KZN BAR - DRAFT - Dec 2010 by liwenting

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 72

									Table of Contents

CONTEXT OF THIS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT................................................................................... iii
   EAP competency ........................................................................................................................... iv
   Summary Document ...................................................................................................................... v
SECTION A: APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION .......................................................................................... 2
   1.      APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM ASSESSING ALTERNATIVES: .......................................... 2
   2.      APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM COMPLYING WITH PARTS OF REGULATION 23(2)
           REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THIS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: ........................................ 2
SECTION B: ACTIVITY INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 3
   1.      ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................... 3
   2.      ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................ 5
        2(a) Site alternatives:.......................................................................................................................... 6
        2(b) Activity alternatives: ..................................................................................................................... 6
   3.      ACTIVITY POSITION ..................................................................................................................... 6
   5.      PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY................................................................................................ 7
   6.      SITE ACCESS ............................................................................................................................... 7
   7.      WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT ......................................................... 8
        7(a)       Solid waste management ........................................................................................................ 8
        7(b)       Liquid effluent ...................................................................................................................... 19
        7(c)       Emissions into the atmosphere .............................................................................................. 19
        7(d)       Generation of noise .............................................................................................................. 19
   8.      WATER USE ............................................................................................................................... 19
   9.      ENERGY EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................ 20
   10. SITE OR ROUTE PLAN................................................................................................................ 20
   11. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................................................. 20
   12. FACILITY ILLUSTRATION ............................................................................................................ 20
   13. ACTIVITY MOTIVATION............................................................................................................... 21
        13(a)      Socio-economic value of the activity....................................................................................... 21
        13(b)      Need and desirability of the activity ........................................................................................ 21
   14. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES ....................................................... 19
SECTION C: SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 20
   1.      GRADIENT OF THE SITE............................................................................................................. 20
   2.     LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE ......................................................................................................... 20
   3.     GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE .......................................... 20
   4.     GROUNDCOVER ........................................................................................................................ 20
   5.     LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA .................................................................... 20
   6.     CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES .......................................................................................... 20
SECTION D: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................................... 21
   1.     ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES ............................................................................................. 21
   2.     COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT ...................................................................................... 21
   3.     LOCAL AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................... 22
   4.     CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................ 22
SECTION E: IMPACT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 23
   1.     ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES ...................................................... 23
   2.     IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE ................................ 23
   3.     IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE............................................ 24
   4.     IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE OPERATIONAL PHASE............................................... 31
SECTION F: APPENDIXES....................................................................................................................... 41
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       iii
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

CONTEXT OF THIS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

The environmental assessment process undertaken to date has culminated in the production of a draft BAR
and associated draft rehabilitation plans, which provide detailed information relevant to the projects in the
KwaZulu Natal Province.

In order to guide and focus the reader, the Table below indicates where in the draft Phase 2 reports (the
BAR and/ or the draft Rehabilitation plans) the requisite information as outlined in NEMA can be found.
General information detail is provided in the provincial BAR and indicated below, while project specific
information required in terms of NEMA is provided in the relevant project specific draft Rehabilitation plan.
As a result, the Table below has been included at the front of each draft Rehabilitation plan to guide the
reader as to where project specific information can be found as required by NEMA.

Table 1: Information requirements of the BAR as outlined in NEMA
    REGULATION                    CONTENT AS REQUIRED BY NEMA                                      SECTION
                                                                                                 /ANNEXURE1
     23 (2) (a)     (i) Details of the EAP who prepared the report; and                     Introduction -
                                                                                            BAR
                    (ii) Details of the expertise of the EAP to carry out basic             Introduction -
                    assessment procedures;                                                  BAR
     23 (2) (b)     A description of the proposed activity;                                 Section B - BAR
                                                                                            Rehab Plan
     23 (2) (c)     A description of the property on which the activity is to be            Rehab Plan
                    undertaken and the location of the activity on the property,
     23 (2) (d)     A description of the environment that may be affected by the            Rehab Plan
                    proposed activity and the manner in which the geographical,
                    physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the
                    environment may be affected by the proposed activity;
     23 (2) (e)     An identification of all legislation and guidelines that have been      Section B - BAR
                    considered in the preparation of the basic assessment report;
      23 (2) (f)    Details of the public participation process conducted in terms of       Section D - BAR
                    regulation 22(a) in connection with the application, including –
                    (i) The steps that were taken to notify potentially interested and      Section D - BAR
                    affected parties of the proposed application;
                    (ii) Proof that notice boards, advertisements and notices               Appendix E - BAR
                    notifying potentially interested and affected parties of the
                    proposed application have been displayed, placed or given;
                    (iii) A list of all persons, organisations and organs of state that     Appendix E - BAR
                    were registered in terms of Regulation 57 as interested and
                    affected parties in relation to the application;
                    (iv) A summary of the issues raised by interested and affected          Appendix E - BAR
                    parties, the date of receipt of and the response of the EAP to
                    those issues;




1Note: BAR refers to the 2010 KwaZulu Natal BAR
Rehab plan refers to the 2010 KZN North, KZN Midlands, Maputaland, Sneezewood, and Upper Mzintlava Rehabilitation
Plans
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       iv
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

   23 (2) (g)   A description of the need and desirability of the proposed           Executive
                activity and any identified alternatives to the proposed activity    summary
                that are feasible and reasonable, including advantages and           Section B - BAR
                disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives will
                have on the environment and on the community that may be
                affected by the activity;
   23 (2) (h)   A description and assessment of the significance of any              Section E - BAR
                environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, that may
                occur as a result of the undertaking of the activity or identified
                alternatives or as a result of any construction, erection or
                decommissioning associated with the undertaking of the activity;
   23 (2) (i)   Any environmental management and mitigation measures                 Section E - BAR
                proposed by the EAP;
   23 (2) (j)   Any inputs made by specialists to the extent that may be             Wetland
                necessary; and                                                       assessments
                                                                                     attached to Rehab
                                                                                     Plan
   23 (2) (k)   Any specific information required by the competent authority.        -
   23 (3) (a)   A BAR must take into account any relevant guidelines; and;           Section B - BAR
   23 (3) (b)   A BAR must take into account any practices that have been            -
                developed by the competent authority in respect of the kind of
                activity which is the subject of the application.

