berenice wetland delineation and assessment: draft … 12 -berenice wetland... · limpopo, the...

BERENICE WETLAND DELINEATION AND ASSESSMENT: DRAFT REPORT

| P a g e


17 MARCH 2017 VS 1


i | P a g e

APPROVED BY:

……………………………………

Nonkanyiso Zungu, MSc, Pr.Nat.Sci

Wetland Specialist/ Specialist Ecologist

Date: 17 March 2017

TITLE: BERENICE WETLAND DELINEATION AND ASSESSMENT: DRAFT

REPORT

AUTHORS: HLENGIWE MSWELI AND LUFUNO NEMAKHAVHANI

FIELD ASSISTANT SABELO NALA

STATUS OF REPORT:

DOCUMENT CONTROL

DRAFT

IN0050WET013/17

FIRST ISSUE: 17 MARCH 2017


ii | P a g e

Indemnity

This report is based on survey and assessment techniques which are limited by time and

budgetary constraints relevant to the type and level of investigation undertaken. The

findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are

based on the author‟s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as information

available at the time of study. Therefore the author reserves the right to modify aspects of

the report, including the recommendations, if and when new information may become

available from ongoing research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this

investigation.

Although the author exercised due care and diligence in rendering services and preparing

documents, she accepts no liability, and the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies

the author against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and

expenses arising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by the

author and by the use of this document.


iii | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

Sazi Environmental Consulting cc (SAZI) was appointed by Headwaters Water and

Environmental Consultants to undertake a wetland delineation and assessment for the

proposed coal mining rights application for Berenice, Limpopo Province. The fieldwork was

conducted on the 13rd of March 2017.Farms Berenice 548ms, Celine 547ms, portion 1

Doorvaardt 355ms, remainder Doorvadt 355ms, Matsuri 358ms, Longford 354ms and

Gezelschap 395ms located in Makhado, Limpopo Province are considered for the mining

application. The project site is located approximately 60km northwest from Louis Trichardt

(Makhado), 70km southeast from the Mapungubwe National Park and 80 km south west

from Musina in the Soutpansberg coalfields (see Figure 1-1) within the Makhado Local

Municipality, Vhembe District Municipality, Limpopo Province, South Africa.

This report presents the findings of the wetland delineation and assessment.

2. Approach and Methodology

The activities for this assessment include the following:

Desktop assessment of the site;

A site visit to confirm the presence or absence of wetland areas within the proposed

project site area as well as verification of wetland boundaries;

Assessment of the catchment;

Assessment of the Present Ecological Status of wetlands on site (Level 1, Wet-

Health);

Assessment of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity of wetlands on site ;

Impact assessment of the proposed activities on the wetlands.


iv | P a g e

3. Wetland Assessment Results

The study area falls within Savanna Biome of South Africa and forms part of the Sweet

Bushveld/ Mixed Bushveld of the Limpopo province. The Sweet Bushveld is made up of

short open woodland with areas of disturbed thickets of Acacia Erubescens (Rutherford et

al. 2006). The study area falls within the A72B and A71J quaternary catchment of the

Limpopo Water Management Area. Major rivers flowing in this Management area include the

Limpopo, the Matlabas, Mokolo, Lephalala, Mogalakwena, Sand and the Nzhelele Rivers.

An intermittent river (The Brak River) transverses the study area and is a tributary to the

Sand River.

Two depression wetlands were identified during the site visit on the farm Celine and on the

farm Longford.


v | P a g e

4. WETLAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT

Wetland health status was assessed by considering impacts to wetland hydrology,

geomorphology and vegetation in accordance with the Wet-Health modules. Individual

modules are discussed in the sections below, for each wetland assessed. The impact scores

are summarised on the tables below.

5. WETLAND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY

The two wetlands were assessed to have moderate ecological functioning. The EIS scores

and their explanations are shown below.

Pan1 impact score

Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation

Impact Score Impact Score Impact Score

Area weighted impact scores

1.8 0.0 5.0

PES Category B A D

OVERALL IMPACT SCORES

2.2

PES SCORE C (Moderately Modified)

Pan2 impact score




1.8 0.0 5.2

PES Category B A D


2.3


vi | P a g e


Explanation of EIS scores for Pan Wetlands

ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY 1,3

Moderate: Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive on a provincial or local scale. The biodiversity of these systems is not usually sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a small role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

>1 and <=2

6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

The expected impacts associated with the wetlands due to the proposed Berenice coal

mining activities include the following:

Loss and disturbance of wetland habitat;

Increased sediment transport into wetlands;

Altered flow characteristics within wetlands; and

Water quality deterioration within wetlands.

Implementation of proper mitigation measures should be able to minimise the severity of the

impacts during construction.

7. CONCLUSION

The depression/pan wetlands identified on site are considered intermittent. During dry

seasons of the year (March-August) the wetlands are most likely to disappear, unless if the

area experience heavy rains that is enough to inundate the wetland area. The depression

wetland is groundwater and/or surface inflow fed, apart from precipitation, this meaning that


vii | P a g e

although they may physically disappear during dry seasons, they may still be present with

just a lower water table and less indicators.

Both wetlands consisted of the same landscape, hydrological processes, and

geomorphological processes and to some extent vegetation cover and therefore were

assessed as having a Moderately Modified PES and a Moderate EIS. This infers that the

wetlands have not experienced major impacts either from naturally occurring and/or from

human interference.

In conclusion, considering the nature of the wetlands, development of open cast mine can

take place, however, proper mitigation measures need to be put in place before

commencement of any activities that might have detrimental negative impacts to wetlands.

Moreover, careful consideration need to be put in place as the site where the open cast

mining will take place in located within a game farm that has a variety of wild animal species.

