King Shaka International Airport Phase 1 Rehabilitation & Restoration Implementation Plan November 2017

King Shaka International

Airport Phase 1 Rehabilitation & Restoration Implementation Plan

Airports Company of South Africa & Dube TradePort Corporation

November 2017

PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: KSEMS Environmental Consulting Dube Tradeport Corporation Contact Person: Contact Person: Timothy Wiggill Christopher Jones & Clarissa Naicker 063 684 9196 032 436 6080 & 032 814 0000 031 769 1578 [email protected] & [email protected] [email protected]

WWW.KSEMS.CO.ZA KSEMS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

PHONE: 031 769 1578; FAX: 086 535 5281; CELL: 082 823 1844; E- MAIL: [email protected] P.O. BOX 396, GILLITTS, 3603 COMPANY REGISTRATION NO: 1999/049452/23 MEMBERS: K.A. STANTON (DIRECTOR)

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Specialist Consultants

This is to certify that the following report has been prepared by KSEMS Environmental Consulting CC who: - Do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed; - Have, and will have, no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; - Have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; - Undertake to disclose, to the competent authority, any material information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required; and - Will provide the competent authority with access to all the information at our disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dube TradePort Corporation (DTPC) is an approximately 3000 ha business area along the north coast of eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality which houses the King Shaka International Airport (KSIA), Trade- and AgriZones, and areas demarcated for conservation. The conservation areas was a means of balancing the environmental impact caused by the development of DTPC and was a requirement from the original EIR process between 2007 and 2008 . Dube TradePort Corporation (DTPC), the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA), and the La Mercy JV (LMJV), a joint venture between ACSA and DTPC, as landholders with DTPC are responsible for the fulfilment of the rehabilitation obligations. in 2015, Strategic Environmental Focus (SEF, 2015) created the Biodiversity Offset Management Plan and Conceptual Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan (BOMPCRP) that detailed the delineations of 878 hectares of conservation and offset area as well as subdivided the area into vegetation. However, the BOMPCRP did not include detailed terms of references, detailed methodologies, timeframes and bills of quantity, for each vegetation unit within the conservation area.

KSEMS was appointed, along with an ornithologist/avifaunal specialist, grassland specialist, pedologist, botanist, herpetologist, bat ecologist, and wetland ecologist, to create an implementation plan which amalgamates the information present within the EIR, BOMPCRP and various specialist studies and distils it into meaningful implementation instructions that can be used for tendering and quotation purposes. The implementation plan includes: - A detailed plan of the yearly objectives, - Recommended methodologies, - A specific schedule of work with associated bills of quantities, - A legal framework and timeline associated with rehabilitation activities, - Detailed lists of recommended indigenous species, sourcing locations, Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAPS) on site, and herbicide usage, and - Terms of reference for each contractor required in the implementation plan.

The implementation plan is broken down into three (3) main types of rehabilitation: IAPS control, terrestrial rehabilitation and wetland rehabilitation. These all have associated monitoring plans to monitor progress and the success of all rehabilitation activities. A resident ecologist will be needed to oversee all rehabilitation work and coordinate implementation activities to ensure effective recovery of the ecosystems within the conservation area.

Invasive alien plantcontrol has already begun in certain areas within the final conservation area. For effective rehabilitation, the implementation plan recommends the commencement of IAPS clearing in the rest of the areas within the first year of implementation.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Terrestrial rehabilitation has been staggered within the implementation plan. The largest areas to be rehabilitated are classified as either sugarcane or fallow fields. Sugarcane areas will be cleared and allowed to fallow; however, in order to enable sufficient time for the vegetation units to recover, these areas have been divided into three phases.

A phased approach for wetland rehabilitation over a twelve (12) year period (including monitoring) has beendeveloped . Wetlands identified for rehabilitation were prioritised according to risk, position within zones of conservation importance and within the catchment areas, as well as the current health and functionality of each system. Taking into consideration the alterations which are likely to occur to the structure and functionality of upstream wetlands once rehabilitation is implemented within the downstream systems, monitoring is a key factor addressing changes which may occur during the rehabilitation process.

iii

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

AUTHORS The KSEMS’ team members involved in the compilation of this report and are in agreeance with the ‘Declaration of Independence’. SPECIALIST QUALIFICATIONS / ROLE DETAILS AFFILIATIONS KERRY STANTON BSc (Hons) - Estuarine AUTHOR, LEAD ECOLOGIST Kerry is the Managing Director of KSEMS cc and has over 20 years’ Ecology, GRASSLAND SPECIALIST, experience in the environmental field. She has an MSc, majoring in KSEMS MSc - Urban BOTANIST AND WETLAND Ecology, which was completed cum laude. She is a ENVIRONMENTAL Biogeography (Ecology) SPECIALIST registered Professional Natural Scientist (Pr. Sci. Nat) and registered CONSULTING with EAPSA. EAPSA, Pr.Sci.Nat. TIMOTHY WIGGILL MSc – Environmental FIELDWORK, CO-AUTHOR Tim is a Wetland Ecologist at KSEMS cc with an MSc in Science WETLAND ECOLOGIST Environmental Science from University of KwaZulu-Natal which KSEMS detailed the accuracy and viability of using aerial imagery to assess ENVIRONMENTAL Pr.Sci.Nat. forest health in Piet Retief, Mpumalanga. Tim has lectured CONSULTING biogeography, atmospheric science and geomorphology at UKZN before specialising in wetland assessments, invasive alien plant control plans, and vegetation studies in KwaZulu-Natal. He has completed the Tools for Wetland Assessment course at Rhodes University and the SAGIC Alien Invasive training course. WAYNE WESTCOTT BSc (Hons) – FIELDWORK, CO-AUTHOR Wayne is a Wetland and Aquatic Ecologist at KSEMS with a BSc Environmental Science WETLAND ECOLOGIST Honours degree in Water Management from Rhodes University. He KSEMS has 2 years’ experience in the environmental sector. In addition to this ENVIRONMENTAL he has completed the Tools for Wetland Assessment course, from CONSULTING Cand.Sci.Nat (117334) Rhodes University, with distinction (90%) and is an accredited SASS5 Aquatic Biomonitoring Practitioner. Furthermore, he has completed numerous freshwater habitat impact assessments, aquatic studies, ecological assessments and water management plans in Limpopo, Free State, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal. NAADIRA NADASEN MSocSci – Geography INTERNAL REVIEWER Naadira is a Project Manager and Environmental Consultant at and Environmental KSEMS cc with an MSocSci in Geography and Environmental KSEMS Management Science which. Naadira has lectured many courses in the School of ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Sciences such as Human Environments, Geographies CONSULTING of Urban and Rural Change and Environmental Management. GARETH PREEN BSc (Hons) – GIS SPECIALIST Gareth is a Junior Wetland Consultant at KSEMS CC with a BSc Environmental Science Honours Degree in Geography and Environmental Management with KSEMS major modules being advanced GIS and Remote Sensing as well as ENVIRONMENTAL environmental science and environmental issues. He has attended CONSULTING the Wetland Introduction and Delineation course through the University of the Free State. Additionally, he has accompanied the wetland specialist on numerous field excursions. GAVIN MCDONALD M.Sc. – Phytogeography FIELDWORK, Gavin is a senior lecturer in Mangosuthu Technikon Department of and systematics GRASSLAND & Nature Conservation As of 2007 Gavin began working as a fulltime MANGOSUTHU HORTICULTURAL ADVISOR consultant in bio-monitoring and environmental impact assessment UNIVERSITY OF Pr.Sci.Nat. specialising in botanical surveys (eg. for ESKOM Distribution and TECHNOLOGY eThekwini Metro’s ‘EMEP’ programme). He has been involved in DEPT. OF NATURE Environmental Rehabilitation (eg. Palm Road, Pennington) and is CONSERVATION listed as a rehabilitation consultant with DWAF and Umdoni and Hibiscus Coast Municipalities. MIKE HICKMAN National Diploma in Parks FIELDWORK, Mike has been self-employed in horticulture and rehabilitation since and Recreation GRASSLAND & 1998. He runs Michael Hickman Ecosystems Management, a Closed ECOMAN Administration HORTICULTURAL ADVISOR Corporation trading as Ecoman. He worked early on at the KSIA site on rehabilitation and biodiversity and later would be consulted to train Technikon Natal (Durban) nursery staff at the Dube Nursery. He is currently subcontracted by Ziyenzeka Weed Control as a plant and rehabilitations specialist with NTC 3 Horticulture a focus on alien invasive control. Technikon Pretoria ROWENA HARRISON MSc - Soil Science FIELDWORK, Rowena has obtained a MSc. in Soil Science from the University of PEDOLOGIST KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg. She is professionally affiliated to MALACHITE Pr.Sci.Nat. the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (Pri. Sci. SPECIALIST Nat) and has 7 years consulting experience in the wetland and SERVICES agricultural field. She has conducted numerous wetland and agricultural assessments for a variety of development types. She is a member of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) as well as a founding member of the South African Wetland Society.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

JON SMALLIE MSc – Environmental FIELDWORK, Kigali International Airport – Rwanda; Port Elizabeth Airport – Science AVIFAUNAL SPECIALIST specialist study as part of the EIA for the proposed Madiba Bay WILDSKIES Leisure Park; Manzini International Airport (Swaziland); Polokwane ECOLOGICAL Pr.Sci.Nat. International Airport; Mafekeng International Airport; Lanseria Airport SERVICES KATE MCEWAN BSc Hons - Zoology FIELDWORK, Kate has over 17 years’ experience as a practicing Environmental BAT ECOLOGIST Scientist and Zoologist in the conservation and consulting industries. INKULULEKO Pr.Sci.Nat. She has conducted numerous EIAs, EMPRs, faunal assessments WILDLIFE SERVICES within the Gauteng, North West, Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces of South Africa, with the study of Mammals and Bats (Chiroptera) being a key speciality. JAMES HARVEY MEnvDev Environmental FIELDWORK, James has worked privately as a herpetologist (specialist in reptiles Management HERPETOLOGIST and amphibians), ecological researcher and consultant with fifteen HARVEY years of practical and theoretical experience with biodiversity in the ECOLOGICAL Pr.Sci.Nat. Afrotropical region. He has ten years’ experience in ecological consulting where he has performed ecological fieldwork widely across Africa, including South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Kenya, Mali, Angola and Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Madagascar, Italy and Vietnam.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

INDEMNITY AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO THIS REPORT

The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on KSEMS Consulting’s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as available information. This report is based on survey and assessment techniques which are in accordance with the project-specific scope of work presented within the contract signed between KSEMS Environmental Consulting and the client. The abovementioned authors reserve the right to modify aspects of the report including the recommendations if and when new information may become available from on-going research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation.

This report must not be altered or added to without the prior written consent of the abovementioned authors. This also refers to electronic copies of this report which are supplied for the purposes of inclusion as part of other reports, including main reports. Similarly, any recommendations, statements or conclusions drawn from or based on this report must make reference to this report. If these form part of a main report relating to this investigation or report, this report must be included in its entirety as an appendix or separate section to the main report. Suggested report citation: KSEMS Environmental Consulting, 2017. King Shaka International Airport Phase 1 Rehabilitation & Restoration Implementation Plan, prepared for ACSA and Dube TradePort Corporation. November 2017.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND...... 1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE KSIA PHASE 1 BUILD ...... 1 1.3 ACTIVITIES TO DATE AND THE ADVISORY FORUM ...... 5 1.4 SCOPE OF WORK OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 6 1.5 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS...... 8 1.6 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BREAKDOWN ...... 9 1.6.1 Objectives ...... 9 1.6.2 General methodology ...... 9 1.6.3 Specific programme ...... 9 1.6.4 Legal requirements...... 10 1.6.5 Risk assessment matric ...... 10 1.6.6 Appendices ...... 10 1.6.7 Annexures ...... 10 2 OBJECTIVES ...... 11 2.1 BOMP TERRESTRIAL & FRESHWATER PLAN ...... 11 2.2 ACTIVE TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAMME ...... 12 2.2.1 Year 1 ...... 12 2.2.2 Year 2 ...... 13 2.2.3 Year 3 ...... 14 2.2.4 Year 4 ...... 15 2.2.5 Year 5 ...... 16 2.2.6 Year 6 ...... 17 2.2.7 Year 7 ...... 18 2.2.8 Year 8 ...... 19 2.2.9 Year 9 ...... 20 2.2.10 Year 10 ...... 21 2.3 ACTIVE FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROGRAMME ...... 22 2.3.1 Year 1 ...... 22 2.3.2 Year 2 ...... 23 2.3.3 Year 3 ...... 24 2.3.4 Year 4 ...... 25 2.3.5 Year 5 ...... 26 2.3.6 Year 6 ...... 27 2.3.7 Year 7 ...... 28 2.3.8 Year 8 ...... 29 2.3.9 Year 9 ...... 30 2.3.10 Year 10 ...... 31 2.4 FINAL BOMP DELINEATION ...... 32 3 GENERAL METHODOLOGIES ...... 33 3.1 INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL METHODOLOGIES ...... 33 3.1.1 General Legal Requirements ...... 33 3.1.2 Resources Required ...... 33 3.1.3 Methodology ...... 33 3.1.3.1 Cane Removal Areas & Fallow Fields ...... 34 3.1.3.2 Secondary Scrub Areas ...... 34 3.1.3.3 Albizia woodland area ...... 34 3.1.3.4 Riparian areas ...... 34 3.1.3.5 Wetland areas ...... 35 3.1.3.6 Scarp forest ...... 35 3.1.3.7 Intensive invasivealien plant control & grassing areas ...... 35 3.1.3.8 Invasive alien plant management only areas ...... 36 3.2 INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL MONITORING ...... 36 3.2.1 General Legal Requirements ...... 36 i

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3.2.2 Resources Required ...... 36 3.2.3 Methodology ...... 36 3.3 TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION METHODOLOGIES ...... 37 3.3.1 General Legal Requirements ...... 37 3.3.2 Resources Required ...... 38 3.3.3 Methodologies ...... 39 3.3.3.1 Cane Removal Areas & Fallow Fields ...... 39 3.3.3.2 Secondary Scrub Areas ...... 40 3.3.3.3 Intensive invasive Alien/C. monilifera Control andGrassing Areas ...... 41 3.3.3.4 Seed Collection ...... 43 3.4 TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION AND/OR RESTORATION MONITORING ...... 44 3.4.1 General Legal Requirements ...... 44 3.4.2 Resources Required ...... 45 3.4.3 Methodology ...... 45 3.5 WETLAND REHABILITATION AND/OR RESTORATION METHODOLOGIES ...... 46 3.5.1 Resources Required ...... 46 3.5.2 Methodology ...... 47 3.5.2.1 Primary Impacts Undermining Wetland Integrity and Functionality ...... 47 3.5.3 Broad Rehabilitation Strategies ...... 48 3.5.3.1 Search, Rescue and Relocation Plan ...... 49 3.5.3.2 Earthworks ...... 49 3.5.3.3 Structural Interventions ...... 54 3.5.3.4 Re-vegetation and planting within disturbed areas ...... 58 3.5.4 Implementation Order ...... 59 3.5.5 Management and maintenance ...... 60 3.6 WETLAND REHABILITATION AND/OR RESTORATION MONITORING ...... 60 3.6.1 Resources Required ...... 60 3.6.2 Methodology ...... 61 3.6.2.1 Wetland rehabilitation monitoring and evaluation ...... 61 3.6.2.2 Level 1 Monitoring ...... 62 3.6.2.3 Level 2 Monitoring ...... 64 3.6.2.4 Level 3 Monitoring ...... 67 3.7 RESIDENT ECOLOGIST ...... 70 3.7.1 Resources Required ...... 70 3.7.2 Methodology ...... 70 4 SPECIFIC PROGRAMME ...... 71 4.1 INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL METHODOLOGIES ...... 71 4.1.1 Year 1 ...... 71 4.1.2 Ongoing ...... 73 4.1.3 Bill of Quantities ...... 73 4.2 INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL MONITORING ...... 74 4.2.1 Bill of Quantities ...... 74 4.3 TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION ...... 74 4.3.1 Year 1 ...... 74 4.3.2 Year 2 ...... 74 4.3.3 Year 3 ...... 75 4.3.4 Year 4 ...... 75 4.3.5 Year 5 ...... 76 4.3.6 Year 6 ...... 76 4.3.7 Year 7 ...... 76 4.3.8 Year 8 ...... 76 4.3.9 Year 9 ...... 76 4.3.10 Bill of Quantities ...... 76 4.4 TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION AND/OR RESTORATION MONITORING ...... 77 4.4.1 Bill of Quantities ...... 77 4.5 WETLAND REHABILITATION ...... 77 4.5.1 Year 1 ...... 79 4.5.1.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R3 ...... 79 ii

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.1.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R3 ...... 79 4.5.1.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R3 ...... 79 4.5.1.1.3 Work plan for R3...... 79 4.5.1.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R7 ...... 81 4.5.1.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R7 ...... 81 4.5.1.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R7 ...... 81 4.5.1.2.3 Work plan for R7...... 82 4.5.1.3 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R9 ...... 82 4.5.1.3.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R9 ...... 82 4.5.1.3.2 Rehabilitation targets for R9 ...... 83 4.5.1.3.3 Work Plan for R9 ...... 83 4.5.1.3.4 Bill of Quantities for R9 ...... 84 4.5.1.4 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R37 ...... 85 4.5.1.4.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R37 ...... 85 4.5.1.4.2 Rehabilitation targets for R37 ...... 85 4.5.1.4.3 Work plan for R37...... 86 4.5.1.4.4 Bill of Quantities for R37 ...... 87 4.5.1.5 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 1 ...... 87 4.5.2 Year 2 ...... 88 4.5.2.1 Proposed rehabilitation Strategies for R10 ...... 88 4.5.2.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R10 ...... 88 4.5.2.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R10 ...... 88 4.5.2.1.3 Work plan for R10...... 88 4.5.2.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R10 ...... 89 4.5.2.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R34 ...... 90 4.5.2.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R34 ...... 90 4.5.2.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R34 ...... 90 4.5.2.2.3 Work plan for R34...... 91 4.5.2.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R34 ...... 92 4.5.2.3 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R35 ...... 93 4.5.2.3.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R35 ...... 93 4.5.2.3.2 Rehabilitation targets for R35 ...... 93 4.5.2.3.3 Work plan for R35...... 93 4.5.2.3.4 Bill of Quantities for R35 ...... 94 4.5.2.4 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 2 ...... 95 4.5.3 Year 3 ...... 96 4.5.3.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R33 ...... 96 4.5.3.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R33 ...... 96 4.5.3.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R33 ...... 96 4.5.3.1.3 Work plan for R33...... 96 4.5.3.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R33 ...... 97 4.5.3.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R38 ...... 98 4.5.3.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R38 ...... 98 4.5.3.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R38 ...... 98 4.5.3.2.3 Work plan for R38...... 99 4.5.3.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R38 ...... 101 4.5.3.3 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 3 ...... 102 4.5.4 Year 4 ...... 103 4.5.4.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R1 ...... 103 4.5.4.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R1 ...... 103 4.5.4.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R1 ...... 103 4.5.4.1.3 Work plan for R1...... 104 4.5.4.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R1 ...... 106 4.5.4.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R32 ...... 107 4.5.4.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R32 ...... 107 4.5.4.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R32 ...... 107 4.5.4.2.3 Work plan for R32...... 107 4.5.4.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R32 ...... 108 4.5.4.3 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 4 ...... 109 4.5.5 Year 5 ...... 109 4.5.5.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R29 ...... 109 iii

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.5.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R29 ...... 109 4.5.5.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R29 ...... 110 4.5.5.1.3 Work plan for R29...... 110 4.5.5.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R29 ...... 111 4.5.5.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies of R30 ...... 112 4.5.5.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R30 ...... 112 4.5.5.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R30 ...... 112 4.5.5.2.3 Work plan for R30...... 113 4.5.5.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R30 ...... 114 4.5.5.3 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 5 ...... 115 4.5.6 Year 6 ...... 115 4.5.6.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R27 ...... 115 4.5.6.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R27 ...... 115 4.5.6.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R27 ...... 115 4.5.6.1.3 Work plan for R27...... 116 4.5.6.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R27 ...... 117 4.5.6.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R28 ...... 118 4.5.6.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R28 ...... 118 4.5.6.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R28 ...... 118 4.5.6.2.3 Work plan for R28...... 118 4.5.6.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R28 ...... 119 4.5.6.3 Proposed Revegetation (WCS, 2010) ...... 120 4.5.6.3.1 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Revegetation Proposed by WCS (2010 & 2011) ...... 120 4.6 WETLAND REHABILITATION AND/OR RESTORATION MONITORING ...... 121 5 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 123 5.1 WETLAND IMPLEMENTATION TRIGGERS ...... 123 6 RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX ...... 128 6.1 RISKS AND OTHER ASPECTS WHICH MAY ARISE FROM THE CONSERVATION OF THE AREA ...... 128 6.2 MANAGEMENT OF THE FINAL CONSERVATION AREA ...... 131 6.3 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...... 138 7 REFERENCES ...... 148 8 APPENDICES ...... 151 APPENDIX 1A: GRASS SPECIES LISTS FOR REHABILITATION ...... 151 APPENDIX 1B: 60 COMMON GRASSLAND HERBS AND GEOPHYTES WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF INDIGENOUS COASTAL GRASSLAND IN GOOD CONDITION. THIS LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE AND CAN BE EXPANDED. (STYLES AND GRANGER UNDATED) .... 153 APPENDIX 1C: WOODY VEGETATION SPECIES LISTS FOR REHABILITATION ...... 155 APPENDIX 1D: PLANT SPECIES RECORDED BY HINES AND NICHOLS (2007) IN THE ALBIZIA WOODLAND ...... 177 APPENDIX 1E: POTENTIAL SEED AND PLANT COLLECTION SITES FOR REHABILITATION ...... 179 APPENDIX 1F: POTENTIAL NURSERIES ...... 182 APPENDIX 1G: APPROVED HERBICIDAL USE AND DOSAGE ...... 183 APPENDIX 1H: INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT SPECIES RECORDED IN THE STUDY AREA AS WELL AS THEIR CARA AND NEMBA CATEGORIES ...... 193 APPENDIX 2A: PROPOSED WETLAND REHABILITATION INTERVENTION DETAILS ...... 195 2A.1 Concrete structures ...... 195 2A.2 Gabion Structures ...... 199 2A.3 Concrete Cut-off Wall Structures ...... 199 APPENDIX 2B: LAYOUT DRAWINGS OF TYPICAL INTERVENTION TYPES ...... 203 9 ANNEXURES ...... 208 9.1 DETAILED TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 208 9.1.1 Pest Control Operator...... 208 9.1.1.1 Description ...... 208 9.1.1.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 208 9.1.1.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 208 9.1.1.4 Scope of Work ...... 209 9.1.1.5 Objectives ...... 209 9.1.1.6 Targets ...... 209 iv

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.2 Ecologist for Invasive Alien Plant Control Monitoring ...... 209 9.1.2.1 Description ...... 210 9.1.2.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 210 9.1.2.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 210 9.1.2.4 Scope of Work ...... 210 9.1.2.5 Objectives ...... 211 9.1.3 Ecosystem Rehabilitation Specialist ...... 211 9.1.3.1 Description ...... 211 9.1.3.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 211 9.1.3.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 211 9.1.3.4 Objectives ...... 212 9.1.3.5 Targets: ...... 212 9.1.3.6 Indicators: ...... 212 9.1.4 Ecologist for Terrestrial Rehabilitation Specialist Monitoring ...... 213 9.1.4.1 Description ...... 213 9.1.4.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 213 9.1.4.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 213 9.1.4.4 Objectives ...... 214 9.1.4.5 Targets ...... 214 9.1.4.6 Indicators ...... 214 9.1.5 Construction Company...... 215 9.1.5.1 Description ...... 215 9.1.5.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 215 9.1.5.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 215 9.1.5.4 Objectives ...... 216 9.1.6 Civil Engineer ...... 216 9.1.6.1 Description ...... 216 9.1.6.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 216 9.1.6.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 216 9.1.7 Wetland Ecologist for Wetland Rehabilitation Monitoring ...... 217 9.1.7.1 Description ...... 217 9.1.7.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 217 9.1.7.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 217 9.1.7.4 Objectives ...... 218 9.1.7.5 Indicators: ...... 218 9.1.8 Environmental Control Officer (ECO) for Construction Activity Monitoring ...... 219 9.1.8.1 Description ...... 219 9.1.8.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 219 9.1.8.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 219 9.1.9 Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) ...... 220 9.1.9.1 Description ...... 220 9.1.9.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 220 9.1.9.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 220 9.1.10 Resident Ecologist for Overall Monitoring ...... 220 9.1.10.1 Description ...... 221 9.1.10.2 Mandatory Requirements ...... 221 9.1.10.3 Functional Evaluation ...... 221 9.1.10.4 Objectives ...... 222 9.1.10.5 Indicators ...... 222

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: WETLAND HGM UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE STUDY AREA AND THOSE THAT WERE DIRECTLY IMPACTED ON BY THE PHASE 1 BUILD (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 2 FIGURE 2: ILLUSTRATION OF THE 146.2 HA OF WETLAND HABITAT THAT HAS BEEN PRIORITISED FOR REHABILITATION PURPOSES (KSEMS, 2017)...... 3 FIGURE 3: TERRESTRIAL AND FRESHWATER REHABILITATION UNITS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA (KSEMS, 2017)...... 11 FIGURE 4: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 1 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT WILL BE PREPARED FOR THE FALLOWING PROCESS IN THE YEAR 2...... 12 FIGURE 5: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 2 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT WILL BE PREPARED FOR THE FALLOWING PROCESS IN THE YEAR 3. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE SUGARCANE IS TO BE REMOVED WITHIN YEAR 2...... 13 FIGURE 6: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 3 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT WILL BE PREPARED FOR THE FALLOWING PROCESS IN THE YEAR 4. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE SUGARCANE IS TO BE REMOVED WITHIN YEAR 3. GREEN SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH ARE TO BE LEFT FALLOW IN YEAR 3...... 14 FIGURE 7: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 4 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. PURPLE SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT MUST BE BURNT WITHIN YEAR 4. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE SUGARCANE IS TO BE REMOVED WITHIN YEAR 4. GREEN SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH ARE TO BE LEFT FALLOW IN YEAR 4...... 15 FIGURE 8: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 5 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. PURPLE SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT MUST BE BURNT WITHIN YEAR 5. GREEN SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH ARE TO BE LEFT FALLOW IN YEAR 5...... 16 FIGURE 9: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 6 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. PURPLE SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT MUST BE BURNT WITHIN YEAR 6. GREEN SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH ARE TO BE LEFT FALLOW IN YEAR 6...... 17 FIGURE 10: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 7 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. PURPLE SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT MUST BE BURNT WITHIN YEAR 7. GREEN SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH ARE TO BE LEFT FALLOW IN YEAR 7...... 18 FIGURE 11: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 8 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. PURPLE SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT MUST BE BURNT WITHIN YEAR 8. GREEN SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH ARE TO BE LEFT FALLOW IN YEAR 8. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH HAVE COMPLETED THEIR REHABILITATION AND WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 19 FIGURE 12: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 9 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. PURPLE SHADED AREAS RELATE TO SUGARCANE AREAS THAT MUST BE BURNT WITHIN YEAR 9. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH HAVE COMPLETED THEIR REHABILITATION AND WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 20 FIGURE 13: TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 10 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHICH HAVE COMPLETED THEIR REHABILITATION AND WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 21 FIGURE 14: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 1 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN YEAR 1...... 22 FIGURE 15: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 2 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN YEAR 2. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS IN WHICH INTERVENTIONS MUST BEGIN WITHIN YEAR 2...... 23 FIGURE 16: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 3 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN YEAR 3. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS IN WHICH INTERVENTIONS MUST BEGIN WITHIN YEAR 3. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 24 FIGURE 17: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 4 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN YEAR 4. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS IN WHICH INTERVENTIONS MUST BEGIN WITHIN YEAR 4. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 25 FIGURE 18: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 5 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN YEAR 5. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS IN WHICH INTERVENTIONS MUST BEGIN WITHIN YEAR 5. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 26 FIGURE 19: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 6 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. RED SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN YEAR 6. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS IN WHICH INTERVENTIONS MUST BEGIN WITHIN YEAR 6. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 27 FIGURE 20: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 7 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. YELLOW SHADED AREAS RELATE TO FRESHWATER SYSTEMS IN WHICH INTERVENTIONS MUST BEGIN WITHIN YEAR 7. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 28 vi

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

FIGURE 21: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 8 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 29 FIGURE 22: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 9 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 30 FIGURE 23: FRESHWATER REHABILITATION PROPOSED FOR YEAR 10 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. BLACK SHADED AREAS RELATE TO AREAS WHERE ONLY MONITORING REMAINS...... 31 FIGURE 24: TERRESTRIAL AND FRESHWATER REHABILITATION GOALS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA ...... 32 FIGURE 25: A) IMAGE ILLUSTRATING ANTI-EROSION JUTE MATERIALS IMPLEMENTED ON A NEWLY WORKED SLOPED AREA AND B) A SILT/SEDIMENT FENCE...... 50 FIGURE 26: MAP ILLUSTRATING AN EXAMPLE OF A HERRINGBONE DRAIN NETWORK WITHIN R27 OF PORTION 10 (KSEMS, 2017). ... 51 FIGURE 27: MAP ILLUSTRATING A TYPICAL EXCAVATION DRAIN USED TO CHANNEL THE FLOW OF WATER AWAY FROM CERTAIN AREAS OF LAND (KSEMS, 2017)...... 52 FIGURE 28: IMAGE ILLUSTRATING A SIMPLE LAYOUT OF A TYPICAL PIPE CULVERT CONSTRUCTION (APFC, 1999)...... 53 FIGURE 29: IMAGE ILLUSTRATING THE GENERAL LAYOUT OF A MITRE AND CROSS DRAIN, RESPECTIVELY (APFC, 1999)...... 54 FIGURE 30: AN EXAMPLE OF THE USE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY TO MONITOR THE CONDITION OF THE NUMEROUS REHABILITATED WETLAND HABITATS SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES (KSEMS, 2017). . 64 FIGURE 31: MAP ILLUSTRATING THE WETLAND SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN DELINEATED WITHIN THE FINAL CONSERVATION AREA, AND THE VARIOUS REHABILITATION INTERVENTIONS (KSEMS, 2017)...... 78 FIGURE 32: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS FOR R3 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 80 FIGURE 33: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS FOR R7 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 82 FIGURE 34: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS FOR R9 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 84 FIGURE 35: MAP ILLUSTRATING THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS WITHIN R37...... 86 FIGURE 36: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R10 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 89 FIGURE 37: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN HGM UNIT R34 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 92 FIGURE 38: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R35 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 94 FIGURE 39: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R33 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 97 FIGURE 40: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN HGM UNIT R38 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2017))...... 100 FIGURE 41: ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPOSED FORMALISATION OF THE R38 WETLAND DECANT POINT (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH(2017))...... 100 FIGURE 42: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS FOR R1 (LOWER SECTION) (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 105 FIGURE 43: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS FOR R1 (UPPER SECTION) (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 105 FIGURE 44: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R32 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 108 FIGURE 45: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R29 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 111 FIGURE 46: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R30 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 113 FIGURE 47: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R27 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH, (2015))...... 116 FIGURE 48: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVENTION LOCATIONS IN R28 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 119

vii

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: VEGETATION COVER LOST FROM PHASE 1 OF THE DTP ESTABLISHMENT ...... 1 TABLE 2: WETLAND SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED FOR REHABILITATION PURPOSES ...... 4 TABLE 3: TABLE PRESENTING THE DENSITY AT WHICH ROAD DRAINS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG RECONSTRUCTED GRAVEL ROADS (APFC, 1999)...... 54 TABLE 4: PRESENTATION OF A GENERIC REHABILITATION SEQUENCE THAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN ALL HGM UNITS AND TIME FRAME ESTIMATES OF EACH REHABILITATION ACTIVITY (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 59 TABLE 5: CRITERIA USED FOR MONITORING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF WETLAND REHABILITATION INTERVENTIONS (MODIFIED FROM ...... 63 TABLE 6: ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES THAT WETLAND HABITATS ARE CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING (KOTZE, ET. EL., 2007)...... 66 TABLE 7: BILL OF QUANTITY FOR ALIEN INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN IN THE CONSERVATION AREA ...... 73 TABLE 8: BILL OF QUANTITY FOR THE ALIEN INVASIVE CLEARING (MONTHLY) MONITORING PLAN FOR CONSERVATION AREA...... 74 TABLE 9: SUMMARISED BILL OF QUANTITY FOR THE CONSERVATION AREA ...... 76 TABLE 10: BILL OF QUANTITY FOR THE TERRESTRIAL REHABILITATION MONITORING FOR THE CONSERVATION AREA ...... 77 TABLE 11: PROPOSED RESHAPING EARTHWORKS AND RE-VEGETATION FOR HGM UNIT R3 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 80 TABLE 12: PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT STRUCTURES WITHIN HGM UNIT R3 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 80 TABLE 13: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R3...... 81 TABLE 14: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R9 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 84 TABLE 15: PROPOSED RESHAPING EARTHWORKS AND REVEGETATION FOR HGM UNIT R9 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 84 TABLE 16: ADDITIONAL REVEGETATION PROPOSED WITHIN R9, AS PER WCS (2010)...... 85 TABLE 17: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R9...... 85 TABLE 18: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R37...... 87 TABLE 19: SUMMARY BOQ FOR YEAR 1 OF THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION PROJECT...... 87 TABLE 20: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R10 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 89 TABLE 21: PROPOSED CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R10 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 90 TABLE 22: ADDITIONAL REVEGETATION PROPOSED WITHIN R10, AS PER WCS (2010)...... 90 TABLE 23: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R10...... 90 TABLE 24: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R34 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 92 TABLE 25: PROPOSED RESHAPING EARTHWORKS AND RE-VEGETATION IN HGM UNIT R34...... 92 TABLE 26: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R34...... 92 TABLE 27: BILL OF QUANTITIES DIMENSION TABLE OF PROPOSED CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R35. .... 94 TABLE 28: BILL OF QUANTITIES TABLE OF PROPOSED RESHAPING EARTHWORKS AND RE-VEGETATION IN HGM UNIT R35...... 95 TABLE 29: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R35...... 95 TABLE 30: SUMMARY BOQ FOR YEAR 2 OF THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION PROJECT...... 95 TABLE 31: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R33 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 97 TABLE 32: PROPOSED CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R33 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 97 TABLE 33: PROPOSED RESHAPING EARTHWORKS AND RE-VEGETATION FOR HGM UNIT R33 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015)...... 98 TABLE 34: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R33...... 98 TABLE 35: PROPOSED GABION CHECK-WALL WITHIN R38 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2017)...... 101 TABLE 36: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLETS WITHIN R38 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2017)...... 101 TABLE 37: PROPOSED CONCRETE SPLASH THROUGH AND RENO-MATTRESS CHUTE (GROUNDTRUTH, 2017)...... 101 TABLE 38: PROPOSED CONCRETE CHECK-WALL WITHIN R38 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2017)...... 101 TABLE 39: PROPOSED RESHAPING AND SUBSEQUENT REVEGETATION WITHIN R38 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2017)...... 101 TABLE 40: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R38 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2017)...... 102 TABLE 41: SUMMARY BOQ OF YEAR 3 OF THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION PROJECT...... 102 TABLE 42: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R1 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 106 TABLE 43: PROPOSED CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R1 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 106

viii

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

TABLE 44: PROPOSED RESHAPING EARTHWORKS AND RE-VEGETATION FOR HGM UNIT R1 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 106 TABLE 45: ADDITIONAL REVEGETATION WITHIN R1, AS PER WCS (2010)...... 106 TABLE 46: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R1 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015))...... 106 TABLE 47: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R32 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015)...... 108 TABLE 48: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R32 ...... 108 TABLE 49: SUMMARY BOQ FOR YEAR 4 OF THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION PROJECT...... 109 TABLE 50: PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R29 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015)...... 111 TABLE 51: PROPOSED CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R29 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015)...... 111 TABLE 52: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R29...... 112 TABLE 53: BILL OF QUANTITIES FOR PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R30 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015)...... 114 TABLE 54: BILL OF QUANTITIES FOR PROPOSED RESHAPING EARTHWORKS AND RE-VEGETATION IN HGM UNIT R30 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015)...... 114 TABLE 55: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R30...... 114 TABLE 56: SUMMARY BOQ FOR YEAR 5 OF THE PROPOSED WETLAND REHABILITATION PROJECT...... 115 TABLE 57: BILL OF QUANTITIES FOR PROPOSED CONCRETE DROP INLET STRUCTURES IN HGM UNIT R27 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 117 TABLE 58: BILL OF QUANTITIES OF PROPOSED CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL STRUCTURES ON HGM UNIT R27 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 117 TABLE 59: BILL OF QUANTITIES FOR PROPOSED RESHAPING AND RE-VEGETATION IN HGM UNIT R27 (SUPPLIED BY GROUNDTRUTH (2015)...... 117 TABLE 60: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R27...... 117 TABLE 61: SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDING THE RATE CHARGED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PER REHABILITATION ACTIVITY RELEVANT TO HGM UNIT R28...... 119 TABLE 62: TABLE PRESENTING THE ADDITIONAL WETLAND SYSTEMS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE REVEGETATED AS PER WCS (2010 & 2011)...... 120 TABLE 63: SUMMARY BOQ FOR THE PROPOSED REVEGETATION ACTIVITIES PROPOSED BY WCS (2010 & 2011)...... 120 TABLE 64: PRESENTS THE DETAILS OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COVERING THE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE OF WETLAND HABITAT ASSOCIATED WITH KSIA...... 121 TABLE 65: PRESENTS THE TIMEFRAME OF THE MONITORING OF WETLAND HABITAT ASSOCIATED WITH KSIA...... 122 TABLE 66: PRESENTS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND ESTIMATED TIMEFRAMES FOR WETLAND REHABILITATION INTERVENTIONS ... 123 TABLE 67: TABLE OUTLINING THE VARIOUS FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EACH POTENTIAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE REHABILITATION PROJECT...... 129 TABLE 68: TABLE ILLUSTRATING THE SIGNIFICANCE WEIGHTING THAT CAN BE ALLOCATED TO EACH IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SCORE. . 130 TABLE 69: IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL RISKS AND ASPECTS THAT PERTAIN TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FINAL CONSERVATION AREA ...... 131 TABLE 70: IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL RISKS AND ASPECTS THAT PERTAIN TO THE POTENTIAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WITHIN THE FINAL CONSERVATION AREA...... 138 TABLE 71: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R1 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 196 TABLE 72: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R9 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 196 TABLE 73: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R10 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 196 TABLE 74:TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R25 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 196 TABLE 75: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R26 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 197 TABLE 76: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R27 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 197 TABLE 77: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R28 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 197

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

TABLE 78: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R29 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 197 TABLE 79: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R30 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 198 TABLE 80: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R32 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 198 TABLE 81: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R33 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 198 TABLE 82: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R34 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 198 TABLE 83: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES OF THE GABION STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN EACH INDIVIDUAL HGM UNIT (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 199 TABLE 84: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R1 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 200 TABLE 85: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R10 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 200 TABLE 86: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R25 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 200 TABLE 87: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R27 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 201 TABLE 88: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R28 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 201 TABLE 89: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R29 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 202 TABLE 90: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R33 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 202 TABLE 91: TABLE PRESENTING THE DIMENSION PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN HGM UNIT R35 (GROUNDTRUTH, 2015)...... 202

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background With growing domestic air traffic demands and a need to increase domestic and international trade in KwaZulu- Natal, the previous Durban International Airport (DIA), despite upgrades to the airport’s terminals and parking areas, was unable to keep up with demand. Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA), a government owned company that is responsible for development, management and operation of airports throughout South Africa, and the DTPC, a provincially owned trading entity which is responsible for establishing and operation of the Trade- Zone, Support-Zone and Agri-Zone within the DTPCprecinct, began the planning, environmental impact assessment process and eventual construction of the DTPC. DTPC precinct houses the King Shaka International Airport (KSIA), a Trade Zone, a Support Zone, and an Agri Zone as well as land set out for future expansion of KSIA. It isapproximately 3000 hectares (ha) in area and located approximately 30 kilometres (km) north of Durban within the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality. DTPC and KSIA construction was broken down into several phases to enable gradual upgrade of the facilities as demand increases. Phase 1, which includes the construction of the runway, terminal buildings, ACSA and DTPC buildings, and Trade-, Support- and AgriZones, was completed and opened between 2010 and 2011.