Please note: This Basic Assessment Report must be read in conjunction with the following
draft Rehabilitation plans:
   • KZN North
   • KZN Midlands
   • Maputaland
   • Sneezewood
   • Upper Mzintlava




EAP competency
The basic assessment process has been undertaken by the following Environmental
Assessment Practitioners (EAPs):

Ms Karen Shippey
Ms Karen Shippey who is overseeing the Basic Assessment processes for the Working for
Wetlands project is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
(400132\05) and is a Certified Environmental Assessment Practitioner with the Interim
Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of South Africa.

Donnelly McCleland
Ms Donnelly McCleland holds a BA degree in Anthropology and Sociology from NMMU
(formerly UPE). She has four and a half years experience in the integrated environmental
management field and is a member of the International Association for Impact Assessment
(South Africa).
                   WORKING FOR WETLANDS
                   REHABILITATION PROJECT
                   IN THE KWAZULU NATAL PROVINCE:
                  DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

                                    Summary Document

The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) appointed Aurecon South Africa
(Pty) Ltd to undertake the project activities and associated reporting required for the
various phases of the rehabilitation planning cycle. These include Phase 1 Reports, the
wetland rehabilitation plans as well as the Basic Assessment Reports (BARs) required for
each project area within all nine provinces. Refer to Figure 1 below that graphically depicts
the entire 24 month planning and implementation process which begins in Phase 1 and ends
in Phase 3. Phase 1 and 2 are undertaken in the first twelve months and Phase 3 in the
second twelve months.

               O bj e c t i v e s o f t h e W or ki ng f o r W e tl a n d s P r og r a m m e

Working for Wetlands is a government funded programme that started in 2001 with a R20
million budget that was implemented across 14 projects. The programme is managed by
SANBI and is currently implemented across 35 projects countrywide with a budget of R75
million. Being part of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), more than 1300 local
people are recruited to work in projects on limited term contracts. Typical activities
undertaken within the projects include:
    o constructing structures (gabions, berms, weirs) in wetlands;
    o removing invasive alien plants from the wetland and immediate catchment;
    o plugging artificial drainage channels in the wetland;
    o raising awareness of wetlands among workers, landowners and the general public;
    o providing adult basic education and training, and technical skills, and
    o developing management plans for the rehabilitated wetlands.

The two main objectives of the programme are wetland conservation in South Africa and
poverty reduction through job creation and skills development amongst vulnerable
and marginalised groups.

                                  E n v i r on m e nt a l l e g i s la ti o n

The proposed project(s) triggers one or more of the following listed activities 1(d), 1(k),
1(m), 1(v), 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12 of Regulation 386 published in GN No. 386 of 21 April
2006 of the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA). A Basic
Assessment (BA) process must therefore be undertaken before the authorities, in this
instance the national Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), can make a decision on
whether the proposed activities and ultimately the proposed projects should be authorised.

The Public Participation process (PPP) was formally initiated with the advertisement of the
BA process on 8 August 2010. Aurecon applied for exemption from independence as its
engineers are undertaking the design work for the interventions. To date no comments
related to the exemption application have been received by DEA.
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       vi
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

As part of the BA process, environmental (biophysical and socio-economic) impacts are
identified and assessed to ascertain the consequences of the project on the environment
and the people that live in it. Based on the findings from the impact assessment, specific
mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the significance of negative impacts and
enhance positive impacts (those that improve the integrity and health of an ecosystem or
human health and well-being). The process also gives Interested and Affected Parties
(I&APs) an opportunity to comment and to be kept informed about decisions that may
impact them or the environment.

As planning continues over a 24 month period, prioritisation and planning (in terms of
identifying which wetlands will be rehabilitated and how) is undertaken within the first 12
months, while the actual implementation (via the construction of the interventions) is
undertaken within the second 12 months. Interventions may be postponed even if they
have received environmental authorisation due to issues such as lack of budget, logistical
problems in the area, and/ or dramatic changes to the receiving environment (flooding
etc.). In other words these structures would be ‘banked’ for implementation as/ when
suitable or appropriate.

In terms of Section 39 of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998), a General Authorisation
(GA) has been granted for certain activities that are listed under the NWA that usually
require a Water Use License. Such a GA exists for wetland rehabilitation as long as the
activities are for conservation purposes. As some of the rehabilitation activities entail
‘impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse’ and/ or ‘altering the bed, banks,
course or characteristics of a watercourse, a number of GAs have been registered with the
Department of Water Affairs (DWA) for structures that would ordinarily require a Water Use
License. For each planning cycle the proposed rehabilitation work will be submitted to DWA,
the requisite approval sought and project monitoring reported as required.

                              P h a s e 1 , 2 a n d 3 e x p l ai n e d

The purpose of Phase 1 and the associated reporting is to identify within a province:
    1. which are the priority catchments and associated wetlands/ sites within which
        rehabilitation work needs to be undertaken, and to
    2. identify key stakeholders who would review and comment on the Phase 1 report and
        later the detailed planning (Phase 2) reports.

