a resultant reduction in MAR entering the system. In the surface water assessment, the impact was assessed as Medium prior to mitigation and Low post-mitigation. In terms of floodpeaks, the CLS Phase 1A expansion area already has hardened surfaces and compacted soils in large areas, a minor increase in floodpeaks is therefore anticipated assuming no mitigation. • Geomorphology. Although there will be a slight reduction in flow, and a minor increase in floodpeaks, the anticipated impact on the geomorphological integrity of the downstream wetlands, is assessed as Medium prior to mitigation due to the high erosion potential at the stormwater discharge points. During the construction phase there is also the potential for an increase in sediment load to the system due to the clearing of land and stripping of soil. • Vegetation. The vegetation in the downstream wetlands is already Seriously Modified. Should no mitigation measures be implemented the opportunity exists for further impacts on the downstream vegetation, for example if the construction footprint for laydown areas etc. extends into this area. The impact was assessed as Medium with no mitigation. • Water quality. As discussed in the surface water specialist report impacts may arise from a number of activities, for example: contaminated storm water runoff, hydrocarbon spills, waste and chemical spills, poor management of the site water balance, poorly maintained storm water channels and sumps resulting in erosion etc. These potential activities would result in a deterioration in water quality within the downstream watercourses. The impact was assessed as High during the operational phase without mitigation and Low after mitigation. Similarly, without mitigation the contamination of the groundwater will occur, thereby impacting on the downstream receptors, yet with mitigation there is anticipated to be no impact on downstream receptors. The impact on the wetlands, taking the above into consideration, was assessed as Medium without mitigation and as Very Low post mitigation (Table 7-4).

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 7-3: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A – pre-mitigation

IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate

Intensity Duration Extent Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (D) (E)

M H M H

Long Beyond site Moderate Probable term boundary Medium Consequence (C)

Medium

7.1.2.2 Management and Mitigation Measures The management and mitigation measures for the construction and operational phase for Phase 1A are summarised below. Mitigation measures discussed in the surface water, groundwater, aquatic (NWU, 2019) and biodiversity reports (TBC, 2019) have not been repeated here and it is assumed that these measures will be successfully implemented. Construction Phase • The footprint of disturbed areas will be minimised to the footprint highlighted in Figure 1.1.b, with the open area, including the wetlands, north of Anker Street demarcated as “No-go” zones, for construction and operational activities and associated personnel. • Impacted and clean surface water management measures, such as temporary diversion of upstream run-off from the construction and laydown areas, are to be constructed first to ensure that clean water is returned to the downstream wetland area. The stormwater entering the downstream wetland is to be dissipated and the appropriate erosion protection measures implemented. This discharge must be located as high in the catchment as possible, in order to provide water for the watercourse and wetlands as high as possible within the system. • Temporary stormwater collection sumps will be provided to allow suspended sediments in the stormwater to settle before releasing the stormwater to the catchment. • If erosion is evident, or the water quality monitoring indicates an increase in suspended solids, water management around the construction areas will be reviewed and upgraded. Operational Phase • The footprint of disturbed areas will be minimised to the footprint highlighted in Figure 1.1.b. • Progressive rehabilitation and capping of the waste cells will be implemented. The surface water runoff from the capped waste cells will be clean and will be released to the environment. Energy dissipaters and associated downstream erosion protection measures will be constructed, at the stormwater discharge points, prior to the stormwater entering the downstream wetland areas.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

• Clean runoff will be diverted around the designated dirty areas by means of cut-off canals, sized to accommodate at least the 1:50 year peak flow event. • An inspection and maintenance plan will be implemented on the stormwater system to ensure that the system remains operational, unblocked and free flowing at all times – monthly inspections will be undertaken. • Erosion protection will be provided on the terrace side slopes to prevent damage to the terrace during flood events and therefore limit potential sedimentation of the downstream wetlands.

Based on the successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures discussed above, and the monitoring measures discussed in Section 8, the overall impact on wetland functionality, after mitigation is therefore assessed as VERY LOW (Table 7-4).

Table 7-4: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A – post-mitigation

IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate Intensity Extent Duration (D) Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (E) M H M VL Beyond site Moderate Long term Unlikely boundary Very Low Consequence (C) Medium

7.1.2.3 Wetland Risk Assessment The results of the wetland risk assessment are highlighted in Table 7-5. The risk assessment has been undertaken for the construction and operational Phase, both with and without mitigation. The impacts assessed and the mitigation measures are discussed in Section 7.1 above. It is important to note that Phase 1A not be located within the delineated boundary of the wetland, in addition the proposed footprint area for Phase 1A is already impacted on with natural vegetation removed, soils compacted, and infrastructure constructed on the site. The existing activities within the wetlands downstream have resulted in a number of impacts on the wetland drivers, with the current hydrological and vegetation driver being Seriously Modified and the geomorphological driver Largely Modified. The impacts assessed for the construction and operation of Phase 1A were assessed as a MODERATE Risk prior to mitigation and a LOW risk post- mitigation. This LOW risk was based on the assumption that all the proposed mitigation measures within this report, and the other specialist reports, in particular the surface water (JW090/19/6007-24), groundwater (JW109/19/6007-22), aquatic (NWU, 2019) and biodiversity reports (TBC, 2019) are successfully implemented.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 7-5: Wetland Risk Assessment – Phase 1A

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

7.2 Phase 1B 7.2.1 Soils and Land Capability 7.2.1.1 Construction Phase The development of Phase 1B prior to mitigation will impact on approximately 2.7 ha of natural soils, with the remaining 4.3 ha of the 7 ha site already disturbed by illegal dumping of building rubble and waste. The natural soils have very low land capabilities and do not offer any form of usable agricultural potential. The natural soils also include wetland soils, which comprise some 2.2 ha of the Phase 1B development footprint. These soils are regarded as sensitive, due to the habitat that they support. Furthermore, these soils are notably difficult to construct on, due to the clay content in the soil as well as the fluctuating water table. If the soils are removed, they are not suitable for use in any dry areas. Once the soils dry out, the clays become hard, and prone to compaction and erosion. It is assumed that during construction the source of the water will be diverted around the construction works, allowing the wetland soils to dry out prior to removing them and preparing the foundations of the proposed development. Once removed the soils will be used for capping on the existing CLS or Phase 1A expansion. For the same reasons mentioned above, the soils will be prone to compaction and erosion.

Table 7-6: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A & 1B – pre-mitigation

IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate

Intensity Duration Extent Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (D) (E)

H VH L VH

High Perm Low Definite High Consequence (C)

High

7.2.1.2 Operational Phase During the operational phase, the wetland soils removed during construction and the impacts therefrom will remain. Thus, the construction phase impact assessment above remains for the operational phase.

7.2.1.3 Management and Mitigation Measures The soil management and mitigation measures for the construction and operational phase for Phase 1B are summarised below. Phase 1B, prior to mitigation, will include the loss of approximately 2.2 ha of wetland habitat (discussed in more detail in Section 7.2.2). In line with the mitigation hierarchy (Figure 7.a), and the initial project discussions held between

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

GDARD and the EAP, the main mitigation measure for Phase 1B is to have no net loss in wetland functionality and therefore to ensure that the footprint for Phase 1B is reduced in size to not be located within the wetland area. The Phase 1B footprint is therefore to be located within the area covered by the existing informal dump of building rubble (Figure 6.3.d).

Construction Phase • Excavation and clearing of soils will be limited to the proposed construction footprint. No clearing, excavations or removal of soil allowed outside of these areas. • The clean water source will be diverted around the construction site to prevent contamination of water and sedimentation of the down-stream wetlands. • Stockpiling of soils will be kept to a minimum and to within the proposed construction footprint. • If wetland soils are to be removed, and used as capping on the existing CLS, then the soils should be placed as quickly as possible, to avoid drying out of the clay. • If possible, wetland soils to be placed in areas that might be wet in future, such as drainage canals in order to avoid issues when the clays dry out. • Stormwater control measures as prescribed by the surface water specialist to be adhered to, in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation. • No routine repairs or servicing of construction vehicles will be permitted on site. Emergency repairs to construction vehicles will take place only in dedicated areas that are equipped with drip trays. • Bunded containment and settlement facilities will be provided for hazardous materials, such as fuel and oil. • Spill-sorb or a similar product will be kept on site and used to clean up hydrocarbon spills in the event that they should occur. • Erosion protection measures will be implemented at steep areas. • A waste management plan will be developed in-house by EnviroServ for the construction phase. • If erosion is evident, water management around the construction areas will be reviewed and upgraded. • Upslope runoff will be diverted around construction activities. Operational Phase • Progressive rehabilitation and capping of the waste cells will be implemented. No dirty water will be allowed to infiltrate natural soils. • If any wetland soils remain after initial construction – continue use as capping material on existing landfill or Phase 1A expansion. • All spills will be contained within dedicated bunded areas (at wash bays, workshops, waste handling areas, chemicals handling areas, etc.). • All oils, chemicals and other hazardous materials will be stored in covered, bunded areas.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

• All contaminated runoff and spills that escape the bunded areas will be collected and contained within the contaminated stormwater system and directed to the CSWD. • Adequate erosion protection will be provided at the clean canal discharge locations. • All pipeline routes will be inspected regularly to enable early detection of leaks.

Based on the successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures discussed above, and the monitoring measures discussed in Section 8, there will be a lower impact on the remaining natural soils on site, by placing the footprint outside of the wetland soils. The overall impact on soils, after mitigation is therefore assessed as Very Low (Table 7-4).

