Prepared by: Scherman Colloty & Associates Rail Link... · EIA application to the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). This document follows on from results obtained

Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed

DAVEL YARD EXPANSIONDEA Ref no 14/12/16/3/3/2/551

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTEIA ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:AURECON South Africa (Pty) Ltd

1040 Burnett StreetHatfield

TSHWANE

Prepared by:Scherman Colloty & Associates

Postnet Suite 25Private Bag 1672GRAHAMSTOWN

6140

September 2013

SPECIALIST REPORT DETAILS

This report has been prepared as per the requirements of the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Regulations and the National Environmental ManagementAct (Act 107 of 1998), any subsequent amendments and any relevantNational and / or Provincial Policies related to biodiversity assessments.

Report prepared by: Dr. Brian Colloty Pr.Sci.Nat. (Ecology) / Certified EAP /Member SAEIES & SASAqS and Ms Sandy van der Waal MSc.(Environmental Science & GIS)

Expertise / Field of Study of authors:

Brian holds the following degrees, BSc (Hons) Zoology, MSc Botany (Rivers),Ph.D Botany Conservation Importance rating (Estuaries) and has conductedecological assessments from 2002 to present.

I, Dr. Brian Michael Colloty declare that this report has been preparedindependently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by theNational Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)

Signed:… ……………… Date: ……30 September2013…………

Assisted By: Ms Deborah Vromans

Expertise / Field of Study: ND Horticulture, BA Environmental &Geographical Science, MSc Botany. Botanical, riparian, wetland and estuarineassessments, ecological assessments, Environmental Impact Assessments,Biodiversity Planning.

I, Ms Deborah Vromans declare that this report has been preparedindependently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by theNational Department of Environmental Affairs.

Signed: Date: ……30 September2013…………

This document contains intellectual property and propriety information that isprotected by copyright in favour of Scherman Colloty & Associates cc. The documentmay therefore not be reproduced, or used without the prior written consent ofScherman Colloty & Associates cc. This document is prepared exclusively for

AURECON South Africa (Pty) Ltd and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright, tradesecrets, and intellectual property law and practices of SOUTH AFRICA

Ecological assessment – September 2013

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Scherman Colloty & Associates 5 TFR Davel yard


List of Tables

List of Plates



ACRONYMS



1 Introduction

1.1Project background

Scherman Colloty & Associates cc (SC&A) was appointed by Aurecon SouthAfrica (Pty) Ltd (Aurecon) as an independent specialist to evaluate the currentstate and ecological importance of the natural environment for the proposedTransnet Freight Rail Davel Yard Expansion. This study will form part of theEIA application to the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

This document follows on from results obtained during a literature survey and,as well as utilising information from previous studies subjected to similarenvironmental conditions (e.g. soil form, topography, catchments andagricultural activities). A site visit was then conducted in mid-September 2013,to verify the information obtained and ground-truth areas of particular concern.

Several important national and provincial conservation plans were alsoreviewed, with the results of those studies being included in this report. Mostconservation plans are produced at a coarse scale so the actual status of thestudy area will then be determined during this EIA phase of the study.

1.2 Terms of reference The following Terms of Reference based on specialist knowledge of the study area and theapproving authority requirements were established:

Objectives:

• To provide a scoping desktop assessment of ecological issues (Phase 1) prior toconducting the EIA ecological site visit (Phase 2).

• To describe the relevant ecological (terrestrial & aquatic) baseline conditions relating tothe study area;

• To provide an inventory of communities/species/taxa confirmed in the area ofinvestigation after the field studies (Phase 2);


DEA National Department of Environmental Affairs, cited as DEAT inolder literature

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment as per the NationalEnvironmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) and asamend August 2010

GIS Geographic Information SystemMBCP Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation PlanM&R (2006) Mucina and Rutherford (2006)POSA Plants of South Africa, a PRECIS related database hosted by

SANBIPRECIS National Herbarium Pretoria (PRE) Computerised Information

SystemSANBI South African National Biodiversity InstituteSC&A Scherman Colloty & AssociatesVegMap Vegetation Map of South Africa, as per Mucina & Rutherford

(2006) as amended (Source: BGIS)


• To describe the anticipated environmental impacts on the vegetation and natural animallife (terrestrial and aquatic) in the area;

• To describe how the negative environmental impacts as described above should bemanaged (Phase 2); and

• To consider the cumulative impacts of this proposed development on the natural plant andanimal life with respect to providing specific guidelines to the Environmental Managementand Monitoring Plans (Phase 2).

This report will thus focus of the Phase 2 or EIA related aspects to assessing the potentialimpacts of the proposed rail development and providing suitable recommendations andmitigations to minimise any environmental degradation.



Additional sources of information, amongst other included:

• South African Bird, Mammal and Frog Atlas Data Red Data books;

• South African Biodiversity Information Facility;

• PRECIS, Plants of South Africa (POSA);

• Threatened Species Programme;

• Provincial ordinances;

• Spatial Development Frameworks; and

• Biodiversity / conservation plans.

1.3 Limitations

In order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of both thefloral and faunal components of both the terrestrial and aquatic systems, aswell as the status of endemic, rare or threatened species in any given area,assessments should always consider temporal and spatial scales within thestudy. However, due to time and budget constraints, long-term studies arerarely feasible, resulting in most EIA specialist assessments being once offsurveys.

Therefore, due to the scope of the work presented in this report, a detailedinvestigation of all, or part of, the proposed alignments was not possible. Itshould be emphasised that information, as presented in this document, onlyhas reference to the study area(s) as indicated on the accompanying maps.Therefore, this information cannot be applied to any other area withoutdetailed investigation.

Furthermore, additional information may come to light during a later stage ofthe process or development particularly as the area during the surveys wasvery dry or burnt. This limited the number of species being observed,especially any bulbs, forbs or invertebrates.

1.4 Disclaimer

This company and/or specialist investigators do not accept any responsibilityfor conclusions, suggestions, limitations and recommendations made in goodfaith, based on the information presented to them, obtained from the surveysor requests made to them at the time of this report.



1.5 Site location

The proposed yard is located at the small town of Davel, approximately 20kmnorth east of Bethal in the Mpumalanga Province.

The present day land use around the alignment is characterised by ruralurban development, KwaDela Township, subsistence agriculture (cattle), largescale commercial crop production and a large modified endorheic pan(depression). Notably the existing rail lines already encroach on this wetlandfeature (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The proposed new Davel Yard line (orange) and the existinglines indicated by red arrows. Inset indicates the wetland encroachmentby the existing rail lines

2 Methods

The following general methods were used in assessing the study area, whichincluded the 35m wide footprint of the proposed rail line area and 500m zoneeither side of the alignment with regard wetlands:

Flora:• Provide a description of the general floristic species diversity and

community composition;• Evaluating the occurrence of potential Red Data taxa;• Demarcating physiognomic units based on floristic relevès; and• Provide an indication on the ecological condition (successional stage) of

the predetermined physiognomic units.

Fauna:



• A detailed faunal assessment based on field observation;• An avifaunal assessment with particular reference towards the occurrence

species sensitive to the placement of transmission lines;• An evaluation of the occurrence of any of the listed conservation needy

species.

Wetlands and rivers:

As highlighted in the above sections a large proportion of the available habitatrelated to sensitive or important taxa, are associated with the wetland /riverine / moist habitats. The EIA phase thus focused on critical assessment ofthe wetland / riverine systems in the following way:• Delineation of any important wetland and river boundaries using the

requisite techniques based upon the latest Wetland Classification systems(SANBI, 2009);

• Indicate suitable buffer zones as prescribed by the relevant provincialpolicies / conservation plans

• Assess the status of the observed faunal and floral populations observed;• Assess the potential impacts on the functioning of these systems.

A detailed methodology with regard the wetland assessment is containedwithin the Appendix 1.

3 Results

1.6 Terrestrial habitats

The study area is dominated by a mixture of urban and agriculturaldevelopment, with the associated infrastructure such as roads, dams and thenearby Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW). It was also noted during thesite survey that several of the sewer lines supplying the WWTW were blockedor overflowing, with effluent flowing into the pan from the KwaDela Housingarea (Plate 1).



Plate 1: Sewage from the Kwadela flowing towards the pan

Plate 2: The typical environment surrounding the proposed alignmentshowing signs of overgrazing and previous burns.



According to the Mucina and Rutherford (2006) Vegmap, two regionalvegetation types are present along the rail line route (Figure 2). Theseinclude:

• Soweto Highveld Grassland (Gm 8)• Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetland (Azonal – Azf 3)

The Biodiversity Act (No 10 of 2004) (Amendment December 2011), lists 225threatened ecosystems based on vegetation type (Vegmap). Both thesevegetation types are listed by this Act as Vulnerable. Therefore as aminimum, the Act stipulates that a minimum of a Basic Assessment must beconducted when an activity is proposed within these ecosystems and shouldany of these vegetation types in a natural state be lost the significance of theimpact should be rated as HIGH.