As part of Phase 1, the Engineers peg/ set-out the previous year’s interventions that had
been authorised by DEA. Refer to Figure 1 below that graphically depicts the entire 24
month planning process which begins in Phase 1 and ends in Phase 3.
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       vii
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT




Figure 1: The Working for Wetlands planning process (Phase 1 to Phase 3)
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province      viii
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

During Phase 2, the wetlands that were prioritised during Phase 1 are visited by the project
team which consist of a Wetland ecologist, Engineer, Environmental Practitioner, SANBI’s
Provincial Coordinator (PC), and where possible and/ or appropriate Interns, Landowners
and other specialists.

The Phase 2 reports document and provide detail on the type and location of interventions
that are needed to rehabilitate the prioritised wetlands within a specific catchment area. A
wetland assessment is undertaken using the WET-Tools methodologies (WRC 2010) to
ensure that systematic assessments are utilised and the ecosystem consequences and
benefits understood. This is described in more detail below. The motivation for the
rehabilitation work, and the potential impacts associated with the interventions are also
detailed in these reports.




Wetland ecologists working in the KZN wetlands.

Regular monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the interventions is undertaken to establish the
effectiveness of the structure in rehabilitating the identified wetland. This baseline data is
also included in the Phase 2 reporting. BARs are compiled as separate documents (one for
each province), while the Rehabilitation Plans are compiled for each project and are
attached as an Appendix to the provincial BAR and submitted to DEA for their environmental
authorisation decision. Summaries of the wetland prioritisation, problems and rehabilitation
objectives are included in the rehabilitation plans.

As part of Phase 2, a maintenance inventory is undertaken by the PC, in consultation with
the Engineer of any existing interventions that are damaged and/ or failing and thus require
maintenance.
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       ix
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Upon approval of the wetland rehabilitation plan by DEA, DWA and the directly affected
landowners, the work detailed for the project will be implemented within a year with
ongoing monitoring being undertaken thereafter. This occurs within Phase 3 of the project
cycle. The Rehabilitation Plans are considered to be the primary working document for the
                                                                                                          2
implementation of the project via the construction/ undertaking of interventions                              listed in
the Plan. Fourteen implementing agents (IAs) are currently employed and are responsible
for employing contractors and their teams (workers) to construct the interventions detailed
in each of the Rehabilitation plans.




Concrete batching and a preparation of site for a weir being built by the
Implementing agents

                                           W e t l a n d A s s e s s m e n ts

Time and resources required for detailed assessments of the wetlands is limited, and thus
using the WET-Tools methodology, a rapid procedure was adopted to assist the project
team in systematically carrying out the assessments under constraints. The assessments
entailed the following steps:
    1. Assessment of the impacts and threats within each wetland system via establishing
        the current ‘health’ of the wetland;
    2. Establishment of rehabilitation objectives and the selection of appropriate
        interventions to achieve the identified rehabilitation objectives; and finally, an
     3. Assessment of the likely contribution of rehabilitation interventions to the wetland
        health and ecosystem delivery via determining the spatial area likely to be affected
        by the proposed intervention(s) and assessing the benefits to the health and/ or eco-
        system services of the specific wetland i.e. the difference between the current health
        and the projected health of the wetland with and without the intervention(s).

                                   S c r e e ni n g pr o c e s s - Al t e r n a t i v e s

While on site during Phase 2, the project team identify and locate the interventions that
would meet the rehabilitation objectives as well as the programme’s overall objectives
(wetland conservation in South Africa and poverty reduction through job creation). The

2This could include soft options such as alien clearing, eco-logs, gabion structures as well as hard structures for
example weirs
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       x
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

project team discuss and evaluate the potential intervention options; and factoring in
environmental, social and economic considerations into their discussions, they agree on the
most appropriate intervention that would meet the rehabilitation objectives for the wetland.


      Increased labour requirement for the Working for Wetlands Programme

As a result of changes to the donor fund requirements, 2010 has seen an increase in the
labour percentage requirement for the Working for Wetlands programme. The project team
were thus required to investigate more labour intensive intervention options for wetland
rehabilitation. These included soft engineering options such as berms, eco-logs as well as
alien clearing.

This resulted in the project team having to investigate other wetland areas in order to meet
the requirements. Consequently, some of the wetlands prioritised during 2010 in the Phase
1 reporting would not be rehabilitated during this planning cycle (due to the large amount of
hard engineering required which was less labour intensive), while new additional wetlands
were identified during the Phase 2 site visits as their rehabilitation requirements contributed
towards meeting the increased labour component for the programme.


                                         I nt e r v e n t i o n d e s i g n

After appropriate interventions have been decided upon by the project team, GPS
coordinates and digital photographs are taken for record purposes. Appropriate dimensions
of the locations are recorded in order to design and calculate quantities for the
interventions. At the end of the site visit a location layout of the agreed interventions and
rehabilitation objectives is agreed upon by the project team. Based on certain criteria and
data measurements (water volumes and flow rates, soil types); the availability of materials
such as rock; labour intensive targets; maintenance requirements etc., the interventions
are then designed. Bills of quantities are calculated for the designs and cost estimates
made. Maintenance requirements for existing interventions in the assessed wetlands are
similarly detailed and costs calculated. The engineer also reviews and, if necessary, adjusts
any previously planned interventions that are included into the historical rehabilitation
plans.

           M a i n t e n a nc e a n d a m e n dm e n t s t o a ut h or i z e d i n t e r v e nt i o ns

With regards to structures that have previously received environmental authorisation and
have not yet been built and/ or require maintenance; as defined below, these structures
would not require authorisation.