Additionally, development should be prohibited from the areas within the delineated

boundaries and should be undertaken in areas outside of the 100 m buffer zone delineated

for this mining project. Therefore all mitigation measures stated above should be complied

with.


viii | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ xi

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 12

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................... 12

1.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................... 13

2 METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED ................................................................................... 16

2.1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 16

2.2 WETLAND DELINEATION AND CLASSIFICATION ............................................. 16

2.3 EXISTING IMPACTS AND CATCHMENT CONTEXT ........................................... 17

2.4 WETLAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 18

2.5 WETLAND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY (EIS) .................... 19

2.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 20

3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT RESULTS ........................................................................ 22

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF WATER RESOURCES .......................................................... 23

3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS ...................................................................... 25

4 WETLAND DELINEATION .......................................................................................... 27

5 PRESENT ECOLOGICAL CATEGORY OF THE BERENICE WETLANDS ................. 31

5.1 HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES ............................................................................... 31

5.1.1 PAN WETLAND HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES ............................................. 31

5.2 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES .................................................................... 32

5.2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................. 32

5.2.2 SOILS ............................................................................................................ 35

5.2.3 PAN WETLAND GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES .................................. 35

5.3 VEGETATION CHANGES .................................................................................... 36

5.3.1 DEPRESSION/PAN VEGETATION CHANGES ............................................. 37

6 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT SCORES ...................................................................... 38

7 WETLAND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY (EIS) .......................... 39

7.1 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE .............................................................................. 40

7.1.1 PAN (1, 2) WETLAND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY .... 40

8 HYDROLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE WETLANDS .................................................. 41


ix | P a g e

8.1 DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS ................................................................................ 43

8.2 NFEPA WETLANDS ............................................................................................. 43

9 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACT ................................................................... 45

9.1 Loss and disturbance of wetland habitat ............................................................... 45

9.2 Increased sediment transport into wetlands .......................................................... 46

9.3 Altered flow characteristics within wetlands .......................................................... 46

9.4 Water quality deterioration within wetlands ........................................................... 46

10 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 50

11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 51

11.1 APPENDIX 1 ..................................................................................................... 53

11.2 WETLAND VEGETATION ................................................................................. 53

11.3 WETLAND FAUNA ............................................................................................ 54

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Location of the Berenice wetland delineation and assessment site .................... 15

Figure 2-1 Hydro-geomorphic setting .................................................................................. 17

Figure 3-1 Map indicating the water resources within the study area .................................. 24

Figure 4-1 Delineated wetland boundary ............................................................................. 28

Figure 4-2 Wetland buffer zone ........................................................................................... 29

Figure 4-3 Mine infrastructure map ..................................................................................... 30

Figure 5-1 Geology of study area ........................................................................................ 35

Figure 8-1 NFEPA Wetlands in and around study area ....................................................... 44

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1Health categories used by WET-Health for describing the integrity of wetlands ... 18

Table 2-2 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity rating table ............................................... 20

Table 2-3 Ranking scales for impact assessment ............................................................... 21

Table 3-1 Summary of water resources…………………………………………………………..22

Table 3-2 Description of wetlands identified on site…………………...………………………..25

Table 5-1 Hydrological impacts on the Pan wetlands…………………………………………..30

Table 5-2 Stratigraphic subdivision of the Soutpansberg………………………………………32


x | P a g e

Table 5-3 Impacts on Pan Wetlands

geomorphology……………………………………………………………..………………………34

Table 5-4 Vegetation observed on Pan Wetlands………………………………………………36

Table 6-1 Summary of impact scores of Pan1 wetland…………………………………………36

Table 6-2 Summary of impact scores of Pan2 wetland…………………………………………37

Table 7-1 Summary of EIS scores for pan 1 and 2……………………………………………...39

Table 7-2 Explanation of EIS scores for Pan

Wetlands………………………………………………………..……………………………………39

Table 8-1 Generic hydrological function performed by the wetlands………………………….40

Table 9-1 Summary of wetland impact assessment ............................................................ 47


xi | P a g e

LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Delineation – the technique of establishing the boundary of an aquatic resource such as a

wetland or riparian area.

Drain – In the context of wetlands, refers to a natural or artificial feature such as a ditch or

trench created for the purpose of removing surface and sub-surface water from an area

(commonly used in agriculture).

Ecological Importance – An expression of the importance of an environmental resource for

the maintenance of biological diversity and ecological functioning on local and wider scales.

Ecological Sensitivity – A system‟s ability to resist disturbance and its capability to recover

from disturbance once it has occurred.

EIS – Ecological Importance & Sensitivity.

GIS – Geographical Information Systems.

GPS – Global Positioning System.

Gulley (or erosion gulley) - A gully (commonly called a “donga”) is an erosion landform or

feature, created by running water eroding sharply into soil. Gullies generally resemble small

ditches that can be several meters in depth and width. Gullying or gully erosion is the

process by which gullies are formed.

HGM – Hydro-Geomorphic.

NFEPA – National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas, identified to meet national

freshwater conservation targets (CSIR, 2010).

PES – Present Ecological State, referring to the current state or condition of an

environmental resource in terms of its characteristics and reflecting change from its

reference condition.

RESERVE - The quantity and quality of water needed to sustain basic human needs and

ecosystems (e.g. estuaries, rivers, lakes, groundwater and wetlands) to ensure ecologically

sustainable development and utilisation of a water resource. The Ecological Reserve

pertains specifically to aquatic ecosystems.


12 | P a g e

1 INTRODUCTION

Sazi Environmental Consulting cc (SAZI) was appointed by Headwaters cc to undertake a

wetland delineation and assessment for the proposed coal mining rights application for

Berenice, Limpopo Province. The fieldwork was conducted on the 13th of March 2017.Farms

Berenice 548 MS, Celine 547 MS, portion 1 Doorvaardt 355MS, remainder Doorvadt 355

MS, Matsuri 358 MS, Longford 354 MS and Gezelschap 395 MS located in Makhado,

Limpopo Province are considered for the mining application. The project site is located

approximately 60km northwest from Louis Trichardt (Makhado), 70km southeast from the

Mapungubwe National Park and 80 km south west from Musina in the Soutpansberg

coalfields (see Figure 1-1) within the Makhado Local Municipality, of the Vhembe District

Municipality in Limpopo Province, South Africa. The proposed activity on the project site is

an open cast coal mining which will trigger Section 21 water uses of the National Water Act,

1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA), as follows:

(c), impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse;

(g), disposing of water in a manner that may detrimentally impact on a watercourse;

(i), altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse.

According to the NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) guidelines, any development that takes place

within 500m of a watercourse constitutes a water use, which requires a Water Use Licence

before development can commence. This wetland delineation and assessment study was

undertaken to supplement the (WUL) application process.