1.2 Environmental Impact of the KSIA Phase 1 Build Construction of KSIA and DTPC Phase 1 ultimately resulted in the loss of indigenous vegetation and, by extension, faunal habitats. Vegetation cover types impacted included secondary grassland, secondary scrub, secondary woodland, wooded areas and various small wetland depressions which total approximately 295.1 ha.

Table 1: Vegetation cover lost from Phase 1 of the DTPC establishment Vegetation Cover Types Hectares (ha) Secondary grassland 200.38 Secondary scrub 57.06 Secondary woodland 10.68 Wooded areas 26.64 Depression wetlands 0.36 Total 295.1

To mitigate and offset the environmental impacts associated with the DTPC, an area of 773 ha of land surrounding DTPC was initially assigned for rehabilitation and restoration to counter the impacts. This land consisted mainly of sugarcane fields with some natural vegetation interspersed to be rehabilitated and restored to natural grassland, scrubland, woodland and wetland systems. The La Mercy Joint Venture, a joint venture between ACSA and DTPC, is a property development company which owns additional areas of offset not already within either ACSA or DTPC owned land. The total area set aside for conservation and offset was eventually increased to 878 ha to account for delays in the implementation of rehabilitation on site. The final conservation area, which was finalised in2015 , was 1

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 a requirement from the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process which was originally submitted in 2007 and then, after an appeals process, was authorised in 2008 by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

The Phase 1 Build of the KSIA also resulted in the direct destruction of approximately 16 ha of freshwater habitat (14.7 ha and 1.3 ha of wetland and riparian, respectively) (Figure 1) (Record of Decisions (RoD) issued by the DEA), which according to GroundTruth (2015) equates to approximately 5.6 ha equivalents1. It is specified within the RoD that the loss in wetland habitat must be mitigated based on a ratio of 1:3 (area to area/area to hectare equivalents), thus applying this ratio to both the area and hectare equivalents of wetland lost necessitates the rehabilitation of 48 ha and 16.8 hectare equivalents, respectively (GroundTruth, 2015). Therefore, the rehabilitation and/or restoration activities outlined within this report, which were sourced from previous studies (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010 & 2011; Eco-Pulse, 2012; GroundTruth, 2013, 2015 & 2017) will need to address the following summarized requirements, in terms of gain in wetland integrity: - RoD Requirements: (1:3 area to area ratio) = reinstatement of approximately 48 ha; and - Best-practice Requirements: (1:3 area to hectare equivalents) = reinstatement of approximately 16.8 hectare equivalents.

Figure 1: Wetland HGM Units associated with the study area and those that were directly impacted on by the Phase 1 Build (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

The wetland habitat delineations discussed within this report have been sourced from GroundTruth (2015), whom utilised the original delineations recorded by Cowden & Kotze (2007) and subsequently made alterations based

1 Hectare equivalents: The health of a wetland system expressed as an area (Cowden & Kotze, 2007). 2

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 on professional judgement, which can be substantiated with quantitative data. Out of the 216.8 ha of total wetland and riparian habitat within the 878 ha final conservation area, approximately 146.2 ha has been prioritised for rehabilitation activities (Figure 2). The rehabilitation measures proposed for these wetland systems will serve to mitigate the impacts associated with the Phase 1 KSIA development onsite, and thus address both the RoD and best-practice requirements.

Figure 2: Illustration of the 146.2 ha of wetland habitat that has been prioritised for rehabilitation purposes (KSEMS, 2017).

Based on the wetland integrity assessment results presented within the previous studies (WCS, 2010 & 2011; GroundTruth, 2015 & 2017) the hectare equivalent that may be gained, subsequent to the implementation of the various rehabilitation activities is 49.2 hectare equivalents. This figure includes the gain in area and hectare equivalents which will be recorded as a result of the rehabilitation of the recently added (GroundTruth, 2017) Froggy Pond, Lake Victoria and R38 hydrogeomorphic (HGM) units. Table 2 below illustrates the derived hectare equivalence and area, for the current and post-rehabilitation scenarios, that will be gained as a result of the implementation of the suggested rehabilitation and/or restoration activities (GroundTruth, 2015 & 2017; WCS, 2010 & 2011).

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 2: Wetland Systems Identified for Rehabilitation Purposes

GroundTruth (2015 & 2017)

HGM Unit Hectares (ha) Current ha equiv. Post-rehab ha equiv. Gains

R1 3.5 0.9 3.2 2.3 R3 1.3 0.5 1.1 0.6 R7 1.7 0.9 1.3 0.4 R9 4.5 1.5 3.9 2.4 R10 3.0 1.1 2.7 1.6 R27 4.4 1.1 3.1 2.0 R28 9.0 3.1 7.6 4.5 R29 2.0 0.7 1.8 1.1 R30 3.1 1.0 2.8 1.8 R31 4.9 1.7 4.1 2.4 R32 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 R33 3.5 1.3 3.2 1.9 R34 6.4 2.2 5.1 2.9 R35 1.8 0.5 1.4 0.9 R38 15.09 11.92 14.28 2.36 Lake Victoria 37.3 13.07 18.26 5.19 Froggy Pond 22.3 24.86 33.65 8.79 Total 124.4 66.58 107.86 41.4 WCS (2010 & 2011) R1 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 R4 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.3 R5 1.5 0.7 1.3 0.6 R6 1.8 1.0 1.4 0.4 R8 1.2 0.6 1.1 0.5 R9a 1.7 0.3 1.1 0.8 R9b 6.0 3.1 5.2 2.1 R10 7.7 3.9 6.7 2.8 Total 21.7 10.4 18.2 7.8 Combined Total 146.2 76.9 126.1 49.2

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

1.3 Activities to Date and the Advisory Forum The national, provincial and municipal importance of DTPC and KSIA in terms of their individual sustainability (social, economic, and environmental) requirements and targets added to the complexity of the offset and rehabilitation to be completed. As a result, a committee was established with representatives of the various Government Departments including the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (EDTEA), Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department (EPCPD) of the eThekwini Municipality, and Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZN) as well as ACSA and DTPC. The Advisory Forum was formed to assist ACSA, DTPC, and the LMJV with the implementation of the rehabilitation obligations as per the Record of Decision. The Advisory Forum assisted with the development of the Terms of Reference of both the specialist studies (for the development of the Biodiversity Offset Management Plan) and the resident ecologist (for the development of the KSIA Phase 1 Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan). Once the plan is approved, the members of the Advisory Forum will form a new structure that will oversee the implementation of the rehabilitation.

A rehabilitation plan was originally compiled by KSEMS (2011), which was thereafter revised by SiVEST in 2012 and was finally edited and added to by Strategic Environmental Focus (SEF, 2015) to create the final Biodiversity Offset Management Plan and Conceptual Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan (BOMPCRP). Within the BOMPCRP the 878 ha of conservation and offset area was detailed and subdivided into vegetation types and wetland and riparian habitats present within the final conservation area. Additionally, several rehabilitation methodologies and strategies were examined and compared within the BOMPCRP in order to find the most efficient, cost-effective and realistic way to conduct the rehabilitation and restoration efforts. While in-depth, the BOMPCRP did not however include detailed Terms of References (ToR), definitive methodologies, timeframes and Bills of Quantity (BoQ), for each vegetation unit and wetland/riparian system within each portion of the final conservation area.

KSEMS Environmental Consulting cc has been appointed by the LMJV to compile an implementation plan. The review of all the information present within the EIR, BOMPCRP and all specialist studies has been distilled into a single implementation plan, which consists of meaningful implementation instructions that can be used for tendering and quotation purposes. Additionally, the implementation plan includes, but not limited to: methodologies, timeframes and BoQs for each vegetation type and wetland/riparian habitat delineated within the final conservation area. These will be utilised by terrestrial and wetland rehabilitation specialists, alien invasive plant control specialists, and monitoring contractors, to implement the relevant rehabilitation plans in a cost-efficient and sustainably manner.

Multiple studies have been conducted by several specialists since the conceptual phase of the Phase 1 KSIA build. These studies contain all the relevant information needed to formulate this wetland rehabilitation implementation plan, and thus in-depth review of these studies was conducted and the data utilised to provide input into the development of a concise and environmental friendly method of implementation. The following documents, which 5

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 were made available by DTPC and ACSA, were reviewed prior to composing this report: - KSIA - Phase 1: Biodiversity Offset Management Plan and Conceptual Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan (SEF: 506020, 2015). - KSIA Ecological and Wetland Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan Ecological Assessment: Biodiversity Offset Review (SEF, 2015b). - DTPC Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIR) (Institute of Natural Resources (INR), 2007). - Specifically: Chapter 11: Water Resources and Appendices Wetlands (INR, 2007). - An Assessment of the Wetlands Potentially Affected by the Proposed Dube TradePort, La Mercy (Cowden & Kotze, 2007). - Specialist Comment on Anticipated Consequences of Delaying Wetland Rehabilitation Activities Associated with the Construction of the KSIA (Eco-Pulse: EP34-01, 2012). - Wetland Rehabilitation Strategy Report: Dube TradePort Complex (WCS: 647-2010, 2010). - KSIA – Phase 1: Wetland Rehabilitation and Monitoring Plan (GroundTruth: GTW409-280815-01, 2015). - Dube TradePort Southern Conservation Zone: Wetland Study and Detailed Rehabilitation Plan (Draft) (GroundTruth: GTW623-230317-01, 2017). - Various GIS shapefiles relevant to the proposed study area (ACSA, 2017; Cowden & Kotze, 2007; DTPC, 2017; GroundTruth, 2015 & 2017).

1.4 Scope of Work of Implementation Plan - A review of all the current information related to the rehabilitation of KSIA was performed. This included but was not limited to: o Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (2007); o All specialist reports included in the EIA Record of Decision (ROD) dated 23 August 2007; o All environmental audit and monitoring reports; o Appeal Decision dated 29 October 2008; o Minister’s Clarification Letter dated 23 November 2010; o DEA’s response letter to the Conceptual Plan dated 13 December 2011; o The KZN Biodiversity Offsets Norms & Standards (Final Draft dated July 2010); o BOMPCRP; o Grassland Feasibility Study and Planting Methodology; and o KSIA Phase 1 Conceptual Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan Approval Letter o Various additional vegetation and wetland reports o On site assessment and field work. - The following specialists provided short reports of recommendations, mitigations, ToRs and BoQs for their respective fields (these were summaries of previous studies and expert knowledge, no new assessments were done): o Ornithologist/Avifaunal Specialist, 6

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o Grassland Specialist, o Pedologist, o Botanist, o Herpetologist, o Bat Ecologist, and o Wetland Ecologist. - A workshop was held to discuss implementation strategies and methodologies. The workshop included the Lead Ecologist, wetland specialists, botanists and grassland specialists as well as the clients (ACSA and DTPC), EPCPD of eThekwini and EKZN. - The implementation plan was structured accordingly: o Methodology for each vegetation unit for each portion of land as per the Farm La Mercy subdivisions map. The methodologies produced are user-friendly. o ToRs and BoQs were produced for the various implementation contractors, including, but not limited to Rehabilitation Specialist Contractors (Terrestrial and Wetland) and IAPS Control Contractor. o Detailed implementation maps were produced. o The financial tables compiled within the conceptual rehabilitation and restoration plan will be reviewed and translated during the compilation of the ToR and BoQ. o A schedule of activities has been produced, including: • Timeframes (phasing of work) for the vegetation units within the delineated conservation area. - Identification and descriptions of potential sources for the plant material required and the provision of appropriate guidelines to ensure the protection and management of local level biodiversity have been supplied; o Best practice plant and seed collection methodologies have been produced; o Any protected species introductions have been stipulated in the plan. - Any additional legal requirements that may be triggered by the implementation plan have been identified and outlined. - During the course of the implementation plan several factors, not included within the scope of work, were found to be required in order to improve the chances of successful rehabilitation implementation. Although not included in the contract scope of work, an initial risk assessment matric was done by KSEMS to determine the risk of these factors to implementation and to highlight their importance. It is of KSEMS expert opinion that these factors be assessed as soon as possible and preferably before the majority of the implementation takes place. These factors include: o Rezoning and permits, o Soil assessment, o Fire management plan, o Road management plan, o Local community liaison, o Community access,

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o Recreational activities (mountain biking, trail running, hiking), o Cattle grazing, o Hay collection, and o Medicinal plant harvesting.

1.5 Assumptions & Limitations The following assumptions and limitations are relevant to the implementation plan: - The implementation plan’s scope of work required a review of previous assessments, reports and plans associated with the KSIA EIR. No new assessments regarding vegetation, wetland and faunal health were included. Relying on secondary information in this regard may result in certain inaccuracies which cannot be quantified; - Identified specialists were included for consultation purposes and not to perform full assessments; - GIS information was obtained from SEF (2015) via ACSA. The information and shapefiles present within are assumed to be correct and accurate; - The implementation plan has been designed to be utilised as is however certain risks and aspects were identified as possibly having an effect on the outcome of the rehabilitation. These risk and aspects have not been fully assessed yet and therefore KSEMS cannot incorporate them into the current implementation. The risks and factors identified include: o Rezoning and permits, o Soil assessment, o Fire management plan, o Road management plan, o Local community liaison, o Community access, o Recreational activities (mountain biking, trail running, hiking), o Cattle grazing, o Hay collection, and o Medicinal plant harvesting. - Of the above, the soil assessment may have a significant impact on the vegetation unit delineations. A detailed soil assessment is required and this will in turn affect the Bills of Quantity. - Additionally, wetland rehabilitation requires the removal of all roads which transect wetland systems. Given that many of the roads within the conservation area are required for public communication, fire and vegetation maintenance, and safety, a road management plan is yet to be done to assess which roads are required in the area. Therefore the wetland interventions cannot be quantified at this time. This too may have an effect on the final Bills of Quantity for the wetland rehabilitations. - No set start date was given for the commencement of rehabilitation implementation due to the soil assessment (and potential rehabilitation) as well as the legal authorisations needing to be completed first. The timeframe 8

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

for these cannot be estimated. It is therefore important to note that the ‘start date’ of actual implementation (Year 2) will effectively be the day on which the environmental authorisations are granted by the competent authorities. - Consideration must be given to the abovementioned ‘start dates’, and the seasonality specified for each implementation measure i.e. if authorisation is only granted for a particular implementation measure after that measure’s specified season has passed, that measure must be postponed to the following suitable season in order to ensure the highest chance of success. - All site visits were conducted for the implementation plan within two months of the end of the summer season, following a prolonged period of drought in the region. These site visits were done for orientation and visual confirmation of the many previous specialist reports’ findings.

1.6 Implementation Plan Breakdown The following is a breakdown of the implementation plan and how the different Sections relate to one another.

1.6.1 Objectives The objectives, in Section 2, presentsmaps of rehabilitation implementation activities to give a visual indication of the expected progress within each year of the proposed rehabilitation project. These maps are mostly relevant for the sugarcane fields, the secondary scrub areas and the freshwater ecosystems, as these areas will all have active and phased implementation in place. The other vegetation types have no active implementation, although all require IAPS clearing and management. This is an ongoing process across the entire conservation area from Year 1 and therefore there will be no means of visually displaying progress in these vegetation units in a map as it is a continuous process.

1.6.2 General methodology The general methodologies, in Section 3, for active rehabilitation measures, which are common throughout the conservation area, are defined and described. These include the instructions on what measures should be undertaken in certain vegetation types as well as the general construction notes pertaining to the wetland rehabilitation interventions and subsequent revegetation. Furthermore, the general legal requirements and applicantions required, which will correspond to a detailed Terms of Reference to be found in the Annexures will be presented under each section. Additional information that relates to the general methodologies, such as suitable vegetation species, locations of source material, IAPS on site and approved pesticides is outlined within the Appendices.

1.6.3 Specific programme The specific programme, in Section 4, refers to the year by year activities that will take place throughout the rehabilitation process. This includes which sugarcane areas are to be cleared, where fire management is to be 9

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 applied and which wetland interventions are to be constructed in which year. These will relate directly back to the objective maps in Section 2 and the methodologies required to implement these activities should be extracted from Section 3.

1.6.4 Legal requirements The legal requirements, in Section 5, tabulate all potential legal requirements that may need to be fulfilled prior to or during the rehabilitation implementation phase. These include the possible requirement for Water Use License Applications (WULAs) and Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for the implementation of wetland rehabilitation interventions. The timeframes (how long each process generally takes) and scheduling (when each requirement needs to begin) will be included to prevent any delays in the rehabilitation due to legal constraints. This section is factored into the specific programme (Section 4) however delays from departmental bodies can only be estimated.

1.6.5 Risk assessment matric A risk assessment matric was developed, in Section 6, to define and address issues and concerns which may hinder or complicate rehabilitation implementation. These include both management and local community concerns regarding the conservation area. Studies such as a soil assessment and road management plan have implications on the rehabilitation implementation process. Most of these issues and concerns have been incorporated into the first year of the implimenttaion process to prevent any potential delays as a result of amendments to the delineated vegetation units or rehabilitation measures.

1.6.6 Appendices The appendicescontain additional information that should be read in conjunction with the methodologies outlined in Section 3 and 4. The information relates to suitable species to be used in the rehabilitation of vegetation units and wetland areas, potential offsite areas and nurseries to source seeds or plants from, approved herbicides and IAPS recorded on site.

1.6.7 Annexures The implementation plan annexures detail individual terms of references for each potential contractor that will be required during rehabilitation implementation. This includes wetland specialists, ecologists, pest control operators, environmental assessment practitioners and construction companies. The terms of references will include general descriptions, mandatory requirements, functional evaluation criteria, objectives and targets to be completed.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2 OBJECTIVES 2.1 BOMP Terrestrial & Freshwater Plan

Figure 3: Terrestrial and Freshwater Rehabilitation Units within the Conservation Area (KSEMS, 2017).

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2 Active Terrestrial Rehabilitation Programme 2.2.1 Year 1

Figure 4: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 1 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that will be prepared for the fallowing process in the Year 2.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.2 Year 2

Figure 5: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 2 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that will be prepared for the fallowing process in the Year 3. Yellow shaded areas relate to areas where sugarcane is to be removed within Year 2.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.3 Year 3

Figure 6: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 3 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that will be prepared for the fallowing process in the Year 4. Yellow shaded areas relate to areas where sugarcane is to be removed within Year 3. Green shaded areas relate to areas which are to be left fallow in Year 3.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.4 Year 4

Figure 7: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 4 of Implementation Plan. Purple shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that must be burnt within Year 4. Yellow shaded areas relate to areas where sugarcane is to be removed within Year 4. Green shaded areas relate to areas which are to be left fallow in Year 4.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.5 Year 5

Figure 8: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 5 of Implementation Plan. Purple shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that must be burnt within Year 5. Green shaded areas relate to areas which are to be left fallow in Year 5.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.6 Year 6

Figure 9: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 6 of Implementation Plan. Purple shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that must be burnt within Year 6. Green shaded areas relate to areas which are to be left fallow in Year 6.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.7 Year 7

Figure 10: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 7 of Implementation Plan. Purple shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that must be burnt within Year 7. Green shaded areas relate to areas which are to be left fallow in Year 7.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.8 Year 8

Figure 11: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 8 of Implementation Plan. Purple shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that must be burnt within Year 8. Green shaded areas relate to areas which are to be left fallow in Year 8. Black shaded areas relate to areas which have completed their rehabilitation and where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.9 Year 9

Figure 12: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 9 of Implementation Plan. Purple shaded areas relate to sugarcane areas that must be burnt within Year 9. Black shaded areas relate to areas which have completed their rehabilitation and where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.2.10 Year 10

Figure 13: Terrestrial Rehabilitation proposed for Year 10 of Implementation Plan. Black shaded areas relate to areas which have completed their rehabilitation and where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3 Active Freshwater Rehabilitation Programme 2.3.1 Year 1

Figure 14: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 1 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to freshwater systems that environmental authorisation must be applied for within Year 1.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.2 Year 2

Figure 15: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 2 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to freshwater systems that environmental authorisation must be applied for within Year 2. Yellow shaded areas relate to freshwater systems in which interventions must begin within Year 2.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.3 Year 3

Figure 16: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 3 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to freshwater systems that environmental authorisation must be applied for within Year 3. Yellow shaded areas relate to freshwater systems in which interventions must begin within Year 3. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.4 Year 4

Figure 17: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 4 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to freshwater systems that environmental authorisation must be applied for within Year 4. Yellow shaded areas relate to freshwater systems in which interventions must begin within Year 4. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.5 Year 5

Figure 18: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 5 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to freshwater systems that environmental authorisation must be applied for within Year 5. Yellow shaded areas relate to freshwater systems in which interventions must begin within Year 5. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.6 Year 6

Figure 19: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 6 of Implementation Plan. Red shaded areas relate to freshwater systems that environmental authorisation must be applied for within Year 6. Yellow shaded areas relate to freshwater systems in which interventions must begin within Year 6. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.7 Year 7

Figure 20: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 7 of Implementation Plan. Yellow shaded areas relate to freshwater systems in which interventions must begin within Year 7. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.8 Year 8

Figure 21: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 8 of Implementation Plan. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.9 Year 9

Figure 22: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 9 of Implementation Plan. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.3.10 Year 10

Figure 23: Freshwater Rehabilitation proposed for Year 10 of Implementation Plan. Black shaded areas relate to areas where only monitoring remains.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.4 Final BOMP Delineation

Figure 24: Terrestrial and Freshwater Rehabilitation Goals within the Conservation Area

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3 GENERAL METHODOLOGIES 3.1 Invasive Alien Plant Control Methodologies

3.1.1 General Legal Requirements National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) (Act no. 10 of 2004) In terms of the Biodiversity Act, the developer has a responsibility to: - Ensure the conservation of endangered ecosystems and restriction of activities according to the categorisation of the area (not just by listed activity as specified in the EIA regulations). - Promote the application of appropriate environmental management tools in order to ensure integrated environmental management of activities thereby ensuring that all development within the area are in line with ecological sustainable development and protection of biodiversity. - Limit further loss of biodiversity and conserve endangered ecosystems. - Invasive Alien Plant Species Regulations (2014) within NEM:BA (Act no. 10 of 2004) o Category 1a (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species which must be COMBATTED OR ERADICATED) o Category 1b (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species which must be CONTROLLED) o Category 2 (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species which require a PERMIT) o Category 3 (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species are subject to EXEMPTIONS in terms of section 71(3) and prohibitions in terms of Section 71A of Act, as specified in the Notice)

3.1.2 Resources Required - Pest Control Operator (PCO) (Annexure 9.1.1)

3.1.3 Methodology The selection of appropriate methods of application will depend on: - Species to be treated; - Size of target plants; - Density of stand; - Accessibility of terrain; - Environmental safety; and The herbicides/products highlighted in Appendix 1G will be used for the duration of the tender. All these products are registered.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

The differing vegetation units with their associated unique species diversities and topographic conditions found within the conservation area means that specific instruction is needed for each vegetation unit. This is to prevent any potential damage to indigenous and potentially rare/endangered plant species.

3.1.3.1 Cane Removal Areas & Fallow Fields - If sugarcane areas have not been cleared, only IAPS between the sugar cane will be controlled and/or cleared through foliar spray and/or hand-pulling; - After the sugarcane has been burnt and removed from an area, a thorough clearing must take place through the entire vegetation unit; and - Subsequent to the initial sugarcane clearing (and in all fallow field areas), where secondary grassland is growing, the regular IAPS control plan must take place with particular focus on sugarcane re-growth.

3.1.3.2 Secondary Scrub Areas - Secondary scrub clearing will adhere to the IAPS clearing set in Section 4.1

3.1.3.3 Albizia woodland area - Albizia woodland areas hold many sensitive species - Additional care must be taken when clearing is done in these areas - All shrubs and saplings must be hand pulled - Herbicides may only be used for larger trees if required

3.1.3.4 Riparian areas - Riparian areas are more sensitive than other vegetation units; - Hand pulling must be done where possible to reduce the potential impact of herbicides on the watercourses; - Larger plants and trees must be frilled with a non-drip herbicide used (e.g. Kaput Gel); - Non-selective herbicides and fuels must not be utilised within riparian areas; - Paths, work areas and driven routes must be kept to a minimum to prevent soil disturbance; - Only existing gravel roads must be utilised to transport labour and equipment; - No mixing or filling of herbicide tanks must take place within 32 m of the riparian areas; - Any spillage of herbicides must be reported and pre-determined spillage protocols used to effectively remove the harmful chemicals and reduce the risk of impact on the surrounding environment; and - All IAPS clearing within riparian areas must begin upstream and proceed downstream to prevent the seed and species dispersal after clearing.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3.1.3.5 Wetland areas In addition to the initial clearing outlined in Section 4.1, which will also take place within the wetland habitats, follow-up clearing activities are required to eradicate emerging seedlings or coppicing stumps. The implementation of follow-up operations is essential in order to reach maintenance levels in terms of controlling IAPS within the wetland systems.

Invasive alien plants would be maintained at low levels (< 5 % cover) within the rehabilitated portion of the system and its associated buffers/catchments. All IAPS should be removed from the site, both from within the wetlands as well as the catchment areas, as part of the general management of the area. General guidelines are provided below: - Where possible, plants will be pulled out by hand or suitable mechanical means as this is the preferred method within freshwater ecosystems. - Larger (taller than 1.2 m) plants will be cut off at ground level and the stump treated with a suitable selective herbicide. - Where possible the use of herbicide in the freshwater ecosystems will be avoided but re-growth would need to be sprayed. A selective herbicide that does not kill grass but is effective on IAP shrub/tree species should be used as it has less residual than alternate herbicides. - Following IAPS clearing operations, bare and disturbed areas are to be planted with a local indigenous grass seed mixture (See Appendix 1A). - It is recommended that follow-up operations be carried out, to assist in reducing alien invasive plant densities to maintenance levels. - The maintenance of the IAPS must be carried out indefinitely, ensuring the functionality and integrity of the systems are maintained at a desired level.

3.1.3.6 Scarp forest - Scarp forest is a sensitive area in which IAPS control must take place - A horticulturist must be present throughout the clearing of these areas - Small teams (maximum of 3) of closely supervised workers are to be used - Handpulling is to be implemented on all smaller vegetation - Frilling is only to be undertaken on larger vegetation and trees - After application, the dead trees are to be left unless they pose a health and safety risk

3.1.3.7 Intensive invasivealien plant control & grassing areas - Intensive invasive alien control and grassing areas clearing will adhere to the IAPS clearing set in Section 4.1

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3.1.3.8 Invasive alien plant management only areas - Invasive alien plant management only areas clearing will adhere to theIAPS clearing set in Section 4.1

3.2 Invasive Alien Plant Control Monitoring

3.2.1 General Legal Requirements National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) (Actn o. 10 of 2004) In terms of the Biodiversity Act, the developer has a responsibility to: - The conservation of endangered ecosystems and restriction of activities according to the categorisation of the area (not just by listed activity as specified in the EIA regulations). - Promote the application of appropriate environmental management tools in order to ensure integrated environmental management of activities thereby ensuring that all development within the area are in line with ecological sustainable development and protection of biodiversity. - Limit further loss of biodiversity and conserve endangered ecosystems. - Invasive Alien Plant Species Regulations (2014) within NEM:BA (Act no. 10 of 2004) o Category 1a (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species which must be COMBATTED OR ERADICATED) o Category 1b (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species which must be CONTROLLED) o Category 2 (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species which require a PERMIT) o Category 3 (These species are listed as such by notice in terms of Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act as species are subject to EXEMPTIONS in terms of Section 71(3) and prohibitions in terms of Section 71A of Act, as specified in the Notice)

3.2.2 Resources Required - Ecologist for IAPS Control Monitoring (Annexure 9.1.2)

3.2.3 Methodology A monthly IAPS clearing audit assessment will be done on all areas within the conservation area - The entire area to be cleared must be mapped on GIS and divided into quadrants and initial clearing will be measure by quadrants cleared. - A site visit must be done before work begins o Photos showing areas to be cleared must be taken and GPS coordinates recorded for comparative purposes - After initial and two (2) month follow up clearance, a visual inspection of the areas will be conducted by the appointed ecologist (Annexure 9.1.2) 36

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o A report on overall effectiveness will be compiled along with maps of cleared areas o Other concerns, problems plants, technique updates and contractor clarifications will be included in the report o Special attention will be made to monitor the dumping sites of any material that is cute, especially near riparian and wetland areas. - Areas where initial and the 6 month maintenance clearing has occurred, transects will be done to monitor maintenance. o This methodology is preferred to the quadrant methodology because of the significant area to be covered and also will also will allow target species (i.e. IAPS to be clearly identified and well represented). o Location and length of transects will be determined after the preliminary site visits. o Only IAPS will be sampled which allows for more efficient use of time. o Transects do not work well in small areas but are very effective for large scale monitoring of target species and therefore this methodology is preferred. o Transects will be strategically located (i.e not randomly) based on an initial visual survey of an area. o For maintenance purposes, IAPS that re-emerge will be identified and represented per species and as a group (IAPS) in the transect results. o The transect line will be place and total number of plants recorded along the line will be measured then IAPS identified will be represented as a percentage of the total. • Each IAPS must also be represented as a percentage of total so that a more targeted approach may be adopted if necessary. o Methodology may be changed if the results are not providing the level of detail required to make informed recommendations by the ecologist. - Both removal and maintenance will be represented in the monthly reports. - The monthly reports will also report on any unsuitable species that are emerging and require removal and report on progress made versus the programme of implementation. - Specialist ecological inputs will be made by myself every three (3) months in order to monitor targets and review the methodology being used by the contractors and provide recommendations to improve effectiveness of the removal and maintenance programme.

3.3 Terrestrial Rehabilitation Methodologies

3.3.1 General Legal Requirements National Legalisation: National Forests Act (NFA) (Act no. 84 of 1998) The Minister may declare a tree, group of trees, woodland or a species of trees as protected. The prohibitions provide that;

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

“No person may cut, damage, disturb, destroy or remove any protected tree, or collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree, except under a licence granted by the Minister.”

Any disturbance, removal, pruning or transplanting of these species would require a licence from the administrators of the NFA, who are an extension of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).

Provincial Legalisation: Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (of 1974). In terms of the Ordinance, a permit must be obtained from EKZN to cut, damage, disturb, destroy or remove any protected tree, or collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner acquire or dispose remove or destroy any plants listed in the Ordinance under: - Schedule twelve (12) species - Threatened or protected species (ToPS) regulations

Any activity that affects a species in the above list will require a permit from EKZN.

Permits for both national and provincial legislation is examined in the Section 7.1

3.3.2 Resources Required - An Ecosystem Rehabilitation Specialist is required for the terrestrial rehabilitation activities (Annexure 9.1.3)

The aim of this rehabilitation implementation plan in terms of the terrestrial rehabilitation is, as per SER 2015, to:

“…[bring] back indigenous vegetation cover to [the] site, thereby improving ecosystem function and repairing ecosystem processes, services, and productivity, but it does not mean to restore the ecosystem to its pre-existing condition (EKZNW, 2010).”