Table 7-7: Impact on soils and land capability – Phase 1A & 1B – post-mitigation

IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate Intensity Extent Duration (D) Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (E) H L VL H Low Low Very Low Possible VERY LOW Consequence (C) Low

7.2.2 Wetlands 7.2.2.1 Construction and Operational Phase Phase 1B, prior to mitigation, will include the loss of approximately 2.2 ha of wetland habitat. As discussed above, GDARD have indicated that they will accept no net loss in wetlands for this project. When evaluating the loss of wetlands, it is of little value to simply report on the spatial area lost as this does not provide a true reflection of the functional loss of wetland, nor does it provide any form of indication of the delivery of ecosystem services. Thus, when calculating wetland loss, it is important to examine existing wetland integrity/functionality. The direct loss of wetland habitat has been assessed utilising the Hectare Equivalent approach (Macfarlane et al. 2012) (Table 7-8). The impacts on the wetland drivers are discussed below and the overall impact rating on wetland functionality, pre mitigation, summarised in Table 7-3. The construction of Phase 1B will therefore result in the direct loss of 0.93 Hectare Equivalents. It is important to note that the presence of wetland characteristics, below the dumped rubble, could not be determined. As discussed in Section 7.1.2.1 above, in addition to the direct loss of wetlands, indirect effects are expected on the downstream wetlands. The indirect impacts on the downstream wetlands are discussed below: • Hydrology. Reduction in flow to the downstream wetland due to the containment of dirty runoff from the CLS Phase 1A and Phase 1B dirty water areas. As discussed

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

in the J&W surface water assessment, the Phase 1A and Phase 1B combined expansion will result in a 0.5% reduction in catchment area for the downstream wetlands, with a resultant reduction in MAR entering the system. In the surface water assessment, the impact was assessed as Medium prior to mitigation and Low post-mitigation. In terms of floodpeaks, the CLS Phase 1A and Phase 1B will result in an increase in hardened surfaces and an increase in floodpeaks is therefore anticipated assuming no mitigation. • Geomorphology. Additional stormwater discharge points will enter the downstream wetland, with the potential to result in increased erosion if not adequately mitigated. During the construction phase there is also the potential for an increase in sediment load to the system due to vegetation stripping and the clearing of the existing rubble on site. • Vegetation. The vegetation in the downstream wetlands is already Seriously Modified. Should no mitigation measures be implemented, the opportunity exists for further impacts on the downstream vegetation, for example if the construction footprint for laydown areas etc. extends into this area or the increase in alien and invasive species downstream. • Water quality. As discussed in the surface water specialist report impacts may arise from a number of activities, for example: contaminated storm water runoff, hydrocarbon spills, waste and chemical spills, poor management of the site water balance, poorly maintained storm water channels and sumps resulting in erosion etc. These potential activities would result in a deterioration in water quality within the downstream watercourses. The impact was during the operational phase assessed as High without mitigation and Low after mitigation. Similarly, without mitigation the contamination of the groundwater will occur, thereby impacting on the downstream receptors, yet with mitigation there is anticipated to be no impact on downstream receptors.

Table 7-8: Hectare Equivalents – Current and Predicted State HGM Unit PES – Impact Score (Current State) Combined Hectares Hectare Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Overall PES- to be Equivalent Health lost Score Seep 1 4 1.6 5.7 3.8 6.2 0 0 Seep 2 7 3 4.8 5.2 4.8 0.01 0.0048 Channelled 7 2.7 5.6 5.4 4.6 0 0 Valley Bottom Unchannelled 7 6 6.3 6.5 3.50 2.19 0.93 Valley Bottom

The impact on eco-system services was undertaken utilising the simplified WET- Ecoservices assessment (Kotze et al, 2008b), where the anticipated impact on each of the 15 eco-system services, is scored on a simple rating system (Table 7-9).

Table 7-9: Scores for ecosystem services

Change Score Description of effect of Phase 1A development on ecosystem delivery (post mitigation) -2 Substantial loss anticipated

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

-1 Slight loss anticipated 0 No significant effect anticipated 1 Slight improvement anticipated 2 Substantial improvement anticipated

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Table 7-10: Predicted Change in WET-Ecoservices

Type Category Ecosystem Change Score Comments Service Pre- Post- mitigation Mitigation Provision of water -2 -2 A number of informal shelters are located on the CLS Phase 1B expansion site, it was assumed that the residents of for human use these shelters are utilising the wetlands, specifically the valley bottom systems, as a water source for washing etc. The residents may also be utilising the Phragmites/Typha reed beds as a harvestable resource. These informal shelters will Provision of --2 -2 be removed should Phase 1B be developed and the majority of the Phragmites-Typha reed bed vegetation unit will be harvestable lost. resources Provision of 0 0 No cultivated foods were identified on site Provisioning Provisioning Services cultivated foods Cultural heritage 0 0 No cultural/herniate services were identified on site. Tourism & 0 0 The wetland is not located on a tourism route and no recreational value was identified on site. recreation Education & +1 +1 Should Phase 1B be constructed the PES of the downstream wetland HGM Units and the water quality will continue to Direct Services Direct Services Cultural Services research be monitored during the life of the operation. Biodiversity maintenance -1 0 Although species diversity is lower in the Phragmites-Typha Reedbed vegetation unit, the loss of the majority of the unit due to the Phase 1B construction, without mitigation will result in a loss of available habitat type. Flood attenuation -1 +1 Large volumes of stormwater enter the un-channelled valley bottom system and flows are dissipated by the extensive Phragmites-Typha Reedbed. Without mitigation these flows will enter the channelled valley bottom system and Streamflow -1 +1 increase the erosion of the system. Should the mitigation measures be implemented, which would include the regulation installation of appropriate stormwater measures a potential exists to improve the ecosystem service supplied. Sediment trapping -2 0 The un-channelled valley bottom system scored Moderately High for sediment and phosphate trapping, with the downstream channelled valley bottom system scoring an Intermediate or Moderately Low respectively, therefore a Phosphate -2 0 substantial loss is anticipated trapping Nitrate assimilation -1 0 The un-channelled valley bottom system scored Moderately High for nitrate removal, with the downstream channelled valley bottom system scoring the same, therefore only a slight loss is anticipated Toxicant removal -2 0 The un-channelled valley bottom system scored a high for toxicant removal. the loss of the HGM Unit will result in a loss in the ecosystem service supplied Erosion control -2 0 Large volumes of stormwater enter the un-channelled valley bottom system and flows are dissipated by the extensive Phragmites-Typha Reedbed. Without mitigation, these flows will enter the channelled valley bottom system and increase the erosion of the system. Should the mitigation measures be implemented, which would include the installation of appropriate stormwater measures, a potential exists to improve the ecosystem service supplied. Carbon Storage -2 0 Phase 1B expansion will result in the loss of a large percentage of the Phragmites-Typha reed bed vegetation unit and Indirect Services Indirect Services Services Supporting & Regulating therefore a potential loss in carbon storage capacity of the wetland. Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

The impact without mitigation is assessed as Very High due to both the direct loss of wetland habitat and the indirect impacts on the drivers (including water quality) of the downstream wetlands, it is assessed as Low post mitigation (Table 7-11).

Table 7-11: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A and Phase 1B – pre- mitigation

IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate

Intensity Duration Extent Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (D) (E)

H VH VH VH

Regional/ High Permanent Definite National VERY HIGH Consequence (C)

Very High

7.2.2.2 Management and Mitigation Measures In line with the mitigation hierarchy (Error! Reference source not found.), and the initial project discussions held between GDARD and the EAP, the main mitigation measure for Phase 1B is to have no net loss in wetland functionality and therefore to ensure that the footprint for Phase 1B is reduced in size to not be located within the wetland area. The Phase 1B footprint is therefore to be located within the area covered by the existing informal dump of building rubble (Figure 6.3.d). Based on the limited airspace in the province, rehabilitation alternatives in downstream wetlands, could be investigated should this option be re-visited in the future. Mitigation measures discussed in the surface water, groundwater, aquatic (NWU, 2019) and biodiversity reports (TBC, 2019) have not been repeated here and it is assumed that these measures will be successfully implemented. Assuming that the footprint of Phase 1B is reduced in size, the below mitigation measures apply: Construction Phase • The footprint of disturbed areas will be minimised to the already disturbed footprint area as discussed above. The wetland areas surrounding the proposed footprint area will be marked as “No-go” zones, for construction and operational activities and personnel. • Impacted and clean surface water management measures, such as temporary diversion of upstream run-off from the construction and laydown areas, are to be constructed first to ensure that clean water is returned to the downstream wetland area. The stormwater entering the downstream wetland is to be dissipated and the appropriate erosion protection measures implemented. This discharge must be located as high in the catchment as possible, in order to provide water for the watercourse and wetlands as high as possible within the system.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

• Existing stormwater channels (Figure 6.4.e), specifically those on the east and western boundaries of the site, immediately north of Anker Street, must be formalised with energy dissipaters and erosion protection measures. The channels further downstream must be rehabilitated. • Temporary stormwater collection sumps will be provided to allow suspended sediments in the stormwater to settle before releasing the stormwater to the catchment. • If erosion is evident, or the water quality monitoring indicates an increase in suspended solids, water management around the construction areas will be reviewed and upgraded. Operational Phase • The footprint of disturbed areas will be minimised to the footprint discussed above. • Progressive rehabilitation and capping of the waste cells will be implemented. The surface water runoff from the capped waste cells will be clean and will be released to the environment. Energy dissipaters and associated downstream erosion protection measures will be constructed, at the stormwater discharge points, prior to the stormwater entering the downstream wetland areas. • Clean runoff will be diverted around the designated dirty areas by means of cut-off canals, sized to accommodate at least the 1:50 year peak flow event. • Erosion protection will be provided on the terrace side slopes to prevent damage to the terrace during flood events. • An inspection and maintenance plan will be implemented on the stormwater system to ensure that the system remains operational, unblocked and free flowing at all times – monthly inspections will be undertaken. • Erosion protection measures will be implemented at steep areas. Mitigation measures discussed in the surface, groundwater, aquatic (NWU, 2019) and biodiversity reports (TBC, 2019) have not been repeated here and it is assumed that these measures will be successfully implemented. Based on the successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures discussed above, and the monitoring measures discussed in Section 8, the overall impact on wetland functionality, after mitigation, specifically the removal of the footprint area outside of the wetland, is therefore assessed as LOW.

Table 7-12: Impact on wetland functionality – Phase 1A and Phase 1B – post- mitigation

IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION Impact Status Negative Assessment Confidence Adequate

Intensity Duration Extent Probability (P) Significance (S) (I) (D) (E)

M H M M

Beyond site Low Moderate Long Term Possible boundary

Consequence (C)

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Medium

8. MONITORING MEASURES

8.1 Phase 1A 8.1.1 Soil and Land Capability • Monitoring of signs of erosion to be undertaken weekly during construction and monthly once operational; • Record any hydrocarbon/hazardous substance spills and record the clean-up measure undertaken; 8.1.2 Wetlands • Water quality. o Water quality monitoring will be undertaken quarterly during construction and operation at the sampling points indicated in Table 8-1. The parameters to be analysed are detailed in the surface water assessment.

