ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM AND WETLAND AREAS IN THE …

ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM AND WETLAND AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE DURNACOL DANNHAUSER REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SCHEME IN THE AMAJUBA DISTRICT MUNICIPAL AREA OF

KWAZULU-NATAL

Hilltop Reservoir

January 2019

Produced For:

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Unit 7 Fourways Manor Office Park

1 MacBeth Avenue

Fourways,

Johannesburg, 2191

Produced By: Alletson Ecologicals Hilton 3245 Tel: (033) 3434972 Fax: 086 6108896 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1

3. STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................... 3

4. TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................. 3

5. KNOWLEDGE GAPS .................................................................................................... 4

6. STUDY PROCEDURE ................................................................................................... 4

6.1 Desktop Survey ...................................................................................................... 4

6.2 Site Survey ............................................................................................................. 5

6.3 Data Processing ..................................................................................................... 7

6.3.1 Wetland Condition (PES) ..................................................................................... 7

6.3.2 Ecosystem Services Delivered by the Wetlands .................................................. 7

7. STUDY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 8

7.1 Desktop Study ........................................................................................................ 8

7.2 Field Study ............................................................................................................ 13

7.2.1 Terrestrial Vegetation ........................................................................................ 13

7.2.2 Wetland Vegetation ........................................................................................... 16

7.2.3 Watercourses and Wetlands.............................................................................. 16

7.2.5 Fauna ................................................................................................................ 27

8. LISTING OF THE PIPELINE WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND CROSSINGS ......... 28

8.1. Durnacol to Dannhauser .......................................................................................... 28

8.2. Dannhauser to Skombaren ................................................................................... 29

8.3. Dannhauser to Hilltop ........................................................................................... 30

8.4. Dannhauser to Hattingspruit ................................................................................. 30

9. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NECESSARY MITIGATORY MEASURES FOR ECOSYSTEMS AFFECTED BY THE PIPELINE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 30

9.1. Vegetation and Soil ............................................................................................... 30

9.1.1 Impacts ........................................................................................................... 30

9.1.2. Mitigatory measures ........................................................................................ 31

9.2. Watercourses ........................................................................................................ 31

9.2.1 Impacts ........................................................................................................... 31


9.3. Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 32

9.3.1 Impacts ........................................................................................................... 32


10. IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 33

10.1. Terrestrial Vegetation ........................................................................................ 33

10.2. Watercourses .................................................................................................... 34

10.3. Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 37

11. MONITORING AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 37

11.1. Monitoring Programme ...................................................................................... 37

11.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 38

12. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 40

13. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX I - Definition of the Terms used in the Assessment of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 41

APPENDIX II – CV and Declaration of Independence ..................................................... 43

List of Figures Figure 1: Project area in relation to the towns of Dannhauser and Hattingspruit. ................................ 2 Figure 2: Project area showing the 500m buffer area around the pipelines. ......................................... 3 Figure 3: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis, et al., 2013) ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: National vegetation types in the project area. (Source: Mucina and Rutherford, 2006.) ...... 9 Figure 5: NFEPA Wetlands and larger watercourses in the project area. ........................................... 10 Figure 6: Areas of CBA 3 habitat in the project area. The one that is traversed is indicated by the arrow. .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Areas of observed wetland in the Durnacol, Dannhauser, and Skombaren areas. .............. 20 Figure 8: Areas of observed wetland in the Hattingspruit, and Hilltop areas. .................................... 21 Figure 9: Sites of wetland crossings. .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 10: Chart indicating ecosystem service scores. ........................................................................ 24 Figure 11: Sites of all watercourse and wetland crossings “ “ in the project area. ...................... 29 Figure 11: Dannhauser central showing the preferred pipeline option. ................................... 39

List of Tables Table 1: Health Categories used for describing the integrity of wetlands. ................................. 7 Table 2: Ecoservices rating of the probable extent to which a benefit is being supplied. ........ 8 Table 3: Features listed in the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Conservation Plan for the project area. ...... 12 Table 4. Indigenous terrestrial plant species observed in the study area. ........................................... 13 Table 5. Alien plant species observed in the study area. ..................................................................... 15 Table 6. Wetland plant species observed in the study area. ............................................................... 16 Table 7: Ecosystem Service scores obtained for Wetland Site 1. ......................................................... 23 Table 8: Ecosystem Service scores obtained for Wetland Site 1. ......................................................... 23 Table 9: List of animal species seen in the project area. ...................................................................... 28 Table 10: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Durnacol to Dannhauser pipeline.... 28 Table 11: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Dannhauser to Skombaren pipeline. .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 12: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Dannhauser to Hilltop pipeline. ...... 30 Table 13: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Dannhauser to Hattingspruit pipeline. .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Table 14: Assessment of impacts on the watercourses in the project footprint. ................................ 34 Table 15: Assessment of impacts on the watercourses in the project footprint................................. 34 Table 16: Scores from the Department of Water and Sanitation Risk Assessment Matrix for the impacts arising from the Durnacol to Dannhauser Water Project. ...................................................... 36 Table 17: Assessment of impacts on the wetlands in the project footprint. ........................................ 37

-1 -

ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM AND WETLAND AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE DURNACOL DANNHAUSER REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SCHEME IN THE AMAJUBA DISTRICT MUNICIPAL AREA OF

KWAZULU-NATAL

1. INTRODUCTION

The Amajuba District municipality is planning to construct an emergency water supply to the

Ramaphosa Settlment and Skombaren, and a two megalitre reservoir at Hilltop. As this project will

trigger activities listed in terms of the 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, as

amended, under the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) it is necessary that a

number of environmental screenings be undertaken, and that impact assessment be carried out. Also

of relevance in the context of this document is the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) and a Water

Use Licence will have to be applied for in terms of Section 21 (c) which covers activities which may

“impede or divert” the flow of water in a watercourse, and Section 21 (i) which covers activities which

may result in the ”bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse being altered”. Also included

under that Act are activities “within a 500 metre radius from the boundary of any wetland”. Should

one or more of these activities be triggered, or possibly be triggered, by a development, then the

Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation requires that a series of background studies be

undertaken. SLR Consulting (Africa) (Pty) Ltd has been appointed by UWP Consulting Engineers to

conduct the screenings necessary in relation to its proposed development and this report documents

the wetland study.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is a rationalisation of the proposal set out in the Amajuba District Municipality,

Umzinyathi District Municipality and Newcastle Local Municipality Regional Bulk Water scheme Pre-

feasibility study. The project takes into account the need for the supplies to Skombaren, Hilltop,

Hattingspruit and Ramaphosa, in the short to medium term.

The Proposed Phase 1 infrastructure is as follows:

Phase 1-1 Skombaren (WSIG funding):

• 2.5Mℓ reservoir at Skombaren

• 200 and 355 mm uPVC gravity main 8700 m long from Dannhauser command reservoir to

Skombaren via new Concrete reservoir

Phase 1-2 Hilltop (WSIG funding):

• 450mm NB and 400mm Ductile Iron rising main 19700m long from Durnacol to existing

Hilltop reservoirs

• Pumping station at Durnacol (2x 250 kw pumps)

• 5Mℓ Clear water reservoir at Durnacol

Phase 1-3 Hattingspruit and Ramaphosa (WSIG funding):

-2 -

• 200mm to 315mm uPVC Gravity main 4200 m long to new hatting spruit break pressure tank

• 200mm to 315mm uPVC Gravity main 6500 m long to existing Hattingspruit clear water

reservoirs

• 2.5Mℓ Break pressure tank / Reservoir

• 110 mm NB uPVC Gravity main 4200m to Ramaphosa settlement

• 200 kℓ elevated reservoir at Ramaphosa

No infrastructure is required for the abstraction of water for supply to the scheme as all water will be

sourced from the existing Durnacol Water Treatment Works. The centre of the project area is the

town of Dannhauser, which is approximately 25 km northwest of Dundee, 18 km north of Glencoe and

33km south of Newcastle, in the north west of KwaZulu-Natal. The project falls within the Dannhauser

Local Municipality, the water services authority is the Amajuba District Municipality. Figure 1 below

shows the project locality and the areas which need to be serviced by this project.

Figure 1: Project area in relation to the towns of Dannhauser and Hattingspruit.

Skombaren

Hilltop

Ramaphosa

Durnacol

-3 -

3. STUDY AREA

The study area consisted primarily of the project footprint bounded by a 500m space around it. The

latter area was determined by the requirements of the National Water Act in regard to wetlands. See

Figure 2.

Figure 2: Project area showing the 500m buffer area around the pipelines.

4. TERMS OF REFERENCE

This wetland and biodiversity study will be submitted as a specialist study to meet the requirements of

Appendix 6 of the NEMA EIA Regulations, and will also accompany a Water Use Licence Application in

accordance with the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998). To this end, the terms of reference are

also based on the requirements of Annexure 6 “Wetland Delineation Report” of the Regulations

Regarding the Procedural Requirements for Water Use Licence Applications and Appeals of 24 March

2017.

