the proposed kronos-perseus powerline project, 765kv ......kronos-persues transmission line: wetland...

COPYRIGHT WARNING Copyright in all text and other matter, including the manner of presentation, is the exclusive property of the author. It is a criminal offence to reproduce

and/or use, without written consent, any matter, technical procedure and/or technique contained in this document. Criminal and civil proceedings will be taken as a matter of strict routine against any person and/or institution infringing the copyright of the author and/or proprietors.

The Proposed Kronos-Perseus Powerline Project, 765kV Transmission Powerline and

substations upgrade, Northern Cape and Free State Province

Wetland and Riparian Assessment Report

October 2013, Updated July 2015

Drafted by Antoinette Bootsma

(Pr Sci Nat Hons Botany)

Limosella Consulting

P.O. Box 32733, Waverley

Pretoria, 0135

Email: [email protected]

Cell: +27 83 4545 454

Drafted for Mokgope Consulting

3rd

Avenue

Highlands North

2192

Email: [email protected]

Kronos-Persues Transmission line: Wetland / Riparian Assessment Report October 2013,

July 2015

2

Declaration of Independence

I, Antoinette Bootsma, on behalf of Limosella Consulting and in my capacity as a specialist

consultant, hereby declare that I -

• Act as an independent consultant;

• Do not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration

for the work performed in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act

107 of 1998);

• Undertake to disclose, to the competent authority, any material information that has or may

have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of

any report, plan or document required in terms of the National Environmental Management

Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998);

• As a registered member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions, will

undertake my profession in accordance with the Code of Conduct of the Council, as well as any

other societies to which I am a member; and

• Based on information provided to me by the project proponent, and in addition to information

obtained during the course of this study, have presented the results and conclusion within the

associated document to the best of my professional judgement.

________________________

Antoinette Bootsma (PrSciNat)

Ecologist/Botanist

SACNASP Reg. No. 400222-09

________15 October 2013________

Date


July 2015

3

Section Compiled by

Reporting Antoinette Eyssell (PrSciNat) MSc UP

Ecology SACNASP Reg. No. 400019/11

Rudi Bezuidenhoudt

(SACNASP Reg. No. Pending)

Field work and data

analysis

Rudi Bezuidenhoudt, BSc Ecology UNISA,

(SACNASP Reg. No. Pending)

Short course in Wetland Rehabilitation Principles, University of

the Free State (2012)

Short course in Tools for Wetland Assessment, Rhodes

University (2011)

Short course in Understanding Environmental Impact

Assessment, WESSA (2011)

Technical review Antoinette Bootsma (PrSciNat) BSc Hons Botany UP

Ecologist/Botanist, SACNASP Reg. No. 400222-09


July 2015

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Eskom Holdings Limited proposes to construct a 765kV transmission powerline between the existing Kronos

Substation near Copperton in the Northern Cape Province to Persues substation near Deallesville in the

Free State Province. The total length of the transmission powerline from Kronos to Perseus Substation

would be approximately 400km. Three corridors of 2km in width are proposed. Limosella Consulting was

appointed by Mokgope Consulting to undertake an independent assessment of potential wetland and

riparian conditions that could be affected by the corridors and to advise which corridor will likely have the

least impact on watercourses.

On a strategic scale the vegetation gradients associated with moisture were used as the primary indicator

of wetland and riparian habitat. The scope of the current assessment did not allow for fine scale delineation

of each wetland or riparian area intersected by the proposed route alignments. Sensitive areas discussed in

this report should be groundtruthed in detail to inform for example, the positioning of pylons or related

infrastructure.

Three corridors and 4 deviations were studied between the Perseus substation and the Kronos substation.

These corridors were 2km wide and the total number of watercourses found within the corridors does not

reflect the number of watercourses that the proposed powerline will cross but it does give an indication of

the number of watercourses within the area and thus valuable information to inform the preferred option.

Corridor 1 with deviation 1b (which is further from a river and avoids various structures) has the least

amount of watercourses and does not transect and national parks or any large mountainous areas and is

therefore the preferred option. Deviation 1d further avoids a river crossing, pans, soil erosion and reduces

the line distance. This corridor has the second least number of wetlands and is the second preferred.

Corridor 2 has the highest number of wetlands as well as transecting approximately 28km a national park as

well as crossing 18km over a mountainous area and is therefore the least preferred option. Corridor 3 has

the highest number of drainage lines/riparian as well as crossing through approximately 15km through a

national park as well as 18km over a mountainous area, and is therefore the second preferred option.

Route / Substation Notes Order of preference

Corridor 1

• 206 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 129 Wetlands

Not Preferred

Corridor 2


• 164 Wetlands

• 28km through Mokala National Park

• 18km Over mountainous area

Not Preferred

Corridor 3


• 140 Wetlands



Not Preferred


July 2015

5

Corridor 1 with deviation

1a • 206 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 129 Wetlands

Not Preferred

Corridor 1 with

deviation 1b • 202 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 121 Wetlands

Most Preferred


1c • 200 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 153 Wetlands

Not Preferred

Corridor 1 with

deviation 1d • 213 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 124 Wetlands

Second Preferred

Linear developments such as the proposed transmission line are rarely able to avoid crossing any

watercourses whatsoever. Where alternatives have been investigated and watercourse crossings have

been shown to be necessary it is important that appropriate mitigation measures are put into place and

carefully monitored to ensure minimal impact to regional hydrology. In the case of the proposed powerline

mitigation should focus on:

• Rehabilitation / restoration of indigenous vegetative cover;

• Management of point discharges during construction activities;

• Alien plant control activities;

• Implementation of best management practices regarding stormwater and earthworks;

• Provision of adequate sanitation facilities located outside of the wetland/riparian area or its

associated buffer zone during construction activities;

• Implementation of appropriate stormwater management around the excavation to prevent the

ingress of run-off into the excavation; and particularly; and

• Prevention of erosion, and where necessary rehabilitation of eroded areas.