Table 8-1: Surface water monitoring locations – Phase 1A

CLS Expansion (offsite monitoring locations)

Chloor WQ1 At downstream the culvert -2 881 297.821 -83 719.551

Chloor WQ2 Tributary downstream of Anker Street -2 881 558.329 -83 409.261

Chloor WQ3 Tributary downstream of Anker Street -2 881 519.181 -83 320.331

• Stormwater Measures. An inspection and maintenance plan will be implemented on the stormwater system to ensure that the system remains operational, unblocked and free flowing at all times – monthly inspections will be undertaken. • Structural stability and erosion. Monitoring of the structural stability of the erosion measures implemented and the presence or absence of erosion features, must be monitored on a bi-annual basis (at least once during the rainy season) during the operational phase. During the monitoring the client must ensure the erosion measures implemented: i. Are structurally stable; ii. Do not induce sedimentation, erosion or flooding; iii. Do not cause a detrimental change in the quantity, velocity, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of flow in a watercourse; iv. Do not cause a detrimental change in the quality of water in the watercourse, specifically pH, EC/TDS, TSS/Turbidity, suspended solids and Dissolved Oxygen; v. Do not cause a detrimental change in the stability or geomorphological structure of the watercourse; vi. Are cleared of debris and other blockages; vii. Are cleared of alien vegetation;

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

viii. Do not create health or safety hazards. Concomitant remedial and maintenance actions must be implemented. • Alien Invasive Plant Control. Active alien invasive plant control measures must be implemented on site to prevent spread of alien and invasive species outside of the boundary of the site. Monitoring and removal of all new alien vegetation recruitment must be undertaken bi-annually using standard methodology approved by the DWS.

8.2 Phase 1a & Phase 1B 8.2.1 Soil and Land Capability • Monitoring of signs of erosion to be undertaken weekly during construction and monthly once operational; • Record any hydrocarbon/hazardous substance spills and record the clean-up measure undertaken; 8.2.2 Wetlands • Water quality. o Downstream monitoring of instream water quality on a weekly basis during the construction phase by taking grab samples and analysing the samples for pH, EC/TDS, TSS/Turbidity, suspended solids and Dissolved Oxygen (Table 8-2). Water quality samples may not feasible throughout the year due to the temporary nature of the wetland systems. o Water quality monitoring will be undertaken quarterly during operation at the sampling points indicated in Table 8-2. The parameters to be analysed are detailed in the surface water assessment.

Table 8-2: Surface water monitoring locations – Phase 1A & 1B

CLS Expansion (offsite monitoring locations)

Chloor WQ1 At downstream the culvert -2 881 297.821 -83 719.551

• Stormwater Measures. An inspection and maintenance plan will be implemented on the stormwater system to ensure that the system remains operational, unblocked and free flowing at all times – monthly inspections will be undertaken. • Structural stability and erosion. Monitoring of the structural stability of the erosion measures implemented and the presence or absence of erosion features, must be monitored on a bi-annual basis (at least once during the rainy season) during the operational phase. During the monitoring the client must ensure the erosion measures implemented: ix. Are structurally stable; x. Do not induce sedimentation, erosion or flooding; xi. Do not cause a detrimental change in the quantity, velocity, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of flow in a watercourse; xii. Do not cause a detrimental change in the quality of water in the watercourse, specifically pH, EC/TDS, TSS/Turbidity, suspended solids and Dissolved Oxygen; Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

xiii. Do not cause a detrimental change in the stability or geomorphological structure of the watercourse; xiv. Are cleared of debris and other blockages; xv. Are cleared of alien vegetation; xvi. Do not create health or safety hazards. Concomitant remedial and maintenance actions must be implemented. • Alien Invasive Plant Control. Active alien invasive plant control measures must be implemented to prevent any further colonisation of the area by alien and invasive species, specifically for Phase 1B. Monitoring and removal of all new alien vegetation recruitment must be undertaken bi-annually using standard methodology approved by the DWS. • Wetland Assessment. A wetland assessment must be undertaken annually during operation to assess the PES, EIS and ecosystem services provided by the wetland systems affected.

9. WAY FORWARD The soils and wetland specialists are of the opinion that if the proposed mitigation measures for the Phase 1A expansion are successfully implemented including the mitigation measures proposed in the surface water, groundwater, aquatic and biodiversity assessments, the project will have an Insignificant and Very Low impact on the soils and the downstream wetlands respectively. In line with the mitigation hierarchy and the initial project discussions held between GDARD and the EAP, the main mitigation measure for Phase 1B is to have no net loss in wetland functionality and therefore to ensure that the footprint for Phase 1B is reduced in size to not be located within the wetland area. The Phase 1B footprint is therefore to be located within the area covered by the existing informal dump of building rubble. The soils and wetland specialists are of the opinion that if the proposed mitigation measures for the Phase 1B expansion are successfully implemented the project will have a Very Low to Low impact on the soils and surrounding wetlands respectively. Based on the limited airspace for waste management in the province, rehabilitation alternatives in downstream wetlands could be investigated should this option be re-visited in the future.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

10. REFERENCES Chamber of Mines of South Africa. 2007. Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Mined Land. Coaltech Research Association. Council for Scientific & Industrial Research. NFEPA wetlands 2011 [vector geospatial dataset] 2011. Available from the Biodiversity GIS website. Department of Water and Forestry (DWAF), now known as the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines (second edition). Volume 6: Domestic Water Use. Department of Water and Forestry (DWAF), now known as the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). 2005. A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas. Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), 2014. Risk-Based Water Use Authorisation Approach and Delegation Protocol for Section 21(c) and (i), Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), 2017. Determination of Resource Quality Objectives in the Mokolo, Matlabas, Crocodile West and Marico Catchments in the Limpopo North West Water Management Area (WMA01): Resource Quality Objectives and Numerical Limits Report. Final. Report No: RDM/WMA01/00/CON/RQO/0516 Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, DJ, Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manual, J. and Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. WRC Report No. 1801/1/11 Gauteng Department of Agriculture & Rural Development, 2011. Gauteng Conservation Plan Version 3.3 (C-Plan 3.3). Directorate Nature Conservation. Technological Services. Job, NM. & Le Roux, PAL. 2019. Developing wetland distribution and transfer functions from land type data as a basis for the critical evaluation of wetland delineation guidelines by inclusion of soil water flow dynamics in catchment areas - Volume 2: Preliminary Guidelines to Apply Hydropedology in Support of Wetland Assessment and Reserve Determination. WRC Report No. 2461/2/18. Jones & Wagener. 2019a. Chloorkop Landfill Expansion, Northern Extension, Geotechnical Investigation. Report No.: JW070/19/6007-23 Jones & Wagener. 2019b. EnviroServ Chloorkop Waste Disposal Site, Expansion Project, Hydrogeological Investigation. Report No.: JW109/19/6007-22 Jones & Wagener. 2019c. Chloorkop Landfill Expansion Project, Surface Water Specialist Study. Report No.: JW090/19/6007-24 Kotze DC, Marneweck GC, Batchelor, AL, Lindley DS and Collins NB, 2008a. WET- EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report No TT 339/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N, Rountree, M., Grenfell, M.C., Marneweck, G., Nxele, I.Z., Breen, D.C.,Dini, J., Batchelor, A.L., & Sieben, E. 2008b.WET-RehabPlan: Guidelines for planning wetland rehabilitation in South Africa. WRC Report No. TT 336/08. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. MacVicar, C.N., De Villiers, J.M., Locton, R.F., Verster, E., Lambrechts, J.J.N., Merryweather, F.R., Le Roux, J., Van Rooyen, T.H. & Harmse, H.J. Von M., 1977. Soil Classification: A Binomial System for South Africa. Dept. Agric. Techn. Services, Pretoria.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

Macfarlane DM, Kotze DC, Ellery WN, 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. Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006 (Reprint 2011). The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. ISBN: 978-1919976-21-1 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA). 9 December 2011. National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection, (G 34809, GN 1002). Nel J.L. and Driver A. 2012. South African National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical Report. Volume 2: Freshwater Component. CSIR Report Number CSIR/NRE/ECO/IR/2012/0022/A, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch. North-West University Water Research Group. 2019. Chloorkop Landfill Site Northern Expansion Project: Aquatic Assessment. . 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 National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Rountree, M.W., Malan, H.L. and Weston, B.C. 2013. Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland Wetlands (Version 2.0). Water Research Commission Report 1788/1/13, 170 pp. Rountree, M.W. and Kotze, D.C. 2013. Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Assessment. In: Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland Wetlands (Version 2.0). Water Research Commission Report 1788/1/13, 170 pp. Schoeman JL, Van der Walt M, Monnik KA, Thackrah A, Malherbe J, Le Roux RE. 2002. Development and application of a land capability classification system for South Africa. ARC-ISCW Report GW/A/2000/57. ARC Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria. Soil Classification Working Group. 1991 Soil Classification – a Taxonomic System for South Africa. Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural Resources of South Africa No. 15. Department of Agricultural Development, Pretoria. Soil Classification Working Group. 2018. Soil Classification: A Natural and Anthropogenic System for South Africa. ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria. The Biodiversity Company (TBC). 2019. Baseline and Impact Assessment: Proposed Chloorkop Landfill Expansion. Van Tol, JJ, Le Roux, PAL, Hensley, M. 2011. Soil indicators of hillslope hydrology. In: Gungor BO (ed) Principles-Application and Assessments in Soil Science. Intech, Turkey. Van Tol, JJ, Le Roux, PAL, Lorentz, SA, Hensley, M. 2013. Hydropedological classification of South African hillslopes. Vadose Zone J,12. doi:10.2136/vzj2013.01.0007.

11 June 2019

Document source: https://joneswagener.sharepoint.com/JonesWagenerProjects/6007DTCHLOORSITECOSTS/Shared Documents/FINAL CD/NORTHERN EXPANSION/WETLAND AQUATIC SOIL/6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019.docx

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd 6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Engineering & Environmental Consultants

ENVIROSERV

CHLOORKOP LANDFILL SITE EXPANSION PROJECT WETLAND, SOIL AND LAND CAPABILITY SPECIALIST STUDY REPORT

Report: JW100/19/6007-25

APPENDIX A

CV’S

APPENDIX A- Table of Contents

A.1 Project Manager & Wetland Ecologist – K Taggart

A.2 Soil Scientist – K Kruger

A.2 Botanist – S Abell

A.3 Project Reviewer – T Hopkins

6007-25_REP_r2_ktk_CLS Exp_IA_24062019_final.docx Jones & Wagener Engineering & Environmental Consultants 59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South Africa tel: 00 27 11 519 0200 www.jaws.co.za email: [email protected]

CURRICULUM VITAE 22 February 2019 k_taggart_cv Kathy Taggart

Profession Environmental Scientist & Ecologist Date of Birth 05 February 1976

Position in firm Environmental Scientist & Ecologist Years with the firm 3 years

Nationality South African

Education / Qualifications MSc - Resource Conservation Biology (2001, University of the Witwatersrand) BSc Honours – Botany (1999, University of the Witwatersrand) BSc – Botany and Geography (1998, University of the Witwatersrand) Languages English

Employers

Jones and Wagener Engineering and Environmental Consultants – June 2018 – Present Environmental Scientist & wetland ecologist Oct 2016 – May 2018 Monsoon Irrigation & Boreholes - Water management specialist Natural Scientific Services CC: Owner, environmental scientist & Oct 2003 – Sep 2016 wetland ecologist Jones and Wagener Engineering and Environmental Consultants - Oct 2000 – Sep 2003 Environmental scientist

Areas of Expertise

Wetland assessments - delineations, Present Ecological State, Ecological Importance and Sensitivity, ecosystem function, offsets, buffer determination, risk assessments and rehabilitation; Environmental auditing –environmental performance audits; Remediation – remediation project management, audits and phytoremediation; Environmental Impact Assessments; Water Use Licences; Integrated Water and Waste Management Plans; Environmental Management Programs; Biodiversity and Management Action Plans.