However, little of the natural vegetation remains within the study area, due tothe impacts already listed (housing, grazing and farming), together with thepresent road and rail infrastructure. Thus not only has the environment beenimpacted upon (loss of species diversity) but a large degree of habitatfragmentation has also occurred.

Figure 2: The position of the Davel Yard in relation to the regionalvegetation types as defined by Mucina & Rutherford (2006) andconsidered Vulnerable by NEM:BA.

The following species were observed during the survey:

Species Common Name Conservation Status

CARA status(whereapplicable)



PlantsHalopcarpha scaposa Bietou - -Solanum spp - Category 1Themeda triandra Rooigras - -Aristida junciformis Ngongoni three awn - -Oenothera tetraptera Evening primrose - -Gomphocarpus fructicosus Milk weed - -Selago spp - - -Plantago lanceolata Ribwort - -Senecio spp - - -Hyparrhenia hirta Common Thatching Grass - -Cymbopogon plurinodes Narrow-leaved turpentine

grass- -

Digitaria eriantha Finger grass - -Acacia mearnsii Black wattle - Category 2Eucalyptus spp - - Category 2Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda - Category 3BirdsVanellus armatus Blacksmith lapwing -Bostrychia hagedash Hadeda ibis -Motacilla capensis Cape Wagtail -Passer domesticus House sparrow -Bubulcus ibis Western cattle egret -Corvus capensis Cape Crow -Ardea melanocephala Black-headed heron -Fulica cristata Red-knobbed coots -



1.7 Aquatic environment

The proposed yard extension falls within a catchment contain two smallstreams / rivers and the endorheic pan (Figure 3) forming part of the Viskuile(B11A) and Renosterloopspruit (C11F) catchments of the Olifants and Vaalriver systems respectively. All of these systems have been classified as partof the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Atlas (NFEPA) project (Nel etal., 2012) (Figure 4).

Figure 3: The project locality in relation to the respective quaternarycatchments (Info Source DWA & Google Earth).

Most of the wetlands systems, although forming part of the important HighveldGrassland Mesic Grassland Wetland Cluster, would be considered man-madeor artificial and thus have a conservation rating score of Z1 or Z2, i.e. lowconservation importance (Figure 4). However several wetland areasassociated with the local streams were rated with a condition score of A/B orC, i.e. Pristine to moderately modified or largely modified respectively (Nel etal., 2012).

Notably the Endorheic pan found encircled by the proposed line, is shown tobe highly modified and with little or no function (Nel et al., 2012 – metadata).This is possibly due to all the surrounding developments and is evident in theaerial images (Figure 4).

Figure 5 depicts the remaining wetland systems, namely the endorheic panand a seep wetland, with the proposed 50m buffer and the Section 21 WaterUse License Application (WULA) 500m zone, i.e. sections of the alignment willrequire a WULA to be submitted to the Department of Water Affairs. It is thusnoted that a portion of the proposed development falls within the ecologicalbuffer and would usually not be supported, thus requiring the proponent toadjust the alignment, however this portion of the wetland area has already bealtered by roads and rail networks (See Figure 1).



The Present Ecological State of these systems was rated as follows in thisstudy based on the methodology contained in the Appendix 1:

Wetland Present EcologicalState

EcologicalImportance &Sensitivity

Endorheic pan D ModerateSeep B/C Moderate

Figure 4: A map illustrating the major rivers and wetlands areas withinthe study region



Figure 5: Delineated wetland systems with the prescribed 50mecological buffer and the 500m Water Use License Application zone



1.8 Biodiversity conservation plans

3.1.1 Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (MBCP)The provincial conservation authority together with a broad range ofstakeholders assessed the conservation status of the province using the GISbased C-Plan Conservation Planning System (Ferrar & Lötter, 2007). Thisproduced a conservation map of the province (Figure 6). This was alsoconducted for the aquatic environment, although most of the data used hasnow been used in the NFEPA assessment (Figure 7). .

The Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan maps biodiversity into sixcategories, depending on level of importance, as indicated in the text tablebelow (Lötter and Ferrar, 2006).

Colourcode

Category and Description

Protected Areas: Formally Protected Areas (PA) managed forbiodiversity conservation and sustainable use e.g. commercial naturebased tourism, education, and limited production and harvesting of wildresources, especially game animals. All PAs contribute to meetingbiodiversity targets. AREA: 4.4% (+10.4% KNP).

Irreplaceable Areas: Areas of highest biodiversity value supportingunique biodiversity features e.g. endangered species, rare habitats,which have already been severely transformed and which requireprotection. Developments must be controlled to ensure conservationobjectives. AREA: 2.4%

Highly Significant Areas: Very few options remain to meetbiodiversity targets in these areas. Natural vegetation cover should bemaintained or restored. Developments must be compatible withconservation objectives, e.g. well managed livestock grazing, smallscale, biodiversity friendly. AREA: 12.3%

Important & Necessary Areas: These areas meet biodiversity targetswhile minimising land use conflict. Larger areas will be requiredelsewhere for targets to be met, if biodiversity is lost in this category.There are options for development. Developments must be compatiblewith conservation objectives. AREA: 9.5%

Least Concern: Natural areas not currently required for meetingbiodiversity targets, but which contribute to functioning ecosystems andecological connectivity. A greater variety of development choices existsin these areas. AREA: 25.2%

No natural habitat remaining: Transformed areas e.g. urban,industrial and cultivated areas. AREA: 35.8%

Ecological Corridors: Ecological corridors allow for long termbiological movement in response to environmental change, and arelocated along rivers and altitudinal gradients, preferably along intactnatural habitat while linking important biodiversity.



Management guidelines include the maintenance of natural vegetation,minimization of natural habitat loss, and restoration of degradedhabitats. Developments must be compatible with conservationobjectives.

It is also important to note that this information was also used in determiningthe status of the NEM:BA Threatened Ecosystems discussed above for theprovince.

The Davel Yard line will traverse a number of important habitats, which areshown in Figure 4 as either:

• Highly significant – development criteria = “linear developments arerestricted”

• Important or necessary (ecosystem functioning or corridors) -development criteria = “linear developments are restricted”

The remaining areas were categorised as follows:• No Natural habitat remaining - development criteria = “linear

developments are permitted”• Least concern - development criteria = “linear developments are

permitted”

Figure 7 indicates that a portion of the line falls within a Highly Significantcatchment. This is possibly due to this catchment forming part of thecatchment divide between the Vaal River (Renosterloopspruit – C11F) and theOlifants (Viskuile – B11A). Most of these rivers are categorised with a PESscore Class C or Moderately Modified, which is a rather unique occurrenceconsidering the general landscape change that has occurred over time.

Figure 6: A map illustrating the results of the Mpumalanga BiodiversityConservation Plan results for the Terrestrial environment (Ferrar & Lötter,2007)



Figure 7: A map illustrating the results of the Mpumalanga BiodiversityConservation Plan results for the aquatic environment (Ferrar & Lötter,2007)

3.1.2 Land Use Guidelines

A set of land use guidelines are recommended for each category delineatedon the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan Map (Refer Table 1). TheRailway is a Linear Engineering Structure, which is permitted within Important& Necessary Areas, Ecological Corridors and areas of Least Concern, butwith restrictions to reduce the impact on biodiversity, whereas it is notpermitted within Protected Areas, Irreplaceable areas and Highly Significantareas. However, it should be noted that the greater part of the proposed routefollows the existing alignment.Table 1: Recommended land use guidelines for the categories in theMpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Y = Yes, N = No, R =Restricted)

LAND USE

Prot

ecte

d A

reas

IRR

EPLA

CE-

AB

LE

HIG

HLY

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

IMPO

RTA

NT

&N

ECES

SARY

ECO

LOG

ICA

LC

OR

RID

OR

S

LEA

ST C

ON

CER

N

Conservation Management Y Y Y Y Y YExtensive Game Farming Y Y Y Y Y YExtensive Livestock Production R Y Y Y Y YRural Recreational Development N N R R R YRural Communal Settlement N N R R R RDryland Crop Cultivation N N N N R YIntensive Animal Farming N N N N R YIrrigated Crop Cultivation N N N N R YTimber Production N N N N R YUrban & Business development N N N N N RMajor Development Projects N N N N N Y



Linear Engineering Structures N N N R R RWater Projects & Transfers N N R R R RUnderground Mining N N R R R NSurface Mining, Dumping & Dredging N N N N R R

MPUMALANGA VEGETATION MAP (2006)

The Mpumalanga Vegetation Map is a minor refinement of the South AfricanVegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2005) (Figure X). The habitatsintersecting and surrounding the railway are Threatened habitats i.e. CriticallyEndangered or Vulnerable (Table 2).

