Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Lions River-Howick Bulk Water Pipeline, KwaZulu-Natal

Specialist Wetland Assessment Report

Version 1.0

Date: March 2013

Author(s): Ross van Deventer, Adam Teixeira-Leite & Douglas Macfarlane

Report No: EP69-01

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Prepared for:

By

Date:

March 2014

Please direct any queries to:

Douglas Macfarlane

Cell: 0843684527 26 Mallory Road, Hilton, South Africa, 3245 Email: [email protected]

Suggested report citation: van Deventer, R. Teixeira-Leite, A. and Macfarlane, D.M. 2014. Lions River-Howick Bulk Water Pipeline Project: Specialist Wetland Assessment Report. Unpublished report for Synergistics Environmental Services. March 2014.

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

SPECIALIST WETLAND ASSESSMENT REPORT DETAILS AND DECLARATION

This is to certify that the following report has been prepared as per the requirements of Section 32 (3) of the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (Act No. 107 OF 1998) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS 2010 as per Government Notice No. 33306 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 18 JUNE 2010.

Lions River-Howick Bulk Water Pipeline Project: Specialist Wetland Document Title: Assessment Report Ross van Deventer Report prepared by: Adam Teixeira-Leite (Pr. Sci. Nat.) Field of study/Expertise: Wetland Ecology Date: 20 March 2014 Revision Number: 1 Approved by: Douglas Macfarlane (Pr. Sci. Nat.) Date: 20 March 2014

Signature:

Client: Synergistics Environmental Services

I Adam Teixeira-Leite hereby declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs.

Signed: Date: 20 March 2014

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report sets out the findings of a specialist assessment of wetland ecosystems associated with the proposed bulk water pipeline project at Lions River/Howick, in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The main findings of the assessment report have been summarized below:

 The planned bulk water pipeline at Lions River/Howick in KZN will involve trenching and burial of water pipeline infrastructure across two wetland systems identified in the project area which could result in negative impacts to these sensitive aquatic ecosystems if not activities are not carefully managed.

 The extent of wetlands has been identified, delineated/mapped and assessed in term of their integrity and ecological importance and sensitivity to external impacts. The wetlands are both fairly large (30-120ha) unchannelled valley bottom wetland systems that are considered Moderately to Largely Modified as a result of existing catchment land use impacts (forestry and cultivation), erosion within wetlands and degraded vegetation that has been transformed or extensively invaded by alien plants. As a result of their degraded state, the wetlands ecosystem services provided by these wetlands are limited, with benefits such as flood attenuation, nutrient/toxicant removal, cultivated lands and grazing potential being regarded as of low-moderate importance whilst other services such as cultural, recreational and tourism value are considered to be of low importance. Due to their degraded nature, poor habitat integrity and limited functionality, wetlands identified in the project area are considered to be of a low-medium ecological importance and not particularly sensitive to disturbance. Based on the current integrity and functional importance/sensitivity of wetland, the recommended management objectives for these resources should be to maintain the present condition and ecological functioning of these systems with limited to no further biodiversity loss as a result of this development.

 In order to achieve the desired management objective, a proactive approach to planning and aquatic conservation has been recommended for this development. As part of this process, potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems were identified and rated, indicating that potential impacts are likely to range from a low significance to medium-high significance. The primary concerns identified for the development project and requiring careful management are likely to include:

o Water pollution; o Altered hydrological functioning within wetlands; o Risk of soil erosion and sedimentation; and o Temporary disruption of water/sediment fluxes.

Water pollution and sedimentation impacts are considered particular significant in light of the connectivity of the rivers and streams at the site with the larger perennial Lions and uMgeni

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Rivers downstream. These rivers not only feed into Midmar Dam but are also flagged as National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) requiring particular management to prevent deterioration in the condition and functioning of these river systems.

 The careful management of potential development impacts through the application of the recommendations made in this report should reduce impacts to aquatic ecosystems to relatively low significance levels. Key mitigation and management measures include:

o Realignment of the pipeline infrastructure in particularly sensitive areas to avoid direct impacts to wetlands areas; o Design recommendations for pipeline crossings aimed at reducing impacts to wetlands where crossings are required; o The implementation of recommended range of on-site mitigation and management measures and guidelines to deal with site-based issues during the construction and operational phases of the project; o Site rehabilitation and management to limit residual impacts post-construction; and o Monitoring during the operational phase to ensure that adequate rehabilitation/recovery of wetland areas has been achieved.

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF ANNEXURES iii DEFINITION OF TERMS iv ABBREVIATIONS USED vi 1.INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Background to the assessment and area of study ...... 7 1.2 Proposed development activity ...... 8 1.3 Purpose of the assessment and scope of work ...... 8 1.4 Project team ...... 9 1.5 The Importance of Wetlands and their Conservation ...... 10 1.6 Relevant Environmental Legislation...... 10 1.6.1 Legislation pertaining to wetlands 10 1.6.2 Water use licensing 12 2.APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED 13 2.1 Approach ...... 13 2.2 Data sources consulted ...... 13 2.3 Methods used ...... 14 2.3.1 Wetland and riparian areas delineation 14 2.3.2 Classification and assessment of conservation context 14 2.3.3 Wetland functional assessment 14 2.3.4 Setting of management objectives 15 2.3.5 Assessment of ecological impacts 15 2.3.6 Identification of mitigation measures 16 2.4 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 16 3.WETLAND ASSESSMENT 18 3.1 Background information ...... 18 3.1.1 Climate 18 3.1.2 Ecoregion 18 3.1.3 Vegetation 18 3.1.4 Topography, geology and soils 19 3.1.5 Hydrology 20 3.1.6 Conservation context of water resources 20 3.2 Baseline ecological assessment findings ...... 24 3.2.1 Location, extent and general description of wetlands 24 3.2.2 Land use in the wetland catchment 27 3.2.3 Present Ecological State (PES) of wetlands 28 3.3 Setting Management Objectives for Aquatic Resources ...... 36 4.IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT 37 4.1 Site-specific ecological concerns ...... 37

i

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

4.2 Identification and assessment of potential impacts ...... 37 4.2.1 Construction-Phase Impacts 38 4.2.2 Operational-Phase Impacts 40 4.2.3 Impact significance assessment 40 4.3 Impact Mitigation & Management ...... 42 4.3.1 Alternative pipeline alignment options 42 4.3.2 Design recommendations for wetland crossings 42 4.3.3 On-site mitigation and management guidelines 42 4.3.4 Rehabilitation guidelines 47 4.3.5 Implementation and monitoring 50 4.4 Water-use licensing requirements ...... 50 5.CONCLUSION 52 6.REFERENCES 53 7.ANNEXURES 55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map showing the location of the project area (circled in “black”) near Howick, KwaZulu- Natal, South Africa...... 7 Figure 2 Map showing the location of the proposed bulk water pipeline infrastructure relative to wetlands in the project area...... 8 Figure 3 Map showing the main untransformed vegetation types of the study area (EKZNW, 2012). . 19 Figure 4 Map showing the underlying geology in the study area catchment...... 20 Figure 5 Map showing the location of the wetland system and catchment area relative to recently identified National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas or NFEPA (CSIR, 2011)...... 21 Figure 6 Map highlighting Provincial freshwater conservation priorities for the study area based on the Freshwater Conservation Plan for KZN (EKZNW, 2007)...... 22 Figure 7 Map showing the location of the project area and wetland catchment relative to terrestrial conservation priorities identified in the systematic conservation plan for the Province (EKZNW, 2010)...... 23 Figure 8 Map showing the location and extent of wetlands 1 and 2 (wetland boundary in “blue”), with the project focal assessment areas (1 to 3) shown circled in “red” where the proposed pipeline will traverse or come within close proximity to wetland areas mapped...... 25 Figure 9 Map showing the primary land uses occurring in the wetland catchment (KZN land cover, 2008)...... 28 Figure 10 Spider diagram indicating the estimated levels of supply and demand for a range of ecosystem services for wetland 1...... 34 Figure 11 Spider diagram indicating the estimated levels of supply and demand for a range of ecosystem services for wetland 2...... 35 Figure 12 Diagram representing the different zones of wetness found within a wetland (DWAF, 2005a). 57 Figure 13 Wetland delineation map for wetland 1 (western wetland) ...... 71 Figure 14 Wetland delineation map for wetland 2 (eastern wetland) ...... 72 Figure 15 Location of vegetation surveys...... 73 Figure 16 Map showing location of georeferenced photo points...... 76 Figure 17 Map showing vegetation health assessed for wetland 1 ...... 83

ii

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Figure 18 Map showing vegetation health assessed for wetland 2 ...... 84

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Details of team members ...... 9 Table 2. Information and data coverage’s used to inform the wetland assessment ...... 13 Table 3. Management measures in the short-term...... 15 Table 4. Summary details of the wetland systems assessed...... 24 Existing impacts within the wetlands used to inform the assessment of PES have been summarised below: ...... 29 Table 5. Summary of WET-Health assessment findings ...... 29 Table 6. Summary of PES for the wetlands ...... 30 Table 7. Summary of vegetation surveys within wetlands 1 and 2 ...... 31 Table 8. Summary of the importance of Wetland 1 and 2 in providing ecosystem goods & services ...... 33 Table 9. Summary of the EIS assessment ...... 35 Table 10. Recommended management objectives for wetlands based on PES and EIS ratings ...... 36 Table 11. Summary of site-specific ecological concerns to inform the assessment of impacts...... 37 Table 12. Summary of the impact significance assessment for construction and operation phases of the water pipeline development project ...... 41 Table 13. Criteria used to inform the delineation of wetland habitat based on wetland vegetation (adapted from Macfarlane et al., 2007 and DWAF, 2005a) ...... 55 Table 14. Soil criteria used to inform wetland delineation using soil wetness as an indicator (after DWAF, 2005a)...... 56 Table 15. Wetland classification (based on SANBI, 2009) ...... 57 Table 16. Guideline for interpreting the magnitude of impacts on wetland integrity (after Macfarlane et al., 2008) ...... 59 Table 17. Health categories used by WET-Health for describing the integrity of wetlands (after Macfarlane et al., 2008)...... 59 Table 18. Descriptions of common wetland ecosystem goods and services (after Kotze et al., 2009) .... 63 Table 19. Rating table used to rate level of ecosystem supply ...... 63 Table 20. Rating table used to rate EIS (Rountree, in prep.) ...... 64 Table 21. Criteria and numerical values for rating environmental impacts...... 65 Table 22. Matrix used to rate impact significance based on impact probability and consequence...... 65 Table 23. Impact significance categories and definitions...... 66 Table 24. Confidence ratings used when assigning impact significance ratings...... 66

LIST OF ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A: Detailed assessment methods ANNEXURE B1: Wetland delineation field assessment details ANNEXURE B2: Wetland delineation maps.

iii

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE B3: Wetland vegetation survey plot data. ANNEXURE C: Database of georeferenced photo points taken during field visits. ANNEXURE D1: Wet-Health data sheets for wetland 1 (western wetland) ANNEXURE D2: Wet-Health data sheets for wetland 2 (eastern wetland) ANNEXURE D3: Maps indicating wetland vegetation health assessed as part of the WET-Health assessment ANNEXURE E1: WET-Ecoservices (Kotze et al., 2009) assessment results for wetland 1 (western wetland) ANNEXURE E2: WET-Ecoservices (Kotze et al., 2009) assessment results for wetland 2 (eastern wetland) ANNEXURE F1: Impact significance assessment results for the Construction Phase of the project ANNEXURE F2: Impact significance assessment results for the Operational Phase of the project

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Biodiversity The wide variety of plant and animal species occurring in their natural environment (habitats). The term encompasses different ecosystems, landscapes, communities, populations and genes as well as the ecological and evolutionary processes that allow these elements of biodiversity to persist over time. Catchment The area where water from atmospheric precipitation becomes concentrated and drains downslope into a river, lake or wetland. The term includes all land surface, streams, rivers and lakes between the source and where the water enters the ocean. Conservation The safeguarding of biodiversity and its processes (often referred to as Biodiversity Conservation). Delineation Refers to the technique of establishing the boundary of a resource such as a wetland or riparian area. Drain In the context of wetlands, refers to a natural or artificial feature such as a ditch or trench created for the purpose of removing surface and sub-surface water from an area (commonly used in agriculture). Ecosystem An ecosystem is essentially a working natural system, maintained by internal ecological processes, relationships and interactions between the biotic (plants & animals) and the non-living or abiotic environment (e.g. soil, atmosphere). Ecosystems can operate at different scales, from very small (e.g. a small wetland pan) to large landscapes (e.g. an entire water catchment area). Ecosystem Goods and The goods and benefits people obtain from natural ecosystems. Various different types of Services ecosystems provide a range of ecosystem goods and services. Aquatic ecosystems such as rivers and wetlands provide goods such as forage for livestock grazing or sedges for craft production and services such as pollutant trapping and flood attenuation. They also provide habitat for a range of aquatic biota. Erosion (gulley) Erosion is the process by which soil and rock are removed from the Earth's surface by natural processes such as wind or water flow, and then transported and deposited in other locations. While erosion is a natural process, human activities have dramatically increased the rate at which erosion is occurring globally. Erosion gullies are erosive channels formed by the action of concentrated surface runoff. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, the local conservation authority for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal. Endemic Refers to a plant, animal species or a specific vegetation type which is naturally restricted to a particular defined region (not to be confused with indigenous). A species of animal may, for example, be endemic to South Africa in which case it occurs naturally anywhere in the country, or endemic only to a specific geographical area within the country, which means it is restricted to this area and grows naturally nowhere else in the country. Function/functioning/f Used here to describe natural systems working or operating in a healthy way, opposed to unctional dysfunctional, which means working poorly or in an unhealthy way. General Authorisation Pertaining to Section 39 of the National Water Act (No. 26 of 1998), a General Authorisation is an authorization to use water without a license, provided that the water use is within the limits and conditions set out in the General Authorisation.

iv

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Habitat The general features of an area inhabited by animal or plant which are essential to its survival (i.e. the natural “home” of a plant or animal species). Indigenous Naturally occurring or “native” to a broad area, such as South Africa in this context. Intact ecosystems/ Used here to describe natural environment that is not badly damaged, and is still operating environments healthily. Invasive alien species Invasive alien species means any non-indigenous plant or animal species whose establishment and spread outside of its natural range threatens natural ecosystems, habitats or other species or has the potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species. Limnetic >2m maximum inundation depth at low water Littoral <2m maximum inundation depth at low water Mitigate/Mitigation Mitigating wetland impacts refers to reactive practical actions that minimize or reduce in situ wetland impacts. Examples of mitigation include “changes to the scale, design, location, siting, process, sequencing, phasing, and management and/or monitoring of the proposed activity, as well as restoration or rehabilitation of sites”. Mitigation actions can take place anywhere, as long as their effect is to reduce the effect on the site where change in ecological character is likely, or the values of the site are affected by those changes (Ramsar Convention, 2012). Pristine Unspoiled, used here to describe the natural environment in its undisturbed state. Red Data Book or Red Provides information on the status of threatened species: endangered species are most at List risk of extinction, followed by rare and vulnerable species Residual Impacts Impacts that remain after the proponent has made all reasonable and practicable changes to the location, siting, scale, layout, technology and design of the proposed development, in consultation with the environmental assessment practitioner and specialists (including a biodiversity specialist), in order to avoid, minimize, and/or repair/restore negative impacts on, amongst others, biodiversity (DEA&DP, 2007). That is, after consideration has been given to the first three measures in the mitigation hierarchy. Risk A prediction of the likelihood and impact of an outcome; usually referring to the likelihood of a variation from the intended outcome. Systematic An approach to conservation that prioritises actions by setting quantitative targets for conservation plan biodiversity features such as broad habitat units or vegetation types. It is premised on conserving a representative sample of biodiversity pattern, including species and habitats (the principle of representation), as well as the ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain biodiversity over time (the principle of persistence). Threatened ecosystem In the context of this document, refers to Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable ecosystems. Threat Status Threat status (of a species or community type) is a simple but highly integrated indicator of vulnerability. It contains information about past loss (of numbers and / or habitat), the number and intensity of threats, and current prospects as indicated by recent population growth or decline. Any one of these metrics could be used to measure vulnerability. One much used example of a threat status classification system is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (BBOP, 2009). Transformation Refers to the destruction and clearing an area of its indigenous vegetation, resulting in loss (habitat loss) of natural habitat. In many instances, this can and has led to the partial or complete breakdown of natural ecological processes. Water course Means a river or spring; a natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently: a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows: und any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks (National Water Act, 1998). Wetland Refers to land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil (NWA, 1998). Wetland Type This is a combination between wetland vegetation group and Level 4 of the National Wetland Classification System, which describes the Landform of the wetland. Wetland Vegetation Broad wetland vegetation groupings reflect differences in regional context such as geology, Group soils and climate, which in turn affect the ecological characteristics and functionality of wetlands.

v

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ABBREVIATIONS USED

CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act No. 43 of 1983 CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CR Critically Endangered (threat status) DEARD Department of Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (now DEA) DWA Department of Water Affairs (formerly DWAF) ECO Environmental Control Officer EIA Environmental Impact Assessment: EIA regulations promulgated under section 24(5) of NEMA and published in Government Notice R.543 in Government Gazette 33306 of 18 June 2010 EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity EKZNW Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife: as defined in Act 9 of 1997 to be the KZN Nature Conservation Service EMP Environmental Management Plan EN Endangered (threat status) FEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area FSCP Freshwater Systematic Conservation Plan FW Facultative wetland species - usually grow in wetlands (67-99% occurrence) but occasionally found in non-wetland areas GIS Geographical Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System HGM Hydro-Geomorphic (unit) IAPs Invasive Alien Plants KZN Province of KwaZulu-Natal LT Least Threatened (threat status) NEMA National Environmental Management Act No.107 of 1998 NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No.10 of 2004 NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas, identified to meet national freshwater conservation targets (CSIR, 2011) NT Near Threatened (threat status) NWA National Water Act No.36 of 1998 Ow Obligate wetland species PES Present Ecological State, referring to the current state or condition of an environmental resource in terms of its characteristics and reflecting change from its reference condition. SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute TSCP Terrestrial systematic conservation plan VU Vulnerable (threat status)

vi

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the assessment and area of study

Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services was appointed by Synergistics Environmental Services to undertake a wetland assessment to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) being undertaken by Synergistics Environmental Services for a proposed bulkwater pipeline development between Lions River and Howick, KwaZulu-Natal midlands (Figure 1, below). The objective of this specialist wetland assessment was to undertake a baseline assessment of the condition and functionality of wetlands potentially affected by the pipeline to inform an assessment of potential ecological impacts.

Figure 1 Map showing the location of the project area (circled in “black”) near Howick, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

7

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

1.2 Proposed development activity

The proposed development will involve the installation of bulk water pipeline infrastructure between Lion’s River and Howick. The proposed pipeline route alignment is shown below in Figure 2, in relation to delineated wetlands in the project area. It is proposed that the pipeline will be buried below the ground surface, including crossings through wetland areas. This will involve trenching through two wetlands with the pipeline passing just above a third wetland area (shown in Figure 2, below).

Figure 2 Map showing the location of the proposed bulk water pipeline infrastructure relative to wetlands in the project area.

1.3 Purpose of the assessment and scope of work

The primary objective of the specialist wetland assessment was to provide information to guide the proposed water pipeline development project with respect to the potential impact on wetland ecosystems in the area of study, specifically related to:  Ensuring that natural connectivity is maintained between habitats as far as possible;  Ensuring that degradation of wetland habitat is avoided as far as possible;  To limit the risk of erosion and sedimentation; and  To limit the risk of pollution of aquatic habitats during all phases of the project.

8

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

The focus of work involved the undertaking of a specialist assessment of wetlands, which included the following tasks:

1. Desktop identification and delineation of potential wetland areas affected by the project using latest available aerial photography and river/ wetland coverage’s in a Geographical Information System (GIS); 2. Site-based delineation of the outer wetland boundary of wetland areas within the project focal area within 50m of the proposed pipeline right-of-way; 3. Classification of wetlands & riparian areas and assessment of conservation significance based on available datasets; 4. Assessment of PES (Present Ecological State/Condition) and EIS (Ecological Importance and Sensitivity) of wetlands, informed by an understanding of existing wetland and catchment impacts; 5. Impact assessment and identification of mitigation measures to reduce the significance of potential aquatic impacts for both the construction and operational phases of the pipeline project; 6. Compilation of a specialist wetland assessment report detailing the methodology and findings of the assessment, together with relevant maps and GIS information.