Professional Affiliations

SACNASP Registered Ecologist and Environmental Scientist (Pr. Sci. Nat, Reg No. 400225/08) SAWS Member of board – South African Wetland Society (SAWS) – 2018 to present

Relevant Experience

Wetland Assessments (Last 5 years):

JONES & WAGENER (PTY) LTD REG NO. 1993/002655/07 VAT No. 4410136685

DIRECTORS: GR Wardle (Chairman) PrEng MSc(Eng) FSAICE JP van der Berg (CEO) PrEng PhD MEng FSAICE JE Glendinning PrSciNat MSc(Env Geochem) MSAIEG M Rust PrEng PhD MSAICE TM Ramabulana BA(Social Sciences) JS Msiza PrEng BEng(Hons) MBA MSAICE MIWMSA A Oosthuizen (Alternate) PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE TECHNICAL DIRECTORS: D Brink PrEng BEng(Hons) FSAICE NJVermeulen PrEng PhD MEng MSAICE HR Aschenborn PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE MW Palmer PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE TG le Roux PrEng MEng MSAICE GB Simpson PrEng MEng FSAIAE G Harli PrEng MEng MSAICE JS Hex PrSciNat MSc(Env Man) PJJ Smit PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE C Cilliers PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE NW Nxumalo PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE F Hörtkorn PrEng Dr.-Ing MSAICE TAL Green PrEng BSc(Eng) MSAICE H Davis PrEng BSc(Hons) GDE FSAICE ASSOCIATES: RA Nortjé PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE MIWMSA J Breyl PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE N Malepfana PrEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE CJ Liebetrau PrEng MEng SACPCMP CONSULTANTS: PW Day PrEng DEng HonFSAICE JA Kempe PrEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE AIStructE BR Antrobus PrSciNat BSc(Hons) MSAIEG PG Gage PrEng CEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE AIStructE M van Zyl PrSciNat BSc(Hons) MIWMSA FINANCIAL MANAGER: CJ Ford BCompt ACMA CGMA

Page 2 of 6 Kathy Taggart

Delmas Coal – Delmas, Mpumalanga: Long-term wetland monitoring (PES, EIS and ecosystem services) Eskom – Majuba Power Station, Mpumalanga: Wetland Risk Assessment for proposed rehabilitation activities. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Columbia Falls 121 (Pty) Ltd – Kya Sands: Kya Sands Hydropedological desktop study. Project management, client liaison, wetland ecologist and report compilation Sasol – Brandspruit Mine: Wetland Risk Assessment: Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Mpact – Springs, Gauteng, South Africa: Wetland Assessment (delineation, PES, EIS, ecosystem services and risk assessment) for proposed expansion of facilities. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Delmas Coal – Delmas, Mpumalanga: Wetland rehabilitation plan. Project Manager, client liaison, authority liaison, wetland ecologist. Angloplats – Amandelbult Mine, Thabazimbi: Biodiversity and Wetland Assessment (delineation, PES, EIS, ecosystem services) for proposed expansion of mining activities. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd – Delmas, Mpumalanga, South Africa: Biodiversity, aquatic and wetland assessment for the new KiPower Independent Power Producer (IPP) Power Plant and Ash Facility, Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Eskom – Vlakfontein, Mpumalanga: Wetland Assessment (delineation, PES, EIS, ecosystem services) for proposed expansion of mining activities. Wetland ecologist. Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd – Delmas, Mpumalanga, South Africa: Wetland Rehabilitation Strategy and Statement for the new KiPower Independent Power Producer (IPP) Power Plant and Ash Facility, Project Manager, client liaison, authority liaison, wetland ecologist. Gold One – Gauteng: Wetland assessment (delineation, PES, EIS, ecosystem services. Client liaison, wetland ecologist. Eskom – Cosmo City, Gauteng: Wetland assessment (delineation, PES, EIS, ecosystem services) for proposed powerlines. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Terra Pacis - Kya Sands, Gauteng: Wetland assessment (delineation, PES, EIS, ecosystem services) for proposed industrial development. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Shell – Summit Road, Gauteng: Wetland assessment (delineation, PES, EIS, ecosystem services) for proposed filling station on summit road. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality – Boksburg, Gauteng: Wetland assessment for proposed expansion of facilities: Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Shell – Nelspruit, Mpumalanga: Wetland screening assessment for proposed Shell station in Willie street, Nelspruit. EIMS – Heilbron Mine: Biodiversity, wetland and aquatic assessment. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Klipfontein Mine – Mpumalanga: Wetland assessment. Project review. Chanzo – Rooikop Railway, Ekurhuleni, Gauteng: Wetland assessment for proposed extension of Rooikop Railway Line. Wetland ecologist. CSIR – Bronkhorstspruit, Gauteng: Wetland assessment and ecological scan. Wetland ecologist Aquarius Platinum – Hoogland, Limpopo. Biodiversity, aquatic and wetland assessment. Wetland ecologist. Rand Water – Vereeniging, Gauteng: Wetland assessment for proposed sludge pipeline. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Sibanye Gold – Beatrix Mine, Free State: Biodiversity and wetland assessment. Wetland ecologist. Shell – Cosmo City, Gauteng: Wetland assessment for proposed fuelling station. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Engen – London Road, Gauteng. Wetland assessment for proposed fuelling station. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist.

Taggart_GeneralCV2019.docx Page 3 of 6 Kathy Taggart

Illovo – Kwa Zulu Natal. Wetland assessment for proposed South Illovo Local Area Plan. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd – Delmas, Mpumalanga, South Africa: Ecological, wetland and aquatic assessment for the proposed pipeline alternatives for the new KiPower Independent Power Producer (IPP) Power Plant and Ash Facility. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Salman Farsi Trust – Geluksdal, Gauteng. Wetland and aquatic assessment for proposed development and road upgrade. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Prime Resources - T- Project, Mpumalanga. Biodiversity, aquatic and wetland assessment for proposed T-Project. Wetland ecologist. SLR – Sedibelo & Tuschenkomst, North-West: Ecological scan and wetland assessment. Wetland ecologist. Delmas Coal – Delmas, Mpumalanga: Wetland and aquatic assessment. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Dube Trade Port – Support Zone 2, Kwa Zulu Natal. Wetland assessment for proposed construction of Support Zone 2. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Optimum Coal Mine – Kwagga, Mpumalanga. Biodiversity, wetland and aquatic assessment for Kwagga Mini Pits. Wetland ecologist. Anglo – Isibonelo, Mpumalanga. Biodiversity and wetland gap analysis. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Neon Printers – Oaklands, Gauteng: Wetland Identification on Erf 50 in Oakland Gauteng. Wetland ecologist. Petra Diamonds – Koffiefontein, Free State: Biodiversity and wetland assessment. Wetland ecologist. Dube Trade Port – Portion 10, Kwa Zulu Natal. Wetland assessment for proposed construction of Portion 10. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Atha Mine – Yzermyn, Mpumalanga. Biodiversity, wetland and aquatic assessment. Client liaison, wetland ecologist and overall project review. Cathy Theron Environmental – Woestalleen Colliery, Mpumalanga: Method Statement for Woestellen Colliery – Section 21 (c) and (i) WULA. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Renico Construction – Parkview, Gauteng. Tree identification and wetland determination. Wetland ecologist. Xstrata – Boschmanspoort, Mpumalanga. Biodiversity, aquatic and wetland assessment. Wetland ecologist. Sibanye Gold – Kloof Mine, Gauteng. Biodiversity, aquatic and wetland assessment. Wetland ecologist. Dube Trade Port – Agrizone 2, Kwa-Zulu Natal. Wetland assessment for proposed development of Agrizone 2. Project Manager, client liaison, wetland ecologist. Dube Trade Port – MRO Hangar, Kwa Zulu Natal. Wetland and riparian delineation for proposed MRO Hangar Facility. Project review. Goldfields – South Deep Gold Mine, Gauteng. Wetland assessment. Report compilation and review.

Biodiversity/Aquatic Assessments

Allana Potash Mine – Danakil, Ethiopia. Terrestrial Biodiversity and Aquatic assessment. Project manager and report review. ERM – Mulungushi, Zambia. Aquatic assessment on the Mulungushi River, Zambia. Project manager and report review. ERM – Hydropower Station, Zambia. Aquatic assessment for proposed hydropower station, Zambia. Project manager and report review. Anglo Coal – Goedehoop, Mpumalanga. Biodiversity and Aquatic Assessment. Project manager, client liaison, report review. Coal of Africa – Mooiplaats, Mpumalanga. Vegetation and aquatic assessment. Project manager

Taggart_GeneralCV2019.docx Page 4 of 6 Kathy Taggart

Sasol – Mafutha/Limpopo West Mine, Limpopo. Biodiversity Assessment. Project manager.

Alien and Invasive Assessments

Goldfields– Driefontein Gold Mine, Gauteng: Alien Invasive species CARA application

Environmental auditing:

NCP Chlorchem – Hypochlorite Plant, TLP4, 3C, Chlorine Receivers: Environmental performance audits. Project management, client liaison, site audit and report compilation. NCP Chlorchem – NCP Chlorchem: Water Use Licence external compliance audit. Project management, client liaison, site audit and report compilation Prav Sewmohan - Bethal dam, Mpumalanga: Wetland input into an environmental audit submitted to the DWS for the diversion of a water resource near Bethal, Mpumalanga. Hotazel Manganese Mines – Hotazel, Northern Cape. Performance assessments for Mamatwan and Wessels Mines. Project management, client liaison, site audit and report compilation.