In brief, the above requirements are to achieve the following:

500 m Wide

Study Area

Extension

Boundary

-4 -

A methodology of the site visit and the techniques used to assess the specific aspect of the

site;

Details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the

proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure;

An identification of any areas that are to be avoided, including provision of buffers;

A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge;

A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the

proposed activity;

Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the Environmental Management Programme Report

(EMPr);

Any conditions for inclusion in the Environmental Authorisation;

Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or Environmental Authorisation; and

A reasoned opinion whether the activity should be authorised based on the findings of the

study.

5. KNOWLEDGE GAPS

No direct knowledge gaps have been identified that may influence the outcome of this assessment.

The following assumptions however, have been made in the completion of the study:

The development proposal used in this assessment is limited to the pipelines and

infrastructure proposed by UWP Consulting and shown in Figure 1.

The assessment is based on a single site visit conducted on 11 January 2019 conducted by Mr

D.J. Alletson and Ms M. Holder. The timing of the visit was for peak flowering season so as to

be able to maximise the number of plant species identified.

The SASS and fish surveys which were to be done in the Hattingspruit were not done as the stream

channel was dry. This was considered to be unusual for the season but is not a major flaw in the

survey

6. STUDY PROCEDURE

This study was undertaken in three phases which were a desktop survey, site visits, and data

processing and reporting.

6.1 Desktop Survey

The desktop survey consisted primarily of searching for any information which might suggest the

presence of wetlands in the study area. Reference was made to the Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Minset

Database, the protected areas database, and the wetland database to see if any wetland-related

features are recorded for the study area. In addition, the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority

Areas (NFEPA) database was also interrogated to search for palustrine1 wetlands in that area. Google

Earth was used to gain an initial impression of the study area and the images were closely examined

for any wetland or watercourse features. A list of these, together with a rough field map, was

1 “Palustrine”: Palustrine wetlands include inland marshes and swamps as well as bogs, fens, tundra and floodplains. Palustrine

systems include any inland wetland which lacks flowing water, contains ocean-derived salts in concentrations of less than 0.05%, and is non-tidal.

-5 -

prepared, with their geographic coordinates, and was used as an initial guide in the field survey which

followed.

6.2 Site Survey

The study area was visited for the purpose of site surveys and, using the list of sites from the desktop

study as a guide, wetland and watercourse features which lay within it were visited and assessed. It

was found that some of the features seen on Google Earth were not wetland-related, but some

additional features which had not been identified in the desktop study were observed in the field.

At every observed feature, the following actions were undertaken:

Watercourses with either flowing water or channels where water obviously flows at times

were visited and key features, including the vegetation in the riparian zone were noted.

Wetlands. Where wetlands were encountered in the study area, they were delineated and

note was made of their type. The guidelines of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

(DWAF, 2005) were followed. The indicators used include the following:

The Terrain Unit Indicator. This indicator helps identify those parts of the

landscape where wetlands are likely to occur.

The Soil Form Indicator. This indicator consists of soil forms which are associated

with prolonged and frequent water saturation.

The Soil Wetness Indicator. This indicator is based on soil characteristics which

develop as a result of prolonged and frequent water saturation.

The Vegetation Indicator. This indicator is based on vegetation which consists

either entirely or largely of plant species which are associated with frequently or

permanently saturated soils. Such species and vegetation are described as being

“hydrophilic”.

Further pointers to the possible presence of wetlands were searched for. Most

important of these were seepage zones in the river banks. Such zones indicated

the presence of water near the soil surface and so infer that wetlands could exist

nearby. This indicator is useful in places where the original soil characteristics have

been destroyed by ploughing or other forms of development.

“Negative” pointers were searched for. These pointers consist of features which

are not associated with wetlands. An example is the presence of termite colonies

as these animals avoid wet soils.

Use was made of a soil auger to check for soil wetness although at some sites soil harvesting pits or

other such excavations could be used to determine the soils characteristics. The observation point

locations were recorded by means of a hand-held GPS unit with a stated accuracy tolerance of three

metres. The associations between wetland vegetation and soils are illustrated in Figure 3.

-6 -

Figure 3: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis, et al., 2013)

Photograph 1: Typical wetland soil from the intermittently saturated zone on the edge of a wetland.

Note the mottling in the gleyed matrix

However, for wetlands within 500 m of the development, but which would not be impacted upon by

the project, the delineation was done on the basis of Google Earth imagery. To ensure that as much

wetland as possible was mapped in this way, images from at least three different time periods were

used. Biodiversity was not comprehensively surveyed but note was made of species seen during the

course of the site survey.

When considering what impacts the pipelines may or may not cause, consideration was given to not

only hydrological factors but also to possible impacts on animal species, both vertebrate and

invertebrate.

-7 -

6.3 Data Processing

6.3.1 Wetland Condition (PES)

The wetlands which had been delineated and which might be impacted upon were assessed by means

of the WET-Health model (Macfarlane et al, 2008). This model produces a value for the Present

Ecological State (PES) of a wetland. Since hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation are interlinked in

the model, their scores are aggregated to obtain the overall PES health score using the formula:

Health = ((Hydrology value) x3 + (Geomorphology value) x2 + (Vegetation value) x2)) ÷ 7

Definitions of the Health Categories based on the scores generated in this way are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Health Categories used for describing the integrity of wetlands.

Impact

Category Description

Impact

Score

Range

Present

State

Category

None Unmodified, natural 0 to 0.9 A

Small

Largely Natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem

processes is discernible and a small loss of natural habitats and biota may have

taken place.

1.0 to

1.9 B

Moderate

Moderately Modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of

natural habitats has taken place, but the natural habitat remains

predominantly intact.

2.0 to

3.9 C

Large Largely Modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural

habitat and biota has occurred.

4.0 to

5.9 D

Serious

Seriously Modified. The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural

habitat and biota is great, but some remaining natural habitat features are still

recognizable.

6.0 to

7.9 E

Critical

Critical Modification. The modifications have reached a critical level and the

ecosystem processes have been modified completely with an almost complete

loss of natural habitat and biota.

8.0 to

10 F

6.3.2 Ecosystem Services Delivered by the Wetlands

The WET-EcoServices Model (Kotze et al, 2008) was used to score the ecosystem services delivered by

wetlands in the study area. This model considers the biophysical and social conditions around a

wetland and then delivers scores for a series of defined ecosystem services that the wetland delivers,

or could deliver. The services include the following:

Flood Attenuation Streamflow regulation

Sediment trapping Phosphate assimilation

-8 -

Nitrate Assimilation Toxicant Assimilation

Erosion control Carbon storage (sequestration)

Maintenance of biodiversity Provision of water for human use

Provision of harvestable resources Provision of cultivated food

Cultural significance Tourism and recreation

Education and research

The maximum score for any service is a value of 4 and the rating of the probable extent of the service

is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Ecoservices rating of the probable extent to which a benefit is being supplied.

Score Rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being

supplied

< 0.5 Low

0.6 - 1.2 Moderately Low

1.3 - 2.0 Intermediate

2.1 - 3.0 Moderately High

> 3.0 High

7. STUDY FINDINGS

7.1 Desktop Study

The findings of the desktop study were as follows:

Vegetation Type. The indigenous vegetation in the area consists of Northern KwaZulu-Natal

Moist Grassland (Gs 4) in the south and KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld (Gs 6) in the north

around Skomgaren. The former is considered to be “Vulnerable” as a result of areas lost to

urban development, agriculture, bush encroachment, and large state dams. Endemicity is

low. KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld is listed as being “Least Concern” as there has been

limited loss of area and endemicity is low. Both types contain areas of wetland. Source:

Mucina and Rutherford (2006). See Figure 4.

Wetlands. The Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and NFEPA wetland databases show the same wetland

systems in the study area although the NFEPA data includes farm dams as well. The natural

systems are classified as “Alluvial Wetlands: Temperate Alluvial Vegetation” in the KZN

Wetland database and as “Natural” in the NFEPA database. See Figure 5.

-9 -

Figure 4: National vegetation types in the project area. (Source: Mucina and Rutherford, 2006.)

Skombaren

Durnacol

Hattingspruit

Dannhauser

LEGEND

Gs 4

Gs 6

Wetland

Towns

-10 -

Figure 5: NFEPA Wetlands and larger watercourses in the project area.

-11 -

Figure 6: Areas of CBA 3 habitat in the project area. The one that is traversed is indicated by the

arrow.

Area of high

quality

vegetation

-12 -

Watercourses. A number of watercourses are mapped for the study areas shown in Figure 5.