In the case of the King Shaka International Airport Phase 1 Rehabilitation & Restoration Implementation Plan, the main goal of the sugarcane and fallow fields rehabilitation will be to return those areas to ecosystems representative of KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Grassland which is described by Scott-Shaw and Escott (2011) as:

“Highly dissected undulating coastal plains which presumably used to be covered to a great extent with various types of subtropical coastal forest. Some primary grassland dominated by Themeda triandra still occurs in hilly, high-rainfall areas where pressure from natural fire and grazing regimes prevailed. At present the KwaZulu–Natal Coastal Belt is affected by an intricate mosaic of very extensive sugarcane

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

fields, timber plantations and coastal holiday resorts, with interspersed secondary Aristida grasslands, thickets and patches of coastal thornveld.”

3.3.3 Methodologies

3.3.3.1 Cane Removal Areas & Fallow Fields Phase 1: Initial removal (Year 1) - As per ACSA, DTPC and LMJV’s agreement with their current tenants, notification must be provided before April that lease agreement will not be renewed, o The current tenants will be granted a year in which to complete their activities, clear the lands of agricultural material, and prepare the fields for fallowing and rehabilitation, - Active fire management will be required as part of the rehabilitation process (Year 2 – 5): o The site must be burnt twice in the first five years; • The first burning must commence at the end of the second year of fallowing; • The second burning must commence after the fifth year of fallowing; • All burning must be done during the spring rains2; • Mid-August – Mid-September; • The appointed ecologist (Annexure 9.1.4) and ACSA fire management team must be informed prior to any burning

2 Fire regime burnings after the initial implementation must incorporate variations in seasonality and time frames to aid in increasing biodiversity within grassland areas (See Section 6: Risk Assessment Matric) 39

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

• See Appendix 1E and Appendix 1F for approved collection sites. o Forb and geophyte collection from offsite; • Continuous; • See Appendix 1B for approved species; • See Appendix 1E and Appendix 1F for approved collection sites; - The appointed ecologist must be present to ensure proper care during collection and transportation, see Annexure 9.1.4 - If plant storage of offsite plants is required, the following must be adhered to (Continuous): o Grown plants (grasses, woody vegetation, forbs and geophytes) to be stored; • At one of the approved local indigenous nurseries3; • See Appendix 1F for list of approved nurseries.

Phase 3: Revegetation - Areas where bare soil is present: o Plugs are to be used, if available; o If not, hydroseeding is to be done; o Seeding to be done between June and August; o See Appendix B for approved species. - Forb and geophyte planting: o Hand planting; o October – January; o 4 plugs / m2 in 100 m2 area; o See Appendix B for approved species. - The appointed ecologist must be consulted for all species selections and translocation work, see Annexure 9.1.4

3.3.3.2 Secondary Scrub Areas Phase 1: Initial preparation (Year 1 – 2) - Active fire management is required (Year 1 – 2): o A fire break of 5 m must be burnt once a year for the first two years around the ecotone4 of secondary scrub area; • Burning must be done during the spring rains; • Mid-August – Mid-September;

3 DTPC’s nursery facilities must be contact to enquire about current capacity 4 Ecotone: A region between two ecological communities, or biomes (e.g. between forest and grassland). 40

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

• The appointed ecologist (Annexure 9.1.4) and ACSA fire management team must be informed prior to any burning

Phase 2: Bio-resource Management (Continuous) - On site collection: o Woody vegetation species collection from Dube Nursery/onsite; • See Appendix 1C for approved species. • Species dependent upon availability. - Offsite collection: o Woody vegetation collection from offsite; • Annually; • June – July; • See Appendix 1C for approved species; • See Appendix 1E and Appendix 1F for approved collection sites. - The appointed ecologist must be present to ensure proper care during collection and transportation, see Annexure 9.1.4 - If plant storage of offsite plants is required, the following must be adhered to (Continuous): o Grown plants (grasses, woody vegetation, forbs and geophytes) to be stored; • At Dube if space is available; • At one of the approved local indigenous nurseries; • See Appendix 1F for list of approved nurseries.

Phase 3: Revegetation - Woody vegetation introduction: o 1 woody species / 100 m2; o No planting must be done outside the secondary scrub boundary; o Planting period must be between September and October; o See Appendix 1C for approved species; • At least ten (10) different species which are listed under Appendix 1C must be planted within the vegetation unit. • No species can comprise more than 15 % of all species planted - The appointed ecologist must be present to ensure proper care during collection and transportation, see Annexure 9.1.4

3.3.3.3 Intensive invasive Alien/C. monilifera Control andGrassing Areas Phase 1: Initial removal (Year 1 – 2) - Active fire management is required (Year 1 – 2): 41

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o The site must be burnt once a year for the first two years; • Burning must be done during the spring rains; • Mid-August – Mid-September; • The appointed ecologist (Annexure 9.1.4) and ACSA fire management team must be informed prior to any burning. - Invasive Alien plant management o The contractor must coordinate closely with the IAPS Control contractor to ensure rehabilitation begins immediately post-clearing; o C. monilifera maintenance must allow portions to remain each year for herbivores; o See Section 4.5

Phase 2: Bio-resource Management (Continuous) - Onsite collection: o Grass seed collection from test/seeding plots once a year prior to burning; • Annually; • June – Mid-August (prior to burning); • Consultation with Dube Nursery regarding seeding period; • See Appendix 1A for approved species. o Forb and geophyte collection from onsite; • Annually; • June – July; • See Appendix 1B for approved species. - Offsite collection: o Grass seed collection from offsite; • Continuous; • See Appendix 1A for approved species; • See Appendix 1E and Appendix 1F for approved collection sites. o Forb and geophyte collection from offsite; • Continuous; • See Appendix 1B for approved species; • See Appendix 1E and Appendix 1F for approved collection sites; - The appointed ecologist must be present to ensure proper care during collection and transportation, see Section 4.2. - If plant storage of offsite plants is required, the following must be adhered to (Continuous): o Seeds to be stored in an indigenous nursery facility5;

5 DTPC nursery to be consulted in this regard. 42

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

• Grown plants (grasses, woody vegetation, forbs and geophytes) to be stored; • At one of the approved local indigenous nurseries; • See Appendix 1F for list of approved nurseries.

Phase 3: Revegetation - Areas where bare soil is present: o Plugs are to be used, if available; o If not, hydro-seeding is to be done; o Seeding to be done between June and August; o See Appendix B for approved species. - Forb and geophyte planting: o Hand planting; o October – January; o 4 plugs / m2 in 100 m2 area; o See Appendix B for approved species. - The appointed ecologist must be present to ensure proper care during collection and transportation, see Annexure 9.1.4

3.3.3.4 Seed Collection - Collection of wild indigenous seeds is a dynamic process as species availability is unpredictable. Coupled with this unpredictability is the fact that different species will have different seeding periods, will require different methodologies of collection and storage, and may be required in different numbers. - The methods below outline the general methodology to be followed during the seed collection period however, these are to be continuous reviewed for species compatibility and success rates: o Seed collection onsite is preferred over offsite or nursery collection: • Onsite seeds will be naturally adapted to the location’s environment and conditions; • It will be more financially efficient for the contractor and ultimately the client; • After seeding / sample plots are implemented, a reliable supply for specific species will be available. o Only preferred species from Appendix B must be collected for the rehabilitation implementation. o If species are not available for collection on site or are not present in a suitable quantity for the implementation needs, offsite or nursery stock can be considered after notification of the client is made. • No sites further than 50 km from the conservation area (see Appendix 1E or Appendix 1F) can be considered o Seed collection must be limited to the seeding periods of the species selected

Phase 1:

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o All competent authorities (EKZN, DAFF, EPCPD and land owners) must be informed and any permits required must be obtained before seed collection begins • This is to be repeated every time a new site, either on- or offsite, is considered o Dominant species in collection sites is to tabulated and compared to the preferred species within Appendix B, from this species can be selected for the sample plots

Phase 2: o The contractor must begin seed collection during the species seeding period • If seed quantities are insufficient for the sample plots, offsite areas and indigenous nurseries can be considered o During the seed collection process: • Collection sites’ locations must be recorded, • The seeds collected must be labelled as follows: • Scientific name • Date collected and processed • Mature or not • Seed processing encompasses the activities done after seed collection has occurred. It is very species specific but most methodologies require the following activities: • Drying • Cleaning • Fungicide and pesticide treatment • If storage of collected seeds is required for more than a week, these must be kept in refrigeration units to reduce dormancy periods. • Any shorter storage timeframes are manageable if the seed is stored in cool, dark and well ventilated areas.

3.4 Terrestrial Rehabilitation and/or Restoration Monitoring

3.4.1 General Legal Requirements National Legalisation: National Forests Act (NFA) (Act no. 84 of 1998) The Minister may declare a tree, group of trees, woodland or a species of trees as protected. The prohibitions provide that;

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Any activity that affects a species in the above list will require a permit from EKZN.

Permits for both national and provincial legislation is examined in the Section 7.1

3.4.2 Resources Required - An Ecologist is required for the terrestrial rehabilitation monitoring (Annexure 9.1.4)

3.4.3 Methodology - A qualified ecologist is to be appointed to; o Review methodologies from the rehabilitation contractor regarding seed collection, transportation, storage and planting of all vegetation within the freshwater systems, o Monitor the collection, transportation, storage and planting of all grass seeds both onsite and offsite, o Monitor the collection, translocation, cutting/trimming, transporting, storage and planting of geophytes and forbs both onsite and offsite, o Input into the active fire management of the sugarcane removal and fallow field areas, o Monitor the collection, translocation, cutting/trimming, transporting, storage and planting of woody vegetation both onsite and offsite, o Monitor all hydroseeding and / or plug planting within the freshwater systems, o Assess site selections for the 8 x 0.25 ha test / seeding grass plots, o Assess site selection for the 2 x 100 m2 test / seeding geophyte and forb plots, o Highlight poor performance of particular species, vegetation units and / or areas, and o Recommend remedial actions or strategies to address the poor performance issues. - The appointed ecologist is to liaise with the rehabilitation project team regarding the plan of activities and discuss a detailed scope of work regarding the activities which are to be undertaken. - Once the detailed scope of work is presented to the appointed ecologist, they will then prepare an audit template and risk assessment regarding the translocation of the species in question. 45

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- The audit template and risk assessment will be presented to all supporting staff, contractors and engineers as a part of an onsite training induction. This induction will outline all environmental risks which are associated with the specific activities that are related to the translocation, cutting/trimming or transportation of plants. A register will be made available to record a list and acknowledgement of all attendees. - The appointed ecologist will notify all role-players and departments of the commencement of activities relevant to his/her scope of work. - Requirements for an onsite file, which will consist of: o The implementation plan; o Maps of the portion and vegetation types being worked in; and o All permits required for the translocation of species. - The appointed ecologist is to commence with monitoring activities. During the monitoring, all translocations on site will be recorded, problems identified and transgressions as well as offer expert advice on techniques and methodologies to improve success rates of the vegetation translocation. - It is recommended that a photographic record be kept, which should include: o Aerial photographs of the areas from which the plants were removed, as well as where they relocate the plant, o Panoramic and/or site photographs (fixed point photography), and o Vegetation cover assessments using Google Earth (or equivalent) imagery. • Percentage cover is estimated within each rehabilitated vegetation unit by delineating changes in vegetation type, density and colour. • These delineations are then verified infield to ensure that the boundaries and species present are correct and desirable respectively. • The appointed ecologist is to compile a Monthly Translocation Audit Report. The Audit Report will record all activities on site, problems identified and transgressions as well as the expert advice on techniques and methodologies to improve success rates of vegetation translocation and establishment.

3.5 Wetland Rehabilitation and/or Restoration Methodologies

3.5.1 Resources Required The following service providers will be required to undertake the general wetland rehabilitation interventions, as well as the specific interventions outlined under Section 4.5. Please refer to Annexures for the detailed Terms of Reference relevant to each service provider. - A suitably qualified Wetland Ecologist, whom will be responsible for undertaking WET-Health and WET- EcoService assessments before implementation, every three (3) years or in response to an event that may result in damage to the wetland systems (Annexure 9.1.7);

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- A suitably qualified Civil Engineer (or equivalent), whom will be responsible for assessing all structural interventions prior to, and during, the implementation phase, and if need be alter the structure design dimensions to suit the current on-site conditions/dimensions (Annexure 9.1.6); - Environmental Control Officer (ECO) (or equivalent), whom will be responsible for overseeing the entire site in terms of environmental compliance and monitor/document the progress (Annexure 9.1.8); and - A construction company, whom will implement all the proposed rehabilitation interventions on site, according to the specifications outlined within this section of the report (Annexure 9.1.9).

The aim of this rehabilitation implementation plan is to ensure that the proposed wetland rehabilitation and/or restoration activities, which have been sourced from previous studies, are implemented and subsequently monitored and evaluated correctly through sustainable practices and legally compliant procedures. Resultantly, achieving the calculated offset requirements, both within the RoD and according to the best-practice hectare equivalent (GroundTruth, 2015 & 2017).

The primary objective of the wetland rehabilitation implementation plan is to consolidate all previous rehabilitation strategies/plans, which have been developed for the wetlands that have been priorities for rehabilitation within the DTPC final conservation area, into one document for easy use by the client and responsible persons. Particular focus will be put on the following: - Present specific rehabilitation and/or restoration activities developed for each HGM Unit, prioritized for rehabilitation and/or restoration purposes within the final conservation portions, and the resources required to implement each activity (i.e. Bill of Quantity (BoQ)); - Present specific terms of reference for implementing the rehabilitation and/or restoration activities proposed for each of the prioritised HGM Units; - Present specific dimensions and designs of the proposed structural interventions relevant to certain HGM Units; - Present specific timeframes for each phase of wetland rehabilitation, as well as stipulate the best time (i.e. season) in which to implement the proposed activities; and - Provide monitoring, evaluation and management requirements in accordance with Cowden and Kotze (2009), which address the legal obligations relevant to the specific rehabilitation project.

3.5.2 Methodology

3.5.2.1 Primary Impacts Undermining Wetland Integrity and Functionality The wetland systems which were prioritised for rehabilitation and/or restoration purposes were recorded to have undergone significant alterations to their hydrological and geomorphological characteristics and vegetation communities, as a result of current and historical land-use practices within the relevant catchment areas. The following impacts were observed to be having the largest influence on the overall health and functionality of the wetland systems (WCS, 2010);

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- Complete removal of indigenous wetland and riparian vegetation as a result of substantial sugarcane cultivation within the relevant catchment areas; - Increased surface runoff at the expense of infiltration and subsurface seepage brought about by the removal of vegetation and increased hardened surface (e.g. airport and associated infrastructure); - Temporal deterioration in water quality due to the periodic input of potentially harmful pollutants, pathogens and nutrients into the freshwater systems; - Increased point-source storm water discharge into the freshwater systems from pipes, culverts and drains, consequent channel erosion and sedimentation of downstream systems has occurred; and - The excavation of herringbone and ridge-and-furrow drainage systems to facilitate the drainage of the wetland systems, as well as the infilling of earthen material in freshwater systems for road creation.

3.5.3 Broad Rehabilitation Strategies In many instances, relatively low-cost and simple rehabilitation activities, such as removal of drainage systems and IAPS control, can be implemented to rehabilitate the functionality and integrity of wetland systems (WCS, 2010). However, in systems where raising the water table, deactivate head-cut erosion, promoting diffuse-flow and/or setting new channel base-levels may result in the reinstatement of a substantial amount of wetland functionality and integrity more permanent structural interventions are required. The following provides an overview of the broad intervention types that are proposed (GroundTruth, 2015): - Earthworks will be implemented to reshape the wetland systems, particularly in areas riddled with ridge-and- furrow and herring-bone drains, to the near natural ground-level with slight undulating terrain to facilitate the development of a variety of soil wetness zones and the establishment of associated hygrophilous grasses, sedges and rushes; - The authorised (still to be provided) deactivation of impoundments (e.g. gravel roads) within certain wetland systems and their associated buffer zones, resultantly reducing variable hydrological flows into, through and out of the systems; - Construction of appropriate storm water drainage systems to encourage flow discharge to be spread across entire wetland systems; - Construction of site-specific structural interventions (e.g. cut-off walls) to promote diffuse-flow across the wetland systems, specifically within unchannelled valley-bottom wetland systems; - Construction of gabion or concrete weirs will promote water retention within, and diversion berms will assist in directly the flow of water through and out of, the wetland systems; - Flow of water into downstream systems will be guided by concrete/gabion drop-inlet structures to reduce the risk of channel scouring and erosion; - Revegetation of areas disturbed during the rehabilitation process with a mixture of hygrophilous grasses and terrestrial vegetation species will encourage recovery to follow a pattern of succession; and - Sediment fencing and the appropriate biodegradable erosion control blankets (e.g. Bio-jute) will be implemented in disturbed areas to reduce the risk of soil erosion. 48

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

The following section provides the standardized methodology that should be utilised within every HGM unit in which the relevant rehabilitation intervention measures have been proposed. The specific rehabilitation measures per HGM unit are presented within Section 4.5.

3.5.3.1 Search, Rescue and Relocation Plan Before any rehabilitation activities commence within wetland and riparian areas, a preliminary search, rescue and relocation plan is to be developed for sensitive fauna species within the construction area. This plan is to be implemented in accordance with the project programme to ensure that these species are rescued prior to potential impact occurrence. EKZN is to be consulted to ensure that the plan incorporates all the authorities’ requirements. For fauna and flora species, the following factors need to be considered (amongst others) as part of this plan: 1. Detailed plan of action (including timeframes, methodology and costs); 2. Site investigations; 3. Consultation with authorities and stakeholders; 4. Marking of species to be relocated; 5. Obtaining of permits; 6. Identification of suitable habitats within which to relocate to; and 7. Monitoring (including targets and indicators to measure success).

3.5.3.2 Earthworks Below are descriptions of the standardized methodologies that should be utilised by the relevant contractors to conduct the varying types of earthworks within the wetland habitats that have been identified for rehabilitation purposes. Each sub-heading is followed by general construction notes that are associated with the relevant earthworks. It must be noted that the erection of sediment fences and/or placement of anti-erosion materials along the slope is a prerequisite within newly worked areas (GroundTruth, 2015) (Figure 25). This will provide support to the exposed soil in the disturbed areas, and thus prevent the loss of valuable topsoil and hydrophilic soils within the wetlands, as well as reduce the risk of erosion and consequent sedimentation of downstream systems.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

A B

Figure 25: a) Image illustrating anti-erosion jute materials implemented on a newly worked sloped area and b) a silt/sediment fence.

Removal of ridge-and-furrow and herringbone drain networks The geomorphology and resultant hydrological regime of the majority of the wetland habitats which have been identified for rehabilitation purposes have been impacted on by the implementation of ridge-and-furrow and/or herringbone drainage networks (Figure 26). These features can be deactivated by landscaping the impacted areas by means of removing the soil from the ridges and pushing it into the furrow, ideally utilising machinery (e.g. a TLB) to reduce the time the wetland soil is exposed, reinstating the local topography to near-natural levels and encouraging a more uniform distribution of water across the wetland. Once the area has been landscaped it should be worked with a cultivator6 to reduce compaction and structure the soil profile in preparation for revegetation (WCS, 2010). These areas should be landscaped in such a way as to create an undulating, uneven profile to encourage the development of different wetness zones (i.e. permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones) within the wetland, thus promoting the establishment of different hydrophilic vegetation species and enhancing the mosaic effect (WCS, 2010).

6 Cultivator: a mechanised implement used to break up the ground. 50

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 26: Map illustrating an example of a herringbone drain network within R27 of portion 10 (KSEMS, 2017).

Construction notes for the deactivation of ridge-and-furrow/herringbone drain networks - Prior to the backfilling of the drains, all vegetation is to be removed from the footprint. Suitable wetland vegetation should be dug up in sods, placed in an area adjacent to the work site (and demarcated), watered on a daily basis and replaced on completion of the backfilling process; - A suitably qualified engineer is to set out levels and boundaries onsite before the contractor commences with the reshaping earthworks; and - Levels are to be inspected by the engineer while the reshaping earthworks are being carried out at the following task completion milestones: 25 % of task, 75 % of tasks and 100 % completion of task.

Deactivation of excavation drains Several wetland systems were observed to contain either cut-off drains, which intercept surface/subsurface flow down a gradient, or centralised drains that channel the flow of water through and out of the systems (GroundTruth, 2015). Both drain types can be deactivated by means of; backfilling with either in situ, or imported, earthen material, earthen plugs, although this is dependent on the volume of surface water likely to flow through the systems, or alternatively the landscape can be reworked to reinstate a near-natural soil profile. An example of an excavated drain that is situated within R37, below Froggy Pond, is illustrated in Figure 27.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 27: Map illustrating a typical excavation drain used to channel the flow of water away from certain areas of land (KSEMS, 2017).

Construction notes for the backfilling of excavated drains - Prior to the backfilling of the drains, all vegetation is to be removed from the footprint. Suitable wetland vegetation should be dug up in sods, placed in a demarcated zone, watered on a daily basis and replaced on completion of the backfilling process; - Backfill material, which should ideally be in situ earthen material, to be compacted in 150 mm layers; and - Backfill material should be moistened to optimum moisture content to ensure optimum compaction.

Deactivation of unused road crossings All roads crossing through and/or adjacent to the wetland systems which have been identified for rehabilitation purposes should ideally be deactivated and rerouted to outside the outer boundary, and associated buffer zone, of the systems. However, several road networks which are situated within the final conservation area are currently utilised by the DTPC and ACSA staff, as well as the residence of the Mount Moreland community, and therefore require approval from the relevant party prior to the road crossings being removed and/or rerouted. In these circumstances, the road crossings should be redesigned to incorporate the appropriate drainage structures that allow for unhindered longitudinal flow through the systems, without raising the base-level or impeding the throughflow, of the wetlands. The following are general road drainage and stormwater control methods that could be implemented.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Construction notes for the complete removal of existing gravel roads - The road should be excavated to the natural ground level; - If there are drains present adjacent to the road crossing the earthen material excavated from the road should be used to backfill the associated drains. Any suitable wetland vegetation species identified within the drains should be dug up in sods prior to the backfilling occurring, placed in a demarcated area adjacent to the construction footprint and replanted on completion of the backfill process; and - Backfill material is to be compacted in 150 mm layers and should be moistened to optimum moisture content to ensure optimum compaction.

Pipe culverts Road crossings that have been removed and are planned to incorporate a series of pipe culverts along the section of the road, which traverses the wetland system, must consist of inlet and outlet structures to reduce the risk of erosion. The number, spacing, level and position of these pipe culverts is essential in ensuring that the throughflow of the system is not impeded, and thus the damming of water upstream, and starvation of flow downstream, of the structure does not occur. All culverts are to be laid such that the invert levels of the pipes are at the same level of the wetland (GroundTruth, 2015). Alternatively, appropriate inlet structures should be constructed to ensure that headcut erosion does not development on the inlet side of the culverts if a height difference exists between the levels of the wetland and the invert levels of the pipe (GroundTruth, 2015). A typical design drawing of a pipe culvert structure is presented in Appendix 2B and a simple layout drawing is illustrated on Figure 28.

Figure 28: Image illustrating a simple layout of a typical pipe culvert construction (APFC, 1999).

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Cross drains and mitre drains As a result of the hardened road surface reducing the friction acting on the surface runoff, the velocity with which the runoff flows through the environment is increased, consequently increasing the erosion potential that may lead to sedimentation of downstream systems. It is proposed that side drains be constructed on the sides of the gravel roads to divert the runoff from the cambered road surface into the mitre drains, which should be angled at approximately 30 ⁰ to the side drains, and thereafter into an adjacent vegetation buffer zone (Figure 29). The vegetation will reduce the velocity of the surface runoff and encourage infiltration into the soil. Alternatively, cross drains can be constructed at the following densities on gravel roads with varying gradients (Table 3);

Table 3: Table presenting the density at which road drains should be constructed along reconstructed gravel roads (APFC, 1999). Road Gradient Space between Drains 0 – 3 % None required 4 – 14 % 120 m 15 – 20 % 80 m

Figure 29: Image illustrating the general layout of a mitre and cross drain, respectively (APFC, 1999).

Diversion berms Subsequent to implementing the site-specific earthworks and/or construction of the structural interventions it may become evident that earthen berms may need to be constructed within the systems to retain the water within their boundaries. The final decision regarding whether the berms are required, and if so the position of their construction, is to be made by a suitably qualified engineer at the time of implementation. The berms may need to be constructed with impermeable cores that are to be founded on an impermeable layer to ensure that subsurface flows are retained within the wetland (GroundTruth, 2015). The impermeable core should ideally be in situ clay material, but if no clay material is available on site it may be substituted with a HDPE liner (GroundTruth, 2015).

3.5.3.3 Structural Interventions Site-specific structural interventions have been proposed for several of the wetland systems that have been

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 prioritised for rehabilitation purposes, and although these systems differ in structure the majority of intervention types that have been specified are utilised for the same purposes, and have similar construction methodologies. The following will describe the varying uses, and general construction notes pertaining to the construction, of the structural interventions. Permanent structures are thought to be more effective in achieving long-term rehabilitation solutions (GroundTruth, 2015). Typical design drawings of the below mentioned structures are presented within Appendix 2B.

Concrete weirs Weirs are free overflow structures that serve to move water from a region of high elevation to one of lower elevation over a short distance, and thus ensuring that the water moved remains within the gully, and upstream system, and lacks the energy to erode further (Russell, et. al., 2009). A concrete or gabion weir structure acts to raise the local base-level of the wetland system and in doing so encourage the flow through the wetland to be retained within the system and thus increasing the period, and extent, of saturation. Other uses of a weir structure may include; channel stabilization, managing points of re-entry of water into the channels and deactivation of headcut erosion and diverting channeled flow into the adjacent wetland habitat (GroundTruth, 2015). Below are general construction notes for the construction of a concrete weir, detailed design drawings and dimensions can be found in Appendix 2A and 2B, respectively.

Construction notes for the implementation of a concrete weir (GroundTruth, 2017) - The contractor must inform the suitably qualified engineer if the site conditions have changed (e.g. significant erosion has occurred subsequent to a heavy storm event) and that the intervention no longer adequately addresses the problem. The engineer must then reassess the site and determine whether the structure- specific design dimensions must be altered, or if a new structural intervention must be designed for the site; - The spillway of the structure should be built to the same level as the top of the headcut (gully); - If poor earthen material is observed at the foundation of the intervention it is to be removed and replaced with suitable material (e.g. G3 aggregate) prior to construction commencing; - The base of the excavation is to be well compacted in 150 mm layers; - Backfill material is to be compacted in 150 mm layers; and - Backfill material is to be moistened to optimum moisture content to ensure optimum compaction. - Suitably qualified engineer must be notified for a site inspection of the excavation prior to commencing with pouring the concrete; and - Exposed concrete surfaces should be kept moist for at least 7 days after construction is complete to allow for curing;

Gabion/Concrete cut-off walls Gabion/concrete cut-off walls serve to provide structural support to areas where backfill of earthen material has occurred (e.g. within an excavated drain). The structures essentially ‘lock’ the earthen fill material within the wetland

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 systems, and thus reduce the risk of scouring and resultant loss in integrity and functionality of the system and the sedimentation of downstream systems (GroundTruth, 2015). In certain instances, HDPE liners have been selected in conjunction with cut-off walls. The objective of combining the two is to deactivate potential sub-surface flows within the deactivated channels, and thus improve the hydrology of the systems (GroundTruth, 2017). Below are general construction notes for the construction of a concrete cut-off wall, detailed design dimensions and drawings can be found in Appendix 2A and 2B, respectively.

Construction notes for the implementation of a concrete cut-off wall (GroundTruth, 2017) - The contractor must inform the suitably qualified engineer if the site conditions have changed (e.g. significant erosion has occurred subsequent to a heavy storm event) and that the intervention no longer adequately addresses the problem. The engineer must then reassess the site and determine whether the structure- specific design dimensions must be altered, or if a new structural intervention must be designed for the site; - The foundation of the excavation is to be well compacted and any poor material removed and replaced with gravel or suitable material (e.g. G3) prior to construction commencing. - The concrete-soil interface at the foundation must be sloped slightly (generally at a slope of 1:0.2) to enable the soil to be compacted against it. If built on weathered rock surface, the desiccated skin must be chipped away and the rock painted with a 1:1 (by volume) cream of cement-sand before applying concrete. - The top of the concrete wall is to be built level with the natural ground level and must not interfere with the natural flow of surface flow; - Exposed concrete surfaces should be kept moist for at least seven (7) days after construction is complete to allow for curing; and - In the case of gabion cut-off walls, geofabric material is to be placed on all contact surfaces between the gabions and the soil (i.e. all sides of the gabion basket apart from the top).

Gabion wall and reno mattress Gabion structures have been specified in areas where more robust erosion control structures are needed. The reno mattress chutes are generally associated with soil stabilisation, as well as a means of dissipating the water flow velocity and/or managing falling water and thus reducing the risk of structures being undermined (e.g. construction of an apron) (Russell, et. al., 2009). Below are general construction notes for the construction of a gabion wall and reno mattress installation, detailed design dimensions and drawings can be found in Appendix 2A and 2B, respectively.

Construction notes for the implementation of a gabion intervention (GroundTruth, 2017) - The contractor is to measure the site prior to commencing with construction to ensure that the site conditions/dimensions have not changed and that the proposed intervention is still relevant to the local problem (e.g. channel instability); - The Contractor is to refer to the following codes as guidelines for construction:

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) 1200DA (earthworks: small works); and o SABS 1200DK (gabions and pitching). - The heel of the structure and foundations of the key walls are to be laid on solid/impermeable material to ensure that tunnelling under the structure through sandy soils does not occur (base preparations for gabions may be required); - Excavations must be inspected by a suitable qualified engineer prior to the placement of the gabion baskets; - Needle punched, non-woven Geo-fabric to be placed at all the interfaces between gabion and soil; - Gabions to be installed according to supplier’s specifications; - The gabions must be fastened together as specified by the manufacturers; - Gabion hand rock to be packed neatly to achieve a minimum density of 1800 kg.m3 with the rocks packed against the wire mesh all being larger than the mesh openings; and - Suitable qualified engineer is to inspect the gabion structure prior to commencing with backfilling.

Construction notes for the construction of a concrete filled Geocell intervention (GroundTruth, 2017) - The contractor is to inform the engineer if site conditions have changed and if the intervention does not adequate address the problem; - Vegetation and topsoil is to be removed from the footprint of the Geocell intervention and set aside in sequence prior to construction commencing; - The base of the excavation is to be well compacted at 150 mm layers and any poor material must be removed and replaced with gravel or suitable material (e.g. G3 aggregate) prior to construction; - Backfill material to be compacted in 150 mm layers to achieve a minimum compaction of 90 % MOD AASHTO; - Backfill material to be moistened to optimum moisture content to ensure optimum compaction; - Suitably qualified engineer must be notified for a site inspection of the excavation prior to commencing with pouring the concrete fill into the Geocells; - The Geocells and concrete fill are to be installed according to the supplier’s specifications; - The Geocells are to be laid on cut in situ material and not fill material; and - Exposed concrete surfaces should be kept moist for at least seven (7) days after construction to allow for curing.

Concrete drop inlet Concrete drop inlets have been proposed at numerous positions within the majority of the wetland systems that are prioritised to be rehabilitated either to control the entry of water into the main channel and/or the surrounding drainage networks during high flows and/or stabilise the system by holding the base level in place. Below are general construction notes for the construction of a concrete drop inlet, detailed design dimensions and drawings can be found in Appendix 2A and 2B, respectively.

Construction notes for the implementation of a concrete drop inlet (GroundTruth, 2017)

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- The contractor is to measure the site prior to commencing with construction to ensure that the site conditions/dimensions have not changed and that the intervention still adequately addresses the problem within the system; - The heel of the structure and foundations of the key walls are to be laid on solid/impermeable material to ensure that tunnelling under the structure through sandy soils does not occur; - The base of the excavation is to be compacted to ensure that the apron slab is well supported along its entire length. A suitably qualified engineer should inspect the foundation conditions prior to commencing with construction activities; - Excess soil material from the excavation should be placed at the ends of the key walls to form berms to divert water into the structure; - All backfill material should be moistened to optimum moisture and compacted in 150 mm layers to ensure that optimum compaction is achieved; - Shuttering should be left for at least 2 days before being stripped; - Exposed concrete surfaces should be kept moist for at least seven (7) days after construction is complete to allow for curing; and - Backfilling around the structure should not be carried out until seven (7) days after construction is complete and the curing process has ended.

3.5.3.4 Re-vegetation and planting within disturbed areas Following the IAPS clearing and earthwork activities within each individual wetland system it is presumed that a more natural hydrological regime will return, and thus encourage the indigenous hygrophilous grasses, sedge and reed species to colonise the rehabilitated area. In the interim it will be critical to establish an herbaceous community within the disturbed areas to exert a competitive influence, thereby inhibiting the sprouting of IAPS , and stabilising the soil profile encouraging the natural process of succession to take place. During this process of succession, the earthworks which should be constructed in such a way as to create an undulating landscape will become most evident, with a range of habitats being observed within the different wetness zones (i.e. temporary, seasonal and permanent wetness zones). The indigenous grass species listed under Appendix 1A are commercially available and should be planted using the following methodology (WCS, 2011): - Loosen soil in the top 50 mm and prepare 20 mm deep ridges spaced at approximately 150 mm on the contour (10 people with hoes should prepare 1 ha per day) (WCS, 2011); - Spread the grass species at the recommended rates; and - Cover the seed with about 5 – 10 mm of soil and compact lightly using the back of a spade or a boot.

To accelerate the process of recolonization selected sedge and bulb species should be transplanted into the rehabilitated wetlands subsequent to the hydrology of the systems being restored. These species should preferably be sourced from the surrounding disturbed wetlands, in intermittent patterns to prevent over-harvesting, prior to the rehabilitation implementation. The main goal in terms of habitat establishment within the wetlands prioritised for rehabilitation purposes should be a mixed sedge meadow dominated by short sedges and rushes and dense 58

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 stands of Cyperus latifolius, with intermittent aquatic ferns, Zantadeschia aetheopica and Kniffophia spp. Species such as Typha capensis and Phragmites australis are not recommended as they are an invasive indigenous species and will presumably recolonize the systems rapidly, out-competing the other wetland plant species.

3.5.4 Implementation Order The order in which the proposed rehabilitation interventions are implemented is essential, and must be strictly followed to avoid any cumulative impacts from occurring as a result of partial rehabilitation. Table 4 below presents a generic rehabilitation sequence, rough estimates of the time it may take, as well as the resources needed, to correctly undertake the proposed rehabilitation activities within all of the HGM Units. It must be noted that certain tasks can be done concurrently and the total time required to undertake each activity will depend on number and size of the teams contracted onsite, as well as weather constraints. Additionally, once the phased approach is started within an HGM Unit it must be continuously implemented until completed. This will reduce the risk of unnecessary degradation (e.g. erosion or proliferation of IAPS) occurring within the relevant systems. To further reduce the risk of degradation, as well as delays, all earthwork and structural interventions should be undertaken within the dry season (June to August).