Remediation:

Union Carbide South Africa – Bon Accord, Gauteng: Phytoremediation project for Bon Accord waste site. Project management, field investigation, authority consultation, remediation plan design, report compilation. DOW South Africa – Klondike Joint Technical Team: DOW representative on the remediation Joint Technical Team (JTT) (DOW, NCP, AECI) for the Klondike valley clean up, 2004-2007. Liaison with authorities, specialists and legal team, compilation of JTT technical report for the site. Union Carbide South Africa – Bon Accord: Union Carbide representative for the remediation of the Bon Accord Site, Pretoria North South Africa, 2004 - 2011. Managing site personnel, site security, engagement with land owners, liaison with specialists and legal team. DAS South Africa – Canelands: DAS representative for the remediation activities at Canelands, 2004 - 2008. Liaison with specialists, authorities and adjacent land owners. DOW South Africa – NCP Chloorkop: DOW representative on remediation technical team for the closure of the HCH site, 2004 - 2010. Liaison with specialists, EAP’s, legal team and adjacent land owners. Jones & Wagener - Holfontein Waste Disposal Facility, Gauteng: The feasibility of using phytohydraulics to drop the groundwater level in the vicinity of the Holfontein waste disposal facility. Project manager, liaison with client, literature review, report compilation. Department of Water and Sanitation – Loskop Dam Catchment, Mpumalanga: The assessment of abandoned and defunct mines within the Loskop Dam Catchment. Identification of defunct and abandoned mines, site visits; liaison with land owners; literature reviews and the review of legal documentation at DWS and DME, water quality and safety analysis, report compilation. DOW South Africa – Klondike Valley, Gauteng: Literature review on the potential for HCH phytoremediation in the Klondike Valley. Project management, field investigation, literature review, report compilation

Environmental Impact Assessments:

David Grossman, - Hazyview, Mpumalanga: Environmental assessment process for proposed aerial cable slide, Hazyview Mpumalanga. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, site visit, liaison with client, report compilation. Jones & Wagener – Afrox pipeline, Mpumalanga: Environmental assessment process for proposed oxygen pipeline, Middelburg, Mpumalanga. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, site visit, liaison with client, authorities and stakeholders, report compilation.

Taggart_GeneralCV2019.docx Page 5 of 6 Kathy Taggart

Lonmin Platinum -- Middelkraal No.2, North West: Environmental assessment process for the proposed Middelkraal No.2 vertical Shaft. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, project management, client liaison, stakeholder engagement, management of specialists, report writing. Jones & Wagener – Natalspruit Hospital. Environmental assessment process for construction of proposed Natalspruit hospital. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, client liaison, stakeholder engagement, management of specialists, report writing. Rand Water – Zwartkopjes. Environmental assessment process for the Zwartkopjes wetland project. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, project management, client liaison, report writing.

Water Use Licence and Integrated Waste Water Management Plans

Lonmin Platinum -- Middelkraal No.2, North West: Water use licence for the proposed Middelkraal No.2 vertical Shaft. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, project management, client liaison, stakeholder engagement, management of specialists, report writing Lonmin and Aquarius Platinum, North West: Integrated Water Use Licence Application for the proposed conversion of the Buffelspoort Dam Water Use Rights from agricultural to industrial. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, project management, client liaison, stakeholder engagement, management of specialists, report writing Lonmin Marikana Mining Operations, North West: Integrated Waste Water Management Plan for the Lonmin Marikana Mining Operations. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, project management, gap analysis, client liaison, stakeholder engagement, management of specialists, report writing Samancor – Meyerton: Scoping Report and Water Use License application for the upgrade of facilities at Samancor-Meyerton. Project management, client and authority liaison, report compilation Syferfontein Mine: Water Use License application. Project management, client and authority liaison, report compilation Kwagga North Mine: Water Use License application. Project management, client and authority liaison, report compilation Beatrix Mine: Water Use License application. Project management, client and authority liaison, report compilation Kriel South Mine: Water Use License application. Project management, client and authority liaison, report compilation

Environmental Management Programs:

Lonmin Platinum, North-West: Upgrade of existing EMPR’s for four of the Lonmin Platinum operations in line with the new Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act. Environmental Assessment Practitioner, project management, client liaison, stakeholder engagement, management of specialists, report writing Beatrix Mine – Ventilation Shaft: Addendum to an EMPR for the construction of a ventilation shaft at Beatrix Mine. Project management, client liaison, report writing Middelburg Mine Services – Middelburg Mine: compilation of an EMPR for Middelburg Mine. Project management, client and authority liaison, report compilation

Closure Plan

Lonmin Platinum, Limpopo: Closure Plan for Lonmin Platinum, Limpopo. Project management, client liaison, stakeholder engagement, report writing Surface Water Assessments EnviroServ - Surface water quality assessments: Surface water quality interpretation and report compilation for Midrand Waste Disposal Facility.

Taggart_GeneralCV2019.docx Page 6 of 6 Kathy Taggart

Oryx Environmental – Surface water quality assessments: Project Manager and data collector for various surface water quality monitoring and interpretation projects, for example: Klipspruit Mine, Elders Mine, Block 8 Mine and Arnot North Mine. Sasol Secunda: Compilation of best practice guidelines for surface and groundwater monitoring at Sasol Secunda. Senior member of research team. Sasol Secunda: Gap analysis on the air quality, surface and groundwater monitoring systems at Sasol Secunda. Senior member of research team.

Declaration

I confirm that the above CV is an accurate description of my experience and qualifications.

______22 February 2019 Kathy Taggart Date

Taggart_GeneralCV2019.docx Jones & Wagener Engineering & Environmental Consultants 59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South Africa tel: 00 27 11 519 0200 www.jaws.co.za email: [email protected]

CURRICULUM VITAE 20 February 2019 krugerk_generalcv_feb2019.docx KONRAD KRUGER

Profession Environmental Scientist

Date of Birth 20 November 1981

Position in firm Senior Environmental Scientist

Years of Experience 14

Nationality South African Education / Qualifications BSc Honours (Geography) University of Pretoria 2003 (cum laude

BSc Environmental Sciences, University of Pretoria 2002

Languages Afrikaans, English

Employers

Cymbian Enviro-Social Consulting Services (Randburg) - 2005 – 2009 Environmental Consultant Phoenix Enviro-Social Consulting Services (Roodepoort) - 2009 Environmental Consultant 2009 – 2012 Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd (Midrand) - Environmental Consultant Jones & Wagener Engineering and Environmental Consultants - 2012 – Current Environmental Scientist

Areas of Expertise

Environmental Management and Authorisations: • EIA and Basic Assessments;

• EMP’s and EMPR’s;

• Mine Financial Provision, Rehabilitation and Closure Reports;

• Risk Assessments or Screening Assessments;

• IWMP’s;

• IWULA’s;

• Waste License Applications;

• APPA and AQA permit/license applications; and

• Environmental Auditing (ISO/EMP/RoD)

Page 2 of 6 Konrad Kruger

Specialist Assessments: • Soils and Agricultural Potential;

• Wetland Delineation;

• Flora Assessments;

• Terrestrial Ecological Assessment;

• Visual Impact Assessment; and

• GIS (ArcGIS 10)

Professional Affiliations

LaRSSA Land and Rehabilitation Society of South Africa

Relevant Experience

Financial Provision, Rehabilitation and Closure

1. Update of closure costing estimates – Sasol Mining 2018-19

2. Soil, Land Use and Land Capability Closure Risk Assessment for the Syferfontein Alexander Colliery, Secunda – Sasol 2018-19

3. Schoonoord Rehabilitation and Stockpile Assessment – Arnot 2018

4. Soil, Land Use and Land Capability Closure Risk Assessment for the Thubelisha Colliery, Secunda – Sasol 2018 5. Soil, Land Use and Land Capability Closure Risk Assessment for the iMpumelelo Colliery, Secunda – Sasol 2018 6. Updated Risk Assessment for the Closure of the Sigma Colliery – Sasolburg, South Africa – Sasol, 2018

7. Update of annual closure costing – Sasol Mining 2017-18

8. GNR 1147 Annual Rehabilitation Plans, Closure and Decommissioning Plans and Latent Risk Reports for Sasol Mining – Sasol Mining, 2016/7 9. Inherent Closure Risk Assessment for the Twistdraai, Middelbult and Brandspruit Mines - Sasol Mining Secunda 2017,

10. Updated Financial Provision for Boikarabelo, Lephalale, South Africa, 2016

11. Financial Provision Procedure Gap Analysis for Sasol Mining – Sasol Mining, 2015

12. Risk Assessment for the closure of the Sigma Colliery – Sasolburg, South Africa – Sasol, 2014

13. Compilation of the Closure Plan and associated Risk Assessment - Emalahleni, South Africa - South Witbank Colliery - 2006

Industrial/Waste Applications

1. EIA, WMLA, NEM: AQA AEL and EMPr for the Flexilube Oil Recycling Facility - Meyerton, South Africa - Flexilube – 2014 2. EIA, WMLA and EMPr for the Lonmin Western Platinum Hazardous Waste Incinerator - Brakpan, South Africa - Lonmin – 2018

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd KrugerK_GeneralCV_Feb2019 Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 3 of 6 Konrad Kruger

3. Wetland delineation for EnviroServ Holfontein – Holfontein, South Africa – EnviroServ - 2012

4. Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Metal Recovery and Slag Processing Plant at Metalloys. Also undertook the stakeholder engagement, GIS, vegetation and soil specialist assessments for the project - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – MRSPP - 2007 5. Environmental Impact Assessment for the construction and operation of the M6 Furnace at Metalloys - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – M6 - 2008 6. Basic Environmental Assessment and Air Pollution Prevention Act (APPA) permit application for the proposed M17 Furnace Test Campaign, Metalloys Meyerton - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – M17 - 2007 7. Basic Assessment and subsequent environmental training and auditing for the proposed upgrade of the Salvage Yard and the construction of an oil store at Metalloys. - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – Salvage – 2008 8. Compilation and research of an emission reduction strategy for the Samancor Manganese Metalloys, Meyerton Works. - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – Emission - 2008 9. Water Use License Application for Samancor Manganese Metalloys, Meyerton Works - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – WUL - 2008 10. Environmental auditing for the Fouriespruit Stream Diversion, the Amcor Dam and the old Slag Dumps at Metalloys - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – Audit - 2008 11. EIA and Biophysical assessment (Soil, Land Capability, Land use, Fauna, Flora) for the proposed Sinter Plant at the Mamatwan Mine. - Hotazel, South Africa - Samancor Manganese – Sinter - 2009 12. Research and compilation of the APPA certificate updates for the Metalloys plant. - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – APPA - 2008 13. Vegetation and soil investigation for the proposed Electricity Generation Plant at Metalloys - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – Elgen2 - 2008 14. Annual Environmental Performance Audit for the pelletising plant - Meyerton, South Africa - Samancor Manganese, Metalloys – Pelletising Plant - 2008 15. EIA for the proposed AlloyStream Manganese Plant. - Meyerton, South Africa - Exxaro Resources/Samancor Manganese JV - 2008