These were to be investigated during the field survey and all discernible sites were marked on

a field map.

The entire area drains to the Buffalo River but many of the first order streams appear to be

unnamed. A slightly larger system, the Umzinyashana, which includes the Hattingspruit,

drains the southern area.

Landscape transformation. The study area is dominated by untransformed landscapes but

does also pass through urban areas, and agricultural fields.

Conservation priorities. No Critical Biodiversity 1 Areas are included in the project area but

the pipelines do pass along the edges of a number of CBA 3 sites and through one of those.

The Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Minset database was interrogated to search for wetland-related

conservation priorities. The results of the search are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Features listed in the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Conservation Plan for the project area.

Name Comment

Doratogonus minor Millipede. Not usually found in the grassland habitat type present.

Cochlitoma simplex Snail. Known to occur in the Ladysmith area

Kniphofia galpinii Red Hot Poker. Could be present but no Pokers seen.

Income Sandy Grassland Both of these are considered as “Vulnerable” (EKZNW, 2013) and with an offset ratio of 3:1. Glencoe Moist Grassland

Temperate Alluvial Vegetation

Wetlands. See above

Income Sandy Grassland (Gs 7) is considered to be very similar to Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist

Grassland (Gs 4). The Glencoe Moist Grassland lies to the south of the actual project

footprint.

Since the pipelines will almost entirely be placed along roads and, in some places, alongside

existing pipelines, it is anticipated that damage to veld vegetation should, if rehabilitation of

the areas is properly done, be minimal in the longer term. For obvious reasons there is even

less concern where the lines pass through towns or other transformed areas.

Threatened Ecosystems. The study area is not within any Threatened Ecosystem although

areas of Chelsford Grassland to the west of Road N 11 are listed as such. None are any closer

than 9 km to the project area but most are still further away.

Game Reserves, Nature Reserves, and Wildlife Conservancies. The nearest conservation

areas are the Chelmsford Dam Nature Reserve and the Dr Alden Lloyd Nature Conservation

Area which is situated near Dundee. Both are more than 5 km from the nearest points of the

water supply project.

Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas. Important Birds and Biodiversity Areas (IBA) have

been designated at sites where the avifauna or some other biodiversity is of particular value.

-13 -

The Chelmsford Dam Nature Reserve is an IBA but is most unlikely to be affected by the water supply

project.

On the basis of the desktop study, it is concluded that the proposed water pipeline project does not include any substantial threats to the environment. Despite this the field survey was undertaken to examine the area in finer detail.

7.2 Field Study

The study area was visited on 3 January 2019. Conditions for the surveys were generally good and

access to all of the area was possible. The entire project area, including those parts within towns,

was visited.

7.2.1 Terrestrial Vegetation

The natural vegetation along the pipeline routes was found to consist entirely of grassland and of wetland patches. Elsewhere the routes lie within towns, old mine workings, and on the edges of crop fields.

The indigenous terrestrial plant species noted are listed in Table 4 and the alien species are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Indigenous terrestrial plant species observed in the study area.

Scientific Name Common Name

Acacia sieberiana var woodii Paperbark Thorn

Acalypha peduncularis Brooms and brushes

Acalypha punctata Sticky brooms and brushes

Aloe ecklonis Ecklon's aloe

Aloe maculata Common soap aloe

Argyrolobeum tomentosum Velvety yellow bush pea

Aristida junciformis Ngongoni Grass

Asparagus cf. minutiflorus Fox-tail asparagus

Aster bakerianus Pink daisy

Berkheya onopordifolia Stout perennial herb

Berula erecta Toothache root

Boophone disticha Poison bulb

Buchnera simplex False verbena

Chaetacanthus burchellii Fairy stars

Chironia palustris Marsh chironia

Convolvulus natalensis Creeper

Convolvulus sagittatus Bobbejaantou

Cotula turbinata Goose daisy

Crinum macowanii River Lily

Cucumis hirsutus Wild cucumber

Cynodon dactylon Kweek Grass

Cyperus esculentus Yellow nut sedge

Cyperus sphaerocephalus Yellow sedge

Diclis rotundifolia Prostrate dwarf snapdragon

Diospyros lycioides Bluebush

Dipcadi marlothii Dainty green bells

Epilobium salignum Primrose family

Eragrostis sp. Love Grass

-14 -


Eriosema salignum Brown bonnets

Euryops pedunculatus Daisy bush

Felicia muricata White felicia

Gazania krebsiana Common gazania

Geigeria burkei Vermeersiektebossie

Gladiolus cf. dalenii African gladiolus

Gomphocarpus fruticosus Hairy balls

Graderia scabra Wild penstemon

Grewia hispida Scrambling shrub

Haplocarpha scaposa False gerbera

Helichrysum pilosellum Woolly-leaved everlasting

Helichrysum ruderale "Lettuce weed"

Helichrysum rugulosum Tufted helichrysum

Hermannia depressa Creeping red hermannia

Hibiscus trionum Bladder hibiscus

Hyparrhenia hirta Thatch Grass

Hypoxis costata Broad-leaved hypoxis

Hypoxis hemerocallidea Star flower

Hypoxis hemerocallidea Star flower

Hypoxis rigidula Star flower

Hypoxis rigidula Star flower

Indigofera eriocarpa Shrubby indigo

Indigofera hilaris Red indigo bush

Indigofera spicata Creeping indigo

Indigofera trifoliata Creeping indigo

Lactuca inermis Small marsh daisy

Ledebouria ovatifolia Broad-leaved squill

Mimulus gracilis Wild monkey flowers

Nidorella auriculata Perennial herb

Panicum maximum Common buffalo grass

Pelargonium luridum Stork's bill pelargonium

Pellaea calomelanos Blue rock fern

Pentanisia angustifolia Narrow-leaved pentanisia

Persicaria serrulata Snake root

Phragmites australis Common reed

Podaxis pistillaris False ink cap

Ranunculus multifidus Common buttercup

Restio sp. Restio

Rhynchosia caribaea Perennial twining herb

Rhynchosia totta Yellow carpet bean

Scabiosa columbaria Wild scabiosa

Selago densiflora Selago

Senecio cf. discodregeanus Slender perennial herb

Senecio coronatus Woolly grassland senecio

Senecio decurrens Stout herb

Sida dregei Spider leg

Sida rhombifolia Taaiman

Solanum incanum Bitter apple

Solanum panduriforme Bitter apple

Stachys aethiopica African stachys

Stoebe cf. plumosa Bankrupt bush

-15 -


Striga asiatica Witchweed

Striga bilabiata Small witchweed

Tephrosia macropoda Creeping tephrosia

Thesium costatum Tufted herb

Turbina oblongata Spreading herb

Typha capensis Bulrush

Vernonia natalensis Silver vernonia

Wahlenbergia krebsii Krebs' bell flower

Zornia capensis Caterpillar bean

Zornia capensis Caterpillar bean

None of the above species are of conservation concern. All were found in areas mapped as Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland and a few were also found along the roadside in the built up area of Skombaren which lies in KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld.

Table 5. Alien plant species observed in the study area.

Scientific Name Common Name Invader Category

Acacia mearnsii Black Wattle Cat. 1b

Argemone ochroleuca White Mexican poppy Cat. 1b

Arundo donax Giant reed Cat. 1b

Bidens formosa Cosmos

Bidens pilosa Blackjack

Boerhavia diffusa Spiderling

Canna indica Canna Cat. 1b

Canna x generalis Canna

Circium vulgare Scotch thistle Cat. 1b

Conyza albida Tall fleabane

Cuscuta campestris Dodder Cat. 1b

Eucalyptus spp. Gum Trees Cat. 1b

Galinsoga parviflora Small-flowered quickweed

Gomphrena celosioides Batchelor's buttons

Hypochaeris radicata Hairy wild lettuce

Melilotus albus White sweet clover

Oenothera rosea Pink evening primrose

Opuntia ficus-indica Sweet prickly pear Cat. 1b

Penesetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass Cat. 1b

Physalis viscosa Wild gooseberry

Plantago lanceolata Narrow-leaved ribwort

Plantago major Broad-leaved ribwort

Populus x canescens Silver Poplar Cat. 1b

Richardia brasiliensis Tropical richardia

Salix babylonica Weeping Willow Cat. 1b

Schkuhria pinnata Dwarf marigold

Solanum mauritianum Bugweed Cat. 1b

Solanum sisymbriifolium Dense-thorned bitter apple Cat. 1b

Sonchus oleraceus Sowthistle

Tagetes minuta Khaki weed

Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion

Verbena aristigera Moss verbena

Verbena brasiliensis Slender verbena

-16 -

Alien weed species are abundant and, in some places, dominate the vegetation. This is particularly

the case near towns and in old mine workings.