Based on discussions with DEA, it was agreed that variations and deviations (in design or
location) to the already authorised intervention(s) could be made via written notification to
DEA which would include a motivation, supporting information, and the proposed changes
clearly detailed. DEA have formalised this approach by including a condition in the
WfWetlands EA whereby any changes to or deviations from the project description require
written approval from DEA. The proposed changes (type, design, location), motivation, as
well as other project-related information (redesigns, site photographs etc.) are provided to
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       xi
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

DEA. Anticipated reasons for the changes could include modifications to the aquatic system
as a result of unforeseen circumstances such as flooding, fires etc., savings to the project
budget, improved rehabilitation and/ or enhanced protection from erosion etc.
As per the definition of maintenance, modifications would be made to existing (built)
interventions as long as the changes occur within the same footprint, location etc. DEA
would be informed of the changes in writing.

For a list of interventions requiring redesign, maintenance and or new structures, please
refer to the summary in Table 5 below.



Maintenance        The replacement, repair or the reconstruction of an existing structure
within the same footprint, in the same location, having the same capacity and performing
the same function as the previous structure (‘like for like’).



                                      M o ni t o ri n g a n d E v a l u a t i o n

During the Phase 2 site visits, baseline monitoring is carried out prior to the rehabilitation of
the wetland to provide comparable data for monitoring at a later stage (once the
intervention(s) have been constructed). M&E is thus a vital component of the project as it
allows for the evaluation of the performance of the interventions in successfully
rehabilitating the affected wetland. Baseline M&E data (fixed point photography, GPS co-
ordinates, water quality measurements etc.) as well as information for the BAR is collected
during the Phase 2 site visits.

Based on WET-RehabEvaluate tool, protocols for data collection for monitoring purposes
                                                                                                 3
have been developed, which includes compulsory collection of certain data , while other
                                                                                         4
data collection for monitoring would be considered to be optional                            depending on the
importance of the wetland, costs of rehabilitation undertaken etc.

Upon completion of the interventions within a wetland, the Engineer would revisit the site to
signoff on the interventions based on what was detailed in the rehabilitation plan; while the
Wetland ecologist would assess the effectiveness of the intervention(s) in achieving the
specified objectives and contributing towards the rehabilitation strategy.       Appropriate
corrective action would be specified if either of the project team members were unsatisfied
with the intervention’s effectiveness in terms of achieving the objectives and long-term
stability. An annual M&E report would be compiled by the project team.




3 Maintenance inventory, rehabilitation effectiveness, fixed point photography/ site photographs, and wetland
assessments
4 Sediment and erosion control, hydrology, vegetation and water quality
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       xii
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

                          F u t u r e pl a n n i n g f o r t h e p ro j e c t a r e a s

Table 2: Summary of possible budget allocations per project for the next 5 years in KZN
              2009-10       2010-11        2011-12       2012-13       2013-14       Tot for 5
                                                                                    years per
                                                                                     Province
KZN         R1 500 000    R1 500 000    R1 500 000    R1 700 000    Shift   funds R7 900 000
Midlands                                                            to    Umgeni
                                                                    Vlei (R1.7)
KZN North   R1 500 000    R1 500 000    Shift funds R1 700 000      R1 700 000     R8 100 000
                                        to     Padda
                                        Vlei (R1.7)
Maputaland  R1 500 000    R1 500 000    R1 500 000    R1 500 000    R1 500 000     R7 500 000
Sneezewood R1 500 000     R1 500 000    R1 500 000    Shift budget R1 500 000      R7 500 000
                                                      to   possibly
                                                      Cedarville
Upper       R1 512 000    R1 600 000    Shift         R1 600 000    R1 600 000     R7 912 000
Mzintlava                               budget     to
                                        Cedarville
                                        flats (R1.6)
Upper       R1 659 960    R1 700 000    R1 700 000    R1 700 000    R1 700 000     R8 459 960
Mzimvubu
(Eastern
Cape)
TOTAL       R9 171 960    R9 300 000    R9 300 000    R9 700 000    R9 700 000     R47 371 960



Key project objectives include:


  •     Deactivation of headcuts, restoration of hydrological integrity
  •     Raise general water table
  •     Redistribution of water across wetland area
  •     Recreation of wetland habitat
  •     Biodiversity enhancement
  •     Job creation and social upliftment

                            S u m m a r y o f t h e dr a ft B A R fi n di n g s

Wetlands that were prioritised during Phase 1 and visited during Phase 2 are located within
the following quaternary catchments- refer to Figure 2 below.

Phase   2 site visits were undertaken for the following projects:
   1.   KZN North on 2-5 August 2010;
   2.   KZN Midlands on 24-26 August 2010
   3.   Maputaland on 10-12 August 2010
   4.   Sneezewood on 9 July 2010
   5.   Upper Mzintlava on 12, 14-15 July 2010
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province    xiii
                                                                                    DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT




                                              T33B




                 Figure 2: Quaternary catchments that were visited during the Phase 2 site visits for the KZN Province
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province      xiv
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Within the KZN Province, the following wetland areas will be rehabilitated:

KZN North – V32G and V60D

The KZN North rehabilitation project has historically been implemented in the Blood River
wetlands near Vryheid in northern KwaZulu-Natal. The Blood River wetland (V32G-01) was
identified by Begg in 1989 as one of the priority wetlands in KZN and is one of the largest
inland wetland marshes in South Africa. Wetland Rehabilitation has been carried out in and
around the main wetland for a number of years and is now nearing completion. As a result,
alternative sites were required in order to continue with the wetland rehabilitation
programme in the area. Prior to leaving the Blood River Wetland system, field inspections
were carried out to establish whether or not any noteworthy rehabilitation work still
remained in the Blood River wetland complex. This revealed that an arm of the wetland
(V32G-11) was threatened by head-cut erosion and still warranted rehabilitation.