Table 2: Vegetation habitat types intersecting and surrounding therailway with associated Conservation Target, Ecosystem Status,protection status and Biome

Name Conservation Target Ecosystem Status Protection Status Biome

Granite Lowveld 19% Vulnerable Moderately protected Savanna BiomeKaNgwane MontaneGrassland 24% Vulnerable Hardly protected

GrasslandBiome

Swaziland Sour Bushveld 19% Vulnerable Poorly protected Savanna Biome

Delagoa Lowveld 19% Vulnerable Moderately protected Savanna Biome

Zululand Lowveld 19% Vulnerable Poorly protected Savanna Biome

Lowveld Riverine Forest 100%CriticallyEndangered Well protected Forests



4 Potential impact description

The following issues and impacts have been identified together with potentialimpacts which will be assessed:

Issue 1 – Destruction of natural habitat.Impact 1 - loss of habitat and removal of vegetation – terrestrialImpact 2 - loss of habitat and removal of vegetation – wetland and

waterbodiesImpact 3 - Loss of corridors and habitat fragmentation

Issue 2 – Loss of endangered species (aquatic and terrestrial)Impact 4 – Loss of rare and endangered species

Issue 3 – Removal of topsoils and soil erosionImpact 5 – an increase in soil erosion

Issue 4 – Introduction of alien vegetationImpact 6 – introduction of alien or invasive plants

Issue 5 – Changes to hydrological regimesImpact 7 – Hydrological impacts on wetlands

Note the impacts on the hydrological environment (rivers) and water qualitywith regard the aquatic environment well be addressed in a separate study.

5 Impact Assessment

1.9 Impact 1: Loss of habitat and removal ofvegetation – terrestrial environment

Nature of the impact

Due to the nature of the project, vegetation will be cleared and replaced withrail infrastructure, service roads and stormwater management systems.

Significance of impacts without mitigation

The construction phase would have the greatest impact on the surroundingvegetation. This will definitely result in the disturbance of the vegetation andsoils within the site especially when considering the linear aspects of theproject such as the rail lines and ancillary works mentioned above. Due to thesite scale of disturbance in the construction period on the surroundingvegetation when compared to its current state, i.e. the magnitude would beLow, the overall significance of would be rated as Low, without mitigation(Table 3).



The operational phase of the project would have limited impact on thesurrounding vegetation once the plants are allowed to re-establish themselvesin any remaining areas; thus the overall intensity would remain be Very Lowas the species assemblages would have altered from natural. It is alsoanticipated that the grazing pressure on the vegetation would also continuebut would be equitable to the present state and thus similar to the No-Gooption.

Proposed mitigation• Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum, keeping the width

and length of the earth works to a minimum and the floodplain /wetlands habitats identified should be retained within the developmentfootprint in its current state.

• Construction activities should not exceed the proposed constructionboundaries by more than 15m to avoid the secondary impact ofconstruction and increasing the areas that would require clearing andrehabilitation

• A search and rescue operation for both plants and fauna (particularlyreptiles) must be initiated prior to the commencement of anyconstruction once the required permits are in place. Applications mustbe submitted to the Department of Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry(DAFF) and the Provincial Department of the Mpumalanga Departmentof Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (DEDET), whereapplicable.

• Re-vegetation as part of a rehabilitation plan is always advocated,however due the nature of the vegetation, this may not be practical. Itis suggested that the shallow topsoil layer be stockpiled separatelyfrom the subsoil layers, should the excavation exceed 0.5 m. Whenthe construction has been completed, then the topsoil layers, whichcontain seed and vegetative material, should be reinstated last thusallowing plants to rapidly re-colonise the bare soil areas.

• Alien plant regrowth should also be monitored, and any such speciesshould be removed during the construction phase.

Significance of impacts with mitigation

The construction phase would have the greatest impact on the surroundingvegetation. This will definitely result in the disturbance of the vegetation andsoils within the site especially when considering the linear aspects of theproject such as the rail lines and ancillary works mentioned above. Due to thesite scale of disturbance in the construction period on the surroundingvegetation when compared to its current state, i.e. the magnitude would below, the overall significance of would be rated as Very Low, with or withoutmitigation (Table 4).

The operational phase of the project would have limited impact on thesurrounding vegetation once the plants are allowed to re-establish themselvesin any remaining areas; thus the overall intensity would remain be Very Lowas the species assemblages would have altered from natural.



1.10 Impact 2: Loss of habitat and removal ofvegetation – aquatic environment


Due to the nature of the project vegetation will be cleared and replaced withrail infrastructure, service roads and stormwater management systems. Theincrease in rail footprint would have an impact on the observed pan withregard physical loss of catchment, wetland area and changes to the localhydrology. This would then reduce the physical and as well as the functionalattributes of the wetland system. This could also happen to the other wetlandand riverine areas to the West of the proposed development area, especiallydue to the placement of the proposed yard infrastructure. However severalimpacts already occur within and adjacent to these systems and the proposedlayout would seem to have little further impact considering the size of thefootprints or the current state or lack of connectivity within the site.

Significance of impacts without mitigation

The construction phase would have the greatest impact on the surroundingwetland areas. This will definitely result in the disturbance of the vegetationand soils within the site. Due to the site scale of disturbance in theconstruction period on the surrounding vegetation when compared to itscurrent state, i.e. the magnitude would be Medium, the overall significance ofwould be rated as Low, without mitigation (Table 3).

The operational phase of the project would have limited impact on thesurrounding wetland areas once the plants are allowed to re-establishthemselves in any remaining areas; thus the overall intensity would remain beLow as the species assemblages would have altered from natural. It is alsoanticipated that the grazing pressure on the vegetation would also continuebut would be equitable to the present state and thus similar to the No-Gooption.



Proposed mitigation• All designs should include means to protect or maintain the current

hydrological regime, thus maintaining and not impeding or diverting anysurface water flows.

• Stormwater management systems should include energy dissipationstructures to minimise the potential impact of erosion andsedimentation.

• Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum, keeping the widthand length of the earth works to a minimum and the floodplain /wetlands habitats identified should be retained within the developmentfootprint in its current state.


• A search and rescue operation for both plants and fauna (particularlyreptiles) must be initiated prior to the commencement of anyconstruction once the required permits are in place. Applications mustbe submitted to the Department of Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry(DAFF) and the Provincial Department of the Mpumalanga Departmentof Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (DEDET).



Significance of impacts with mitigation

The construction phase would have the greatest impact on the surroundingwetland areas. This will definitely result in the disturbance of the vegetationand soils within the site. Due to the site scale of disturbance in theconstruction period on the surrounding vegetation when compared to itscurrent state, i.e. the magnitude would be low, the overall significance ofwould be rated as Low, with mitigation (Table 4).

The operational phase of the project would have limited impact on thesurrounding wetland areas once the plants are allowed to re-establishthemselves in any remaining areas; thus the overall intensity would remain beLow as the species assemblages would have altered from natural. It is alsoanticipated that the grazing pressure on the vegetation would also continuebut would be equitable to the present state and thus similar to the No-Gooption.



1.11 Impact 3: Loss of corridors and habitatfragmentation


Due to the nature of the project vegetation will be cleared and replaced withrail lines and supporting infrastructure and this will result in additional habitatfragmentation both within the terrestrial and aquatic environments, i.e. theelevated embankments on which the rail lines would disrupt movementcorridors. The construction phase would have the greatest impact in terms ofhabitat destruction, but the actual impact of fragmentation would occur in theoperational phase.

Significance of impact without mitigation

With the above mitigation measures in place, the definite impact on thefragmentation would remain within the Local area, resulting in a long-termimpact of Medium magnitude for the operational phase, resulting in a Mediumsignificance (Table 3). This is assuming that the proposed infrastructure willallow for culverts in suitable areas to maintain links within the aquatic andterrestrial environment.

Proposed mitigation

• Where extensive or elevated (>2m in height) embankments arerequired it is advised that additional culverts are installed to provideaccess for fauna.

• Wetland and floodline areas must be excluded from development as faras possible, i.e. designs should include means to span these areasthus maintain open ecological networks.

• Where culverts are installed across drainage lines and watercourses,the proposed designs should ensure that natural ground levels aremaintained, i.e. the culvert base does pose as an obstacle for themovement of aquatic organisms (Plate 3).