It was noted that the veld vegetation in the project area is generally degraded. This is believed to be a

consequence of prolonged heavy grazing by livestock and of over-frequent veld burning. Soil erosion

is not extreme but the vegetation is depauperate and basal cover is often poor. The alien species are

usually most abundant near the towns but copses of wattle and gum trees are scattered throughout

the landscape. One area does stand out from the rest in terms of the vegetation being in good

condition and with greater species diversity. It is located on the Dannhauser to Skombaren pipeline

route and is located where an old railway loop is suggested as an alternative route. See Figure 6. It is

to be noted that the same area is mapped as CBA3.

7.2.2 Wetland Vegetation The plant species associated with wetlands and watercourse channels are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Wetland plant species observed in the study area.


Carex cf. cognata Nodding Sedge

Imperata cylindrica Cottonwool Grass

Juncus spp. Sedges

Leersia hexandra Wild Rice Grass

Miscanthus cf. capensis Broom Grass

Paspalum distichum Couch Paspalum

Paspalum scrobiculatum Creeping Paspalum

Persicaria attenuata Knotweed

Persicaria serrulata Knotweed

Phragmites australis Common Reed

Setaria sphacelata Dropseed Grass

Typha capensis Bulrush

All of the above species are common and widespread and are not of conservation concern.

7.2.3 Watercourses and Wetlands

Watercourses

The project area is crossed by a large number of watercourses and, at every one that was found, the

site was inspected. Although some rain had fallen prior to the time of the site visit, most of the

channels were simply dry gullies. It was apparent, from the absence of hydrophilic (water dependent)

plants that these systems are dry most of the time and only flow after major rainfall events or after

prolonged period of lighter rain. Because most are not linked to wetlands, there is little buffering of

the discharge through them and so flows will be of short duration, but of moderate to high velocity.

This pattern, coupled with the presence of duplex soils in many places, leads to soil erosion and so

gullies and even sheet erosion have become commonplace.

-17 -

Photograph 2: Dry watercourse typical of many in the project area.

Photograph 3: Dry watercourse located near the Hilltop reservoir site.

-18 -

Relatively few watercourses with running water were located during the course of the field survey. Commonly, flows were minimal with the channel between pools being barely wetted and water depth there seldom more than 0.02 m. However, because their flows, these channels do have limited growths of sedges and hygrophilous grasses on their margins.

Photograph 4: Small stream at the site of a pipeline crossing. Located at 28° 1'45.10"S, 30° 6'7.75"E.

The second system shown below is in fact a highly eroded wetland with the crossing located at 27°59'30.76"S, 30° 7'43.28"E.

Photograph 5: Stream (destroyed wetland) at the site of a pipeline crossing.

-19 -

Wetlands

The project area was found to include a fair number of wetlands although most are small and many are severely degraded. Those found are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Most of the potential crossing sites lie in and around Dannhauser and an expanded view of that area is shown in Figure 9.

WETLAND SITE 1.

The wetland at Site 1 was probably originally a channelled valley bottom system or was possibly an unchannelled valley bottom system. However, it has been severely impacted upon by development of urban areas and coal mining activities. In addition it is now heavily grazed by cattle, has a large dam on it, and has been partially invaded by Eucalyptus trees. Raw sewage from a broken pipe runs into it. As a result of all these impacts the site now consists of a series of relict patches which are now largely vegetated by grasses including Kikuyu.

Photograph 6: Wetland Site 1 at the site of the proposed pipeline crossing. All the water visible is flow from a broken sewer.

It is impossible to determine its original extent and so it was not modelled by means of the WET-Health tool. On the basis of expert opinion it is classed as a Category E or Category F system as defined in Table 1.

The WET-Ecoservices model was used to gain an impression of the significance of the site but because of the low degree of confidence in some of the inputs as a result of the fragmentation, it is recognised that the results should be regarded as being a guideline only. See Tables 7 and 8 and Figure 10.

-20 -

Figure 7: Areas of observed wetland in the Durnacol, Dannhauser, and Skombaren areas.

LEGEND

NFEPA Wetland

Observed Wetland

Dry Gully

Stream

500 m Buffer Area

-21 -

Figure 8: Areas of observed wetland in the Hattingspruit, and Hilltop areas.

LEGEND

NFEPA Wetland

Observed Wetland

Dry Gully

Stream

500 m Buffer Area

-22 -

Figure 9: Sites of wetland crossings.

Site 1

LEGEND

NFEPA Wetland

Observed Wetland

Dry Gully

Stream

500 m Buffer Area

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6 Site 6

-23 -

Table 7: Ecosystem Service scores obtained for Wetland Site 1.

Ecosystem Service Score Ec

osy

ste

m S

erv

ice

s Su

pp

lied

by

We

tlan

ds

Ind

ire

ct B

en

efi

ts

Re

gula

tin

g an

d s

up

po

rtin

g b

en

efi

ts

Flood attenuation 1.8

Streamflow regulation 1.3

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

enh

ance

men

t b

enef

its

Sediment trapping 1.4

Phosphate assimilation 1.6

Nitrate assimilation 1.7

Toxicant assimilation 1.6

Erosion control 1.5

Carbon storage 1.0

Dir

ect

Be

ne

fits

Biodiversity maintenance 1.2

Pro

visi

on

ing

be

ne

fits

Provisioning of water for human use 0.5

Provisioning of harvestable resources 0.5

Provisioning of cultivated foods 0.2

Cu

ltu

ral

be

ne

fits

Cultural heritage 0.0

Tourism and recreation 0.0

Education and research 1.0

Total: 15.3

Average: 1.02

Table 8: Ecosystem Service scores obtained for Wetland Site 1.

Wetland Importance And Sensitivity

Ecological Importance & Sensitivity 2.7

Hydrological/Functional Importance 1.5

Direct Human Benefits 0.5

-24 -

Figure 10: Chart indicating ecosystem service scores.

WETLAND SITE 2.

Wetland Site 2 is an unchannelled valley bottom which has been filled in and otherwise degraded by a number of railway and urban impacts. Some of these impacts are many decades old while others are recent. Wetland vegetation, especially reeds (Phragmites australis) and bulrushes (Typha capensis) remains in places. The system is placed in Category C or Category D as defined in Table 1.

Photograph 7: Wetland Site 2. Note the infill on either side.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0Flood attenuation

Streamflowregulation

Sediment trapping

Phospahte trapping

Nitrate removal

Toxicant removal

Erosion control

Carbon storageMaintenance of

biodiversity

Water supply forhuman use

Natural resources

Cultivated foods

Cultural significance

Tourism andrecreation

Education andresearch

Ecosystem services scores

-25 -

WETLAND SITE 3.

Wetland Site 3 is a small partially-channelled valley bottom system situated near Dannhauser town. Almost all of the natural vegetation has been lost as a result of conversion to pasture, and Kikuyu grass has taken its place. At the lower end but upstream of the road, small patches of bulrushes and Snakeweed (Persicaria spp.) remain. Downstream of the road the vegetation is more robust but the system degrades into an open channel with almost no wetland characteristics immediately after leaving the road reserve. It is classified as a Category D or Category E system as defined in Table 1.

Photograph 8: Wetland Site 3. Note the pasture grasses.

Photograph 9: Wetland Site 3 showing the appearance of the gully in the grazing area.

-26 -

WETLAND SITE 4. Wetland Site 4 is a series of small wetland patches linked by a channel. Upslope of the road it runs from near the crest of the hill down to the road reserve and the pipeline crossing point. After passing under the road by means of a three-pipe culvert it goes into a small dam which has filled in to become a wetland. Further downstream are series further dams, some of which hold water while others form wetland patches. Thus the system is very largely artificial. The vegetation in the dams is dominated by bulrushes while above the road it is predominantly a hygrophilous grassland. The latter is considered to be largely natural with limited damage from overgrazing. It is considered to be in Category B or Category C. Downstream of the road the system is in category C or Category D.

Photograph 10: Wetland Site 4 upstream of the road.

Photograph 11: Wetland Site 4 downstream of the road. Note the channel and the bulrushes which have filled the dam basin.

-27 -

WETLAND SITE 5.

Wetland Site 5 is a very small (0.3 ha) toe slope seep which appears to be held in place by the road. It is close to a small river and, in the natural state would probably have been located on the river bank. It is a short grass / sedge system and appears to be in a moderately good condition. It is therefore assessed as being in Category B or Category C as defined in Table 1.

Photograph 12: Wetland Site 5. Note the sedge/grass vegetation indicated.

WETLAND SITE 6.

Wetland Site 6 comprises of two seep patches which have been linked simply because they are spatially close and are very similar to one another. It is considered that these are artificial systems which have developed as a result of water being collected along the upslope side of the railway line and then passing under the line to form a damp patch. They are not thought to be of any noteworthy conservation value.