1.4 Project team

Details of project team members involved in the project are indicated below in Table 1:

Table 1. Details of Eco-Pulse team members

Team Member Qualifications Details Douglas is a principal consultant at Eco-Pulse with a broad range of Douglas BSc (Agric) experience in wetland and natural resource management. He was Macfarlane (Eco- MSc responsible for managing the project, providing strategic direction and Pulse) assisting with report finalisation. Adam is an Environmental Scientist with a BSc Honours degree in Environmental Science. He is a registered Professional Natural Scientist (Pr. Sci. Nat.) with over 7 years’ experience, having worked extensively on Adam Teixeira- numerous wetland and river assessment projects requiring the delineation BSc Hons (Envs) Leite (Eco-Pulse) of wetlands and riparian areas; and assessment of wetland functional importance and sensitivity both in KwaZulu-Natal, the Western and Eastern Cape and Gauteng. He was responsible for providing strategic direction and assisting with reporting and review. Ross is an employee at Eco-Pulse with an MSc in Environmental Science. MSc Ross van Deventer He has experience in aquatic assessments of freshwater resources in KZN. (Environmental (Eco-Pulse) He was responsible for undertaking the wetland delineation, fieldwork, Science) functional assessment, impact assessment, mapping and reporting.

9

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

1.5 The Importance of Wetlands and their Conservation

The word “wetland” is a family name given to a variety of ecosystems, ranging from rivers, springs, seeps and mires in the upper catchment, to midlands marshes, pans and floodplains, to coastal lakes, mangrove swamps and estuaries at the bottom of the catchment. At the heart of the need to protect wetlands, is the recognition that functioning wetlands are a critical part of the environment as they support a high level of biological productivity and diversity, provide habitat for flora and fauna including rare and threatened communities and species, maintain local and regional hydrological regimes, remove nutrients and pollutants, act as stores for rain and flood waters, help combat climate change and support human activities and values.

Despite their importance, wetlands are one of the most globally endangered habitat types due to the fragile and vulnerable nature of these ecosystems. In South Africa, wetlands account for less than 3% of the country’s surface area and are considered to be the most threatened of all ecosystems, with almost 50% of wetland ecosystem types regarded as critically endangered (Driver et al., 2012). The degradation of South African wetlands is a concern now recognized by Government as requiring urgent action and the protection of wetlands is considered fundamental to the sustainable management of South Africa’s water resources in the context of the reconstruction and development of the country.

1.6 Relevant Environmental Legislation

1.6.1 Legislation pertaining to wetlands

In response to the importance of wetland systems, protection of wetlands has been campaigned at national and international levels. This has led to the development of various policies and promulgation of a range of legislation to help protect wetland systems.

At an International level, wetland protection is emphasized through the following conventions and agreements: Emphasis is placed on protecting wetlands and implementing initiatives to The RMASAR Convention maintain or improve the state of wetland resources. Convention on Biological Countries are to rehabilitate or restore degraded ecosystem through the Diversity formulation of appropriate strategies and plans; South Africa has responded to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification by developing a National Action Plan. The aim of the NAP is to implement at current United Nations Convention to and future policies that affect natural resource management and rural Combat Desertification development, and establish partnerships between government departments, overseas development agencies, the private sector and NGOs New Partnership for Africa’s Wetland conservation and sustainable use is one of the eight themes under the Development (NEPAD) environment initiative. The World Summit on The Implementation Plan highlights actions that reduce the risk of flooding in Sustainable Development drought-vulnerable countries by promoting the restoration and protection of (WSSD) wetlands and watersheds.

10

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

At a National level, there are a plethora of policies and legislation dealing either directly or indirectly with wetland protection and management. These include: South African Constitution 108 This includes the right to have the environment protected through legislative or of 1996 other means. National Environmental This is a fundamentally important piece of legislation and effectively promotes Management Act 107 of 1998 sustainable development and entrenches principles such as the ‘precautionary approach’, ‘polluter pays’, and requires responsibility for impacts to be taken throughout the life cycle of a project. Environmental Impact New regulations have been promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of NEMA and Assessment (EIA) regulations were published on 18 June 2010 in Government Notice No. R. 543. In addition, listing notices (GN 544-546) lists activities which are subject to an environmental assessment. A number of activities listed in the regulations have relevance to wetlands including a range of activities within 32m of a watercourse (which includes wetlands). The National Water Act 36 of This Act imposes ‘duty of care’ on all landowners, to ensure that water resources 1998 are not polluted. The following Clause in terms of the National Water Act is applicable in this case:

19 (1) “An owner of land, a person in control of land or a person who occupies or uses the land on which (a) any activity or process is or was performed or undertaken; which causes, has caused or likely to cause pollution of a water resource, must take all reasonable measures to prevent any such pollution from occurring, continuing or recurring”

Chapter 4 of the National Water Act is of particular relevance to wetlands and addresses the use of water and stipulates the various types of licensed and unlicensed entitlements to the use water. Water use is defined very broadly in the Act and effectively requires that any activities with a potential impact on wetlands (within a distance of 500m upstream or downstream of a wetland) be authorized. General Authorisations (GAs) These have been promulgated under the National Water Act and were published under GNR 398 of 26 March 2004. Any uses of water which do not meet the requirements of Schedule 1 or the GAs, require a license which should be obtained from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. National Environmental The intention of this Act is to protect species and ecosystems and promote the Management: Biodiversity Act sustainable use of indigenous biological resources. It addresses aspects such as No 10 of 2004 protection of threatened ecosystems and imposes a duty of care relating to listed alien invasive species. Conservation of Agricultural The intention of this Act is to control the over-utilization of South Africa’s natural Resources Act 43 of 1967 agricultural resources, and to promote the conservation of soil and water resources and natural vegetation. This includes wetland systems and requires authorizations to be obtained for a range of impacts associated with cultivation of wetland areas.

At the Provincial level, there is little legislation. The following guidelines and ordinances are however relevant: Guidelines for development activities that – This includes a draft set of norms and standards for the avoidance may affect wetlands released by the and mitigation of impacts to wetlands in urban areas. KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs (2002) Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance 15 Makes extensive provision for protected areas (including private of 1974 & KwaZulu Nature Conservation nature reserves) and protection of flora and fauna (including marine Act 29 of 1992 and freshwater fish).

Other pieces of legislation that are also of some relevance to wetlands include:

 The National Forest Act 84 of 1998;

 The Natural Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999;

 The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003;

 The Mountain Catchments Areas Act 62 of 1970

11

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Any developments with a potential impact to wetland systems therefore typically need to be assessed to ensure that impacts are adequately minimized. Authorizations may also be required before planned activities can commence.

1.6.2 Water use licensing

Certain development-related activities require the application for a water use license where activities trigger Section 21 of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998). According to the Act, water use must be licensed unless its use is excluded. In terms of regulation 3(b)(i) of the Water Use Registration Regulations published under Government Notice R1352 in Government Gazette 20606 of 12 November1999, a person who uses water as contemplated in section 21 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) must, when called upon by the responsible authority to do so, register the water use. Registration is the process of officially notifying the Department of a water use. There are several reasons why water users are required to register their water use with the DWA, the most important being:  to manage and control water resources for planning and development;  to protect water resources against over-use, damage and impacts; and  to ensure fair allocation of water among users.

Any new water-user who fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the General Authorisations for listed activities in terms of section 21 of the NWA, must approach the DWA for a water-use license.

12

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED

2.1 Approach

The approach to the assessment involved three phases: 1. Collation and refinement of baseline information on the affected environment: Wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed linear pipeline development were identified at a desktop level using available digital imagery and datasets in a Geographical Information System (GIS). These were then verified in the field in order to determine: a. The extent of wetland habitat (detailed wetland delineation taking place within a 50m buffer of the proposed pipeline alignment); b. Condition of wetland areas; and c. Ecological importance and sensitivity (including ecological processes and ecosystem services). 2. The identification and assessment of potential impacts: An assessment of potential ecological impacts was undertaken based on the development information (pipeline alignments, etc.) provided by the Client with respect to the baseline status of habitat/ecosystems. 3. Recommendations for mitigation: Site-specific management and mitigation recommendations were compiled to assist with addressing the range of impacts identified and other ecological concerns related to actions, activities and processes associated with the proposed development. These were specified for inclusion in an EMP (Environmental Management Plan) for the development project.

2.2 Data sources consulted

The following data sources and GIS spatial information provided in Table 2 below was consulted to inform the assessment. The data type, relevance to the project and source of the information has been provided.

Table 2. Information and data coverage’s used to inform the wetland assessment

DATA/COVERAGE TYPE RELEVANCE SOURCE

National Geo-Spatial Colour Aerial Photography (2009) Mapping of wetlands and other features Information

Latest Google Earth ™ imagery To supplement available aerial Google Earth™ On-line photography where needed Shows location of the proposed pipeline Proposed water pipeline route alignment Client route and impacted zone To assist with desktop mapping of 5m Elevation Contours wetlands, delineation of catchments and Surveyor General calculation of slope/gradients Shows location of FEPA river and wetland NFEPA wetlands coverage CSIR (2011) sites

13

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

DATA/COVERAGE TYPE RELEVANCE SOURCE Terrestrial Systematic Conservation Plan Used to identify and interrogate terrestrial EKZNW (2010) for KZN biodiversity concerns at a desktop level Freshwater Systematic Conservation Used to identify and interrogate aquatic EKZNW (2007) Plan for KZN biodiversity concerns at a desktop level KZN Land cover 2008 Used to identify land use in catchments EKZNW (2008) Vegetation coverage for the province KZN Vegetation Layer 2012 showing the location, extent and status of EKZNW (2012) vegetation

2.3 Methods used

A brief summary of the methods used in this assessment has been included below. For further details on the individual assessment methods applied in this study, refer to ANNEXURE A at the back of this report.

2.3.1 Wetland and riparian areas delineation

The outer boundary of wetlands occurring within 50m of the proposed pipeline alignment was identified and delineated according to the Department of Water Affairs wetland delineation manual ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005a). Three specific wetland indicators were used: terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness indicator (see ANNEXURE A1 for more details on the delineation method). The broader wetland systems were delineated using aerial photography and contour information at a desktop level.

2.3.2 Classification and assessment of conservation context

Wetlands were classified according to HGM (hydro geomorphic) type using the National Wetland Classification System (see ANNEXURE A2 for more detail) which was developed for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI, 2009). The wetland type was also identified based on the NFEPA (CSIR, 2011) wetland vegetation group in which wetlands are located. The conservation context and associated conservation significance of the project area was described using available spatial datasets including the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas or NFEPA Project (CSIR,2011) and the Aquatic Systematic Conservation Plan for the Province (EKZNW, 2007).

2.3.3 Wetland functional assessment

 WET-Health Assessment (Wetland Integrity/Present Ecological State)

The WET-Health tool (Macfarlane et al, 2008) was used to assess the Present Ecological State (PES) of wetlands by highlighting specific impacts within wetlands and within wetland catchment areas. For the purposes of this study, a Level 1 assessment was undertaken. While this is a rapid assessment, we regard it as adequate to inform an assessment of existing impacts on wetland condition. For further details on the WET-Health method, see ANNEXURE A3. In addition, detailed wetland vegetation plots were surveyed at certain location to provide additional information on the composition and integrity of wetland habitat which was used to inform vegetation scores used in the WET-Health vegetation module. Refer to ANNEXURE A4 for the methodology used for vegetation survey plots.

14

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

 WET-EcoServices Assessment (functional importance)

A modified version of the WET-EcoServices tool (Kotze et al., 2009) was used to assess the demand for and supply of the wetland services under the broader categories of regulating and supporting services, provisional services and cultural services. This was based on a rapid level 1 assessment that was modified to include specialist input based on expertise in applying the tool to similar wetlands in the Province. This was used to determine the importance of wetlands in providing different goods and services evaluated. For more details regarding the WET-Ecoservices method, see ANNEXURE A5.

 Wetland Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS)

The outcomes of the wetland functional assessment were used to inform an assessment of the importance and sensitivity of wetland systems using the Wetland EIS (Ecological Importance and Sensitivity) assessment tool (Rountree, in prep). For further details on this method, see ANNEXURE A6.

2.3.4 Setting of management objectives

Management and mitigation measures will need to be employed to ensure that natural resources attain the desired future class. This should be informed by the management objective for the resource which, in the absence of classification, is typically based on the Present Ecological State (PES) and the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of the resource (DWAF, 2007). Based on this approach, management objectives for natural resources will thus be to maintain the ecological class as indicated in Table 3, below.

Table 3. Management measures in the short-term.

EIS

Very high High Moderate Low A A A A A Pristine Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain A A/B B B B Natural Improve Improve Maintain Maintain B B/C C C PES C Good Improve Improve Maintain Maintain C C/D D D D Fair Improve Improve Maintain Maintain D E/F E/F E/F E/F Poor Improve Improve Maintain Maintain

2.3.5 Assessment of ecological impacts

The information gained from the aquatic assessment was used to inform an assessment of the likelihood and significance of potential impacts associated with the proposed water pipeline development project. For the purposes of this assessment, the rating of impact significance for identified environmental impacts was informed by the Guideline Document on EIA Regulations of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT, 1998) and the Integrated Environmental Management Information Series: Impact Significance (DEAT, 2002). This process routinely includes the following tasks: impact

15

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014 identification, impact prediction and impact evaluation. Further details on the method used to rate impact significance are included in ANNEXURE A7.

2.3.6 Identification of mitigation measures

‘Mitigation’ is a broad term that covers all components involved in selecting and implementing measures to conserve/protect the environment and prevent significant adverse impacts as a result of potentially harmful activities to natural ecosystems. The mitigation of negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems, including rivers and wetlands, is a legal requirement for authorisation purposes and must take on different forms depending on the significance of impacts and the particulars of the target area being affected. Examples of mitigation can include changes to the scale, design, location, siting, process, sequencing, phasing, and management and/or monitoring of the proposed activity, as well as restoration or rehabilitation of sites.

Specialist working knowledge and experience with other similar waste water development projects in KwaZulu-Natal was used in compiling the recommended mitigation measures for this project, as well as by consulting following key documents:  Best practice construction and mitigation procedures in wetlands and water-bodies (US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2002);  Guidelines and specifications for developments affecting wetlands and general construction activities [DWAF (2005b), DWAF (2005c); and  Generic construction EMP guidelines (eThekwini Municipality, 2009).

2.4 Assumptions and Limitations

The following limitations and assumptions apply to the studies undertaken for this report:  This report deals exclusively with a defined area and the impacts upon wetland ecosystems in that area.  The wetland boundary must be identified and classified along a transitional gradient from saturated through to terrestrial soils which makes it difficult to identify the exact boundary of the wetland. The boundaries mapped in this specialist report therefore represent the approximate boundary of these wetlands as evaluated by an assessor familiar and well-practiced in the delineation technique.  Wetland boundaries are based largely on the GPS locations of soil sampling points. GPS accuracy will therefore affect the accuracy rating of mapped sampling points and therefore wetland boundaries. A Garmin Oregon 550 GPS was used which has an estimated accuracy rating of 3- 5metres. Poor weather conditions during sampling are likely to have reduced GPS accuracy.  It is important to note that delineation of wetlands on this site was made difficult in some areas due to prolonged drying through erosion, soil disturbance and degraded wetland vegetation. The wetland boundary in these areas is therefore an approximate representation of the wetland habitat thought to naturally occur in these areas prior to transformation.

16

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

 Due to the large size of wetlands (30-125ha), field delineation focused on areas where the proposed water pipeline either crossed or came in close proximity ( within 50m) of wetlands. The broader wetland system was delineated largely at a desktop level based on digital imagery and available topographic (contour data) for the area. This was refined in the field where possible based on visual assessments of topography and vegetation. The boundary of areas assessed only at a desktop level has a relatively low level of accuracy.  It should be noted that while WET-Health (Macfarlane et al., 2008) is the most appropriate technique currently available to undertake assessments of wetland condition/integrity, it is nonetheless a rapid assessment tool that relies on qualitative information and expert judgment. While the tool has been subjected to an initial peer review process, the methodology is still being tested and will be refined in subsequent versions. For the purposes of this assessment, the assessment was undertaken at a rapid level with limited field verification. It therefore provides an indication of the PES of the system rather than providing a definitive measure.  The WET-Ecoservices (Kotze, et al., 2009) assessment was undertaken at a rapid (level 1) assessment level which was refined based on site-specific information gathered at each wetland and based on specialist opinion and experience in applying the tool at a more detailed level. With this in mind, ratings provided should be regarded as a relatively coarse indication of the level of ecosystem services rendered and the level of confidence in the outputs is regarded as moderate.  The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Analysis did not specifically address the finer-scale biological aspects of the wetlands such as the range of fauna (such as amphibians and invertebrates) occurring.  The field assessment was undertaken in summer (February/March 2014). The assessment therefore does not cover the seasonal variation in conditions at the site.  Sampling by its nature, means that generally not all aspects of ecosystems can be assessed and identified.  No formal/detailed survey of fauna was conducted during this assessment. Fauna documented in this report are based on site observations during the single field visit to the wetlands and do not reflect the overall faunal composition of the wetlands assessed.  The assessment of impacts and recommendation of mitigation measures was informed by the site- specific ecological concerns arising from the field surveys and based on the assessor’s working knowledge and experience with similar pipeline projects.  Information used to inform the assessment was limited to data and GIS coverage’s available for the Province at the time of the assessment.

17

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

3. WETLAND ASSESSMENT

3.1 Background information

3.1.1 Climate

The typical climate of the study area is characteristic of the subtropical climate that characterizes the drier interior regions of KZN, with generally warm summers and cool, dry winters. The winters can produce very cold spells, with frost common overnight. Most of the rainfall is experienced during mid- summer, with significantly drier winters. The Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) is generally low-moderate at 843mm/annum for the nearby town of Howick. Average midday temperatures for Howick range from 19°C in June to 26°C in February. The region is the coldest during June when the mercury drops to 4.1°C on average during the night (Source: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south- africa/climate/howick_climate.asp).

3.1.2 Ecoregion

When assessing the ecology of any area it is important to know within which ecoregion the study area is located. This knowledge allows for improved interpretation of data to be made, since reference information and representative species lists are often available at this level of assessment to guide the assessment. The study area falls within the South Eastern Uplands Ecoregion 16.01, which can be characterised by a complex range of terrain morphological classes occur in this region including plains with a moderate relief, lowlands with a low relief, lowlands with a high relief, open hills with low relief, open hills with high relief, closed hills with a moderate relief and low mountains with a high relief (Kleynhans et al., 2005). Vegetation types are equally diverse and include a variety of Grassland types, Bushveld types, Thicket types and Afromontane Forest. The drainage density is low-moderate with stream frequency being moderate-high.

3.1.3 Vegetation

The general study area is located within the Sub-escarpment grassland bioregion (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). While biomes and bioregions are valuable as they describe broad ecological patterns, they provide limited information on the actual species that are expected to be found in an area. Knowing which vegetation type an area belongs to provides an indication of the floral composition that would be found if the assessment site was in a pristine condition, which can then be compared to the observed floral list and so provide an indication of the ecological integrity of the assessment site. Untransformed vegetation of the study area and wetland catchment consists of three major vegetation types according to the KwaZulu-Natal Vegetation Coverage (EKZNW, 2012). This distribution is shown visually in Figure 3 (below) and includes:

 Midlands mistbelt grassland (Endangered status) which covers the majority of the study area;

18

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

 Temperate alluvial vegetation(Vulnerable status) associated with watercourses ( rivers/streams and drainage lines); and  Eastern temperate wetlands (Vulnerable status) associated with wetland habitat.

Figure 3 Map showing the main untransformed vegetation types of the study area (EKZNW, 2012).