Out of the new wetlands assessed, Padda Vlei was regarded as having the highest priority
for rehabilitation. This is one of the wetlands identified as a priority wetland by Begg
(1989). Functions highlighted in the wetland report as particularly important in Padda Vlei
include (i) water storage; (ii) streamflow regulation & (iii) flood attenuation. Little is known
about the conservation value of this system although Begg reported use of the wetland by
both the blue and crowned cranes. The Blood River and Padda Vlei wetlands are on private
agricultural land in the vicinity of Vryheid and Dundee.




Figure 3: A view of the drains in the Padda Vlei wetland causing negative impacts on the
wetland


KZN Midlands
The Hlatikulu project is of significant importance to conservation (provides habitat for
cranes which breed on the adjacent farm) and water supply and quality (forms part of the
Umgeni River catchment). The KZN Midlands Project is based in the upper Thukela
catchment in KwaZulu Natal.      Rehabilitation efforts implemented thus far have been
focussed on two wetland areas, namely Hlatikulu complex (comprising Northington Estate,
Tierhoek and Nsonge – Forest Lodge) and Ntabamhlope wetland.           The Ntabamhlope
wetland is located on tribal land at the headwaters of the Klein Boesmans River in
catchment V70, some 24 km west of the town of Estcourt. The Hlatikulu wetland complex is
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       xv
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

located on private farm land along the Nsonge River, a tributary of the Klein Mooi River in
catchment V20C, approximately 30 km west of Mooi River town.

Wetland rehabilitation has been carried out in both these wetlands for a number of years.
Rehabilitation in the Ntabamhlope wetland is now nearing completion, with only limited
labour-intensive new work and maintenance of existing structures anticipated during the
upcoming 2011/2012 financial year. While much work has already been done on the
Hlatikulu wetland complex, additional interventions are still required to meet rehabilitation
objectives for this area. Proposed rehabilitation in this system will predominantly be a
continuation of previously planned and prioritised work. Only one new section of the
wetland has been identified for additional detailed wetland assessment, V20C-10.

Maputaland
The Maputaland rehabilitation project falls within quaternary catchments W31L and W32B in
the Mkuze River Floodplain. The catchment of the Mkuze River and its tributaries are located
in the highest precipitation zone of the summer rainfall region of South Africa. The average
annual precipitation can be in the order of 1000mm (Barta, 2010). The Mean Annual Runoff
(MAR) of the Mkuze is of the order of 635 million m3/annum.

The wetlands in the Maputaland project area form the largest single complex of wetlands in
KwaZulu-Natal and are of utmost importance with regards to flow regulation, flood control,
erosion and sediment control, as well as being a source of livelihood for the local
communities. The area is also an important source of natural resources which are utilised by
the local communities. Lake St. Lucia, which has been declared a world heritage site, is
situated downstream of the Mkuze River Floodplain. Thirty-two rare and endangered species
have been identified within the diverse habitats located in the area. The floodplain
comprises various wetland types, ranging from seasonal to permanent wetlands, and open
water bodies.

Wetland rehabilitation has been carried out for a number of years in this area with mixed
results. The proposed rehabilitation will focus on the Kleinspan wetland (W31L-01) in the
Mkuze section of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park as the planned interventions in the
Tshanetshe section (W32B-02) have been discontinued after extensive consultation and
geotechnical investigations where the site conditions were deemed to be highly unstable
and carried too high a risk. Work in the Tshanetshe section will only involve the
decommissioning of the failed structure. The Kleinspan interventions are a continuation and
expansion of the works as set out in the 2009 rehabilitation plan.

Sneezewood
The Nsikeni (Sneezewood) wetland rehabilitation project planning is being undertaken as a
Category 1 project, with interventions being planned in historically identified wetlands
where wetland rehabilitation has already been initiated. Detailed infield assessments were
undertaken in the previous planning cycle (with no additional detailed study during this
planning cycle) to identify problems; assess the ecosystem benefits and services, and
ecological integrity of the wetland systems.

Wetland rehabilitation efforts implemented for this project are located on the Upper Bisi
River in quaternary catchments T52E and T52F. The affected wetlands are located northeast
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province      xvi
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

of Kokstad, with the former a relatively short distance east of the Singisi railway siding, and
the latter a few kilometres to the south of the siding.

The wetlands are likely to be of high importance for the conservation of biodiversity both
regionally and nationally. For example, a number of threatened fauna are likely to occur
within the quaternary catchment. The Data Deficient Striped Caco (Cacosternum striatum),
Endangered Long-toed Tree Frog (Leptopelis xenodactylus) and Critically Endangered
Mistbelt Moss Frog (Arthroleptella ngongoniensis) have all been recorded in the Mpur
forestry area.

Work in the Mpur area will continue for only one more planning cycle (2011/2012) based
almost entirely on the social return since there is concern that continued work in the
channel could dramatically alter natural hydrological functioning.




Figure 4: Grey crowned cranes in flight over Mpur wetland, after they were startled while
foraging in the wetland



Upper Mzintlava
This project considers the wetlands within the quaternary catchments T32B and T32C, near
Kokstad in the KwaZulu-Natal province. As a planning protocol, emphasis has been placed
on those wetland areas with a history of rehabilitation work. Current and future wetland
rehabilitation works associated with this project are located northeast of Kokstad on the
Mzintlava River and its tributaries.

The wetlands are likely to be of high importance for the conservation of biodiversity both
regionally and nationally. For example, the Critically Endangered Bittern (Botaurus stellaris)
is reputed to frequent the Penny Park area, while three of nine sites in which the Critically
Endangered Whitewinged Flufftail (Sarothrura ayresi) is known to occur in South Africa are
in the Franklin-Kokstad area. Wattled Cranes are also known to breed in this catchment.