July 2015

6

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................ 9

1.2 Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................................................. 9

1.3 Definitions and Legal Framework .................................................................................................... 10

1.4 Locality of studied corridors ............................................................................................................ 11

1.4.1 Corridor 1 (Blue Line, Figure 1) ................................................................................................ 11

1.4.2 Corridor 2 (Pink line, Figure 1) ................................................................................................. 11

1.4.3 Corridor 3 (Green Line, Figure 1) ............................................................................................. 11

1.4.4 Corridor 1a (Brown Line, Figure 1) ........................................................................................... 11

1.4.5 Corridor 1b (Yellow Line, Figure 1) ........................................................................................... 11

1.4.6 Corridor 1c (Blue Line, Figure 1)............................................................................................... 11

1.4.7 Corridor 1d (Mustanrd Line, Figure 1) ..................................................................................... 12

1.5 Description of the Receiving Environment ...................................................................................... 14

2 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 19

2.1 Wetland and Riparian Delineation ................................................................................................... 19

3 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 20

3.1 Corridors .......................................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Corridor 1 ................................................................................................................................. 22

3.1.2 Corridor 2 ................................................................................................................................. 22

3.1.3 Corridor 3 ................................................................................................................................. 22

3.1.4 Corridor 1a ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.5 Corridor 1b ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.6 Corridor 1c ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.7 Corridor 1d ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 Summary of Results ......................................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Buffer Zones ..................................................................................................................................... 24


July 2015

7

3.4 Impacts and Mitigation .................................................................................................................... 26

3.4.1 Significance Ranking Matrix ..................................................................................................... 27

4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 34

5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A: Approximate Coordinates of Wetland/Riparian Areas .................................................................. 36

Appendix B: Sample Points Map ........................................................................................................................ 37

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix D: Abridged Curriculum Vitae of the Specialist .................................................................................. 40


July 2015

8

Figures

Figure 1: Location of the proposed corridors ....................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2: Water courses and water bodies along the proposed corridors ........................................................... 15

Figure 3: Geology underlying the proposed powerline routes ............................................................................. 17

Figure 4: Soil classes underlying the proposed powerline route alternatives ...................................................... 18

Figure 5: Typical cross section of a wetland (DWAF, 2005) .................................................................................. 19

Figure 6: Typical cross section of a river channel (DWAF, 2005) .......................................................................... 20

Figure 7: Wetlands and riparian areas along the powerline corridors ................................................................. 23

Figure 8: Wetlands, drainage lines and riparian areas along the powerline corridors with a 500m buffer zone 23

Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of the Quaternary Catchments relevant to the assessment of wetland health

(Adapted from Schultze [1997]) ......................................................................................................................... 16

Table 2: Kronos-Perseus Transmission Line and Substation Upgrade Summary ............................................... 24

Table 3: Generic functions of buffer zones relevant to the study site (adapted from Macfarlane et al, 2010) 26

Table 4: Impact significance table ...................................................................................................................... 28

Table 5: Impacts and suggested management procedures relevant to the proposed development ................ 29

Photographs Photograph 1: Dry pan (top) and riparian area invaded by Prosopsis glandulosa (below) ............................... 21


July 2015

9

1 INTRODUCTION

Eskom Holdings Limited proposes to construct a 765kV transmission powerline between the existing Kronos

Substation near Copperton in the Northern Cape Province to Persues substation near Deallesville in the

Free State Province. The total length of the transmission powerline from Kronos to Aries Substation would

be approximately 400km. Three corridors of 2km in width are proposed. Limosella Consulting was

appointed by Mokgope Consulting to undertake an independent assessment of potential wetland and

riparian conditions that could be affected by the corridors and to advise which corridor will likely have the

least impact on watercourses.

Wetlands and riparian areas perform many functions that are valuable to society including the supply of

water and the improvement of water quality. The habitats created by wetlands and rivers are also

important for many plant and animal species. Not all wetlands or rivers develop in the same way and may

not perform ecosystem services to the same extent. Where areas of human settlement and development

threaten to encroach and impact on wetlands or riparian areas, it is important that the wetland’s ecological

integrity be assessed.

1.1 Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for the current study were as follows:

• Determine the absence or presence of wetland or riparian conditions on a strategic scale;

• Mapping of information digitally on all alternatives being assessed;

• Impact assessment and recommendations on suitable mitigation measures for each potential

impact;

• Recommend suitable buffer zones; and

• Recommend the alternative route likely to have the least impact on watercourses.

1.2 Assumptions and Limitations

Sensitive environmental areas identified on a strategic scale should be seen as integral to the planning

phase of the proposed development but cannot inform the fine scale placement of, for example, pylons.

Furthermore, it is important to note that, during the course of converting spatial data to final drawings,

several steps in the process may affect the accuracy of areas delineated in the current report. Printing or

other forms of reproduction may also distort the scale indicated in maps. It is therefore suggested that the

no-go areas identified in the current report be pegged in the field in collaboration with the surveyor for

precise boundaries.

The expansion footprint of the substations was not known at the time of the field survey. Therefore, the

area around the substations was assessed to gain a general idea of the presence of watercourses.

Due to the dry nature of the area and the high number of pans and drainage lines found throughout the

area studies, time constraints made it impossible to visit every pan and drainage line within the proposed

corridors.


July 2015

10

A Red Data scan, fauna and flora assessments were not included in the current study. Description of the

depth of the regional water table and geohydrological processes also fall outside the scope of the current

assessment.

1.3 Definitions and Legal Framework

In a South African legal context, the term watercourse is often used rather than the terms wetland, or river.

The National Water Act (NWA) (1998) includes wetlands and rivers into the definition of the term

watercourse in the following definition.

Watercourse means:

a) A river or spring;

b) A natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently;

c) A wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows, and

d) Any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a

watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks.

Riparian habitat is the accepted indicator used to delineate the extent of a river’s footprint (DWAF, 2005).

The National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), defines a riparian habitat as follows: “Riparian habitat

includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse, which

are commonly characterised by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a

frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species with a composition and physical structure distinct

from those of adjacent land areas.”.

The National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) defines a wetland as “land which is transitional between

terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is

periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would

support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil.”

Authoritative legislation that lists impacts and activities on wetlands and riparian areas that requires

authorisation includes (Armstrong, 2009):

• Conservation of Agriculture Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983);

• Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989);

• National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998);

• National Forests Act, 1998 (Act 84 of 1998);

• National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998);

• National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004).

• GNR 1182 and 1183 of 5 September 1997, as amended (ECA);

• GNR 385, 386 and 387 of 21 April 2006 (NEMA);

• GNR 392, 393, 394 and 396 of 4 May 2007 (NEMA);

• GNR 398 of 24 March 2004 (NEMA); and

• GNR 544, 545 and 546 of 18 June 2010 (NEMA).


July 2015

11

1.4 Locality of studied corridors

Kronos substation is situated in the Northern Cape Provinces, approximately 7.5km south of the town of

Copperton at the approximate coordinates of 29°59'27.17"Sand 22°18'58.92"E. The Persues substation is

situated in the Free State Province, approximately 4.5km north-west of the town of Dealesville at the

approximate coordinates of 28°38'6.85"S and 25°44'43.19"E (Figure 1). Perseus substation is located within

the jurisdiction of Tokologo Local Municipality, Lejweleputswa District Municipality in the Free State

Province. Kronos substation is located within the jurisdiction of SiyaThemba Local Municipality, Ilembe

District Municipality in the Northern Cape Province.

Three route alternatives and four deviations were investigated each with a 2km wide corridor:

1.4.1 Corridor 1 (Blue Line, Figure 1)

Corridor 1 begins at the Perseus Substation near Dealesville and continues South-west towards the Kronos

Substation near Copperton. Corridor 1 is the most southerly Corridor of the 3 proposed corridors.