3.1.4 Topography, geology and soils

The landscape is characterized by steep valley sides and broad river valleys, with the local elevation ranging between 1000 – 1200m amsl. The main topographic feature of the area is Midmar Dam, a large artificial waterbody on the uMngeni River situated immediately south of the study area. The National Route 3 (N3) is the major roadway that traverses the study area. The underlying geology is comprised mainly of shale lithologies in the northern half of the study area, with the southern section comprising intrusive dolerite (Figure 4). Shales typically give rise to soils that have high silt contents and contain high level of minerals such as Magnesium, forming unstable duplex soils (soils with contrasting texture between top-soils and subsoil horizons), whilst dolerite parent material is typically associated with more stable soil types that have a significantly higher inherent stability against erosion (Mulibana, 2001).

19

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Figure 4 Map showing the underlying geology in the study area catchment.

3.1.5 Hydrology

The project site consists of two quaternary catchment areas, catchment U20C in the west and U20E in the east. The area is drained by two unchannelled valley bottom wetland systems that are fed by small tributary drainage lines and subsurface seepage. The wetlands discharge water into the Lions River, a large perennial river system which is located to the south of the catchments.

3.1.6 Conservation context of water resources

Understanding the conservation context and importance of the site is important to inform decision making regarding the future use of the area. In this regard, both national and provincial level conservation planning information is available and was used to obtain an overview of the site.

The importance of water resources in meeting national freshwater conservation targets is illustrated in Figure 5. This shows that sections of the wetlands identified within the project area are considered to be important FEPA (Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas) sites. The wetland catchments are not regarded as important FEPAs according to the NFEPA coverage (CSIR, 2011). While the map suggests that some wetlands are not important from a biodiversity perspective, this should not undermine the

20

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014 importance of the areas for other ecosystem services. The Lions River and uMgeni River downstream of the wetlands in the project area are considered important NFEPA river systems.

The main major wetland vegetation group occurring in the study area is Sub-escarpment grassland Group 3 according to the NFEPA project coverage (CSIR, 2011) which is regarded as Critically Endangered.

Figure 5 Map showing the location of the wetland system and catchment area relative to recently identified National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas or NFEPA (CSIR, 2011).

The western wetland (Wetland 1) and its catchment area are not regarded as priority aquatic conservation areas in terms of the Freshwater Systematic Conservation Plan (CPLAN) for the Province (EKZNW, 2007). It has however been identified as a site where Crowned Cranes (non breeding) have previously been recorded (Crane Priority: 4). The eastern wetland (Wetland 1) and its catchment area are however highlighted as “Earmarked” for conservation in the CPLAN (Figure 6, below).

21

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Figure 6 Map highlighting Provincial freshwater conservation priorities for the study area based on the Freshwater Conservation Plan for KZN (EKZNW, 2007).

In terms of terrestrial conservation priorities, sections of the impacted wetlands are located within conservation priority areas in terms of terrestrial conservation (Figure 7). These areas (shown in “Red”) are considered BPA 1 areas (Biodiversity Priority Area 1) which are “irreplaceable sites considered critical and mandatory for meeting Provincial Biodiversity Conservation targets”. According to the CPLAN, these areas are highlighted due to the potential presence or suitable habitat for the following biodiversity features:

Wetland Wetland Biodiversity Feature Threat Status1 1 2 Midlands Mistbelt Grassland EN X X Temperate Alluvial Vegetation: Midland Floodplain Grassland VU X X Eastern Temperate Wetlands VU X X Orachrysops ariadne (Karkloof Blue butterfly) VU X X Kniphofia buchananii LC (endemic) X X Scelotes bourquini (Bourquin's Dwarf Burrowing Skink) Endemic X X Euonyma lymneaeformis (freshwater mollusc) Not evaluated X X Plectranthus rehmannii LC (SA endemic) X X Senecio exuberans (endemic perennial herb) Endemic X X Spinotarsus glomeratus Not evaluated X X

1 Red Data Status for fauna obtained online from: http://www.iucnredlist.org 22

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Wetland Wetland Biodiversity Feature Threat Status1 1 2 Doratogonus peregrinus (Wandering black millipede) Not evaluated X X Bradypodion thamnobates (Natal Midlands Dwarf Chameleon) NT X Bugeranus carunculatus (Wattled crane) CR X Doratogonus natalensis (Natal black millipede) VU X Doratogonus cristulatus (Cristulate black millipede) KZN endemic X Centrobolus tricolor Not evaluated X Eremidium erectus (Erect-cercus wingless Grasshopper) KZN endemic X Asclepias woodii VU X Doratogonus montanus LC X Whitea alticeps Not evaluated X Sheldonia burnupi (Burnup’s tail-wagger snail) Endemic X

Figure 7 Map showing the location of the project area and wetland catchment relative to terrestrial conservation priorities identified in the systematic conservation plan for the Province (EKZNW, 2010).

23

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

3.2 Baseline ecological assessment findings

3.2.1 Location, extent and general description of wetlands

Two wetland ecosystems were identified for the project areas, Wetland 1 in the western catchment associated with quaternary catchment U20C which is moderately sized at 33.4ha in extent and Wetland 2 in the eastern catchment associated with quaternary catchment U20E which is a much larger system (~125ha in extent). The wetlands are both naturally unchannelled valley bottom wetlands fed by catchment runoff with some subsurface inputs. Un-channelled valley bottom areas resemble floodplains due to their location, generally gentle slopes and potentially high levels of alluvial sediment deposition, generally leading to a net accumulation of sediment (Kotze et al., 2009). The main difference is the absence of a clearly defined channel through these systems, with diffuse flow dominating across the wetlands, even during low flows. Water inputs are mainly from channel(s) entering the wetland and also from adjacent hillslopes.

Sections of the eastern wetland (wetland 2) have become channelled due to a combination of catchment land use and impacts within the wetland itself including artificial drainage and the formation of erosion gullies. The wetlands are vegetated with a variety of herbaceous vegetation comprising a variety of sedges, rushes, bulrushes, grasses, reeds as well as alien plants and weeds. The delineated wetlands are shown below in Figure 8, with summary details tabulated below in Table 4.

Figure 8 shows that Wetland 1 in the west will be crossed in its upper reaches by the proposed pipeline (focal area 1) with Wetland 2 in the east also traversed by the proposed pipeline in its upper reaches (focal area 2) with the pipeline coming within close proximity to the wetland boundary further east at focal area 3. Details on the wetland delineation and wetland delineation maps for focal areas are located in Annexures B1 and B2 at the back of this report.

Table 4. Summary details of the wetland systems assessed

GENERAL SUMAMRY DESCRIPTION OF WETLANDS Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland No. (western wetland) (eastern wetland) Quaternary catchment U20C U20E Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Coordinates 30.165277 -29.471242 -29.477581 30.197279 Unchanneled valley bottom Unchannelled valley bottom wetland Wetland Classification wetland with channeled sections Wetland Slope ~1.8% ~2.4% Wetland Length ~2 km ~4.5km Elevation 1060 – 1095 m amsl 1135 – 1025 m amsl Wetland Size 33 ha 125 ha Catchment Size 481.31 1308.60 Plantation, commercial agriculture Plantation, commercial agriculture Primary Land use in catchment transport infrastructure and transport, urban and industrial grassland. infrastructure and grassland.

24

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

GENERAL SUMAMRY DESCRIPTION OF WETLANDS Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland No. (western wetland) (eastern wetland) MAP (Mean Annual 933 mm 975 mm Precipitation) PE (Potential Evaporation) 1647 mm 1687 mm

Figure 8 Map showing the location and extent of wetlands 1 and 2 (wetland boundary in “blue”), with the project focal assessment areas (1 to 3) shown circled in “red” where the proposed pipeline will traverse or come within close proximity to wetland areas mapped.

Photos specific to the wetland focal areas in Figure 8 (where impacts are anticipated) are shown on the following pages and provide a good idea of the areas to be potentially impacted by the proposed pipeline. Additional site photos are contained in Annexure C of this document.

25

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Site Photo’s: Wetland 1

Photo 1a. View NNE of upper reaches of wetland 1. Photo 1b. View S of pipeline crossing

Photo 2a. View WNW alone pipeline route Photo 2b. View ESE along pipeline route

Site Photo’s: Wetland 2

Photo 3. Headcut directly downstream of proposed Photo 5. Headcut directly downstream of proposed pipeline infrastructure. pipeline infrastructure.

26

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Photo 4. Panaromic view facing north of wetland habitat upstream of pipeline crossing (focal area 2)

Photo 6. View SE along Pipeline route (focal area 3) to follow exsiting unpaved road. Plantation, pioneer grassses such as Paspalum spp and alien vegetation dominate species composition.

Photo 7. Panaromic view NE of narrow wetland area (focal area 3) confined to drainageline by valley sides. Poineer grass spp and alien vegtation dominated species composition.

3.2.2 Land use in the wetland catchment

Land use in the catchment areas for the two main wetland systems differs quite markedly (Figure 9, below). The western wetland (wetland 1) catchment areas comprise mainly commercial cropland with a small section of commercial forestry plantation in the north-west. The wetland in the east (wetland 2) is located within a catchment that comprises a mosaic of land use, with built up areas in the east (i.e. Howick town), forestry plantations in the upper catchment in the north and areas of untransformed grassland in the upper north-west catchment and also in the far south. A number of small farm dams are located along drainage lines in the catchment area of both wetlands. The National Route 2 (N3) highway traverses the study area, along the catchment divide between the two wetland systems.

27

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Figure 9 Map showing the primary land uses occurring in the wetland catchment (KZN land cover, 2008).

3.2.3 Present Ecological State (PES) of wetlands

The current health or Present Ecological State (PES) of wetlands within the study area was assessed using the WET-Health tool (Macfarlane et al. 2008) which is based on an understanding of both catchment and on-site impacts and the impact that these aspects have on system hydrology, geomorphology and the structure and composition of wetland vegetation. The assessment indicates that the overall health or PES for Wetland 1 in the west is regarded as being Moderately Modified (“C” PES Category) with Wetland 2 in the east regarded as Largely Modified (“D” PES Category), which indicates that a moderate to large change in ecological processes has taken place in the wetlands assessed. A summary of the impacts to and current state of each of these components is briefly summarized below in Table 5, with the overall ratings, scores and summary scores then tabulated in Table 6. Further details on the WET-Health assessment can be found in Annexure D of this report. Note that individual WET-Health assessment Excel TM spreadsheets can be made available by Eco-Pulse upon request.

28

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Existing impacts within the wetlands used to inform the assessment of PES have been summarised below:

IMPACTS Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Transport infrastructure (railways, dirt and tar roads) crossing wetlands Informal dirt tracks within wetland areas

Location of residences/housing and other hard surfaces Cultivation occurring within wetlands Grazing of wetland vegetation by local livestock

Construction of relatively small in-channel farm dams within wetlands Construction of artificial drains/canals and berms that have modified existing

flow paths Shallow flooding upstream of impounding features such as roads and tracks

crossing wetlands Channel incision and gulley formation due to direct disturbance (e.g.

roads)/altered catchment characteristics Alien invasive vegetation in wetlands Dumping/littering in wetlands/channels General soil disturbance caused by trampling of soils and vegetation by humans

and animals accessing wetland areas

Key None Low Medium High

Table 5. Summary of WET-Health assessment findings

MODULE Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Class D: Largely Modified Class E: Seriously Modified

The current hydrological integrity of the wetland is regarded as being Seriously Modified (Class E). The The current hydrological integrity of the catchment area of the wetland is largely transformed wetland is regarded as being Largely (plantation, cultivation, industry, transport Modified (Class D). Land use in the infrastructure and urban development), which has catchment area includes plantation forestry, affected the volume and timing of flows to wetland

commercial crop cultivation and transport areas to a moderate degree. On site wetland impacts infrastructure which has had a low-moderate affecting the pattern and distribution of water within impact on the volume and timing of flows the system include extensive woody and herbaceous reaching wetlands. On site wetland impacts alien vegetation, artificial drainage/berms, gulley affecting the pattern and destitution of water erosion, cultivation, roads, and railways as well as a within the wetland include herbaceous alien HYDROLOGY number of small in-channel farm dams. While vegetation, artificial drainage/berms, previously unchannelled, this system is now cultivation, roads, railway and small farm characterised by large channeled sections due to dams which have affected system hydrology erosion and artificial drainage leading to channel to a large degree. formation. Large areas have been subject to drying as

a result of this, which is further exacerbated by the

presence of forestry plantations within large sections of the wetland.

E O M O R P H O L O G Y G Class B: Largely Natural Class B: Largely Natural

29

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

MODULE Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Despite evidence of gulley erosion and artificial As a result of small-moderate impacts drainage in sections of the wetland, the extent of resulting in altered run-off regimes in the these impacts on system geomorphology are catchment as well as limited infilling for road regarded as relatively small when looking at the infrastructure and artificial drainage for system as a whole. As a result the current geomorphic cultivation, the current geomorphic integrity integrity of the wetland is regarded as being Largely of the wetland is regarded as being Largely Natural (Class B). Headcuts within the wetland do Natural (Class B). present the threat of further advancement or erosion

which could impact on the integrity of upstream

wetland areas. Class D: Largely Modified Class E: Seriously Modified Wetland vegetation for this system is regarded as being Seriously Modified (Class E). The wetland has a Wetland vegetation for this system is greater variety of habitat types than Wetland 1 that regarded as being Largely Modified (Class include: deeply incised channelled areas with drier D). Vegetation has been degraded with floodplain areas, degraded wetlands that have been portions of the system under cultivation or heavily disturbed by human activities and overgrazing showing signs of historical cultivation. As a by livestock, areas that have been infilled and some result alien vegetation species such as Rubus largely natural/intact wetland habitat comprising cuneifolius (American bramble), Hibiscus sedges and taller rushes. Disturbance has led to dense trionum (Bladder hibiscus), Solanum infestations by alien invasive species such as Rubus mauritianum (Bugweed), Conyza canadensis cuneifolius (American bramble), Acacia mearnsii (Horseweed fleabane) and Verbena (Black wattle), Eucalyptus grandis (Gum tree), Hibiscus bonariensis (Purple top) are common within trionum (Bladder hibiscus), Solanum mauritianum the drier temporary and seasonal zones. (Bugweed), Conyza Canadensis (Horseweed Although alien vegetation is prominent, some fleabane) and Verbena bonariensis (Purple top). areas still contain indigenous sedges and

VEGETATION Although disturbance has had a notable impact on grass species such as Cyperus congestus, vegetation structure and composition, some areas are Setaria sphacelata vs. sericea (Golden bristle less impacted as indicated by the presence of typical grass), Pycreus spp, Hemarthia altissima and obligate wetland species such as Cyperus congestus, Setaria spp. Encroachment by pioneer Phragmites australis (Common reed), Typha capensis grasses and herbaceous alien species is (Bulrush), Kyllinga erecta, Juncus, effusus (Soft rush) widespread as a result of disturbance from Setaria sphacelata vs. sericea (Golden bristle grass), agriculture, plantation forestry and Pycreus spp, Hemarthia altissima and Setaria spp. road/railway construction. Encroachment by pioneer grasses and herbaceous and woody alien species is regarded as widespread. Further information on the integrity of wetland habitat in the form of vegetation plots is summarized in Table 7 below with additional information in Annexure B3.

Moderately Modified: Largely Modified: OVERALL A moderate change in ecosystem processes PES and loss of natural habitats has taken place A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of but the natural habitat remains natural habitat and biota and has occurred. predominantly intact

Table 6. Summary of PES for the wetland

Wetland HYDROLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY VEGETATION Overall PES System SCORE CLASS SCORE CLASS SCORE CLASS Score Class Wetland 4 D 1 B 5.6 D 3.6 C 1 Wetland 6.5 E 1.3 B 6.4 E 4.9 D 2

30

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Table 7. Summary of vegetation surveys within wetlands 1 and 2

VEGETATION

-

SAMPLE WETLAND WET-ZONE COMMUNITY TYPE/DESRIPTION

SITE cies WIV FQAI

TYPE

% Non % spe

Species Habitat

wetland wetland

Integrity

% Natural % % Wetland Wetland %

Highly disturbed community adjacent to the main drain through the wetland that is

dominated by the grass Setaria

Setaria sphacelate var. sericea. The Lions River sphacelata - vegetation has been colonized W1_Plot 1 Temporary 55 43 57 3.15 53.7

Wetland 1 Rubus by a range of weeds and Moderate

cuneifolius type invasive plants, many being Transitional dryland species not characteristic of wetland areas. Habitat integrity is considered moderate to poor.

This wetland area was found to be largely intact and dominated

by the large sedge species Lions River Cyperus Cyperus congestus. Few W2_Plot 1 Seasonal 93 95 5 1.99 77.9

Wetland 2 congestus type weeds/alien plants were found High in this community and habitat Wetland integrity is regarded as good/high.

31

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

VEGETATION

-

SAMPLE WETLAND WET-ZONE COMMUNITY TYPE/DESRIPTION

SITE cies WIV FQAI

TYPE

% Non % spe

Species Habitat

wetland wetland

Integrity

% Natural % % Wetland Wetland %

Highly disturbed community adjacent to the main drain/channel through the

wetland that is dominated by

grasses including numerous Paspalum al species of Paspalum (exotic Lions River dilatatum - W2_Plot 2 Seasonal species). The area has been 29 57 43 2.86 53.7 Wetland 2 Sporabolus

colonised by a range of weeds Moderate

africanus type Transition and invasive plants, many being dryland species not characteristic of wetland areas. Habitat integrity is considered moderate to poor.

This wetland area was found to

be largely intact and dominated

Cyperus by the large sedge species High Lions River digitatus - Cyperus digitatus Few - W2_Plot 3 Permanent 96 96 4 1.12 76.0 Wetland 2 Leersia weeds/alien plants were found hexandra type in this community and habitat Wetland

integrity is regarded as Moderate generally good/high.

32

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

3.2.3.1 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of wetlands

Wetlands are known to provide a range of ecosystem goods and services to society, and it is largely on this basis that policies aimed at protecting wetlands have been founded. This section of the report provides a summary of the predicted level of importance of the wetlands in terms of their effectiveness in providing ecosystem goods and benefits. The predicted level of importance of the various potential goods and services have been summarised in Table 8 and are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11, below. The reader is referred to Annexure E of this report for more details on the WET-Ecoservices assessment undertaken.

Generally speaking, un-channelled valley bottom occur on gentle slopes and with potentially high levels of alluvial sediment deposition, generally leading to a net accumulation of sediment (Kotze et al., 2009). The main difference is the absence of a clearly defined channel through these systems, with diffuse flow dominating across the wetlands, even during low flows. From a functional point of view, they tend to contribute less towards flood attenuation and sediment trapping than typical floodplain wetland types, but would supply these benefits to a certain extent (more than for a channelled valley bottom wetland type for example). Stream channel input is generally spread diffusely across the wetland even at low flows, resulting in extensive areas of the wetland remaining permanently saturated and tending to have high levels of soil organic matter. Nitrate and toxicant removal is consequently expected to be high owing to the high level of contact of the wetland with runoff waters, particularly if there is a significant groundwater contribution to the wetland. The shallow waters promote sunlight penetration, contributing to the photo-degradation of certain toxicants.

Based on a rapid level assessment of wetland goods and services for the systems, both wetlands provide Indirect benefits such as flood attenuation, sediment trapping and nutrient/toxicant removal to a low/moderate degree. Key direct human benefits provided by the wetlands to a moderate degree include cultivated food, water supply and food for livestock. Biodiversity maintenance is generally low to moderate due to the level of habitat transformation. The wetlands are also not considered suitable for tourism/recreation with a rather low educational/research value due to their degraded state.

Table 8. Summary of the importance of Wetland 1 and 2 in providing ecosystem goods & services

Wetland 1 Wetland 2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICE Supply Demand Importance Supply Demand Importance Flood Attenuation Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Moderate

Stream Flow Low- Low- Low- Low- High High Regulation Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low- Low- Low- Sediment Trapping High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Nutrient & Toxicant Low- Low- Retention and Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Removal

INDIRECT BENEFITS INDIRECT Erosion Control Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Moderate

Carbon Storage Low High Low Low High Low

33

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Wetland 1 Wetland 2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICE Supply Demand Importance Supply Demand Importance Biodiversity Low- Low- Low- Moderate Low Moderate Maintenance Moderate Moderate Moderate Low- Low- Water Supply Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Harvestable Natural Low Low Low Low Low Low Resources Moderate- Low- Cultivated Foods Moderate High High Moderate High Moderate Low- Moderate- Food for Livestock Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High

DIRECT BENEFITS DIRECT Cultural significance Low Low Low Low Low Low Low- Tourism & Recreation Low Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Education & Low Low Low Low Low Low Research

Flood Attenuation 4.0 Education & Research Stream Flow Regulation 3.5 3.0 Tourism & Recreation 2.5 Sediment Trapping 2.0 1.5 Nutrient & Toxicant Cultural significance 1.0 0.5 Retention and Removal 0.0

Food for Livestock Erosion Control

Cultivated Foods Carbon Storage

Harvestable Natural Biodiversity Maintenance Resources Water Supply

SUPPLY RATING DEMAND RATING

Figure 10 Spider diagram indicating the estimated levels of supply and demand for a range of ecosystem services for wetland 1.