Table 4: Presentation of a generic rehabilitation sequence that should be implemented within all HGM Units and

time frame estimates of each rehabilitation activity (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Phases Rehabilitation Activities Estimated Time Frames 0 Search, rescue and relocation 1 week prior and during activities Earthwork activities Fill in drains Remove berms, deactivate ridges and furrows 3 months’ worth of work onsite, using 1 machine Deactivate road network within the wetlands and buffer (Bull Dozer). 1 zones Reshape wetland habitat Placement of sediment fences and/or biojute 1 month: 1 team of 10 people. Reseeding 1 month: 1 team of 10 people. 2 Construction of concrete cut-off walls and placement of 1 month: 1 team of 10 people. HDPE liner if required 3 Construction of concrete drop inlet To implement within 1 year, 3 teams of 10 Construction of gabion/concrete weirs people. However, this will be dependent on Construction of reno mattresses/reno chutes weather. 4 Eradication of invasive alien vegetation and bank 5 months: 1 team of 10 people. stabilization and re-vegetation 5 Construction of road crossing, which is assumed to run in 1 month: 1 team of 10 people. conjunction with construction of the development site

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3.5.5 Management and maintenance

The management and maintenance of the wetlands would promote the functioning and integrity of the wetland habitat. Recommendations for the burning and grazing, within wetland habitat must be considered and planned by the Resident Ecologist after rehabitation measures are complete since wetlands rely on the removal of excess plant material at regular intervals to promote plant productivity and maintain habitat value for wetland dependent species (Kotze and Cowden 2009). The Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife’s Biodiversity Stewardship programme guideline documents (Kotze and Cowden 2009; Camp and McCulloch 2009) provide recommendations for burning and grazing, within wetland habitat. Generally, the removal of plant material is achieved using fire. Kotze and Cowden (2009) recommend the following approach to the regular defoliation of the wetland area, either by burning or brush- cutting in this instance: - The defoliation of the wetland areas would need to be integrated into the overall plan, including the adjacent buffer zones; - The interval for defoliation of the wetland areas should be every two (2) to three (3) years; - The wetland areas should be divided into two blocks, with each half being cleared alternately, leaving remnant habitat in the area for wetland dependent species; - The implementation of burns should: o Promote cool, patchy burns by burning when relative humidity is high and air temperatures are low; o Promote head fires (with the wind) rather than back burns (against the wind); and o Be delayed to the following year if the conditions are not favourable in terms of achieving the abovementioned criteria.

3.6 Wetland Rehabilitation and/or Restoration Monitoring

3.6.1 Resources Required The following service providers will be required to undertake the monitoring of the wetland rehabilitation interventions during, and subsequent to, the implementation phase of the proposed wetland rehabilitation project. Please refer to Annexures for the detailed Terms of Reference relevant to each service provider. - A Wetland Ecologist, whom will be responsible for undertaking WET-Health and WET-EcoService assessments before implementation, every three (3) years or in response to an event that may result in damage to the wetland systems (Annexure 9.1.7); - A Civil Engineer (or equivalent), whom will be responsible for assessing all structural interventions prior to, and during, the implementation phase, and if need be alter the structure design dimensions to suit the current on-site conditions/dimensions (Annexure 9.1.6); - Environmental Control Officer (ECO) (or equivalent), whom will be responsible for overseeing the entire site in terms of environmental compliance and monitor/document the progress (Annexure 9.1.8); and

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- An Ecologist (or equivalent), whom will be responsible for conducting the relevant vegetation monitoring (see Level 3 below) within the rehabilitated wetland systems.

3.6.2 Methodology

3.6.2.1 Wetland rehabilitation monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are two critical components of the wetland rehabilitation process (SER, 2004). These are two separate, strongly related activities that are considered essential to learning and documenting lessons learnt during the rehabilitation process in order to improve practice. Monitoring may be described as the systematic collection of data that is essential for the evaluation of the means and extent of the ecological response and can be used for the implementation of management requirements (Finlayson, 2003). Evaluation is the comparison of actual project outcomes against the agreed strategic plans, comparing what was set out to be achieved against what was actually achieved. The process of monitoring and evaluation is useful to: - Help one identify problems and the causes; - Suggest possible solutions to identified problems; - Raise questions about original assumptions and strategy; - Support learning as it forces one to reflect on where one is going and how one is getting there; - Provide one with information and insights; - Encourage one to act on the information and insight; and - Increase the likelihood that one will make a positive difference.

The evaluation of a project is reliant on an adaptive management approach being adopted. The inclusion of an adaptive management approach in the management and monitoring phases of the monitoring and evaluation plan is important to safeguard the success of a project. Since adaptive management aims to achieve a learning by doing approach it is important to: 1) Determine what may have caused the project to fail; and 2) To readdress suggested interventions and the project goals and outcomes.

The details of the parameters that require measurement in order to inform onsite monitoring are described by Cowden and Kotze (2009). These parameters are divided into three different levels which include: - Level 1 – the outputs and basic outcomes of the wetland rehabilitation in terms of physical interventions; - Level 2 – the rapid assessments of the rehabilitation outcomes using appropriate assessment tools; and - Level 3 – the comprehensive assessment of the wetland rehabilitation outcomes determined by the rehabilitation objectives. According to WET-RehabEvaluate (Cowden and Kotze 2009), the monitoring of the structural survival and integrity of the habitats should be undertaken at a 1 month, 2 month, 3 month, 6 month, 1 year, 2 year and 3 year intervals

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 following the completion of the construction activities. The frequency with which the monitoring activities are undertaken may vary depending on the indicators being measures, e.g. the monitoring of vegetation should be undertaken during the growing season of the vegetation and therefore, will not necessarily coincide with the aforementioned frequency.

Baseline data and monitoring regime According to best-practice, outlined in WET-RehabEvaluate (Cowden and Kotze 2009), baseline monitoring and the identification of reference sites should be undertaken as a means to provide comparative data for monitoring, indicating the changes occurring within the system attributed to the implementation of the rehabilitation. However, due to the altered nature of the systems within the site and predominantly within the broader landscape, reference sites are unlikely to be obtained, however baseline data can still be collected. Baseline data should be collected prior to the implementation of the rehabilitation plan. Following implementation, the monitoring regime should be done annually during the growing season. The following baseline data exists for the wetlands systems which have been prioritized for rehabilitation purposes within the final conservation area: - Structural intervention designs and dimensions, done by Trevor Pike and Ryan Domleo (Groundtruth, 2015 & 2017) ideally the designing engineer should sign-off on each structural intervention post-implementation; - WET-Health assessments done by WCS (2010) and GroundTruth (2015 & 2017), all results are presented within GroundTruth (2015 & 2017) (Macfarlane, et. al. 2007); - WET-Ecoservice assessments done by WCS (2010).

3.6.2.2 Level 1 Monitoring Level 1 monitoring generally focuses on the outputs and basic outcomes of wetland rehabilitation, which are generally limited to the implementation phase. The long-term monitoring of the wetland rehabilitation outputs is therefore focused on the assessment of the structural integrity of the interventions, with emphasis on identifying structural vulnerability. The monitoring of the interventions integrity and/or vulnerability needs to be undertaken by an environmental engineer. Additional requirements of the Level 1 monitoring process include monitoring visual changes of the rehabilitated wetlands.

Structural interventions The assessment of the structural integrity would be undertaken based on the specific criteria outlined and focus on the long-term stability of the interventions and the likelihood of achieving the stated objectives. This assessment would serve to identify weaknesses or strengths of the selected interventions within the wetland habitat. The monitoring intervals for the interventions should coincide with the above-mentioned intervals, and furthermore include event-based monitoring. Event-based monitoring is determined by the design level of the structures and the flood return periods. The monitoring of the structures following specific flood events ensures that any required maintenance activities can quickly be implemented. The maintenance of the structures is essential in ensuring the benefits supplied by the wetland are not compromised. As described in the wetland rehabilitation plan, the proposed interventions consist of: 62

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- Backfilling of drains, including the incorporation of soil stabilisation fences. This includes the entire reworking of certain areas where intensive drainage networks were identified; - Removal of earthen berms; - Gabion soil stabilisation structures; - Construction of concrete weirs and cut-off wall structures; - Construction of reno mattress chutes; and - Deactivation of the road network within the wetland systems and adjacent buffer area (where applicable).

Table 5: Criteria used for monitoring structural integrity of wetland rehabilitation interventions (Modified from Cowden and Kotze, 2009; GroundTruth, 2015) Gabion structures Concrete work - Dimensions according to specifications - Dimensions according to specifications - Authorised deviations from plan - Authorised deviations from plan - Correctly packed rock - Evidence of sliding, tilting, slumping or - Correctly sized rock overturning of the structure - Lacing bracing correctly implemented - Cracks evident within the structure - Rusting of the wires - Scouring downstream - Evidence of sliding, tilting, slumping or - Evidence of outflanking overturning of the structure - Concrete mixed to specifications - Undercutting due to poor founding - Undercutting due to poor founding - Erosion upstream - Adequate downstream shoulder walls, including - Scouring downstream cut-off walls - Evidence of outflanking - Tunneling upstream/around structure - Adequate downstream shoulder walls, including cut-off walls - Correct installation of materials to retain water Earthen structures: Chute: - Dimensions according to specifications - Dimensions according to specifications - Authorized deviations from plan - Authorized deviations from plan - Excessive setting of the soil (> 10 % of overall - Evidence of outflanking height) - Evidence of undercutting - Erosion of the bank - Evidence of movement of rock - Establishment of vegetation cover - Evidence of damage to the sidewalls - Scouring downstream - Evidence of scouring downstream - Evidence of outflanking - Debris around the energy dissipaters - Adequate compaction of soil - Sloped at planned angle - Protection of the entrance approach - Energy dissipaters present, stable and effective

Visual Changes Changes in the visual appearance of the ecosystems can be used to show changes in the systems’ characteristics. A photographic record, utilising a series of photographs, would enable interested parties to track broad-scale vegetation changes (Cowden and Kotze, 2009). In this instance, with the clearing IAPS and the promotion of wetland/riparian habitat, the use of a photographic record is considered to be a useful monitoring tool. It is recommended that the photographic record be derived from both: 63

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- Aerial photographs; and - Panoramic and/or site photographs (fixed point photography).

Aerial Photographs The eThekwini Municipality obtain high resolution aerial imagery on a regular basis, and this imagery should be used to illustrate the large-scale changes in the freshwater ecosystems following the implementation of the rehabilitation and on-going management. In this instance, aerial imagery is likely to illustrate the changes linked to the rehabilitation, which includes plugging of artificial drains, clearing of sugarcane and IAPS, and the promotion of wetland habitat. For example, refer to the aerial imagery of the foot of the R37 wetland (Figure 30), which illustrates the change in vegetation within the wetland between 2009 and 2017.

Figure 30: An example of the use of aerial photography to monitor the condition of the numerous rehabilitated

wetland habitats subsequent to the implementation of the proposed rehabilitation activities (KSEMS, 2017).

Fixed point photography/site photographs Panoramic photographs from an overview point in combination with fixed point photography (FPP) would provide useful indications of the changes at both a landscape and within-system level. These photographs would be taken pre- and post-implementation and should be collected in accordance with the guidelines outlined in WET- RehabEvaluate (Cowden and Kotze, 2009).

3.6.2.3 Level 2 Monitoring

The rapid assessment of the wetlands functionality and integrity would assist in illustrating any benefits/deficits associated with the rehabilitation activities. This would be undertaken for the current and post-rehabilitation scenarios, utilising the WET-EcoServices (Kotze et al. 2007) and WET-Health (Macfarlane et al. 2007) assessments techniques. The Level 2 WET-EcoServices and WET-Health results for the current scenario, included 64

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 in this report, would serve as the baseline data to which post-rehabilitation assessments will be compared. To ensure accuracy of the assessments undertaken, the practitioner should have an understanding of general wetland functioning and the conditions specific to the site itself, such as the origin of the wetland, how it would function in its natural state, and what factors are affecting its functioning and integrity.

The Level 2 functioning and integrity assessments should be undertaken for each of the rehabilitated wetlands every three years or in response to observed changes to the wetlands or subsequent to a major event that could have damaged the wetlands.

Assessment of the ecosystem services WET-EcoServices is used to assess the goods and services that individual wetlands provide, thereby aiding informed planning and decision making (Kotze, et. al., 2007). The tool provides guidelines for scoring the importance of a wetland in delivering each of 15 different ecosystem services (including flood attenuation, sediment trapping and provision of cultural services). Ecosystem service delivery must be assessed at Level 2, based on a field assessment of key descriptors (e.g. flow pattern through the wetland). The ecosystem services, which include the direct and indirect benefits supplied by the wetland to the surrounding environment and communities, are assessed by scoring various characteristics of the wetland and the surrounding catchment according to the following scale: - Low (0); - Moderately low (1); - Intermediate (2); - Moderately high (3); and - High (4).

The overall goal of assessing the post-rehabilitation state of the wetlands with the use of WET-EcoServices is to reveal the improvement or deterioration of the wetland at supplying ecosystem services. This will be determined by comparing the post-rehabilitation scores to the baseline assessment scores, which were calculated by, and are illustrated within, GroundTruth (2015 & 2017). This allows for more informed planning and decision making. Table below illustrates the fifteen ecosystem services which are assessed within WET-EcoServices.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 6: Ecosystems services that wetland habitats are capable of supplying (Kotze, et. el., 2007).

Assessment of ecosystem integrity The assessment of ecosystem integrity must be undertaken using the WET-Health assessment technique, which was developed for Southern African wetlands (Kotze, 2011; Kotze, et. al., 2012). WET-Health is a tool designed to assess the health or integrity of a wetland. Wetland health is defined as a measure of the deviation of wetland structure and function from the wetland’s natural reference condition. In the case of the KSIA proposed rehabilitation project it will be used to compare the integrity of the wetland systems before and after rehabilitation. This technique attempts to assess hydrological, geomorphological and vegetation health in three separate modules.

Hydrology is defined in this context as the distribution and movement of water through a wetland and its soils. This module focuses on changes in water inputs as a result of changes in catchment activities and characteristics that affect water supply and its timing, as well as on modifications within the wetland that alter the water distribution and retention patterns within the wetland. Geomorphology is defined in this context as the distribution and retention patterns of sediment within the wetland. This module focuses on evaluating current geomorphic health through the presence of indicators of excessive sediment inputs and/or losses for clastic (minerogenic) and organic sediment (peat).

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Vegetation is defined in this context as the vegetation structural and compositional state. This module evaluates changes in vegetation composition and structure as a consequence of current and historic onsite transformation and/or disturbance.

The overall approach is to quantify the impacts of human activity or clearly visible impacts on wetland health, within each module, and then derive the Present State Category for each module. The tool attempts to standardise the way that impacts are calculated and presented across each of the modules. This takes the form of assessing the spatial extent of impacts of individual activities and then separately assessing the intensity of the impact of each activity in the affected area by allocating it a weighted score from 0 - 10 (Macfarlane, et. al., 2009). Once the Present State Category for hydrology, vegetation and geomorphology are determined, the scores are integrated into a composite impact score, using the predetermined ratio of 3:2:2, respectively (Macfarlane, et. al., 2009), for the three modules. This composite impact score is used to derive a health score that then provides the basis for the calculation of hectare equivalents, which can be described as the health of a wetland expressed as an area. The hectare equivalents calculation is a means of deriving a common unit of “currency” to measure the losses and gains, and how the ecosystem integrity has changed in response to the various interventions, based on the WET- Health results for the three biophysical drivers.

3.6.2.4 Level 3 Monitoring

Level 3 monitoring involves an in-depth, comprehensive assessment of the wetland rehabilitation outcomes by measuring certain indicators at a finer resolution, greater frequency and over a longer period of time. Since this level of monitoring is more intense and specific to various aspects of a system, such as vegetation identification, it would typically require specialist input. According to WET-RehabEvaluate, this level of monitoring may be required where: - The wetland rehabilitation objectives require a finer level of monitoring; - The wetland has been prioritised to be of importance; - The potential benefits of a finer scale investigation are great; and - The wetland is of high importance.

In this instance, Level 3 monitoring would focus on the vegetation response to rehabilitation. The interpretations of the vegetation data should be based on the use of indices, to simplify the analyses and in an attempt to address the common questions surrounding the response of wetland ecosystems to rehabilitation efforts, namely: - To what extent has there been a shift from vegetation indicating terrestrial conditions to vegetation indicating hydric (wetland) conditions? - To what extent has there been a shift from vegetation strongly dominated by pioneer/ruderal species to vegetation dominated by native vegetation?

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

To a large extent, the rapid assessment techniques adopted for the Level 2 monitoring, namely WET-EcoServices and WET-Health, address these questions, but are based on a subjective appraisal by the assessor. However, for a Level 3 assessment a more detailed assessment is required to report on project progress or success. Two (2) indices, using the vegetation survey data, should be used to measure the wetlands’ response to the rehabilitation activities: - Wetland Index Value (WIV) (Wentworth and Johnston, 1986) in order to address the question of whether the vegetation had shifted to a more hydric state; and - Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) (Miller and Wardrop, 2006) in order to address the question of whether the vegetation had shifted away from domination by ruderal/pioneer species.

To determine the vegetation response to rehabilitation, the WIV and FQAI index values within each identified wetland should be obtained using a quadrat and transect method. The methodology and approach to these assessments have been adopted from Cowden et al (2013). Four transects should be placed along the length of each wetland and five quadrant samples should be taken along each transect. Baseline data should be collected prior to the implementation of the rehabilitation plan for the comparison of the current scenario to the post- rehabilitation scenario. Following the completion of the construction activities, vegetation surveys should be undertaken every year.

Wetland Index Value The vegetation survey data would be used to determine a Wetland Index Value (Wentworth and Johnston, 1986; Carter et al., 1988) to show rehabilitation success. In particular, the use of the WIV provides a useful means of addressing the query relating to whether the system has recovered to a point where there is functional wetland vegetation, based on a wetland indicator status. In this instance the wetland indicator status of the recorded vegetation would be determined based on the classes as defined by Van Ginkel et al. (2010), as follows: - Obligate; - Facultative positive; - Facultative; - Facultative negative; and - Non-wetland or terrestrial.

All plant species recorded during the vegetation surveys should be assigned to one of the five above-mentioned classes. Based on the approach defined by Carter et al. (1988) WIV calculations would be undertaken as follows. Each of the abovementioned indicator classes would be assigned an ecological index ranging from 1 (obligate) to 5 (non-wetland). The proportional abundance values recorded for each of these indicator classes at each plot would then be summed and entered into the following equation, which makes use of a weighted average, to calculate the WIV score for the plot:

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

WIV = (1 x PA:O / 100) + (2 x PA:FP / 100) + (3 x PA:F / 100) +( 4 x PA:FN / 100) + (5 x PA:NW / 100)

Where: WIV = Wetland Index Value PA:O = Sum of the proportional abundance of plants of the obligate indicator status recorded in the plot PA:FP = Sum of the proportional abundance of plants of the facultative positive indicator status recorded in the plot PA:F = Sum of the proportional abundance of plants of the facultative indicator status recorded in the plot PA:FN = Sum of the proportional abundance of plants of the facultative negative indicator status recorded in the plot PA:NW = Sum of the proportional abundance of plants of the non-wetland indicator status recorded in the plot.

Floristic Quality Assessment Index Similar to the approach adopted for WIV, the vegetation survey data would be used to determine a Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) as defined by Miller and Wardrop (2006). The FQAI provides an estimate of habitat quality and is a means of addressing the query relating to whether the system has recovered to a point closer to the benchmark/desired state based on the abundance of weedy, pioneer or IAPS. The recorded plant species are assigned a ‘coefficient of conservatism’, a subjective rating of the plant species’ preference for non-degraded natural communities, ranging from 0 to 10, with the higher values assigned to those species less tolerant of degradation (Miller and Wardrop 2006). The assigned coefficient of conservatism is based on professional opinion in accordance with the following classes adapted from Miller and Wardrop (2006): - Invasive alien plants (0) - Ruderal or weedy plants (1) - Occasionally ruderal or weedy plants (5) - Plant species intolerant of disturbance (10)

The recorded vegetation data at each plot would be entered into the following equation to calculate the FQAI score for the plot:

FQAI = (C / 10) x (vN / vS) x 100

Where: C = Mean coefficient of conservatism (as determined by dividing the sum per plot by the native species richness) N = Indigenous species richness S = Total species richness

To determine the WIV and FQAI, numerous transects and vegetation plots (as described above) should be done along the affected wetland systems. Should the system be relatively small/large in size the number of transects and sample plots may be amended to suit the specific circumstances.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3.7 Resident Ecologist

3.7.1 Resources Required - An ecologist (or equivalent) who has experience in vegetation, faunal and wetland vegetation assessments (Annexure 9.1.10).

3.7.2 Methodology The resident ecologist will be responsible for monitoring the overall performance of the rehabilitation implementation across the conservation area. Because of the scale of this rehabilitation as well as the number of national, provincial and municipal entities involved, regular annual monitoring is required and detailed reports which assess IAPS levels, terrestrial rehabilitation and wetland rehabilitation progress. These reports must include the following: - Monitoring site assessments: o These must always within summer months (November to February) - Fixed monitoring positions must be set up o These must be determined by the ecologist and their specialist teams during the first year of implementation; o Once determined, these must be adhered to every year in order to ensure consistency; o One fixed monitoring position is required in each vegetation type. - Monitoring is to be broken down into two (2) main categories: o Vegetation monitoring, which involves: • Sampling to be conducted in fixed 5 m2 quadrants; • All species identified within it and composition must be recorded; • Compare results to baseline as well as reference sites; • Review and analyse monthly IAPS clearing reports; • Data to be gathered includes: • Basal cover; • Indigenous species recruitment; • Species diversity; • Invasive alien plant species composition, measured in percentage of quadrant. o Faunal monitoring, which involves: • Faunal specialists (avifaunal, bat ecologist and herpetologist) conducting specialist studies for input into a separate chapter within the Biodiversity Monitoring Report; • A specific monitoring methodology is to be developed by each specialist to encompass their field; • Data to be gathered includes: • Species composition; • New species;

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

• Missing species; • Presence and analysis of rare and/or endangered species observed. - Report: o All aspects of floral and faunal diversity within the conservation area are to be quantified and discussed; • Analysis of species composition and diversity is required with comparisons to the conservation area’s baseline and reference site information. o Spatial and temporal trends are to be analysed; o Trends of concern such as increased alien invasive species or bush encroachment are to be highlighted and discussed; o Provide recommendation and/or remedial strategies to address concerns/issues.; and o This report will be used as a progress measure of rehabilitation.

4 SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 4.1 Invasive Alien Plant Control Methodologies 4.1.1 Year 1 Phase 1: Sub-area mapping in GIS & Strategic Planning - The IAPS clearing will be done on a vegetation unit basis according to the BOMP (SEF, 2015); - These sub-areas will enable: o effective supervision of clearing operations; o establish clear time-frames and targets; o effective monitoring of clearing operations for auditing and report purposes. o Baseline data photographs must be taken of the site prior to clearing and GPS coordinates recorded where the images were taken for monitoring purposes; and - Google Earth imagery must also be utilised to capture the condition of the site prior to clearing commencing.

Phase 2: Species lists compilation, extent of infestation, and prioritisation of sub-areas - A species list of all IAPS found within each sub-area must be compiled by the appointed ecologist (Annexure 9.1.2); o Rare, protected and endangered species must be noted, marked and GPS coordinates recorded to prevent accidental removal. - Density of infestation must be assessed and recorded as a percentage during the species list composition; - Sub-areas will be prioritised based on density of infestation, proximity to riparian areas, and topographic location (i.e. clearing form upslope to downslope areas).

Phase 3: Initial clearing - Review of efficacy of previous control and eradication measures;

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- Felling of mature woody trees: o Chainsaws must be used by certified operators with the appropriate safety gear; o Care must be taken where trees are located near to power-lines, rivers and/or roads; o All work must be carried out according to health and safety standards as indicated in the Health and Safety Plan. - Smaller trees and/or saplings will be treated using the cut stump method which involves the following: o Stems will be cut as low as possible (less than 50 cm); o Herbicides must be applied to the outer circumference of the stump leaving no gaps; o Cutting of the stump must be done with cane-knives and bosaws. - Felled trees will be cut to 1.5 m lengths and stacked in demarcated areas; - Seedlings will be foliar-sprayed with knapsack sprayers; o This will occur between October and April; o See Appendix G for list of approved herbicides and dosages; o Spraying must be restricted to plants that are waist-high (~1000mm), or lower, and the plant must have sufficient foliage to carry the applied herbicide to the root system. - Dye must be applied to any surface where herbicide has been applied; o This is to prevent any plants being left untreated; o Allow for effective monitoring of clearing activities; and o Reduce the risk of workers coming into contact with potentially harmful herbicides. - 2 months after this initial clearing, a follow up clearing must be done: o It must employ the same methodology on any individuals which were not treated effectively in the initial clearing. - See Appendix G for the list of approved herbicides and dosage rates.

Phase 4: 6 month follow up clearing - 6 months after the initial clearing, a follow up clearing must be done: - Younger trees and/or saplings will be treated using the cut stump method which involves the following: o Stems will be cut as low as possible (less than 50 cm); o Herbicides must be applied to the outer circumference of the stump leaving no gaps; o Cutting of the stump must be done with brush-cutters, cane-knives and bosaws. - Felled trees will be cut to 1.5 m lengths and stacked in demarcated areas; - Seedlings will be foliage-sprayed with knapsack sprayers; o This will occur between October and April; o See Appendix E for list of approved herbicides and dosages; o Spraying must be restricted to plants that are waist-high, or lower, and the plant must have sufficient foliage to carry the applied herbicide to the root system. - Paint must be applied to any surface where herbicide has been applied;

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o This is to prevent any plants being left untreated; o Allow for effective monitoring of clearing activities; and o Reduce the risk of workers coming into contact with potentially harmful herbicides. - 2 months after this initial clearing, a follow up clearing must be done: o It must employ the same methodology on any individuals which were not treated effectively in the initial clearing. - See Appendix G for the list of approved herbicides and dosage rates.

4.1.2 Ongoing Phase 5: 6 monthly follow up clearings - Every 6 months, a follow up will be done in order to maintain the clearing that has been done: o The focus will be on clearing seedlings and saplings; • Foliar spray must be applied to seedlings; • Stumps where coppicing has occurred must be cut and herbicide applied to every stem; • All cut material must be stockpiled in designated areas. o Another respray will occur within 2 months of the last 6 monthly follow up; • Respray all regrowth; and • Spray all new growth; - See Appendix 1G for the list of approved herbicides and dosage rates.

4.1.3 Bill of Quantities

Table 7: Bill of Quantity for Invasive Alien Plant Control Plan in the Conservation Area

No Description Quantity Unit 1.1 Intensive invasive alien control & grassing 1.8 ha 1.2 Froggy Pond 7.8 ha 1.3 Intensive alien control & riparian planting 7.9 ha 1.4 Scarp Forest - alien management 10.5 ha 1.5 Riparian - alien control & planting 31.0 ha 1.6 Lake Victoria 25.6 ha 1.7 Invasive alien plant management only 79.0 ha Secondary Scrub – invasive alien plant 1.8 removal & planting 134.8 ha 1.9 Cane removal - grassing 247.7 ha 1.10 Fallow - prep & grassing 161.0 ha Albizia Woodland – invasive alien plant 220.1.2 management 26.3 ha 1.5 C. monilifera control - grassing 44.7 ha

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.2 Invasive Alien Plant Control Monitoring

4.2.1 Bill of Quantities

Table 8: Bill of Quantity for the Invasive Alien Plant Clearing (Monthly) Monitoring Plan for Conservation Area

No Description Quantity Unit

Section 1: Field assessment 1.1 Visual inspection 36 Days 1.2 Transects 12 Days

Section 2: Reporting 2.1 Monthly assessment report 36 No 2.2 Monthly meetings 36 no 2.3 Advisory forum meeting 12 no

4.3 Terrestrial Rehabilitation 4.3.1 Year 1 Year 1 is proposed for the use of assessing, planning and authorising any work being done within the areas to be rehabilitated in Year 2. This includes (but may not be limited to): - A review of all GIS information and vegetation unit delineations based on the results of the Soil Capability and Fertility Assessment - Consultation with Terrestrial Rehabilitation Monitoring Ecologist regarding seed collection sites, species available and sample plot sites must be conducted during this period o If nationally or provincially protected species are to be affected, permits must be obtained o Permits must be obtained for any seed collection offsite - Seed collection to begin both onsite and offsite - Cane Removal Areas: o Tenants on DTPC, ACSA and La Mercy Joint Venture land which is scheduled to be rehabilitated in the following year (Phase 1) must be notified of this rehabilitation before April of Year 1 to ensure an efficient change over

4.3.2 Year 2 - Cane Removal Areas: o Phase 1 areas to be cleared by the tenants and left to fallow ▪ Total area = 67.0 ha ▪ The sample plots for both grasses and geophytes/forbs must be demarcated and planted

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o Tenants on Dube Tradeport, ACSA and La Mercy Joint Venture land which is scheduled to be rehabilitated in the following year (Phase 2) must be notified of this rehabilitation before April of Year 2 to ensure an efficient change over - Secondary Scrub Areas: o Assessment of all secondary scrub demarcated areas (134.8 ha) o Revegetation must begin in areas where woody vegetation is present in less than 1 tree per 100 m27 o Burning of 5 m buffers around all the secondary scrub ecotones must occur - Intensive Invasive alien/C. monilifera Control & Grassing Areas: o Initial burning of all intensive IAPS and C. monilifera control areas (1.8 ha and 44.7 ha respectively)

4.3.3 Year 3 - Cane Removal Areas: o Phase 2 areas to be cleared by the tenants and left to fallow ▪ Total area = 84.7 ha ▪ The sample plots for both grasses and geophytes/forbs must be demarcated and planted o Tenants on Dube Tradeport, ACSA and La Mercy Joint Venture land which is scheduled to be rehabilitated in the following year (Phase 3) must be notified of this rehabilitation before April of Year 4 to ensure an efficient change over - Secondary Scrub Areas: o Revegetation to occur in areas where woody vegetation has failed to establish

4.3.4 Year 4 - Cane Removal Areas: o Phase 1 areas to be burnt in the appropriate season ▪ Total area = 67.0 ha o Phase 3 areas to be cleared by the tenants and left to fallow ▪ Total area = 95.9 ha ▪ The sample plots for both grasses and geophytes/forbs must be demarcated and planted - Secondary Scrub Areas: o Revegetation to occur in areas where woody vegetation has failed to establish

7 Consideration, in terms of revegetation, must be made of other factors such as effectiveness of IAPS control plan as well as soil rehabilitation measures (which may take up to 5 years to fully assess). 75

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.3.5 Year 5 - Cane Removal Areas: o Phase 2 areas to be burnt in the appropriate season ▪ Total area = 84.7 ha

4.3.6 Year 6 - Cane Removal Areas: o Phase 3 areas to be burnt in the appropriate season ▪ Total area = 95.9 ha

4.3.7 Year 7 - Cane Removal Areas: o Phase 1 areas to have their second burning in the appropriate season ▪ Total area = 67.0 ha

4.3.8 Year 8 o Phase 2 areas to have their second burning in the appropriate season ▪ Total area = 84.7 ha

4.3.9 Year 9 o Phase 3 areas to have their second burning in the appropriate season ▪ Total area = 95.9 ha

4.3.10 Bill of Quantities

Table 9: Summarised Bill of Quantity for the Conservation Area No Description Unit Quantity Section 1: Removal 1.1 Active fire management: 1.1.2 Sugarcane removal (Phase 1) ha 67.0 1.1.3 Sugarcane removal (Phase 2) ha 84.7 1.1.4 Sugarcane removal (Phase 3) ha 95.9 1.1.2 Secondary scrub areas (ecotone) ha 134.8 1.1.4 Intensive invasive alien and grassing 1.8 Section 2: Plant sourcing 2.1 Plant collection – onsite: 76

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.1.1 Onsite grass seed ha 247.6 2.1.2 Onsite geophytes & forbs ha 408.7 2.1.3 Onsite woody vegetation ha 171.5 2.2 Plant collection – offsite: 2.2.1 Offsite grasses seed ha 20* 2.2.2 Offsite geophytes & forbs ha 20* 2.2.3 Offsite woody vegetation ha 20* 2.3 Nursery stock: 2.3.1 (Provisional) Grass seed ha 70.8 2.3.2 (Provisional) Geophytes & forbs no 2400 2.3.3 (Provisional) Woody vegetation (maximum) no 1347 Section 3: Planting 3.1 Planting alternatives For low success areas ha 10 3.1.1 (Provisional) Hydro-seeding (10 % of area) ha 40.1 3.1.2 (Provisional) Plugs (10 % of area) no 33 110 000 3.2 Grasses test plot ha 6 3.3 Geophytes & forbs test plot ha 0.05 3.4 Woody vegetation (maximum) no 1347 * - May change depending on EKZN permits and EPCPD areas

4.4 Terrestrial Rehabilitation and/or Restoration Monitoring

4.4.1 Bill of Quantities

Table 10: Bill of Quantity for the terrestrial rehabilitation monitoring for the Conservation Area

No. Description Quantity Unit

Section 1: Field assessment 1.1 (provisional) Onsite seed collection 27 Days 1.2 (provisional) Offsite seed collection 45 Days 1.3 (provisional) Seeding / plugs planting 45 Days 1.4 (provisional) Forb / geophyte planting 45 Days 1.5 (provisional) Tree planting 27 Days

Section 2: Reporting 2.1 Monthly assessment report 36 no 2.2 Monthly meetings 36 no 2.3 (provisional) Ad hoc meetings 12 no

4.5 Wetland Rehabilitation

In this section a detailed tabulated description of each of the proposed interventions is provided for each HGM unit, along with a map with the numerous intervention references illustrated. The order in which the rehabilitation activities are presented should be followed to ensure no unecessary degradation of the systems occur. Additionally,

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017 design dimensions of each individual structural intervention and general layout drawings are attached within Appendix 2A and 2B, respectively. These should be read in conjunction with the following HGM unit-specific rehabilitation measures, as well as the general rehabilitation intervention methodologies outlined under Section 3.5. It should be noted that proposed rehabilitation associated with concrete cut-off walls and HDPE liners will invovle, to some degree; reshaping, sediment fences and revegetation (GroundTruth, 2015). Furthermore, all structural interventions must be demarcated onsite by a suitably qualified civil engineer (or equivalent) prior to any construction activities taking place, and all construction activities must be strictly monitored by a engineer with the same credentials, along with an ECO and where necessary a suitably qualified wetland ecologist. A locality map of the various HGM units delineated within the final conservation zone, and the associated rehabilitation measures, is presented in Figure 31.

Figure 31: Map illustrating the wetland systems which have been delineated within the final conservation area, and the various rehabilitation interventions (KSEMS, 2017).

Due to the implementation of the proposed rehabilitation project pertaining to the Phase 1 Build of the KSIA taking on a phased approach over an approximately twelve year period, the various wetlands identified for rehabilitation were prioritised according to risk, position within zones of conservation importance (e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas) and within the catchment areas (e.g. beginning from the bottom of the catchments and moving up), and the current health and functionality of each system. Taking into consideration the alterations which are likely to occur to the structure and functionality of upstream wetlands once rehabilitation is implemented within the downstream systems, the following phased implementation plan was developed. 78

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

It must be noted that although this programme begins on “Year 1”, this refers to the first year after environmental authorisations have been granted for the scheduled work. It is estimated that these are likely to actually begin within Year 2 of the overall implemetnation plan (as per Section 2: Objectives) however this cannot be confirmed until the relevant authorisation processes have begun.

4.5.1 Year 1 The following wetland systems have been prioritised for rehabilitation purposes within year 1; R3, R7, R37 and R9.

4.5.1.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R3

4.5.1.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R3

• Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment and phosphate trapping, nitrate and phosphate removal, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010). • Promote diffuse through-flow within R3 (WCS, 2010). • Restore indigenous wetland vegetation.

4.5.1.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R3

• Improve the hectare equivalents of R3 from 0.5 (current) to 1.1 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 0.6 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.1.1.3 Work plan for R3

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Removal of the levee that is currently present along the length of the stream at R3_001 to reinstate the natural stormwater flow; 2. Utilise the earthen material from the levees to backfill the drains that exist within R3; 3. Formalise two drainage-lines which cross an existing road situated on the southern side of R3 with 2 pipe culverts (R3_002 and R3_003) with inlet and outlet structures.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 32: Overview of the intervention locations for R3 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.1.1.4 Summarised Bill of Quantities for R3

Table 11 to 13 below provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R3.