1.4.2 Corridor 2 (Pink line, Figure 1)

Corridor 2 begins at the Perseus Substation near Dealesville and continues south-west towards the Kronos

Substation near Copperton. Near Kimberly Corridor 2 and Corridor 3 share the same route for

approximately 28km where Corridor 2 continues more southwards and stays between Corridor 1 and

Corridor 3. Corridor 2 transects approximately 29km through the Mokala National Park. The last 53km is

also shared by both Corridor 3 and Corridor 2. Near the town of Prieska both Corridor 2 and Corridor 3

moves over a large mountainous area before they join.

1.4.3 Corridor 3 (Green Line, Figure 1)

Corridor 3 begins at the Perseus Substation near Dealesville and continues south-west towards the Kronos

Substation near Copperton. Near Kimberly Corridor 2 and Corridor 3 share the same route for

approximately 28km where after Corridor 3 then continues more northwards. Corridor 3 transects the

Mokala National Park for approximately 15km. Corridor 3 is the most northerly corridor of the three

proposed corridors. The last 53km is also shared by both Corridor 3 and Corridor 2. Near the town of

Prieska both Corridor 2 and Corridor 3 moves over a large mountainous area before they join.

1.4.4 Corridor 1a (Brown Line, Figure 1)

This deviation of corridor 1 is located at Perseus substation. The new deviation avoids two major line

crossings and is directed to the available bay at Perseus Substation.

1.4.5 Corridor 1b (Yellow Line, Figure 1)

This deviation of corridor 1 avoids houses, a ridge, a few irrigation center pivots, a major cell tower, an

extra strain tower and is further away from the river.

1.4.6 Corridor 1c (Blue Line, Figure 1)

This deviation of corridor 1 avoids the Mokala National Park future expansion areas. It further avoids major

game farms, irrigation center pivots and salt mines/pans


July 2015

12

1.4.7 Corridor 1d (Mustanrd Line, Figure 1)

This deviation of corridor 1 avoids a river crossing, pans, soil erosion, bad terrain and reduces the line

distance.

Kronos-Persues Transmission line: Wetland / Riparian Assessment Report October 2013

13

Figure 1: Location of the proposed corridors

Kronos-Perseus Transmission line: Wetland / Riparian Assessment Report October 2013

14

1.5 Description of the Receiving Environment

A review of available literature and spatial data formed the basis of a characterisation of the biophysical

environment in its theoretically undisturbed state and consequently an analysis of the degree of impact to

the ecology of the study site in its current state.

Hydrology:

Surface water spatial layers such as the National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas (NFEPA) Wetland

Types for South Africa (SANBI, 2010) reflected the presence of several pans/wetlands and perennial and

non-perennial rivers within the proposed powerline corridors (Figure 2). The pans are typically endorheic

(inward draining) salt pans occurring within the Grassland and Nama Karoo biomes (Mucina & Rutherford,

2006). The salt pans are characterised by depressions in the landscape containing temporary to permanent

(less often) water. The pans could be dry for years between temporary flooding (Davies & Day 1986 in

Cowan, 1995). This is mainly due to a high evaporation rate and a low precipitation rate in these parts of

the country. The pan bottoms are usually formed by shales of the Ecca group which gives rise to vertic

clays. Erosion in some places can be considerable. The highest concentration of pans in South Africa is

found in the Northern Cape, Western and North-Central Free State. A high occurrence of these pans is

noted in the north eastern extent of the corridors (Figure 2).

Perennial and non-perennial rivers are intersected by the proposed corridors and extensive systems of

intermittent river channels are evident (Figure 2). Main rivers include the Orange River, Modderrivier, Riet

River and tributaries of the Vaal River and Brak River.

Quaternary catchment

The powerline corridors stretch over eighteen (18) Quaternary Catchments (Table 1). As per Macfarlane et

al, (2009) one of the most important aspects of climate affecting a wetland’s vulnerability to altered water

inputs is the ratio of Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) to Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) (i.e. the

average rainfall compared to the water lost due to the evapotranspiration that would potentially take place

if sufficient water was available). As per Table 1, the ratio of Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) to Potential

Evapotranspiration (PET) in the catchments are relatively low (<1) and signifies that wetlands within this

quaternary catchment are more dependent on water from their upstream catchment than on direct

precipitation (Macfarlane, et al, 2009). Consequently, the wetlands are sensitive to changes in regional

hydrology, particularly where their catchment becomes transformed and the water available to sustain

them becomes redirected.


15

Figure 2: Water courses and water bodies along the proposed corridors

Corridor 1

Corridor 2

Corridor 3


16

Table 1: Characteristics of the Quaternary Catchments relevant to the assessment of wetland health

(Adapted from Schultze [1997])

Catchment Mean Annual Precipitation

MAP (mm)

Potential Evaporation

PET (mm) MAP: PET

C51K 337.9 2572.8 0.13

C51L 325.2 2670.6 0.12

C51M 308.0 2679.1 0.11

C52H 438.9 2452.8 0.18

C52K 393.9 2517.5 0.16

C52L 364.0 2601.5 0.14

D33H 280.5 2679.6 0.10

D33J 232.9 2686.6 0.09

D33K 277.8 2726.6 0.10

D54D 168.0 2731.9 0.06

D62D 288.6 2463.8 0.12

D62G 234.9 2656.1 0.09

D62H 198.4 2694.8 0.07

D62J 222.2 2717.9 0.08

D71A 268.9 2721.9 0.10

D71C 242.3 2736.5 0.09

D71D 239.6 2738.8 0.09

Regional Vegetation:

The study area falls within the Grassland Biome, the Nama-Karoo Biome as well as the Savanna Biome of

South Africa (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). A biome is made up of various vegetation types, based largely

on soil, topography and climate variations within the biomes. The proposed powerline corridors could

impact on ten (10) vegetation types. One of these vegetation types, Vaal-Vet Sandy Grassland, is

considered to be Endangered due to a high degree of transformation within this grassland by cultivation

and grazing. In addition, the Upper Gariep Alluvial Vegetation that is associated with riparian areas is

currently vulnerable to further degradation and transformation. The Highveld Salt Pan Vegetation type is

associated with the numerous salt pans that occur throughout the proposed corridors and are classified as

Least Threatened.

Geology and soils:

The powerline corridors are for its greatest extent underlain by shale, tillite and other sedimentary rock

(Figure 3). Shale is the result of the deposition of layers of clay, while the tillite consists of consolidated

masses of unweathered blocks (large, angular, detached rock bodies). In the south-western extent of the

corridors, Schist and Quartzite occur. Schist is metamorphic rock derived from clays and muds which have

passed through a series of metamorphic processes involving the production of shales, slate and phyllites as


17

Figure 3: Geology underlying the proposed powerline routes

Corridor 1

Corridor 2

Corridor 3


18

Figure 4: Soil classes underlying the proposed powerline route alternatives

Corridor 1

Corridor 2

Corridor 3

Kronos - Persues Transmission line: Wetland / Riparian Assessment Report October 2013

19

intermediate steps. Quartzite is a hard, non-foliated metamorphic rock which was originally sandstone

converted into quartzite through heating and pressure.