Thus, the primary motivation for the rehabilitation of wetlands in the quaternary catchment
is the potential negative impact the loss of wetland ecological services will have on biota
with a high conservation status (e.g. Grey Crowned and Wattled Crane). An additional
benefit will be a potential improvement in water quality and low flows downstream of
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province      xvii
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

interventions. The latter is an important consideration as Kokstad is reputed to obtain some
its water from the Mzintlava River downstream of the interventions.




Figure 5: A foraging Wattled Crane in the Hebron wetland.

The rehabilitation of the above wetlands would involve the following interventions inter alia:
   • Concrete weirs
   • Earthworks
   • Gabions
   • Soilcrete (a combination of soil and concrete mix) structures

The number, type, scale and location of each of these interventions within the wetlands
would vary according to the nature and magnitude of the problem and the state of the
receiving environment.

The list of interventions which form part of this Basic Assessment process is summarised in
Table 5 below. The engineering designs for each of these interventions are included in the
draft Rehabilitation plans which form part of the BAR.
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       xx
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

                    S u m m a r y o f t h e po t e n ti a l i m p a c t s i d e nt i fi e d

    Table 3: Summary of impacts
     Impact                    Preferred alternative                  No go
                               No mitigation       With mitigation
     Planning phase (Maputaland, and KZN North all underwent a measure of Geotechnical
     investigations which require a limited number of test pits)
     Aquatic ecosystems        Low (-)             Very Low (-)       Low (-)
     Flora & fauna             Low (-)             Very Low (-)       Very Low (-)
     Nuisance                  Low (-)             Very Low (-)       Neutral
     Construction phase
     Aquatic ecosystems        Low (-)             Very Low (-)       Low (-)
     Flora & fauna             Low (-)             Very Low (-)       Very Low (-)
     Heritage                  Very Low (-)        Neutral            Neutral
     Nuisance                  Low (-)             Very Low (-)       Neutral
     Socio-economic            Medium (+)          High (+)           Medium (-)
     Operational phase
     Ecosystem functioning     High (+)            High (+)           High (-)
     Flora & fauna             Medium (+)          Medium (+)         Medium (-)
     Socio-economic            High (+)            High (+)           Medium (-)
     Decommissioning phase (Tshanetshe wetland within the Maputaland project will
     undergo a decommissioning of one of the intervention structures which has failed and
     will not be rebuilt).



                        K e y mi t i g a ti on m e a s u r e s r e c o m m e n d e d

A summary of the key mitigation measures recommended to reduce the significance of the
potential negative impacts and enhance potential positive impacts is provided in Table 3
below.

Table 4: Key mitigation measures recommended for potential operational phase impacts
Planning phase impacts
Impacts on aquatic ecosystems
Minimise number of test pits
Impacts on flora & fauna
Ensure all test pits are closed appropriately after investigation completed.
Nuisance impacts
Liaise closely with landowners
Construction phase impacts
Impacts on aquatic ecosystems
Implement and enforce the CEMP
Impacts on flora & fauna
Consult the Crane Working Group with regards to identified wattled crane breeding sites
Implement and enforce the CEMP
Impacts on heritage resources
Contact the provincial heritage resource agency should any artefact be found or cultural use
of a wetland be noted
Nuisance impacts
Workers to be given environmental awareness “toolbox talks”
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province      xxi
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Implement and enforce the CEMP
Liaise with landowner
Socio-economic impacts
Draw labour from the local community
Workers to be aware of fire risks and contingency plans
Operational phase impacts
Impact on flora and fauna
Consult with Eskom and the Crane Working Group with respect to power line electrocutions
Consult Crane Working Group with respect to best practice relating to periodic burning of
wetland.
Decommissioning phase impacts
Impacts on aquatic ecosystems
Ensure all debris is removed from site and disposed of in an appropriate manner
Impacts on flora & fauna
Ensure all test pits are closed appropriately after investigation completed.
Ensure surrounding area is ripped and re-seeded to encourage re-growth of indigenous
species
Nuisance impacts
Liaise closely with landowners and landusers



Regarding the construction phase impacts, the standard Construction phase Environmental
Management Programme (CEMP) (included as Appendix G of the draft BAR) and must be
on site and complied with during the construction phase.

                                  Need and desirability

Wetlands play a critical role in improving the ecological health of an ecosystem by
performing many functions that include flood control, water purification, sediment and
nutrient retention and export, recharge of groundwater as well as acting as vital habitats for
diverse plant and animal species. Wetlands are thus considered to be extremely important
in preserving biodiversity and are regarded as fundamental to the sustainable management
of South Africa’s water resources.

Wetlands also function as valuable open spaces and create recreational opportunities for
people that include hiking, fishing, boating and bird-watching. Many wetlands also have
cultural and spiritual significance for the communities living nearby. Commercially, products
such as reeds and peat are also harvested from wetlands. Wetlands are thus considered to
be critically important ecosystems as they provide both direct and indirect benefits to the
environment and society. Extensive damage to wetlands has occurred as a result of poor
land use practices which has resulted in erosion and further degradation to aquatic
ecosystems.

Without the implementation of the planned rehabilitation activities (the ‘no-go’ option or
retaining the status quo), the programme’s objectives would not be realized; and the loss of
wetland habitat and its associated eco-system services would be significantly greater. The
strategic importance of the Working for Wetlands programme is clear as evidenced by the
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province      xxii
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

distinct positive impacts associated with the programme which has resulted in a net
benefit/ gain as wetland health and integrity is improved and the associated eco-services
enhanced. Overall the cumulative impact of wetland rehabilitation would thus be positive
(refer to the summary of potential impacts identified above) to both human beings and the
environment, now and in the future. Based on the above information, it is clear that
rehabilitating wetlands is considered to be the ‘best practicable environmental option’
as a result of the positive impact that the programme has on both the natural and socio-
economic environment.