7.2.5 Fauna

Because the pipeline trenches should be completely inconspicuous in the landscape if the construction work, including rehabilitation, is properly done, no comprehensive faunal survey was undertaken. It is assumed that animals will move away while the construction is in progress and will then return once it is over. However, note was made of animal species seen at the time of the site visit. Table 7 lists those seen. None are of conservation concern.

-28 -

Table 9: List of animal species seen in the project area.

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status

Mammals Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose

Least Concern Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi Blesbok

Birds

Bostrychia hagedash Hadedah Ibis

All are Least

Concern

Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo

Chrysococcyx caprius Diderick Cuckoo

Acridotheres tristis Common Myna

Charadriustricollaris Three-banded Plover

Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing

Acrocephalus gracilirostris Lesser Swamp Warbler

Ploceus velatus Southern Masked Weaver

Euplectes axillaris Fan-tailed Widow

Euplectes progne Long-tailed Widowbird

Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah

Euplectes orix Southern Red Bishop

Hirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped Swallow

Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove

Motacilla capensis Cape Wagtail

Frogs Ptychadena porosissima Striped Grass Frog (Call heard)

8. LISTING OF THE PIPELINE WATERCOURSE AND WETLAND CROSSINGS

Each of the four pipeline sections is listed individually but the positions of all the crossings are shown in Figure 11.

8.1. Durnacol to Dannhauser

The localities of the various crossing points are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Durnacol to Dannhauser pipeline.

Latitude Longitude Type Site Reference

28° 2'28.45"S 30° 2'2.58"E Dry Gully

None 28° 2'9.27"S 30° 2'41.65"E Dry Gully

28° 2'5.33"S 30° 2'49.14"E Dry Gully

28° 1'44.07"S 30° 3'13.34"E Wetland Wetland Site 1

28° 1'30.04"S 30° 3'36.52"E Dry Gully None

28° 1'27.56"S 30° 3'46.08"E Dry Gully




28° 0'39.42"S 30° 4'47.65"E Dry Gully None

-29 -

Figure 11: Sites of all watercourse and wetland crossings “ “ in the project area.

8.2. Dannhauser to Skombaren


Table 11: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Dannhauser to Skombaren pipeline.


28° 0'0.01"S 30° 2'48.70"E Minor Seep Wetland Site 6

27°59'47.61"S 30° 2'47.26"E Minor Seep Wetland Site 6

27°59'22.32"S 30° 2'38.32"E Dry Gully

None

27°59'16.73"S 30° 2'15.78"E Dry Gully

27°59'1.47"S 30° 2'14.31"E Dry Gully

27°58'57.43"S 30° 2'16.77"E Dry Gully

27°58'45.18"S 30° 2'14.72"E Dry Gully

27°58'42.20"S 30° 2'12.36"E Dry Gully

27°58'21.37"S 30° 2'8.77"E Dry Gully

-30 -


27°57'13.86"S 30° 1'41.90"E Dry Gully

8.3. Dannhauser to Hilltop


Table 12: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Dannhauser to Hilltop pipeline.


28° 0'30.26"S 30° 6'37.36"E Dry Gully

None 27°59'30.76"S 30° 7'43.28"E Stream

27°58'27.19"S 30° 8'24.74"E Dry Gully

27°57'42.87"S 30° 8'44.93"E Dry Gully

8.4. Dannhauser to Hattingspruit


Table 13: List of watercourse and wetland crossings along the Dannhauser to Hattingspruit pipeline.


28° 1'45.10"S 30° 6'7.75"E Stream and Wetland

Wetland Site 5

28° 2'17.73"S 30° 6'33.27"E Dry Gully

None

28° 2'58.47"S 30° 6'46.62"E Dry Gully

28° 3'19.93"S 30° 6'51.56"E Old Mine Workings

28° 4'34.43"S 30° 7'28.05" Hattingspruit

28° 4'30.39"S 30° 7'38.16"E Hattingspruit

28° 4'28.72"S 30° 7'53.67"E Hattingspruit Dam

9. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NECESSARY MITIGATORY

MEASURES FOR ECOSYSTEMS AFFECTED BY THE PIPELINE PROJECT

Issues which might arise from the proposed development are considered in the context of those environmental features which lie along the various routes.

9.1. Vegetation and Soil

9.1.1 Impacts

The following are potential impacts on the vegetation:

The plants which are situated along the pipeline trenches and in the working servitudes will mostly be destroyed;

Pipeline trenches, if left bare or insufficiently covered by vegetation are often susceptible to soil erosion;

The soil in the working servitude can be damaged by compaction, spillage of fuels, oils, or other substances;

-31 -

Alien weed species can readily colonise the disturbed soil along the trenches and servitudes; and

Accidental and uncontrolled fires in the surrounding veld can be started.

9.1.2. Mitigatory measures

The following mitigatory measures are relevant to the soil and vegetation:

Specimens of Aloes and Ledebouria plants should be rescued prior to to the start of construction. They may either be replanted locally or be translocated to another suitable area. This work must be done in collaboration with Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the necessary permits must be obtained.

Soil from the pipeline trenches must be carefully excavated with the subsoils being stockpiled separately from the topsoil. When the trench is refilled, the subsoils must go back first, and then the topsoil. Gentle compaction must be done. If there is to be surplus soil as a result of the volume of the pipe and bedding, then the quantity of subsoil returned must be reduced. All topsoil must be used as it will contain seeds of indigenous plants. The surplus subsoil may be scattered thinly in the area.

The soil on top of the trench must be reseeded with a mix of appropriate grass species but, if any grass clumps which were removed still remain viable, they may be replanted.

The trench must be monitored for failure of the vegetation to recover and for other problems such as invasion of weed species or development of erosion gullies.

At the completion of work the site must be cleaned and all waste materials or litter must be removed to an approved site for disposal.

9.2. Watercourses

9.2.1 Impacts

The following are potential impacts on watercourses:

The channels and banks of the systems can be left in a condition which is susceptible to future erosion;

Soil can be mobilised to form sediment in the channel to form sediment which will be transported down the system;

Soil can be washed into the channel to form sediment which will be transported down the system;

Alien weeds can colonise the working area in the channel and the affected banks; and

Oils and fuels can be spilled or washed into the channel where they may be harmful to aquatic life.


The following mitigatory measures are relevant to the watercourses:

Care must be taken when excavating in the channel and on the banks to avoid leaving loose soil where it could be washed away by water.

When working within the channel it is preferable to do as much of the work as possible manually rather than with excavators. This will reduce the footprint of the operation in the sensitive area.

No soil of any sort, including pipe bedding, may be stockpiled or spoiled within 20 m 0f the channel.

Once the pipe is in place care must be taken to close the site in a way that will not leave it susceptible to erosion. The following measures are relevant:

-32 -

The banks must be stabilised. This implies that they will have a gentle slope and will be planted with grasses. NOTE: kikuyu grass may not be used. An indigenous alternative such as Kweek (Cynodon dactylon) must be used. Wooden poles may be anchored at an angle across the trench to help retain the soil until such time as the grass has become established. These poles must be set to direct water toward the downslope side of the trench. If poles are not available then closely packed lines of rocks may be used. In either case water must not be able to undercut the retaining structure.

Ideally hard structures such as walls or rock packs will not be used on the banks. If reinforcing is necessary, then well placed and anchored rock-filled gabion baskets

should be used. The head of any cuts into the banks should be protected from trampling by cattle.

Low stone walls can achieve this. The channel bed must be left in a smooth state. Roughness will lead to turbulent

water flows which accelerate erosion.


9.3. Wetlands

9.3.1 Impacts The following are potential impacts on wetlands:

Excavations in wetlands can lead to disruption in water flow patterns if the soils are not correctly handled;

Pipeline trenches, if not properly rehabilitated, will almost certainly become eroded and gullies will form. These can lead to destruction of the wetland;

Excess trampling in the wetland can lead to damage of the plants and also to formation of surface drainage which will be the precursor of erosion;

Soil can be washed into a wetland and be deposited there. It may then disrupt flow patterns and also form substrate for alien weed species;

Spillage of fuels and oils will be toxic to aquatic life; and

Uncontrolled fires may be started and the wetland vegetation be damaged.


The following mitigatory measures are relevant to the wetlands:

So site camp or laydown area may be within 50 m of a wetland.

Work in wetlands should be done during the dry season if possible and should be done in the shortest possible time period.

The use of mechanical excavators in wetlands should be avoided as far as possible.

Ideally the pipeline route will cross the wetland at right angled to the direction of subsurface water flows. This implies that the trench will follow a level contour line.

Soil handling must be done correctly. Topsoil and subsoil must be stockpiled separately.