Plate 3: An example of an elevated culvert that has raised the level ofriverbed resulting in a form of habitat fragmentation

Significance of impact with mitigation

With the above mitigation measures in place, the definite impact on thefragmentation would remain within the Local area, resulting in a long-termimpact of Low magnitude for the operational phase, resulting in a Lowsignificance (Table 4). This is assuming that the proposed infrastructure willallow for culverts in suitable areas to maintain links within the aquatic andterrestrial environment.

1.12 Impact 4: Loss of species of special concern

Nature of impact

Any loss of systems could possibly result in the loss of species of specialconcern within the habitats as a result of their destruction during theconstruction phase. Changes in the hydrological region in the operationalphase, could limit the presence of these species, should surface water flowsbe diverted. This would then limit the potential formation of the requiredhabitats (fauna and flora).

However, no flora and fauna species of special concern were evident duringthe study within the wetland or water course areas, as well as the terrestrialhabitats, possibly due to the intensity of farming, housing and railinfrastructure already found in the study area. The lack of any rainfall alsoseemed to precluded the early growth or appearance of species known to



occur in the area (Appendix 2) so as precautionary step, it is important that allwetland areas are retained and allowed to function, as a number of protectedspecies listed by the Mpumalanga Nature Conservation Act (Act 10 of 1998)(Appendix 3) do occur within the region.


The impact would be rated as a regional impact due to the species underconsideration and the lack of potential habitat still remaining. The impactwould persist into the long-term however the unlikely probability of findingsuch species both the magnitude of the impact would be Low (Table 3). Theimpact would be rated as Medium without mitigation due to confidence in thisassessment based in the reasons listed above.

Proposed mitigation

• All designs should include means to protect or maintain the currenthydrological regime, thus maintaining and not impeding or diverting anysurface water flows.

• Stormwater management systems should include energy dissipationstructures to minimise the potential impact of erosion andsedimentation.

• Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum, keeping the widthand length of the earth works to a minimum and the floodplain /wetlands habitats identified should be retained within the developmentfootprint in its current state.


• A search and rescue operation for both plants and fauna (particularlyreptiles) must be initiated prior to the commencement of anyconstruction once the required permits are in place. Applications mustbe submitted to the Department of Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry(DAFF) and the Provincial Department of the Mpumalanga Departmentof Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (DEDET).






The impact would be rated as a regional impact due to the species underconsideration and the lack of potential habitat still remaining. The impactwould persist into the long-term however the unlikely probability of findingsuch species together with the proposed mitigations both the magnitude andsignificance of the impact would be Low (Table 4).

1.13 Impact 5: The potential spread of alienvegetation


Only a few small areas did contain alien plants, and these are mostly limitedto disturbed areas near the homes in KwaDela and exotic Acacia mearnsiiand Eucalyptus stands for example.


The impact on the vegetation would remain within the site, with naturalre-vegetation happening within a Long time period; however the potential ofalien vegetation would definitely be present, resulting in a Medium impactsignificance (Table 3) as the magnitude would be Medium.

Proposed mitigation• Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum, keeping the width

and length of the earth works to a minimum. • Re-vegetation as part of a rehabilitation plan is always advocated,

however to the low annual rainfall (normal conditions), this may not bepractical. It is suggested that the shallow topsoil layer be stockpiledseparately from the subsoil layers, should the excavation exceed 0.5m. When the construction has been completed, then the topsoil layers,which contain seed and vegetative material, should be reinstated lastthus allowing plants to rapidly re-colonise the bare soil areas.



With the above mitigation measures in place, the impact on the vegetationwould remain within the site, with natural re-vegetation happening within ashort time period, resulting in a Very Low impact significance with mitigation(Table 4). This is also based on the fact that during the operational phaseon-going clearing and maintenance practices will be employed by Transnet.

1.14 Impact 6: Increase in sedimentation anderosion




This impact would be also categorised as a cumulative impact, as it wouldimpact on the region with regard potential changes to downstream habitatquality. The increase in any surface water flow velocities within the site wouldthen increase the risk of soil erosion and later downstream sedimentation.Should sediments eventually reach the downstream systems, this could haveimpacts on sediments loads, but also smother benthic habitats (plants andinvertebrates).


The magnitude of this impact would definitely be Medium due to the site scaleof the operations in the construction phase as well as during the operationalphase, i.e. long-term, thus resulting in a Medium significance (Table 3).



Proposed mitigation

During construction, erosion should be monitored while areas of vegetationare being cleared. Hard engineered surfaces that increase surface waterrun-off should be limited and a stormwater management plan should becreated for the development for the operations phase.


The magnitude of this impact would be Low due to the site scale of the worksin the construction phase as well as during the operational phase. Shouldsurface water run-off be managed, by way of mitigation, using a stormwatermanagement plan, then overall significance would be Very Low for theconstruction and operations phase as the impact would only be probable(Table 4).

1.15 Impact 7: Changes to the hydrological regimewithin the wetland environment


Due to the nature of the proposed project this would be an operational phaseimpact, limited to when the rail and water course crossing features and anyerosion protection structures have been constructed. These structures couldinterfere with natural run-off patterns, either diverting flows or increasing thevelocity of surface water flows. This has the potential to increase or decreasesurface water flows into wetland areas.


Although permanent changes to the local hydrological regime are probable,the magnitude of the impact in the operational phase would be Medium but ona site wide scale in the long-term, thus the overall significance of this impactwould be Medium (Table 3)

Proposed mitigation

• Surface water management features such as the crossing of drainagelines, should be placed in manner that flows remain unaltered in termsof direction, velocity and volume, thus the natural base flows, i.e.hydrological regime within these systems is maintained.

• It is also important that during construction and operations that excessballast is not allowed to enter any water course areas, culverts etc.,which if so doing alter these systems by forming impoundments asshown in Plate 4.



Plate 4: Excess ballast falls into the culverts that creates berms, whichthen impedes flow


Although permanent changes to the local hydrological regime are probable,the magnitude of the impact in the operational phase would be Medium but ona site wide scale in the long-term, thus the overall significance of this impactwould be Low with mitigation (Table 4).



Table 3: Summary Impact table for the Davel Yard without mitigation

Impact Extent Magnitude Duration Probability Significance Confidence Reversibility

Without mitigation

Impact 1 - loss of habitat and removal of vegetation –terrestrial

Site Medium Construction period Definite Low Certain Reversible

Impact 2 - loss of habitat and removal of vegetation –wetland and waterbodies


Impact 3 - Loss of corridors & habitat fragmentation Local Medium Long-term Definite Medium Certain Reversible

Impact 4 – Loss of rare and endangered species Regional Low Long-term Unlikely Medium Sure Reversible

Impact 5 – Introduction of alien and invasive species Site Medium Long-term Definitely Medium Certain Reversible

Impact 6 – An increase in soil erosion Site Medium Long-term Definite Medium Certain Reversible

Impact 7 - Hydrological impacts on wetlands Site Medium Long-term Probable Medium Certain Reversible

Table 4: Summary Impact table for the Davel Yard with mitigation

Impact Extent Magnitude Duration Probability Significance Confidence Reversibility

With mitigation

Impact 1 - loss of habitat and removal of vegetation –terrestrial

Site Low Construction period Definite Very Low Certain Reversible

Impact 2 - loss of habitat and removal of vegetation –wetland and waterbodies


Impact 3 - Loss of corridors & habitat fragmentation Local Medium Long-term Definite Low Certain Reversible

Impact 4 – Loss of rare and endangered species Regional Low Long-term Unlikely Low Sure Reversible

Impact 5 – Introduction of alien and invasive species Site Low Medium-term Probable Very Low Certain Reversible

Impact 6 – An increase in soil erosion Site Low Construction period Probable Very Low Certain Reversible

Impact 7 - Hydrological impacts on wetlands Site Medium Long-term Probable Low Certain Reversible



6 Conclusion and recommendations

The results, based on the available information and the site investigations,show that the proposed Davel Yard line could impact on a number of sensitiveand / or important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. However several of themetadata sources (Ferrar & Lötter, 2007) for the spatial data shown in thisreport also indicate that large areas of habitat at a broad scale are degradedor transformed. This is also supported by the observed land use charactershown in the aerial images (Google Earth). This was confirmed during thesite visit.

It would therefore seem based on the site visit and the type of habitatsobserved that the proposed extension of rail lines and yard would have alimited impact on both the terrestrial aquatic environment if the mitigations andrecommendations are upheld together with the following aspects that must beincluded as well as submission of the requisite Water Use LicenseApplications (WULA) to the Department of Water Affairs:

Compilation and implementation of a Construction EnvironmentalManagement Programme (CEMP), that provides specifications with regardsto:

Rehabilitation with indigenous plants species. (i.e. aRehabilitation Plan).