Table 11: Proposed Reshaping Earthworks and Re-vegetation for HGM Unit R3 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R003_001 412.00 1.005 5025 1.005

Table 12: Proposed Pipe Culvert Structures within HGM Unit R3 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Intervention Excavation Bedding Concrete Blocks (no. Steel (kgs) Concrete Pipe (m3) Material (m3) of M200) 75D 600 mm (m) (m3) R003_002 14 2 3.456 230 25.26 12 R003_003 14 2 3.456 230 25.26 12

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 13: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R3. No. Reference Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Pipe culverts

3 1.1 R3.1.1 Earthworks 28 M 3 1.2 R3.1.2 Concrete 6.912 M 1.3 R3.1.3 Bedding material 4 M3 No. of 1.4 R3.1.4 Blocks 460 M200 1.5 R3.1.5 Steel 50.52 Kgs Concrete pipe (75D 1.6 R3.1.6 600 mm) 24 M Section 2: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 1.7 R3.1.7 Sediment fencing 412 M 5025 M3 1.8 R3.1.8 Reworking 1.005 ha 1.9 R3.1.9 Revegetation 1.005 ha

4.5.1.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R7 The rehabilitation interventions planned for this system must be implemented with a matter of urgency, due to there being a high risk of increased erosion occurring within the main channel, sedimentation of the downstream Froggy Pond system and consequent decline in water quality.

4.5.1.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R7 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010); • Remove point-source discharge from adjacent road network; and • Create a mosaic of different wetland habitats within the system (i.e. permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones) (WCS, 2010).

4.5.1.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R7 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R7 from 0.9 (current) to 1.3 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 0.4 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.1.2.3 Work plan for R7

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Deactivation of ridge and further drains, as well as a deeply incised channel that is recorded to be canalizing the flow through R7, by reworking the landscape (approximately 1.07 ha) and back filling any erosional features present within the system.

Phase 2: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R7 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

Figure 33: Overview of the intervention locations for R7 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.1.3 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R9

4.5.1.3.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R9 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: erosion control, sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and streamflow regulation (WCS, 2010); • Reduce point-source discharge into the wetland (WCS, 2010); and • Reduce the pattern of confined flow through the centre of the wetland (WCS, 2010).

4.5.1.3.2 Rehabilitation targets for R9 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R9 from 1.5 (current) to 3.9 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 2.4 hectare equivalents; • The central channel should be retained in the system (WCS, 2010); • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.1.3.3 Work Plan for R9 Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Deactivation of ridge and furrow drains, artificial drains and several erosional features by means of backfilling and reworking 1.366 ha (6 830 m3 of soil) of the landscape to reinstate the natural hydrological regime; 2. Utilise approximately 560 m of sediment fencing to reduce temporary erosion, and soil transportation, within R9; and 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (1.366 ha) with a mixture of herbaceous plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 6 concrete drop inlet structures at R9_001, R9_002, R9_003, R9_004, R9_006 and R9_007 to stabilise the back-fill material and prevent preferential subsurface flow paths from developing.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control and Revegetation 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate approximately 6.0 ha of R9 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 34: Overview of the intervention locations for R9 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.1.3.4 Bill of Quantities for R9

Tables 14 to 17 below provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM Unit R9.

Table 14: Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R9 (GroundTruth, 2015). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R9_001 80.80 30.83 2 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 786 R9_002 110.92 47.45 3 x Ref 888 4 x Ref 655 R9_003 61.65 22.03 2 x Ref 888 2 x Ref 500 R9_004 95.19 38.19 3 x Ref 888 4 x Ref 500 R9_006 73.29 29.58 2 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 655 R9_007 73.29 29.58 2 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 655

Table 15: Proposed Reshaping Earthworks and Revegetation for HGM Unit R9 (GroundTruth, 2015). Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R9_009 560.00 1.366 6830 1.366

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 16: Additional revegetation proposed within R9, as per WCS (2010). Intervention Revegetation Area (ha) Revegetation of the remaining 6.0 wetland habitat

Table 17: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R9.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R9.1.1 Earthworks 495.14 M 3 1.2 R9.1.2 Concrete 197.66 M Mesh Ref 888 14 No. Mesh Ref 500 6 No. Mesh Ref 655 10 No. 1.3 R9.1.3 Mesh Ref 786 3 No. Section 2: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 2.1 R9.2.1 Sediment fencing 560 M 1.366 ha 2.2 R9.2.2 Reworking 6830 M3 2.3 R9.2.3 Revegetation 1.366 ha Section 3: Revegetation of the remaining wetland habitat 3.1 R9.3.1 Revegetation 6.0 ha

4.5.1.4 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R37

4.5.1.4.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R37 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010). • Remove point-source discharge from adjacent road network and backfill centralised excavation drain, along with the adjacent herringbone drain network. • Create a mosaic of different wetland habitats within the system (i.e. permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones) (WCS, 2010).

4.5.1.4.2 Rehabilitation targets for R37 • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

• Reinstate the landscape to the natural ground level with an undulating local topography.

4.5.1.4.3 Work plan for R37 Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 0.792 ha within R37, currently composed of an excavation drain, agricultural roads and ridge- and-furrow drains within the sugarcane fields, to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fence (90 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (0.792 ha) with a mixture of terrestrial plant species.

Phase 2: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R37 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

Figure 35: Map illustrating the intervention locations within R37.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.1.4.4 Bill of Quantities for R37

Table 18: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R37.

No. Reference Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 1.1 R37.1. Sediment fencing 90 M M3 1.2 R37.2. Reworking 0.792 ha 1.3 R37.3. Revegetation 0.792 ha

4.5.1.5 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 1

Table 19 below presents all the proposed construction material required to implement the structural/reshaping wetland rehabilitation interventions proposed for year 1.

Table 19: Summarised bill of quantities table for Year 1 of the proposed rehabilitation project.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 Yr1.1.1 Earthworks 495.14 M 3 1.2 Yr1.1.2 Concrete 197.66 M Mesh Ref 888 14 No. Mesh Ref 500 6 No. Mesh Ref 655 10 No. 1.3 Yr1.1.3 Mesh Ref 786 3 No. Section 2: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 2.1 Yr1.2.1 Sediment fencing 1062 M 3.163 ha 2.2 Yr1.2.2 Reworking 11855 M3 2.3 Yr1.2.3 Revegetation 3.163 ha Section 3: Pipe culverts 3.1 Yr1.3.1 Earthworks 28 M3 3.2 Yr1.3.2 Concrete 6.912 M3 3.3 Yr1.3.3 Bedding material 4 M3 No. of 3.4 Yr1.3.4 Blocks 460 M200 3.5 Yr1.3.5 Steel 50.52 Kgs Concrete pipe (75D 3.6 Yr1.3.6 600 mm) 24 M Section 4: Additional Revegetation 87

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.1 Yr1.4.1 Revegetation 6.0 ha

4.5.2 Year 2 The following wetland systems have been prioritised for rehabilitation purposes within year 2; R10, R34 and R35.

4.5.2.1 Proposed rehabilitation Strategies for R10

4.5.2.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R10 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: erosion control, sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and streamflow regulation (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010). • Raise the base-level of R10 without exacerbating the existing erosion (WCS, 2010). • Reduce the pattern of confined flow through the centre of the wetland. • Reduce the draining effect of the central channel.

4.5.2.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R10 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R10 from 1.1 (current) to 2.7 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 1.6 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.2.1.3 Work plan for R10

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Deactivation of agricultural roads and artificial drains by means of backfilling the drains and reworking the entire area of R10 to reinstate the natural ground level, and thus the natural hydrological regime. 2. Utilise sediment fencing to reduce temporary erosion, and soil transportation, within R10. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area with a mixture of terrestrial plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 4 cut-off wall structures and placement of HDPE liner at R10_002, R10_003, R10_004 and R10_005 to stabilise the back-fill material and prevent preferential subsurface flow paths from developing. 2. Construction of one concrete drop inlet at R10_001. 3. Reseed the disturbed areas with a mixture of terrestrial vegetation and placement of wetland plants, sourced from existing wetland plants of the wetland fringe, within the system.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPs using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Invasive alien plant species maintenance and follow-up actions must be undertaken as per the recommendations outlined under Section 3.2 of this report. 3. Revegetation of the remaining area of R10 (approx. 4.4 ha) with a mixture of terrestrial and intermittent wetland plant species (WCS, 2010).

Figure 36: Overview of the Intervention Locations in R10 (GroundTruth, 2015).

4.5.2.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R10

The tables below (Tables 20 – 23) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM Unit R10.

Table 20: Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R10 (GroundTruth, 2015). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R10_001 120.16 45.94 2 x Ref 888 4 x Ref 500

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 21: Proposed Concrete Cut-Off Wall Structures in HGM Unit R10 (GroundTruth, 2015). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) R10_002 5.7 5.7 R10_003 4.32 4.32 R10_004 4.05 4.05 R10_005 3.51 3.51

Table 22: Additional revegetation proposed within R10, as per WCS (2010). Intervention Revegetation Area (ha) Revegetation of the remaining 4.4 wetland habitat

Table 23: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R10.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R10.1.1 Earthworks 120.16 M 3 1.2 R10.1.2 Concrete 45.94 M Mesh Ref 888 2 No. 1.3 R10.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 4 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls

3 2.1 R10.2.1 Earthworks 17.58 M 3 2.2 R10.2.2 Concrete 17.58 M Section 3: Revegetation 3.1 R10.3.1 Revegetation 4.4 ha

4.5.2.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R34

4.5.2.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R34 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010). • Create a mosaic of different wetland habitats within the system (i.e. permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones) (WCS, 2010).

4.5.2.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R34 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R34 from 2.2 (current) to 5.1 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 2.9 hectare equivalents; 90

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

• > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.2.2.3 Work plan for R34

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework of 1.29 ha (6 450 m3 of soil) within R34, which is currently composed of ridge and furrow drains and dense IAP growth, to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fencing (516 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (1.29 ha) with a mixture of terrestrial and emergent plant species;.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 1 concrete drop inlet structures at R34_001 to manage the return flows to the main channel (quantities to be confirmed prior to construction due to limited accessibility to proposed location).

Phase 3: = Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS, as well as all sugarcane, using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R34 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 37: Overview of the intervention locations in HGM Unit R34 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.2.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R34

The tables below (Tables 24 – 26) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R34.

Table 24: Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R34 (Supplied by GroundTruth, 2015). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R34_001 108.16 45.03 4 x Ref 888 6 x Ref 500

Table 25: Proposed Reshaping Earthworks and Re-vegetation in HGM unit R34. Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R34_003 516.00 1.29 6450 1.29

Table 26: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R34.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3 1.1 R34.1.1 Earthworks 108.16 M 3 1.2 R34.1.2 Concrete 45.03 M Mesh Ref 888 4 No. 1.3 R34.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 6 No. Section 2: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 2.1 R34.2.1 Sediment fencing 516.00 M 1.29 ha 2.2 R34.2.2 Reworking 6450 M3 2.3 R34.2.3 Revegetation 1.29 ha

4.5.2.3 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R35

4.5.2.3.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R35 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010). • Remove point-source discharge from adjacent road network; and • Create a mosaic of different wetland habitats within the system (i.e. permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones) (WCS, 2010).

4.5.2.3.2 Rehabilitation targets for R35 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R35 from 0.5 (current) to 1.4 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 0.9 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.2.3.3 Work plan for R35

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 0.321 ha (660 m3 of soil) within R35, which is currently composed of artificial drains, by plugging sections of the drains with earthen material to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fence (150 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (0.321 ha) with a mixture of terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 2 cut-off walls at R35_001 and R35_002 to stabilise the artificial drains and prevent 93

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

preferential subsurface flow paths from developing;.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal ofIAPS, as well as all sugarcane, using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R35 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

Figure 38: Overview of the intervention locations in R35 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.2.3.4 Bill of Quantities for R35 The tables below (Tables 27 – 29) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R35.

Table 27: Bill of Quantities Dimension Table of Proposed Concrete Cut-off Wall Structures in HGM Unit R35. Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) R35_001 4.2 4.2 R35_002 4.2 4.2

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 28: Bill of Quantities table of Proposed Reshaping Earthworks and Re-vegetation in HGM Unit R35. Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R35_003 150.00 0.132 660 0.132

Table 29: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM

Unit R35.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete cut-off wall structures

3 1.1 R35.1.1 Earthworks 8.4 M 3 1.2 R35.1.2 Concrete 8.4 M Section 2: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 2.1 R35.2.1 Sediment fencing 150.00 M 0.132 ha 2.2 R35.2.2 Reworking 660 M3 2.3 R35.2.3 Revegetation 0.132 ha

4.5.2.4 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 2 Table 30 below presents all the proposed construction material required to implement the structural/reshaping wetland rehabilitation interventions proposed for year 2.

Table 30: Summarised bill of quantities table for Year 2 of the proposed rehabilitation project.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 Yr2.1.1 Earthworks 228.32 M 3 1.2 Yr2.1.2 Concrete 90.97 M Mesh Ref 888 6 No. 1.3 Yr2.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 10 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls

3 2.1 Yr2.2.1 Earthworks 25.98 M 3 2.2 Yr2.2.2 Concrete 25.98 M Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 Yr2.3.1 Sediment fencing 666 M 1.422 ha 3.2 Yr2.3.2 Reworking 7110 M3 3.3 Yr2.3.3 Revegetation 1.422 ha Section 4: Revegetation 4.1 Yr2.4.1 Revegetation 4.4 ha

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.3 Year 3 The following wetland systems have been prioritised for rehabilitation purposes within year 3; R33 and R38.

4.5.3.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R33

4.5.3.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R33 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010); • Recentralise the drains present within the system; and • Raise the base-level of R33 and stabilise the slope (GroundTruth, 2015).

4.5.3.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R33 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R33 from 1.3 (current) to 3.2 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 1.9 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.3.1.3 Work plan for R33

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 1.174 ha (5 870 m3 of soil) within R33, currently composed of artificial drains and intense sugarcane growth, to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fence (470 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (1.174 ha) with a mixture of wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 5 cut-off walls at R33_002, R33_003, R33_004, R33_005 and R33_006 to stabilise the slope, raise the local base-level and prevent preferential subsurface flow paths from developing. 2. Construction of 2 concrete drop inlet structures at R33_001, and R33_007 to manage the return flows to the main channel.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS, as well as all sugarcane, using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R33 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 39: Overview of the intervention locations in R33 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.3.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R33

The tables below (Tables 31 – 34) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R33.

Table 31: Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R33 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R33_001 84.21 32.33 3 x Ref 888 4 x Ref 500 R33_007 70.28 26.33 2 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500

Table 32: Proposed Concrete Cut-off Wall Structures in HGM Unit R33 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) R33_002 3.6 3.6 R33_003 3.96 3.96 R33_004 2.565 2.565 R33_005 2.565 2.565 R33_006 3.90 3.90

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 33: Proposed Reshaping Earthworks and Re-vegetation for HGM Unit R33 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015). Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R33_008 470.00 1.174 5870 1.174

Table 34: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R33.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R33.1.1 Earthworks 154.49 M 3 1.2 R33.1.2 Concrete 58.66 M Mesh Ref 888 5 No. 1.3 R33.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 7 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls

3 2.1 R33.2.1 Earthworks 16.59 M 3 2.1.1 R33.2.2 Concrete 16.59 M Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 R33.3.1 Sediment fencing 470.00 M 1.174 ha 3.2 R33.3.2 Reworking 5870 M3 3.3 R33.3.3 Revegetation 1.174 ha

4.5.3.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R38

4.5.3.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R38 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010); • Deactivate the defined channel from mid-reaches of R38 down to start of local depression, thus promoting a slow diffuse flow across the bottom of the wetland (GroundTruth, 2017); • Remove the road embankment and formalise the decant point at the base of the wetland (GroundTruth, 2017); and • Create a mosaic of different wetland habitats within the system (i.e. permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones) (WCS, 2010).

4.5.3.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R38 1. Improve the hectare equivalents of R38 from 11.92 (current) to 14.28 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 2.36 hectare equivalents; 2. > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and 98

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3. < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.3.2.3 Work plan for R38

Phase 1: Earthworks 4. Rework 0.5 ha and 462 m3 of earth within R38 at R38_002 and R38_006 (Figure 31), to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 5. Place sediment fence directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 6. Reseeding of the disturbed area (0.5 ha) with a mixture of natural terrestrial plants and wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 1 concrete check wall at R38_003 to set the reshape in place so that no vertical incision can take place (GroundTruth, 2017). 2. Construction of 1 gabion check wall at R38_001 to stabilise the transitional point between the channelled valley bottom and the reshaping earthworks at R38_002. 3. Construction of 2 concrete drop inlet structures at R38_004, and R38_005 to manage the return flows to the main channel and stabilise the reshaping earthworks. 4. Construction of 1 concrete splash-through and reno-mattress chute at R38_007 to formalize the outflow point.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 3. Removal of approximately 6.6 ha of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 4. Removal of approximately 9.6 ha of sugarcane within R38 as per cane removal methods stipulated within the above sections. 5. Revegetate R38 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 40: Overview of the intervention locations in HGM Unit R38 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2017)).

Figure 41: Illustration of the proposed formalisation of the R38 wetland decant point (Supplied by GroundTruth(2017)). 100

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.3.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R38

Table 35: Proposed gabion check-wall within R38 (GroundTruth, 2017). Intervention Description Unit Quantity R38_001 Restricted excavation required for structure M3 21 R38_001 Galvanised gabions 2 m x 0.5 m x 0.5 m baskets Quantity 15 R38_001 Galvanised gabions 2 m x 1 m x 0.3 m baskets Quantity 12 R38_001 Gabion hand rock (150 mm to 200 mm diameter) M3 15 R38_001 Needle-punched non-woven geofabric (e.g. Bidim A2, or equivalent) M2 70

Table 36: Proposed concrete drop inlets within R38 (GroundTruth, 2017). Intervention Earthworks Concrete (m3) (20 MPa strength at Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) (m3) 28 Day) R38_004 33.5 18 162 kg of Ref 888 158 kg of Ref 500 R38_005 28 15.3 128 kg of Ref 888 133 kg of Ref 500

Table 37: Proposed concrete splash through and reno-mattress chute (GroundTruth, 2017). Intervention Description Unit Quantity R38_007 Restricted excavation required for structure M3 45 R38_007 30 MPa strength @ 28 Day concrete M3 5.6 R38_007 Galvanised gabions 3 m x 1 m x 0.3 m baskets Quantity 25 R38_007 150 mm thick Geo-cell reinforcement (or equivalent product) M2 37 R38_007 Gabion hand rock (150 mm to 200 mm diameter) M3 22.5 R38_007 Needle-punched non-woven geofabric (e.g. Bidim A2, or equivalent) M2 87 R38_007 Earthworks associated with extending alluvial mound M3 12

Table 38: Proposed concrete check-wall within R38 (GroundTruth, 2017). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) (20 MPa strength at 28 Day strength) R38_003 12 12

Table 39: Proposed reshaping and subsequent revegetation within R38 (GroundTruth, 2017). Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R38_002 - 0.5 - 0.5 R38_006 - 0.0295 462 0.0295

101

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 40: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R38 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2017).

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R38.1.1 Earthworks 61.5 M 3 1.2 R38.1.2 Concrete 33.3 M Mesh Ref 888 290 Kg 1.3 R38.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 291 Kg Section 2: Concrete cut-off (check) walls

3 2.1 R38.2.1 Earthworks 12 M 3 2.2 R38.2.2 Concrete 12 M Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 R38.3.1 Sediment fencing M 0.5295 ha 3.2 R38.3.2 Reworking 462 M3 3.3 R38.3.3 Revegetation 0.5295 ha Section 4: Gabion structures 4.1 R38.4.1 Earthwork 78 M3 4.2 R38.4.2 Concrete 5.6 M3 4.3 R38.4.3 Gabion baskets 52 M3 4.4 R38.4.4 Geo-cell 37 M2 4.5 R38.4.5 Hand rock 37.5 M3 Needle-punched non- 4.6 R38.4.6 woven geofabric 157 M2

4.5.3.3 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 3

Table 37 below presents all the proposed construction material required to implement the structural/reshaping wetland rehabilitation interventions proposed for year 3.

Table 41: Summarised bill of quantities table for Year 3 of the proposed rehabilitation project.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 Yr3.1.1 Earthworks 215.99 M 3 1.2 Yr3.1.2 Concrete 91.96 M Mesh Ref 888 Kg 1.3 Yr3.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 Kg Section 2: Concrete cut-off (check) walls

3 2.1 Yr3.2.1 Earthworks 28.59 M 3 2.2 Yr3.2.2 Concrete 28.59 M 102

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 Yr3.3.1 Sediment fencing 470 M 1.7035 ha 3.2 Yr3.3.2 Reworking 6332 M3 3.3 Yr3.3.3 Revegetation 1.7035 ha Section 4: Gabion structures 4.1 Yr3.4.1 Earthwork 78 M3 4.2 Yr3.4.2 Concrete 5.6 M3 Gabion baskets (2 m x 4.3 Yr3.4.3 0.5 m x 0.5 m) 15 M3 Gabion baskets (2 m x 1 4.4 Yr3.4.4 m x 0.3 m) 12 M3 Gabion baskets (3 m x 1 4.5 Yr3.4.5 m x 0.3 m) 25 M3 4.6 Yr3.4.4 Geo-cell 37 M2 Hand rock (150mm- 4.7 Yr3.4.5 200mm diameter) 37.5 M3 Needle-punched non- 4.8 Yr3.4.6 woven geofabric 157 M2

4.5.4 Year 4 The following wetland systems have been prioritised for rehabilitation purposes within year 4; R1 and R32.

4.5.4.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategy for R1

4.5.4.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R1 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, maintenance of biodiversity and education and research (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010); • Reinstate subsurface flow and reduce point-source discharge into wetland from culvert flowing under an upstream road; and • Stabilise the central channel by revegetating with a mixture of plant species such as Cynodon dactylon, Cynodon nemfluensis or Dactyloctenium australe (WCS, 2010).

4.5.4.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R1 4. Improve the hectare equivalents of R1 from 0.9 (current) to 3.2 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 2.3 hectare equivalents; 5. 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and 6. < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

103

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.4.1.3 Work plan for R1

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 1.332 ha (6 660 m3 of soil) within R1, currently composed of artificial drains and ridge and furrow drains, to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fencing (526 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (1.332 ha) with a mixture of herbaceous and wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural interventions 1. Construction of 4 cut-off walls at R1_005, R1_007, R1_010 & R1_011 to stabilise the area and control the re-entry of water into the channel. 2. Placement of HDPE liner at two points (R1_012 & R1_013). 3. Construction of 4 concrete drop inlet structures at R1_002, R1_003, R1_004 and R1_009 to manage the return flow to the main channel.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control and Revegetation 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate approximately 3.2 ha of R1 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

104

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 42: Overview of the intervention locations for R1 (lower section) (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

Figure 43: Overview of the intervention locations for R1 (upper section) (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). 105

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.4.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R1 The tables below (Tables 42 – 46) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R1.

Table 42: Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R1 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R1_002 71.84 27.62 2 x Ref 888 4 x Ref 500 R1_003 83.88 31.32 2 x Ref 888 4 x Ref 500 R1_004 108.59 42.64 2 x Ref 888 4 x Ref 500 R1_009 81.85 33.50 2 x Ref 888 6 x Ref 395

Table 43: Proposed Concrete Cut-off Wall Structures in HGM Unit R1 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) R1_005 4.29 4.29 R1_007 3.24 3.24 R1_010 5.85 5.85 R1_011 7.41 7.41

Table 44: Proposed Reshaping Earthworks and Re-vegetation for HGM Unit R1 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R1_014 526.00 1.332 6660 1.332

Table 45: Additional revegetation within R1, as per WCS (2010). Intervention Revegetation Area (ha) Revegetation of the remaining 3.2 wetland habitat

Table 46: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R1 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures 1.1 R1.1.1 Earthworks 346.16 M3 1.2 R1.1.2 Concrete 135.08 M3 Mesh Ref 888 8 No. Mesh Ref 500 12 No. 1.3 R1.1.3 Mesh Ref 395 6 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls

106

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2.1 R1.2.1 Earthworks 20.79 M3 2.1.1 R1.2.2 Concrete 20.79 M3 Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 R1.3.1 Sediment fencing 526.00 M 1.332 ha 3.2 R1.3.2 Reworking 6660 M3 3.3 R1.3.3 Revegetation 1.332 ha Section 4: Revegetation 4.1 R1.4.1 Revegetation 3.2 ha

4.5.4.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R32

4.5.4.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R32 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, phosphate and toxicant removal, maintenance of biodiversity and carbon storage (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010). • Reinstate subsurface flow and reduce point-source discharge into wetland; • Reduce the pattern of confined flow through the centre of R32;

4.5.4.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R32 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R32 from 0.1 (current) to 0.4 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 0.3 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system. • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.4.2.3 Work plan for R32

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework of all ridge and furrow drains present within R32 to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime; 2. Place sediment fence directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil; 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area with a mixture of wetland plant species;

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 1 concrete drop inlet structures at R32_001 to manage the return flows to the main channel.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) 107

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R32 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

Figure 44: Overview of the intervention locations in R32 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.4.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R32

The tables below (Tables 47 & 48) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R32.

Table 47: Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R32 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R32_001 67.85 28.69 3 x Ref 888 6 x Ref 500

Table 48: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R32 No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R32.1.1 Earthworks 67.85 M 3 1.2 R32.1.2 Concrete 28.69 M 1.3 R32.1.3 Mesh Ref 888 3 No.

108

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Mesh Ref 500 6 No.

4.5.4.3 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 4

Table 49 below presents all the proposed construction material required to implement the structural/reshaping wetland rehabilitation interventions proposed for year 4.

Table 49: Summarised bill of quantities table for Year 4 of the proposed rehabilitation project.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures 1.1 Yr4.1.1 Earthworks 414.01 M3 1.2 Yr4.1.2 Concrete 163.77 M3 Mesh Ref 888 11 No. Mesh Ref 500 18 No. 1.3 Yr4.1.3 Mesh Ref 395 6 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls 2.1 Yr4.2.1 Earthworks 20.79 M3 2.1.1 Yr4.2.2 Concrete 20.79 M3 Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 Yr4.3.1 Sediment fencing 526.00 M 1.332 ha 3.2 Yr4.3.2 Reworking 6660 M3 3.3 Yr4.3.3 Revegetation 1.332 ha Section 4: Additional Revegetation 4.1 Yr4.4.1 Revegetation 3.2 ha

4.5.5 Year 5 The following wetland systems have been prioritised for rehabilitation purposes within year 5; R29 and R30.

4.5.5.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R29

4.5.5.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R29 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, phosphate and toxicant removal, maintenance of biodiversity and carbon storage (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010); • Reinstate subsurface flow and reduce point-source discharge into wetland; • Reduce the pattern of confined flow through the centre of R29; and • Stabilise the central channel by revegetating with stoloniferous grass (WCS, 2010). 109

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.5.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R29 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R29 from 0.7 (current) to 1.8 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 1.8 hectare equivalents. • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

4.5.5.1.3 Work plan for R29 Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 1.715 ha (8 575 m3 of soil) within R29, currently composed of artificial drains and agricultural roads, to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime; 2. Place sediment fence (749 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil; and 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (1.715 ha) with a mixture of wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 7 cut-off walls at R29_002, R29_003, R29_005, R29_006, R29_007, R29_008 and R29_009 to stabilise the back-fill material and prevent preferential subsurface flow paths from developing. 2. Construction of 2 concrete drop inlet structures at R29_001, and R29_004 at the base of R29 to manage the return flows to the main channel.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R29 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

110

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 45: Overview of the intervention locations in R29 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.5.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R29

The tables below (Tables 50 – 52) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R29.

Table 50: Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R29 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R29_001 88.55 37.22 3 x Ref 888 5 x Ref 500 R29_004 171.89 71.64 4 x Ref 888 5 x Ref 655

Table 51: Proposed Concrete Cut-off Wall Structures in HGM Unit R29 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) R29_002 3.96 3.96 R29_003 5.18 5.18 R29_005 6.24 6.24 R29_006 4.95 4.95 R29_007 5.1 5.1 R29_008 7.65 7.65

111

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

R29_009 6.12 6.12

Table 52: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM

Unit R29.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R29.1.1 Earthworks 260.44 M 3 1.2 R29.1.2 Concrete 108.86 M Mesh Ref 888 7 No. Mesh Ref 655 5 No. 1.3 R29.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 5 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls

3 2.1 R29.2.1 Earthworks 39.2 M 3 2.1.1 R29.2.2 Concrete 39.2 M Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 R29.3.1 Sediment fencing 749 M 1.715 ha 3.2 R29.3.2 Reworking 8575 M3 3.3 R29.3.3 Revegetation 1.715 ha

4.5.5.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies of R30

4.5.5.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R30 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, phosphate and toxicant removal, maintenance of biodiversity and carbon storage (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010); • Reinstate subsurface flow and reduce point-source discharge into wetland; • Reduce the pattern of confined flow through the centre of R30; and • Promote over bank topping and stabilise the channel (GroundTruth, 2015).

4.5.5.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R30 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R30 from 1.0 (current) to 2.8 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 1.8 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPs.

112

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.5.2.3 Work plan for R30

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 3.154 ha (15 770 m3 of soil) within R30, currently composed of artificial drains and ridge and furrow drains, to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fence (1 298 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (3.154 ha) with a mixture of wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 9 concrete drop inlet structures at R30_001, and R30_002, R30_003, R30_004, R30_005, R30_006, R30_007, R30_008 and R30_009 to manage the return flows to the main channel.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015).

Figure 46: Overview of the intervention locations in R30 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

113

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.5.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R30

The tables below (Tables 53 – 55) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to the HGM unit R30.

Table 53: Bill of Quantities for Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R30 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R30_001 38.69 15.75 2 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_002 38.69 15.75 2 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_003 38.69 15.75 2 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_004 41.05 17.15 3 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_005 45.05 18.50 3 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_006 62.62 26.66 3 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_007 50.14 20.81 3 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_008 52.12 21.22 3 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500 R30_009 61.49 26.40 3 x Ref 888 3 x Ref 500

Table 54: Bill of Quantities for Proposed Reshaping Earthworks and Re-vegetation in HGM Unit R30 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R30_010 1298.00 3.154 15770 3.154

Table 55: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R30.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R30.1.1 Earthworks 428.4 M 3 1.2 R30.1.2 Concrete 179.99 M Mesh Ref 888 24 No. 1.3 R30.1.3 Mesh Ref 500 27 No. Section 2: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 2.1 R30.2.1 Sediment fencing 1298.00 M 3.154 ha 2.2 R30.2.2 Reworking 15770 M3 2.3 R30.2.3 Revegetation 3.154 ha

114

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.5.3 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Year 5

Table 56 below presents all the proposed construction material required to implement the structural/reshaping wetland rehabilitation interventions proposed for year 5.

Table 56: Summarised bill of quantities table for Year 5 of the proposed wetland rehabilitation project.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures 1.1 Yr5.1.1 Earthworks 688.84 M3 1.2 Yr5.1.2 Concrete 288.85 M3 Mesh Ref 888 31 No. Mesh Ref 500 32 No. 1.3 Yr5.1.3 Mesh Ref 655 5 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls 2.1 Yr5.2.1 Earthworks 39.2 M3 2.1.1 Yr5.2.2 Concrete 39.2 M3 Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 Yr5.3.1 Sediment fencing 2047 M 4.869 ha 3.2 Yr5.3.2 Reworking 24345 M3 3.3 Yr5.3.3 Revegetation 4.869 ha

4.5.6 Year 6 The following wetland systems have been prioritised for rehabilitation purposes within year 6; R 27 and R28.

4.5.6.1 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R27

4.5.6.1.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R27 • Rework the area to reinstate the natural ground level, and thus a more natural hydrological regime within R27; • Manage the return flows to the primary channel; and • Restore the wetland vegetation.

4.5.6.1.2 Rehabilitation targets for R27 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R27 from 1.1 (current) to 3.1 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 2.0 hectare equivalents; • The central channel should be retained in the system (WCS, 2010); • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPS 115

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.6.1.3 Work plan for R27

Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 4.02 ha (20 100 m3 of soil) within R27, which is currently composed of artificial drains and ridge and furrow drains, to reinstate the natural ground level and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fencing (1511 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (4.02 ha) with a mixture of wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of 7 cut-off walls at R27_002, R27_003, R27_004/1, R27_004/2 & R27_005 to stabilise the back-fill material and prevent preferential subsurface flow paths from developing. 2. Placement of HDPE liner at 4 points (R27_008, R27_009, R27_010 & R27_011). 3. Construction of 1 concrete drop inlet structure at R127_001 to manage the return flow to the main channel.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R27 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

Figure 47: Overview of the Intervention Locations in R27 (Supplied by GroundTruth, (2015)). 116

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.5.6.1.4 Bill of Quantities for R27

The tables below (Tables 57 - 60) provide the bill of quantities associated with each rehabilitation intervention pertaining to HGM unit R27.

Table 57: Bill of Quantities for Proposed Concrete Drop Inlet Structures in HGM Unit R27 (GroundTruth, 2015). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) Mesh Reinforcement (6 m by 2.4 m Sheets) R27_001 59.01 23.93 2 x Ref 888 5 x Ref 395

Table 58: Bill of Quantities of Proposed Concrete Cut-Off Wall Structures on HGM Unit R27 (GroundTruth, 2015). Intervention Earthworks (m3) Concrete (m3) R27_002 7.68 7.68 R27_003 9.12 9.12 R27_004/01 9.6 9.6 R27_004/02 5.7 5.7 R27_005 6.63 6.63 R27_006 7.41 7.41 R27_007 7.02 7.02

Table 59: Bill of Quantities for Proposed Reshaping and Re-vegetation in HGM Unit R27 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)). Intervention Sediment Fence (m) Reworking Revegetation Area (ha) Volume (m3) Area (ha) R27_012 1511.00 4.020 20100 4.020

Table 60: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R27.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R27.1.1 Earthworks 59.01 M 3 1.2 R27.1.2 Concrete 23.93 M Mesh Ref 888 2 No. 1.3 R27.1.3 Mesh Ref 395 5 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls

3 2.1 R27.2.1 Earthworks 53.16 M 3 2.1.1 R27.2.2 Concrete 53.16 M Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 R27.3.1 Sediment fencing 1511.00 M 4.020 ha 3.2 R27.3.2 Reworking 20100 M3 117

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3.3 R27.3.3 Revegetation 4.020 ha

4.5.6.2 Proposed Rehabilitation Strategies for R28

4.5.6.2.1 Rehabilitation objectives for R28 • Improve the integrity and functionality of the system through alterations to the geomorphology and hydrology, and promoting indigenous wetland species (GroundTruth, 2015), facilitating the provision of a higher level of ecosystem services, specifically: sediment trapping, phosphate and toxicant removal, maintenance of biodiversity and carbon storage (Cowden & Kotze, 2007; WCS, 2010); • Reinstate subsurface flow and reduce point-source discharge into wetland; • Reduce the pattern of confined flow through the centre of R28; and • Stabilise the central channel by revegetating with stoloniferous grass (WCS, 2010).

4.5.6.2.2 Rehabilitation targets for R28 • Improve the hectare equivalents of R28 from 3.1 (current) to 7.6 (post-rehabilitation) hectare equivalents, a gain of 4.5 hectare equivalents; • > 90 % aerial cover of vegetation throughout the system; and • < 1 % coverage of IAPS

4.5.6.2.3 Work plan for R28 Phase 1: Earthworks 1. Rework 5.074 ha (25 370 m3 of soil) within R28, currently composed of artificial drains and ridge and furrow drains, to reinstate the natural ground levels and thus promote the natural hydrological regime. 2. Place sediment fence (2050 m in total) directly below disturbed areas to reduce movement of soil. 3. Reseeding of the disturbed area (5.074 ha) with a mixture of wetland plant species.

Phase 2: Structural Intervention 1. Construction of three (3) cut-off walls at R28_004, R28_005 and R28_008 to stabilise the back-fill material and prevent preferential subsurface flow paths from developing. 2. Construction of seven (7) concrete drop inlet structures at R28_001, R28_002, R28_003, R28_006, R28_008 and R28_009 to manage the return flow to the main channel. 3. Construct 2 gabion structures at R28_010 and R28_011 to stabilise the channel in the area.