Mining

1. Subsidence delineation for Sasol Mining Twistdraai, Middelbult and Brandspruit – Secunda 2018

2. Soil and Visual Assessment for the Syferfontein Alexander extension – Secunda 2018-19

3. Soil and Visual Assessment for the proposed Vandyksdrift Central extension – eMalahleni 2018

4. Visual Impact Assessment for the Bon Accord Union Carbide Rehabilitation Project - 2017

5. Wetland, Soil and Land Capability Assessment for the proposed Era Stene expansion – Delmas, South Africa – Era Stene - 2016 6. Long term soil impact monitoring and visual assessment for the Wolwekrans Evaporator Project – Emalahleni, South Africa – South32 – 2015-16 7. Visual Assessment for the proposed Klipfontein Colliery extension – Middelburg, South Africa, South32 - 2015

8. Middelburg Mine Expansion Visual Assessment – Middelburg, Mpumalanga – South32, 2015

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd KrugerK_GeneralCV_Feb2019 Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 4 of 6 Konrad Kruger

9. Water Use License Amendment for the Phola Coal Processing Plant – Ogies, Mpumalanga, South Africa, 2015

10. BA for the Tweefontein Dragline relocation project – Tweefontein, South Africa – Glencore – 2014

11. BA and WULA for the ATCOM Dragline relocation project – iMpunzi, South Africa – Glencore – 2014

12. Soil and Land Capability Assessment for the Boschmanspoort EMPR – Hendrina, South Africa – Xstrata Coal – 2013 13. Clean and Dirty Water separation study. - Mponeng Mine, South Africa - Anglogold Ashanti, Mponeng - 2008 14. Compilation of an EMPR for two borrow pits to be utilised for road upgrades - Mafikeng, South Africa - North West Department of Roads and Traffic - 2004 15. Environmental auditing of the Dragline relocation project - Kriel, South Africa - Xstrata Coal South Africa – Kriel – 2005 16. Dragline Relocation Scoping Report and associated Soil, Wetland, Vegetation Assessments and GIS mapping - Kriel, South Africa - Xstrata Coal South Africa – Rietspruit - 2007 17. Compilation of the EMPR update as well as the undertaking of Soil, Vegetation Assessments and GIS mapping for the project - Cullinan, South Africa - De Beers Consolidated Mines – Cullinan - 2005 18. Internal ISO14001 audit for the Venetia Diamond Mine - Cullinan, South Africa - De Beers Consolidated Mines – Venetia – 2008 19. EMP update for the North Mara Gold Mine. - Mara Region, Tanzania - Barrick Mining, North Mara - 2008 20. Wetland delineation for the N17 borrow pit application, SANRAL - Mpumalanga, South Africa – SANRAL - 2008 21. Soil mapping for the proposed Harmony Mega Tailings Facility, Welkom. - Free State, South Africa - Harmony Gold – Welkom – 2009 22. Vegetation and soil assessment for the proposed 3rd bypass line, Richards Bay Coal Terminal. - KwaZulu Natal, South Africa - Transnet, RBCT - 2008

Power Generation and Transmission

1. Visual and Terrestrial Ecological Assessment for the proposed 400kv KIPower powerlines – Delmas, South Africa – KIPower – 2016 2. Biophysical Specialist Studies (Ecology, soil, land capability, and visual assessment and associated GIS) for the proposed KiPower 400 kV power line. – Delmas, Mpumalanga, South Africa – KiPower, 2015 3. Wetland delineation for the proposed Pongola-Candover 132 kV powerline – Pongola, South Africa – Eskom Eastern Regions – 2014 4. Wetland delineation for the proposed Ndumo-Gezisa 132 kV powerline – Pongola, South Africa – Eskom Eastern Regions - 2014 5. EIA, WMLA and EMP for the extension of the Camden Power Station Ash Dump - Ermelo, South Africa - Eskom Generation – 2012 6. EIA, WULA and EMP for the proposed Solar Integration Project and the CSP amendment - Upington, South Africa - Eskom Transmission - 2012 7. EIA, WMLA and EMP for the proposed Kusile Power Station Ash Facility - Balmoral, South Africa - Eskom Generation – 2012

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd KrugerK_GeneralCV_Feb2019 Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 5 of 6 Konrad Kruger

8. Basic Environmental Assessment for the proposed Slagment substation and connecting 33kV power lines. - Meyerton, South Africa - Lyon and Partners - 2008 9. Conducted the Biophysical Specialist Studies (Ecology, soil, land capability, visual and wetland assessment and associated GIS) for the integration of the Bravo (Kusile) power station into the Eskom grid. Five EIAs for the proposed construction of overhead power lines and associated infrastructure for the Bravo Integration Project. - Gauteng and Mpumalanga, South Africa - Eskom – Bravo Integration Project – 2009 10. Conducted the Biophysical Specialist Studies (Ecology, soil, land capability, visual and wetland assessment and associated GIS) for the proposed railway line to the Kusile power station. - Gauteng and Mpumalanga, South Africa - Eskom – Kusile Railway Line - 2010 11. EIA, soil assessment and waste licensing for the proposed Tutuka Power Station general waste disposal site, Standerton. - Mpumalanga, South Africa - Eskom – Tutuka Domestic Waste Site - 2011 12. Wetland delineation for the proposed Braamhoekspruit Bridge upgrade WUL. - KwaZulu Natal, South Africa - Eskom – Ingula bridge - 2010 13. Basic Assessment and specialist studies (Wetland Delineation, Agricultural Potential, Terrestrial Ecology and Visual Assessment) for the proposed Ingula burial grounds near Van Reenen. - KwaZulu Natal, South Africa - Eskom – Ingula burial ground – 2011 14. Biophysical risk assessment (Fauna, Flora, Soils, Wetlands) for the proposed substation alternatives and connecting power lines. - Gauteng, South Africa - Eskom – Bapsfontein - 2010 15. Biophysical risk assessment (Fauna, Flora, Soils, Wetlands and Visual) for the proposed substation and connecting power lines. - Limpopo, South Africa - Eskom – Tabor - 2011 16. Route selection report and associated specialist studies (Soils, Land Use, Fauna, Flora, Wetlands and GIS) for 2 power line route alternatives in Wilgeheuwel. - Gauteng, South Africa - Johannesburg City Power - 2007 17. RoD auditing of the Zuikerbosch Pumping Station embankment stabilisation. - Gauteng, South Africa - Zuikerbosch Pumping Station Audit - 2010

Conservation

1. Strategic Environmental Assessment and GIS modelling for the proposed Tented Safari Camps in the Kruger National Park - Limpopo & Mpumalanga, South Africa - Kruger National Park – SEA – 2006 2. Environmental auditing for the construction phase of the proposed Phalaborwa Office Park and Gate Upgrade Project in the Kruger National Park. - Phalaborwa, South Africa - Kruger National Park – Office Park – 2007 3. Vegetation and Visual Assessment for the proposed day visitor’s facility at the Olifants Camp, Kruger National Park - Limpopo & Mpumalanga, South Africa - Kruger National Park – Olifants – 2007

Residential/Commercial

1. Wetland delineation, terrestrial ecology and GIS assessment for the proposed storm water system upgrade in Soweto - Gauteng, South Africa - Johannesburg Road Agency - 2010 2. EIA and Exemption Application for a Residential Development in Raslouw, Centurion - Gauteng, South Africa - Billy Cahill – 2005 3. EIA and Exemption Application for a Residential Development in Raslouw, Centurion. - Gauteng, South Africa - Crown Silver Properties - 2005 4. Basic Environmental Assessment Application for a Residential Development in Bryanston -Gauteng, South Africa - Johannesburg City Property Company - 2007 5. Agricultural feasibility study for the Ramasega development project. - Gauteng, South Africa - Ramasega Agricultural Development Project – 2006

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd KrugerK_GeneralCV_Feb2019 Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 6 of 6 Konrad Kruger

6. Scoping Report, environmental auditing, WUL, specialist studies and GIS for the proposed Teak Place Estate Development in the Cradle of Humankind. - Cradle of Humankind, South Africa - Teak Place Estate Development - 2007 7. Soil and Wetland delineation for the Pala Meetse Eco Estate, Modimolle. - Limpopo Province, South Africa - Pala Meetse Eco Estate - 2008 8. Soil and Land Capability assessment for a residential development in Noordheuwel, Krugersdorp. - Gauteng, South Africa - Noordheuwel Ext 17 and 19 - 2008 9. Vegetation, Tree Identification, Soil and Fauna survey for Holding 68 and 67 Morningside. - Gauteng, South Africa - Bernard Glazer Trust - 2007 10. Vegetation Assessment for the proposed development on Portion 105, 106 and 331 of the Farm Knoppjeslaagte. - Gauteng, South Africa - Vibro Brics – 2008 11. Soil assessment for the proposed industrial development of the Farm Nooitgedacht Portion 215. - Gauteng, South Africa - Viva Construction – Portion 215 - 2008 12. Wetland delineation for the proposed development on Farm Nooitgedacht Portions 8 and 32 - Gauteng, South Africa - Viva Construction – Portion 8 and 36 - 2008 13. Biophysical site assessment for the proposed development of Portions 16, 17 and 18 of the Mostyn Park Smallholdings. - Gauteng, South Africa - Viva Construction – Mostyn Park - 2008 14. Screening sensitivity analysis for the Orlando Soccer Stadium upgrade - Gauteng, South Africa - Orlando Stadium – 2006 15. Vegetation, wetland, soil and fauna assessment for the proposed lodge development in the Vredefort Dome - North West, South Africa - Wesplan Town and Regional Planners - 2006 16. Wetland delineation for the proposed Randfontein Golf Estate. - Gauteng, South Africa - Randfontein Golf Estate – 2008

Summary of other Experience / Publications

Centre for Environmental Studies March 2007 NEMA EIA Regulations and their application

Cameron Cross May 2008 National Environmental Management Waste Act Seminar Africa Land-Use Training April 2010 Tree Identification

Africa Land-Use Training June 2010 Soil Classification and Mapping

Declaration

I confirm that the above CV is an accurate description of my experience and qualifications.