The soil class along the most of the powerline corridors is S2, which is shallow, free draining and highly

erodible. S13, Lithosols (shallow soils on hard or weathering rock) and S16 also occur within the corridors.

S16 comprises ultrametamorphic koppies (locally called black hills) with shallow soil forms including Mispah

and Glenrosa (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

S7 occurs, especially in proximity to the Perseus substation and comprise soils with Soils with a pedocutanic

horizon (a horizon with strong blocky structure and clearly expressed cutans).

2 METHODOLOGY

Wetland and riparian areas were strategically assessed along the proposed route and alternatives, including

a 1km buffer on either side of the route. The delineation method documented by the Department of Water

affairs and Forestry in their document “A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of

wetlands and riparian areas” (DWAF, 2005), was followed throughout the field survey. These guidelines

describe the use of indicators to determine the outer edge of the wetland and riparian areas such as soil

and vegetation forms as well as the terrain unit indicator.

A hand held GPSmap 76CSx was used to capture GPS co-ordinates in the field. 1:50 000 cadastral maps and

available GIS data were used as reference material for the mapping of the preliminary wetland boundaries.

These were converted to digital image backdrops and delineation lines and boundaries were imposed

accordingly after the field survey.

The study was undertaken during April 2013.

2.1 Wetland and Riparian Delineation

Wetlands are identified based on the following characteristic attributes (DWAF, 2005) (Figure 5):

• The presence of plants adapted to or tolerant of saturated soils (hydrophytes);

• Wetland (hydromorphic) soils that display characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation; and

• A high water table that results in saturation at or near the surface, leading to anaerobic conditions

developing within 50cm of the soil surface.

Figure 5: Typical cross section of a wetland (DWAF, 2005)


20

Riparian habitat on the other hand is classified primarily by identifying riparian vegetation along the edge of

the macro stream channel. The macro stream channel is defined as the outer bank of a compound channel

(Figure 6) and should not be confused with the active river bank. The macro channel bank often represents

a dramatic change in the energy with which water passes through the system. Rich alluvial soils deposit

nutrients making the riparian area a highly productive zone. This causes a very distinct change in vegetation

structure and composition along the edges of the riparian area (DWAF, 2005).

Figure 6: Typical cross section of a river channel (DWAF, 2005)

3 RESULTS

Three proposed corridors of 2km in width each were assessed. The findings are summarised here and

geographically represented in Figure 7.

The Eastern part of the Corridors is characterised by large wetlands know as pans while the rest of the area

towards the West is characterised by a higher number of pans but smaller in size with the exception of a

couple of large pans scattered over the landscape. Drainage lines can be found throughout all the Corridors

and especially in high numbers near Rivers and mountainous areas. The pans found throughout the studied

area can stand dry for years between temporary flooding (Davies & Day 1986 in Cowan, 1995). This is due

to a high evaporation rate and a low precipitation rate. The highest concentration of pans in South Africa

are found in the Northern Cape, Western and North-Central Free State and Southern Transvaal (Gauteng)

(Cowan, 1995) Most is thus distributed throughout various vegetation biomes and found especially in the

grassland, Nama Karoo and Kalahari biomes. Most pans occur on shale or unconsolidated surficial sands

(Cowan, 1995) such as the areas common throughout the study area. Most pans found are characterised by

a lack of integrated drainage and has a slope of less than one degree (Le Roux, 1978 in Cowan, 1995). The

vast amount of dry pans found throughout the study site suggests that the water table is not close to the

surface but that the pans rather fills up with water in seasons of heavy rain and subsequently dries out over

time. Because of the dry nature of these pans it could be expected that impacts associated with

infrastructure should be less extensive compared to permanently inundated pans.

The large amount of drainage lines can be attributed to the vast amounts of mountainous areas along the

study area. The low vegetation densities is likely a contributing factor in the erosional features of some of


21

the drainage lines as the lack of plants causes an increase in evapotranspiration from the soil and

vegetation cover protects the topsoil from being washed away. Drainage lines are also linked to various

rivers and wetlands and is thus an important source of water for wetlands and rivers in this dry region and

any impacts within the drainage lines is likely to have an impact on the associated wetland or river system.

This is especially true for pans in this area where the only water that it receives is rain water and if the

drainage lines are not effective anymore, the pans will not receive enough water to be ecologically

sustainable.

The riparian areas found on site is has been affected by various farming activities, with cultivation noted

especially around the Modder-Riet- and Orange Rivers. The rivers are usually linked to a large network of

drainage lines which feeds the river with water during rainfall events. Photograph 1 indicates the typical

pans and riparian areas that were found to be invaded by the declared weed Prosopsis glandulosa (Honey

mesquite).

Photograph 1: Dry pan (top) and riparian area invaded by Prosopsis glandulosa (below)


22

The three options studied were studied in a 2km wide corridor and the number of wetlands and

riparian/drainage lines will thus be greatly higher than the line will actually cross. The number of wetlands

and drainage lines/ riparian areas does however provide an overview into the densities of watercourses

and thus provides a general idea which corridor would be ecologically the better option. The less number of

watercourses in a corridor, the less impact the line will have. The watercourses are depicted within each

corridor in Figure 7. It is important to note that within 500m of any wetlands a WUL (Water Use Licence)

will likely be required.

3.1 Corridors

3.1.1 Corridor 1

Corridor 1 has the least amount of wetlands such as pans or drainage lines/riparian areas with the total

number of drainage lines/riparian areas numbering 206 and the total number of wetlands numbering 129.

Corridor 1 does not transect any large mountainous areas or any national parks and is therefore the

preferred option.

3.1.2 Corridor 2

Corridor 2 has the highest amount of wetlands with the total numbering 164. The total number of drainage

lines/riparian areas is 233. Corridor 2 also transects approximately 28km through the Mokala National Park.

Further Corridor 2 also passes over a mountainous area near the town of Prieska. Corridor 2 is thus the

least preferred route.

3.1.3 Corridor 3

Corridor 3 has the highest number of drainage lines/riparian areas with the total numbering 244. The total

number of wetlands within Corridor 3 is 140. Corridor 3 transects approximately 15km of the Mokala

National Park. Corridor 3 also transects a large mountainous area near Prieska. This Corridor is thus the not

a preferred route.

3.1.4 Corridor 1a

With this deviation Corridor 1 has 206 drainage lines and riparian areas and 129 wetlands. This corridor is

not a preferred route.

3.1.5 Corridor 1b

Corridor 1 with deviation 1b (which is further from a river and avoids various structures) has the least

amount of watercourses and does not transect and national parks or any large mountainous areas and is

therefore the preferred option.