Phase 3: Invasive Alien Plant Species Control 1. Removal of IAPS using methods outlined within the Management Plan compiled by SEF (Ref: 506020) and GroundTruth (2015). 2. Revegetate R28 with a mixture of natural terrestrial vegetation and emergent wetland vegetation.

118

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Figure 48: Overview of the Intervention locations in R28 (Supplied by GroundTruth (2015)).

4.5.6.2.4 Bill of Quantities for R28

Table 61: Summary table including the rate charged and the total amount per rehabilitation activity relevant to HGM Unit R28.

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Concrete Drop Inlet Structures

3 1.1 R28.1.1 Earthworks 618.41 M 3 1.2 R28.1.2 Concrete 258.26 M Mesh Ref 888 19 No. Mesh Ref 655 15 No. Mesh Ref 617 10 No. 1.3 R28.1.3 Mesh Ref 772 2 No. Section 2: Concrete cut-off walls

3 2.1 R28.2.1 Earthworks 26.04 M 3 2.1.1 R28.2.2 Concrete 26.04 M Section 3: Reshaping earthworks and revegetation 3.1 R28.3.1 Sediment fencing 2050 M 5.074 ha 3.2 R28.3.2 Reworking 25370 M3

119

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

3.3 R28.3.3 Revegetation 5.074 ha Section 4: Proposed gabion structures 4.1 R28.4.1 Gabions 47.7 M3 4.2 R28.4.2 Excavation 63.09 M3 4.3 R28.4.3 Geofabric 250.88 M2

4.5.6.3 Proposed Revegetation (WCS, 2010) Although all wetland systems that were identified for rehabilitation purposes will undergo IAPS control and maintenance, and subsequent revegetation of disturbed areas, several wetlands were specifically identified for revegetation purposes by WCS (2010 & 2011). The areas that were specified for additional revegetation activities by WCS (2010) that coincide with those systems identified for rehabilitation purposes by GroundTruth (2015 & 2017) were mentioned within the aforementioned bills of quantity. These portions accounted for 15.3 ha and 6.1 hectare equivalents, respectively, of the total area specified for rehabilitation by WCS (2010). The remaining additional systems not addressed by GroundTruth (2015 & 2017) are mentioned in Table 62.

Although revegetation of the disturbed areas should occur in Phase 4 of the HGM unit-specific implementation order (Section 3.5.4), the additional revegetation activities specified by WCS (2010 & 2011) should occur subsequent to implementing all the proposed structural and reshaping interventions throughout the final conservation area. This will reduce the risk of additional disturbance occurring within the systems as a result of the proposed construction activities. It should be noted that the area figures presented within Table 62 are the areas specifically influenced by the revegetation activities suggested by WCS (2010 & 2011).

Table 62: Table presenting the additional wetland systems that are proposed to be revegetated as per WCS (2010 & 2011). HGM Unit Activity Area (ha) Hectare Equivalents Gained R4 Revegetation 0.8 0.3 R5 Revegetation 1.1 0.6 R6 Revegetation 1.3 0.4 R8 Revegetation 1.5 0.5 Total - 4.7 1.7

4.5.6.3.1 Summarised Bill of Quantities for Revegetation Proposed by WCS (2010 & 2011)

Table 63: Summary bill of quantities for the proposed revegetation activities proposed by WCS (2010 & 2011).

No. REF Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount (R) Section 1: Revegetation

1.1 Yr6.1.1 Revegetation 4.7 ha 120

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

4.6 Wetland Rehabilitation and/or Restoration Monitoring

Table 64: Presents the details of the roles and responsibilities covering the monitoring and maintenance of wetland habitat associated with KSIA. Monitoring Activities Location Frequency Requirements Responsible Persons Monitoring: Implimentation of All interventions Monthly All structural interventions should be assessed during Environmental engineered structures the implimentation phase Engineer Monitoring: Assess structural All structural Weekly during implimentation; 1 month, 2 month, 3 All structural interventions should be assessed to Environmental integrity interventions month, 6 month, 1 year, 2 year and 3 year intervals ensure the long-term stability of the interventions Engineer following the completion of the construction activities Monitoring: Visual changes - Overview of the Monthly during implimentation; 1 month, 2 month, 3 Panoramic photographs of the various interventions Monitoring Technician Fixed point photogrPHA site/areas/interv month, 6 month, 1 year, 2 year and 3 year intervals and / or sites is useful to monitor any changes to the entions following the completion of the construction activities systems. In particular, photographs have to be taken pre- and post-implimentation Monitoring: Visual changes - Overview of Upon availability of up-to-date aearial imagery. Aerial imagery should be obtained from eThekwini Monitoring Technician Aerial Imagery entire site Ethekwini provides new imagery every 2 years Municipality. The assessment of the imagery will highlight areas of potential concern. Maintenance: Clearing of Across the Initial clearing, with follow-up operations 3-4 times Removal of all invasive alien plants within the Maintenance Staff invasive alien plants entire during the growing season on an annual basis for the rehabilitated areas, preferably by means of hand- rehabilitation initial 3 years. Frequency to follow-up operations can pulling or manual means (i.e. herbicides should be sites and be reduced to 1 event per year, once invasive alien reserved for those instances where absolutely preferably the plant density reaches maintenance levels (i.e. density necessary). cacthments < 5 %) Monitoring: Wetland Across the Before implimentation and every 3 years following Adoption of WET-Health and WET-EcoServices Wetland Specialist assessments rehabilitation implimentation or in response to an event that may assessment techniques. These assessments assist site result in damage to the wetlands in assessing the changes in the functioning and integrity of the system Monitoring: WIV/FQAI Selected priority Before implimentation and every year following Assess the vegetation for: 1. Changes in vegetation Researcher/ Wetland systems or a implimentation composition; 2. Density of vegetation; 3. Invasive Specialist sub set of the alien plant species; 4. Appropriateness of vegetation wetlands (to be in terms of vegetation type, i.e. obligate wetland determined) vegetation within the proposed wetland habitat

121

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 65: Presents the timeframe of the monitoring of wetland habitat associated with KSIA. Monitoring Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Activity Implementation of R3, R7, R10, R34 R33 & R38 R1, R32 R29, R30 R27, R28 engineering R9 & & R35 structures R37 Assess structural R3, R7, R3, R7, R3, R7, R9, R3, R7, R9, R10, R34, R33 & R1, R32, R29, R30, R27, R28 integrity R9 & R9, R37, R37, R10, R37, R10, R35, R33, R38, R1, R29, R30, R27, R28 R37 R10, R34, R35, R34, R35, R38, R1, R32, R29, R27, R28 R34, R35 R33 , R38 R33, R38, R32, R29, R30, R27, R1, R32 R30 R28 Visual changes- R3, R7, R3, R7, R3, R7, R9, R3, R7, R9, R10, R34, R33 & R1, R32, R29, R30, R27, R28 fixed point R9 & R9, R37 R37, R10, R37, R10, R35, R33, R38, R1, R29, R30, R27, R28 photography R37 R10, R34, R35, R34, R35, R38, R1, R32, R29, R27, R28 R34, R35 R33, R38 R33,R38, R32, R29, R30, R27, R1, R32 R30 R28 Visual changes- R3, R7, R9 R10, R34, R3, R7, R9, R10, R34, R3, R7, R9, R10, R34, R29, R30 R27, R28 aerial imagery & R37 R35 R37, R33, R35, R1, 37, R33, R35, R1, R38 R32 R38, R29, R32, R27, R30 R28 Maintenance- clearing of IAPS Wetland R3, R7, R9 R10, R34 & R33 & R38 R3, R7, R9 , R29, R30 R33, R3, R7, R29, R33, assessments & R37 R35 R37, R1, R38, R27, R9, R37, R30 R38, R32 R28 R1, R32 R27, R28 WIV/FQAI R9, R9, Froggy R9, Froggy R38 R38 R27 R27 R27 Froggy Pond Pond & R38 Pond Black= Year 1, Red= Year 2, Orange= Year 3, Green= Year 4, Blue= Year 5, Brown= Year 6

122

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

5 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 5.1 Wetland Implementation Triggers

Table 66: Presents the legal requirements and estimated timeframes for wetland rehabilitation interventions Scheduled Wetland Best Case Scenario (within BA and GA thresholds) Worst Case Scenario (within S&EIR/Full WULA thresholds) Year No. R3 BAR GA S&EIR WULA R7 PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks R9 Preparation of the BAR and GA Preparation of the GA Documents Preparation of the scoping report – 8 weeks Preparation of the WULA and Documents – 12 weeks – 12 weeks associated documents R37 Submission and acknowledgement Submission of the GA documents Gathering information and populating the EIR Submission of the WULA – 1 day of application – 2 weeks to the DWS – 1 day - 8 weeks (the EIR must be written up to 80 % before the application is submitted to meet the required timelines) Draft Report for Public comment – Decision by the DWS – 30 days Submission and acknowledgement of Decision by the DWS – 153 work days 4 weeks application – 2 weeks Amendment of the Draft BAR with Scoping report – 30 day comment period from Year 1 comments – 2 weeks the time application is acknowledged Release of the Final BAR to the Submission of final scoping report to the DEA DEA – 1 day – 44 days from acknowledgement of application DEA decision making period – 107 Acceptance/rejection of scoping report – 43 days days from submission Release of EIR for public comment – 30 days Amendment of the EIR following comments -2 weeks Final EIR to the DEA – within 106 days of acceptance of the Scoping Report Decision by the DEA – 107 days from receipt Year 2 BAR GA S&EIR WULA

123

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

R10 PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks R34 Preparation of the BAR and GA Preparation of the GA Documents Preparation of the scoping report – 8 weeks Preparation of the WULA and Documents – 12 weeks – 12 weeks associated documents R35 Submission and acknowledgement Submission of the GA documents Gathering information and populating the EIR Submission of the WULA – 1 day of application – 2 weeks to the DWS – 1 day - 8 weeks (the EIR must be written up to 80% before the application is submitted to meet the required timelines) Draft Report for Public comment – Decision by the DWS – 30 days Submission and acknowledgement of Decision by the DWS – 153 work days 4 weeks application – 2 weeks Amendment of the Draft BAR with Scoping report – 30 day comment period from comments – 2 weeks the time application is acknowledged Release of the Final BAR to the Submission of final scoping report to the DEA DEA – 1 day – 44 days from acknowledgement of application DEA decision making period – 107 Acceptance/rejection of scoping report – 43 days days from submission Release of EIR for public comment – 30 days Amendment of the EIR following comments -2 weeks Final EIR to the DEA – within 106 days of acceptance of the Scoping Report Decision by the DEA – 107 days from receipt R33 BAR GA S&EIR WULA R38 PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks Preparation of the BAR and GA Preparation of the GA Documents Preparation of the scoping report – 8 weeks Preparation of the WULA and Documents – 12 weeks – 12 weeks associated documents Submission and acknowledgement Submission of the GA documents Gathering information and populating the EIR Submission of the WULA – 1 day Year 3 of application – 2 weeks to the DWS – 1 day - 8 weeks (the EIR must be written up to 80 % before the application is submitted to meet the required timelines) Draft Report for Public comment – Decision by the DWS – 30 days Submission and acknowledgement of Decision by the DWS – 153 work days 4 weeks application – 2 weeks

124

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Amendment of the Draft BAR with Scoping report – 30 day comment period from comments – 2 weeks the time application is acknowledged Release of the Final BAR to the Submission of final scoping report to the DEA DEA – 1 day – 44 days from acknowledgement of application DEA decision making period – 107 Acceptance/rejection of scoping report – 43 days days from submission Release of EIR for public comment – 30 days Amendment of the EIR following comments -2 weeks Final EIR to the DEA – within 106 days of acceptance of the Scoping Report Decision by the DEA – 107 days from receipt R1 BAR GA S&EIR WULA R32 PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks Preparation of the BAR and GA Preparation of the GA Documents Preparation of the scoping report – 8 weeks Preparation of the WULA and Documents – 12 weeks – 12 weeks associated documents Submission and acknowledgement Submission of the GA documents Gathering information and populating the EIR Submission of the WULA – 1 day of application – 2 weeks to the DWS – 1 day - 8 weeks (the EIR must be written up to 80% before the application is submitted to meet the required timelines) Draft Report for Public comment – Decision by the DWS – 30 days Submission and acknowledgement of Decision by the DWS – 153 work days 4 weeks application – 2 weeks Year 4 Amendment of the Draft BAR with Scoping report – 30 day comment period from comments – 2 weeks the time application is acknowledged Release of the Final BAR to the Submission of final scoping report to the DEA DEA – 1 day – 44 days from acknowledgement of application DEA decision making period – 107 Acceptance/rejection of scoping report – 43 days days from submission Release of EIR for public comment – 30 days Amendment of the EIR following comments -2 weeks

125

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Final EIR to the DEA – within 106 days of acceptance of the Scoping Report Decision by the DEA – 107 days from receipt R29 BAR GA S&EIR WULA R30 PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks Preparation of the BAR and GA Preparation of the GA Documents Preparation of the scoping report – 8 weeks Preparation of the WULA and Documents – 12 weeks – 12 weeks associated documents Submission and acknowledgement Submission of the GA documents Gathering information and populating the EIR Submission of the WULA – 1 day of application – 2 weeks to the DWS – 1 day - 8 weeks (the EIR must be written up to 80 % before the application is submitted to meet the required timelines) Draft Report for Public comment – Decision by the DWS – 30 days Submission and acknowledgement of Decision by the DWS – 153 work days 4 weeks application – 2 weeks Amendment of the Draft BAR with Scoping report – 30 day comment period from Year 5 comments – 2 weeks the time application is acknowledged Release of the Final BAR to the Submission of final scoping report to the DEA DEA – 1 day – 44 days from acknowledgement of application DEA decision making period – 107 Acceptance/rejection of scoping report – 43 days days from submission Release of EIR for public comment – 30 days Amendment of the EIR following comments -2 weeks Final EIR to the DEA – within 106 days of acceptance of the Scoping Report Decision by the DEA – 107 days from receipt R27 BAR GA S&EIR WULA R28 PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks PPP – 2 weeks Preparation of the BAR and GA Preparation of the GA Documents Preparation of the scoping report – 8 weeks Preparation of the WULA and Year 6 Documents – 12 weeks – 12 weeks associated documents Submission and acknowledgement Submission of the GA documents Gathering information and populating the EIR Submission of the WULA – 1 day of application – 2 weeks to the DWS – 1 day - 8 weeks (the EIR must be written up to 80%

126

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

before the application is submitted to meet the required timelines) Draft Report for Public comment – Decision by the DWS – 30 days Submission and acknowledgement of Decision by the DWS – 153 work days 4 weeks application – 2 weeks Amendment of the Draft BAR with Scoping report – 30 day comment period from comments – 2 weeks the time application is acknowledged Release of the Final BAR to the Submission of final scoping report to the DEA DEA – 1 day – 44 days from acknowledgement of application DEA decision making period – 107 Acceptance/rejection of scoping report – 43 days days from submission Release of EIR for public comment – 30 days Amendment of the EIR following comments -2 weeks Final EIR to the DEA – within 106 days of acceptance of the Scoping Report Decision by the DEA – 107 days from receipt

127

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

6 RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX 6.1 Risks and other aspects which may arise from the conservation of the area

While the implementation plan was written as a stand-alone document to be used to rehabilitate the final conservation area to a near natural ecosystem again, certain risks and aspects were identified during the course of the implementation plan’s design that may have an impact on the overall effectiveness and success of the rehabilitation project. These risks and factors need to be assessed, preferably prior to implementation, to ensure that the rehabilitation implementation process is not hindered. Without these risks and factors being accounted for actual implementation may be hindered, and thus KSEMS have conducted an initial identification and risk assessment of these factors. It must be noted that while this risk assessment has been done for the implementation purposes, full assessments with separate professional contracts will be required to fully determine the potential significance of each risk and aspect.

The risks and aspects can be broken down into two main categories: management of the final conservation area (including authorisations needed), and community involvement. Management of the final conservation area relates to studies, assessments, authorisations (rezoning, permits and/or licenses) and management plans needed for the effective implementation and eventual management of the final conservation area. Management aspects such as; rezoning and permitting, a soil assessment, a fire management plan which incorporates the addition of new implementation plan areas, and a road management plan fall under this category. Community involvement has been raised as a concern in terms of the access and utilisation of the final conservation area both during and after implementation. These concerns include: the need for a local community liaison, community access to, and use of, the conservation area (including cattle grazing, hay collection and medicinal plant harvesting), and recreational use (e.g. mountain biking, trail running and/ or hiking).

The potential risks associated with the conservation and rehabilitation of the area will be assessed using a quantitative impact assessment methodology which has been adapted from Regulation 31(2)(I) of the NEMA (Act no. 107 of 1998). The aim of this assessment is to identify and assess the significance of all the potential risks and aspects which may arise prior to, during, and/or subsequent to the implementation process. The methodology employed in this assessment will be used to assess the risks and aspects associated with the different potential requirements and uses within the final conservation area and will use the following procedure: 1. Identification and assessment of potential risks and aspects; 2. Prediction of the nature, duration, extent, likelihood and significance of the identified risks and aspects; 3. Identification of mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce the significance of the potential impact of the risks and aspects; and 4. Evaluation of the significance of the potential impacts following the implementation of mitigation measures.

128

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Potential risks will be assessed in terms of the following factors:

Table 67: Table outlining the various factors considered when determining the significance of each potential impact associated with the rehabilitation project. Criteria Indicator A description of what causes the effect, what will be affected and The nature how it will be affected Wherein it is indicated whether the lifetime of the impact will be of: 1 A very short duration (0–1 years) The duration (temporal scale) 2 A short duration (2-5 years) 3 Medium-term (5–15 years) 4 Long term (> 15 years) 5 Permanent

Wherein it is indicated whether: 1. The impact will be limited to the site 2. The impact will be limited to the local area 3. The impact will be limited to the region The physical extent (spatial scale) 4. The impact will be national 5. The impact will be international

Probability is estimated on a scale where: 1 Very improbable (probably will not happen) 2 Improbable (some possibility, but low likelihood) The probability of occurrence/likelihood of the 3 Probable (distinct possibility) impact (Likelihood of occurring) 4 Highly probable (most likely) 5 Definite (impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures)

Impacts quantified on a scale from 0-10, where a score is assigned: 0 Small and will have no effect on the environment 2 Minor and will not result in an impact on processes The magnitude of impact on implementation 4 Low and will cause a slight impact on processes processes (severity) 6 Moderate and will result in processes continuing but in a modified way 8 High (processes are altered to the extent that they temporarily cease) 10 Very high and results in complete destruction of patterns and permanent cessation of processes

Subsequent to the abovementioned factors being ranked for each potential impact, the ecological significance of each impact can be calculated utilising the following formulae:

Significance = (Magnitude + Duration + Extent) x Probability. The maximum value is 100 Significance Points.

129

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- The significance, which is determined through a synthesis of the characteristics described above and can be assessed as low, medium or high; - The status, which is described as either positive, negative or neutral; - The degree to which the impact can be reversed; - The degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and - The degree to which the impact can be mitigated.

The significance weightings for each potential impact are outlined in the table below:

Table 68: Table illustrating the significance weighting that can be allocated to each impact significance score. Significance Significance Description Value Weighting This impact has a Low ecological significance, and does not impact on the < 30 Low decision to develop within the area Where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area unless 31 - 60 Medium it is effectively mitigated Where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to > 60 High develop in the area

130

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

6.2 Management of the Final Conservation Area Table 69: Impact Assessment of Potential Risks and Aspects that pertain to the Management of the Final Conservation Area POTENTIAL RISK / ASPECTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING PROPOSED MITIGATIONS / RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFICANCE RATING Not Rezoning & Permit Complications Duration 5 Rezoning & Efficient Permit Process Duration 5 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Current zoning does not offer much - Rezoning the areas into either: projection status in terms of o Conservation / protected area or conservation. o Special zone with specific regulations - Formal protection was a requirement and requirements within the BOMP to protect the final - If rezoning is done, permits may become easier

conservation area. Extent 2 to obtain during the application process as the Extent 2 - Permits will be required for the translocated plants will be going to a collection, translocation and planting of conservation area. many species. - If a special zone is agreed upon, there may not - Permits may come with additional costs, even be the need for permits as the regulations requirements and limits, reducing the for the special zone may include the limits efficiency of the rehabilitation process. normally associated with the permit.

- Permits will be required for offsite Likelihood 5 - The use of test plots is crucial as: Likelihood 4 collection especially if their translocation o It will be unfeasible to collect a large is to an airport and / or agricultural area. quantity of individuals of a particular species from a test plot without Potential Consequences: compromising the site. However, - A reduction in rehabilitation gathering small amounts of plant effectiveness. material from a wide range of test plots

131

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL RISK / ASPECTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING PROPOSED MITIGATIONS / RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFICANCE RATING - Plants needed for rehabilitation become Magnitude 2 can be better managed in the long- Magnitude 8 difficult to obtain. term. - Limited quantities mean the entire site o These test plots may also provide cannot be rehabilitated. valuable research opportunity regarding growing rates, seed numbers, species propagation and feasibility, which can be utilised in the Significance rating 45 (Medium) – planning process of future Significance rating 60 (High) – Positive Positive Impact rehabilitation projects. Impact

No Soil Assessment Duration 4 Conduct Soil Assessment Duration 4 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - The condition and capability of the soil - Soil type assessment and delineation including: within the final conservation area is o Soil type currently unknown, especially in areas o Effective rooting depth of soil where sugarcane is soon to be o Fertility removed. Impacts may include; o Capability o Pesticide / herbicide residues. o Detailed delineated maps of the entire o Hydrocarbons from farming conservation area machinery.

132

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL RISK / ASPECTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING PROPOSED MITIGATIONS / RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFICANCE RATING o Lime residue Extent 2 - A soil rehabilitation plan which includes remedial Extent 2 o Excess fertilizer residue actions needed to correct imbalances and / or o Leached soils residuals within the soils: - The soil types have not been accurately o The soil conditions needed for coastal delineated which may have an effect on grassland must be taken into account the final delineations of the vegetation in the plan. types, as well as the proposed - The implementation and sustainable rehabilitation: management of any remedial actions. o The extent of the grassland - Soil fertility must be measured during the soil areas may be increased / assessment and delineation.

decreased depending on the Likelihood 3 - At least 2 soil assessments must be done for soil Likelihood 4 soil type in the area. rehabilitation monitoring: o Berea Red Sand has been o The first assessment must be done highlighted as crucial for the before any rehabilitation is grassland delineations. implemented. - The BOMP and CRP specifies the need o The second assessment must be for an accurate soil assessment. performed after each terrestrial rehabilitation area’s 5 year fallowing Potential Consequences: period.

133

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL RISK / ASPECTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING PROPOSED MITIGATIONS / RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFICANCE RATING - A reduction in rehabilitation Magnitude 6 o A final one is recommended (but not Magnitude 8 effectiveness. essential) on the 10th year after the - Poor rehabilitation of certain areas beginning of rehabilitation where soil type is incompatible with implementation. proposed vegetation types. - Loss of opportunity to rehabilitate grasslands on Berea Red Soil. - Poor rehabilitation because of poor soil conditions with no active soil remediation.

- Reduction in potential vegetation Significance rating 36 (Medium) – Significance rating 56 (High) – Positive propagation rates as a result of poor, or Negative impact Impact misused, soils.

No Fire Management Plan Duration 4 Develop a Fire Management Plan Duration 4 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Fire management is crucial for - A fire management plan for the entire final grassland establishment and survival. conservation area is needed. - Woody vegetation is kept in check by - This plan is to include: appropriate and controlled burning. o Burning strategies o Accurate delineations of burn areas

134

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL RISK / ASPECTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING PROPOSED MITIGATIONS / RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFICANCE RATING - Controlled and scheduled burning within Extent 3 o Areas of special concern Extent 2 wetlands is suggested to defoliate o Fire breaks wetland vegetation. o Responsible persons - Burning too frequently or not frequently o Burning schedules for each zone enough will alter the woody : grass - A checkerboard approach to areas is effective as ratios. it allows for burning while also leaving refugia for - Burning the entire conservation area is organisms to survive.

not ideal as it does not give organisms Likelihood 4 o Investigation must be made into Likelihood 4 (flora and fauna) any places to take variations of season and intensity of refuge. burns after the initial 5 year fallowing - Safety concerns over fuel load build up period in order to promote diversity of if no burning is done. species. - Uncontrollable fires with no fire breaks. - Boundary burns need to be done to - Arsonists starting fires within the area. approximately 2 m around woodland area ecotones to prevent burning of woody vegetation Magnitude 6 Magnitude 8 Potential Consequences: while also curtailing bush encroachment. - The domination of either grassland or - Burning in wetlands where necessary woodland depending on poor burning o See appropriate wetland rehabilitation frequency. plans (GroundTruth, 2015). - Loss of biodiversity if poorly managed. - Danger to human life and property.

135

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL RISK / ASPECTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING PROPOSED MITIGATIONS / RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFICANCE RATING - Use of less cost-efficient methods. Significance rating Significance rating

52 (Medium) – 56 (Medium) – Negative Impact Positive Impact

No Road Management Duration 5 Develop a Road Management Plan Duration 5 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Access to rehabilitation sites difficult and - A road management plan is required within the possibly destructive if no access routes conservation area. are available. - This plan is to include: - Many routes are available but o A comprehensive investigation of all unmaintained. roads on site, including the road use Extent 1 Extent 1 - Access to areas for controlled burning o The condition of all roads and / or aircraft safety needed for o Erosion concerns emergency vehicles. o The need for each road and - Erosion occurring within poorly o Authorisation to decommission certain maintained and unrehabilitated roads roads - Degradation of roads which are no - A road maintenance and rehabilitation plan is Likelihood 4 Likelihood 4 longer utilised. required - o For all roads that are necessary for the Potential Consequences: conservation area and emergency/security services.

136

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL RISK / ASPECTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING PROPOSED MITIGATIONS / RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFICANCE RATING - Hinder the effective rehabilitation of Magnitude 6 o With rehabilitation strategies for roads Magnitude 8 wetland and riparian areas over which that are no longer required on site. unnecessary roads traverse. o Erosion control must form part of this - A reduction in rehabilitation plan to prevent excess sediment effectiveness. eroding off the roads and entering - Loss of biodiversity if poorly managed. riparian and / or wetland areas. - Danger to human life and property. Significance rating - The decommissioning of roads must be decided Significance rating - Uncontrolled erosion on disused roads. internally at ACSA, DTPC and LMJV as these roads are utilised for rehabilitation implementation, conservation management, 48 (Medium) – IAPS control, fire management, and emergency 56 (Low) – Positive Negative Impact Impact services. It is advised that no roads are decommissioned until all wetland physical interventions are done as construction vehicles will required access via these roads.

137

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

6.3 Community Involvement Table 70: Impact Assessment of Potential Risks and Aspects that pertain to the potential Community Involvement within the Final Conservation Area. POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION No Local Community Liaison Duration 5 Appoint a Local Community Liaison Duration 4 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Several concerns have been raised - A local community liaison needs to be set regarding the involvement of the local up to coordinate communication with local communities with LMJV dealings. community members. - BOMP & CRP specifies that the final - The responsibilities of this liaison include: conservation area should be used to o Setting up meetings with local Extent 2 Extent 2 benefit the local community as well. community members to discuss - There needs to be more local concerns and questions engagement with surrounding regarding the rehabilitation in communities to both disperse the area. information as well as deal with o Talking to local Nkosi’s’, concerns and queries. counsellors and other Likelihood 4 community leaders. Likelihood 4 Potential Consequences: o Setting up workshops and - Missed opportunities to involve local forums to educate local communities in potential work. communities on the importance - Tension between project management of rehabilitation and the and surrounding communities. conservation of the environment

138

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION - Misunderstandings and lack of Magnitude 6 o Getting in contact with members Magnitude 6 transparency with regard to of public of interest if needed rehabilitation activities and conservation (e.g. cattle owner) and importance. o Advertising employment - Missed opportunities to empower and / opportunities within the or upskill local community. rehabilitation effort (and the - Inadequate transformation. airport at large). Significance rating 52 (Medium) – Significance rating 48 (Medium) – Negative Impact Positive Impact

Community Access Duration 5 Community Access Duration 5 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Community access may result in - Formalisation and upgrading of paths damage to the conservation area used by community members, particularly - Paths are used by KSIA employees as those of KSIA employees. well - An investigation into fencing of the - Mt Moreland community needs access property with access gates to limit to and from major routes Extent 1 movement. Extent 1 - Concerns include: - Community access cannot be entirely o Unofficial paths leading to removed however: erosion channels o Mt Moreland community resides o Arson within the conservation areas

139

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION o Removal of plants / wood / Likelihood 3 o The BOMP & CRP specifies the Likelihood 2 rocks and fauna for private local communities must benefit and / or commercial use from the conservation area’s o Medicinal plant collection resources. o Grazing of cattle o Dumping of waste material o Snares and hunting Magnitude 6 Magnitude 4 Potential Consequences: - Criminal activity occurring within the Mt Moreland area. - Reduction in rehabilitation effectiveness. - Removal of rare and endangered Significance rating 36 (Medium) – Significance rating 20 (Low) – species. Negative Impact Negative Impact - Excessive, or misuse of resources allocated to communities. - Risk to safety of human and ecosystems.

140

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Recreational Access: Short term (Single Duration 1 Recreational Access: Long term (Continuous Duration 4 mountain biking races and / or trail runs) mountain biking and / or trail running paths and Issues / Concerns: facilities) - Damage to grassland and forest Issues / Concerns: vegetation for paths. - Greater damage to grassland and forest - Litter pollution (e.g. plastic cups). vegetation for paths. - High maintenance cost of paths and - Low short term cash income for low Extent 1 Extent 1 capital cost. facilities. - Unauthorised traversing through final - Litter pollution (e.g. plastic cups). conservation area. - Higher initial capital input but long term - Potential harvesting of floral (low-moderate) cash income. inflorescence and other material. - Unauthorised traversing through final Likelihood 4 Likelihood 2 - Need to maintain route and employ staff conservation area. - Management issue (i.e. who is responsible; contractor or developer). Potential Consequences: - Possible loss of species. Potential Consequences: - Greater erosion along poorly maintained paths. - Possible loss of species. Magnitude 4 Magnitude 6 - Erosion along poorly maintained paths - Change in the ‘sense of place’, no longer - Low income for conservation and an area focused on biodiversity but rather rehabilitation. recreation. - Fire risk (e.g. disposal of cigarettes). - Continuous income to help pay for the conservation area.

141

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Significance rating Significance rating 24 (Low) – Positive 22 (Low) – Positive Impact Impact

Recreational Access: Hiking trails Duration 4 Issues / Concerns: - Damage to grassland and forest vegetation for paths. - Maintenance cost of paths and facilities

- Litter pollution (e.g. plastic cups). Extent 1 - Arson (accidental or intentional). - Restricted access allows for charging of participants but restricting access is not guaranteed yet.

- Low initial capital input but low long term Likelihood 3 cash income.

Potential Consequences: - Possible loss of species.

- Erosion along poorly maintained paths. Magnitude 6 - Arson leading to danger to human and ecosystem health. - Continuous income to help pay for conservation area.

142

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Significance rating 33 (Medium) –

Positive Impact

Cattle Grazing Duration 4 Cattle Grazing Duration 2 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Local community members want access - If possible, complete restriction of any to area for cattle grazing. grazing on site: - Grazing is not conducive to geophyte o This may prevent overgrazing and forb growth while fire is also a more from occurring. effective grass management than o Geophytes and forbs may have herbivory. a higher success rate. Extent 1 Extent 1 - Can cattle grazing be responsibly o No exponential growth of managed? herbivory on site. o If numbers are limited, will the o No disputes between threshold be kept to? communities and/or individuals o If individuals are selected, will over grazing rights and other members of the public opportunities. adhere to these selections? o Less management cost and risk.

143

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION o If rotational grazing is allowed, Likelihood 4 - If not possible then more active Likelihood 3 will the owners follow the plan management may be required in areas and prevent cattle from where grazing is occurring: entering restricted areas? o Hydro-seeding / plugs where - An increase in cattle grazing over time grazing is heaviest. may result in woody vegetation o Active soil erosion measures. dominating the area. o Determining who has legal - Communication (via the community rights to grazing to prevent an liaison) may be needed to establish the ‘all access’ policy. grazing rights and convey restrictions Magnitude 6 o Demarcation and fecing of Magnitude 4 and responsible persons. areas where active rehabilitation - Investigate communal grazing rights. is occurring to prevent access. o Rotation grazing across grazing Potential Consequences: areas to prevent overgrazing in - The domination of woodland if over a single area. grazing occurs. o Management of personal and - Potential erosion if bare soil is left. fencing will incur higher cost. - Local community tension over grazing Significance rating Significance rating rights and areas. - Risk of use for commercial purposes 44 (Medium) – 21 (Low) – - Loss of biodiversity if poorly managed. Negative Impact Negative Impact

144

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Hay Collection Duration 4 Hay Collection Duration 4 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Certain individuals within the - Smaller scale hand harvesting: surrounding communities have o Less likely to reduce fire load requested access to the final too much. conservation area for the purpose of hay o Will obstruct rehabilitation collection. activities to a lower degree.

- If access is granted, methods or Extent 1 o Will require less access roads Extent 1 collection quantities will need to be (although potentially more discussed and managed. paths). - If too much hay is taken, there may not - Controlled access is needed to prevent be sufficient hay left to burn grassland high numbers of people coming onsite to areas. collect. - Method is also important, larger scale - Possibly a permit type approach is needed

harvesters may: Likelihood 4 with restrictions on who can take and how Likelihood 3 o obstruct rehabilitation efforts much can be taken. (e.g. destruction of - Close coordination between fire vegetation) management officer, community liaison o require more access routes and individuals with access to prevent (may lead to soil compaction incidents on site. and resultant erosion).

145

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION o take too much fire load. Magnitude 6 - If done responsibly, it may create an Magnitude 4 - Concerns over restrictive access and opportunity for more safe and efficient fire selection criteria for restrictions. management to occur (i.e. by removing hay it reduces the fire load, and thus the Potential Consequences: strength/temperature of the fires). - Reduced fire management success. - Impacts on grassland rehabilitation and biodiversity improvements. Significance rating Significance rating - Loss of biodiversity if poorly managed. 44 (Medium) – 27 (Low) – Negative Impact Negative Impact

Medicinal Plant Harvesting Duration 4 Medicinal Plant Harvesting Duration 2 Issues / Concerns: Mitigations: - Quantities are difficult to predict and - No or very restricted access is preferable monitor. to prevent loss of biodiversity. - Many medicinal plants are rare / - If access is needed, tight regulations on Extent 1 Extent 1 endangered / protected species. number of plants, when they can be - Concerns over restrictive access and harvested and what criteria are used to selection criteria for restrictions” allow individuals access. o Who will have access? Likelihood 4 Likelihood 3 o Why are they allowed? o When can harvesting occur?

146

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Potential Consequences: Magnitude 8 Magnitude 6 - Reduction in biodiversity. - Reduction in rare / endangered / protected species onsite. - Impacts on grassland rehabilitation and Significance rating Significance rating biodiversity improvements. 52 (Medium) – 27 (Low) – Negative Impact Negative Impact

147

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

7 REFERENCES

ARMSTRONG, A. 2009. WET-Legal: Wetland rehabilitation and the law in South Africa. WRC Report no. TT 338/09. Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

COWDEN, C. AND KOTZE, D. C. 2007. An assessment of the wetlands potentially affected by the proposed Dube TradePort, La Mercy. Compiled for Institute of Natural Resources. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

COWDEN, C. AND KOTZE, D. C. 2009. WET-RehabEvaluate: Guidelines for the monitoring and evaluation of wetland rehabilitation projects. WRC Report no. TT 342/88, Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

ECO-PULSE. 2012. Specialist comment on anticipated consequences of delaying wetland rehabilitation activities associated with the construction of the King Shaka International Airport (KSIA). Report reference: EP34-01, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

GroundTruth. 2015. King Shaka International Airport: Phase 1 Wetland Rehabilitation Plan. Report reference: GTW409-280815-01. Hilton, South Africa.