When the trench is refilled, the subsoils must go back first, and then the topsoil. Gentle compaction must be done so as to ensure that the trench does not become a route of preferential water movement. If there is to be surplus soil as a result of the volume of the pipe and bedding, then the quantity of subsoil returned must be reduced. All topsoil must be used as it will contain seeds and other propagules of indigenous plants. The surplus subsoil must be scattered thinly in an area away from the wetland.

-33 -

No soil of any sort, including pipe bedding, may be stockpiled or spoiled within 20 m 0f the wetland.

Once the pipe is in place care must be taken to close the site in a way that will not leave it susceptible to erosion. The following measures are relevant:

The surface of the trench must be revegetated immediately after closure. This must be done with plants similar to those that occur in the surrounding area. Plugs may be cut in the area and be planted over the trench. The plugs must be taken from different sites so as not to create bare areas. Each should be approximately 200 mm x 200 mm in size. Water must be provided if necessary until such time as the transplanted plugs have become established.

The working area alongside the trench must be carefully rehabilitated in a manner similar to the trench itself.

The points where the trench enters and leaves the wetland must be carefully rehabilitated.

The following measures are relevant:

Steep slopes or banks must not be created.

The approach trenches must be very carefully rehabilitated and grassed.

Measures to prevent livestock from walking along the trench must be set in place.

Piles of rocks can be used for this purpose.


At Site 1 an additional mitigatory measure which may be feasible would be to place the pipeline along

the top of the old railway embankment. This action would keep it out of the wetland and so eliminate

any potential impacts. The original bridge appears to be sound as indicated in Photograph 6 in

Section 7.

10. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In undertaking impact assessment, attention was given to the various impacts listed in Section 9 above. Because of the nature of the project, where the site is essentially inactive after construction and mitigation are completed, the impact was not split into construction and operational phases. Provision is made for monitoring (Section 11) after the construction phase in order to ensure that the site is left in an acceptable and stable condition. The criteria for assessing the impacts are presented in Appendix I. Use was also made of the Department of Water and Sanitation’s Risk Assessment Matrix (DWAS, 2014) to gain an understanding of the extent to which the proposed pipelines might impact on aquatic ecosystems. For both sets of assessment, the present state of the wetlands and their probable future condition trajectory were kept in mind. In this way it was feasible to isolate the impacts of the water project from those which are already taking place.

10.1. Terrestrial Vegetation Using the criteria listed in Appendix I to assess the impacts on terrestrial vegetation which are listed in

Section 9.1 above the outcome is presented in Table 14 below.

-34 -

Table 14: Assessment of impacts on the watercourses in the project footprint.

ASSESSMENT: Impacts on terrestrial vegetation

Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation

Intensity (M) Moderate change or disturbance

(L) Minor change or disturbance

Duration (L) Short Term. Will reverse itself in

time

(L) Short Term. Will reverse

itself in time

Extent (L) Essentially restricted to

the pipeline footprint

(VL) Essentially restricted to


Consequence LOW VERY LOW

Probability VERY LOW INSIGNIFICANT

Significance INSIGNIFICANT INSIGNIFICANT

Nature of cumulative impacts

Despite the vegetation along most of the pipeline routes already having been degraded or lost, the impact of the pipelines is not a cumulative threat since the footprint will be able to repair itself within the space of a few years.

Degree to which impact can be reversed

Mitigatory measures have been put forward. If they are properly implemented then the impactS will become insignificant.

Degree to which impact may cause irreplaceable loss of

resources

The pipeline routes do not contain any known species of conservation concern or other irreplaceable resources.

Degree to which impact can be mitigated

Moderate.

Residual impacts There should be no residual impacts.

10.2. Watercourses

The assessment of the risks to watercourses is shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Assessment of impacts on the watercourses in the project footprint.

ASSESSMENT: Impacts on watercourses


Intensity (L) Minor change or disturbance



time


itself in time

Extent (M) The impact could have

consequences considerably beyond the pipeline footprint




Probability POSSIBLE CONCEIVABLE

Significance LOW VERY LOW

-35 -

Nature of cumulative impacts Most of the watercourses are already degraded to an extent which ranges from severe to minor according to the site. All sites would require careful handling to avoid causing new or additional impacts.


Mitigatory measures have been put forward. If they are properly implemented then the impact will become insignificant.


resources

The watercourses do not contain any known species of conservation concern or other irreplaceable resources. Most do not even have Hydrophilic vegetation.


Moderate.


-36 -

Table 16: Scores from the Department of Water and Sanitation Risk Assessment Matrix for the impacts arising from the Durnacol to Dannhauser Water Project.

Activity Aspect Impact

Seve

rity

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Like

liho

od

Sign

ific

ance

Ris

k R

atin

g

Co

nfi

de

nce

Leve

l

Control measures

Construction and operation of new water pipelines on watercourses

Generation of loose sediment in the channels.

Impacts which might arise out of this project include damage to the channel, loss of aquatic biodiversity, and risk of alien weed introductions. Secondary impacts could arise from leakage of fuels or oils from vehicles of machines. Uncontrolled fires could damage wetlands.

1.25 5.25

8 42 Low Risk

85%

See Section 9.2 Damage to channel banks

1.5 5.5 8 42 Low Risk

85%

Spills of oils and fuels

1.75 5.75

8 46 Low Risk

75%

Introduction of alien weeds

1.25 5.25

8 42 Low Risk

85%

Construction and operation of new water pipelines in wetlands

Disturbance and damage to the soils

2.0 5.0 8 40 Low Risk

85%

See Section 9.3

Causing of soil erosion in the wetland

2.0 5.0 8 40 Low Risk

85%

Trampling of vegetation and creation of preferential flow pathways

1.5 3.5 9 31.5 Low Risk

85%

Spills of oils and fuels

1.8 5.75 9 51.8 Low Risk

75%

Uncontrolled fires 1.5 3.5 8 28 Low Risk

75%

-37 -

10.3. Wetlands The assessment of the risks to wetlands is shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Assessment of impacts on the wetlands in the project footprint.

ASSESSMENT: Impacts on wetlands


Intensity (M) Moderate change or disturbance



time


itself in time

Extent (M) The impact could have

consequences considerably beyond the pipeline footprint




Probability HIGH POSSIBLE

Significance LOW VERY LOW

Nature of cumulative impacts Most of the wetlands are already degraded to an extent which ranges from severe to minor according to the site. All sites would require careful handling to avoid causing new or additional impacts.


Mitigatory measures have been put forward. If they are properly implemented then the impact will become insignificant.


resources

The wetlands do not contain any known species of conservation concern or other irreplaceable resources.


Moderate.


11. MONITORING AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1. Monitoring Programme

In terms of the EIA regulations under the National Environmental Management Act it will be necessary

to establish a monitoring programme for the water project. This programme will be implemented by

an Environmental Control Officer (ECO) who will be appointed by the project manager. It is imperative

that the powers of the ECO and the various chains of communication and command be firmly defined.

The following monitoring schedule is suggested:

Project Phase Schedule

Planning and Pre-Construction

The ECO must familiarise him/her self with the

contents of the project Environmental

Management Plan before the start of any

construction work. The site should also be visited

-38 -

at this time in order to gain an understanding of

its pre-construction characteristics. A

photographic record should be compiled.

Construction

The ECO should visit the site at least twice a

month in the early part of the project so as to be

able to check on the performance of the

construction contractor(s) and to give instruction

and advice.

If plant salvage has been specified, then te ECO

must attend to it and facilitate it.

Once the project is running smoothly, the ECO

visits may be reduced until there is only one visit

per month. A monthly report is to be submitted

to the project engineer, the project manager, anf

the Department of Economic Development,

Tourism, and Environmental Affairs.

Post-Construction and Rehabilitation

Once the construction phase, including the

required rehabilitation works, is complete, the

ECO must continue to visit the site. Initially this

must be done at three month intervals so that the

effectiveness of the rehabilitation can be

checked. Any faults must be reported on and be

rectified as soon as climatic conditions allow.

When the site appears to be in an acceptable

condition, and is stable, two more visits must be

made. These will be at six month intervals and

represents final checks on the environmental

management of the project.

11.2. Recommendations

The natural environment around the various pipelines which constitute the Durnacol to Dannhauser

Water Project has been visited, surveyed and assessed in terms of the impacts which the project might

raise. In general the foreseen impacts appear to be very minor but it is possible that they could be

reduced even further. This is particularly the case in regard to the wetlands in and around

Dannhauser. See Figure 9. The project offers two pipeline routes in that area. Both have been

considered and while neither contains any fatal flaw, the issue of concern there is wetlands. It is

-39 -

therefore RECOMMENDED that the southern route be regarded as the preferred option to feed the

Hilltop and Hattingspruit areas, and that the northern route be discarded.

Figure 12: Dannhauser central showing the preferred pipeline option.