______20 February 2019 Signature of Staff Member Date

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd KrugerK_GeneralCV_Feb2019 Engineering & Environmental Consultants CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: SUSAN ABELL (neé BRADLEY) Position: Senior Ecologist and Co-Owner of Natural Scientific Services

Date of Birth: 29 March 1976 Nationality: South African Languages: English (mother tongue), Afrikaans

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

MSc Resource Conservation Biology (Ecology) (2000 – 2001) B Sc Hons (Botanical) University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (1999) B Sc University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (1998)

KEY QUALIFICATIONS

Environmental Impact Assessment:

Compiled numerous Environmental Impact Assessments, Scoping Reports and Environmental Management Programmes as required by the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) and the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998).

Specialist Assessments:

Over 15 years performing ecological and vegetation surveys including Alien Invasive Plans within Southern Africa. Expertises are strong in the Savanna, Grasslands and Shrubveld within Gauteng, North West, Limpopo, Northern Cape, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu Natal, Lesotho and Botswana.

Experience also within the Karoid Shrub, Kalahari and Fynbos Areas.

Assistance with CREW (Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers) expeditions

GIS Mapping, Database management, GIS Modelling undertaken within specialist projects

Strategic / Spatial Planning:

Co-ordinated and managed strategic spatial planning projects in Gauteng, North West Province and Mpumalanga including the:  State of Environment Reports  Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas (GAPA)  North West Biodiversity Site Inventory and Database Development Atlas  Tshwane Macro Open Space Policy  Blyde River Strategic Management Plan  Biodiversity Database for Optimum Collieries (BHP Billiton)

Conference Presentations:

Undertaken numerous presentations at conferences (SAAB; IAIA)

Educational Training:

Education training for organisations such as Wits University and Induction Training in Biodiversity Conservation for Mining Operations

Skills  Vegetation identification, description, analysis and mapping using Twinspan and Juice  Advanced microscopy (Transmission and scanning electron microscopy)  Statistics (e.g. ANOVA chi-squared tests)  Presenting and communication / networking skills

Additional Courses Completed:  2013: First aid Level 1 and 2 (Wilcare Safety Solutions)  2013: Off Road Driving (Proactive Driving for Sasol Botswana)  2010: Wild Flowers Course with Elsa Pooley  2010: Carbon Analyst Certification  2010: EIA Regulations Course  2007: LBJ Bird Course with Geoff Lockwood.

EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

Member & Senior Ecologist: Natural Scientific Services. Johannesburg (November 2004-Present)  Project management and administration  Project management and compilation of biodiversity assessments within savanna, karoid, fynbos and grassland systems including: . Vegetation/Habitat assessments; . Ecological assessments; . Alien and Invasive Plans; . Red Data Scans; . Ecological Screening, Opinions & Statements; . Wetland Assessments.  Ecological Sensitivity Mapping;  Project management and compilation of Biodiversity Management & Action Plans (BMAPS);  Reserve Management Plans (examples below): . Blyde River Reserve Strategic Management Plan . Monate Reserve Management Plan  Alien Invasive Management Plans;  Project Management for Rehabilitation and Land-Use Plans;  Management and specialist input into Green Star Rating Projects (Ecological Component);  Environmental Impact Assessments and Scoping Reports;  Project management and compilation of a number of Environmental Impact Control Reports (EICR) for waste management projects;  Compilation of Conceptual Closure Plans for a number of mining operations;  Tender and proposal compilation;  Marketing;  Liaison with clients and government officials; and  Involvement in Specific GIS-related projects (examples below): . Blyde Strategic Management Plan . Visual Assessment for Natalspruit Hospital . Biodiversity Database – Optimum Collieries

Project Manager: Strategic Environmental Focus (SEF) (November 2003- October 2004)  Project management and administration  Project Management of and input into Ecological Assessments  Tender and proposal compilation  Marketing  Liaison with clients and government officials

Jones & Wagener Engineering & Environmental Consultants 59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South Africa tel: 00 27 11 519 0200 www.jaws.co.za email: [email protected]

CURRICULUM VITAE 28 February 2018 hopkinsgeneralcv_feb2019.doc TOLMAY HOPKINS

Profession Environmental Scientist

Date of Birth 1973-01-22 Insert Phot Position in firm Project Manager / Senior Environmental Scientist Years of Experience 11

Nationality South African

Education / Qualifications MSc (Agric) Microbiology (University of Pretoria)

Languages English, Afrikaans

Employers

2011 - current Jones & Wagener Engineering and Environmental Consultants

2009 - 2010 Golder Associates (Consultant – Integrated Waste Solutions Division) Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (Assistant Director - Water 2006 - 2009 Sector Regulation and Use: Strategic Environmental Assessment) Jones & Wagener Consulting Civil Engineers (Environmental Scientist – 2004 – 2006 Waste and Tailings Division) Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (Principle Water Pollution Control 1999 – 2004 Officer – Waste Management: Waste Discharge and Disposal) 1995 – 1998 Postgraduate Student - University of Pretoria

Areas of Expertise

• Environmental Management,

• Environmental Law,

• Integrated Water Resource Management: Water Quality Management, Wetland Management, Authorisation of Water Uses.

• Waste Management: Authorisation, Legal requirements, monitoring, auditing.

• Authority Liaison and legal requirements.

• Project co-ordination.

Professional Affiliations

JONES & WAGENER (PTY) LTD REG NO. 1993/002655/07 VAT No. 4410136685

DIRECTORS: GR Wardle (Chairman) PrEng MSc(Eng) FSAICE JP van der Berg (CEO) PrEng PhD MEng FSAICE JE Glendinning PrSciNat MSc(Env Geochem) MSAIEG M Rust PrEng PhD MSAICE TM Ramabulana BA(Social Sciences) JS Msiza PrEng BEng(Hons) MBA MSAICE MIWMSA A Oosthuizen (Alternate) PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE TECHNICAL DIRECTORS: D Brink PrEng BEng(Hons) FSAICE NJVermeulen PrEng PhD MEng MSAICE HR Aschenborn PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE MW Palmer PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE TG le Roux PrEng MEng MSAICE GB Simpson PrEng MEng FSAIAE G Harli PrEng MEng MSAICE JS Hex PrSciNat MSc(Env Man) PJJ Smit PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE C Cilliers PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE NW Nxumalo PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE F Hörtkorn PrEng Dr.-Ing MSAICE TAL Green PrEng BSc(Eng) MSAICE H Davis PrEng BSc(Hons) GDE FSAICE ASSOCIATES: RA Nortjé PrEng MSc(Eng) MSAICE MIWMSA J Breyl PrEng BEng(Hons) MSAICE N Malepfana PrEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE CJ Liebetrau PrEng MEng SACPCMP CONSULTANTS: PW Day PrEng DEng HonFSAICE JA Kempe PrEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE AIStructE BR Antrobus PrSciNat BSc(Hons) MSAIEG PG Gage PrEng CEng BSc(Eng) GDE MSAICE AIStructE M van Zyl PrSciNat BSc(Hons) MIWMSA FINANCIAL MANAGER: CJ Ford BCompt ACMA CGMA Page 2 of 7 TolmayTolmay Hopkins

Registered Professional Natural Scientist (Pr.Sci.Nat.) 400322/14 Member of International Association for Impact Assessment (South African Affiliate) Member of Institute of Waste Management South Africa (IWMSA)

Relevant Experience

Integrated Regulatory Applications

Application for Environmental Authorisation and a Water Use Licence for the Proposed Expansion of Wolvekrans Colliery’s North Section (Middelburg Mines) – Middelburg – South32 SA Coal Holdings (Pty) – 2016.

Authorisation (permitting/licencing) of waste management activities

Waste management licence application report for the Middelburg Water Reclamation Project – Middelburg – Douglas Tavistock Joint Venture – 2011. Application for permit amendment for the solid waste disposal site – Enstra, Springs - Sappi Paper and Paper Packaging: Enstra Mill – 2011. Permit application for the Closure of the Pappas Quarry Waste Disposal Facility – Nelspruit - Manganese Metal Company – 2009. Waste Management Licence Application for the Extension of the Macrodump at the Sappi Ngodwana Mill – Nelspruit – Sappi Manufacturing – 2010. Application for Variation of the Waste Management Licence for the New Calcine and Slimes Waste Disposal Facility in terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008) - Emalahleni - Vanchem Vanadium Products – 2010. Interim Phase for the Application for the Amendment of Waste Permit for the Kingston Vale Residue Management Facility – Nelspruit - Manganese Metal Company – 2010. Permit Application and Scoping Report for the upgrade and permitting of the Rosslyn Landfill – Rosslyn – Enviroserv. Permitting and regulation of hazardous waste disposal sites: permitting of four hazardous sites and the review and amendment of two hazardous waste site permits (while at the Department of Water Affairs). Processing of permit applications for general waste disposal sites: permitting of 23 general sites and the review and amendment of six general waste site permits (while at the Department of Water Affairs).

Feasibility studies for waste disposal sites

Pre-feasibility of Kingston Vale Residue Management Facility Phase 3: Site Selection Report – Nelspruit – Manganese Metal Company – 2015. Feasibility Investigation for a New Landfill Site to Serve the Northern Areas of the City of Johannesburg - Johannesburg – Pikitup – 2006. Closure and Remediation of waste management facilities

Application for Waste Management License in terms of NEM: WA for the Closure of the Asbestos Disposal Facility at Camden Power Station – Ermelo – Eskom Camden Power Station – 2017. Application for Waste Management License in terms of NEM: WA for the Closure of the Asbestos Disposal Facility at Komati Power Station – Middelburg – Eskom Komati Power Station – 2017. Waste Ash Site: Remediation Objectives – Secunda – Sasol .

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd HopkinsGeneralCV_Feb2019.doc Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 3 of 7 TolmayTolmay Hopkins

Environmental Scoping and Closure Report, Everite Disposal Site – Everite.

Other: waste management

Waste Trade-off Study: Vandyksdrift Central Project Water Treatment Plant – Middelburg – BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa (Pty) Ltd – 2014. Feasibility Study: Phase II Development of Kingston Vale Hazardous Residue Management Facility: Assessment of Legal Requirements – Nelspruit – Manganese Metal Company – 2013. Waste Management Philosophy for the Proposed Waste Management Facility in the Eastern Cape. Financial viability for the Proposed Waste Management Facility in The Eastern Cape.