GroundTruth. 2017. Dube TradePort Southern Conservation Zone: Wetland Study and Detailed Rehabilitation Plan (DRAFT). Report reference: GTW623-230317-01. Hilton, South Africa.

INR. 2007. Dube TradePort Environmental Impact Report. Institute of Natural Resources NPC (INR), Scottsville, South Africa.

INR. 2009. Dube TradePort: Specialist Wetland Assessment. Prepared by Institute of Natural Resources (INR). Report no. 401/09. Scottsville, South Africa.

KOTZE, D. C., BREEN, C., KAREKO, J. AND NXELE, I. 2009. WET-ManagementReview: The impact of natural resource management programmes on wetlands in South Africa. WRC Report no. TT 335/09, Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

KOTZE, D. C., ELLERY, W. N., ROUNTREE, M., GRENFELL, M. C., MARNEWECK, G., NXELE, I. Z., BREEN, D. C., DINI, J., BATCHELOR, A. L. AND SIEBEN, E. 2009. WET-RehabPlan: Guidelines for planning wetland rehabilitation in South Africa. WRC Report no. TT 336/09. Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

KOTZE, D. C., MARNEWECK, G. C., BATCHELOR, A. L., LINDLEY, D. S. AND COLLINS, N. B. 2007. WET- Ecoservices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report no. TT

148

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

339/09, Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

KOTZE, D. C. AND ELLERY, W. N. 2009. WET-OutcomeEvaluate: An evaluation of the rehabilitation outcomes at six wetland sites in South Africa. WRC Report no. TT 343/09. Water Research commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

MACFARLANE, D. M., KOTZE, D. C., ELLERY, W. N., WALTERS, D., KOOPMAN, V., GOODMAN, P. AND GOGE, C. 2007. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report no. 340/09, Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

MUCINA, L. AND RUTHERFORD, M. C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). Pretoria, South Africa.

NEL, J. L. AND DRIVER, A. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical Report. Volume 2: Freshwater Component. CSIR Report no. CSIR/ECO/IR/2012/0022/A, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Stellenbosch, South Africa.

NEL, J. L., MURRAY, K. M., MAHERRY, A. M., PETERSEN, C. P., ROUX, D. J., DRIVER, A., HILL, L., VAN DEVENTER, H., FUNKE, N., SWARTZ, E. R., SMITH-ADAO, L. B., MBONA, N., DOWNSBOROUGH, L. AND NIENABER, S. 2011. Technical report for the national freshwater ecosystem priority areas project. WRC Report no. 1801/2/11, Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.

SEF. 2014. King Shaka International Airport (KSIA) Ecological and Wetland Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan, interim report 1. Prepared by Strategic Environmental Focus (Pty) Ltd (SEF) for Airports Company of South Africa SOC Ltd. (ACSA). SEF Project Code: 506020. Durban, South Africa.

SEF. 2015. KSIA – Phase 1. Biodiversity Offset Management Plan and Conceptual Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan. Prepared by SEF for ACSA. SEF Project Code: 506020. Durban, South Africa.

SEF. 2015b. KSIA Ecological and Wetland Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan, Biodiversity Offset Review Report. Prepared by SEF for ACSA. SEF Project Code: 506020. Durban, South Africa.

SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE & POLICY WORKING GROUP. 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org & Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International.

WCS. 2010. Wetland Rehabilitation Strategy Report: Dube TradePort Complex. Report reference 647-2010. Pretoria, South Africa.

149

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

WCS. 2011. Wetland Rehabilitation Plan: Phase 1 and 2 Dube TradePort Complex. Report reference 763-2011. Pretoria, South Africa.

150

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

8 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1A: Grass species lists for rehabilitation General Only Priority Application Onsite Offsite Wetland Vegetative Genus Species species (kg / ha) collection collection Species Propagation Acroceras macrum Yes Yes Yes Alloteropsis semialata Yes Yes Andropogon eucomis Yes Yes Yes Yes Anthephora pubescens 4 Yes Aristida junciformis Yes Bothriochloa bladii 1-3 Yes Brachiaria brizantha Yes 2–4 Yes Yes Chloris gayana Yes 1-4 Yes Chloris virgata Yes Cymbopogon plurinodis * Yes Dactyloctenium australe Yes Yes Yes Dactyloctenium gigantea Yes Digitaria diagonalis Digitaria eriantha * 4-6 Yes Yes Digiteria longiflora Yes Echinochloa pyramidalis Yes Yes Ehrharta erecta Yes Yes Eragrostis capensis Yes Yes Yes Eragrostis chapelieri Yes Eragrostis ciliaris Yes Eragrostis racemosa Yes Eragrostis plana Yes

151 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Eriochloa meyeriana Yes Yes Yes Hemarthria altissima Yes Yes Yes Yes Heteropogon contortus Yes Hyparrhenia hirta * Yes Hyparrhenia filipendula Yes Yes Yes Imperata cylindrical Yes Yes Ischaemum fasciculatum Yes Yes Yes Yes Leersia hexandra Yes Yes Yes Melica racemosa Yes Melinis nerviglumis Yes Melinis repens Yes Yes Oplismenus hirtellus Yes Yes Panicum schinzii Yes Panicum deustum 10 Yes Panicum repens Yes Yes Setaria megaphylla Yes sphacelata var Setaria sericea Setaria pallide-fusca Yes Setaria plicatilis Yes Setaria verticillata Yes Sporobolus fimbriatus Yes Yes Themeda triandra MM form Yes Yes Themeda triandra Urochloa panicoides 2–4 Yes Yes * - Selectively grown as can out-compete other species

152 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

APPENDIX 1B: 60 common grassland herbs and geophytes which are characteristic of indigenous coastal grassland in good condition. This list is not exhaustive and can be expanded. (Styles and Granger undated) Genus Species Family Chaetacanthus burchellii ACANTHACEAE Tephrosia macropoda subsp. macropoda FABACEAE Thunbergia atriplicifolia ACANTHACEAE Salacia kraussii CELASTRACEAE Becium obovatum subsp. obovatum var. obovatum LAMIACEAE Selago tarachodes SCROPHULARIACEAE Anthospermum herbaceum RUBIACEAE Abrus laeviagtus laevigatus FABACEAE Acalypha peduncularis EUPHORBIACEAE Aster bakerianus ASTERACEAE Berkheya speciosa ASTERACEAE Berkheya umbellata ASTERACEAE Callilepis laureola ASTERACEAE Chamaecrista plumosa var. plumosa FABACEAE Clutia cordata EUPHORBIACEAE Commelina africana COMMELINACEAE Crabbea hirsuta ACANTHACEAE Crotalaria globifera FABACEAE Cyanotis speciosa COMMELINACEAE Eriosema salignum FABACEAE Eriosema cordatum FABACEAE Euryops laxus ASTERACEAE Gerbera ambigua (only the form G. kraussii) ASTERACEAE Gerbera piloselloides ASTERACEAE Graderia scabra SCROPHULARIACEAE Hebenstretia comosa SCROPHULARIACEAE Hibiscus aethiopicus TILIACEAE Hypoxis hemerocallidea HYPOXIDACEAE

153 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Justicia protracta ACANTHACEAE Kniphofia gracilis or laxiflorus, but not both ASPHODELACEAE Leonotis intermedia LAMIACEAE Osteospermum grandidentatum ASTERACEAE Oxygonum dregeanum subsp. dregeanum POLYGONACEAE Pachystigma venosum RUBIACEAE Pelargonium luridum GERANIACEAE Pentanisia prunelloides RUBIACEAE Ruellia cordata ACANTHACEAE Scabiosa columbaria DIPSACACEAE Senecio oxyriifolius ASTERACEAE Senecio bupleuroides ASTERACEAE Senecio glaberrimus ASTERACEAE Senecio latifolius ASTERACEAE Sphenostylis marginata FABACEAE Sphenostylis angustifolia FABACEAE Stachys natalensis LAMIACEAE Tritonia lineata IRIDACEAE Vernonia natalensis ASTERACEAE Vernonia oligocephala ASTERACEAE Vigna unguiculata FABACEAE Aristea ecklonii IRIDACEAE Asystasia gangetica ACANTHACEAE Barleria obtusa ACANTHACEAE Chlorophytum saundersiae ASPARAGACEAE (Anthericum) Helichrysum cymosum* ASTERACEAE * - suitable for wetland temporary zones

154 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

APPENDIX 1C: Woody vegetation species lists for rehabilitation Suitability for Suitability for Type (woody / riparian woody mosaic Suitability for Suitability for Onsite Offsite Genus Species forb / grass) areas areas grassland wetland collection collection Seed Vegetative

Abrus laevigatus Woody climber No Yes Yes Yes Yes Abrus precatorius Woody climber No Yes Yes Yes Yes Abutilon sonneratianum Woody forb No Yes Yes Some available Yes Yes Acacia (Senegalia/Vachellia) ataxacantha Thorny climber Yes Yes Some available Yes Yes Acacia (Senegalia/Vachellia) kraussiana Thorny climber Yes Yes Plenty available Yes Acacia (Senegalia/ Vachellia) natalitia Small tree Yes Yes Plenty available Yes Acacia (Vachellia) nilotica Small tree No Yes Plenty available Yes Acacia (Senegalia/Vachellia) robusta Large tree Yes Yes Plenty available Yes Acacia (Senegalia/Vachellia) schweinfurthii Thorny climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Acacia (Vachellia) sieberiana Large tree Yes Yes Some available Yes Yes Acalypha glabrata Woody shrub Yes Yes Some available Yes Acalypha sonderiana Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Acalypha villicaulis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Acokanthera oblongifolia Small tree Yes Plenty available Yes Acridocarpus natalitius Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Adenia gummifera Creeper Yes Yes Yes Albizia adianthifolia Tree Yes Yes Plenty available Yes Albuca nelsonii Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Albuca setosa Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes

155 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Allocassine laurifolia Tree Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Allophylus dregeanus Tree Yes Some available Yes Yes Allophylus melanocarpus Tree Yes Yes Yes Allophylus natalensis Tree Yes Some available Yes Yes Aloe arborescens Woody shrub Yes Some available Yes Yes Aloe cooperii Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Aloe linearifolia Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Aloe maculata Grassland forb Yes Some available Yes Yes Aloe pluridens Small tree Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Aloe rupestris Small tree Yes Yes Yes Alysicarpus rugosus Grassland forb Yes Some available Yes Yes Anastrabe integerrima Small tree Yes Yes Some available Yes Yes Aneilema aequinoctiale Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Aneilema dregeanum Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Anisochaeta mikanioides Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ansellia africana Epiphyte Yes Yes Yes Yes Anthericum saundersiae Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Antidesma venosum Tree Yes Yes Some avaiabel Yes Yes Apodytes dimidiata Tree Yes Yes Some avaiabel Yes Yes Scrambling Must be Aptenia cordifolia succulent Yes Some available local form Yes Yes Aristea ecklonii Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Aristea woodii Grassland forb Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Asparagus densiflorus Understory forb Yes Yes Yes

156 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Understory Asparagus falcatus climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Asparagus macowanii Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Asparagus natalensis Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Asparagus plumosus Understory forb Yes Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Asparagus racemosus Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Asparagus setaceus Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Asparagus virgatus Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Aspilia natalensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Aster bakerianus Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Asystasia gangetica Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Baphia racemosa Tree Yes Some available Yes Yes Barleria gueinzii Woody forb Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Barleria obtusa Woody forb Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Barringtonia racemosa Tree Yes Some available Yes Yes Bauhinia tomentosa Small tree Yes Yes Yes Becium obovatum Grassland forb Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Begonia homonyma Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Behnia reticulata Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Berkheya bipinnatifida Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Berkheya umbellata Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Berkheya insignis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Bersama lucens Tree Yes Yes Some available Yes Yes Blepharis integrifolia Grassland Yes Yes Yes Yes Boophone disticha Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes

157 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Brachylaena discolor Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bridelia micrantha Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Buddleja dysophylla Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Bulbine abyssinica Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Bulbine asphodeloides Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Bulbine natalensis Succulent forb Yes Yes Yes Burchellia bubalina Tree Yes Some available Yes Yes Caesalpinia bonduc Thorny climber Yes Yes Yes Callilepis laureola Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Calodendrum capense Tree Yes Some available Yes Yes Calpurnia aurea Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Canavalia bonariensis Woody climber Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Canthium ciliatum Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Canthium inerme Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Canthium spinosum Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Capparis brassii Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Capparis fascicularis Woody climber Yes Capparis sepiaria Woody climber Yes Capparis tomentosa Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Carissa bispinosa Woody shrub Yes Some available Yes Yes Yes Carissa macrocarpa Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cassine tetragona Tree Yes Yes Yes Catunaregam spinosa Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Cavacoa aurea Understory tree Yes Yes Yes

158 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Celosia trigyna Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Celtis africana Large tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Ceratotheca triloba Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Chaetachme aristata Large tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Chamaecrista comosa Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Chamaecrista mimosoides Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Chionanthus peglerae Large tree Yes Yes Yes Chlorophytum bowkeri Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Chlorophytum krookianum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Chlorophytum modestum Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Chrysanthemoides monilifera Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Cissampelos torulosa Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Cissus fragilis Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cissus quadrangularis Succulent climber Yes Yes Yes Clausena anisata Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Clematis brachiata Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Clerodendrum glabrum Tree Yes Yes Yes Clivia gardenii Understory bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Clutia pulchella Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Cnestis polyphylla Woody climber Yes Yeas Yes Coccinia palmata Vine Yes Yes Yes Coddia rudis Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Cola natalensis Understory tree Yes Yes Yes Coleotrype natalensis Understory forb Yes Yes Yes

159 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Combretum bracteosum Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Combretum kraussii Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Commelina africana Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Commelina diffusa Understory forb Yes Yes Commelina erecta Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Commicarpus pentandrus Creeping forb Yes Yes Yes Commiphora harveyi Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Conostomium natalense Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Cordia caffra Tree Yes Yes Yes Cotyledon orbiculata Succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Crassula alba Succulent Yes Yes Yes Crassula expansa Succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Crassula multicava Succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Crassula ovata Succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Crassula pellucida Succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Crassula perfoliata Succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Grassland Crassula sarmentosa succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grassland Crassula vaginata succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Crinum macowanii Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wetland Crinum moorei understory bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Crocosmia aurea Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Crotalaria capensis Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Crotalaria pallida Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes

160 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Croton sylvaticus Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Cryptocarya woodii Tree Yes Yes Yes Cussonia sphaerocephala Tree Yes Yes Yes Cussonia zuluensis Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyanotis lapidosa Grassland forb Yes Yes Cyanotis speciosa Grassland Yes Yes Yes Cyathula cylindrica Forb Yes Yes Cynanchum ellipticum Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Cynanchum natalitium Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyperus albostriatus Understory sedge Yes Cyperus dives Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Cyperus prolifer Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Cyperus sexangularis Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Cyphostemma flaviflorum Succulent climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyphostemma hypoleucum Succulent climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyrtanthus breviflorus Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyrtanthus contractus Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyrtanthus sanguineus Understory bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyrtorchis arcuata Epiphyte Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dalbergia armata Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dalbergia obovata Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dalechampia capensis Climber Yes Yes Yes Deinbollia oblongifolia Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Delosperma lineare Succulent forb Yes Yes Yes

161 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Delosperma tradescanthioides Succulent forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Derris trifoliata Forest climber Yes Yes Yes Desmodium incanum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Dianthus zeyheri Grassland Yes Yes Yes Yes Dichrostachys cinerea Small tree Yes Yes Yes Dicliptera heterostegia Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Diclis reptans Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Dicoma speciosa Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Dicoma zeyheri Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Dierama argyreum Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Dierama igneum Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Dietes butcheriana Understory corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Dietes grandiflora Understory corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dietes iridioides Understory corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Digitaria diversinervis Grass Yes Yes Yes Yes Digitaria eriantha Grass Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dioscorea cotinifolia Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Dioscorea dregeana Climber Yes Yes Yes Diospyros natalensis Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Diospyros scabrida Tree Yes Yes Yes Diospyros villosa Tree Yes Yes Yes Dipcadi viride Bulb Yes Yes Yes Disa nervosa Grassland orchid Yes Yes Yes Dissotis canescens Wetland shrub Yes Yes

162 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Dissotis princeps Wetland shrub Yes Yes Dombeya tiliacea Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dovyalis longispina Small tree Yes Yes Yes Dovyalis rhamnoides Small tree Yes Yes Yes Dracaena aletriformis Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Drimiopsis lachenalioides Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Drimiopsis maculata Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Drimiopsis maxima Understory bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Drypetes arguta Understory tree Yes Yes Yes Drypetes natalensis Understory tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Dyschoriste depressa Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Echinochloa pyramidalis Grass Yes Yes Yes Yes Ehretia rigida Grass Yes Yes Yes Ekebergia capensis Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Elaeodendron croceum Small tree Yes Yes Yes Eleocharis limosa Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Yes Embelia ruminata Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Encephalartos natalensis Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Encephalartos villosus Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Eragrostis curvula Grass Yes Yes Yes Yes Eragrostis plana Grass Yes Yes Yes Erianthemum dregei Woody parasite Yes Yes Yes Eriosema psoraleoides Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Eriospermum mackenii Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes

163 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Eriospermum ornithogaloides Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Erythrina lysistemon Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Erythrina humeana Grassland tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Erythrococca berberidea Small tree Yes Yes Yes Erythroxylum emarginatum Small tree Yes Yes Yes Erythroxylum pictum Small tree Yes Yes Yes Ethulia conyzoides Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Euclea natalensis Tree Yes Yes Yes Eugenia albanensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Eugenia capensis Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Eulophia angolensis Wetland orchid Yes Yes Yes Eulophia clavicornis Grassland orchid Yes Yes Yes Yes Eulophia clitellifera Grassland orchid Yes Yes Yes Yes Eulophia ensata Grassland orchid Yes Yes Yes Yes Eulophia ovalis Grassland orchid Yes Yes Yes Yes Eulophia speciosa Grassland orchid Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Euphorbia grandidens Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Euphorbia ingens Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Euphorbia triangularis Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grassland Euphorbia woodii succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Ficus burkei Tree Yes Yes Yes Ficus burtt-davyi Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Ficus capreifolia Woody shrub Yes Yes Ficus lutea Large tree Yes Yes Yes

164 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Ficus natalensis Large tree Yes Yes Yes Ficus polita Large tree Yes Yes Yes Ficus sur Tree Yes Yes Yes Flagellaria guineensis Forest climber Yes Yes Yes Freesia laxa Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Gardenia thunbergia Small tree Yes Yes Yes Gazania krebsiana Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Gerbera ambigua Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Gerbera piloselloides Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Gladiolus aurantiacus Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Gladiolus crassifolius Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Gladiolus cruentus Corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Gladiolus dalenii Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Gladiolus papilio Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Gladiolus sericeovillosus Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Gloriosa superba Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grassland woody Gnidia anthylloides forb Yes Yes Yes Grassland woody Gnidia kraussiana forb Yes Yes Yes Grewia caffra Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Grewia lasiocarpa Small tree Yes Yes Yes Grewia occidentalis Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Gymnosporia buxifolia Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Gymnosporia maranguensis Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes

165 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Haemanthus albiflos Bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Harpephyllum caffrum Large tree Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum adenocarpum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum appendiculatum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum aureum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum decorum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum kraussii Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum panduratum Forb Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum pilosellum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Helichrysum ruderale Grassland forb Yes Yes Heliophila scandens Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hewittia malabarica Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Hibiscus calyphyllus Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Hibiscus cannabinus Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Hibiscus pedunculatus Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Hibiscus surattensis Woody forb Yes Yes Hibiscus tiliaceus Large tree Yes Yes Yes Hippobromus pauciflorus Small tree Yes Yes Yes Grassland Huernia hystrix succulent Yes Yes Yes Yes Hypoestes aristata Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Hypoestes forskaolii Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Hypoxis acuminata Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Hypoxis angustifolia Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Hypoxis colchicifolia Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes

166 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Hypoxis hemerocallidea Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hypoxis membranacea Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Hypoxis rigidula Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Ipomoea ficifolia Clinmber Yes Yes Yes Yes Isoglossa cooperi Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Isoglossa woodii Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Isolepis prolifera Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Yes Jasminum multipartitum Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Jasminum streptopus Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Jatropha hirsuta Shub Yes Yes Juncus effusus Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Yes Juncus lomatophyllum Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Yes Justicia betonica Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Justicia campylostemon Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Justicia flava Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Justicia petiolaris Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Justicia protracta Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Kalanchoe crenata Succulent forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Kalanchoe rotundifolia Succulent forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Keetia gueinzii Small tree Yes Yes Yes Kniphofia bucananii Wetland forb Yes Yes Kniphofia gracilis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Kniphofia rooperi Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes Kniphofia spp. Silverglenn Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes

167 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Kniphofia tysonii Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Kraussia floribunda Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Lagenaria sphaerica Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Lagynias lasiantha Small tree Yes Yes Yes Laportea peduncularis Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes Ledebouria cooperii Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Ledebouria revoluta Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Leonotis intermedia Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Leonotis leonuris Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Leucas lavandulifolia Woody forb Yes Yes Lippia javanica Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Littonia modesta Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Lobelia erinus Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Ludwigia octovalvis Woody shrub Yes Yes Ludwigia stolonifera Aquatic Yes Yes Macrotyloma axillare Climber Yes Yes Yes Maerua cafra Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Maerua racemulosa Small tree Yes Yes Yes Maerua rosmarinoides Small tree Yes Yes Yes Manilkara discolor Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Margaritaria discoidea Aquatic Yes Yes Yes Maytenus peduncularis Small tree Yes Yes Yes Maytenus procumbens Small tree Yes Yes Yes Microcoelia exilis Epiphyte Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

168 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Microglossa mespilifolia Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Microgramma lycopodioides Fern Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Microsorum punctatum Fern Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mikania natalensis Wetland climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Millettia grandis Tree Yes Yes Yes Mimulus gracilis Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Mimusops obovata Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Mitriostigma axillare Understory shrub Yes Yes Yes Momordica balsamina Clinmber Yes Yes Yes Yes Monanthotaxis caffra Understory shrub Yes Yes Yes Moraea elliotii Grassland corm Yes Yes Moraea spathulata Grassland corm Yes Yes Nemesia denticulata Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Wetland Nephrolepis biserrata undertory fern Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nesaea radicans Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes Nidorella auriculata Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Nymphaea nouchali Aquatic Yes Yes Yes Nymphoides thunbergiana Aquatic Yes Yes Yes Yes Obetia tenax Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Ochna natalitia Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Ochna serrulata Small tree Yes Yes Yes Olea woodiana Tree Yes Yes Yes Ornithogalum juncifolium Bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Ornithogalum longibracteatum Bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes

169 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Oxygonum dregeanum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Pachycarpus scaber Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Pachystigma venosum Grassland shrub Yes Yes Yes Pavetta lanceolata Small tree Yes Yes Yes Pavetta revoluta Small tree Yes Yes Yes Peddiea africana Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Pelargonium luridum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Pentanisia prunelloides Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Understory Peptopentia natalensis creeper Yes Yes Yes Pergularia daemia Climber Yes Yes Yes Peristrophe cernua Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Persicaria attenuata Aquatic Yes Yes Yes Yes Persicaria senegalensis Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Persicaria serrulata Aquatic Yes Yes Yes Yes Phaulopsis imbricata Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Phoenix reclinata Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Phragmites australis Wetland grass Yes Yes Yes Yes Pittosporum viridiflorum Tree Yes Yes Yes Wetland Platylepis gladulosa understory orchid Yes Yes Yes Yes Plectranthus ciliatus Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Plectranthus madagascariensis Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Plectranthus petiolaris Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Plectranthus verticillatus Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes

170 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Plumbago auriculata Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Plumbago zeylanica Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Pollichia campestris Woody forb Yes Yes Yes Polygala fruticosa Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Polygala hottentotta Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Polystachya concreta Epiphyte Yes Yes Yes Yes Protorhus longifolia Tree Yes Yes Yes Psychotria capensis Understory shrub Yes Yes Yes Psydrax obovata Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Ptaeroxylon obliquum Large tree Yes Yes Yes Pupalia lappacea Understory forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Putterlickia verrucosa Small tree Yes Yes Yes Pycnostachys reticulata Wetland shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Pycnostachys urtifolia Wetland shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Understory Pyrenacantha scandens climber Yes Yes Yes Quisqualis parviflora Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Ranunculus multifidus Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes Rawsonia lucida Understory shrub Yes Yes Yes Understory Rhinacanthus gracilis woody forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhipsalis baccifera Epiphyte Yes Yes Yes Rhoicissus digitata Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhoicissus rhomboidea Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhoicissus tomentosa Woody climber Yes Yes Yes

171 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Rhus chirindensis Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhus gueinzii Small tree Yes Yes Yes Rhus natalensis Small tree Yes Yes Yes Rhus nebulosa Small tree Yes Yes Yes Rhynchosia caribaea Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Rothmannia globosa Tree Yes Yes Yes Woody wetland Rubus rosifolius shrub Yes Yes Yes Ruella cordata Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Rumex sagittatus Climber Yes Yes Yes Ruttya ovata Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Salacia gerrardii Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Sansevieria hyacinthoides Understory shrub Yes Yes Yes Yes Sapium integerrimum Tree Yes Yes Yes Sarcostemma viminale Succulent climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Scabiosa columbaria Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Scadoxus membranaceus Understory bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes multiflorus subsp. Wetland Scadoxus Katherinae understory bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Scadoxus puniceus Bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Schoenoplectus scirpoides Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scilla kraussii Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Scilla natalensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Scilla nervosa Grassland forb Yes Yes Scolopia zeyheri Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes

172 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Scutia myrtina Small tree Yes Yes Yes Secamone alpini Forest climber Yes Yes Yes Secamone gerrardii Forest climber Yes Yes Yes Selago densiflora Grassland forb Yes Yes Selago tarachodes Grassland forb Yes Yes Senecio brachypodus Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Understory Senecio bryoniifolius climber Yes Yes Yes Senecio coronatus Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Understory Senecio deltoideus climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Senecio macroglossus Creeper Yes Yes Yes Senecio madagascariensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Senecio pleistocephalus Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Senecio polyanthemoides Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Senecio speciosus Wetland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Senecio tamoides Forest climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Sesbania sesban Small tree Yes Yes Yes Sideroxylon inerme Large tree Yes Yes Yes Smilax anceps Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Sphenostylis angustifolia Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Stachys aethiopica Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Stangeria eriopus Grassland shrub Yes Yes Yes Strelitzia nicolai Tree Yes Yes Y Yes Strychnos decussata Tree Yes Yes Yes

173 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Strychnos gerrardii Tree Yes Yes Yes Strychnos henningsii Tree Yes Yes Yes Strychnos mitis Tree Yes Yes Yes Strychnos spinosa Tree Yes Yes Yes Strychnos usambarensis Tree Yes Yes Yes Suregada africana Undestory tree Yes Yes Sutera floribunda Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Syzygium cordatum Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes kraussianus Tapinanthus parasite Woody parasite Yes Yes Yes Teclea gerrardii Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Tephrosia grandiflora Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Tephrosia polystachya Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Tetraselago natalensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Thunbergia alata Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Thunbergia dregeana Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Thunbergia natalensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Tinospora caffra Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Trachyandra affinis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Trachyandra aspera Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Tragia glabrata Climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Trema orientalis Tree Yes Yes Tricalysia capensis Small tree Yes Yes Yes Tricalysia lanceolata Small tree Yes Yes Yes Tricalysia sonderiana Small tree Yes Yes Yes

174 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Trichilia dregeana Large tree Yes Yes Yes Tricocladus ellipticus Understory tree Yes Yes Yes Tridactyle bicaudata Epiphyte Yes Yes Yes Yes Trimeria grandifolia Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Triumfetta annua Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Triumfetta rhomboidea Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Tulbaghia acutiloba Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Turraea floribunda Small tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Turraea obtusifolia Woody shrub Yes Yes Yes Understory Tylophora flanaganii climber Yes Yes Yes Typha capensis Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Yes Urera trinervis Woody climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Urginea capitata Grassland bulb Yes Yes Yes Yes Uvaria caffra Understory shrub Yes Yes Yes Vangueria infausta Grassland shrub Yes Yes Vangueria randii Understory shrub Yes Yes Yes Vepris lanceolata Tree Yes Yes Yes Vernonia angulifolia Woody creeper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vernonia capensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Vernonia hirsuta Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Vernonia natalensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Grassland Vigna unguiculata climber Yes Yes Yes Yes Vitellariopsis marginata Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes

175 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Voacanga thouarsii Wetland tree Yes Yes Yes Wahlenbergia grandiflora Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Yes Watsonia densiflora Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Watsonia pillansii Grassland corm Yes Yes Yes Yes Xylotheca kraussiana Tree Yes Yes Yes Xyris capensis Wetland sedge Yes Yes Yes Yes Xysmalobium undulatum Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Zaluzianskya natalensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes Zantedeschia aethiopica Wetland tuber Yes Yes Yes Yes Zanthoxylum capense Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Zehneria parvifolia Creeper Yes Yes Ziziphus mucronata Tree Yes Yes Yes Yes Zornia capensis Grassland forb Yes Yes Yes

176 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

APPENDIX 1D: Plant species recorded by Hines and Nichols (2007) in the Albizia woodland Scientific Name Growth Form Albizia adianthifolia Canopy Tree Antidesma venosum Canopy Tree Apodytes dimidiata Canopy Tree Bridelia micrantha Canopy Tree Croton sylvaticus Canopy Tree Ficus lutea Canopy Tree Ficus sur Canopy Tree Protorhus longifolia Canopy Tree Trema orientalis Canopy Tree Trichilia emetica Canopy Tree Achyranthes sicula Ground-layer Forb Aneilema aequinoctialis Ground-layer Forb Asparagus virgatus Ground-layer Forb Asplenium prionites Ground-layer Forb Asystasia gangetica Ground-layer Forb Berkheya bipinnatifida Ground-layer Forb Celosia trigyna Ground-layer Forb Cheilanthes viridis Ground-layer Forb Coleotrype natalensis Ground-layer Forb Commelina ecklonii Ground-layer Forb Crocosmia aurea Ground-layer Forb Cyperus albostriatus Ground-layer Forb Dietes iridioides Ground-layer Forb Digitaria diversinervis Ground-layer Forb Digitaria sp. Ground-layer Forb Drimiopsis maculata Ground-layer Forb Hibiscus surattensis Ground-layer Forb Mariscus solidus Ground-layer Forb Panicum deustum Ground-layer Forb Panicum laticomum Ground-layer Forb Phaulopsis imbricata Ground-layer Forb Pteris buchananii Ground-layer Forb Pupalia lappacea Ground-layer Forb Scadoxus puniceus Ground-layer Forb Asparagus falcatus Creeper Asparagus plumosus Creeper Cissus fragilis Creeper Cyphostemma hypoleucum Creeper Dalbergia armata Creeper Dioscorea cotinifolia Creeper Dioscorea quartiniana Creeper

177 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Diospyros villosa Creeper Embelia ruminata Creeper Flagellaria guineense Creeper Grewia occidentalis Creeper Hewittia malabarica Creeper Ipomoea ficifolia Creeper Pyracantha scandens Creeper Senecio deltoideus Creeper Senecio tamoides Creeper Smilax anceps Creeper Dracaena aletriformis Shrub Monanthotaxis caffra Shrub Peddiea africana Shrub Psychotria capensis Shrub Canthium inerme Sub-canopy Tree Canthium spinosum Sub-canopy Tree Clerodendrum glabrum Sub-canopy Tree Deinbollia oblongifolia Sub-canopy Tree Lagynias lasiantha Sub-canopy Tree Rothmannia globosa Sub-canopy Tree Sclerocroton integerrimum Sub-canopy Tree Strelitzia nicolai Sub-canopy Tree Tabernaemontana elegans Sub-canopy Tree Syzygium cumini Exotic Canopy Tree* Ageratum houstonianum Exotic Ground-layer Forb* Anredera cordifolia Exotic Ground-layer Forb* Conyza Exotic Ground-layer Forb* Rivina humilis Exotic Ground-layer Forb* Tradescantia zebrina Exotic Ground-layer Forb* Pereskia aculeata Exotic Creeper* Chromolaena odorata Exotic Shrub* Lantana camara Exotic Shrub* Cestrum laevigatum Exotic Sub-canopy Tree* Psidium guajava Exotic Sub-canopy Tree* Solanum mauritianum Exotic Sub-canopy Tree* * - Must not be planted

178 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

APPENDIX 1E: Potential seed and plant collection sites for rehabilitation Potential seed and plant collection sites have been identified within the DMOSS areas of eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality. It must be noted that application must still be obtained from eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and EKZN as well as any required collection and plant permits before collection commences on site. DMOSS General Description Detailed Description Collection Site Hectares (ha) Verified Yes Grassland Primary Alverstone 2.5 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Alverstone road 4.2 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Amadwalas nr 1.2 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Armstrong's ridge 12.3 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Assagay 6.5 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Avoca effingham 2.6 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Beier land 4.1 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Bivane 12.0 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Bivane river 4.3 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Bivane river area 56.0 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Black mahlasini river 2.3 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Bluff headland 14.9 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Bridget road grassland 4.9 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Bridle road 1.2 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Burman bush area 3.4 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Camp orchard 10.9 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Cato ridge 117.2 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Chatsworth 2.2 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Cliffdale 4.2 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Crestholme 9.7 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Crestview 0.6 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Delville wood 4.0 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Drummond 94.2 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Drummond area 81.4 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Everton 2.4 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Forest hills 0.7 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Fudu plateau 171.5 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Ghandi luthuli 9.0 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Giba 1.7 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Giba gorge 0.8 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Giba gorge 1.9 Aerial

179 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Yes Grassland Primary Glenholme 1.4 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Gobogobo river 5.4 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Golokodo river 1.6 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Harrison flats 125.3 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Hazelmere dam area 1.3 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Hazelmere dam buffer 5.8 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Head of umhlatuzana 4.3

Yes Grassland Unknown Hillandale conservancy 23.7 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Hillcrest 1.4 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Hulettes bush area 1.0 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Inanda dam 1.1 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Inanda mountain 218.2 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Indingilizi plateau 3.4 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Indingilizi plateau area 2.2 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Inthatakusa 2.5 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Kloof 21.1 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Kraantzkloof nr 15.1 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Kwashushu river 14.8 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Langefontein 9.3 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Mahlasini river 2.9 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Mahogany ridge 35.2 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Mahogony ridge 8.4 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Marrionwood nature reserve 0.9 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Mkhelekehle 4.3 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Monteseel 16.0 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Mpumalanga 22.6 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Msinsi rd, kloof 4.9

Yes Grassland Unknown Msunduzi river 9.7 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Mtabutule plateau 0.6 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Mutata plateau 14.2 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Nazareth 2.4 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Near bartlette estate 126.8 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Near tea estate 17.8 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary New germany nature reserve 1.1 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Nqutu river 3.5 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Nungwane 12.2 Aerial

180 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Yes Grassland Unknown Ogunjini gorge area 11.4 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Ohlanga river 10.5 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Park crescent 5.9 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Pizweni plateau 14.2

Yes Grassland Unknown Queensburgh 2.6 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Roosfontein 35.7 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Salem 9.4 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Shongweni 4.2 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Shongweni resources reserve 8.0 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Silverglen 12.5 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Silverglen nature reserve 0.9 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Situndu 16.1 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Springside nr 0.4 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Spy hill 7.1 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary St heliers 12.0 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Stainbank 10.0 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Sterkspruit 7.8 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Summerveld 2.0 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Tanglewood 20.9 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Toll gate 8.6 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Toll plaza 3.0 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Treasure beach 2.1 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Umbogintwini river 18.8 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Umbogintwini upper 18.0 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Umgeni rural 21.8 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Umhlatuzana 4.0 Yes Yes Grassland Secondary Umlaas river 9.6 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Umlaas river area 11.1 Aerial Yes Grassland Unknown Umlaas to umbog link 36.8 Aerial Yes Grassland Secondary Umlaas to umhlatuzana link 4.8

Yes Grassland Unknown Umlaas trib 1.4 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Upper molweni 4.1 Yes Yes Grassland Unknown Upper umlaas 47.2 Aerial Yes Grassland Primary Waterfall 1.2 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Wekeweke 0.3 Yes Yes Grassland Primary Wekeweke river 1.1 Yes