Plant removal within the construction footprint only. Alien clearing and management within the development footprint

/ construction area. Detailed storm-water management and erosion control plan. Waste management:

(i) to prevent accidental leakage of pollutants e.g. oil, fuel,cement,

(ii) to identify procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins,no littering or burning policy and the maintenance ofablution facilities, including the disposal of liquid andhazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal site,

(iii) to ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles ormaintenance activities occur proximate to thenon-perennial stream (drainage area) to the west of thesites; and

(iv) to designate an area for the construction camp (whichincludes ablution facilities, storage of hazardous wastes,maintenance stations etc.) at least 100 m away from thenon-perennial stream (drainage area) to the west of thesites

Other generic mitigation measures associated with construction. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to oversee the

implementation of the CEMP and the Record of Decision(Environmental Authorisation).



Furthermore the WULA process will require the development of a monitoringprogramme to ensure conformance with the EMP, but also to monitor anyenvironmental issues and impacts, which have not been accounted for in theEMP or could result in significant environmental impacts for which correctiveaction is required.

The period and frequency of monitoring will most likely be stipulated by theEnvironmental Authorisation. Where this is not clearly dictated, the ECOshould determine and stipulate the period and frequency of monitoringrequired in consultation with relevant stakeholders and authorities. TheResident Engineer and ECO must ensure that the monitoring is conductedand reported.

The following protocols are recommended with regards to monitoringand should be read in conjunction with the CEMP which has alreadybeen finalised:

• Weekly environmental auditing.• Monthly or quarterly environmental audit reports to be submitted to the

Department of Water Affairs (DWA), or as advised by DWA.• Immediate notification of transgression to the Site Manager (& Project

Contractor/Engineer) and provision of suitable mitigation measures torectify environmental damage.

• If transgressions continue, report such incidences to the DWAimmediately, although such incidences must be recorded in the auditreports.

To this end, it is suggested that the Proponent, Contractor and ECO alsoconsult the following guideline as reference:

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, February 2005. EnvironmentalBest Practice Specifications: Construction Integrated EnvironmentalManagement Sub-Series No. IEMS 1.6. Third Edition. Pretoria

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, February 2005. EnvironmentalMonitoring and Auditing Guideline. Integrated Environmental ManagementSub-Series No. IEMS 1.7. Third Edition. Pretoria.



7 References

Lötter, M.C. & Ferrar, A.A. 2006. Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Planmap. Mpumalanga Parks Board, Nelspruit.

Ferrar, A.A. & Lötter, M.C. 2007. Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation PlanHandbook. Mpumalanga Tourism & Parks Agency, Nelspruit.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (2006). South African vegetation map. South African NationalBiodiversity Institute – Accessed: http://bgis.sanbi.org/vegmap/map.asp, 18September 2009.

Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., VanDeventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough,L. and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater EcosystemPriority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

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


http://bgis.sanbi.org/vegmap/map.asp


8 Appendix 1– Methods

This assessment was initiated with a survey of the pertinent literature andpast reports that exist for the study region. Maps and GeographicalInformation Systems (GIS) were then employed to ascertain which portions ofthe proposed development could have the greatest impact on the watercourses and associated habitats.

A site visit was then conducted to ground-truth the above findings, thusallowing critical comment on the possible impacts. Information was alsocollected to determine the PES and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity(EIS) for any of the affect waterbodies. These analyses were based on themodels developed for the Department of Water Affairs using a modifiedversion of the Index of Habitat Integrity (IHI) model (Kleynhans et al. 2008),with the results producing a ratings (A – F), summarised in Table 1. The IHIassess the state of a system or a small section of the system (reach), basedon rating the integrity of the following aspects and / or impacts within theinstream (riverbed) and riparian or floodplain habitats:

INSTREAM HABITAT• Water abstraction• Extent of inundation• Water quality• Flow modifications• Bed modification• Channel modification• Presence of exotic macrophytes• Presence of exotic fauna• Presence of solid waste

RIPARIAN HABITAT• Water abstraction• Extent of inundation• Water quality• Flow modifications• Channel modification• Decrease of indigenous vegetation• Exotic vegetation encroachment• Bank erosion

It should be noted that the IHI model used in this assessment was modified asthe majority of the systems were either small drainage lines or mostlyephemeral, thus the full IHI model was not used.



Table 1: Description of A – F ecological categories based on Kleynhanset al., (1999).

ECOLOGICALCATEGORY

ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONMANAGEMENTPERSPECTIVE

AUnmodified, natural.

Protected systems;relatively untouched byhuman hands; nodischarges orimpoundments allowed

B

Largely natural with few modifications. Asmall change in natural habitats andbiota may have taken place but theecosystem functions are essentiallyunchanged.

Some human-relateddisturbance, but mostlyof low impact potential

C

Moderately modified. Loss and changeof natural habitat and biota haveoccurred, but the basic ecosystemfunctions are still predominantlyunchanged.

Multiple disturbancesassociated with needfor socio-economicdevelopment, e.g.impoundment, habitatmodification and waterquality degradationD

Largely modified. A large loss of naturalhabitat, biota and basic ecosystemfunctions has occurred.

ESeriously modified. The loss of naturalhabitat, biota and basic ecosystemfunctions is extensive.

Often characterized byhigh human densitiesor extensive resourceexploitation.Managementintervention is neededto improve health, e.g.to restore flowpatterns, river habitatsor water quality

F

Critically / Extremely modified.Modifications have reached a criticallevel and the system has been modifiedcompletely with an almost complete lossof natural habitat and biota. In the worstinstances the basic ecosystem functionshave been destroyed and the changesare irreversible.

Conservation importance and sensitivity of the individual systems also knownas Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) was based on the followingcriteria based on an adaptation of the method proposed by Rountree & Malan(2010):• Habitat uniqueness• Species of conservation concern• Habitat fragmentation with regard ecological corridors• Ecosystem service (social and ecological)

The presence of any or a combination of the above criteria would result in aHIGH conservation rating if the wetland was found in a near natural state



(high PES). Should any of the habitats be found modified the conservationimportance would rate as MODERATE, unless a species of conservationconcern was observed (HIGH). Any systems that was highly modified (lowPES) or had none of the above criteria, received a LOW conservationimportance rating.

Therefore should any of the systems be rated with a high PES and with HIGHconservation importance then they would be considered as extremelysensitive to development. None of the study area systems possessed anyof these attributes, either due to their ephemeral nature, lack ofbiodiversity or were impacted upon.



The EIS categories are summarised as follows:

Very highQuaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a national oreven international level based on unique biodiversity (habitat diversity,species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers(in terms of biota and habitat) are usually very sensitive to flow modificationsand have no or only a small capacity for use.

HighQuaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique due to biodiversity(habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangeredspecies) on a national scale. These areas (in terms of biota and habitat) maybe sensitive to flow modifications but in some cases, may have a substantialcapacity for use.

ModerateQuaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a provincial orlocal scale due to biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, uniquespecies, rare and endangered species). These areas (in terms of biota andhabitat) are usually not very sensitive to flow modifications and often have asubstantial capacity for use.

Low/marginalQuaternaries/delineations that are not unique at any scale. These rivers (interms of biota and habitat) are generally not very sensitive to flowmodifications and usually have a substantial capacity. From a functional standpoint, the endorheic systems, such as those near thesite are considered important refugia for aquatic organisms, specially adaptedto ephemeral conditions, while forming a network of wetland systems betweenthe various catchments, allowing organisms to “leapfrog” form one catchmentto another. A network of wetlands also presents opportunities to organismswhen presented with disease or droughts, thus other unaffected catchmentsallow for the continuation of a species. Therefore these systems should beavoided, as they were rated as having a moderate to high sensitivity withregard the development impacts (rail construction).



Wetland classification systems

Since the late 1960’s, wetland classification systems have undergone a seriesof international and national revisions. These revisions allowed for theinclusion of additional wetland types, ecological and conservation ratingmetrics, together with a need for a system that would allude to the functionalrequirements of any given wetland (Ewart-Smith et al., 2006). Wetlandfunction is a consequence of biotic and abiotic factors, and wetlandclassification should strive to capture these aspects.

The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) in collaboration witha number of specialists and stakeholders developed the newly revised andnow accepted National Wetland Classification Systems (NWCS 2010). Thissystem comprises a hierarchical classification process of defining a wetlandbased on the principles of the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach at higherlevels, with including structural features at the finer or lower levels ofclassification (SANBI 2009).