       Commercial products made by locals from reeds harvested from wetlands
                       C o n c l u s i o ns a n d r e c o m m e n d a t io n s

The potential impacts associated with the rehabilitation of various wetlands within the
KwaZulu Natal Province would result in impacts (both biophysical and social) that would
positively affect the area and result in a net environmental gain for the project. These
include:

   •    Job creation and skills transfer for local communities;
   •    Increased habitat for conservation worthy species (crowned & wattled cranes; white-
        winged flufftail);
   •    Improvements in wetland functioning and area; and
   •    Improved water quality and quantity downstream;

Based on the above, the EAP (Aurecon) is of the opinion that the proposed wetland
rehabilitation activities being applied for should be authorised, as the substantial benefits
(both biophysical and socio-economic) substantially outweigh the minimal localised negative
impacts that have been identified. Furthermore, the proposed activities undoubtedly meet
the principles prescribed in NEMA.

                   P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i on P r oc e s s a n d W a y F o r w a r d

Public participation is an important part of the BA process, as it allows interested and
affected parties (I&APs) opportunity to obtain information about the proposed project and to
provide input and raise any concerns at defined stages throughout the project.

The Public Participation process (PPP) was formally initiated with the advertisement of the
BA process in Die Rapport and the Sunday Times on 8 August 2010. As part of the PPP,
SANBI’s Provincial Coordinators have been engaging with the directly affected landowners,
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province      xxiii
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

while posters (in the key languages spoken in the Province) were erected at strategic
locations in/ near the prioritised wetland(s).

As part of the 40 day public comment period on the draft Phase 2 reports, registered I&APs
have been sent copies of this Summary document, a letter notifying them of the public
comment period as well as a response form whereby comments on the proposed project(s)
can be submitted as part of the PPP.


The Draft BAR for the proposed wetland rehabilitation activities for the KwaZulu Natal
Province has been made available for review from Monday 6 December 2010. SANBI’s PC’s
have hard copies of the Phase 2 Reporting for their Province. Should you wish to review the
report, please contact Donnelly McCleland to have this arranged. The Reports are also
available for download from the Aurecon website (http://www.aurecongroup.com)-
follow the public participation links. I&APs have until Tuesday 2 February 2011 to submit
comment on the Draft BAR.


After the 40 day public comment period, the final BAR, incorporating I&AP comments
received on the Draft BAR (as well as the project team’s responses to these), will be
submitted to DEA for their decision. Registered I&APs will simultaneously be afforded a
further 21 days to provide comment on the Final BAR. Further comments received will be
collated by Aurecon and submitted to DEA. Once DEA have made their decision on the
proposed project, all registered I&APs on the project database will be notified of the
outcome of the decision within ten calendar days of the decision having been issued.
Should anyone (a member of public, registered I&AP or the Applicant) wish to appeal DEA’s
decision, a Notice of Intention to Appeal in terms of Section 62 of NEMA must be lodged
with the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs within 10 calendar days of the I&AP
being notified of the decision.

If no appeals are received on the decision, and the landowner(s) have signed (i.e.
approved) the proposed rehabilitation work detailed in the Rehabilitation plan, the
authorised interventions detailed in the Rehabilitation plan will be constructed from April
2011 until March 2012.

Should you wish to raise any issues, concerns and/or suggestions, and/ or register as an
I&AP, please contact Donnelly McCleland at Tel: 021 481 2509, Fax: 021 424 5588, Mail: PO
Box 494, Cape Town, 8000 or Email: donnelly.mccleland@af.aurecongroup.com by Tuesday
2 February 2011.
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province       xx
                                       DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