3.1.6 Corridor 1c

Corridor 1 with deviation 1c has 200 drainage lines and riparian areas and 153 wetlands. This corridor is not

a preferred route.

3.1.7 Corridor 1d

Deviation 1d further avoids a river crossing, pans, soil erosion and reduces the line distance. This corridor

has the second least number of wetlands and is the second preferred.


23

Figure 7: Wetlands, drainage lines and riparian areas along the powerline corridors with buffer zones

Corridor 1

Corridor 2

Corridor 3


24

3.2 Summary of Results

A summary of results and the preferred alternative is represented in Table 2.

Table 2: Kronos-Perseus Transmission Line and Substation Upgrade Summary Route / Substation Notes Order of preference

Corridor 1


• 129 Wetlands

Not Preferred

Corridor 2


• 164 Wetlands



Not Preferred

Corridor 3


• 140 Wetlands



Not Preferred


1a • 206 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 129 Wetlands

Not Preferred

Corridor 1 with

deviation 1b • 202 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 121 Wetlands

Most Preferred


1c • 200 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 153 Wetlands

Not Preferred

Corridor 1 with

deviation 1d • 213 Drainage Lines/Riparian Areas

• 124 Wetlands

Second Preferred

3.3 Buffer Zones

Local government policies require that protective wetland buffer zones be calculated from the outer edge

of the temporary zone of a wetland and river buffer zones be calculated from the outer edge of the riparian

zone (KZN DAEA, 2002; CoCT, 2008; GDACE, 2009). Although research is underway to provide further


25

guidance on appropriate defensible buffer zones, there is no current standard other than the generic

recommendation of 100m for rivers, and 50m for wetlands outside the urban edge. Given the nature of the

potential impacts of the proposed development, a generic 50m buffer zone is considered suitable for the

rivers that intersect the proposed powerline (Figure 7). However, it may not be economically or physically

feasible for powerline infrastructure to be excluded from the riparian zones and their associated buffers.

Therefore these areas should be considered as highly sensitive and where these areas cannot be avoided,

alternative mitigation measures should be put into place in order to prevent degradation of the river as

discussed in the section above.

Buffer zones have been shown to perform a wide range of functions and have therefore been widely

proposed as a standard measure to protect water resources and their associated biodiversity. These include

(i) maintaining basic hydrological processes; (ii) reducing impacts on water resources from upstream

activities and adjoining landuses; (iii) providing habitat for various aspects of biodiversity. A brief

description of each of the functions and associated services is outlined in Table 3 below.


26

Table 3: Generic functions of buffer zones relevant to the study site (adapted from Macfarlane et al, 2010)

Primary Role Buffer Functions

Maintaining basic aquatic

processes, services and

values.

• Groundwater recharge: Seasonal flooding into wetland areas allows infiltration

to the water table and replenishment of groundwater. This groundwater will

often discharge during the dry season providing the base flow for streams,

rivers, and wetlands.

• Flood attenuation: Wetland vegetation increases the roughness of stream

margins, slowing down flood-flows. This may therefore reduce flood damage in

downstream areas. Vegetated buffers have therefore been promoted as

providing cost-effective alternatives to highly engineered structures to reduce

erosion and control flooding, particularly in urban settings.

Reducing impacts from

upstream activities and

adjoining land uses

• Storm water attenuation: Flooding into the buffer zone increases the area and

reduces the velocity of storm flow. Roots, braches and leaves of plants provide

direct resistance to water flowing through the buffer, decreasing its velocity and

thereby reducing its erosion potential. More water is exchanged in this area

with soil moisture and groundwater, rather than simply transferring out of the

area via overland flow.

• Sediment removal: Surface roughness provided by vegetation, or litter, reduces

the velocity of overland flow, enhancing settling of particles. Buffer zones can

therefore act as effective sediment traps, removing sediment from runoff water

from adjoining lands thus reducing the sediment load of surface waters.

• Removal of toxics: Buffer zones can remove toxic pollutants, such hydrocarbons

that would otherwise affect the quality of water resources and thus their

suitability for aquatic biota and for human use.

• Nutrient removal: Wetland vegetation and vegetation in terrestrial buffer zones

may significantly reduce the amount of nutrients (N & P), entering a water body

reducing the potential for excessive outbreaks of microalgae that can have an

adverse effect on both freshwater and estuarine environments.

• Removal of pathogens: By slowing water contaminated with faecal material,

buffer zones encourage deposition of pathogens, which soon die when exposed

to the elements.

3.4 Impacts and Mitigation

A development has several impacts on the surrounding environment and particularly on a river. The

development changes habitats, the ecological environment, infiltration rates, amount of runoff and runoff

intensity of stormwater, and therefore the hydrological regime of the area (Table 4). A range of

management measures are available to address threats posed to water resources (Table 5). In the context

of the proposed powerlines, the mitigation measures proposed below are intended to prevent further

degradation to the riparian areas as a result of the construction of the powerline. It is important to note

that this section aims to highlight areas of concern. The details of the mitigation measures that are finally

put in place should ideally be based on these issues, but must necessarily take into consideration the

physical and economically feasibility of mitigation. It is important that any mitigation be implemented in

the context of an Environmental Management Plan to in order to ensure accountability and ultimately the

success of the mitigation.


27

3.4.1 Significance Ranking Matrix

The significance of potential impacts is presented in Table 5. Significance is calculated as Consequence

(Magnitude+ Duration+ Extent + Reversibility) X Probability wherein the following meaning applies:

• The Magnitude of the impact is quantified as either:

o Low: Will cause a low impact on the environment;

o Moderate: Will result in the process continuing but in a controllable manner;

o High: Will alter processes to the extent that they temporarily cease; and

o Very High: Will result in complete destruction and permanent cessation of processes.

• The Probability: which shall describe the likelihood of impact occurring and will be rated as follows:

o Extremely remote: Which indicates that the impact will probably not happen;

o Unusual but Possible: Distinct possibility of occurrence;

o Can Occur: there is a possibility of occurrence;

o Almost Certain: Most likely to occur; and

o Certain/ Inevitable: Impact will occur despite any preventative measures put in place.

• The duration (Exposure) which indicates whether:

o The impact will be of a immediate;

o The impact will be of a short tem (Between 0-5 years);

o The impact will be of medium term (between 5-15 years);

o The impact will be long term (15 and more years); and

o The impact will be permanent.

• Reversibility/ Replaceability. This refers to the degree to which the impact can be reversed or the

lost resource can be replaced.