34

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Flood Attenuation 4.0 Education & Research Stream Flow Regulation 3.5 3.0 Tourism & Recreation 2.5 Sediment Trapping 2.0 1.5 Nutrient & Toxicant Cultural significance 1.0 0.5 Retention and Removal 0.0

Food for Livestock Erosion Control

Cultivated Foods Carbon Storage

Harvestable Natural Biodiversity Maintenance Resources Water Supply

SUPPLY RATING DEMAND RATING

Figure 11 Spider diagram indicating the estimated levels of supply and demand for a range of ecosystem services for wetland 2.

Based on the PES and importance of the wetland in terms of wetland goods and services, the EIS of wetlands was rated using the tool by Rountree (in prep). Both wetlands have obtained an estimated Low to Moderate EIS rating, as per Table 9, below. The wetland systems are considered to be of Medium ecological importance and are moderately important from a hydrological/functional perspective (as reflected in the WET-Ecoservices assessment in Table 8). From a direct-use perspective, the wetlands are not considered important, with the only direct use observed being cultivation and livestock grazing which also take place across the terrestrial environment.

Table 9. Summary of the EIS assessment

Component assessed Wetland 1 Wetland 2

Ecological Importance & sensitivity 2.2 (Medium) 2.4 (Medium)

Hydrological / Functional Importance 1.84 (Low-Medium) 1.73 (Low-Medium)

Importance of Direct Human Benefits 1.2 (Low) 1.14 (Low)

Overall Importance Score 1.75 1.76

EIS Class Low-Medium Low-Medium

35

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

3.3 Setting Management Objectives for Aquatic Resources

Future management of the aquatic ecosystems assessed in this report should be informed by recommended management objectives for the water resource which, in the absence of classification, is generally based on the current status of the water resource or PES (Present Ecological State) and the EIS (Ecological Importance and Sensitivity) for the resources (DWAF, 2007). As indicated below in Table 11, the desktop derived management objectives for the systems would be to maintain the present condition and ecological functioning of aquatic ecosystems. Careful management of impacts is therefore necessary to ensure no further deterioration in the status of these important water resources.

Table 10. Recommended management objectives for wetlands based on PES and EIS ratings

Recommended Management Wetland System EIS PES Objective

Wetland 1 Low-Moderate C - Moderately Modified Maintain current state

Wetland 2 Low-Moderate D – Largely Modified Maintain current state

36

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

4.1 Site-specific ecological concerns

Site-specific ecological concerns for each wetland are based on the baseline PES and EIS assessments and potential risks associated with pipeline trenching and installation across or in the vicinity of wetlands. These are summarised below in Table 12 and were used to inform the assessment of potential impacts in section 4.2 of this report.

Table 11. Summary of site-specific ecological concerns to inform the assessment of impacts. Site Site Specific Ecological Concerns  Alterations in wetland hydrology (patterns of water distribution and retention) and the formation of preferential flow paths where pipelines cross the wetland.  The destruction of natural wetland habitat, decreased surface roughness and removal of indigenous species. Wetland 1  Disturbance of the vegetation and soils leading to ideal condition for additional invasive alien plants to colonize wetland areas and replace the indigenous plant community.  Soil erosion and sedimentation during trenching across wetlands, potentially affecteding downstream wetland areas.  Disturbance of the vegetation and soils leading to ideal conditions for further encroachment of invasive alien plants into wetland areas and replacement of the indigenous plant community.  Soil erosion and sedimentation during trenching across wetlands, potentially affecting downstream wetland areas. Wetland 2  Trenching and other disturbance during pipeline installation has the potential to exacerbate existing erosion features upstream and downstream of the crossing site leading to further advancement of headcuts. Headward erosion of gullies will not only affect the upstream wetland but can have an impact on the pipeline by exposing the pipe to erosive forces.

4.2 Identification and assessment of potential impacts

Specialist working knowledge and experience with other bulk water pipeline projects in KwaZulu-Natal was used in identifying and describing potential impacts to wetland ecosystems for this assessment. The construction of water supply pipelines across wetlands can impact either directly (e.g. physical change to habitat) or indirectly (e.g. changes to water quantity & quality) on the water resource in general. The range of typical impacts that can be expected for this project are described in details below. The various impacts have been split into Construction Phase Impacts which are limited to the duration of the construction phase and Operational Phase Impacts which are longer-term impacts likely to continue for the lifespan of the project.

37

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

4.2.1 Construction-Phase Impacts

C1. Pollution of water resources and soils

Waste products and pollutants, generated during the construction phase (pipeline installation) may include fuels and oils from construction vehicles as well as solid waste in the form of building material and litter from labourers. These products have the capacity to result in the significant deterioration of water quality within water resources and are likely to have a negative effect on aquatic ecology by impacting on species that are sensitive or intolerant to changes in water quality (especially from toxicant inputs). Changes in water quality will ultimately cause a shift in aquatic species composition, favouring only tolerant species, resulting in the localised exclusion of sensitive species. Sudden drastic changes in water quality can also have chronic effects on aquatic biota leading to localised extinction. Pollution could also result in negative impacts to people and livestock that are reliant on water resources for drinking purposes. Furthermore, the wetlands drain into the Lions River system, which has been flagged as a NFEPA (National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas), which makes water quality considerations particularly relevant.

C2. Erosion and sedimentation

Discrete peaks of high-suspended sediment concentrations typically correspond to activities such as trench excavation, trench dewatering and backfilling, leading to sedimentation of water resources including wetlands and rivers. The downstream extent and concentration of the sediment will reflect the particle size of the materials either excavated or used as backfill. Water flowing down trenches and access roads, as well as trench de-watering, could cause additional sediment to accumulate within the wetlands and channels. Enhanced erosion of wetland soils and river banks may also occur as a result of concentrated flows, particularly during the summer months when runoff is high. Erosion poses a great risk to the geomorphological/functional integrity of wetlands and affects system hydrology as well, depending on the position of erosional features such as gullies (particularly relevant to wetland 2 where erosion gullies and headcuts are present downstream of the proposed crossing site). The increased sediment deposition would also impact on geomorphological/hydrological functioning as well as having an impact on water quality within the receiving environment. In addition, some of the key biological effects related to the deposition of sediment and suspension of fine sediment within the water column of river/wetlands may include: o Habitat alteration downstream of crossing points due to increased sediment deposition; o Reductions in photosynthetic activity and primary production caused by sediments impeding light penetration; and o Reduced diversity of biota and establishment of more tolerant taxa or exotic species.

38

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

C3. Disturbance and compaction of soils

The excavation and compaction of wetland soils in areas where pipelines cross wetlands serves to alter natural geomorphological and hydrological processes within the wetland such as the subsurface movement of water. Compacted soils are also not ideal for supporting vegetation growth as they inhibit seed germination.

C4. Destruction of natural wetland vegetation and habitat

This relates to the complete removal or partial destruction/disturbance of existing indigenous wetland vegetation during construction by machinery and workers accessing the site to install pipelines, impacting directly on the ecological condition of vegetation units and habitat availability. Loss of vegetation generally affects nutrient cycles, removes the organic litter layer, accelerates the rate of soil loss through erosion, reduces the availability of habitat for wildlife and can result in the loss of sensitive species. Impacts are immediate and associated with a short term loss of habitat and food source for fish and aquatic insects. The generally poor habitat diversity and limited extent of indigenous wetland vegetation associated with this particular project site lowers the significance of this impact.

C5. Temporary disruption of flows through wetlands

The trenching across wetlands and channels associated with pipeline installation generally requires a dry working area, which will require that any flow be temporarily diverted away from active working areas during construction. Although this will be for a short period of time, there will be a negative impact on wetland functioning as flow patterns and volumes are altered during this time period. Deflected water can also exacerbate erosion where it re-enters a channeled watercourse if not carefully managed.

C6. Noise-related disturbance (fauna)

Construction activities occurring within a close proximity to habitat containing fauna can lead to both the physical disturbance of areas of habitat by construction machinery/labourers as well as the disturbance of fauna due to noise pollution in the short-term. In most instances, fauna such as small mammals, reptiles and birds will be able to relocate to adjacent habitats.

C7. Increased incidences of illegal harvesting of natural resources

Construction activities occurring within a close proximity to wetland/riparian habitat containing fauna and medicinal plants can lead to an increase in the hunting/poaching/trapping of fauna from these locations as well as the harvesting of indigenous wetland plants for various uses such as firewood/medicinal use. The generally poor habitat diversity and limited extent of indigenous wetland vegetation associated with this particular project site lowers the significance of this impact.

39

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

4.2.2 Operational-Phase Impacts

O1. Colonization by Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs) and weeds

The colonization of areas by weeds and IAPs (Invasive Alien Plants) poses a risk to indigenous plant species and would be facilitated by disturbance of natural vegetation and surface soil layers during vegetation clearing, pipeline trenching and general construction. IAPs and weeds have the ability to out-compete and replace indigenous flora, which will in turn impact on natural biodiversity. Although the impact is initiated during the construction phase, it is really an operational issue as recovery of vegetation community types is a long term process. The significance of this impact is negated somewhat by the existing disturbance regime in the project area, with wetland areas at crossing sites already characterized by moderate infestations of alien plants.

O2. Altered hydrology

Installation of the pipeline within a wetland area may alter the existing hydrological regime by intercepting and/or disrupting flow (especially where pipelines are installed at an angle to the general direction of flows through the resource) but also due in response to soil compaction adjacent to the pipeline. The preferential flow of water along pipeline/trench bedding material can also lead to changes in water distribution and retention patterns within wetlands (use of river sand for bedding material, for example), could result in preferential flow of water along the pipeline route route, which could essentially drain wetland areas. Altered hydrological conditions within wetlands are also likely to affect vegetation characteristics, habitat and general ecological integrity within a system.

O3. Erosion and sedimentation

Construction activities associated with pipeline installation (access, excavation/trenching) could lower the natural base level within wetland crossings leading to preferential flow paths and headcut formation. Long term impacts would be the formation of active erosion gullies and the subsequent loss of wetland habitat (particularly relevant to wetland 2 where existing erosion gullies and headcuts are present downstream of the proposed crossing site). The removal of natural vegetation at the crossings also render the soils prone to erosion.

4.2.3 Impact significance assessment

An attempt has been made to quantify the relative significance of these impacts at a general/broad level, the results of which have been summarized in Table 13 below, for construction and operational phases respectively. This highlights a range of impacts to wetlands, which if not carefully managed, could have a significant impacts on wetlands and the small stream line assessed. Issues of highest concern include the pollution of water resources and destruction of natural wetland vegetation and

40

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014 habitats as well as the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream areas as a result of construction activities within or adjacent to wetlands. Operational-phase impacts include the colonization of wetlands by alien invasive plants after disturbance as well the risk of further erosion and associated sedimentation where pipelines are located adjacent to erosion features in wetlands (i.e. erosion headcuts at the pipeline crossing for wetland 2 in particular). Further erosion within wetlands will not only affect the integrity and functioning of the resource but can also impact negatively on any pipeline infrastructure placed in close vicinity to eroding areas, where pipeline can become exposed and suffer damage.

While the proposed development could clearly have significant negative impacts on wetlands and watercourses, the mitigation measures outlined in section 4.3 of this report are likely to result in a considerable reduction in terms of the significance of impacts, as indicated in Table 13 for the scenario “with mitigation”. While this will require strict supervision and commitment from the developer, this assessment suggests that impact significance can potentially be reduced from medium/high levels to a low-very low level through on-site management of construction activities and the application of identified mitigation and rehabilitation measures to reduce the risk of operational impacts occurring. In the case of the 2 wetland, this will require significant effort to address potential headward erosion of headcuts immediately downstream of the proposed crossing site in order to address the risk of further wetland degradation and the risk that this could impact on the pipeline infrastructure itself. For further information on the impact significance assessment ratings and scoring, refer to ANNEXURE F. The methodology used to rate impacts is described in detail in Annexure A7.

Table 12. Summary of the impact significance assessment for construction and operation phases of the water pipeline development project

Impact Significance CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS Without With Mitigation Mitigation C1 Pollution of water resources Medium Very Low C2 Erosion and sedimentation Medium Low C3 Disturbance and compaction of soils Medium Very Low C4 Destruction of natural wetland vegetation and habitat Medium Low C5 Temporary disruption of flows through wetlands Low Very Low C6 Noise-related disturbance (fauna) Very Low Insignificant Increased incidences of illegal harvesting of natural C7 Very Low Insignificant resources

Impact Significance OPERATION PHASE IMPACTS Without With Mitigation Mitigation O1 Colonization by Invasive alien plants and weeds High Low O2 Altered hydrology Medium Very Low O3 Erosion and sedimentation High Low

41

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

4.3 Impact Mitigation & Management

The protection of aquatic ecosystems should begin with avoidance of adverse impacts and where such avoidance is not feasible, to apply appropriate mitigation. With this in mind, recommendations for realigning pipeline infrastructure in an attempt to avoid ecological impacts where practically possible (section 4.3.1) and pipeline design recommendations for wetland crossings (4.3.2) have been provided below. Finally, site-specific mitigation & management actions were identified to address the potential residual impacts (Section 4.3.3).

4.3.1 Alternative pipeline alignment options

A key aspect of impact mitigation is looking at the potential for development relocation options to limit the magnitude and extent of impacts to water resources. In the case of linear pipeline project, realignment of the pipeline route can be seen as an initial means of reducing or even avoiding impacts to wetlands. Based on the assessment of the original pipeline route provided by the client for assessment purposes, the current crossing locations presented are already located within areas of degraded wetland habitat for the crossing at wetland 1. This crossing location is considered acceptable and no realignment is recommended for this wetland crossing. For wetland 2, the crossing site is also located along an existing dirt track across the wetland and within area of degraded wetland habitat. The primary concern at this crossing site, however, is the presence of existing erosion gullies and headcuts immediately downstream of the dirt track and crossing site. Further disturbance during pipeline installation could further exacerbate erosion and headcuts may pose a risk to both wetland and pipeline infrastructure in the long-term. Consideration should be given to possible relocation of the pipeline slightly upstream (north) of the dirt track together with on-site management options aimed at stabilizing gullies and preventing further headward movement of headcuts and gulley incision (see 4.3.3 below).

4.3.2 Design recommendations for wetland crossings

Wetland crossings must be constructed perpendicular to the natural direction of flow. Pipeline trenches and sandy bedding material can produce preferential flow paths for water across wetlands that can potentially drain wetland areas. Crossing wetlands perpendicular to the general direction of flows instead of at an angle will reduce this risk. This risk can also be reduced by installing clay plugs at intervals down the length of the trench to force water out of the trench and down the natural topographical gradient.

4.3.3 On-site mitigation and management guidelines

The protection of aquatic resources begins with avoidance of adverse impacts through appropriate design and planning. While locating proposed infrastructure and designing crossings in such a manner that potential ecological impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be minimized is preferable, this must also be accompanied by site-based mitigation & management actions to address the potential impacts identified in Section 4.2 of this report. Mitigation measures for construction and operational phases have

42

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014 been included here (separate guidelines), together with guidelines for implementation and monitoring. Rehabilitation guidelines have also been included in these mitigation guidelines to further address potential residual impacts of the project.

4.3.3.1 Management and mitigation of construction-related impacts

C1. POLLUTION CONTROL

 Limit the use of equipment operating within  It is recommended that all construction camps, lay watercourses (wetlands and rivers) to only that down areas, batching plants and any stores in general needed. should be located a distance of at least 30m in an  The proper storage and handling of hazardous upland direction from the edge of delineated substances (hydrocarbons and chemicals) needs watercourses such as wetlands and riparian areas. to be administered. All employees handling fuels These activities can occur closer only if the ECO finds, and other hazardous materials are to be properly in advance, no reasonable alternative and the trained. Storage containers must be regularly contractors have taken appropriate steps (including inspected so as to prevent leaks. secondary containment structures) to prevent spills and  Construction materials liable to spillage are to be provide for prompt cleanup in the event of a spill. stored in appropriate containment structures.  Spillages of fuels, oils and other potentially harmful  Washing and cleaning of equipment should not chemicals should be cleaned up immediately and be undertaken in or adjacent to wetlands or contaminants properly drained and disposed of using rivers/streams. proper solid/hazardous waste facilities (not to be  Surface water draining off contaminated areas disposed of within the natural environment). Any containing oil and fuels would need to be contaminated soil from the construction site must be channeled towards a sump to separate these removed and rehabilitated timeously and chemicals and oils. appropriately.  Operation and storage of machinery and  Sanitation – portable toilets (1 toilet per 30 users is the construction-related equipment must be done norm) to be provided where construction is occurring. outside of wetlands wherever possible. Workers need to be encouraged to use these facilities  Storage of potentially hazardous materials (e.g. and not the natural environment. Toilets should be fuel, oil, cement, bitumen, paint, etc.) should be located outside of the 1:100 yr flood line of a outside of the 100-year flood line, or within a watercourse or 30m or from any natural water bodies horizontal distance of 30m from a watercourse, including streams and wetlands. Waste from chemical drainage line or wetland, or as specified by the toilets should be disposed of regularly and in a ECO. This applies to storage of these materials responsible manner by a registered waste contractor. and does not apply to normal operation or use of  Provide adequate waste disposal facilities (bins) and equipment in these areas. encourage workers not to litter or dispose of solid waste  Ensure that suitable overnight facilities are in the natural environment but to use available facilities provided for vehicles, away from any areas of for waste disposal. channeled flow.  No stockpiling should take place within a water course,  Provide drip-trays beneath standing including wetlands and the riparian area of streams. machinery/plant.  Any cement batching activities should occur outside of  Routinely check machinery/plant for oil or fuel the delieated riparian zone. Cement batching boards leaks each day before construction activities should be used. Cement products/wash not to be begin. disposed of into the natural environment.  Mechanical plant and bowsers must not be  Concrete structures should be properly cured before refuelled or serviced within or directly adjacent to being exposed to flow in streams/wetlands. any watercourses (wetland & rivers).  Ensure that any rubbish is regularly cleared from the site.

43

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

C2. EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

 Construction within water resources should  Any erosion points created during construction should proceed mainly during the dry, winter months in be filled and stabilized immediately. order to minimize soil erosion linked to high runoff  For the proposed crossing at Wetland 2 (eastern rates. wetland), erosion gullies and headcuts located  EO/ECO should perform periodic visual downstream of the crossing site threaten to progress inspections of on-site water quality, identifying the upstream. The pipeline crossing at this location should source of any rapid increases in turbidity of seek to stabilize headcuts in channels downstream surface waters and remedying this where using appropriate gabions or concrete structures to necessary. safeguard both upstream wetland habitat and the  Excavated material/sediments/spoil from the pipeline infrastructure. construction zone (including any foreign  Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction materials) should not be placed or stockpiled right of way) in a manner that does not cause erosion within wetlands to reduce the possibility of and does not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing material being washed downstream. into any wetland/river. Water must be pumped out  Install sediment barriers (e.g. silt fences, into a well vegetated area some distance from any sandbags, hay bales, earthen filter berms, watercourse to facilitate sediment trapping and retaining walls and check dams) across the entire reduce the chance of sediment entering construction right of way at all wetland crossings wetlands/streams. where necessary to contain spoil and prevent  No stockpiling should take place within a water course, sediment flow into wetlands/rivers. including wetlands and streams.  Sandbags should be placed across the trench  All soil stockpiles (in terrestrial areas) should be placed before it enters a wetland in order to trap in upland direction from the pipeline trench such that sediment flowing down from the surrounding any runoff is directed into the trench. Stockpiles must area. be protected from erosion, stored on flat areas where  Sediment barriers should be regularly maintained possible, and be surrounded by appropriate berms. and cleared so as to ensure effective drainage.  Disturbed surfaces to be rehabilitated must be ripped  Remove temporary sediment barriers after re- where necessary and the area must be backfilled with vegetation and stabilization of disturbed areas is topsoil or overburden and vegetated as soon as judged to be successful. practically possible after construction, so as to stabilize  If sandbags are used to temporarily divert water erosion-prone areas. then these bags should be in good condition.  Access routes should be designed to limit their  For activities taking place within channels, it is potential impact on the environment (existing access suggested that coffer dams are built around the roads to be used where possible). works area to trap any possible pollutants or  Weather forecasts from the South African Weather sediments from being transported downstream. Bureau should be monitored to avoid exposing soil or For open trenching across flowing streams, building works or materials during a storm event and manage sediment generated by excavation of appropriate action must be taken in advance to the trench by means of sand filters, settlement protect construction works should a storm event be ponds, bidim curtains in streams, or other forecasted. appropriate methods. Hay bales packed in rows  Erosion control measures should be employed where across the river diversion and active flow areas necessary. Necessary erosion protection works for are quite successful in situations where flow unstable banks and erosion gullies (e.g.: coarse rock velocities and volumes are low. pack, riprap and gabions) need to be constructed.