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference applicable to the specialist study include:

Desktop assessment of the project site (identify wetlands within the site by

examining existing national and provincial wetland databases, 1: 50 000

topographical maps, and ortho/ aerial photographs, if available).


13 | P a g e

Identify riparian areas where they occur;

A site visit to confirm the presence or absence of wetland areas within the proposed

project site area as well as verify wetland boundaries;

Where wetlands occur on or near the site alternatives identified on site only,

delineation is to be performed (according to the DWAF proposed methodology of the

delineation of wetlands) and classification of the wetland hydrogeomorphic types

using the hydrogeomorphic method (as specified within Wet-Ecoservices) will be

undertaken;

Assessment of the catchment;

Assessment of the Present Ecological Status of wetlands on site (Level 1, Wet-

Health);

Assessment of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity of wetlands on site; and

Impact assessment of the proposed activities on the wetlands.

1.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The following assumptions and limitations are applicable to this report:

The current information received from the client and existing data is correct.

The maps available are still relevant and can be used as representation of site

conditions.

Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is inherently inaccurate and some

inaccuracies, due to the use of handheld GPS instrumentation, may occur. If more

accurate assessments are required the wetlands will need to be surveyed and

pegged according to surveying principles.

Aquatic, wetland and riparian ecosystems are dynamic and complex. The effects of

natural seasonal and long-term variation in the ecological conditions are therefore

largely unknown.


14 | P a g e

Fauna and flora assessments undertaken were mainly for the purposes of supporting

the Present Ecological Status and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity that is

required as part of the wetland assessment. Extensive fauna and flora assessment

outside of the wetland system did not form part of this report.

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 NWA includes wetlands and rivers into the definition of the term

watercourse (DWAF, 2005).

The NWA, 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 NWA 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.”

The assessment of the Berenice wetland was undertaken within the context of the definitions

as mentioned above. The figure below (Figure 1-1) illustrates the location of the project site.


15 | P a g e

Figure 1-1 Location of the Berenice wetland delineation and assessment site


16 | P a g e

2 METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED

2.1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

The following data sources were used to inform the desktop assessment:

National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) wetland coverage, which

shows location of FEPA wetland sites;

1:50,000 imagery as well as latest Google Map Imagery for desktop assessment of

the site;

Biodiversity GIS (BGIS) to obtain conservation areas;

Wet-Health tool for the assessment of the present ecological status or health of the

wetland;

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Wetland Reserve tool for the

assessment of ecological importance and sensitivity of the wetland;

DWS website;

The topography data was obtained from the Surveyor General‟s 1:50 000 top sheet

data for the region; and

The current information received from the client.

2.2 WETLAND DELINEATION AND CLASSIFICATION

Verification of wetland boundaries was undertaken on site according to the DWS, previously

known as the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry - DWAF) guideline, 2013: A practical

guideline procedure for the identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian zones.

The guidelines indicate that wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes:

Wetland (hydromorphic) soils that display characteristics resulting from prolonged

saturation;

The presence, at least occasionally, of water loving plants (hydrophytes); and


17 | P a g e

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

conditions developing in the top 50 centimetres of the soil.

Wetland indicators that were identified on site included the terrain unit indicator, and soil

wetness. These were used to confirm the boundary of the Berenice wetlands.

The Hydro-Geomorphic types (HGM) classification was based on geomorphic wetland

setting (e.g. hillslope or valley bottom), water source (surface water dominated or sub-

surface water dominated) and how water flows through the wetland unit (diffusely or

channelled).

Figure 2-1 below indicates the wetland hydro-geomorphic setting of inland wetlands in South

Africa as well as wetland classification applied on wetlands for assessment.

Figure 2-1 Hydro-geomorphic setting

2.3 EXISTING IMPACTS AND CATCHMENT CONTEXT

Using available information, existing impacts to the wetlands and within the delineated

micro-catchment were mapped and described.


18 | P a g e

2.4 WETLAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT

This assessment was made in accordance with the level 1 Wet-Health method to describe

the Present Ecological Status (PES) (Macfarlane, et al. 2008). The method utilises

geomorphology, hydrology and vegetation to determine the health of a wetland.

The hydrology module assesses the land use descriptors (irrigation, level of reduction or

increase in flows, hydro-geomorphic setting of the wetland and extent of canalisation and

gully formations). The vegetation module assesses the level of vegetation transformation,

which is indicated by level of alien species invasion, terrestrial species encroachment and

encroachment by indigenous invasive species. The geomorphology module captures

deviations in the sedimentary inputs and outputs to and from wetlands that are consequence

of human activities.

Values range from Class A (largely natural) to Class F (critically modified). Table 2-1 below

describes the overall HGM health categories and their scores. This is calculated as 10 -

Impact scores to get the overall impact score.

Table 2-1Health categories used by WET-Health for describing the integrity of wetlands

HEALTH

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION Min Score

A Unmodified, natural. 0 – 0.9

B

Largely natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem

processes is discernable and a small loss of natural habitats and biota

may have taken place.

1 – 1.9

C

Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes

and loss of natural habitats has taken place but the natural habitat

remains predominantly intact.

2 – 3.9

D Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of 4 – 5.9


19 | P a g e

natural habitat and biota and has occurred.

E

The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and

biota is great but some remaining natural habitat features are still

recognizable.

6 – 7.9

F

Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem

processes have been modified completely with an almost complete

loss of natural habitat and biota.

8 – 10

An overall wetland health score was calculated by weighting the scores obtained for each

module and combining them to give an overall combined score using the following formula:

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

This overall score assists in providing an indication of wetland health/condition which can in

turn be used for recommending appropriate management measures.

2.5 WETLAND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY (EIS)

An assessment of the importance and sensitivity of wetland systems using the DWS

Reserve tool. Data input was populated using the outcomes of the WET-Health assessment

and other valuable information gathered in the field as well as available desktop information.

Ecological Importance and Sensitivity is a concept introduced in the reserve methodology to

evaluate a wetland in terms of:

Ecological Importance;

Hydrological Functions; and

Direct Human Benefits.

The maximum score for these components was taken as the importance rating for the

wetland which is rated using Table 2-2 below.