RANKING MAGNITUDE REVERSIBILITY EXTENT DURATION PROBABILITY

5 Very high/ don’t know

Irreversible International Permanent Certain/inevitable

4 High National Long term (impact ceases after operational life of asset

Almost certain

3 Moderate Reversibility with human intervention

Provincial Medium term Can occur

2 Low Local Short term Unusual but possible

1 Minor Completely reversible

Site bound Immediate Extremely remote

0 None None None

• Significance= Consequence (Magnitude+ Duration+ Extent + Reversibility) X Probability


28

SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT

= CONSEQUENCE (Magnitude + Duration +Extent + Reversibility) X PROBABILITY

RANKING 65-100 64-36 35-16 15-5 1-4 SIGNIFICANCE Very High High Moderate Low Minor

Table 4: Impact significance table for Corridor 1, Corridor 2 and Corridor 3.

Threat Magnitude Duration Reversibility Extent Probability Ranking Significance

Changing the

quantity and

fluctuation

properties of the

watercourse

Moderate Medium

term

Reversibility

with human

intervention

Local Can occur

33 Moderate

Changing the

amount of

sediment entering

water resource

and associated

change in

turbidity

(increasing or

decreasing the

amount)

Very high Medium

term

Irreversible Local Almost

certain

60 High

Alteration of

water quality –

increasing the

amounts of

nutrients

(phosphate,

nitrite, nitrate)

Low Short term

Reversibility

with human

intervention Local Can occur 27 Moderate

Alteration of

water quality –

toxic

contaminants

(including toxic

metal ions (e.g.

copper, lead, zinc)

and hydrocarbons

Low Short term

Reversibility

with human

intervention Local Can occur 27 Moderate

Changing the

physical structure

within a water

resource (habitat)

Moderate Medium

term

Reversibility

with human

intervention

Local Can occur

33 Moderate


29

Table 5: Impacts and suggested management procedures relevant to the proposed development of Corridor 1, Corridor 2 and Corridor 3.

Threat / Impact Source of the threat Primary Management Procedure

Changing the quantity and

fluctuation properties of the

watercourse

Construction:

• Development within water

resources e.g. tower footprint

within wetland, pan or riparian

area, thereby diverting or

impeding flow

• Lack of adequate rehabilitation

resulting in invasion by woody

invasive plant species

• No activities should take place in the watercourses and associated buffer zone. Where

the above is unavoidable, only a pylon footprint and no access roads can be

considered. This is subjected to authorization by means of a water use license.

• Construction in and around watercourses should be restricted to the dry season.

• A temporary fence or demarcation must be erected around the works area to prevent

access to sensitive environs. The works areas generally include the servitude,

construction camps, areas where material is stored and the actual footprint of the

tower/pylon

• Prevent pedestrian and vehicular access into the wetland and buffer areas as well as

riparian areas.

• Consider the various methods of stringing and select whichever method(s) that will

have the least impact on watercourses e.g. shooting a pilot cable and pull cables with

a winch, or flying cables over

• Stringing should preferably not make use of vehicles in watercourses. If unavoidable,

plan stringing activities in wetlands areas to take place within the drier winter months

and use equipment with the smallest possible footprint e.g. quad bikes

• Plan stringing through watercourses to take place at pre-determined points such as

where the wetland width (and thus area to be impacted) is the smallest

• Access roads and bridges should span the wetland area, without impacting on the

permanent or seasonal zones

• Formalise access roads and make use of existing roads and tracks where feasible,

rather than creating new routes through naturally vegetated areas.

• Management of on-site water use and prevent stormwater or contaminated water

directly entering the watercourse

• Management of point discharges

• Planning of construction site must include eventual rehabilitation / restoration of

indigenous vegetative cover

• Alien plant eradication and follow-up control activities prior to construction, to


30


Operational:

• Vehicles driving in / through

watercourses

• Damage to vegetated areas

prevent spread into disturbed soils, as well as follow-up control during construction

• The amount of vegetation removed should be limited to the least amount possible

• Rehabilitation of damage/impacts that arise as a result of construction must be

implemented immediately upon completion of construction

• Maintenance activities should not take place within watercourses or buffer zones.

Where unavoidable, the footprint needed for maintenance must be kept to a

minimum. This is subjected to authorization by means of a water use license.

• Where possible, maintenance within watercourses must be restricted to the drier

winter months

• Maintenance activities should not impact on rehabilitated areas

• Maintenance workers should respect and also maintain fences that are in place to

prevent livestock from entering rehabilitated areas, until such time that monitoring

found that rehabilitation s successful and the fences removed

• Maintenance should not impact on natural vegetation

• Maintenance vehicles must stay on dedicated roads/ servitudes

Changing the amount of

sediment entering water

resource and associated

change in turbidity (increasing

or decreasing the amount)

• Earthwork activities to construct

towers.

• Clearing of surface vegetation

will expose the soils, which in

rainy events would wash down

into wetlands, causing

sedimentation. In addition,

indigenous vegetation

communities are unlikely to

colonise eroded soils successfully

and seeds from proximate alien

invasive trees can spread easily

into these eroded soil.

• Disturbance of soil surface

• Construction in and around watercourses must be restricted to the dryer winter

months.

• A temporary fence or demarcation must be erected around the works area to prevent

water runoff and erosion of the disturbed or heaped soils into wetland areas.

• Access roads and bridges should span the wetland area, without impacting on the

permanent or seasonal zones.

• Formalise access roads and make use of existing roads and tracks where feasible, rather

than creating new routes through naturally vegetated areas.

• Retain vegetation and soil in position for as long as possible, removing it immediately

ahead of construction / earthworks in that area (DWAF, 2005).

• A vegetation rehabilitation plan should be implemented. Grassland can be removed as

sods and stored within transformed vegetation. The sods must preferably be removed

during the winter months and be replanted by latest springtime. The sods should not

be stacked on top of each other or within sensitive environs. Once construction is


31


• Disturbance of slopes through

creation of roads and tracks

• Changes in runoff characteristics

• Erosion (e.g. gully formation,

bank collapse)

completed, these sods should be used to rehabilitate the disturbed areas from where

they have been removed. In the absence of timely rainfall, the sods should be

watered well after planting and at least twice more over the next 2 weeks.

• Remove only the vegetation where essential for construction and do not allow any

disturbance to the adjoining natural vegetation cover.

• Rehabilitation plans must be submitted and approved for rehabilitation of damage

during construction and that plan must be implemented immediately upon

completion of construction.

• Cordon off areas that are under rehabilitation as no-go areas using danger tape and

steel droppers. If necessary, these areas should be fenced off to prevent vehicular,

pedestrian and livestock access.

• Ideally, the rehabilitated pylon footprints, especially on slopes and along riparian and

wetland areas, must be fenced to prevent livestock grazing and trampling. Once

rehabilitation was observed to be successful during monitoring, the fenced may be

removed (at least two years).

• Negotiate with landowners to delay the re-introduction of livestock (where applicable)

to all rehabilitation areas until an acceptable level of re-vegetation has been reached,

especially against slopes.

• During the construction phase measures must be put in place to control the flow of

excess water so that it does not impact on the surface vegetation.