Wetlands develop in a response to elevated water tables, linked either torivers, groundwater flows or seepage from aquifers (Parsons, 2004). Thesewater levels or flows then interact with localised geology and soil forms, whichthen determines the form and function of the respective wetlands. Water isthus the common driving force, in the formation of wetlands (DWAF, 2005). Itis significant that the HGM approach has now been included in wetlandclassification as the HGM approach has been adopted throughout the waterresources management realm with regards to the determination of thePresent Ecological State (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity(EIS) and WET-Health assessments for aquatic environments. All of thesesystems are then easily integrated using the HGM approach in line with theEco-classification process of river and wetland reserve determinations usedby the Department of Water Affairs. The Ecological Reserve of a wetland orriver is used by DWA to assess the water resource allocations whenassessing water use license applications (WULA).

The NWCS process is provided in more detail in the methods section of thereport, but some of the terms and definitions used in this document arepresent below:

Definition BoxPresent Ecological State is a term for the current ecological condition ofthe resource. This is assessed relative to the deviation from the ReferenceState. Reference State/Condition is the natural or pre-impacted condition ofthe system. The reference state is not a static condition, but refers to thenatural dynamics (range and rates of change or flux) prior to development.The PES is determined per component - for rivers and wetlands this wouldbe for the drivers: flow, water quality and geomorphology; and the bioticresponse indicators: fish, macroinvertebrates, riparian vegetation anddiatoms. PES categories for every component would be integrated into anoverall PES for the river reach or wetland being investigated. Thisintegrated PES is called the EcoStatus of the reach or wetland.



EcoStatus is the overall PES or current state of the resource. It representsthe totality of the features and characteristics of a river and its riparianareas or wetland that bear upon its ability to support an appropriate naturalflora and fauna and its capacity to provide a variety of goods and services.The EcoStatus value is an integrated ecological state made up of acombination of various PES findings from component EcoStatusassessments (such as for invertebrates, fish, riparian vegetation,geomorphology, hydrology and water quality).Licensing applications: Water users are required (by legislation) to applyfor licenses prior to extracting water resources from a water catchment. Ecoregions are geographic regions that have been delineated in atop-down manner on the basis of physical/abiotic factors. • NOTE: Forpurposes of the classification system, the ‘Level I Ecoregions’ for SouthAfrica, Lesotho and Swaziland (Kleynhans et al. 2005), which have beenspecifically developed by the Department of Water Affairs & Forestry(DWAF) for rivers but are used for the management of inland aquaticecosystems more generally, are applied at Level 2A of the classificationsystem. These Ecoregions are based on physiography, climate, geology,soils and potential natural vegetation.

Wetland definition

Although the National Wetland Classification System (SANBI, 2009) is used toclassify wetland types it is still necessary to understand the definition of awetland. Terminology currently strives to characterise a wetland not only on itsstructure (visible form), but also to relate this to the function and value of anygiven wetland.

The Ramsar Convention definition of a wetland is widely accepted as “areasof marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanentor temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt,including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does notexceed six metres” (Davis 1994). South Africa is a signatory to the RamsarConvention and therefore its extremely broad definition of wetlands has beenadopted for the proposed NWCS, with a few modifications.

Whereas the Ramsar Convention included marine water to a depth of sixmetres, the definition used for the NWCS extends to a depth of ten metres atlow tide, as this is recognised as the seaward boundary of the shallow photiczone (Lombard et al., 2005). An additional minor adaptation of the definition isthe removal of the term ‘fen’ as fens are considered a type of peatland. Theadapted definition for the NWCS is, therefore, as follows (SANBI, 2009):

WETLAND: an area of marsh, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial,permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish orsalt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does notexceed ten metres.

This definition encompasses all ecosystems characterised by the permanentor periodic presence of water other than marine waters deeper than ten



metres. The only legislated definition of wetlands in South Africa, however, iscontained within the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA), wherewetlands are defined as “land which is transitional between terrestrial andaquatic systems, where the water table is usually at, or near the surface, orthe land is periodically covered with shallow water and which land in normalcircumstances supports, or would support, vegetation adapted to life insaturated soil.” This definition is consistent with more precise workingdefinitions of wetlands and therefore includes only a subset of ecosystemsencapsulated in the Ramsar definition. It should be noted that the NWAdefinition is not concerned with marine systems and clearly distinguisheswetlands from estuaries, classifying the later as a water course (SANBI,2009). Table 1 provides a comparison of the various wetlands included withinthe main sources of wetland definitions used in South Africa.

Although a subset of Ramsar-defined wetlands was used as a starting pointfor the compilation of the first version of the National Wetland Inventory (i.e.“wetlands”, as defined by the National Water Act, together with openwaterbodies), it is understood that subsequent versions of the Inventoryinclude the full suite of Ramsar-defined wetlands in order to ensure that SouthAfrica meets its wetland inventory obligations as a signatory to the Convention(SANBI, 2009).

Wetlands must therefore have one or more of the following attributes to meetthe above definition (DWAF, 2005):

• A high water table that results in the saturation at or near the surface,leading to anaerobic conditions developing in the top 50 cm of the soil.

• Wetland or hydromorphic soils that display characteristics resultingfrom prolonged saturation, i.e. mottling or grey soils

• The presence of, at least occasionally, hydrophilic plants, i.e.hydrophytes (water loving plants).

It should be noted that riparian systems that are not permanently orperiodically inundated are not considered true wetlands, i.e. those associatedwith the drainage lines.



Table 2: Comparison of ecosystems considered to be ‘wetlands’ asdefined by the proposed NWCS, the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of1998), and ecosystems included in DWAF’s (2005) delineation manual.

Ecosystem NWCS“wetland”

NationalWater Actwetland

DWAF (2005)delineationmanual

Marine YES NO NOEstuarine YES NO NOWaterbodies deeperthan 2 m (i.e. limnetichabitats often describesas lakes or dams)

YES NO NO

Rivers, channels andcanals

YES NO1 NO

Inland aquaticecosystems that are notriver channels and areless than 2 m deep

YES YES YES

Riparian2 areas that arepermanently /periodically inundated orsaturated with waterwithin 50 cm of thesurface

YES YES YES3

Riparian 2 areas that arenot permanently /periodically inundated orsaturated with waterwithin 50 cm of thesurface

NO NO YES3

1. Although river channels and canals would generally not be regarded aswetlands in terms of the National Water Act, they are included as a‘watercourse’ in terms of the Act2 According to the National Water Act and Ramsar, riparian areas are thoseareas that are saturated or flooded for prolonged periods would be consideredriparian wetlands, opposed to non –wetland riparian areas that are onlyperiodically inundated and the riparian vegetation persists due to having deeproot systems drawing on water many meters below the surface.3 The delineation of ‘riparian areas’ (including both wetland and non-wetlandcomponents) is treated separately to the delineation of wetlands in DWAF’s(2005) delineation manual.

National Wetland Classification System method

During this study due to the nature of the wetlands and watercoursesobserved, it was decided that the newly accepted National WetlandsClassification System (NWCS) be adopted. This classification approach has



integrated aspects of the HGM approach used in the WET-Health system aswell as the widely accepted eco-classification approach used for rivers.

The NWCS (SANBI, 2009) as stated previously, uses hydrological andgeomorphological traits to distinguish the primary wetland units, i.e. directfactors that influence wetland function. Other wetland assessment techniques,such as the DWAF (2005) delineation method, only infer wetland functionbased on abiotic and biotic descriptors (size, soils & vegetation) stemmingfrom the Cowardin approach (SANBI, 2009).

The classification system used in this study is thus based on SANBI (2009)and is summarised below:

The NWCS has a six tiered hierarchical structure, with four spatially nestedprimary levels of classification (Figure 1). The hierarchical system firstlydistinguishes between Marine, Estuarine and Inland ecosystems (Level 1),based on the degree of connectivity the particular system has with the openocean (greater than 10 m in depth). Level 2 then categorises the regionalwetland setting using a combination of biophysical attributes at the landscapelevel, which operate at a broad bioregional scale.

This is opposed to specific attributes such as soils and vegetation. Level 2has adopted the following systems:• Inshore bioregions (marine)• Biogeographic zones (estuaries)• Ecoregions (Inland)

Level 3 of the NWCS assess the topographical position of inland wetlands asthis factor broadly defines certain hydrological characteristics of the inlandsystems. Four landscape units based on topographical position are used indistinguishing between Inland systems at this level. No subsystems arerecognised for Marine systems, but estuaries are grouped according to theirperiodicity of connection with the marine environment, as this would affect thebiotic characteristics of the estuary.

Level 4 classifies the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) units discussed earlier. TheHGM units are defined as follows:

(i) Landform – shape and localised setting of wetland(ii) Hydrological characteristics – nature of water movement into,

through and out of the wetland(iii) Hydrodynamics – the direction and strength of flow through the

wetland

These factors characterise the geomorphological processes within thewetland, such as erosion and deposition, as well as the biogeochemicalprocesses.