C3.1A SITE ACCESS

 Limit the width of the construction zone through  Wherever possible, blading new tracks with a grader wetland areas and across channels to less than must be avoided, and a new vehicle track is to be 12m. created by simply driving over the grass cover without  Use existing access routes as far as possible removing grass cover/topsoil. The same track is to be before creating new ones. used to access areas and widening and creating  Any additional access routes should be designed alternative or parallel tracks must not be allowed. to limit potential impact on the environment, Likewise, the same vehicle turning areas are to be bearing in mind areas that are already showing used. reduced groundcover and erosion.

44

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

C3.1B MANAGEMENT OF SOILS IN THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE

 Excavated and imported material should be  Any topsoil removed from wetlands must be stockpiled stored away from stream lines / areas of separately from subsoil material and replaced once concentrated flow to limit the risk of sediment construction is complete to facilitate re-colonization of wash to downstream areas. the site.  Pipes / diversion structures should be used to  Stripped topsoil from wetlands must not be buried or in deflect water away from active works areas any other way be rendered unsuitable for further use where necessary (e.g. work within channels). by mixing with spoil or subjected to compaction by  If standing water or saturated soils are present, or machinery. if construction equipment causes ruts or mixing of  Exposed soils should be rehabilitated as soon as the topsoil and subsoil in wetlands, use low- practically possible to limit the risk of erosion. ground-weight construction equipment, or  Erosion control measures should be employed where operate normal equipment on timber riprap, required. prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats.  Soils in wetlands that have been compacted must be loosened to an appropriate depth to allow natural seed germination to occur.

C4A. VEGETATION CLEARING

 Limit the width of the construction right-of-way to  Restrict access at the approach and departure points 12m or less. to wetland areas.  Keep the clearing of vegetation in wetland areas  Manage construction access in and adjacent to to a minimum and attempt to ensure that wetlands so as to minimise disturbance clearing occurs in parallel with the construction  Site supervisors must ensure that impacts are confined progress where practically possible. Limit to the construction zone. The pipeline route should construction equipment operating in wetland cross wetlands at degraded sections of the areas to that needed to clear the construction watercourse where possible. right of way, dig the trench, fabricate and install  Where possible, cut vegetation to ground-level rather the pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore the than removing it completely, leaving root systems construction right of-way. intact to ensure rapid re-colonization.  Is advised that an ECO with a good  Any exotic vegetation (trees and plants) encountered understanding of the local flora be appointed should be removed from the site and properly disposed during the construction phase. of.  The construction zone should be clearly  Rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as practically demarcated prior to the commencement of possible with indigenous wetland and riparian construction activities to ensure that construction vegetation. A suitable replanting and re-vegetation vehicles do not unduly disturb wetland areas. programme is needed to rehabilitate the wetland post- construction. This should comprise a mix of rapidly germinating indigenous wetland plants such as sedges, reeds and rushes suited to the eco-region and adapted to stabilizing areas. Specific attention should be paid to the immediate re-vegetation of cleared areas adjacent to wetlands and rivers in order to limit the potential for erosion and sedimentation.

C4B. FIRE MANAGEMENT

 No open fires to be permitted on construction  Ensure adequate firefighting equipment is available sites. Fires may only be made within the and train workers on how to use it. construction camp and only in areas and for  Ensure that all workers on site know the proper purposes approved by the ECO. procedure in case of a fire occurring on site.  Smoking must not be permitted in areas  Ensure that no refuse wastes are burnt on the site or on considered to be a fire hazard. surrounding premises.

C5 & 6. MANAGING DISTURBANCE WITHIN WETLANDS

 Ensure that the pipeline is aligned with existing  Complete construction activities in wetlands (including infrastructure as far as possible. trenching, pipe installation, backfill, and restoration of  Where possible, construction across wetlands and the streambed contours) within 24 hours where channels should proceed during the dry winter possible. months (low or zero flow periods) in order to limit  No physical damage should be done to any aspects of the potential for erosion linked to high runoff the wetland other than those necessary to complete rates. the works as specified.  Limit the width of construction within wetlands as  Temporary flow diversions will need to be removed far as possible and restrict construction only those after construction has been completed, and the areas necessary, or for as short a time as possible wetland rehabilitated/restored to their original 45

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

where such activities are necessary. configurations as soon as practically possible such that  Construct crossings as close to perpendicular to there are no changes to the total flow in any the direction of flows through wetlands. watercourse.  Do not lower the original bed / profile of the  Any abstraction of water for construction purposes wetland as this may result in scouring in an must be approved by the Department of Water Affairs upstream direction. (DWA).  Bury the pipeline below the elevation of the  Ensure that construction activities are carefully wetland surface. monitored to limit unnecessary impacts to wetland  During construction, concentrated flows should areas. be diverted around active work areas. Water  Do not remove wetland soil/materials or use this for diversion needs to be temporary and re-directed construction. Any wetland soils removed must be flow must not be diverted towards stream banks stockpiled for use in rehabilitation. which could cause erosion. The banks of any  Infill any trenches with sufficiently sized sediments and stream diversion must be protected (e.g. by rapidly re-establishing dense vegetal growth in sandbags, plastic liners or coarse rock) to prevent order to minimize the risk of erosion. scouring.  Install protective works and stabilizing structures (e.g.:  Under no circumstance would consideration be gabions, reno-mattresses) to stabilize and protect given to the excavation of an alternative channel unstable banks at the crossing point (i.e. immediately or the damming of wetlands in such a manner as upstream and downstream of the pipeline crossing). to totally restrict the flow. Water diversion will be  Bank erosion should be monitored at regular intervals temporary and only one diversion will be made at (e.g.: at the onset of the rainy period) in order to assess a time. whether further river bank protection works are  For streams, a temporary impoundment should required. be constructed upstream using sand bags to  Complete bed and bank stabilization before returning isolate water from the construction zone. Water flow to the watercourse/channel. should then be piped from the small dam and  Excavated material/sediments/spoil from the across the construction zone to reduce water construction zone (including any foreign materials) movement across the disturbed area. should not be placed or stockpiled within the channel.  Minimise additional disturbance by limiting the use of heavy vehicles and personnel during clean-up operations.

C7. MANAGING NOISE-RELATED IMPACTS

 Limit the width of the construction zone through  Temporary noise pollution due to construction works areas of sensitive wetland habitat. should be minimized by ensuring the proper  Keep outside of sensitive wetland habitat where maintenance of equipment and vehicles, and tuning possible. of engines and mufflers as well as employing low noise  Ensure that employees and staff conduct equipment where possible. themselves in an acceptable manner while on  Determine any special requirements for blasting site, both during work hours and after hours. management in the event that blasting will be required within sensitive environments and the use of low- impact technology is recommended. Consider blast matts to minimise fly rock. Make use of noise mufflers and / or soft explosives where possible if blasting; reduce blast shock by minimising number of charges.

C8. CONTROLLING ILLEGAL HARVESTING/POACHING

 Keep outside of sensitive habitat types that have  Any fauna that are found within the construction been identified for protection/conservation. corridor should be moved to the closest point of  Inform site staff that under no circumstance may natural or semi-natural vegetation outside the firewood or medicinal plants be harvested from construction corridor. Exerts should be called to wetland areas. handle any dangerous/venomous animals.  No wild animal may under any circumstance be hunted, snared, captured, injured, killed, harmed in any way or removed from the site. This includes animals perceived to be vermin.

46

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

4.3.3.2 Management and mitigation of operational-phase impacts

O1. ALIEN PLANT MANAGEMENT

 All areas disturbed by construction activities must  Implement an alien weed control programme to be rehabilitated to their former state once ensure that alien plants are actively managed and construction activities have ceased and should eradicated from the site, with adequate monitoring be monitored afterwards to prevent disturbed and follow-up measures (particularly within the first 12 areas from being colonised by exotic species and months of operation) to ensure the area remains weeds. weed-free. This will need to include any disturbed  Re-vegetation of disturbed areas must use areas created during construction that may have indigenous plants including locally-common become colonized by weeds to ensure the area indigenous grasses, sedges and trees/shrubs. remains weed-free.  Stockpiles containing mostly exotic or weed species should be covered for extended periods to inhibit seedling germination of these species.

O2. ENSURING CONTINUED HYDROLOGICAL FUNCTIONING IN WETLANDS & RIVERS

 Use subsurface material rather than imported  Where the pipeline trench may drain a wetland, sand as bedding material in wetland areas. construct trench breakers/earthen berms and/or seal Where this is not possible, use subsoil to construct the trench bottom as necessary to maintain the narrow (1m) clay plugs to limit flow along the original wetland hydrology. trenched area. These should be placed at regular (10 – 15m) intervals along the pipeline where it crosses wetland habitat.

O3. MANAGING EROSION RISK

 Reinstate the longitudinal and cross-sectional  Erosion features that have been stabilized should be profile of the wetland to its pre-construction monitored at regular intervals during the operational geometry (no change in elevation and any banks phase in order to assess whether further protection not to be steepened). works are required.  All foreign materials and structures to be removed  Re-instate indigenous vegetation (grasses and from channels and wetlands post-construction. indigenous trees) disturbed as soon as practically  Install protective works (e.g.: gabions, reno- possible once construction ceases so as to stabilise mattresses) to stabilise and protect unstable disturbed areas. Monitor re-vegetation to ensure banks immediately upstream and downstream of wetland areas are well covered and protected from the pipeline (in particular wetland 2 crossing). erosion.  For wetland 2 crossing, consideration should be given to possible relocation of the pipeline slightly upstream (north) of the dirt track together with on-site management options aimed at stabilizing gullies and preventing further headward movement of headcuts and gulley incision.

4.3.4 Rehabilitation guidelines

While the mitigation measures outlined above will help to reduce potential impacts, additional rehabilitation measures (guidelines below) have been identified to further address potential impacts and to improve the current state of aquatic resources where this is feasible.

47

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Guidelines for Wetland Rehabilitation All areas disturbed by construction activities must be rehabilitated to their former state (or better) once construction activities have ceased or as soon as practically possible and should be monitored afterwards to prevent disturbed areas from being colonised by exotic plant species and weeds. Specific attention should be paid to the immediate re-vegetation of cleared areas within and adjacent to wetlands in order to limit the potential for erosion & sedimentation of wetlands. STEP 1:  Any erosion features created during the construction process / associated Fix any erosion points with the construction zone need to be stabilised. created  Earthen berms or plugs, rock packs or gabions may be used for the plugging of erosion gullies.  For earthen structures used to fill erosion points, the soil used needs to be properly compacted to ensure this is not vulnerable to erosion.  In the case of wetland 2 crossing (focal area 2), an opportunity exists to address active headward erosion directly downstream of the proposed pipeline crossing. The advancing headcut would both threaten the integrity of the pipeline infrastructure and upstream wetland habitat. Stabilisation through gabion or concrete structured would seek to lower the risk of further wetland degradation and preserve pipeline integrity in the long term. STEP 2:  Subsurface drains may be required to allow the free passage of water into Install subsurface drainage and through the wetland.  Use subsurface wetland soils/material rather than imported river sand as bedding material in wetland areas. Where this is not possible, use subsoil to construct narrow (1m) clay plugs to limit flow along the trenched area. These should be placed at regular (10 – 15m) intervals along the pipeline where it crosses wetland habitat. STEP 3:  Stockpiled wetland soil (this would have already been identified, Reinstate wetlands soils and appropriately removed and stockpiled for use in wetland rehabilitation) prepare planting area shall be placed in the reverse order as to which it was removed (i.e. subsoil first followed by topsoil).  Reinstated wetland soil is not to be compacted too heavily, as this will prevent water saturation and proper plant growth during rehabilitation. Where significant soil compaction has occurred, the soil may need to be ripped in order to reduce the bulk density of the soil such that vegetation can become established at the site.  Where good topsoil exists, no specific preparation is required.  Where loss of topsoil has taken place, fertilizer and lime may be required to replace lost nutrients in the soil. If lime and fertilizers are to be used these must be incorporated into the soil at least two months before planting, except for nitrogen fertilizer that should be applied at the time of planting.  An average depth of 30-50cm topsoil should be maintained across the disturbed wetland area where possible to provide sufficient depth for rooting of wetland plants.  The transverse and longitudinal profile of the wetland is to be reinstated as far as possible, with no net increase in longitudinal valley slope since this could lead to drying out and / erosion of wetland habitat.  For seeding the soil needs to be prepared to optimise germination. Such preparation is undertaken by hand hoeing. The soil in the seedbed should be loosened but firmed to facilitate good contact between the seeds and the soil. STEP 4:  All waste products (spoil, construction materials, hazardous substances and Remove any waste products general litter) need to be removed from the wetland area and disposed of in proper local waste facilities. STEP 5:  Once the soil and topography of the wetland has been returned to its pre- Reinstate wetland vegetation construction state, and waste products removed, wetland vegetation is to be reinstated as soon as weather conditions allow for plant growth.  A suitable replanting and re-vegetation programme is needed to rehabilitate the wetland post-construction. This should comprise a mix of rapidly germinating indigenous wetland plants such as sedges, reeds and rushes suited to the eco-region and specific wetland type and adapted to

48

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

stabilizing areas.  It would be advisable to plant at the onset of the wet season (early spring – August to October) so that watering requirements are minimal.  Do not use fertilizer, lime, or mulch unless required.  Re-instate the area affected with suitable indigenous wetland vegetation such as Bulrushes (Typha capensis) and sedges (Cyperus spp). Mono- specific planting should be avoided, as diversity is the key to robustness, which will assist in retaining sediment and preventing erosion.  The three main methods of re-vegetation include: seeding, cuttings and the transplanting of whole plants:

Transplanting of entire plants requires a systematic approach. The timing of transplanting is best done shortly before or at the beginning of the growing season (spring, early summer). When transplanting, it is essential to ensure that plants are dug up with as much of the rootball intact as possible. The plants should be replanted as quickly as possible following removal. If they need to be stored then they must be kept in the shade in damp sacks or newspaper. The spacing between plantings will vary according to their type (woody stemmed or herbaceous), but as a general rule it should mimic that found under natural conditions. When planting the material, dig a hole deep enough to ensure that the roots do not bend upwards. The soils around the newly placed plant should be firmly compacted. The planting of propagules (such as rhizomes and stolons) should be done at a depth of around 50mm below the wetland surface. Soil around propagules should be lightly compacted to ensure good contact between soil and plant matter. Thatching is a method of seeding that can be used with grasses or sedges that use ripened seeds as they are still attached to the stems, which are cut from the plants. Stems with mature inflorescences should be collected and deposited on the rehabilitation site.

 Re-vegetation of wetland areas also depends on the energy of the wetland environment:

For high-energy wetland environments (eg. channeled valley bottom systems), plants suited to high-energy systems should be selected. Plants should therefore have the following characteristics: vigorous growth, strong roots, mat-forming and high shoot density. Planting of bulrushes (Typha capensis) or sedges such as Cyperus dives may be the best option for achieving these requirements. In high-energy environments, the plants should be secured using a coarse mesh (steel wire or plastic) and/or a fine biodegradable mat. The mesh or mat is placed over the vegetation securing it until it can fully establish. The plants must be able to grow unhindered through the mesh or matting. Mats can be staked down.

 Recently planted vegetation is generally susceptible to being washed away until it has become well-established. In this case, the temporary diversion of heavy flows around these areas may be required by means of a small temporary earthen dam upstream or an artificial channel dug to convey water away from the planting area.  Alien plant species not to be used for re-vegetation, particularly those with invasive potential (CARA Category 3 and above).  When sourcing plants from nurseries, it is important to consider the genetic origin of the plants. It is considered best to use small regional nurseries that breed plants from the region, instead of large commercial nurseries that are likely to obtain stock from large regional suppliers. STEP 6:  Regular monitoring of wetland areas needs to be planned (at least 6 Monitor re-vegetation months after construction), to ensure that rehabilitation has been progress and administer alien successful. plant control  Implement an alien weed control programme to ensure that alien plants

49

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

are actively managed and eradicated from the site, with adequate monitoring and follow-up measures (particularly within the first 12 months of operation) to ensure the area remains weed-free. This will need to include any disturbed areas created during construction that may have become colonized by weeds to ensure the area remains weed-free. The use of herbicides will require an investigation into the necessity, type to be used, effectiveness and impacts of the agent on aquatic biota.

4.3.5 Implementation and monitoring

In dealing with significant impacts to aquatic resources during both the construction and operation phases, mitigation would be best achieved through the incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in section 4.3.1 – 4.3.2 of this report into an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the project. This EMP should define the responsibilities, budgets and necessary training required for implementing the recommendations made in this report. This will need to include monitoring as well as impact management and the provision for regular auditing to verify environmental compliance.

The EMP should be enforced and monitored for compliance by a suitably qualified/trained ECO (Environmental Control Officer) with any additional supporting EO’s (Environmental Officers) having the required competency skills and experience to ensure that environmental mitigation measures are being implemented and appropriate action is taken where potentially adverse environmental impacts are highlighted through monitoring and surveillance. The ECO will need to be responsible for conducting regular site-inspections of the construction process and activities and reporting back to the relevant environmental authorities with findings of these investigations. The ECO will need to prepare a training programme to educate machine operators about the sensitivity of constructing within wetlands/rivers and also be responsible for preparing a monitoring programme to evaluate construction compliance with the conditions of the EMP.

It is also strongly recommended that an aquatic specialist with rehabilitation experience be called on during the construction process to assess construction activities and to advise on any additional measures that may be required to address wetland concerns identified and to ensure that rehabilitation and erosion control measures proposed are appropriately implemented. With these control mechanisms in place, the construction impacts could be well mitigated and the operational issues pro-actively managed to reduce the overall impact of the project.

4.4 Water-use licensing requirements

Section 21 of the National Water Act (No 36 of 1998) lists certain activities for which water use must be licensed, unless its use is excluded. There are several reasons why water users are required to register and license their water use with the Department of Water Affairs (DWA), the most important being:  to manage and control water resources for planning and development;  to protect water resources against over-use, damage and impacts; and  to ensure fair allocation of water among users.

50

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

The following Section 21 water use activities are likely to be triggered by the proposed wastewater development and associated activities and would require a water use license from the DWA: NWA Section 21 Water Use Description pertaining to the project

21 (a): Taking water from a Limited quantities of water may be removed from watercourses for watercourse construction activities 21(c): Impeding2 or diverting3 Alteration and/or disturbance will only be temporary (restricted to the flow of water in a construction phase) and on completion, the beds will be watercourse rehabilitated. The pipeline will be encased in an open trench to allow for sufficient to cover for the pipe and is not expected to have significant negative impact on the upper surface of wetlands or river beds.

21(i): Altering the bed, banks, During construction, flow within rivers and streams will generally be course or characteristics of a contained within the existing river channel. Under no circumstance water course3 would consideration be given to the excavation of an alternative channel or the damming of the river in such a manner as to totally restrict the flow. Water diversion will be temporary and only one diversion will be made at a time.