By taking this route, the crossings of Wetland Sites 2, 3, and 4 will be bypassed and the difficulties

associated with them, as well as impacts at Site 4 will all be obviated.

It is also RECOMMENDED that the pipeline from Dannhauser to Skombaren follow the existing railway

service track route for part of the way. A loop near the north end of that track is indicated as a

pipeline alternative. However, the area has the best floral diversity seen in the project area and by

following the active track impacts will be minimised. See Figure 6.

LEGEND

NFEPA Wetland

Observed Wetland

Dry Gully

Stream

500 m Buffer Area

Site 2

Site 3 Site 4

Preferred

Pipeline Option

-40 -

12. CONCLUSION

The terms of reference in Section 4 have been revisited and it is believed that they have been met.

Attention has been focussed primarily on the unbuilt sections of the pipeline routes as the natural

biodiversity within the urban areas is already largely destroyed. The provincial C Plan indicates no

features of concern in the affected area.

It was found that he natural environment along the routes is not pristine but that it shows the

consequences of decades of over grazing by livestock and over frequent veld fires. Mining activities

have also degraded some areas. However, the pipeline routes are commonly close to roads and, if the

road reserve is used, then the quality of the vegetation is slightly higher.

No species of conservation concern were found and the special ecosystems, such as wetlands, were

found to be degraded. Therefore no fatal flaws were found and there is no reason to stop the project,

which has very high social significance, for this reason. There are still features which are worth

conserving and so mitigation and monitoring measures have been put forward and these should be

included into the Environmental Management Plan.

13. REFERENCES

DWAF. 2005. A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian

Areas. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Private Bag X 313 Pretoria.

DWAS. 2014. Risk Based Water Use Authorisation Approach and Delegation Protocol for Section 21(c)

and (i) Water Uses. Department of Water and Sanitation. Edition 02. www.DWS.gov.za

KOTZE, D.C., MARNEWECK, G., BATCHELOR, A., LINDLEY, D. and COLLINS, N. 2008.WET-EcoServices: A

technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report TT 339/08.

Water Research Commission. Gezina.

MACFARLANE, D.M., KOTZE, D.C., ELLERY, W.N., WALTERS, D., KOOPMAN, V., GOODMAN, P., and

GOGE, C. 2008. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report TT

340/08. Water Research Commission. Gezina.

MINTER, L.R., BURGER, M., HARRISON, J.A., BRAACK, H.H., BISHOP, P.J., and KLOEPFER, D. eds. 2004.

Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series # 9.

Smithsonian Institution. Washington DC.

MUCINA, L. and RUTHERFORD, M. (Eds). 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. Strelitzia 119. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

van GINKEL, C.E., GLEN, R.P., GORDON-GRAY, K.D., CILLIERS, C.J., MUASYA, M. and van DEVENTER, P.P.

2011. Easy Identification of some South African Wetland Plants. WRC Report No. TT 479/10 Water

Research Commission, Gezina, 0031.

http://www.dws.gov.za/

-41 -

APPENDIX I - Definition of the Terms used in the

Assessment of Environmental Impacts

PART A: DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA*

Definition of SIGNIFICANCE Significance = consequence x probability

Definition of CONSEQUENCE Consequence is a function of intensity, spatial extent and duration

Criteria for ranking of the INTENSITY of environmental impacts

VH Severe change, disturbance or degradation. Associated with severe consequences. May result in severe illness, injury or death. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern continually exceeded. Substantial intervention will be required. Vigorous/widespread community mobilization against project can be expected. May result in legal action if impact occurs.

H Prominent change, disturbance or degradation. Associated with real and substantial consequences. May result in illness or injury. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern regularly exceeded. Will definitely require intervention. Threats of community action. Regular complaints can be expected when the impact takes place.

M Moderate change, disturbance or discomfort. Associated with real but not substantial consequences. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern may occasionally be exceeded. Likely to require some intervention. Occasional complaints can be expected.

L Minor (Slight) change, disturbance or nuisance. Associated with minor consequences or deterioration. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern rarely exceeded. Require only minor interventions or clean-up actions. Sporadic complaints could be expected.

VL Negligible change, disturbance or nuisance. Associated with very minor consequences or deterioration. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern never exceeded. No interventions or clean-up actions required. No complaints anticipated.

VL+ Negligible change or improvement. Almost no benefits. Change not measurable/will remain in the current range.

L+ Minor change or improvement. Minor benefits. Change not measurable/will remain in the current range. Few people will experience benefits.

M+ Moderate change or improvement. Real but not substantial benefits. Will be within or marginally better than the current conditions. Small number of people will experience benefits.

H+ Prominent change or improvement. Real and substantial benefits. Will be better than current conditions. Many people will experience benefits. General community support.

VH+ Substantial, large-scale change or improvement. Considerable and widespread benefit. Will be much better than the current conditions. Favourable publicity and/or widespread support expected.

Criteria for ranking the DURATION of impacts

VL Very short, always less than a year. Quickly reversible

L Short-term, occurs for more than 1 but less than 5 years. Reversible over time.

M Medium-term, 5 to 10 years.

H Long term, between 10 and 20 years. (Likely to cease at the end of the operational life of the activity)

VH Very long, permanent, +20 years (Irreversible. Beyond closure)

Criteria for ranking the EXTENT of impacts

VL A part of the site/property.

L Whole site.

M Beyond the site boundary, affecting immediate neighbours

H Local area, extending far beyond site boundary.

VH Regional/National

-42 -

PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE

INTENSITY = VL

DURATION

Very long VH Low Low Medium Medium High

Long term H Low Low Low Medium Medium

Medium term M Very Low Low Low Low Medium

Short term L Very low Very Low Low Low Low

Very short VL Very low Very Low Very Low Low Low

INTENSITY = L

DURATION

Very long VH Medium Medium Medium High High

Long term H Low Medium Medium Medium High

Medium term M Low Low Medium Medium Medium

Short term L Low Low Low Medium Medium

Very short VL Very low Low Low Low Medium

INTENSITY = M

DURATION

Very long VH Medium High High High Very High

Long term H Medium Medium Medium High High

Medium term M Medium Medium Medium High High

Short term L Low Medium Medium Medium High

Very short VL Low Low Low Medium Medium

INTENSITY = H

DURATION

Very long VH High High High Very High Very High

Long term H Medium High High High Very High

Medium term M Medium Medium High High High

Short term L Medium Medium Medium High High

Very short VL Low Medium Medium Medium High

INTENSITY = VH

DURATION

Very long VH High High Very High Very High Very High

Long term H High High High Very High Very High

Medium term M Medium High High High Very High

Short term L Medium Medium High High High

Very short VL Low Medium Medium High High

VL L M H VH

A part of the site/ property

Whole site Beyond the site, affecting

neighbours

Extending far beyond site but localised

Regional/ National

EXTENT

PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE

PROBABILITY (of exposure to impacts)

Definite/ Continuous

VH Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Probable H Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Possible/ frequent

M Very Low Very Low Low Medium High

Conceivable L Insignificant Very Low Low Medium High

Unlikely/ improbable

VL Insignificant Insignificant Very Low Low Medium

VL L M H VVH

CONSEQUENCE

PART D: INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Significance Decision guideline

Very High Potential fatal flaw unless mitigated to lower significance.

High It must have an influence on the decision. Substantial mitigation will be required.

Medium It should have an influence on the decision. Mitigation will be required.

Low Unlikely that it will have a real influence on the decision. Limited mitigation is likely required.

Very Low It will not have an influence on the decision. Does not require any mitigation

Insignificant Inconsequential, not requiring any consideration.

*VH = very high, H = high, M= medium, L= low and VL= very low and + denotes a positive impact.

APPENDIX II – CV and Declaration of Independence

ABBREVIATED CURRICULUM VITAE

ALLETSON, D.J.

Name : Dacre James Alletson

Date of birth : 10/4/1948

Nationality : South African

Profession : Consulting Ecologist

Specialisation : Aquatic and terrestrial ecology, environmental impact assessment, landscape

scale conservation science and planning

Years of experience : 41

Academic qualifications : Bsc (Biological Sciences) University of Natal. 1968.

BSc Hons (Zoology) Rhodes University. 1972.

APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE

Mr Alletson has long experience in the fields of conservation and management of the natural

environment and has specialised in aquatic species and systems and in conservation at the scale of

landscape. After graduating he was employed at the Oceanographic Research Institute in Durban

where he worked on a number of projects in both the estuarine and marine environments. In 1975

he joined to the Natal Parks Board where he served for 21 years in a number of positions. His

activities in this time included research and management of certain fish species, management of a

trout hatchery, provision of an extension service relating to wetlands and rivers, and participation in

management of game and nature reserves including drafting of management plans. From 1984

onwards he served as the Board’s river and wetland specialist ecologist and was involved in wetland-

related research and management activities. In the process he instigated the development of the

KwaZulu-Natal Environmental Atlas and participated in environmental impact assessments including

that of the St Lucia Eastern Shores dune mining where he led the wetland component.