Level 5 of the assessment pertains to the classification of the tidal regimewithin the marine and estuarine environments, while the hydrological andinundation depth classes are determined for the inland wetlands. Classes are



based on frequency and depth of inundation, which are used to determine thefunctional unit of the wetlands and are considered secondary discriminatorswithin the NWCS.

Level 6 uses six descriptors to characterise the wetland types on the basis ofbiophysical features. As with Level 5, these are non-hierarchal in relation toeach other and are applied in any order, dependent on the availability ofinformation. The descriptors include:

(i) Geology;(ii) Natural vs. Artificial;(iii) Vegetation cover type;(iv) Substratum;(v) Salinity; and (vi) Acidity or Alkalinity.

It should be noted that where sub-categories exist within the abovedescriptors, hierarchical systems are employed, and these are thus nested inrelation to each other.

The HGM unit (Level 4) is the focal point of the NWCS, with the upper levels(Figure 2 – Inland systems only) providing means to classify the broadbio-geographical context for grouping functional wetland units at the HGMlevel, while the lower levels provide more descriptive detail on the particularwetland type characteristics of a particular HGM unit. Therefore Level 1 – 5deals with functional aspects, while Level 6 classifies wetlands on structuralaspects.

Figure 1: Basic structure of the National Wetland Classification System,showing how ‘primary discriminators’ are applied up to Level 4 toclassify Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Units, with ‘secondary discriminators’



applied at Level 5 to classify the tidal/hydrological regime, and‘descriptors’ applied at Level 6 to categorise the characteristics ofwetlands classified up to Level 5 (From SANBI, 2009).

Figure 2: Illustration of the conceptual relationship of HGM Units (atLevel 4) with higher and lower levels (relative sizes of the boxes showthe increasing spatial resolution and level of detail from the higher tothe lower levels) for Inland Systems (from SANBI, 2009).



Wetland condition To assess the Present Ecological State (PES) or condition of the observedwetlands, a modified Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity (DWAF, 2007) wasused. The Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity (WETLAND-IHI) is a tooldeveloped for use in the National Aquatic Ecosystem Health MonitoringProgramme (NAEHMP), formerly known as the River Health Programme(RHP). The output scores from the WETLAND-IHI model are presented in thestandard DWAF A-F ecological categories (Table 1), and provide a score ofthe Present Ecological State of the habitat integrity of the wetland systembeing examined. The author has included additional criteria into the modelbased system to include additional wetland types. This system is preferredwhen compared to systems such as WET-Health – wetland managementseries (WRC 2009), as WET-Health (Level 1) was developed with wetlandrehabilitation in mind, and is not always suitable for impact assessments.This coupled with the degraded state of the wetlands in the study area,indicated that a complex study approach was not warranted, i.e. conduct aWet-Health Level 2 and WET-Ecosystems Services study required for animpact assessment.

The WETLAND-IHI model is composed of four modules. The “Hydrology”,“Geomorphology” and “Water Quality” modules all assess the contemporarydriving processes behind wetland formation and maintenance. The lastmodule, “Vegetation Alteration”, provides an indication of the intensity ofhuman landuse activities on the wetland surface itself and how these mayhave modified the condition of the wetland. The integration of the scores fromthese 4 modules provides an overall Present Ecological State (PES) score forthe wetland system being examined. The WETLAND-IHI model is an MSExcel-based model, and the data required for the assessment are generatedduring a rapid site visit.

Additional data may be obtained from remotely sensed imagery (aerialphotos; maps and/or satellite imagery) to assist with the assessment. Theinterface of the WETLAND-IHI has been developed in a format which issimilar to DWA’s River EcoStatus models which are currently used for theassessment of PES in riverine environments.

Wetland importance and function

South Africa is a Contracting Party to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands,signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, and has thus committed itself to thisintergovernmental treaty, which provides the framework for the nationalprotection of wetlands and the resources they could provide. Wetlandconservation is now driven by the South African National Biodiversity Institute,a requirement under the National Environmental Management: BiodiversityAct (No 10 of 2004).

Wetlands are among the most valuable and productive ecosystems on earth,providing important opportunities for sustainable development (Davies and



Day, 1998). However wetlands in South Africa are still rapidly being lost ordegraded through direct human induced pressures (Nel et al., 2004).

The most common attributes or goods and services provided by wetlandsinclude:

• Improve water quality;• Impede flow and reduce the occurrence of floods;• Reeds and sedges used in construction and traditional crafts;• Bulbs and tubers, a source of food and natural medicine;• Store water and maintain base flow of rivers;• Trap sediments; and• Reduce the number of water borne diseases.

In terms of this study, the wetlands provide ecological (environmental) valueto the area acting as refugia for various wetland associated plants, butterfliesand birds.

In the past wetland conservation has focused on biodiversity as a means ofsubstantiating the protection of wetland habitat. However not all wetlandsprovide such motivation for their protection, thus wetland managers andconservationists began assessing the importance of wetland function withinan ecosystem.

Table 2 summarises the importance of wetland function when related toecosystem services or ecoservices (Kotze et al., 2008). One such example isemergent reed bed wetlands that function as transformers convertinginorganic nutrients into organic compounds (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).

Table 2: Summary of direct and indirect ecoservices provided bywetlands from Kotze et al., 2008

Ec

osy

ste

m s

erv

ices

s

up

plie

d b

y w

etl

an

ds

Indi

rect

be

ne

fits

Hyd

ro-g

eo

chem

ica

l ben

efit

s Flood attenuationStream flow regulation

Wat

er

qua

lity

en

han

cem

ent

be

nefit

s

Sediment trappingPhosphate assimilationNitrate assimilationToxicant assimilationErosion control

Carbon storageBiodiversity maintenance



Dir

ect

be

ne

fits Provision of water for human use

Provision of harvestable resources2

Provision of cultivated foodsCultural significanceTourism and recreationEducation and research

Conservation importance of the individual wetlands was based on thefollowing criteria:• Habitat uniqueness• Species of conservation concern• Habitat fragmentation with regard ecological corridors• Ecosystem service (social and ecological)

The presence of any or a combination of the above criteria would result in aHIGH conservation rating if the wetland was found in a near natural state(high PES). Should any of the habitats be found modified the conservationimportance would rate as MEDIUM, unless a Species of conservation concernwas observed (HIGH). Any system that was highly modified (low PES) or hadnone of the above criteria, received a LOW conservation importance rating.Wetlands with HIGH and MEDIUM ratings should thus be excluded fromdevelopment with incorporation into a suitable open space system, with themaximum possible buffer being applied. Wetlands which receive a LOWconservation importance rating could be included into stormwatermanagement features, but should not be developed so as to retain thefunction of any ecological corridors.



Relevant wetland legislation and policy

Locally the South African Constitution, seven (7) Acts and two (2) internationaltreaties allow for the protection of wetlands and rivers. These systems areprotected from destruction or pollution by the following:

• Section 24 of The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa;• Agenda 21 – Action plan for sustainable development of the

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) 1998;• The Ramsar Convention, 1971 including the Wetland Conservation

Programme (DEAT) and the National Wetland Rehabilitation Initiative(DEAT, 2000);

• National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), 1998 (Act No. 107of 1998) inclusive of all amendments, as well as the NEM: BiodiversityAct;

• National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998);• Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983);

and• Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No. 28

of 2002).• Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance (No. 19 of 1974)• National Forest Act (No. 84 of 1998)• National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999)

Apart from NEMA, the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA),1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983) will also apply to this project. The CARA hascategorised a large number of invasive plants together with associatedobligations of the land owner. A number of Category 1 & 2 plants were foundat all of the sites investigated, thus the contractors must take extreme care toensure the further spread of these plants doesn’t occur. This should be donethrough proper stockpile management (topsoil) and suitable rehabilitation ofdisturbed areas after construction.



9 Appendix 2: List of species of special concernList of potential Species of Conservation Concern in close proximity tothe railway alignment (CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU= Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, LC = Least Concern).