Note: Proposed stabilization of head-cuts downstream of the crossing point associated with wetland 2 should also be addressed in the WULA.

General Authorization No. 542 (as published in the Government Gazette No. 32212, dated 15 May 2009) replaces the need for a water user to apply for a licence for water use in terms of Section 21 (c) and 21 (i) of the National Water Act, provided that the use is within the conditions set out in the General Authorisation (GA ). The proposed waste water project is excluded in terms of section 6 as the GA does not apply to any water use within a 500m radius from the boundary of any wetland.

Currently Section 21 (c) and (i) General Authorizations (GAs) do not apply to the use of water within a 500m radius from the boundary of any wetland. Should construction within these boundaries be considered, licensing and not registration will have to take place.

Given that planned development activities will take place within 500m of a wetland area, the following documents (amongst others) will be needed for a Water Use License Application, as required by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA):  Wetland areas delineation supplied together with and assessment of PES and ecological importance and sensitivity, i.e. this report.  Application forms for Section 21 (c) and (i) use. Note that the current Section 21 (c) and (i) General Authorizations (GAs) do not apply to the use of water within a 500m radius from the boundary of a wetland. Should construction within these boundaries be considered, licensing and not registration will have to take place.  Supporting documentation in terms of the activity and applicant.

2 Impeding the flow - refers to the temporary or permanent obstruction or hindrance to water flow in a water course by a structure built either fully or partially in or across a watercourse (DWAF, 2009).

3 Diverting the flow - refers to a temporary or permanent structure causing glow of water to be rerouted (DWAF, 2009)

51

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

5. CONCLUSION

The planned bulk water pipeline at Lions River/Howick in KZN will involve trenching and burial of water pipeline infrastructure across two wetland systems identified in the project area and will result in potential negative impacts to these sensitive aquatic ecosystems.

The extent of wetlands has been identified, delineated/mapped and assessed in term of their integrity and ecological importance and sensitivity to external impacts. The wetlands are both fairly large (30- 120ha) unchannelled valley bottom wetland systems that are considered Moderately to Largely Modified as a result of existing catchment land use impacts (forestry and cultivation), erosion within wetlands and degraded vegetation that has been transformed or invaded extensively by alien plants. As a result of their degraded state, ecosystem services provided by these systems have been undermined. Benefits such as flood attenuation, nutrient/toxicant removal, cultivated lands and grazing potential are rated as being of low-moderate importance whilst other services such as cultural, recreational and tourism value are considered to be of low importance. Due to their degraded nature, poor habitat integrity and limited functionality, wetlands identified in the project area are considered to be of a low-medium ecological importance and not particularly sensitive to disturbance.

Based on the current integrity and functional importance/sensitivity of wetland, the recommended management objectives for these resources should be to maintain the present condition and ecological functioning of these systems with limited to no further biodiversity loss as a result of this development. In order to achieve this objective, a proactive approach to planning and aquatic conservation has been recommended for this development. As part of this process, potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems were identified and rated, indicating that potential impacts are likely to range from a low significance to medium-high significance. The primary aquatic concerns for the development project range from water pollution impacts and erosion/sedimentation risks to altered wetland habitat & functioning and the temporary disturbance of water/sediment movement through these systems. Water pollution and sedimentation impacts are considered particular significant in light of the connectivity of the rivers and streams at the site with the larger perennial Lions and uMgeni Rivers downstream, which are flagged as National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) requiring particular management to prevent deterioration in the condition and functioning of these river systems. The careful management of potential development impacts through the application of the recommendations made in this report should reduce impacts to aquatic ecosystems to relatively low significance levels. Key mitigation and management measures include:  Realignment of the pipeline infrastructure in particularly sensitive areas to avoid direct impacts to wetlands areas;  Design recommendations for pipeline crossings aimed at reducing impacts to wetlands where crossings are required;  The implementation of recommended range of on-site mitigation and management measures and guidelines to deal with site-based issues during the construction and operational phases of the project;

52

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

 Site rehabilitation and management to limit residual impacts post-construction; and  Monitoring during the operational phase to ensure that adequate rehabilitation/recovery of wetland areas has been achieved.

6. REFERENCES

Acocks, J. P. H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa. Botanical Research Unit. 146p.

Andreas, B.K., Mack, J.J. and McCormac, J.S., 2004. Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) for vascular plants and mosses for the State of Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio. 219 p.

Brieda, J.T., Jog, S.K. and Matthews, J.W., 2013. Floristic quality assessment signals human disturbance over naturalvariability in a wetland system. Ecological Indicators 34 (2013) 260–267.

Bromilow, C., 2010. Problem Plants and Alien Weeds of South Africa. Third Edition. Briza Publications, Pretoria, South Africa.

Chittenden, H. (2009). Robert’s Bird Guide: A comprehensive field guide to over 950 bird species in southern Africa.

Cowden, C., Kotze, D. and Pike, T. 2013. Assessment of the long-term response of two wetlands to working for wetland rehabilitation. Report to the WRC (Water Research Commission). Report No. 2035/1/13. ISBN 978-1-3412-0396-3. April 2013.

CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). 2010. National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA). Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa.

DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism). 1998. Guideline Document on EIA Regulations of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2005. Controlling soil erosion: A manual for the assessment and management of agricultural land at risk of water erosion in lowland England. Crown copyright, 2005. United Kingdom.

Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J. and Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. XXXX. June 2011.

DWAF (Department of Water affairs and Forestry). 2009. DWAF Training Manual: National Water Act Section 21(c) and (i) Water Uses. Version: November 2009.

DWAF (Department of Water affairs and Forestry). 2005a. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland and riparian areas. Edition 1, September 2005. DWAF, Pretoria.

DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry) 2005b. Environmental Best Practice Specifications: Operation. Integrated Environmental Management Sub-Series No. IEMS 1.6. Third Edition. DWAF, Pretoria.

DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry) 2005c. Environmental Best Practice Specifications: Operation. Integrated Environmental Management Sub-Series No. IEMS 1.6. Third Edition. DWAF, Pretoria. eThekwini Municipality, 2009. Generic EMP for Construction Activities.

53

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Erwin, K.L. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecological Management,17:71–84.

FERC (US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), 2002. Wetland and Waterbody construction and mitigation procedures.

Kentula, M.E., Magee, T.K. and Nahlik, A.M., 2011. Potential Frameworks for Reporting on Ecological Condition and Ecosystem Services for the 2011 National Wetland Condition Assessment. EPA/600/R11/104. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Kleynhans CJ, Louw MD. 2007. Module A: EcoClassification and EcoStatus determination in River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report No.TT 329/08.

Kotze, D.C. 2007. Assessing the effect of rehabilitation on wetland health and the delivery of ecosystem services by the wetland.

Kotze, D.C., Marneweck, G.C., Batchelor, A.L., Lindley, D.S. and Collins, N.B. 2009. WET-Ecoservices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands.

Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. & Goge, C. 2008. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health, Version 2.

Macfarlane, D.M., von Hase, A. and Brownlie, S., 2012. Towards a best-practice guideline for wetland offsets in South Africa. Report prepared for: The SANBI Grasslands Programme. May 2012. 141pp.

Miller, S.J., Wardrop, D.H., Mahaney, W.M. and Brookers, R.P., 2006. A plant-based index of biological integrity (IBI) for headwater wetlands in central Pennsylvania. Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 290–312.

Munsell Soil Colour Chart (year 2000 edition).

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 2012. Resolution XI.9: An Integrated Framework and guidelines for avoiding, mitigating and compensating for wetland losses. 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands, Bucharest, Romania, 6-13 July 2012.

Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2010. Wise use of wetlands: Concepts and approaches for the wise use of wetlands. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edition, vol. 1. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

SANBI, 2009. Further Development of a Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report. Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

SANBI, 2011. Draft Phase 1 Planning Report for the Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation Programme: KZN Midlands. Prepared by Aurecon for the SANBI Working for Wetlands Programme.

Sieben, E.J.J., Mtshali, H. and Janks, M., 2013. National Wetland Vegetation Database: Classification and analysis of wetland vegetation types. Report to the WRC (Water Reseach Commission). Report No. K5-1980.

Van Ginkel, C.E., Glen, R.P., Gordan-Gray, K.D., Cilliers, C.J., Muasya and van Deventer, P.P. 2011. Easy identification of some South African Wetland Plants (Grasses, Resticios, Sedges, Rushes, Bulrushes, Eriocaulons and Yellow-eyed grasses). WRC Report No. TT 459/10.

Van Oudtshoorn, F. (2006). Guide to grasses of Southern Africa. Pretoria, South Africa.

54

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

7. ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A: Detailed assessment methods

A1 Wetland delineation

The outer boundary of wetlands was identified and delineated according to the Department of Water Affairs wetland delineation manual ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005a). Three specific wetland indicators were used in the detailed field delineation of wetlands, which include:

 Terrain unit indicator

A practical index used for identifying those parts of the landscape where wetlands are likely to occur based on the general topography of the area.

 Wetland vegetation indicator

Vegetation in an untransformed state is a useful guide in finding the boundary of a wetland as plant communities generally undergo distinct changes in species composition as one proceeds along the wetness gradient from the centre of a wetland towards adjacent terrestrial areas. An example of criteria used to classify wetland vegetation and inform the delineation of wetland zones is provided in Table 13.

Table 13. Criteria used to inform the delineation of wetland habitat based on wetland vegetation (adapted from Macfarlane et al., 2007 and DWAF, 2005a)

Vegetation Temporary wetness zone Seasonal wetness zone Permanent wetness zone Emergent plants including Mixture of non-wetland species Hydrophilic sedges and reeds and bulrushes; floating Herbaceous and hydrophilic plant species grasses restricted to or submerged aquatic restricted to wetland areas wetland areas plants Hydrophilic woody species Mixture of non-wetland and restricted to wetland areas Hydrophilic woody species Woody hydrophilic species restricted to with morphological restricted to wetland areas wetland areas adaptations to prolonged wetness (e.g.: prop roots) SYMBOL HYDRIC STATUS DESCRIPTION/OCCURRENCE ow Obligate wetland species Almost always grow in wetlands (>90% occurrence) Usually grow in wetlands (67-99% occurrence) but Fw+ Facultative wetland species occasionally found in non-wetland areas Equally likely to grow in wetlands (34-66% occurrence) and f Facultative species non-wetland areas Usually grow in non-wetland areas but sometimes grow in Fd- Facultative dry-land species wetlands (1-34% occurrence) d Dryland species Almost always grow in drylands

55

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

 Soil wetness indicator

According to the wetland definition used in the National Water Act (NWA, 1998), vegetation is the primary indicator which must be present under normal circumstances. However, in practice the soil wetness indicator (informed by investigating the top 50cm of wetland topsoil) tends to be the most important, and the other three indicators are used to refine the assessment. The reason for this is that vegetation responds relatively quickly to changes in soil moisture and may be transformed by local impacts; whereas the soil morphological indicators are far more permanent and will retain the signs of frequent saturation (wetland conditions) long after a wetland has been transformed/drained (DWAF, 2005a). Thus the on-site assessment of wetland indicators focused largely on using soil wetness indicators, determined through soil sampling with a soil auger, with vegetation and topography being a secondary indicator. A Munsell Soil Colour Chart was used to ascertain soil colour values including hue, colour value and matrix chroma as well as degree of mottling in order to inform the identification of wetland (hydric) soils. Soil sampling points were recorded using a GPS (Global Positioning System) and captured using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for further processing. An example of soil criteria used to assess the presence of wetland soils is provided below in Table 14 while Figure 15 provides a conceptual overview of soil and vegetation characteristics across the different wetness zones.

Table 14. Soil criteria used to inform wetland delineation using soil wetness as an indicator (after DWAF, 2005a)

Soil depth Temporary wetness zone Seasonal wetness zone Permanent wetness zone Matrix chroma: 1- 3 Matrix chroma: 0- 2 Matrix chroma: 0- 1 (Grey matrix <10%) (Grey matrix >10%) (Prominent grey matrix)

Mottles: Few/None high Mottles: Many low chroma Mottles: Few/None high 0 – 10cm chroma mottles mottles chroma mottles

Organic Matter: Low Organic Matter: Medium Organic Matter: High

Sulphidic: No Sulphidic: Seldom Sulphidic: Often Matrix chroma: 0 – 2 As Above As Above 30 – 50cm Mottles: Few/Many

56

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Figure 12 Diagram representing the different zones of wetness found within a wetland (DWAF, 2005a).

A2 Classification of wetlands

For the purposes of this study, wetlands were classified according to HGM (hydro geomorphic) type (Level 4A classification level) using the National Wetland Classification System which was developed for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI, 2009) as outlined in Table 15, below.

Table 15. Wetland classification (based on SANBI, 2009)

LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4A Landscape Setting HGM Type Description Areas of channelled flow including rivers and streams where water is largely confined to a main channel during low flows. Channel (river) Flood waters may over top the banks of the channel and SLOPE spread onto an adjacent floodplain Wetlands on slopes formed mainly by the discharge of sub- Hillslope seep surface water. Channel (river) River channels in a valley floor setting. Channelled valley- Valley floors with one or more well-defined stream channels, bottom wetland but lacking characteristic floodplain features. Unchannelled valley- Valley floors with no clearly defined stream channel. bottom wetland Valley floors with a well-defined stream channel, gently VALLEY FLOOR Floodplain wetland sloped and characterised by floodplain features such as oxbows and natural levees. Basin-shaped areas that allow for the accumulation of Depression surface water, an outlet may be absent (e.g. pans). Seeps located at the head of a valley, often the source of Valleyhead seep streams.

57

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4A Channel (river) River channels in a plain landscape setting. Floodplain wetlands as above but in a plain landscape Floodplain wetland setting. Unchannelled valley- Unchannelled valley bottom type wetlands as above but in PLAIN bottom wetland a plain landscape setting. Depression type wetlands as above but in a plain landscape Depression setting. Extensive areas characterised by level, gently undulating or Flat uniformly sloping land with a very gentle gradient. BENCH Depression Depression wetlands located on a bench. (HILLTOP / SADDLE / Flat Flat wetlands located on a bench. SHELF)

A3 WET-Health Assessment: Wetland Present Ecological State

The WET-Health tool (Macfarlane et al, 2008) provides an appropriate framework for undertaking an assessment to indicate the functional importance of the wetland system that could be impacted by the proposed development. The assessment also helps to identify specific impacts thereby highlighting issues that should be addressed through mitigation and rehabilitation activities. For the purposes of this study, a Level 1 assessment was undertaken. While this is a rapid assessment, we regard it as adequate to inform an assessment of existing impacts on wetland condition. This approach relies on a combination of desktop and on-site indicators to assess various aspects of wetland condition, including:  Hydrology: defined as the distribution and movement of water through a wetland and its soils.  Geomorphology: defined as the distribution and retention patterns of sediment within the wetland.  Vegetation: defined as the vegetation structural and compositional state.

Each of these modules follows a broadly similar approach and is used to evaluate the extent to which anthropogenic changes have impacted upon wetland functioning or condition. While the impacts considered vary considerably across each module, a standardized scoring system is applied to facilitate the interpretation of results (Table 16). Scores range from 0 indicating no impact to a maximum of 10 which would imply that impacts had totally destroyed the functioning of a particular component. The reader is encouraged to refer back to the tables below to help interpret the results presented in the site assessment.

58

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Table 16. Guideline for interpreting the magnitude of impacts on wetland integrity (after Macfarlane et al., 2008)

IMPACT DESCRIPTION Score CATEGORY No discernible modification or the modification is such that it has no impact on this None 0 – 0.9 component of wetland integrity. Although identifiable, the impact of this modification on this component of wetland Small 1 – 1.9 integrity is small. The impact of this modification on this component of wetland integrity is clearly 2 – 3.9 Moderate identifiable, but limited. The modification has a clearly detrimental impact on this component of wetland Large 4 – 5.9 integrity. Approximately 50% of wetland integrity has been lost. The modification has a highly detrimental effect on this component of wetland Serious integrity. Much of the wetland integrity has been lost but remaining integrity is still 6 – 7.9 clearly identifiable. The modification is so great that the ecosystem processes of this component of Critical wetland integrity are almost totally destroyed, and 80% or more of the integrity has 8 – 10 been lost.

Impact scores obtained for each of the modules reflect the degree of change from natural reference conditions. Resultant health scores fall into one of six health categories (A-F) on a gradient from “unmodified/natural” (Category A) to “severe/complete deviation from natural” (Category F) as depicted in Table 17, below. This classification is consistent with DWAF categories used to evaluate the present ecological state of aquatic systems.

Table 17. Health categories used by WET-Health for describing the integrity of wetlands (after Macfarlane et al., 2008)

PES DESCRIPTION RANGE CATEGORY A Unmodified, natural. 0 – 0.9 Largely natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem processes is B 1 – 1.9 discernible and a small loss of natural habitats and biota may have taken place. Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural 2 – 3.9 C habitats has taken place but the natural habitat remains predominantly intact Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat D 4 – 5.9 and biota and has occurred. The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota is great but E 6 – 7.9 some remaining natural habitat features are still recognizable. Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been F 8 – 10 modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.

An overall wetland health score was calculated by weighting the scores obtained for each module and combining them to give an overall combined score using the following formula:

Overall health rating = [(Hydrology*3) + (Geomorphology*2) + (Vegetation*2)] / 7

This overall score assists in providing an overall indication of wetland health/functionality which can in turn be used for recommending appropriate management measures. It should be noted that while WET-Health is the most appropriate technique currently available to undertake assessments of this nature, it is nonetheless a rapid assessment tool that relies on qualitative information and expert judgment. While the tool has been subjected to an initial peer review process, the methodology is still being tested and will be refined in subsequent versions. WET-Health datasheets will be made available to the client on request.

59

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

A4 Vegetation plot surveys

Vegetation is a major component of biodiversity found in wetlands and provides habitat for a myriad of aquatic and terrestrial biota. Wetland plants are those plants that are specifically adapted to growing in a substrate that is (at least) for part of the year deficient in oxygen (anaerobic conditions) and affected by the altered soil chemistry in reduced environments. Plant species occurring in wetlands are considered useful indicators that can assist with the interpretation of environmental conditions and changes within wetlands due to a number of reasons, including:  plants typically have a high level of species richness and rapid growth rates (Sieben et al., 2013);  plants have a number of attributes that are easily measured and quantified (Miller et al., 2006);  plant communities are immobile and therefore susceptible to physical, chemical, and biological changes in the surrounding environment (Miller et al., 2006); and  plants communities and individual species respond quickly to environmental changes with the two most important environmental factors affecting wetland plant communities and their composition being water quantity and quality (Sieben et al., 2013).

Individual species of plants may therefore be used as indicators of habitat integrity because they show a differential tolerance to environmental conditions.

Wetland vegetation monitoring: sampling method

A sampling protocol was developed using an adapted version of the US EPA approach (Kentula et al., 2011). The following protocol was followed:  5 x 5m (25m2) vegetation quadrats/plots were constructed at desired smapling location within wetlands. The centre of the plot was recorded using a GPS.  The wetland hydrological zone for each plot was established by investigating soil morphology by taking soil samples across each plot using a soil auger (across a diagonal at one plot corner and the opposite plot corner).  Georeferenced photos were taken of each plot.  Plant species within each plot were identified within 1m2 nested plots in the NE and SW corners of the plot initially, and then within the broader plot. A species list was generated from this process.  For each plant species, the following data was collected: o structure (maximum and minimum height recorded and then average calculated) o estimated % ground cover o indigenous/alien status recorded for each species o hydric status4 for each species allocated (see Table 1, below)

4 Note: Field guides for wetland plants are still under development in South Africa. The following guides were used in identifying wetland plants and assigning hydric status to species identified:  Van Ginkel et al. 2011. Easy identification of some South African Wetland Plants (Grasses, Restios, Sedges, Rushes, Bulrushes, Eriocaulons and Yellow-eyed grasses). WRC Report No TT 479/10.  Van Oudshoorn, F. 1992. Guide to grasses of South Africa. Briza Publikasies Cc, Arcadia.  Macfarlane et al. 2007. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report No TT 340/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

60

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

 Additional surface attribute data for various biotic and abiotic surface materials was also collected (including surface water cover, water depth, bare ground, vegetative litter, etc.).