• Protect all areas susceptible to erosion and ensure that there is no undue soil erosion

resultant from activities within and adjacent to the construction camp and work

areas.

• Runoff from roads must be managed to avoid erosion and pollution problems.

• Implementation of best management practices

• Source-directed controls

• Buffer zones to trap sediments

• Active rehabilitation

• Rehabilitated vegetation should not be impacted on by maintenance


32


Operational:

• Vehicles impacting on surface

vegetation

• Maintenance vehicles must remain on dedicated roads and servitudes





winter months

• Maintenance activities should not impact on rehabilitated areas and where soil or

vegetation disturbances took place, this should be rehabilitated immediately

Alteration of water quality –

increasing the amounts of

nutrients (phosphate, nitrite,

nitrate)

• Disposal or discharge of human

(including partially treated and

untreated) sewage during the

construction phase of the

development

Operational:

• Disposal or discharge of human

(including partially treated and

untreated) sewage during the

operational phase (maintenance)

of the development

• Provision of adequate sanitation facilities located outside of the wetland/riparian area

or its associated buffer zone

• Establishment of buffer zones to reduce nutrient inputs in diffuse flow

• Implementation of appropriate stormwater management around the excavation to

prevent the ingress of run-off into the excavation.

• Maintenance workers are not allowed to sue watercourse and associated buffers as

ablution facilities

• Provision of adequate sanitation facilities located outside of the wetland/riparian area

or its associated buffer zone

Alteration of water quality –

toxic contaminants (including

toxic metal ions (e.g. copper,

lead, zinc) and hydrocarbons

• Runoff from road surfaces

• Discharge of solvents, and other

industrial chemicals

Operational:

• Runoff from road surfaces

• Discharge of solvents, and other

• After construction, the land must be cleared of rubbish, surplus materials, and

equipment, and all parts of the land shall be left in a condition as close as possible to

that prior to use.

• Maintenance of construction vehicles

• Control of waste discharges

• Guidelines for implementing Clean Technologies

• Maintenance of buffer zones to trap sediments with associated toxins

• Ensure that maintenance work does not take place haphazardly, but, according to a

fixed plan, from one area to the other

• After maintenance, the land must be cleared of rubbish, surplus materials, and


33


industrial chemicals

equipment, and all parts of the land shall be left in a condition as close as possible to

that prior to use.

• Ensure maintenance vehicles are in proper order and well maintained

• Control of waste discharges

• Guidelines for implementing Clean Technologies

• Maintenance of buffer zones to trap sediments with associated toxins

Changing the physical structure

within a water resource

(habitat)

• Encroachment to achieve

maximum commercial returns

• Deposition of wind-blown sand

• Loss of fringing vegetation and

erosion

• Alteration in natural fire regimes

Operational:

• Loss of vegetation

• Other than approved and authorized structure, no other development or maintenance

infrastructure is allowed within the delineated wetland and riparian areas or their

associated buffer zones.

• Demarcate the wetlands and riparian areas and buffer zones to limit disturbance, clearly

mark these areas as no-go areas

• Linear developments (e.g. roads) should span the watercourse

• Weed control in buffer zone

• Monitor rehabilitation and the occurrence of erosion twice during the rainy season for

at least two years and take immediate corrective action where needed.

• Monitor the establishment of alien invasive species within the areas affected by the

construction and maintenance of the powerline and take immediate corrective action

where invasive species are observed to establish.





winter months

• Maintenance activities should not impact on rehabilitated or naturally vegetated areas


34

4 CONCLUSION

The Kronos-Perseus corridors intersect a vast number of watercourses. Although this number reflects the

number of watercourses within a corridor and not the total number of watercourses that the proposed line

is likely to cross it provides valuable information as to the densities of watercourses within each corridor

and thus the corridor with the least amount of watercourses will be the preferred option.

From a wetland and riparian ecological perspective, Corridor 1 with deviation 1b is the preferred option

due to the fact that it has the least amount of wetlands and drainage lines/riparian areas as well as not

crossing any national parks or large mountainous areas. Corridor 1 with deviation 1d is second preferred.

Corridor 2 is the least preferred corridor as it contains the most wetlands and transects further over a

national park (28km) as well as crossing a mountainous area for 17km. Corridor 3 has the highest number

of drainage lines/riparian areas as well as crossing approximately 15km of national park and 17km over a

mountainous area and is therefore the not a preferred option.

Linear developments such as the proposed transmission line are rarely able to avoid crossing any

watercourses whatsoever. Where alternatives have been investigated and watercourse crossings have

been shown to be necessary it is important that appropriate mitigation measures are put into place and

carefully monitored to ensure minimal impact to regional hydrology. In the case of the proposed powerline

mitigation should focus on:

• Rehabilitation / restoration of indigenous vegetative cover;

• Management of point discharges during construction activities;

• Alien plant control activities;

• Implementation of best management practices regarding stormwater and earthworks;

• Provision of adequate sanitation facilities located outside of the wetland/riparian area or its

associated buffer zone during construction activities;

• Implementation of appropriate stormwater management around the excavation to prevent the

ingress of run-off into the excavation; and particularly; and

• Prevention of erosion, and where necessary rehabilitation of eroded areas.


35

5 REFERENCES

Armstrong A. (2009). WET-Legal:Wetland rehabilitation and the law in South Africa. WRC Report TT 338/09.

Water research Comission, Pretoria

Barnes, K.N. & Anderson, M.D. 1998. Important Bird Areas of the Northern Cape. In: The Important Birds

Areas of southern Africa. Barnes, K.N. (ed.) pp. 103-122. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Brinson, M. (1993). A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Prepared for US Army Corps of

Engineers. 101pp. Wetlands Research Programme Technical Report WRP-DE-4

Bromilow C. (2001). Problem Plants of South Africa. Briza Publications CC

Chief Directorate: Surveys & Mapping. 1996: Hydrology. Cape Town: CDSM.

City of Cape Town (2008). Floodplain Management Policy, version 2.0 (draft for comment) City of Cape

Town

Cowan GL (ed) (1995). Wetlands of South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,

Pretoria.

Davies B.R. & Day J.A. (1986) The biology and conservation of South Africa’s vanishing waters. Centre for

Extra-mural Studies, University of Cape Town. Cape Town

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2005). A practical field procedure for identification and

delineation of wetlands and riparian areas. Department of Water affairs and Forestry. Pretoria.

South Africa

Fey M. (2005). Soils of South Africa: Systematics and environmental significance. Lombardi Trust. Draft

submitted for comment

Le Roux J.S. (1987). The origin and distribution of pans in the Orange Free State. South African Geography 6:

167-176.