20 | P a g e

Table 2-2 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity rating table

ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY CATEGORIES RANGE OF EIS SCORE

>3 and <=4

Very high: Wetlands that are considered ecologically important and sensitive on a national or even international level. The biodiversity of these systems is usually very sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a major role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

High: Wetlands that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive. The biodiversity of these systems may be sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

>2 and <=3


>1 and <=2

Low/marginal: Wetlands that are not ecologically important and sensitive at any scale. The biodiversity of these systems is ubiquitous and not sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play an insignificant role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

>0 and <=1

2.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The information gained from the functional integrity and EIS assessments was used to

inform an assessment of the likelihood and significance of potential impacts associated with

the proposed mining activities. The following methodology (Table 2-3) has been adopted

from the DWS‟s Operational Guideline, 2010 entitled “Operational Guideline: Integrated

Water and Waste Management Plan‟.


21 | P a g e

Table 2-3 Ranking scales for impact assessment

DURATION (D) MAGNITUDE (M)

5 - Permanent

4 - Long term (ceases with operational life)

3 - Medium term (5-15 years)

2 - Short term (0-5 years)

1 – Immediate

10 - Very high/do not know

8 - High

6 - Moderate

4 - Low

2 – Minor

SCALE (S) PROBABILITY (P)

5 – International

4 - National

3 - Regional

2 - Local

1 - Site

0 – None

5 - Definite/do not know

4 - Highly probable

3 - Medium probability

2 - low probability

1- Improbable

0 – None

SIGNIFICANCE POINTS (SP) = (D+M+S) X

P

HIGH (H) = >60 POINTS

MODERATE (M) = 30-60 POINTS

LOW (L) = <30 POINTS

NO SIGNIFICANCE = 0

POSITIVE IMPACT

The maximum value of significance points is 100. Environmental effects could therefore be

rated as either high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) significance, as seen above.


22 | P a g e

3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT RESULTS

This section provides the findings of the wetland assessment. It gives a description of the

water resources found within the study area and surrounds; the wetland types (HGM units)

assessed and also describes the wetland delineation process. Thereafter, the wetland

Present Ecological Status (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) are

presented and discussed in relation to the impacts on the wetlands identified on site.

According to a report compiled by Delterra Consulting (2017), four depression (pans)

wetlands were identified on the project site during the field work conducted on the 31st of

July 2014. The four pan wetlands were located at the coordinates states below and were

named pan 1 to pan 4.

Pan 1: 22 42‟23.40”S, 29 30‟30.35”E

Pan 2: 22 44‟25.73”S, 29 27‟27.32”E

Pan 3: 22 43‟18.50”S, 29 30‟13.40”E

Pan 4: 22 42‟39.26”S, 29 30‟17.06”E

However, during extensive field work conducted on the 13th of March 2017 it was observed

that Pan1, 3 and 4 identified by Delterra Consulting (2017), were no longer active, whereas

Pan 2 was still functioning even though the water level had dropped. During the field work a

pan wetland located at Celine farm, coordinates 22.699875E, 29.520736S was also

observed and assessed.

The three pans (pan 1, 3 and 4) which were previously identified by Delterra Consulting

(2017), which were not functioning during the latest field assessment were not delineated.

Therefore a total of two active pans were identified and delineated for the current study. This

section of results provides information gathered on site during the field work.


23 | P a g e

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF WATER RESOURCES

The study area falls under A72B and A71J quaternary catchments of the Limpopo Water

Management Area (DWS 2012, https://www.dwa.gov.za/). The main water resource in the

quaternary catchment is the Brak River, which is supported by surface flow from adjacent

non-perennial streams (Figure 3-1). Table 3-1 below summarises the water resources in

the catchment.

Table 3-1 Summary of the water resources

DESCRIPTION QUATERNARY

CATCHMENT

MAIN WATER

RESOURCES

Berenice open cast coal

mining wetland delineation

Assessment

A72B and A71J (small

section of the affected

farms?)

Brak River


24 | P a g e

Figure 3-1 Map indicating the water resources within the study area


25 | P a g e

3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS

The study area consisted of two wetlands both identified as Depression/Pan wetlands according to

the HGM classification system. Terrain unit indicator, vegetation type, soil wetness and the

hydrology of the wetlands was used as a method to identify and verify the wetlands as

depression/pan Wetlands. Of the two wetlands identified, one wetland was located within the

Celine Farm and the other within the Longford Farm and the wetlands were approximately 8000m

apart. The approximate size of each wetland is about 0.1 ha. The wetlands were characterised

with the same wetland conditions and therefore are discussed simultaneously, with each wetland

named, based on its chronological order of assessment. The wetland located in the Celine farm

was assessed and named depression/pan 1 and the depression/pan wetland in the Longford farm,

as depression/pan 2, which was also known as “vleipan”. However depression/pan 1 and 2 were

assessed individually, concerning PES and EIS, as it is required for each HGM unit to be assessed

individually.

Table 3-2 below gives a description of the Pan Wetland types observed on site and provides a

picture thereafter of the pans.


26 | P a g e

Table 3-2 Description of the wetlands identified on site

WETLAND TYPE DESCRIPTION

Depression (including

Pans)

A basin shaped area with a closed elevation contour that allows for the

accumulation of surface water (i.e. it is inward draining). It may also

receive sub-surface water. An outlet is usually absent, and therefore this

type is usually isolated from the stream channel network

Pan1 wetland found on farm Celine 547MS(above)


27 | P a g e

Pan2 Wetland found in Longford farm 354MS

4 WETLAND DELINEATION

Wetland indicators that were identified on site included the terrain unit indicator, hydrophytes and

soil wetness. These indicators were used in identifying and confirming the boundary of the

wetlands. During the site assessment, soil wetness was experienced on the permanent zones of

the wetlands where evidence of surface water was observed, however the wetlands were

delineated from the point of previous wetland boundary.

According to the NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) guidelines, any development that takes place within

500m of a watercourse constitutes a water use, which requires a Water Use Licence before

development can commence. The open cast mining activities will take place within the stated

500m of a watercourse; however, a 100 m buffer was created for these wetlands due to

detrimental impacts posed to wetlands by mining. All mining activities are to take place within the

100 m buffer recommended for this project.