181 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Yes Grassland Primary Westmead 7.1 Yes

APPENDIX 1F: Potential nurseries Indigenous Plant Nurseries Address Distance from DTPC Contact Details (km) P.L.A.N.T Depots 100 Brand Rd, Durban 38.5 031 201 3126 Tropical Nursery 830 Jan Smuts Highway, 35.3 031 208 4925 Durban Wildlife Nursery 372-375 Esther Roberts 39.3 031 465 6179 Road, Glenwood Geoff’s Jungle 4 Devon Road, Pinetown 40.9 031 702 0836 Bloomingdales Garden 20 Hinton Grove, Durban 23 031 564 5859 Centre Claremont Farm Indigenous Sheffield Beach Rd, Dolphin 23.7 032 525 8787 Nursery Coast Silverglen Nature Reserve Lakeview Dr, Welbedacht, 51.5 031 404 5628 Chatsworth

182 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

APPENDIX 1G: Approved herbicidal use and dosage (DEA, 2007) Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Horsetail Seedlings Hand Pull None Beefwood (Casuarina All Cut Stump/Frill triclopyr (butoxy 200 ml / 10 0.2 10 2 Closed/Dense 4.00 200 equisetifolia) ethyl ester) 240 Litres water g / L EC Ranger and 0.1 % 240 EC adjuvant Dye. incl.

triclopyr (butoxy 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 6.00 200 ethyl ester) 480 Litres water g / L EC Garlon and 0.5 % 4 EC (L3249) & Wetter & 480 EC (L4916), Dye Triclon EC (L6661), Viroaxe EC (L6663)

American All Foliar spray, Triclopyr (butoxy 75 ml / 10 0.075 10 0.75 Closed/Dense 3.00 400 Bramble, splash and ethyl ester) 480 g / L litres water European Black spray regrowth EC and 0.5 % Berry (Rubus Garlon 4 Wetter & cuneifolius) Dye Bugweed Seedling < 1 Hand pull N.B. None (Solanum m keep roots off mauritianum) the ground Seedling 0.5 Foliar Spray Clopyralid/triclopyr( 600 ml / 10 0.6 10 6 Closed/Dense 18.00 300 to 1 m and amine salt) 90.270 Litres water Coppice g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye

183 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Flroxypyr/picloram 25 ml / 10 0.025 10 0.25 Closed/Dense 0.75 300 80/80 g / L ME Litres water Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Triclopyr (butoxy 50 ml / 10 0.05 10 0.5 Closed/Dense 1.50 300 ethyl ester) 480 g / Litres water L EC and 0.5 % Garlon 4 Wetter & Dye Cactus-Sweet All Direct inject glyphosate 1,800 gr / 10 1.8 10 18 Closed/Dense 32.40 180 prickly pear (ammonium) 680 g Litres water (Opuntia ficus- / kg WG Roundup and 0.1 % indica) Max 680 WG Dye.

glyphosate 3,300 ml / 3.3 10 33 Closed/Dense 59.40 180 (isopropylamine) 10 Litres 360 g / L SL Glyph water and 360 SL (L4767), 0.1 % Dye. Mamba 360 SL (L4817), Roundup 360 SL (L407), Springbok 360 SL

glyphosate 1,800 gr / 10 1.8 10 18 Closed/Dense 32.40 180 (isopropylamine) Litres water 450 g / L SL and 0.1 % RoundUp Turbo Dye. 450 SL (L7166)

184 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha glyphosate 2,200 ml / 2.2 10 22 Closed/Dense 32.40 180 (potassium) 500 g / 10 Litres L SL Touchdown and 0.1 % Forte Hitech 500 Dye SL adjuvant incl.(L7305)

Caster oil plant All Cut stump/Frill Clopyralid/triclopyr( 200 ml / 10 0.2 10 2 Closed/Dense 4.00 200 (Ricinus amine salt) 90.270 Litres water communis) g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye Flroxypyr/picloram 100 ml / 10 0.1 10 1 Closed/Dense 2.00 200 80/80 g / L ME Litres water Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Chromalaena- Seedlings Hand pull None Triffid Weed Seedlings Foilar spray Clopyralid/triclopyr( 50 ml / 10 0.05 10 0.5 Closed/Dense 1.50 300 (Chromalaena and regrowth amine salt) 90.270 Litres water odorata) g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye Flroxypyr/picloram 75 ml / 10 0.075 10 0.75 Closed/Dense 2.25 300 80/80 g / L ME Litres and Plenrum 160 ME 0.5 % Wetter & Dye

185 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Triclopyr (butoxy 50 m / 10 0.05 10 0.5 Closed/Dense 1.50 300 ethyl ester) 480 g / Litres water L EC and 0.5 % Garlon 4 Wetter & Dye Mature/Adult Cut stump/Frill Clopyralid/triclopyr( 200 ml / 10 0.2 10 2 Closed/Dense 4.00 200 amine salt) 90.270 Litres water g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye Flroxypyr/picloram 75 ml / 10 0.075 10 0.75 Closed/Dense 1.50 200 80/80 g / L ME Litres water Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Triclopyr (amine 200 ml / 10 0.2 10 2 Closed/Dense 4.00 200 salt) 360 g / L Litres water Timbrel 360 SL and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Guava Seedlings Hand pull None (Psidium All Foliar Spray Flroxypyr/picloram 150 ml / 10 0.15 10 1.5 Closed/Dense 4.50 300 guajava) 80/80 g / L ME Litres water Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Cut stump/Frill Imazapyr 100 g / L 1,250 ml / 1.25 10 12.5 Closed/Dense 25.00 200 SL. 10 Litres Chopper 100 SL water and Hatchet 100 SL 0.1 % Dye

186 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Gums-Red Seedlings Hand pull None River Gum Mature Cut stump NB: Flroxypyr/picloram 450 ml / 10 0.45 10 4.5 Closed/Dense 9.00 200 (Euc. Plants for trial, not 80/80 g / L ME Litres water Camaldulensis) registered Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Gums-Sugar Seedlings Hand pull None Gum (Euc. Mature Cut stump Flroxypyr/picloram 450 ml / 10 0.45 10 4.5 Closed/Dense 9.00 200 Cladocalyx) Plants 80/80 g / L ME Litres water Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Gums-Karri Seedlings Hand pull None (Euc. Mature plants Cut Stump Triclopyr (amine 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 6.00 200 Diversicolor) salt) 360 g / L Litres water Timbrel 360 SL and 0.1 % Dye Gums-Dunn’s Seedings Hand pull None White Gum Mature plants Cut stump Picloram 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 6.00 200 (Euc. Duneii) (Potassium salt) Litres water 240 g / L SL. and 0.5 % Access 240 SL Wetter & Browser 240 SL Dye Gums-Saligna Seedlings Hand pull None Gum (Euc. Seedlings, Foliar spray Flroxypyr/picloram 50 ml / 10 0.05 10 0.5 Closed/Dense 1.50 300 Grandis) saplings and 80/80 g / L ME Litres water coppice Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye

187 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Triclopyr (butoxy 75 ml / 10 0.075 10 0.75 Closed/Dense 2.25 300 ethyl ester) 480 g / Litres water L EC and 0.5 % Garlon 4 Wetter & Dye Mature plants Cut stump Clopyralid/triclopyr( 600 ml / 10 0.6 10 6 Closed/Dense 12.00 200 amine salt) 90.270 Litres water g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye Fluroxypyr/picloram 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 6.00 200 80/80 g / L ME Litres water Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Triclopyr (amine 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 6.00 200 salt) 360 g / L Litres water Timbrel 360 SL and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Frill Triclopyr (amine 350 ml / 10 0.35 10 3.5 Closed/Dense 7.00 200 salt) 360 g / L Litres water Timbrel 360 SL and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Ink berry Seedlings Hand Pull None (Cestrum All Cut stump/Frill Imazapyr 100 g / L 200 ml / 10 0.2 10 2 Closed/Dense 4.00 200 laevigatum) SL. Litres water Chopper 100 SL and 0.1 % Hatchet 100 SL Dye

188 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Jacaranda Seedlings Hand pull None (Jacaranda All Cut Stump/ Frill Imazapyr 100 g / L 1,000 ml / 1 10 10 Closed/Dense 20.00 200 mimosifolia) SL. 10 Litres Chopper 100 SL water Hatchet 100 SL Lantana, All Foliar spray Fluroxypyr/picloram 150 ml / 10 0.15 10 1.5 Closed/Dense 4.5 300 Tickberry 80/80 g / L ME Litres water (Lantana Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % camara) Wetter & Dye Cut stump/Frill Fluroxypyr/picloram 150 ml / 10 0.15 10 1.5 Closed/Dense 3.00 200 80/80 g/L ME Litres water Plenrum 160 ME and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye Madiera Vine All Full cover spray clopyralid / triclopyr 100 ml / 10 0.1 10 1 Closed/Dense 4.00 400 (Anredera (-amine salt) 90 / Litres Water cordifolia) 270 g / L SL and 0.1 % Confront 360 SL Dye

fluroxypyr / 50 ml / 10 0.05 10 0.5 Closed/Dense 2.00 400 picloram 80 / 80 g / Litres water L ME Plenum 160 and 0.1 % ME Dye

Peanut butter Seedlings Hand pull None tree (Senna All Cut stump / Frill Imazapyr 100 g / L 500 ml / 10 0.5 10 5 Closed/Dense 10.00 200 didymobotrya) NB: for trial, not SL. Litres water registered Chopper 100 SL Hatchet 100 SL

189 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Pepper tree, Seedlings Hand pull None Brazilian All Cut stump / Frill Triclopyr (amine 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 6.00 200 (Schinus NB: for trial, not salt) 360 g / L Litres Water terebinthifolius) registered Timbrel 360 SL and 0.1 % Wetter & Dye

Pine - Pinaster All Frill NB: for Glysphosphate 2,000 gr / 10 2 10 20 Closed/Density 40.00 200 trial, not (sodium) 500 g / kg Litres water registered WG Kilo500 WSG Scotch Thistle All Foliar Clopyralid/triclopyr( 75 ml / 10 0.075 10 0.75 Closed/Dense 2.25 300 (Circium amine salt) 90.270 Litres water vulgare) g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye

fluroxypyr / 75 ml / 10 0.075 10 0.75 Closed/Dense 2.25 300 picloram 80 / 80 g / Litres water L ME Plenum 160 and 0.5 % ME Wetter & Dye

Syringa (Melia Seedlings Hand pull None azedarach) Adult Cut stump/Frill Clopyralid/triclopyr( 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 9.00 300 amine salt) 90.270 Litres water g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye

190 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha fluroxypyr / 150 ml / 10 0.15 10 1.5 Closed/Dense 3.00 200 picloram 80 / 80 g / Litres water L ME Plenum 160 and 0.5 % ME (L7702) Wetter & Dye

Triclopyr (amine 300 ml / 10 0.3 10 3 Closed/Dense 6.00 200 salt) 360 g / L Litres Water Timbrel 360 SL and 0.5 % Wetter & Dye

Water reed - New shoots Hand pull None Giant, Spanish and Adult (Arundo donax)

Adult Foliar spray glyphosate 150 ml / 10 0.15 10 1.5 Closed/Dense 4.5 300 NB: for trial, not (isopropylamine) Litres water registered 360 g / L SL and 0.1 % Glyph 360 SL , Wetter & Mamba 360 SL Dye Roundup 360 SL , Springbok 360 SL

Wattle, Black Seedlings Hand pull None (Acacia Seedlings Foliar spray Clopyralid/triclopyr( 30 ml / 10 0.03 10 0.3 Closed/Dense 0.90 300 mearnsii) and up to 1m amine salt) 90.270 Litres water tall g / L SL and 0.5 % Confront 360 SL Wetter & Dye

191 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Species Size Class Treatment Herbicide Dosage A.I Litres Mix Litres % Mix A.I Density Estimated If mix Product volume Litres/Ha Litres/Ha Triclopyr (butoxy 25 ml / 10 0.025 10 0.25 Closed/Dense 0.75 300 ethyl ester) 480 g / Litres water L EC and 0.5 % Garlon 4 Wetter & Dye

192 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

APPENDIX 1H: Invasive alien plant species recorded in the study area as well as their CARA and NEMBA categories

Scientific Name Common Name Hines and Nichols (2007) SiVest (2012) NSS (2014) SEF (2014) CARA Category NEMBA Category Acacia podalyriifolia Pearl Acacia / Pearl Wattle X X Invader: 3 1b Acacia saligna Port Jackson Willow X X X Invader: 2 1b Acacia mearnsii Black Wattle X X Invader: 2 2 Acacia longifolia Long-leaved Wattle X X Weed: 1 1b Achyranthes aspera Burr weed X Weed: 1 None Ageratum conyzoides Blue Weed X X Weed: 1 1b Ageratum houstonianum X X Weed: 1 1b Albizia lebbeck Lebbeck Tree X X X X Weed: 1 1b Albizia procera X X Weed: 1 1b Ambrosia artemisiifolia X None None Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine X Weed: 1 1b Ardisia crenata X Weed: 1 1b Arundo donax Giant or Spanish Reed X Weed: 1 1b Araucaria sp. Monkey-puzzle Tree X None None Bougainvillea sp. X X None None Bauhinia cf. inaequilaterale X Invader: 3 1b Bambusa sp. Bamboos X X X None None Bidens pilosa X X None None Caesalpinia decapetala Mauritius Thorn X X Weed: 1 1b Canna indica Canna X X Weed: 1 1b Centella asiatica X X None None Cardiospermum grandiflorum Balloon Vine X X X3 3 Casuarina equisetifolia Horsetail Tree X X X Invader: 2 2 Catharanthus roseus Periwinkle X None 3 Cestrum laevigatum Inkberry X X Weed: 1 1b Chromolaena odorata Triffid Weed X X X X Weed: 1 1b Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree X Weed: 1 1b Cirsium vulgare Scotch Thistle X X Weed: 1 1b

193 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Coix lacryma-jobi Job's Tears X None None Conyza spp. X None None Conyza canadensis X X None None Datura spp. X X Weed: 1 1b Eucalyptus grandis Saligna Gum X X Invader: 2 1b/2 Eucalyptus sp. X X X Invader: 2 1b Ficus spp. X X None None Hedychium species Ginger Lilies X Weed: 1 1b Ipomoea purpurea X Invader: 3 1b Ipomoea sp. X Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda X Invader:3 1b Lantana camara Lantana X X X Weed: 1 1b Leucaena leucocephala Leucaena X X X Weed: 2 2 Lilium formosum X Invader: 3 1b Litsea glutinosa Indian Laurel X Weed: 1 1b Mangifera indica Mango X None None Melia azedarach Syringa X X X X Invader: 3 1b Mimosa pigra Sensitive Weed X Invader: 3 1b Montanoa hibiscifolia Montanoa X Weed: 1 1b Morus alba Mulberry X Invader: 3 2 Nephrolepis exaltata Sword Fern X Invader: 3 1b Oenothera spp. Evening Primroses X X3 Passiflora spp. Granadilla X X Weed:1 1b Pennisetum purpureum Napier Fodder X X2 1b Pinus elliotii Pine Trees X Invader:2 2 Pinus spp. X X X X Pereskia aculeata Barbados Gooseberry X Weed: 1 1b Psidium guajava Guava X X X X Invader: 2 2 Psidium species X Invader: 2 2 Ricinus communis Castor Oil Bush X X Invader: 2 1b Rivina humilis Rivina X X Weed: 1 1a

194 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Rubus cuneifolius Bramble X X Weed: 1 1b Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper X X X X Weed: 1 1b Senna didymobotrya Peanut-butter Cassia X Invader: 3 1b Sesbania punicea Red Sesbania X Weed: 1 1b Solanum mauritianum Bug Weed X X X Weed: 1 1b Solanum seaforthianum X Weed: 1 1b Stenotaphrum secundatum Buffalo Grass X None None Tagetes minuta Khaki Weed X None None Tecoma stans Yellow Bells X Weed: 1 1b Tithonia diversifolia Mexican Sunflower X Weed: 1 1b Tradescantia fluminensis X None 1b Tradescantia zebrina X None 1b Sphagneticola trilobata X None 3 Verbena sp. X None 1b Verbena bonariensis X X None 1b

APPENDIX 2A: Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation Intervention Details The following appendix details the design dimensions for each individual intervention proposed to be implemented within each HGM unit relevant to the proposed rehabilitation project. The dimensions presented within the following tables should be read in conjunction with the drawings illustrated within Appendix 2B: Layout Drawings of Typical Intervention Types. The following data (i.e. dimensions and drawings) were supplied by GroundTruth (2015 & 2017).

2A.1 Concrete structures The following tables present the dimension properties of the proposed concrete drop inlet structures. The tables are separated per HGM unit.

195 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 71: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R1 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 72: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R9 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 73: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R10 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 74:Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R25 (GroundTruth, 2015).

196 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 75: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R26 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 76: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R27 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 77: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R28 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 78: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R29 (GroundTruth, 2015).

197 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 79: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R30 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 80: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R32 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 81: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R33 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 82: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R34 (GroundTruth, 2015).

198 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

2A.2 Gabion Structures

The following section presents the dimension properties relevant to the gabion structures that are proposed within each HGM unit. The tabulated dimensions should be read in conjunction with drawing GTW409_002_1 under Appendix 2B: Layout Drawings of Typical Intervention Types. The following data (i.e. dimensions and drawings) were supplied by GroundTruth (2015 & 2017).

Table 83: Table presenting the dimension properties of the gabion structures proposed to be implemented within each individual HGM unit (GroundTruth, 2015).

2A.3 Concrete Cut-off Wall Structures

The following section presents the dimension properties relevant to the cut-off wall structures that are proposed within each HGM unit. The tabulated dimensions should be read in conjunction with drawing GTW409_003_1 under Appendix 2B: Layout Drawings of Typical Intervention Types. The following data (i.e. dimensions and drawings) were supplied by GroundTruth (2015 & 2017).

199 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 84: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R1 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 85: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R10 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 86: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R25 (GroundTruth, 2015).

200 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 87: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R27 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 88: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R28 (GroundTruth, 2015).

201 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Table 89: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R29 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 90: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R33 (GroundTruth, 2015).

Table 91: Table presenting the dimension properties proposed to be implemented within HGM unit R35 (GroundTruth, 2015).

202 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

APPENDIX 2B: Layout Drawings of Typical Intervention Types

The following are drawings of typical intervention types that have been proposed to be implemented within several wetlands associated with the rehabilitation project. The dimension tables in Appendix 2A should be read in conjunction with the relevant drawing in this section. These drawings were produced by GroundTruth (2015).

203 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

204 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

205 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

206 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

207 KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9 ANNEXURES

9.1 Detailed Terms of Reference

9.1.1 Pest Control Operator Synonyms: Invasive Alien plant control operator; Weed control operator

9.1.1.1 Description A person who uses herbicides/pesticides to eradicate IAPS

9.1.1.2 Mandatory Requirements - Qualifications: o No specific qualification necessary - Experience: o Must have a minimum of three (3) years experience working on clearing of IAPS from grassland, scrubland and forest ecosystems - Certification: o No specific certification necessary - Professional Registration: o Must be registered as a Pest Control Operator in terms of Section 10 of Act 36 of 1947 in terms of the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947 (Act no. 36 of 1947) as amended and the regulations relating thereto as published in Government Notice no. R1449 of 1 July 1983.

9.1.1.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 3 years 1 Between 3 and 4 years 2 Between 4 and 5 years 3 More than 5 years 4

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5 208

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.1.4 Scope of Work The IAPS Control Management is inclusive of the following: - The cutting, poisoning and clearing of IAPS as indicated in the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act no. 43 of 1983) and the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act no. 10 of 2004); - The felling and clearing of IAPS and clearing of smaller material within the vegetation units; - Follow-up poisoning and clearing will take place after 6 months and again after twelve (12) months of the initial completion of invasive alien plant clearing; and - Areas will have maintenance clearing in 6 month intervals with a respraying required within each interval for a period of three (3) years.

9.1.1.5 Objectives - To clear and / or maintain IAPS in a sustainable and cost-efficient manner, with little or no impact on the surrounding environment; - To treat IAPS as specified within conservation area; - To use suitably registered herbicides in prescribed concentration rates to effectively control IAPS; - To carry out clearing activities in an environmentally responsible manner through the use of ‘best practice’ clearing methods; - To complete the work within the stipulated three-year period; - To promote a safe working environment and in so doing, achieve a zero accident/fatality rate; and - To make extensive use of data management as a tool for effective planning, reporting and recording of information/progress; and - No dumping of IAPS material (including but not limited to seeds, leaves, branches, stumps and other vegetative material) into areas not designated for dumping – specifically no dumping of material into riparian and wetland areas.

9.1.1.6 Targets - > 90 % clearance of all IAPS across all areas within the conservation area within one (1) year from commencement; - To maintain > 90 % clearance for the course of 2 more years; and - No accidents or fatalities due to clearing during the contract period.

9.1.2 Ecologist for Invasive Alien Plant Control Monitoring Synonyms: Biologist, Botanist, Ecologist

209

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.2.1 Description A specialist who has experience surveying ecosystems and assessing the diversity, general health and behaviour of the different vegetation species.

9.1.2.2 Mandatory Requirements - Qualifications: o Must have a BSc in Biology, Ecology, Botany, Environmental Science, or equivalent - Experience: o Must have a minimum of three (3) years experience assessing vegetation health within grassland, scrubland and forest ecosystems - Certification: o No specific certification necessary - Professional Registration: o Must be registered as a Professional Scientist in the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP)

9.1.2.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 3 years 1 Between 3 and 4 years 2 Between 4 and 5 years 3 More than 5 years 4

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5

9.1.2.4 Scope of Work The ecologist is required to follow the following scope of work: - Monitor all cutting, poisoning and clearing of IAPS within the conservation area in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act no. 43 of 1983) and the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act no. 10 of 2004); - Monitor success rate of clearing operations; and - Provide expert feedback to improve success rates of clearing operations.

210

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.2.5 Objectives - Effective IAPS control in the conservation area

- The ecologist must produce a detailed monitoring plan for all activities, including: o Objectives o Plan of activities o Methodology of assessment o A timeframe for plant relocation monitoring o An overall timeframe of rehabilitation work o Recommendations

9.1.3 Ecosystem Rehabilitation Specialist Synonyms: Botanist, Grassland/Vegetation Rehabilitation Specialist

9.1.3.1 Description A specialist who has the qualifications and experience for rehabilitating vegetation across historical agricultural areas. This specialist must have experience in managing fallow fields and having used fire as a management tool.

9.1.3.2 Mandatory Requirements - Qualifications: o Must have a BSc in Biology, Ecology, Botany, Environmental Science, or equivalent - Experience: o Must have a minimum of 4 years experience rehabilitating agricultural land to indigenous vegetation - Certification: o No specific certification necessary - Professional Registration: o Must be registered as a Professional Scientist in the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP)

9.1.3.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 4 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 More than 6 years 4

211

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5

- Relevant Project Experience Project type Score Agriculture to indigenous vegetation 1 Agriculture to indigenous grassland 2 Sugarcane to indigenous grassland 4 Sugarcane to indigenous grassland 8 and woody vegetation planting

9.1.3.4 Objectives - Establish secondary grassland; - Create woodland mosaic; and - Improve the biodiversity and density of the riparian corridors.

9.1.3.5 Targets: - Cutting of all sugarcane within the conservation area; - 90 % aerial vegetation cover across the area; - < 10 % cover of IAPS; - Achieve an establishment of populations of geophyte and forb species that are reproductively active; - Increase the biodiversity of woody vegetation; and - A riparian corridor of at least two (2) trees or three (3) m on either side of primary riparian channel.

9.1.3.6 Indicators: - The following grass species must be present in the grassland areas: o Alloteropsis semialata o Digitaria eriantha o Eragrostis curvula o Hyparrhenia hirta o Sporobolus fimbriatus - A minimum of ten (10) of the geophyte and forb species listed in Styles and Granger palette (Appendix 1B) must be present and reproducing: o Within 3 years in fallow fields; and o Within 5 years in sugarcane areas. 212

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

o No single species must be present in greater than 15 % proportion of the geophyte test plot - A minimum of ten (10) of the woody vegetation species listed under Appendix 1C must be present in the woodland areas. o No single species can comprise more than 15% of all species planted - There must be no sections along riparian corridor with less than 2 tree or 3 m width on either side of the primary riparian channel. o Species planted must be present in Appendix 1C o No single species can comprise more than 15 % of all species planted

9.1.4 Ecologist for Terrestrial Rehabilitation Specialist Monitoring Synonyms: Horticulturist, Biologist, Botanist

9.1.4.1 Description A specialist who has experience surveying ecosystems and assessing the diversity, general health and behaviour of the different vegetation species.

9.1.4.2 Mandatory Requirements - Qualifications: o Must have a BSc in Biology, Ecology, Botany, Environmental Science, Horticulture or equivalent - Experience: o Must have a minimum of four (4) years experience assessing vegetation health within grassland, scrubland and forest ecosystems - Certification: o No specific certification necessary - Professional Registration: o Must be registered as a Professional Scientist in the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP)

9.1.4.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 4 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 More than 6 years 4

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status 213

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5

9.1.4.4 Objectives - To ensure the effective clearing, preparation and replanting of the vegetation units in conservation area.

9.1.4.5 Targets - Correct removal, transportation, storage and planting of vegetation; - Correct cutting of all sugarcane from conservation area - 90 % aerial vegetation cover across conservation area; - Achieve an establishment of populations of geophyte and forb species that are reproductively active; - Increase the biodiversity of woody vegetation within woodland areas; - A riparian corridor of at least a 2 trees or 3 m width on either side of the primary stream channel.

9.1.4.6 Indicators - The following grass species must be present within grassland areas: o Alloteropsis semialata o Digitaria eriantha o Eragrostis curvula o Hyparrhenia hirta o Sporobolus fimbriatus - A minimum of ten (10) of the geophyte and forb species listed in Styles and Granger palette must be present and reproducing: o No single species must be present in greater than 15 % proportion of the geophyte test plot o See Appendix 1B. - A minimum of ten (10) of the woody vegetation species in the woodland areas listed in Styles and Granger palette must be present within the conservation area: o No single species can comprise more than 15 % of all species planted o See Appendix 1C. - No areas along the riparian corridors must have less than a 2 trees or 3 m width on either side of the primary riparian channel. o No single species can comprise more than 15 % of all species planted

214

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.5 Construction Company Synonyms: Construction engineers, structural engineering firm, engineering consultancy.

9.1.5.1 Description Under the direct supervision of the DTPC and ACSA, combined being the La Mercy Joint Venture (LMJV), the construction company that ideally has been involved with the construction of structures within watercourses, preferably relating to rehabilitation/mitigation measures within said watercourses, will be responsible to deliver and accomplish the construction and rehabilitation of the wetland systems, that have been identified for rehabilitation purposes, in compliance with the project-specific goals and objectives and to the satisfaction of LMJV. The construction company and its staff will be in charge of the day to day management and supervision of the proposed construction activities, ensuring that they occur sustainably in an efficient and effective manner and are completed within the specified timeframes. All proposed construction activities must occur to the satisfaction of the ECO, and client, and thus be compliant with the relevant environmental and construction criteria.

9.1.5.2 Mandatory Requirements o Experience: ▪ Minimum of four (4) years working experience working in complex environments and large infrastructure and/or civil works; ▪ Knowledge of the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) guidelines and procedures; o Professional Registration: ▪ Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) grading of 8CE / GB or higher and emerging contractors with a grading of 7CE / GB or higher; (CE: Civil Engineering, GB: General Building Works)

9.1.5.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 4 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 Between 6 and 7 years 4 More than 7 5

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 215

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

1 5

9.1.5.4 Objectives To allow for efficient monitoring and evaluation to take place, a clear understanding of the project aims and objectives is necessary. The aim of the wetland rehabilitation plan was to mitigate the impacts of the Phase 1 build, enhancing the functioning and integrity of the freshwater ecosystems within the conservation zone and additional areas. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were the focus of the rehabilitation plan: - Improving the hydrological conditions and promoting obligate wetland species within the wetland habitat, facilitating the provision of higher levels of ecosystem service delivery within the landscape, specifically flood attenuation, sediment and nutrient trapping, and the maintenance of biodiversity; and - Reducing the density of IAPS within the riparian habitat to maintenance levels by implementing IAPS clearing operations and active revegetation with appropriate riparian plant species.

9.1.6 Civil Engineer Synonyms: Structural engineer

9.1.6.1 Description A professional engineer that deals with the design, construction and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment.

9.1.6.2 Mandatory Requirements o Qualifications: ▪ BSc (BEng); o Experience: ▪ Minimum of four (4) years working experience, which must include large scale (> 50 ha) wetland rehabilitation projects; o Professional Registration: ▪ Professionally registered with the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) (Pr.Eng., or equivalent) as per the Engineering Professionals Act (Act no. 46 of 2000);

9.1.6.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 4 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 216

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

Between 6 and 7 years 4 More than 7 5

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5

9.1.7 Wetland Ecologist for Wetland Rehabilitation Monitoring Synonyms: Horticulturist, Biologist, Botanist, Freshwater Ecologist, Wetland Specialist, Environmental scientist

9.1.7.1 Description A professional scientist who is competent in conducting analysis of the health and functionality of wetland habitats utilising the appropriate assessment techniques (i.e. WET-Health and WET-EcoServices (MacFarlane, et. al., 2009)).

9.1.7.2 Mandatory Requirements o Qualifications: ▪ BSc (Hons) degree; o Experience: ▪ Minimum of three (3) years working experience, which must include large scale (> 50 ha) wetland rehabilitation projects; o Professional Registration: o Professional Registration: Professionally registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professionals (SACNASP) (Pr.Sci.Nat., or equivalent);

9.1.7.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 3 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 Between 6 and 7 years 4 More than 7 5

217

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.7.4 Objectives To allow for efficient monitoring and evaluation to take place, a clear understanding of the project aims and objectives is necessary. The aim of the rehabilitation plan was to mitigate the impacts of the Phase 1 build, enhancing the functioning and integrity of the freshwater ecosystems within the conservation zone and additional areas. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were the focus of the rehabilitation plan: - Improving the hydrological conditions and promoting obligate wetland species within the wetland habitat, facilitating the provision of higher levels of ecosystem service delivery within the landscape, specifically flood attenuation, sediment and nutrient trapping, and the maintenance of biodiversity; and - Reducing the density of IAPS within the riparian habitat to maintenance levels by implementing IAPS clearing operations and active revegetation with appropriate riparian plant species.

The following wetland rehabilitation monitoring, evaluation and management plan was developed in accordance with the principles outlined in WET-RehabEvaluate8 (Cowden and Kotze, 2009), with specific monitoring being recommended for the anticipated outputs and outcomes of the project. In this instance, monitoring of the wetland ecosystems is necessary to inform the on-going management of the area and to provide feedback on the value of the implemented rehabilitation in terms of the improvement in the ecosystems’ functioning and integrity. The monitoring would therefore serve to trigger additional maintenance or management activities, when it is considered necessary within these systems.

9.1.7.5 Indicators: Evaluation is the comparison of actual project outputs and outcomes against the agreed strategic plans, comparing the aims and objectives against what was actually achieved. The assessment of the Level 1 monitoring will highlight whether the outputs of the specified rehabilitation plan have been completed according to the design specifications, and no deterioration of the interventions has occurred. Should the planned outputs not have been achieved, it is important to determine/establish the reason for this. It would also serve to highlight any specific modifications required to the design of a particular structure.

The assessment of the ecosystem goods and services and ecological integrity (Level 2 monitoring) of the wetlands before and after rehabilitation will serve to highlight whether there has been a gain in ecosystem functioning and integrity associated primarily with the rehabilitation activities.

The evaluation process should focus on whether the change that has occurred is in alignment with the aims and objectives of the rehabilitation plan. This will be achieved through a continuous reassessment of the restoration goals and objectives. A successful evaluation should allow for adaptive management to be implemented in

8 The WET-Health Tools is set to be updated in 2017/2018. If this occurs before wetland rehabilitation begins, the updated tools are to be used. If rehabilitation begins before the update, monitoring is to be done using the old tools (for consistency in the monitoring) as well as with the updated tools to get the most accurate assessment of the wetland’s health. 218

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

accordance with the changes that have occurred within the rehabilitation and adapt the rehabilitation strategies and methods accordingly. In this instance, the ecosystem services that require particular attention are flood attenuation, sediment and nutrient trapping and the maintenance of biodiversity. The assessment of integrity will help show whether the objective of improved overall integrity has been achieved.

Assessment of the change of WIV and FQAI index values (Level 3 monitoring) during the implementation of the rehabilitation plan and after the completion of the rehabilitation plan should be used to determine whether the objective of improving hydrological conditions and promoting obligate and indigenous wetland species within the wetland habitats has been achieved.

To document the changes in the system functioning and integrity, it is recommended that annual evaluation reports are compiled. These reports should be used to present Level 1, 2 and 3 re-evaluations of the site and will assist in documenting the changes in the system over the years. Such changes should be incorporated into the continual re-assessment of the rehabilitation project aims and objectives to ensure that adaptive management is incorporated when required.

9.1.8 Environmental Control Officer (ECO) for Construction Activity Monitoring Synonyms: Safety, Health, Environmental and Quality (SHEQ) Management (or equivalent) for Environmental Compliance Monitoring

9.1.8.1 Description A person whom performs routine technical work in enforcing the relevant environmental statuses and best-practice methods that encourage the sustainable management of the surrounding environment and social variables.

9.1.8.2 Mandatory Requirements o Qualifications: ▪ Any combination of education equivalent to a high school diploma o Experience ▪ Minimum of three (3) years working experience as an ECO.

9.1.8.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 3 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 Between 6 and 7 years 4 More than 7 5 219

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5

9.1.9 Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) Synonyms: Environmental Scientist, Environmental Manager

9.1.9.1 Description An environmental practitioner to undertake basic assessments, environmental impact assessments, and water use license applications.

9.1.9.2 Mandatory Requirements o Qualifications: ▪ BSc degree (Environmental Science, Environmental Management, or equivalent). o Experience: ▪ Minimum of three (3) years working experience in environmental management.

9.1.9.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 3 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 Between 6 and 7 years 4 More than 7 5

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5 9.1.10 Resident Ecologist for Overall Monitoring Synonyms: Biologist, Botanist, Ecologist

220

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.10.1 Description A specialist who has experience surveying terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and assessing the diversity, general health and behaviour of the different vegetation and faunal species.

9.1.10.2 Mandatory Requirements - Qualifications: o Must have a MSc in Biology, Ecology, Botany, Zoology, Environmental Science, or equivalent - Experience: o Must have a minimum of eight (8) years experience assessing vegetation health within grassland, scrubland and forest ecosystems - Certification: o Must have a SASS5 certification o Must be certified as a wetland ecologist - Professional Registration: o Must be registered as a Professional Scientist in the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP)

9.1.10.3 Functional Evaluation - Experience Experience Score Less than 4 years 1 Between 4 and 5 years 2 Between 5 and 6 years 3 More than 6 years 4

- Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Status BEE level Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5

- Publications Number of publications Score None 1 Between 1 and 2 2 Between 2 and 4 3 Between 4 and 6 4 More than 6 5

221

KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1 REHABILITATION & RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2017

9.1.10.4 Objectives - Assess the ultimate overall success of the rehabilitation of the floral composition of the terrestrial, riparian and wetland zones within the final conservation area; - Monitor the increase in indigenous habitat and vegetation diversity; - The maintenance or increase in faunal biodiversity (specialist input required); - This biodiversity monitoring assessment must occur annually for a period of eight (8) years from the commencement of the implementation, inclusive of the relevant base-line data assessments (if required). - All data should be quantifiable; - Report should be repeatable and comparable both temporally and spatially; and - Data must be assessed for temporal trends and said trends must be analysed.

9.1.10.5 Indicators Vegetation trends are steadily becoming more similar to the project reference sites: o Ifafa, o Treasure Beach, o Imatakulu, - No decline in rare, endangered and/or protected species.

222