Wetland vegetation monitoring: data analysis and interpretation

The analysis & interpretation of the wetland vegetation sampling data was based on the method used by Cowden et al. (2013), which is detailed below. The analysis made use of indices in order to gauge the extent of changes in the proportion of hydric species (wetland plants) and percentage of native species occurring (i.e. to show level of success of rehabilitation). Two specific indices were used:

 Wetland Index Value (WIV)

Data on the abundance of vegetation species and their hydric status was used to determine the Wetland Index Value or WIV () for each vegetation plot surveyed. The WIV provides a useful way of interpreting the status of wetlands based on their vegetation status based primarily on the relevant species hydric status and 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 (Cowden et al. (2013). Using the hydric status categories assigned to each species during the field survey of vegetation plots, the WIV was calculated for each vegetation plot as follows:

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

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.

The following thresholds were used in addition to the abovementioned analyses in interpreting WIV:

WIV STATUS

< 2.5 Wetland

2.5 – 3.5 Transitional type

>3.5 Non-wetland

 Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1–241. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Published 17 July 2013. ISSN 2153 733X.

In some cases, it was not possible to conclusively identify plants to species level.

61

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

 Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI)

Data on the abundance of vegetation species and their status was used to determine the Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) as defined by Miller et al. (2006). The FQAI is an evaluation procedure that provides an indication of the quality of wetland habitat based on the relative abundance of indigenous, weedy, pioneer or alien invasive species within each vegetation plot sampled. Species were assigned a “coefficient of conservatism” which is a subjective rating indicating a species’ preference for non-degraded natural communities. This was based on available literature indicating the status for each particular species and specialist opinion where such data was not available. The following scoring system was used to assign a coefficient of conservatism for species:

Coefficient of conservatism Species Status 0 Alien invasive species 1 Ruderal plants or weeds 4 Occasionally ruderal or weedy species 6 Non-ruderal but pioneer species 10 Sensitive native plants intolerant of disturbance

The FQAI for each vegetation plots was then calculated using the following equation:

FQAI = (C/10) x (√N/ √S) x 100

C = Mean coefficient of conservatism (determined by dividing the sum of coefficient of conservatism values for each species per plot by the native species richness) N = Indigenous species richness (count of native/indigenous species recorded within plot) S = Total species richness (total number of species recorded within plot)

The accuracy of FQAI depends on the assignment of a coefficient of conservatism (C) to species which can be subjective and vary between different assessors. For this reason, available literature on wetland plants, grasses and alien plants were used to inform the rating of coefficient of conservatism for identified species, with assistance from experienced botanists where species information was lacking.

A5 Assessment of wetland functional importance: ecosystem goods and services

The effectiveness and importance of wetlands in providing ecosystem goods and services was rated using a modified level 1 (rapid) WET-Ecoservices (Kotze et al., 2009) tool, a method suited for assessing the functioning of South African wetlands. Common wetland ecosystem goods and services that were evaluated using WET-Ecoservices are described in Table 18, below.

62

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Table 18. Descriptions of common wetland ecosystem goods and services (after Kotze et al., 2009)

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE Description Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands at spreading out and slowing down Flood Attenuation storm flows and thereby reducing the severity of floods and associated impacts. Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands in sustaining flows in downstream Stream Flow Regulation areas during low-flow periods. Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands in trapping and retaining sediments Sediment Trapping from sources in the catchment. Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands in retaining, removing or destroying Nutrient & Toxicant Retention and nutrients and toxicants such as nitrates, phosphates, salts, biocides and Removal bacteria from inflowing sources, essentially providing a water purification benefit. Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands in controlling the loss of soil through Erosion Control erosion. Refers to the ability of wetlands to act as carbon sinks by actively trapping Carbon Storage and retaining carbon as soil organic matter. Refers to the contribution of wetlands to maintaining biodiversity through Biodiversity Maintenance providing natural habitat and maintaining natural ecological processes. Refers to the ability of wetlands to provide a relatively clean supply of water Water Supply for local people as well as animals. Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands in providing a range of harvestable Harvestable Natural Resources natural resources including firewood, material for construction, medicinal plants and grazing material for livestock. Refers to the ability of wetlands to provide suitable areas for cultivating Cultivated Foods crops and plants for use as food, fuel or building materials. Refers to the ability of wetlands to provide suitable vegetation as food for Food for Livestock livestock. Cultural significance Refers to the special cultural significance of wetlands for local communities. Refers to the value placed on wetlands in terms of the tourism-related and Tourism & Recreation recreational benefits provided. Refers to the value of wetlands in terms of education and research Education & Research opportunities, particularly concerning their strategic location in terms of catchment hydrology.

The level of predicted importance of ecosystem services provided by wetlands was rated according to the rating table found in Table 19, below. This was informed by wetland characteristics that affect the ability of wetlands to supply benefits and local and catchment context that affects the demand placed on wetlands to provide goods and services.

Table 19. Rating table used to rate level of ecosystem supply

Rating Importance or level of supply of ecosystem services

Low The wetland is not considered to be important for providing this service/benefit. The importance of the wetland in providing ecosystem goods and services is regarded as Low-Moderate moderately low. The wetland is considered important for providing this particular ecosystem service to a Moderate moderate degree. The wetland is considered important for providing this particular ecosystem service to a high Moderate-High degree. The wetland is considered very important for providing this particular ecosystem service to a High high degree.

63

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

A6 Wetland Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS)

The outcomes of the WET-Health and functional assessments were used to inform an assessment of the importance and sensitivity of wetland systems using the Wetland EIS (Ecological Importance and Sensitivity) assessment tool (Rountree, in prep). The Wetland EIS tool includes an assessment of three components:  Biodiversity support  Landscape scale importance  Sensitivity of the wetland to floods and water quality changes

The maximum score for these components was taken as the importance rating for the wetland which is rated using Table 20, below.

Table 20. Rating table used to rate EIS (Rountree, in prep.)

Rating Explanation

None, Rating = 0 Rarely sensitive to changes in water quality/hydrological regime

Low, Rating =1 One or a few elements sensitive to changes in water quality/hydrological regime

Moderate, Rating =2 Some elements sensitive to changes in water quality/hydrological regime

High, Rating =3 Many elements sensitive to changes in water quality/ hydrological regime

Very high, Rating =4 Very many elements sensitive to changes in water quality/ hydrological regime

A7 Impact assessment

The assessment of potential aquatic impacts was informed by baseline aquatic information contained in this report relating to the current condition and sensitivity of wetland habitats as well as information on the proposed development provided by the client and experience in similar projects in KZN.

Once potential impacts had been identified, the significance of these impacts to the receiving environment and beneficiaries of wetland services was then assessed under two scenarios: (a) in the absence of any mitigation; and (b) where proposed mitigation and management measures have been implemented.

The nature of each identified environmental impact was described as well as the impact status (positive, negative or neutral effect). The consequence of each impact was determined by summing the rating scores for extent, intensity and duration of each potential impact according to the criteria defined in Table 21, below.

64

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Table 21. Criteria and numerical values for rating environmental impacts.

Rating Definition of Rating Score

A. Extent– the area over which the impact will be experienced

Local Confined to project or study area or part thereof (e.g. site) 1

Regional The region, which may be defined in various ways, e.g. cadastral, catchment, 2 topographic

(Inter) national Nationally or beyond 3

B. Intensity– the magnitude of the impact in relation to the sensitivity of the receiving environment, taking into account the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources

Low Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and processes are negligibly 1 altered

Medium Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and processes continue albeit 2 in a modified way

High Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions or processes are severely 3 altered

C. Duration– the timeframe over which the impact will be experienced and its reversibility

Short-term Up to 2 years (i.e. reversible impact) 1

Medium-term 2 to 15 years (i.e. reversible impact) 2

Long-term More than 15 years (state whether impact is irreversible) 3

Combined Score (A+B+C) 3 – 4 5 6 7 8 – 9

Consequence Rating Very low Low Medium High Very high

The probability or likelihood of the impact occurring was then estimated using the following rating scheme:

Rating Probability

Improbable < 40% chance of occurring

Possible 40% - 70% chance of occurring

Probable > 70% - 90% chance of occurring

Definite > 90% chance of occurring

Impact significance was then rated using the consequence and probability ratings assigned to impacts and through the application of the impact significance rating matrix in Table 22, below. Definitions for the different impact significance categories are provided below in Table 23.

Table 22. Matrix used to rate impact significance based on impact probability and consequence.

Consequence

Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Definite Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Probable Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Possible High Medium Low Very Low Insignificant Probability Improbable High Medium Low Very Low Insignificant

65

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Table 23. Impact significance categories and definitions.

Impact Significance Definition

Very High The proposed activity should only be approved under special circumstances.

High The potential impact will affect a decision regarding the proposed activity.

Medium The potential impact should influence the decision regarding the proposed activity.

The potential impact may not have any meaningful influence on the decision regarding the Low proposed activity.

The potential impact is very small and should not have any meaningful influence on the Very Low decision regarding the proposed activity.

The potential impact is negligible and will not have an influence on the decision regarding Insignificant the proposed activity.

A confidence rating was also given to the impacts rated in accordance with Table 24, below:

Table 24. Confidence ratings used when assigning impact significance ratings.

Level of Contributing factors affecting confidence confidence A low confidence level is attributed to a low-moderate level of available project information and Low somewhat limited data and/or understanding of the receiving environment.

The confidence level is medium, being based on specialist understanding and previous experience Medium of the likelihood of impacts in the context of the development project with a relatively large amount of available project information and data related to the receiving environment.

High The confidence level is high, being based on quantifiable information gathered in the field.

66

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE B1: Wetland delineation field assessment details

Wetland Reference: Lions River (wetland 1 and 2) 27 February 2014 Date of Field Assessment: 11 March 2014 Clear sunny (27 February 2014) Weather Conditions: Light rain (11 March 2014)

Wetland 1: 37 ha Area of wetland: Wetland 2: 132 ha

Wetland 1: Road infrastructure, alien vegetation, dirt roads, fill from road infrastructure construction, agriculture, dams and GENERAL berms

Site Disturbance: Wetland 2: Road infrastructure, alien vegetation, dirt roads, fill from road infrastructure construction, agriculture, drainage, damming

Wetland Indicators Terrain unit indicator Soil wetness indicator Present: Soil type Indicator Vegetation indicator

Difficulties Encountered General soil disturbance and prolonged dessication caused by erosion and drainage, modified vegetation (aliens/weeds and forestry/cultivated lands) Landscape setting slope valley floor (Level 3) plain bench

Channelled valley bottom Floodplain Unchannelled valley bottom Hydrogeomorphic type Channel Hillslope seep (Level 4A) Depression Valley head seep Flat Artificial

WETLAND Landform (Level 4B) Valley bottom Drainage Outflow: unchannelled (wetland 1) CLASSIFICATION Inflow: channelled (Level 4C&D) channelled(wetland 2) 0 = absent (0%) 2 = sparse (>10% – 35%) 4 = abundant (>75% < 100) Rating scale 1 = rare (>0% – 10%) 3 = common (>35% – 75%) 5 = entire (100%) Inundation periodicity Saturation periodicity Inundation depth class 1 Permanently inundated Not applicable 4 Not applicable Hydrological regime Permanently (Level 5) 3 Seasonally inundated 1 0 Limnetic (>2m depth) saturated 3 Intermittently inundated 3 Seasonally 1 Littoral (<2m depth) 67

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

saturated

Intermittently 2 Never inundated 3 saturated Unknown Unknown

Terrain Unit Terrain unit crest scarp midslope footslope valley bottom Indicator:

High clay content Mineral Soil General Soil Type High sand content Organic Soil High silt content

Terrestrial (non-wetland) soil Permanent wetland soil Soil Sample Type Temporary wetland soil type Seasonal wetland soil type type type

Sample Depth 0 - 40cm 10 - 30cm 0 - 30cm 0-30cm

7.5YR / 4-5 / 6-8 7.5YR / 4-5 / 1-2 7.5YR / 4-5 / 1-2 7.5YR / 4-5 / 1-2 Hue / Value / Chroma 10YR / 4-5 / 4-6 10YR / 3-4 /1-2 10YR / 3-4 /1-2 10YR / 3-4 /1-2

Few red/yellow mottles Mottling None Yellow mottles (10-20) Few/None (<5%)

Organic Matter (estimated) Very Low Low Low-Medium Medium Soil Wetness Indicator: Strong brown or yellowish Dark grey to dark greyish Dark grey to dark greyish Description Grey brown brown brown

Sample Photo

Zone of variable width Permanently saturated Terrestrial areas on the between seasonal wetland Seasonally saturated soils zone where water resides Sample location periphery of the wetland and the terrestrial across much of the wetland in the wetland on a boundary environment permanent basis

68

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Dominant / Indicator Species Hydric Status Location Wetland 1 Agrimonia procera Agrimony FD Temporary Bidens pilosa Blackjack FD Temporary Conyza canadensis Horseweed fleabane FD Temporary/seasonal Cheilanthes viridis Green cliffbrake FD Temporary/seasonal Cyperus congestus FW Temporary/seasonal Hibiscus trionum Bladder hibiscus FD Temporary/seasonal Lilium formosanum Formosa lily F Temporary/seasonal Rubus cuneifolius American Bramble FD Temporary/seasonal Senecio madagascariensis Canary weed FD Temporary/seasonal Setaria sphacelata vs. sericea Golden bristle grass FW Seasonal Setaria spp River grass FW Seasonal Solanum mauritianum Bugweed FD Terrestrial/Temporary Solanum pseudocapsicum Jerusalem cherry FD Terrestrial/Temporary Verbena bonariensis Purple top FD Temporary/seasonal Vegetation Indicators: Wetland 2 Berkheya rigida Disseldoring FD Terrestrial/Temporary Bidens pilosa Blackjack FD Temporary Cyperus congestus FW Temporary/seasonal Cyperus digitatus OW Seasonal/permanent Fimbristylis complanata Flattened rush OW Temporary/seasonal Hemarthia altissima Red swamp grass FW Temporary/seasonal Hibiscus trionum Bladder hibiscus FD Temporary/seasonal Juncus effusus Soft rush OW Seasonal/permanent Kyllinga erecta Kyllinga OW Seasonal/permanent Leersia hexandra Wild rice grass OW Seasonal/permanent Paspalum dilatatum Common paspalum FW Temporary/seasonal Paspalum distichum Lawn paspalum FW Temporary/seasonal Paspalum urvillei Tall paspalum FW Temporary/seasonal Persicaria attenuata Pink knotweed OW Permanent Phragmites australis Common reed OW Permanent Pycreus spp OW Temporary/seasonal

69

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Rubus cuneifolius American Bramble FD Temporary/seasonal Setaria sphacelata vs. sericea Golden bristle grass FW Temporary/seasonal Setaria spp River grass FW Temporary/seasonal Solanum mauritianum Bugweed FD Terrestrial/Temporary Sporabolus africanus Rats tail dropseed FD Temporary/seasonal Typha capensis Bulrush OW Permanent Verbena bonariensis Purple top FD Temporary/seasonal

70

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE B2: Wetland delineation maps.

Figure 13 Wetland delineation map for wetland 1 (western wetland)

71

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Figure 14 Wetland delineation map for wetland 2 (eastern wetland)

72

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE B3: Wetland vegetation survey plot data.

Figure 15 Location of vegetation surveys.

73

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Co-efficient W1_Plot 1 W2_Plot 1 W2_Plot 2 W2_Plot 3 of HYDRIC No SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS Conservatis STATUS COVER HEIGHT COVER HEIGHT COVER HEIGHT COVER HEIGHT m (%) (cm) (%) (cm) (%) (cm) (%) (cm) 1 Agrimonia procera Agrimony Ruderal/weeds 1 FD 8 90-130 2 Berkheya rigida Disseldoring Ruderal/weeds 1 FD 2 100-150 3 Bidens pilosa Blackjack Ruderal/weeds 1 FD 1 20-30 2 20-40 Horseweed 4 Conyza canadensis Ruderal/weeds 1 FD 2 20-70 fleabane Intolerant 5 Cheilanthes viridis Green cliffbrake 10 FD 3 90-130 species Intolerant 6 Cyperus congestus 10 FW 2 120-150 75 100-150 2 40-60 species Intolerant 7 Cyperus digitatus 10 OW 2 30-60 60 80-120 species Common thorn 8 Datura stramonium Alien invasive 0 FD apple Intolerant 9 Fimbristylis complanata Flattened rush 10 OW 4 60-80 species Intolerant 10 Hemarthia altissima Red swamp grass 10 FW 5 20-30 species 11 Hibiscus trionum Bladder hibiscus Ruderal/weeds 1 FD 3 30-150 5 40-80 Non-ruderal but 12 Juncus effusus Soft rush 6 OW 5 50-100 5 80-100 pioneer Non-ruderal but 13 Kyllinga erecta Kyllinga 6 OW 5 50-100 pioneer Non-ruderal but 14 Leersia hexandra Wild rice grass 6 OW 10 20-50 pioneer 15 Lilium formosanum Formosa lily Alien invasive 0 F 1 100-120 White buffalo Intolerant 16 Panicum coloratum 10 FW grass species Common 17 Paspalum dilatatum Ruderal/weeds 1 FW 30 100-120 paspalum 18 Paspalum distichum Lawn paspalum Ruderal/weeds 1 FW 20 30-50 19 Paspalum urvillei Tall paspalum Ruderal/weeds 1 FW 2 100-180 Intolerant 20 Persicaria attenuata Pink knotweed 10 OW 2 20-40 species Intolerant 21 Phragmites australis Common reed 10 OW 5 150-220 species 22 Physalis angulata Wild gooseberry Alien invasive 0 F

74

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Co-efficient W1_Plot 1 W2_Plot 1 W2_Plot 2 W2_Plot 3 of HYDRIC No SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS Conservatis STATUS COVER HEIGHT COVER HEIGHT COVER HEIGHT COVER HEIGHT m (%) (cm) (%) (cm) (%) (cm) (%) (cm) 23 Plantago major Buckhorn plantain Ruderal/weeds 1 F Intolerant 24 Pycreus spp 10 OW 5 20-40 species 25 Rubus cuneifolius American Bramble Alien invasive 0 FD 25 30-140 15 20-80 2 30-50 Senecio 26 Canary weed Ruderal/weeds 1 FD 10 30-130 madagascariensis Setaria sphacelata vs. Golden bristle Intolerant 27 10 FW 35 50-150 2 80-120 sericea grass species Intolerant 28 Setaria spp River grass 10 FW 5 150-200 5 150-250 species 29 Solanum mauritianum Bugweed Alien invasive 0 FD 2 60-100 2 100-200 Solanum 30 Jerusalem cherry Alien invasive 0 FD 1 20 pseudocapsicum Intolerant 31 Sporabolus africanus Rats tail dropseed 10 FD 20 100-120 species Non-ruderal but 32 Typha capensis Bulrush 6 OW 4 100-120 pioneer 33 Verbena bonariensis Purple top Alien invasive 0 FD 2 80-100 2 40-50 2 10-30 Total % 100 100 100 100 % Exotic 45 7 71 4 % OW 0 11 0 96

% FW 42 84 57 0

% F 1 0 0 0

% FD 57 5 43 4

% D 0 0 0 0

75

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE C: Database of georeferenced photo points taken during field visits.

Figure 16 Map showing location of georeferenced photo points.