The figure (Figure 4-1) below is a map illustrating the wetland delineation. Following that is a map

(Figure 4-2) showing the wetland boundary of the delineated wetland types. Figure 4-3 is a map

illustrating wetland areas in relation to the mine infrastructures.


28 | P a g e

Figure 4-1 Delineated wetland boundary


29 | P a g e

Figure 4-2 Wetland buffer zone


30 | P a g e

Figure 4-3 Mine infrastructure map


31 | P a g e

5 PRESENT ECOLOGICAL CATEGORY OF THE BERENICE WETLANDS

Wetland health status was assessed by considering impacts to wetland hydrology,

geomorphology and vegetation in accordance with the Wet-Health modules. Individual

modules are discussed in the sections below, for each wetland assessed.

5.1 HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES

The formation, persistence, size, and function of wetlands are controlled by hydrologic

processes. Seasonal changes in water levels and the effect of recent precipitation events

must be considered when evaluating an area‟s hydrology, particularly outside of the growing

season or during the dry summer months. Hence, wetlands are characterised by movement

of water through or within them, water quality, and the degree of natural or human-induced

disturbance.

5.1.1 PAN WETLAND HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES

The hydrology of the pan wetlands is mainly from ground water inflow and precipitation.

Depression/Pan wetlands do not have an outlet nor are they directly connected to a stream.

Therefore Depression/Pan wetlands mostly have less human induced impacts.

Impacts associated with the depression/pan wetland within the Celine farm included that of

reduction in inundated area within the wetland. During the site assessment of the wetland, it

was evident that water that covered a wider area of the wetland has now dried out. The

reduction of the wetland size is caused by climatic conditions of the area. The site

assessment was undertaken during the dry season, and thus drying up of the

depression/pan wetland was observed (figure 5-1). The depression/pan wetland did not have

identifiable hydrological human impacts.

The depression/pan wetland was regarded as a seasonal wetland that is inundated during

rainy seasons and dries up during dry seasons, therefore impacts expected from the open


32 | P a g e

cast mining development will not pose detrimental impacts on the wetland. The hydrological

state of the wetlands at the assessed sites was regarded as largely natural.

The table below provides a description of the impacts on the Pan Wetlands hydrology.

Table 5-1 Hydrological impacts on the Pan wetlands

a. Reduction in wetlands size

experienced in Pan1

b. Reduction in wetlands size

experienced in Pan 2.

5.2 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES

The Geomorphology module evaluates the effects of changed sediment and erosion

distribution and retention patterns on a wetland. Evidence of this would relate to accelerated

erosion in the catchment and in the wetland.

5.2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The outcrops in the project site can be assigned to five different lithological units. Basement

rocks are comprised of Archaean granulite-grade gneisses of the Limpopo Mobile Belt,

which are overlain by a series of younger, generally non-metamorphosed volcanos and

sedimentary Proterozoic successions: the Blouberg Formation, the Waterberg Group and

the Soutpansberg Group. Some strata of the Phanerozoic Karoo Supergroup also occur

locally, but the extent of their outcrop is minor. Before considering the detailed geology of the


33 | P a g e

strata within the farm boundaries, this section will provide an outline of the general

characteristics of the lithological units which are most important to this study. In this section,

the existing stratigraphic names and classifications used by the South African Committee for

Stratigraphy (S.A.C.S., 1980) will be retained.

The Soutpansberg Group:

The volcano-sedimentary Soutpansberg Group outcrops in the north of South Africa, mainly

in the Soutpansberg Mountains. The mountains form a long south-facing escarpment from

Kruger National Park in the east to Vivo in the west. The Soutpansberg Group is preserved

in an elongate basin, which extends from the western end of the present study area to Pund

Maria. The lithostratigraphic subdivision of the Soutpansberg Group is shown in Table 5-2.

Generally, the Soutpansberg strata have a moderate to steep northerly dip, and are cut by

several E.N.E-W.S.W. trending faults (van Eeden et al., 1955).

The basal Tshifhefhe Formation only locally developed at the eastern end of the

Soutpansberg basin, and is only a few metres thick. It is comprised of strongly epidote

clastic sediments, including shale, greywacke and locally-derived conglomerate (Barker et

al., in press). The Sibasa Formation comprises subaerially extruded basalt, with intercalated

pyroclastic and sandstone lenses. Generally the basalts are massive, epidotised and locally

amygdaloidal (Barker et al., in press). The pyroclastic lenses locally reach a thickness of

200m, whereas the laterally persistent clastic lenses locally attain a thickness of 400m

(Barker at al., in press). The preponderance of inferred fluvial sediments and subaerial lavas

suggest that the Soutpansberg Group was deposited within a continental setting. Although

originally no unconformities were identified between the formations (Jansen, 1974), more

recent work (Cheney et ai., 1990) identified a regionally-developed, low-angle unconformity

beneath the Wyllies Poort Formation.


34 | P a g e

Table 5-2 Stratigraphic subdivision of the Soutpansberg Group (S.A.C.S. 1980)

GROUP FORMATION

Nzhelele Formation

(1000-2000M)

Wyllies Poort Formation

(1000-4000m)

SOUTPANSBERG GROUP Fundudzi Formation

(0-2800m)

Sibasa Formation

(0-3000m)

Tshifhefhe Formation

(0-9m)

Local Geology

The Geology of the study area is composed of the Karoo Supergroup and Soutpansberg

Subgroup. There are primary structures which also occur within the project site namely the

Tshipise, Bosbokpoort and Verrulam faults.


35 | P a g e

Figure 5-1 Geology of study area

5.2.2 SOILS

The soils in the study area include the Glenrosa and Mispah soils they range from clays to

free draining sandy soils.

5.2.3 PAN WETLAND GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES

The geomorphological assessment undertaken with regards to the present ecological status

of the depression/pan wetland was regarded as unmodified/natural. This was based on the

absence of erosion and sedimentation processes within the pan HGM unit. The wetland did

not have any noticeable erosion, gullies, sedimentation or change in the geomorphological


36 | P a g e

setting. Pan 2, had a bird hide on the banks of the river, this however is not considered as a

significant geomorphological impact on wetlands. A minor impact to wetland geomorphology

within the depression/pan wetlands was associated with the animal trampling on the wetland

which had resulted in the compaction of soil on the permanent zones.