Macfarlane D.M., Teixeira-Leite A., Goodman P., Bate G and Colvin C. (2010) Draft Report on the

Development of a Method and Model for Buffer Zone Determination. Water Research Commission

project K5/1789. The Institute of Natural Resources and its Associates

Mucina L., & Rutherford M. C. (2006). Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, 1:1 000 000

scale sheet maps. South African National Biodiversity Institute., Pretoria


36

Appendix A: Approximate Coordinates of Wetland/Riparian Areas

See accompanying Excel spreadsheet


37

Appendix B: Sample Points Map


38

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms

Anaerobic not having molecular oxygen (O2) present

Buffer A strip of land surrounding a wetland or riparian area in which activities are

controlled or restricted, in order to reduce the impact of adjacent land uses on the

wetland or riparian area

Gley soil material that has developed under anaerobic conditions as a result of

prolonged saturation with water. Grey and sometimes blue or green colours

predominate but mottles (yellow, red, brown and black) may be present and

indicate localised areas of better aeration

Hydrophyte any plant that grows in water or on a substratum that is at least periodically

deficient in oxygen as a result of soil saturation or flooding; plants typically found in

wet habitats

Hydromorphic

soil

soil that in its undrained condition is saturated or flooded long enough during the

growing season to develop anaerobic conditions favouring the growth and

regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (vegetation adapted to living in anaerobic

soils)

Mottles soils with variegated colour patters are described as being mottled, with the

"background colour" referred to as the matrix and the spots or blotches of colour

referred to as mottles

Seepage A type of wetland occurring on slopes, usually characterised by diffuse (i.e.

unchannelled, and often subsurface) flows

Perched water

table

the upper limit of a zone of saturation in soil, separated by a relatively impermeable

unsaturated zone from the main body of groundwater

Permanently

wet soil

soil which is flooded or waterlogged to the soil surface throughout the year, in most

years

Sedges Grass-like plants belonging to the family Cyperaceae, sometimes referred to as

nutgrasses. Papyrus is a member of this family.

Soil horizons layers of soil that have fairly uniform characteristics and have developed through

pedogenic processes; they are bound by air, hard rock or other horizons (i.e. soil

material that has different characteristics).

Soil profile the vertically sectioned sample through the soil mantle, usually consisting of two or

three horizons (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991)

Soil saturation the soil is considered saturated if the water table or capillary fringe reaches the soil

surface


39

Temporarily

wet soil

The soil close to the soil surface (i.e. within 50 cm) is wet for periods > 2 weeks

during the wet season in most years. However, it is seldom flooded or saturated at

the surface for longer than a month.

Temporary

zone of

wetness

the outer zone of a wetland characterised by saturation within 50cm of the soil

surface for less than three months in a year

Wetland: “land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water

table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with

shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support

vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil.” (National Water Act; Act 36 of

1998).

Wetland

delineation

the determination and marking of the boundary of a wetland on a map using the

DWAF (2005) methodology. This assessment includes identification of suggested

buffer zones and is usually done in conjunction with a wetland functional

assessment. The impact of the proposed development, together with appropriate

mitigation measures are included in impact assessment tables


40

Appendix D: Abridged Curriculum Vitae of the Specialist

Name: ANTOINETTE BOOTSMA nee van Wyk

Name of Company: Limosella Consulting

Position: Wetland Specialist

SACNASP Status: Professional Natural Scientist # 400222-09

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

� B. Sc (Botany & Zoology), University of South Africa (1997 - 2001)

� B. Sc (Hons) Botany, University of Pretoria (2003-2005)

� Short course in wetland delineation, legislation and rehabilitation, University of Pretoria (2007)

� Short course in Wetland Soils, Terrasoil Science, (2009)

� M.Sc (Ecology), University of South Africa (2010 - Ongoing)

KEY QUALIFICATIONS

� Principal Specialist

This entailed the management of wetland vegetation and rehabilitation related projects in terms of developing

proposals, project management, technical investigation (delineation and functional assessment of wetlands

and riparian areas in order to advise proposed development layouts) and quality control through the following:

� More than 70 fine scale wetland and ecological assessments in Gauteng, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu Natal,

Limpopo and the Western Cape and Eastern Cape. Liaison with clients, and all facets of project

management. April 2007, ongoing.

� Reviewing of specialist reports, including faunal and floral assessments, aquatic, wetland and rehabilitation

reports;

� An assessment of wetlands in Tatu, Kenya in order to inform the proposed development of a residential

estate. August 2009

� Riparian Management Plan for Mixed-Use developments in Kagiso, Gauteng. August 2009;

� Rehabilitation Plan for the wetland associated with Heroes Bridge in Soweto. Technical investigation as well

as management of a team of specialist, integration of information into a final report. The technical

investigation for this project also included an investigation into the occurrence of Red Data vegetation.

June 2009;

� Input into the wetland component of the Green Star SA rating system. April 2009;


41

� Strategic analysis of wetlands in Thohyandou in conjunction with a strategic vegetation assessment of the

area, March 2009;

� Strategic analysis of wetlands in Gauteng for the GDACE Regional Management Framework, August 2008;

� Successful completion of an audit of the wetlands in the City of Johannesburg. Specialist studies as well as

project management and integration of independent datasets into a final report. July 2008.

� An assessment of wetlands in southern Mozambique. This involved a detailed analysis of the vegetation

composition and sensitivity associated with wetlands and swamp forest in order to inform the

development layout of a proposed resort. May 2008.

� An assessment of three wetlands in the Highlands of Lesotho. This involved a detailed assessment of the

value of the study sites in terms of functionality and rehabilitation opportunities. Integration of the

specialist reports socio economic, aquatic, terrestrial and wetland ecology studies into a final synthesis.

May 2007.

� Ecological investigation on a strategic scale to inform an Environmental Management Framework for the

Emakazeni Municipality and an Integrated Environmental Management Program for the Emalahleni

Municipality. May and June 2007

� Conservation ecology

The implementation and management of projects related to long and short term studies on impacts and

rehabilitation in a mining environment.

� Principal investigator. Species assemblages in the woody vegetation communities of coastal dune forests

between the Umfolozi and Umlalazi rivers. This relates to colonisation trends across disturbance and

rehabilitation age gradients, including aspects such as seed ecology and phenology. 2006/7

� Principal investigator. Biodiversity of the coastal dune forests and associated habitats in Richards Bay,

particularly on the epiphytic orchids and ferns found on the mineral lease area of Richards Bay Minerals.

2006

� Technical assistant. Biodiversity of the coastal dune forests and associated habitats in Richards Bay,

particularly on the herpetofauna found on the mineral lease area of Richards

Bay Minerals. 2006

� Principal investigator. Baseline vegetation, and topsoil maps for Richards Bay Minerals’ Zulti South lease

area. 2005/6

� Technical assistant. A species list of woody and herbaceous plants of the Sekhukhune area. 2005

� Phytosociology

A technical investigation as part of academic research

� Principal investigator. A phytosociological study of vegetation associated with the wetlands of Lake

Chrissie, Mpumalanga. 2004

the proposed kronos-perseus powerline project, 765kv ......kronos-persues transmission line: wetland...

Documents