76

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Photo 1. Panoramic view of cultivated section in mid reaches of wetland 1 Photo 2. View of narrow wetland habitat in wetland 2 surrounded by woody and alien vegetation

Photo 3. View of active drain Photo 4. Panoramic view NW of wetland 2 with cultivation, road and large above road deflecting water stands of alien vegetation away from road surface

Photo 4. Panoramic view SE of wetland 2 dominated by alien vegetation Photo 5. View NE of relatively and pioneer grass spp intact wetland habitat surrounded by pioneer grass spp and woody alien vegetation

Photo 6. View SSE of incised channel Photo 7. View SW of infrastructure Photo 8. View E of wetland with evidence of bank erosion within wetland transformed wetland habitat with alien vegetation vegetation and transformed wetland vegetation

77

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Photo 9. View SW of relatively good Photo 10. View SW of relatively good condition wetland habitat with condition wetland habitat with alien alien vegetation and plantation around the edges vegetation and plantation around the edges

78

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE D1: Wet-Health data sheets for wetland 1 (western wetland)

WET-Health Level 1 Assessment Eco-Pulse Consulting

Wetland Name Wetland Type Area (Ha)

Wetland 1 (Tweedie) Valley-bottom without a channel 33.1

Magnitude Hydrological Assessment Comments of impact Catchment Impacts Moderately small Alien plants, Forestry plantations and alien vegetation in Reduced inputs reduction (-2.0 to - -2.50 forestry catchment utilise water 3.9) Community Negligible increase Increased inputs 0.50 Irrigation of cultivated areas activities (<1) Change in quantity of inflows -2.50 Reduced No effect (0 to -1.5) 0.00 N/A floodpeaks

Decreased surface roughness associated with cultivated areas, increased Hardened Increased Moderate increase concentration of flows via artificial drains surfaces in 2.00 floodpeaks (4 to 6) and increased hardened surfaces catchment associated with roads has led to a minor increase in floodpeaks

Alteration to floodpeaks 2.00 Overall catchment impacts 2.50 Dominant Extent Intensity Magnitude Onsite impacts Comments impact (%) (Average) of impact Gullies and artificial Erosion features Minor artificial drainage channels through 10.0% 3.5 0.35 drainage channels & drains wetlands Modifications to Channel 0.00 N/A existing channels modification

Areas under commercial cultivation in Drainage & Crop lands 10.0% 3.0 0.30 lower wetland have reduced surface reduced roughness roughness to a limited extent

Dams – Earthen dams leading to deep flooding upstream 5.0% 7.0 0.35 behind dam wall effects Impeding features – upstream effects Roads - Some minor impedance of flow caused by upstream 5.0% 2.0 0.10 tarred road (culvert allows through flow) effects

Dams - Limited impact caused by small earthen downstream 3.0% 4.0 0.12 dams that allow seepage to downstream Impeding features – effects areas downstream effects Roads - Limited impact as flows are allowed via downstream 5.0% 2.0 0.10 culverts beneath tarred roads effects Mix of herbaceous and small woody Alien vegetation 25.0% 5.0 1.25 invasive alien plants and weeds Increased on-site characterised most areas water use Commercial Forestry plantations located outside of 0.0% 0.0 0.00 plantations wetland areas Deposition/infilling Sediment 0.0% 0.0 0.00 Very limited or excavation deposition

79

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

WET-Health Level 1 Assessment Eco-Pulse Consulting

Infilling & Some degree of infilling of wetland areas as 5.0% 10.0 0.50 excavation a result of road and berm construction

Urban 0.0% 0.0 0.00 infrastructure Wetland areas that are largely Untransformed Untransformed 32.0% 1.0 0.32 undisturbed/containing only a few alien areas areas plants

Overall on-site impacts 3.39 Hydrology Impact Score 4.0 Health Category D Largely Modified Anticipated trajectory of change Extent Intensity (0 Magnitude Geomorphology assessment Comments (%) - 10) of impact

Diagnostic component

Small farm dams trap sediment at head of Upstream dams 5.0% 5.0 0.25 wetland Stream diversion/shortening 0.00 N/A

Infilling 5.0% 10.0 0.50 Infilling limited to existing roads and berms

Small modification associated with a Increased runoff 50.0% 2.0 1.00 small/minor increase in floodpeaks Indicator-based component

Erosional features 10.0% 3.0 0.30 Small artificial drains remove sediment

Depositional features 0.00 N/A Loss of organic sediment 0.00 N/A Geomorphology impact score 1.03 Health Category B Moderately Modified Anticipated trajectory of change Extent Intensity Magnitude Vegetation Assessment Comments (%) (Average) of impact

Areas that are currently under Cultivated areas/pasture 9.1% 7.5 0.69 cultivation/pasture with little indigenous vegetation remaining

Areas deeply flooded behind dam walls Deep flooding (dams) 12.5% 9.0 1.12 with little emergent vegetation established

Dense alien vegetation replacing Areas characterised by dense infestations 11.1% 7.8 0.79 indigenous plants of alien plants and weeds

Indigenous wetland vegetation with Wetlands with an equal proportion of 66.9% 5.4 2.99 alien plants indigenous vs exotic species

Areas that have been infilled by hardened Road infrastructure (wetland infilled) 0.4% 10.0 0.04 surfaces Vegetation impact score 5.63 Health Category D Largely Modified Anticipated trajectory of change

80

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE D2: Wet-Health data sheets for wetland 2 (eastern wetland)

WET-Health Level 1 Assessment Eco-Pulse Consulting

Wetland Name Wetland Type Area (Ha) Wetland 2 (Howick) Valley-bottom with a channel 132 Magnitude Hydrological Assessment Comments of impact Catchment Impacts

Moderately small Forestry plantations and alien vegetation Reduced inputs -3.50 reduction (-2.0 to -3.9) in catchment utilise water

Negligible increase Increased inputs 0.00 N/A (<1) Change in quantity of inflows -3.50 Reduced No effect (0 to -1.5) 0.00 N/A floodpeaks

A small-moderate increase in floodpeaks is anticipated as a result of decreased Increase in Increased Small increase (1.6 to vegetation cover/surface roughness in the hardened 2.00 floodpeaks 3.9) catchment (associated with hardened surfaces surfaces and reduced natural ground cover)

Alteration to floodpeaks 2.00 Overall catchment impacts 2.50 Dominant Extent Intensity Magnitude Onsite impacts impact (%) (Average) of impact Gullies and artificial Drains and Gulley erosion and headcuts, few artificial 8.0% 7.0 0.56 drainage channels erosion gullies drains/canals Modifications to Channel 0.00 N/A (unchannelled naturally) existing channels modification Drainage & Crop lands/Old Few cultivated areas where natural veld 10.0% 3.0 0.30 reduced roughness lands has been cleared Dams – Earthen dams leading to deep flooding upstream 2.0% 9.0 0.18 behind dam wall Impeding features – effects upstream effects Roads - Some minor impedance of flow caused by upstream 2.0% 3.0 0.06 tarred road (culvert allows through flow) effects Dams - Limited impact caused by small earthen downstream 2.0% 6.0 0.12 dams that allow seepage to downstream Impeding features – effects areas downstream effects Roads - Limited impact as flows are allowed via downstream 2.0% 6.0 0.12 culverts beneath tarred roads effects Mix of herbaceous and small-large woody Alien 45.0% 6.0 2.70 invasive alien plants and weeds Increased on-site vegetation characterised most areas water use Commercial Forestry within wetland areas (gum and 15.0% 8.0 1.20 plantations wattle) Sediment 0.00 N/A deposition Deposition/infilling or Infilling & 2.0% 10.0 0.20 Infilling associated with roads and berms excavation excavation Urban 0.00 infrastructure Untransformed Untransformed 12.00% 1.0 0.12 Few untransformed areas remain areas areas

81

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

WET-Health Level 1 Assessment Eco-Pulse Consulting

Overall on-site impacts 5.56

Hydrology Impact Score 6.5

Health Category E Seriously modified Anticipated trajectory of change Geomorphology assessment Extent Intensity (0 Magnitude

(%) - 10) of impact Diagnostic component

Small farm dams trap sediment at head of Upstream dams 10.0% 5.0 0.50 wetland

Stream diversion/shortening 0.00 N/A

Infilling 2.0% 10.0 0.20 Infilling limited to existing roads and berms

Small modification associated with a Increased runoff 50.0% 2.0 1.00 small/minor increase in floodpeaks

Indicator-based component

Erosional features 15.0% 6.0 0.90 Small artificial drains remove sediment

Depositional features 0.00 N/A Loss of organic sediment 0.00 N/A Geomorphology impact score 1.30 Health Category B Anticipated trajectory of change Vegetation Assessment Extent Intensity Magnitude Comments (%) (Average) of impact Areas that are currently under Cultivated areas/pasture 17.4% 7.3 1.38 cultivation/pasture with little indigenous vegetation remaining

Areas deeply flooded behind dam walls Deep flooding (dams) 3.9% 9.0 0.35 with little emergent vegetation established

Dense alien vegetation replacing Areas characterised by dense infestations 6.3% 8.3 0.49 indigenous plants of alien plants and weeds

Wetlands currently under gum/wattle Forestry 13.6% 9.6 1.32 plantation forestry Wetlands with a high proportion of Indigenous wetland vegetation (largely 13.0% 2.8 0.36 indigenous wetland vegetation (few alien intact) plants) Indigenous wetland vegetation with Wetlands with an equal proportion of 45.3% 5.3 2.44 alien plants indigenous vs exotic species Areas that have been infilled by hardened Road infrastructure (wetland infilled) 0.6% 9.8 0.06 surfaces

Vegetation impact score 6.40

Health Category E Seriously modified Anticipated trajectory of change

82

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE D3: Maps indicating the condition of wetland vegetation assessed as part of the WET- Health assessment

Figure 17 Map showing vegetation health assessed for wetland 1

83

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Figure 18 Map showing vegetation health assessed for wetland 2

84

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE E1: WET-Ecoservices (Kotze et al., 2009) assessment results for wetland 1 (western wetland)

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE DESCRIPTION SUPPLY RATING DEMAND RATING IMPORTANCE RATIONALE

The wetland is relatively large compared to the upstream catchment area with moderate surface roughness provided by intact areas of Refers to the effectiveness of wetland vegetation. wetlands at spreading out and Degradation of wetland slowing down stormflows and habitat and artificial drainage Flood Attenuation 2.1 Moderate 3.0 High Moderate thereby reducing the severity reduces the supply of this of floods and associated service to a moderate level impacts. whilst the demand for flood attenuation is considered quite high due to cultivation activities and road infrastructure located in the lower catchment. The wetland provides this service to a limited extent. Refers to the effectiveness of Demand for stream flow wetlands in sustaining flows in Stream Flow Regulation 1.8 Low-Moderate 3.0 High Low-Moderate regulation is considered high downstream areas during low- due to the presence of flow periods. important downstream water resources.

Demand for sediment trapping

is high due to the presence of Refers to the effectiveness of important downstream aquatic wetlands in trapping and resources. Due to the Sediment Trapping 1.8 Low-Moderate 3.0 High Low-Moderate retaining sediments from degraded nature of wetland sources in the catchment. habitat, the ability to provide this service is reduced to a low-

moderate level. INDIRECT BENEFITS INDIRECT

85

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Refers to the effectiveness of Demand for nutrient/toxicant wetlands in retaining, removing removal is considered high due or destroying nutrients and to the presence of important Nutrient & Toxicant Retention toxicants such as nitrates, downstream water resources. 2.0 Low-Moderate 3.0 High Moderate and Removal phosphates, salts, biocides and Due to the degraded nature of bacteria from inflowing wetland habitat, the ability to sources, essentially providing a provide this service is reduced water purification benefit. to a moderate level. Demand for erosion control is generally high within wetland areas and due to the presence of important downstream Refers to the effectiveness of water resources which require Erosion Control wetlands in controlling the loss 2.0 Moderate 3.0 High Moderate protection from sedimentation. of soil through erosion. Degraded vegetation and artificial drainage within the wetland limits supply of this service to a moderate level. Demand for carbon storage is Refers to the ability of wetlands considered high internationally. to act as carbon sinks by Carbon Storage 0.8 Low 4.0 High Low Supply limited due to lack of actively trapping and retaining organic soils and degraded carbon as soil organic matter. wetland vegetation/habitat. Habitat integrity in the majority Refers to the contribution of of the system has been wetlands to maintaining degraded and fragmented but biodiversity through providing Biodiversity Maintenance 1.8 Low 2.0 Moderate Low-Moderate some remaining natural habitat natural habitat and will supply this service to a maintaining natural ecological limited extent (mainly for locally processes. common species). The wetland is not considered Refers to the ability of wetlands important in terms of water to provide a relatively clean supply as alternatives are freely Water Supply 1.8 Low-Moderate 2.0 Moderate Low-Moderate supply of water for local available in the area and the people as well as animals. system is not particularly well- suited at providing this service.

Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands in providing a range Only small sections of the of harvestable natural wetland are suited for Harvestable Natural resources including firewood, 1.0 Low 0.5 Low Low indigenous plant harvesting. Resources material for construction, Wetland plant communities are medicinal plants and grazing generally degraded.

material for livestock. DIRECT BENEFITS DIRECT

86

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Refers to the ability of wetlands Local demand for cultivated to provide suitable areas for lands appears high in the area Cultivated Foods cultivating crops and plants for 2.4 Moderate 3.5 High Moderate and the wetland provides this use as food, fuel or building service to some extent. materials. Wetland vegetation within the more intact sections provides Refers to the ability of wetlands this service to a moderate Food for Livestock to provide suitable vegetation 2.0 Moderate 1.5 Low Low-Moderate degree, although local as food for livestock. demand in the catchment is considered low.

Refers to the special cultural Little information exists. Cultural significance significance of wetlands for 0.0 Low 0.0 Low Low Perceived to be of low local communities. importance.

Although the wetland is Refers to the value placed on located within an existing wetlands in terms of the tourism route, the system in its Tourism & Recreation 1.4 Low 2.0 Moderate Low-Moderate tourism-related and current state is poorly suited for recreational benefits provided. providing tourism/recreation experiences. Refers to the value of wetlands The education/research value in terms of education and of the wetland is considered research opportunities, Education & Research 0.6 Low 0.0 Low Low low as the system is degraded particularly concerning their and not a particularly useful strategic location in terms of reference site. catchment hydrology.

87

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE E2: WET-Ecoservices (Kotze et al., 2009) assessment results for wetland 2 (eastern wetland)

IMPORTANCE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE DESCRIPTION SUPPLY RATING DEMAND RATING RATIONALE VALUE

The wetland is relatively large compared to the upstream catchment area with moderate surface roughness provided by intact areas of wetland Refers to the effectiveness of vegetation. Transformation of wetlands at spreading out and wetland habitat, erosion and slowing down stormflows and Flood Attenuation 2.0 Moderate 3.5 High Moderate artificial drainage reduces the thereby reducing the severity supply of this service to a of floods and associated moderate level whilst the demand impacts. for flood attenuation is considered quite high due to cultivation activities, housing/industry and road infrastructure located in the

lower catchment. The wetland provides this service Refers to the effectiveness of to a limited extent. Demand for wetlands in sustaining flows in stream flow regulation is Stream Flow Regulation 1.8 Low-Moderate 3.0 High Low-Moderate downstream areas during low- considered high due to the flow periods. presence of important downstream water resources.

INDIRECT BENEFITS INDIRECT Demand for sediment trapping is high due to the presence of Refers to the effectiveness of important downstream aquatic wetlands in trapping and Sediment Trapping 1.8 Low-Moderate 3.0 High Moderate resources. Due to the degraded retaining sediments from nature of wetland habitat, the sources in the catchment. ability to provide this service is reduced to a low-moderate level. Refers to the effectiveness of Demand for nutrient/toxicant wetlands in retaining, removing removal is considered high due to or destroying nutrients and the presence of important Nutrient & Toxicant toxicants such as nitrates, downstream water resources. Due 2.0 Moderate 3.0 High Moderate Retention and Removal phosphates, salts, biocides and to the degraded nature of bacteria from inflowing wetland habitat, the ability to sources, essentially providing a provide this service is reduced to a water purification benefit. moderate level.

88

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

Demand for erosion control is generally high within wetland areas and due to the presence of Refers to the effectiveness of important downstream water Erosion Control wetlands in controlling the loss 2.0 Moderate 3.0 High Moderate resources which require protection of soil through erosion. from sedimentation. Degraded vegetation and artificial drainage within the wetland limits supply of this service to a moderate level. Demand for carbon storage is Refers to the ability of wetlands considered high internationally. to act as carbon sinks by Supply limited due to lack of Carbon Storage 0.8 Low 4.0 High Low actively trapping and retaining organic soils and carbon as soil organic matter. degraded/transformed wetland vegetation/habitat. Habitat integrity in the majority of Refers to the contribution of the system has been degraded wetlands to maintaining and fragmented but some biodiversity through providing Biodiversity Maintenance 1.4 Low-Moderate 2.0 Moderate Low-Moderate remaining natural habitat will natural habitat and supply this service to a limited maintaining natural ecological extent (mainly for locally common processes. species). The wetland is not considered Refers to the ability of wetlands important in terms of water supply to provide a relatively clean as alternatives are freely available Water Supply 2.1 Moderate 2.0 Moderate Moderate supply of water for local in the area and the system is

people as well as animals. moderately well-suited at providing this service. Refers to the effectiveness of wetlands in providing a range Only small sections of the wetland of harvestable natural are suited for indigenous plant Harvestable Natural resources including firewood, 1.0 Low 0.5 Low Low harvesting. Wetland plant Resources

material for construction, communities are generally DIRECT BENEFITS DIRECT medicinal plants and grazing degraded. material for livestock. Refers to the ability of wetlands Local demand for cultivated lands to provide suitable areas for appears high in the area and the Cultivated Foods cultivating crops and plants for 1.8 Moderate 3.0 High Moderate wetland provides this service to a use as food, fuel or building moderate level. materials. Wetland vegetation within the Refers to the ability of wetlands more intact sections provides this Food for Livestock to provide suitable vegetation 2.3 Moderate 3.0 High Moderate service to a moderate degree, as food for livestock. with local demand in the catchment is considered 89

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

moderate.

Refers to the special cultural Little information exists. Perceived Cultural significance significance of wetlands for 0.0 Low 1.0 Low Low to be of low importance. local communities. Although the wetland is located Refers to the value placed on within an existing tourism route, the wetlands in terms of the Tourism & Recreation 0.8 Low 1.5 Low-Moderate Low system in its current state is poorly tourism-related and suited for providing recreational benefits provided. tourism/recreation experiences. Refers to the value of wetlands in terms of education and The education/research value of research opportunities, the wetland is considered low as Education & Research 0.3 Low 0.0 Low Low particularly concerning their the system is degraded and not a strategic location in terms of particularly useful reference site. catchment hydrology.

90

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE F1: Impact significance assessment results for the Construction Phase of the project

Phase Construction IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE: Un-Mitigated No. IMPACT Status Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Confidence C1 Pollution of water resources Negative Local High Long term High Possible Medium Medium C2 Erosion and sedimentation Negative Local Medium Long term Medium Probable Medium Medium C3 Disturbance and compaction of soils Negative Local High Medium term Medium Definite Medium High C4 Destruction of natural wetland vegetation and habitat Negative Local Medium Long term Medium Definite Medium High C5 Temporary disruption of flows through wetlands Negative Local Medium Medium term Low Definite Low Medium C6 Noise-related disturbance (fauna) Negative Local Low Short term Very Low Probable Very Low Medium Increased incidences of illegal harvesting of natural C7 Negative Local Medium Short term Very Low Possible Very Low Medium resources Phase Construction IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE: With Mitigation No. IMPACT Status Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Confidence C1 Pollution of water resources Negative Local High Short term Low Possible Very Low Medium C2 Erosion and sedimentation Negative Local Medium Medium term Low Probable Low Medium C3 Disturbance and compaction of soils Negative Local Medium Short term Very Low Probable Very Low High C4 Destruction of natural wetland vegetation and habitat Negative Local Medium Medium term Low Definite Low High C5 Temporary disruption of flows through wetlands Negative Local Medium Short term Very Low Probable Very Low Medium C6 Noise-related disturbance (fauna) Negative Local Low Short term Very Low Possible Insignificant Medium Increased incidences of illegal harvesting of natural C7 Negative Local Medium Short term Very Low Improbable Insignificant Medium resources

91

Wetland Assessment Report: Lions River-Howick Water Pipeline March 2014

ANNEXURE F2: Impact significance assessment results for the Operational Phase of the project

Phase Operation IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE: Un-Mitigated No. IMPACT Status Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Confidence O1 Colonization by Invasive alien plants and alien weeds Negative Local High Long term High Probable High Medium O2 Altered hydrology Negative Local High Long term High Possible Medium Medium O3 Erosion and sedimentation Negative Local High Long term High Probable High Medium Phase Operation IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE: With Mitigation No. IMPACT Status Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Confidence O1 Colonization by Invasive alien plants and alien weeds Negative Local Medium Medium term Low Probable Low Medium O2 Altered hydrology Negative Local Medium Medium term Low Possible Very Low Medium O3 Erosion and sedimentation Negative Local High Medium term Medium Possible Low Medium 1

92