Table 5-3 Impacts on Pan Wetland’s geomorphology

Trampling on Pan1 wetland a. Trampling on Pan 1 wetland

5.3 VEGETATION CHANGES

This module has an important contribution to the composition, structure and function of a

wetland, and is also important in terms of the habitat. A robust vegetation cover assists in

holding soil particles therefore minimising soil erosion intensity. This is also important for

water retention, which aids in water quality improvement.

The vegetation type that exists in an area can serve as an indication of the type of landscape

features that area may host. Some vegetation types do not have the capacity to host

permanent wetlands and/or perennial rivers. The study area falls within the sweet

bushveld/mixed bushveld. This vegetation type is characterised by thickets of Acacia sp. The

Acacia sp. is distributed in bushveld and semi-desert areas and usually growing in circular

groups of impenetrable thickets in overgrazing areas (Nonyane, 2013).


37 | P a g e

Using vegetation as a wetland indicator is considered one of the indicator tools; however, the

use of vegetation as an indicator may bring along confusion based on the fact that,

vegetation differs with season, especially when working with seasonal wetlands that are not

permanently inundated to hold hydrophytes. Vegetation indicator during rainy season is

ideal; however during dry season it may not be easy to identify certain vegetation species.

5.3.1 DEPRESSION/PAN VEGETATION CHANGES

Both depression/pan wetlands did not have a high amount of alien species that pose a threat

to wetland vegetation. The wetlands had minor natural impacts with regards to vegetation.

However, both wetlands experienced, to some degree, human interference. Depression/Pan

1 experienced removal of vegetation on the outskirts of the wetland zone. Evidence of

burning and camping out was observed in this wetland vicinity, which has resulted in the

removal of vegetation.

Both wetlands housed some wetland vegetation and this resulted in an increased

biodiversity around this wetland areas. The vegetation assessment undertaken for both

depression/pan wetlands was regarded as largely modified. The wetlands are regarded as

largely modified due to lack of vegetation around the wetland area.


38 | P a g e

Table 5-4 Vegetation observed on Pan Wetlands

Vegetation type Identification Extent (%)

Grasses Juncus effuses, Arundnella

napalensis, Sporobolus

africanus, Panicum

coloratum Cenchris ciliaris,

Eragrostis superba

65

Sedges Cyperus marginatus 25

Trees Acacia erubescens, acacia

mellifera

10

6 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT SCORES

The impacts that were observed on site largely informed the hydrological, geomorphological

and vegetation impact scores. In this summary of impact scores, the wetlands were

explained individually based on their different vegetation types and impact. Both

depression/pan wetlands however, ranked an overall category of C which infers moderately

modified state. The impact scores are summarised on the table below.

Table 6-1 Summary of impact scores for Pan1 wetland




1.8 0.0 5.0

PES Category B A D


2.2



39 | P a g e

Table 6-2 Summary of impact scores for Pan2 wetland




1.8 0.0 5.2

PES Category B A D


2.3


7 WETLAND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY (EIS)

According to Kotze, et al, (2008), wetlands perform certain functions based on their HGM

unit type and the importance of a wetland unit is linked to its ecosystem services. According

to Davies and Day, (1998), some of the wetland functions include the following:

streamflow regulation;

flood attenuation;

groundwater recharge;

water purification;

sediment trapping;

harvesting of natural resources;

tourism and recreation;

Livestock, and crop farming.

Some of the functions in addition to Davies and Day (2008) include: Provision of water for

human use, cultural significance, erosion control, and biodiversity maintenance.


40 | P a g e

7.1 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

The depression/pan wetlands were assessed to have Moderate ecological importance and

sensitivity. The following observations were made about the wetlands:

The tables below give a summary (Table 7-1) and explanation (Table 7-2) of the EIS Score

for the Pan wetlands.

7.1.1 PAN (1, 2) WETLAND ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY

The wetlands were assessed to be at a moderately modified state, which infers a moderate

change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats and biota has taken place but

the natural habitat remains predominantly intact which makes the wetlands suitable for

hosting a diversity of biota;

The wetlands contribute towards maintaining biodiversity;

The wetlands contribute towards maintaining water quality;

The wetlands are used predominately for game farming by wild animals as a source

of water supply; and

The wetland is an important bird habitat, and birds (ducks) may use it for breeding,

nesting, and rearing young. The ducks also use the wetland as a source of drinking

water and for feeding, resting, shelter, and social interactions.

However, the following considerations were made about the wetlands:

The wetlands assessed on site are considered to be intermittent, active during rainy

seasons and dry out during dry seasons;

The wetlands are not located in a protected area and are not RAMSAR sites; and

The wetlands found on site are not rare.

The table below gives a summary and explanation of the EIS Scores for the Pan wetlands.


41 | P a g e

Table 7-1 Summary of EIS Scores for Pan (1 and 2) Wetlands

SUMMARY Score (0-4)

Confidence

(1-5)

Ecological Importance and Sensitivity 2.7 3.3

Hydro-Functional Importance 1.4 2.9

Direct Human Benefits 0.0 0.3

Overall EIS Category 1.3 2.2

Table 7-2 Explanation of EIS scores for Pan Wetlands

ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY 1.3


>1 and <=2

8 HYDROLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE WETLANDS

The hydrological function of the wetlands is described on the table below. The wetlands on

site are important as they are likely to perform some nitrate and toxicant removal functions.


42 | P a g e

Table 8-1 Generic hydrological functions performed by the assessed wetlands

WETLAND

HYDRO-

GEOMORPHIC

TYPE

Source of water

maintaining the

wetland1

HYDROLOGICAL FUNCTIONS POTENTIALLY PERFORMED BY THE WETLAND

Flood attenuation Stream flow

augmentation

Erosion

control

Potential for water quality enhancement

Surface Sub-

surface

Sediment

trapping

Phosphate

removal Nitrates Toxicants

2

Early wet

season

Late wet

season

Early

wet

season

Late wet

season

1. Pan/

Depression * * + + 0 0 0 0 0 + +

Water source: 0 Contribution usually small

* Important contribution

Rating:

0 Function unlikely to be performed to any significant extent

+ Function likely to be present at least to some degree

++ Function very likely to be present (and often performed to a high level)


43 | P a g e

8.1 DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS

The pan wetlands are located within private property. The wetlands are within a game farm,

which infers that the wetlands are used primarily by animals and not directly by human

beings. This implies that both wetlands do not have significant direct human benefits

8.2 NFEPA WETLANDS

During the desktop assessment of the NFEPA atlas, various wetland types (HGM Units)

were identified. The figure below depicts the wetland types identified by the NFEPA

database.