In 1997 he formed Alletson Ecologicals, an environmental consultancy and has undertaken a wide

variety of environmental investigation and monitoring programmes. Amongst these are some 100

Environmental Impact Assessments. These range from small-scale developments such as timber

planting permits, gravel pits, and irrigation dams, through to coal mines, large state dams, housing

schemes, private property developments, and pipelines. Some of these projects were undertaken as a

member of a team of specialists while in others all facets of impact assessment were undertaken. In

the course of this work he has gained a good understanding of the requirements of the National

Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA). He has developed a

standardised procedure for assessing and describing impacts and this has become widely used by

others. He also consults for government departments and quasi-government organisations. For

DWAF he has worked on numerous projects including the raising of Hazelmere Dam, Mearns Weir, the

Mooi-Mgeni Transfer Scheme (Spring Grove Dam, Receiving Streams, Fish surveys, etc.), the TuVa

canals decommissioning, and parts of reserve studies for the Upper Tugela Catchment, Ngagane

Catchment, and the Umkomaas Catchment. The Mooi-Mgeni project was given the 2003 excellence

award by the SA Institute of Civil Engineers. Similar projects have included water quality studies on

the proposed Metolong Dam in Lesotho, a water reticulation scheme in and around Taung (North

West Province), fishways on the Komati River, and wetland rehabilitation studies, and aquatic

ecosystem monitoring including both fish and SASS surveys.

He has worked on a number of forestry related studies for the Department of Agriculture and

Environment Affairs and has given training to staff in relation to afforestation issues, including both

infield site analysis, and facets of impact assessment.

A number of dam, pipeline and wetland studies (past and current) have been done for Umgeni Water

and he also took part in regional planning studies for the Town and Regional Planning Commission.

Numerous studies have been done on wetland and environmental assessment for various housing and

other infrastructure upgrade projects.

Apart from the planning and impact studies, Mr Alletson also acts as Environmental Control Officer for

construction projects and carries out routine aquatic monitoring around coal mines which are being

rehabilitated as a part of the closure process.

Since 2012 Mr Alletson has worked with Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd and has, amongst other activities

undertaken a number of wetland delineations, assessments, and also aquatic surveys for river health

assessments and Water use Licence applications. He has also undertaken terrestrial biodiversity

surveys as components of impact assessments and planning projects.

PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS

Has produced approximately 200 reports alone and about 50 more in collaboration with others, since

January 1997. A list is available on request.

RECENT WETLAND RELATED EXPERIENCE

Name of Project 1: Greater Mbizana/Flagstaff Regional Bulk Water Supply Scheme

Years (From - To): 2009 - 2012

Location: Eastern Cape

Client: Alfred Nzo District Municipality via Umgeni Water

Main project features:

Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Management

Plans for the Greater Mbizana/Flagstaff Regional Bulk Water Supply

Scheme. Scoping and EIA studies on a regional water supply dam,

borrow pits, and on the bulk raw and potable water pipelines.

Positions held: Assessment Practitioner, Environmental Control Officer

Activities performed: River and wetland studies, terrestrial biodiversity studies, Environmental

Impact Assessment. Construction site monitoring and control.

Name of Project 2: Sikoto Dam and Associated Bulk Works Ozwathini Bulk Water Supply

Scheme (Two studies)

Years (From - To): 1997 - 2011

Location: KwaZulu-Natal

Client: uMgungundlovu District Municipality via Umgeni Water


Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Management

Plans for the Greater Ozwathini Bulk Water Supply Scheme. Scoping and

EIA studies on a regional water supply dam, and on the bulk raw water

pipeline.

Positions held: Assessment Practitioner, Environmental Control Officer

Activities performed: Environmental Impact Assessment. River and wetland studies.

Name of Project 4: Delineation of Wetlands (Multiple Projects)

Years (From - To): 2008 - 2018

Location: Various

Client: Various

Main project features: Delineation of wetlands and wetland assessment

Positions held: Specialist Ecologist

Activities performed:

Delineation of wetlands in relation to a number of proposed

development projects. Impact assessments performed in some

instances.

Name of Project 5: Biodiversity Assessment – Proposed New Durban Dig-out Container

Port

Years (From - To): 2012 - 2013

Location: Durban

Client: Transnet SOC


Assessment of Floral and Faunal Biodiversity, Wetland Studies, Estuary

and Marine Studies, Impact Assessment, Management

Recommendations. Biodiversity offsets.

Positions held: Project Team Leader, Wetland Specialist, Bird and Invertebrate Studies,

Report Writing and Compilation.

Activities performed: Team Management, Client Liaison, Wetland and Biodiversity Surveys,

Reporting.

Name of Project 6: Water Use Licence Applications (Multiple Projects)

Years (From - To): 2014 - 2018

Location: Throughout KwaZulu-Natal

Client: Municipalities, Sanral, Property Developers, Private Development

Projects.

Main project features: Wetland surveys, Wetland health, Wetland Ecoservices, River studies,

Management recommendations.

Positions held: Specialist Wetland Ecologist

Activities performed: Wetland assessments. Impact Assessments. Biodiversity, fish and SASS

surveys.

Name of Project 7:

Wetlands Search and Delineation Along the Route of a Proposed New

Bulk Raw Water Supply Pipeline from Spioenkop Dam to Ladysmith

Water Treatment Works

Years (From - To): 2015

Location: Ladysmith, KwaZulu-Natal

Client: uThukela District Municipality

Main project features: Development of a new 35 km bulk potable water pipeline to service the

Ladysmith area.

Positions held: Specialist Wetland Ecologist

Activities performed: River and wetland studies, terrestrial biodiversity studies, wetland

modelling, management guidelines.

Name of Project 8:

Survey of the Biodiversity at the Site of a Proposed New Lodge

Development Adjacent to Lake Bhangazi South in the Isimangaliso

Wetland Park World Heritage Site

Years (From - To): 2016

Location: Isimangaliso Wetland Park World Heritage Site

Client: ERM Southern Africa (PTY) Ltd

Main project features: Assessment of the biodiversity within the area of a proposed new

community lodge in the World Heritage Site.

Positions held: Wetland ecologist, survey team leader.


Historic data collection. Wetland delineation and status assessment.

Bird and mammal survey, act as project leader for the team of botanists.

Report writing and compilation.

Name of Project 9: Development of a Truffle Farm in the Kamberg area near Nottingham

Road, KwaZulu-Natal.

Years (From - To): 2017 - 2017

Location: Kamberg area, KwaZulu-Natal.

Client: Private Land Owner

Main project features: Assessment of aquatic and terriestrial biodiversity and wetland

delineation and assessment.

Positions held: Wetland ecologist, survey team leader.


Historic data collection. Wetland delineation and status and

functionality assessment. Bird and mammal survey, act as project leader

for the team of botanists. Report writing and compilation.

DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST

(For official use only)

File Reference Number: DC/

NEAS Reference Number:

Date Received:

Application for an environmental authorisation in terms of section 24(2) of the National Environmental

Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) or for a waste management licence in terms of section 20(b) of the

National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).,

PROJECT TITLE

ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM AND WETLAND AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE DURNACOL DANNHAUSER REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SCHEME IN THE AMAJUBA DISTRICT MUNICIPAL

AREA OF KWAZULU-NATAL

Specialist: Wetland Specialist

Contact person: D.J. Alletson

Postal address: PO Box 1129, Hilton

Postal code: 3245 Cell: 083 7871584

Telephone: 033 3434972 Fax: 086 6108896

E-mail: [email protected]

Professional affiliation(s) (if any)

IAIA SA

mailto:[email protected]

Project Consultant: SLR Consulting (Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Contact person: Mr. T. Wicks

Postal address:

Unit 7, Fourways Manor Office Park 1 MacBeth Avenue Fourways, Johannesburg

Postal code: 2191 Cell: 082 337 8862

Telephone: 033 343 5826 Fax: 011 467 0978

E-mail: [email protected]

4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_

I, , declare that --

General declaration:

I act as the independent specialist in this application;

do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the undertaking of the proposed activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014;

I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;

I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;

all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

I am aware that a person is guilty of an offence in terms of Regulation 48 (1) of the EIA Regulations, 2014, if that person provides incorrect or misleading information. A person who is convicted of an offence in terms of sub-regulation 48(1) (a)-(e) is liable to the penalties as contemPhotographd in section 49B(1) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998).

Signature of the specialist:

Alletson Ecologicals

Name of company (if applicable):

D.J. Alletson

25 January 2019

Date:

ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM AND WETLAND AREAS IN THE …

Documents

Transcript of ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM AND WETLAND AREAS IN THE …