Integrated Waste Management Plans

Sasol Chemical Industries: Integrated Waste Management Plan: Remediation Objectives

Authorisation in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998)

Water Use Licence Application for Groundwater Abstraction at Greenway Farms Bokpoort Operations – Mookgophong – Greenway Farms – 2018 Water Use Licence Application for the Undermining of Watercourses at the Goedehoop Colliery North – Middelburg – Anglo Operations (Pty Ltd) – 2017 Water Use Licence Application for the Undermining of Watercourses at the Goedehoop Colliery South – Middelburg – Anglo Operations (Pty Ltd) – 2016 Water Use Licence Application for the Greenway Farms Bokpoort Operations – Mookgophong – Greenway Farms – 2016 Integrated Water Use Licence Application for the Proposed Elders Colliery – Bethal – SRK Consulting on behalf of Anglo Operations Limited – 2016. Application for renewal of the Water Use Licence at Goedehoop Colliery Block 20 – Middelburg – Anglo Operations Limited – 2016. Risk Assessment: S21(c)&(i) Water Uses Associated with the Geotechnical and Surface Directional Drilling at the proposed Elders Colliery– Bethal – SRK Consulting on behalf of Anglo Operations Limited – 2016. GNR704 Exemption Application and Risk Assessment for S21(c)&(i) Water Uses Associated with the Surface Directional Drilling and Geotechnical, Geohydrological, Geological and Metallurgical Investigations at the proposed Goedehoop Colliery Hope 4 Seam Project – Middelburg – SRK Consulting on behalf of Anglo Operations Limited – 2016. Integrated Water Use Licence Application for the Proposed Mining and Infrastructure Expansion at Tweefontein South Complex – Ogies – Glencore South Africa (Pty) Ltd – 2014. Integrated Water Use Licence Application for Elders Colliery (Draft) - Bethal – SRK Consulting – 2014. Application for amendment of the water use licence for the Phola – Kusile Coal Conveyor System – Ogies – Synergistics Environmental Services – 2014. Risk Assessment: S21(c)&(i) Water Uses Associated with the Geotechnical, Geohydrological and Geological Investigations – Bethal – SRK Consulting – 2013. Motivation for General Authorisation of S21(c)&(i) Water Uses Associated with the Geotechnical Investigation – KiPower Independent Power Plant – Delmas – KiPower (Pty) Ltd – 2013. Workshop on Technical Requirements of Integrated Water Use Licence Applications – Anglo American

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd HopkinsGeneralCV_Feb2019.doc Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 4 of 7 TolmayTolmay Hopkins

Thermal Coal – 2013. Integrated Water Use Licence Application for the New Largo Colliery – Ogies – Synergistics Environmental Services – 2012. Integrated Water Use Licence Application for the R545 Provincial Road Re-alignment – Ogies – Synergistics Environmental Services – 2012. Integrated Water Use Licence Application for the Boschmanskrans and Vlaklaagte South Sections of the Wolvekrans Colliery – Middelburg – BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa (Pty)Ltd – 2012. Application for Amendment of the Water Use License for the Twistdraai Colliery: Thubelisha Shaft – Secunda – Sasol Mining – 2012. Motivation for Authorisation of the Temporary Diversion of the Gladdespruit in terms of the General Authorisations – Nelspruit – Manganese Metal Company – 2012. Motivation to Dispense with the Requirements of a Water Use Licence for the New Calcine and Slimes Waste Disposal Facility in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) – Emalaheni - Vanchem Vanadium Products – 2010. Sasol One and Sasol Midlands Waste Sites: Water Use Licence Application – Sasol Chemical Industries.

Water Use Licence Application for the Fine Coal and Discard Facility at the Twistdraai Export Plant – Sasol Mining. Assessment of applications for authorisations for the impeding, altering, diverting and changing of the characteristics of a watercourse in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998). Handling of all queries related to these water uses (while at the Department of Water Affairs). Assessment of applications for authorisations for stream flow reduction activities (afforestation) in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998). Handling of all queries related to this water use (while at the Department of Water Affairs). Chairperson of Mpumalanga Stream Flow Reduction Activity Licence Assessment Advisory Committee (February 2007 – July 2009).

Integrated Water and Waste Management Plans

Integrated Water and Waste Management Plans for Harmony Gold Free State Operations: One Plant, Tshepong Shaft, Phoenix project (Saaiplaas and St Helena), Central Plant, Bambanani Mine (consisting of the East and West Shafts), Unisel Shaft, Joel Shaft, Joel Plant, Target 1, 2 and 3 Shafts, Masimong Mine (consisting of Masimong 4 Shaft and Masimong 5 Shaft); Phakisa Mine (consisting of Phakisa and Nyala Shafts). Amendment of Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for Goedehoop Colliery North – Middelburg – Anglo Operations (Pty Ltd) – 2017. Amendment of Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for Goedehoop Colliery South – Middelburg – Anglo Operations (Pty Ltd) – 2016. Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for the Proposed Elders Colliery – Bethal – SRK Consulting on behalf of Anglo Operations Limited – 2016. Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for Delmas Coal – Delmas – Kuyasa Mining (Pty)Ltd – 2014. Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for Elders Colliery (Draft) – Bethal – SRK Consulting – 2014. Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for Tweefontein North Complex – Ogies – Xstrata South Africa – 2013.

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd HopkinsGeneralCV_Feb2019.doc Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 5 of 7 TolmayTolmay Hopkins

Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for Twistdraai Colliery Thubelisha Shaft – Secunda- Sasol Mining – 2013. Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for the New Largo Colliery – Ogies – Synergistics Environmental Services – 2012. Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for the Boschmanskrans and Vlaklaagte South Sections of the Wolvekrans Colliery – Middelburg – BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa (Pty)Ltd – 2012. Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan: Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment – Meyerton – Metalloys – 2010.

Environmental Management Programmes

Amendment of the Environmental Management Programme Report for Delmas Coal – Kuyasa Mining – Delmas – 2016.

Environmental Authorisations / Environmental Impact Assessments

Application to Amendment timeframe of the Environmental Authorisation for the KiPower Water Supply Pipeline – KiPower (Pty)Ltd – Delmas – 2017. Basic Assessment for the Proposed Infrastructure Development at the Goedehoop North Mini-Pit, Middelburg Mine – Middelburg – South32 SA Coal Holdings (Pty) Ltd – 2016. Exemption in terms of the EIA Regulations for the construction of Cell 4 for the Chloorkop GLB– Landfill Site – Chloorkop – Enviroserv. Exemption in terms of the EIA Regulations for the construction of a pilot landfill gas recovery project for the Chloorkop GLB– Landfill Site – Chloorkop – Enviroserv. New Natalspruit Hospital: Waste Management Plan input into Scoping Report – Natalspruit - Gauteng Department of Public Works and Transportation. Review of EIA documents for developments and integration of comments (while at the Department of Water Affairs).

Mine Closure and Rehabilitation

Sigma Colliery Closure Report: Phase 1 Closure Risk Assessment: Legal Framework – Sasol Mining – 2015.

Surface water quality monitoring

Surface water quality monitoring and bio-monitoring for the New Largo Project – Ogies – Anglo American Inyosi Coal – 2013 and 2014.

Surface Water Specialist Reports

Surface Water Specialist Report for Tweefontein North Complex – Ogies – Clean Stream Environmental Services – 2013. Surface Water Specialist Report for the New Largo Colliery – Ogies – Synergistics Environmental Services – 2012.

Landfill Gas Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd HopkinsGeneralCV_Feb2019.doc Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 6 of 7 TolmayTolmay Hopkins

Chloorkop GLB– Landfill Site: Project Identification Note and request for Letter of No Objection for the EnviroServ Chloorkop Landfill Gas Recovery Project (requirement to register project as a CDM project in terms of the Kyoto Protocol) – Chloorkop – Enviroserv – 2006. Chloorkop GLB– Landfill Site: Draft Project Design Document for the purposes of project validation (part of requirement to register as a CDM project in terms of the Kyoto Protocol) - Chloorkop – Enviroserv – 2006.

Auditing / Performance Assessment Environmental Legal Compliance Audit, Mamatwan Mine – Hotazel – South32 Hotazel Manganese Mines – 2018. Annual Performance Assessment Report, Mamatwan Mine – Hotazel – South32 Hotazel Manganese Mines – 2018. Annual External Audit of the Residue Inerting Plant and Greenfill Usage – Nelspruit – Delta EMD – 2014. Annual External Audit of the Sappi Ngodwana Composting Facility – Ngodwana – Sappi Southern Africa Limited - 2014 Annual External Audit of the Residue Inerting Plant and Greenfill Usage – Nelspruit – Delta EMD – 2013. Annual External Audit of the Asbestos Waste Disposal Site at the Camden Power Station – Camden – Eskom – 2013. Annual External Audit of the Residue Inerting Plant and Greenfill Usage – Nelspruit – Delta EMD – 2012. Annual External Audit of the Asbestos Waste Disposal Site at the Camden Power Station – Camden – Eskom – 2012. External Audit of the Integrated Water Use License for the Agnes Mine – Barberton – Synergistics Environmental Services – 2012. Annual External Audit of the Residue Inerting Plant and Greenfill Usage – Nelspruit – Delta EMD – 2011. Annual External Audit of the Camden Power Station H:H Asbestos Disposal Site – Camden – Eskom Generation – 2011. Audit of Environmental Management Programme of the Northam Platinum Mine – Northam – Northam Platinum Mine – 2010. Auditing general waste disposal sites regulated by Regional Offices of the Department (while at the Department of Water Affairs).

Training Presenter at the Centre for Environmental Management, University of Northwest in Potchefstroom:

Course: Greener Governance Module: Sustainable waste disposal on land: duties and responsibilities of Local Government as “Regulator” and “Regulated” Course: Introduction to Sustainable Environmental Management. An overview of Principles, Tools and Issues Modules: Introduction to Integrated Waste Management & Sustainable Waste Disposal on Land Course: Technical aspects of sustainable land-based waste management for environmental managers Module: Duties, liabilities, reasonable measures and emergency incidents

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd HopkinsGeneralCV_Feb2019.doc Engineering & Environmental Consultants Page 7 of 7 TolmayTolmay Hopkins

Course: Integrated Waste Management Module: Auditing and Environmental Monitoring Course: Waste Law Module: Waste Disposal and Discharge in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) Provide Departmental training on waste management, permitting and waste classification – 2002 – 2003 (at the Department of Water Affairs).

Summary of other Experience / Publications

Other experience

Chairperson of Mpumalanga Wetland Forum (February 2007 – October 2008).

Chairperson of the Organising Committee for the National Wetlands Indaba 2008.

Specialist input to other sections on applications regarding wetland issues – 2006 - 2008

Regional representative on the DWAF Wetlands Task Group - 2006 - 2008

Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for the Environment on Healthcare Waste on behalf of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry - 2000

Declaration

I confirm that the above CV is an accurate description of my experience and qualifications.

21 February 2019 ______Signature of Staff Member Date

Jones & Wagener (Pty) Ltd HopkinsGeneralCV_Feb2019.doc Engineering & Environmental Consultants