44 | P a g e

Figure 8-1 NFEPA Wetlands in and around study area


45 | P a g e

9 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACT

An impact assessment was undertaken and mitigation measures prescribed for the

proposed open cast mining activities.

The expected impacts associated with the wetlands due to the proposed open cast mining

activities are summarised as follows:

9.1 Loss and disturbance of wetland habitat

Mitigation:

Avoid additional wetland loss by limiting construction/excavation activities to as small

an area as possible.

Mark wetland areas with „No-Go‟ signage.

Clearly demarcate the required servitudes in the field and limit all activities to the

demarcated areas.

Include environmental awareness aspects into the site induction program to ensure

all staff are aware of the location and importance of wetland habitats on site.

Establish emergency response measures and a clearly defined chain of

communication to rapidly deal with any unforeseen impacts to wetlands, e.g. spills.

A 100m buffer is suggested for this open cast mining activity due to the negative

impacts posed by mining activities on wetlands.

Mining should be undertaken outside of the 100m buffer zone of the wetland edge,

this is due to negative mining impacts.

No stockpiling of material may take place within the wetland areas and buffer zones.

Temporary construction camps and infrastructure should be located away from the

wetland edge and its buffer zone.

Regular cleaning up of the wetland areas should be undertaken to remove litter.


46 | P a g e

9.2 Increased sediment transport into wetlands

Mitigation:

Design and implement a stormwater management plan that aims to minimise the

concentration of flow and increase in flow velocity, as well as minimising sediment

transport off site.

Phase vegetation clearing activities as far as possible to limit the area exposed at

any one time.

Where practically possible, the major earthworks should be undertaken during the

dry season (roughly from April to August) to limit erosion due to rainfall runoff.

9.3 Altered flow characteristics within wetlands

Mitigation:

Design and implement a stormwater management plan that aims to minimise the

concentration of flow and increase in flow velocity, as well as minimising sediment transport

off site.

9.4 Water quality deterioration within wetlands

Mitigation:

Store and handle potentially polluting substances and waste in designated, bund wall

facilities.

Waste should be regularly removed from the construction site by suitably equipped

and qualified operators and disposed of in approved facilities.

Locate temporary waste and hazardous substance storage facilities a minimum of

100m from any wetland edge.

Keep sufficient quantities of spill clean-up materials on site.


47 | P a g e

Table 9-1 Summary of wetland impact assessment

ASPECT IMPACT POSITIVE/NEGATIVE IMPACT PROBABILITY DURATION SCALE MAGNITUDE SIGNIFICANCE/RISK

SIGNIFICANCE RATING BEFORE MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURE

SIGNIFICANCE RATING AFTER MITIGATION

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

Construction trenches and excavations on wetland and associated river

Water quality deterioration (Pollution from suspended material) Negative 3 5 2 4 33 Moderate

An appropriate water management system should be used during the construction period, including, for example, efficient land drainage and the use of constructed ponds for receiving site runoff to reduce the impact of runoff on nearby watercourses. The creation of artificial pan wetland on a different location within the farm is encouraged. This should be considered since the water in the pan wetlands are used for animal feeding

Low

Construction for site establishment and mining infrastructure

Negative impact on flora and fauna from human interference on site Negative 2 4 1 4 18 Low

Use of techniques to minimise any form of noise pollution during construction should be exercised. Machinery used during the construction phase should be one such that it does not emit a high amount of chemicals that may deteriorate the wetlands.

Low

Land clearing Biodiversity loss Negative 5 4 2 6 60 Moderate

Avoid stockpiling of removed soils on wetlands. The creation of artificial pan wetland on a different location within the farm is encouraged. The creation of artificial will promote habitat life within the farm instead of total destruction.

Moderate

Land clearing Soil loss Negative 3 4 1 6 33 Moderate

Construct low level water deflection berms, reduce clearing to a minimum to maintain vegetation cover. Avoid stockpiling of removed soils on wetlands as this will promote erosion of soil

Moderate


48 | P a g e

into wetlands and further deteriorating the wetlands.

Oil spillages Water quality contamination Negative 4 4 2 6 48 Moderate

Servicing of machinery procedures; maintenance. This should also be done far away from the wetlands. No washing of equipment‟s (after spill or with oil) within the wetlands.

Low

Human dispersal of alien seeds/sapling by construction vehicles, shoes, clothes

Alien invasion of native species habitat Negative 4 3 2 6 44 Moderate

A list of all possible alien vegetation that is probable to occur within site and as a result of mining activities within wetlands should be compiled and eradicated as soon as they occur.

Moderate

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS

Increased excavation processes that may lead to more sediment being deposited into the wetlands Gully formations Negative 2 4 2 4 20 Low

During the operational phase, the use of a detailed EMP should be encouraged. Storm water management measures should be followed. Sedimentation trapping methods should also be in place do reduce the creation of gully formation.

Low

Continued mining activities Water quality may

be reduced by increased sedimentation and erosion Negative 3 3 1 4 24 Low

Mining activities should be within the mentioned buffer away from the wetlands. Introduce stormwater management measures as part of EMP

Low

Continued mining activities

Interruption of wetland habitat with potential decrease in species numbers and local biodiversity Negative 4 3 2 6 44 Moderate

Possible fencing off of the study area from the rest of the game farm will reduce the loss of biodiversity. existing habitat features should be incorporated into site design and protected from change

Moderate

Toxic chemicals from vehicles and mining machinery (oil, petrol, brake fluid etc.)

Pollution of wetland and habitat which could ultimately lead to underground water contamination Negative 3 4 2 6 36 Moderate

Servicing and refuelling of vehicles should take place outside of the mining area; Drip trays should be used to collect waste oil and other lubricants; Any effluents or waste

Low


49 | P a g e

containing oil, grease or other industrial substances must be collected in a suitable container and removed from the sites. Oil spills that may occur should be removed as soon as possible and the contaminated top soil disposed using proper procedures put in place.