Species (Taxa) CommonRed DataListing

Amphibians

Afrixalus spinifrons Natal Banana Frog VU

Hemisus guttatus Spotted Snout-burrower VU

Hyperolius pickersgilli Pickersgill's Reed Frog EN

Birds

Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane VU

Bugeranus carunculatus Wattled Crane VU

Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel VU

Geronticus calvus Southern Bald Ibis VU

Gyps africanus White-backed Vulture NT

Gyps coprotheres Cape Vulture VU

Hirundo atrocaerulea Blue Swallow VU

Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle LC

Neotis denhami Denham's Bustard NT

Torgos tracheliotus Lappet-faced Vulture VU

Zoothera guttata Spotted Ground-thrush EN

Invertebrates

Allawrencius complex Not Listed

Allawrencius nodulosus Not Listed

Centrobolus fulgidus Not Listed

Centrobolus richardi Not Listed

Centrobolus rugulosus Not Listed

Doratogonus hoffmani Not Listed

Doratogonus zuluensis Not Listed

Edouardia conulus Not Listed

Fairy shrimp Fairy shrimp Not Listed

Gulella zuluensis Not Listed

Ingwavuma slender spined millipede Ingwavuma slender spined millipede Not Listed

Inhaca wingless grasshopper Inhaca wingless grasshopper Not Listed

Ivory striped wingless grasshopper Ivory striped wingless grasshopper Not Listed

Maputaland cannibal snail Maputaland cannibal snail Not Listed

Orange whisp Orange whisp Not Listed

Orthoporoides corrugatus Not Listed

Pennington's white mimic Pennington's white mimic Not Listed

Peter's flat backed millipede Peter's flat backed millipede Not Listed

St Lucia purple fruit chafer St Lucia purple fruit chafer Not Listed

Zinophora laminata Not Listed

Zulu buff Zulu buff Not Listed



Zulu darner Zulu darner Not Listed

Mammals

Diceros bicornis Black Rhino CR

Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah VU

Hippopotamus amphibius Hippopotamus VU

Panthera leo Lion VU

Ourebia ourebi Oribi LC

Cercopithecus mitis Samango Monkey LC

Myosorex sclateri Sclater's Forest Shrew NT

Cloeotis percivali Short-Eared Trident Bat LC

Mystromys albicaudatus White Tailed Mouse EN

Lycaon pictus Wild Dog EN

Plants

Adenium swazicum CR

Albizia suluensis EN

Alepidea amatymbica VU

Allophylus chaunostachys VU

Aloe ecklonis VU

Aloe integra VU

Aloe kniphofioides VU

Asclepias eminens VU

Asclepias gordon-grayae EN

Aspalathus gerrardii VU

Begonia dregei EN

Bonatea lamprophylla VU

Brachystelma sandersonii VU

Bruguiera gymnorrhiza VU

Cavacoa aurea VU

Celtis gomphophylla EN

Ceropegia arenaria EN

Ceropegia cimiciodora VU

Clivia miniata miniata VU

Cola natalensis VU

Curtisia dentata NT

Dierama dubium VU

Diospyros glandulifera LC

Duvernoia aconitiflora EN

Elaeodendron croceum NT

Elaeodendron zeyheri NT

Encephalartos lebomboensis EN

Encephalartos ngoyanus VU

Encephalartos senticosus VU

Eugenia pusilla CR

Eulophia chlorantha EN

Euphorbia keithii CR

Fimbristylis aphylla VU



Gardenia thunbergia CR

Habenaria woodii VU

Haemanthus pauculifolius VU

Heywoodia lucens EN

Kniphofia leucocephala CR

Kniphofia littoralis NT

Kniphofia tysonii lebomboensis CR

Melanospermum swazicum EN

Melhania polygama VU

Mystacidium aliceae VU

Nesaea wardii VU

Ocotea kenyensis VU

Olinia emarginata NT

Oxyanthus pyriformis pyriformis EN

Pachycarpus lebomboensis Rare

Pachycarpus stelliceps CR

Protea comptonii EN

Prunus africana VU

Raphia australis VU

Restio zuluensis VU

Rhus kwazuluana Not Listed

Scilla natalensis VU

Senecio dregeanus VU

Senecio exuberans EN

Senecio ngoyanus VU

Siphonochilus aethiopicus CR

Stangeria eriopus VU

Streptocarpus daviesii EN

Streptocarpus occultus VU

Streptocarpus wilmsii VU

Syncolostemon comptonii CR

Teclea natalensis NT

Thesium polygaloides VU

Warburgia salutaris EN

Reptiles

Bitis gabonica Gaboon Viper VU

Bradypodion setaroi Setaro's Dwarf Chameleon EN

Coastal dwarf burrowing skink Coastal dwarf burrowing skink

Dasypeltis inornata inornata Brown eggeater VU

Fitzsimon's dwarf burrowing skink Fitzsimon's dwarf burrowing skink

Leptotyphlops incognitus

Lycophidion pygmaeum

Pachydactylus maculatus

Platysaurus lebomboensis

Pygmy wolf snake Pygmy wolf snake

Setaro's dwarf chameleon Setaro's dwarf chameleon Restricted



Trachylepis margaritifera

Trachylepis varia

Warren's girdled lizard Warren's girdled lizard

Zululand dwarf burrowing skink Zululand dwarf burrowing skink



10 Appendix 3; Mpumalanga Nature Conservation Act (Act 10 of1998) – Schedule of protected species

SCHEDULE 2 Protected game (section 4(1)(b)) AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES AND MAMMALS _________________________________________________________________________ Common name Scientific name _________________________________________________________________________ bullfrog Pyxicephalus adspersus all species of reptiles excluding the water leguan, all species of the Class rock leguan and all species Reptilia excluding of snakes Varanus niloticus, Varanus Exanthematicus and all species of the Sub Order Serpentes riverine rabbit Bunolagus monticularis hedgehog Atelerix frontalis samango monkey Cercopithecus mitts bushbaby Otolemur crassicaudatus lesser bushbaby Galago moholi honey -badger Mellivora capensis pangolin Manis temminckii aardwolf Proteles cristatus Cape hunting dog Lycaon pictus brown hyaena Hyaena brunnea antbear Orycteropus afer mountain zebra Aquus zebra zebra



Hartmann's zebra Aquus zebra hartmannae hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis nyala Trageiaphus angasi red duiker Cephalophus natalensis blue duiker Philantomba monticola reedbuck Redunca arundinum mountain reedbuck Reduncafulvorufula sable antelope Hippotragus niger roan antelope Hippotragus equinus black wildebeest Connochaetes gnou tsessebe Damaliscus lunatus Lichenstein's hartebeest Alcelaphus lichtensteinii klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus oribi Ourebia ourebi steenbok Raphicerus campestris Sharpe's grysbok Raphicerus sharped suni Neotragus moschatus grey rhebuck Pelea capreolus eland Taurotragus oryx waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus cape clawless otter Aonyx capensis spotted necked otter Lutra maculicollis _________________________________________________________________________ BIRDS



_________________________________________________________________________ Common name Scientiffic name _________________________________________________________________________ Any bird which is a wild animal, excluding a bird referred to in Schedule 3, and the - white breasted cormorant Phalacrocorax lucidus reed cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus red-eyed turtle dove Streptopelia semitorquata Cape turtle dove Streptopelia capicola laughing dove Streptopelia senegalensis all species of mousebirds all species of the Family Colidae pied crow Corvus albus black crow Corvus capensis red-eyed bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans black-eyed bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus red-winged starling Onychognathus morio Cape sparrow Passer melanurus spotted-backed weaver Ploceus cucullatus Cape weaver Ploceus capensis masked weaver Ploceus velatus red-billed quelea Quelea quelea red bishop Euplectes orix _________________________________________________________________________ SCHEDULE 3 Ordinary Game (section 4(1) (c))



_________________________________________________________________________ Common name Scientific name _________________________________________________________________________ spur-winged goose Plectropterus gambensis Egyptian goose Alopochen aegyptiacus yellow-billed duck Anas undulata red-billed teal Anas erythrorhyncha coqui partridge Francolinus coqui crested partridge Francolinus sephaena greywing partridge Francolinus africanus Shelley's partridge Francolinus shelleyi redwing partridge Francolinus levaillantii Orange River partridge Francolinus levaillantoides red-billed francolin Francolinus adspersus Natal francolin Francolinus natalensis Swainson's francolin Francolinus swainsoni red-necked francolin Francolinus afer helmeted guinea-fowl Numida meleagris red-knobbed coot Fulica cristata rock pigeon Columba guinea all species of hare all species of the Family Leporidae Burchell's zebra Equus burchelli bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros gemsbok Oryx gazella



red hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus grey duiker Sylvicapragrimmia blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus blesbok Damaliscus dorcas phillipsi bontebok Damaliscus dorcas dorcas impala Aepyceros melampus springbok Antidorcas marsupialis _________________________________________________________________________ SCHEDULE 4 Protected wild animals (section 4(1)(d)) _________________________________________________________________________ Common name Scientific name _________________________________________________________________________ spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta cheetah Acinonyx jubatus leopard Panthera pardus lion Panthera leo African buffalo Syncerus caffer _________________________________________________________________________


Documents

Prepared by: Scherman Colloty & Associates Rail Link... · EIA application to the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). This document follows on from results obtained