Human dispersal of alien seeds/sapling by construction vehicles, shoes, clothes

Alien invasion of native species habitat Negative 3 4 2 6 36 Moderate

Alien species (including their seedlings and saplings) identified within the prospecting sites should be removed (manually preferably) to prevent their spreading; Alien species removal programme must be developed and implemented

Low


50 | P a g e

10 CONCLUSION

The depression/pan wetlands identified on site are considered intermittent. During dry

seasons of the year (March-August) the wetlands are most likely to disappear, unless the

area experiences heavy rains that is enough to inundate the wetland area. The depression

wetlands are groundwater and/or surface inflow fed, apart from precipitation, meaning that

although they may physically disappear during dry seasons, they may still be present with

just a lower water table and less indicators.

Both wetlands consisted of the same landscape, hydrological processes, and

geomorphological processes and to some extent vegetation cover and therefore were

assessed as having a Moderately Modified PES and a Moderate EIS. This infers that the

wetlands have not experienced major impacts.

In conclusion, considering the nature of the wetlands, development of an open cast mine

can take place, however, proper mitigation measures need to be put in place before

commencement of any activities that might have detrimental negative impacts to wetlands.

Moreover, careful consideration needs to be put in place as the site where the open cast

mining will take place in located within a game farm that has a variety of wild animal species.

Additionally, development should be prohibited from the areas within the delineated

boundaries and should be undertaken in areas outside of the 100 m buffer zone delineated

for this mining project. Therefore all mitigation measures stated above should be complied

with.


51 | P a g e

11 REFERENCES

Batchelor, 2009. WETLAND AND RIPARIAN PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG.

Davies B. and Day J. 1998. VANISHING WATERS. University of Cape Town Press.

Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa.

Delport, L. (2017). Coal mining rights application for Berenice, Limpopo Provinec. Prepared

for Naledzi Environmental Consulting. Deltera Consulting Report.

Directorate Water Resource Classification. Department of Water Affairs, South Africa, July

2011. CLASSIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCES IN THE OLIFANTS

WATER MANAGEMENT AREA (WMA 4): Integrated Units of Analysis (IUA) Delineation

Report. Report No: RDM/WMA04/00/CON/CLA/0311

DWAF (2008) Updated Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and

Riparian Areas, prepared by M. Rountree, A. L. Batchelor, J. MacKenzie and D. Hoare.

Report no. XXXXXXXXX. Stream Flow Reduction Activities, Department of Water Affairs

and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.

DWAF (2013). Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland

Wetlands (Version 2.0). Stream Flow Reduction Activities, Department of Water Affairs and

Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.

Huizenga, J.M. and Harmse, J.T. (2005). Geological and Anthropogenic influences on the

water chemistry of the Jukskei River, Gauteng South Africa. Geology 108 (3), 439-447

Kotze DC, Ellery WN, Rountree M, Grenfell MC, Marneweck G, Nxele IZ, Breen DC, Dini J,

Batchelor AL, and Sieben E, 2008. WET-RehabPlan: Guidelines for planning wetland

rehabilitation in South Africa. WRC Report No. TT 336/08. Water Research Commission,

Pretoria


52 | P a g e

Kotze, D.C., Marneweck, G.C., Batchelor, A.L., Lindley, D.S. and Collins, N.B. 2009. Wet-

Ecoservices: A TECHNIQUE FOR RAPIDLY ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUPPLIED BY WETLANDS.

Le Roux, W.J., Schaefer, L.M., and Genthe, B. 2012. MICROBIAL WATER QUALITY IN

THE UPPER OLIFANTS RIVER CATCHMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH. African

Journal of Microbiology research. Vol. 6(36) pg. 6580 – 6588.

Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. &

Goge, C. 2009. WET-HEALTH: A TECHNIQUE FOR RAPIDLY ASSESSING WETLAND

HEALTH, VERSION 2.

Nel, J.L., Driver, A., Strydom, W.F., Maherry, A., Petersen, C., Hill, L., Roux, D.J., Nienaber,

S., van Deventer, H. Swartz, E. and Smith-Adao, L.B. 2011. ATLAS OF FRESHWATER

ECOSYSTEM PRIORITY AREAS IN SOUTH AFRICA: MAPS TO SUPPORT

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES. Water Research

Commission, Gezina. WRC Report No. TT 500/11

Operational Guideline: Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan for the preparation of

the Water Quality Management Technical Document to support the Application for Licences

for Mining and Industries in Terms of the Requirements of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act

36 of 1998)

Sinclair I., Hockey P., Tarboton W., & Ryan P. (2011). Sasol birds of Southern Africa (4th

Ed). Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Van Wyk B., & van Wyk P. (2013). Field guide to trees of Southern Africa. Struik Nature,

Cape Town.

Van Oudtshoorn F. (2012). Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa. Briza Publications,

Pretoria.


53 | P a g e

11.1 APPENDIX 1

11.2 WETLAND VEGETATION

The following wetland vegetation was observed on site.

Vegetation type Identification Extent (%)

Grasses Juncus effuses, Arundnella

napalensis, Sporobolus

africanus, Panicum

coloratum Cenchris ciliaris,

Eragrostis superba

65

Sedges Cyperus marginatus 25

Trees Acacia erubescens, acacia

mellifera

10


54 | P a g e

APPENDIX 2

11.3 WETLAND FAUNA

The following avifauna species were observed at points of the assessed wetland areas;

Numida meleagris (Helmeted guineafowl).

The wetland surrounding area (farm) housed a few identifiable fauna such as the Giraffa

Camelopardalis, T. strepsiceros and Raphicerus campestris

Fauna observed on site

Giraffa Camelopardalis

(Giraffe)

N. meleagris


55 | P a g e

T. strepsiceros

Raphicerus campestris


56 | P a g e

m: 084 800 0187

e: [email protected]

a: B16 Lone Creek, Waterfall Park, Vorna Valley, Midrand, 1684

berenice wetland delineation and assessment: draft … 12 -berenice wetland... · limpopo, the...

Documents