                     List of Acronyms
           BAR       Basic Assessment Report
           CEMP      Construction phase Environmental Management Programme
           DAFF      Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
           DEA       Department of Environmental Affairs
           DWA       Department of Water Affairs
           EAP       Environmental Assessment Practitioner
           EIA       Environmental Impact Assessment
           EPWP      Expanded Public Works Programme
           GA        General authorisation in terms of the NWA
           IA        Implementing Agent
           I&APs     Interested and Affected Parties
           NEMA      National Environmental Management Act
           NWA       National Water Act
           PC        Provincial Coordinator
           SANBI     South African National Biodiversity Institute
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province                                   xxi
                                                                                                          DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Table 5: S u mm a r y o f t he i nt e r v en t i o n s i n clu d e d a s p a r t o f th is B a si c As se s s me n t p r o ce ss
Descriptive name                  Old                         N e w I nt e r v e nt i o n     Proposed action                      R e f e r e n c e d o c um e n t
                                  i nt e r v e nt i o n       nu m b e r
                                  nu m b e r            (if
                                  a p p l ic a b l e )
                                                                                 KZ N NO R TH
                                                                                        NEW
Concrete Box Inlet                -                           V32G-11-201-00               Concrete Box Inlet                      KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks                        -                           V32G-11-202-00                  Earthworks                           KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Berm                      -                           V32G-11-203-00                  Earthen Berm                         KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Box Inlet Weir           -                           V60D-01-201-00                  Concrete Box Inlet Weir              KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      -                           V60D-01-202-00                  Earthen Plug                         KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      -                           V60D-01-203-00                  Earthen Plug                         KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Alien tree removal                -                           V60D-01-204-00                  Alien tree removal                   KZN     North Draft          Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan:   Nov 2010
Dam/Berm removal                  -                           V60D-01-205-00                  Dam/Berm removal                     KZN     North Draft          Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan:   Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      -                           V60D-01-206-00                  Earthen Plug                         KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      -                           V60D-01-207-00                  Earthen Plug                         KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      -                           V60D-01-208-00                  Earthen Plug                         KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      -                           V60D-01-209-00                  Earthen Plug                         KZN North Draft              Rehab
                                                                                                                                   plan: Nov 2010
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province                 xxii
                                                                                        DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Earthen Plug                 -                        V60D-01-210-00            Earthen Plug                    KZN North Draft       Rehab
                                                                                                                plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                 -                        V60D-01-211-00            Earthen Plug                    KZN North Draft       Rehab
                                                                                                                plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Box Inlet           -                        V60D-02-201-00            Concrete Box Inlet              KZN     North Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                plan:   Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                 -                        V60D-02-202-00            Earthen Plug                    KZN     North Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                plan:   Nov 2010
Concrete Box Inlet           -                        V60D-02-203-00            Concrete Box Inlet              KZN North Draft       Rehab
                                                                                                                plan: Nov 2010
                                                                 MAINTENANCE
Concrete    and    gabion    V32G-01-004              V32G-01-204-01    Concrete cut-off/ wingwalls to          KZN North Rehabilitation
weir                                                                    existing intervention;                  plan: Nov 2007
                                                                        Demolition of concrete lips along
                                                                        spillway;
                                                                        Backfill erosion donga;
                                                                        Construction of a new concrete
                                                                        stilling basin slab
                                                          INTERVENTION REDESIGNS
n/a
                                                                   K ZN M I DL AN D S
                                                                            NEW
Concrete Box Inlet Weir      -                        V20C-10-201-00           Concrete Box Inlet Weir          KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Weir                -                        V20C-10-202-00            Concrete Weir                   KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Weir                -                        V20C-10-205-00            Concrete Weir                   KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                plan: Nov 2010
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province                           xxiii
                                                                                                  DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Concrete Box Inlet Weir                            ∗        V20C-01-201-00                Concrete Box Inlet Weir          KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                  V20C-01-010
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      V20C-01-009*              V20C-01-202-00                Earthen Plug                     KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      V20C-01-008*              V20C-01-203-00                Earthen Plug                     KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      V20C-01-007*              V20C-01-204-00                Earthen Plug                     KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      V20C-01-006*              V20C-01-205-00                Earthen Plug                     KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      V20C-01-005*              V20C-01-206-00                Earthen Plug                     KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plug                      -                         V20C-01-207-00                Earthen Plug                     KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Box Inlet Weir           V20C-02-004*              V20C-02-201-00                Concrete Box Inlet Weir          KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Box Inlet Weir           V20C-02-005*              V20C-02-202-00                Concrete Box Inlet Weir          KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earth structures                  V20C-06-003*              V20C-06-201-00                Earth structures                 KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan:      Nov      2010
                                                                                                                           (Originally in Hlatikulu
                                                                                                                           Rehab Plan 09)
Earthen Plugs                     -                         V70D-06-204-00                Earthen Plugs                    KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earthen Plugs                     -                         V70D-06-205-00                Earthen Plugs                    KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                           plan: Nov 2010
Earth Structure            and    -                         V70D-06-206-00                Earth Structure and Earthworks   KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
Earthworks                                                                                                                 plan: Nov 2010


∗
    Proposed site of intervention included in Hlatikulu Rehab Plan 2009, however not designed
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province                 xxiv
                                                                                        DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Earthen Plugs                -                        V70D-06-207-00            Earthen Plugs                       KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                    -plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks                   -                        V70D-06-208-00            Earthworks                          KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
                                                                 MAINTENANCE
Concrete Channel and         V70D-06-001              V70D-06-201-01    Increase thickness and repair               Ntabamhlope
cut-off wall                                                            holes formed within concrete                Rehabilitation plan: Oct
                                                                        channel base slab; construct cut-           2006
                                                                        off wall at end of channel                  KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
Other Structure              V70D-06-009              V70D-06-202-01            Remove existing brick manhole,      Ntabamhlope
                                                                                fill void and compact; extend       Rehabilitation plan: Oct
                                                                                pipe and construct new concrete     2006
                                                                                manhole                             KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
Capped Gabion chute          V70D-06-014              V70D-06-203-01            Concrete cap the gabion chute       Ntabamhlope
                                                                                and include additional gabion       Rehabilitation plan: Oct
                                                                                baskets to limit erosion at the     2007
                                                                                toe of the chute                    KZN Midlands Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
                                                            INTERVENTION REDESIGNS
n/a
                                                                    M APU T A L AN D
                                                                            NEW
Earthworks                   W31L-01-021              W31L-01-201-00           Earthworks – removal of berm         Maputland Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
Earthern plug                -                        W31L-01-202-00            Earthern plug to deactivate drain   Maputland Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks                   -                        W31L-01-203-00            Earthworks – removal of berm        Maputland Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province                   xxv
                                                                                          DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

                                                     DECOMMISSIONING (MAINTENANCE)
Soilcrete structure           W32B-02-015            W32B-02-201-01  Break down failed structure and              Maputland Rehabilitation
                                                                     remove from site                             plan: Nov 2010
                                                            INTERVENTION REDESIGNS
n/a
                                                                    SN EE ZE W O OD
                                                                            NEW
Earth Berm                    -                       T52E-02-201-00           Earth Berm                         Sneezewood Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                  plan: Nov 2010
Earth Berm                    -                       T52E-02-202-00           Earth Berm                         Sneezewood Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                  plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Buttress                           *         T52F-01-202-00           Concrete Buttress                  Sneezewood Draft Rehab
                              T52F-01-014
Weir                                                                           Weir                               plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Buttress             T52F-01-015*            T52F-01-203-00           Concrete Buttress                  Sneezewood Draft Rehab
Weir                                                                           Weir                               plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Buttress             T52F-01-016*            T52F-01-204-00           Concrete Buttress                  Sneezewood Draft Rehab
Weir                                                                           Weir                               plan: Nov 2010
Concrete Buttress             T52F-01-017*            T52F-01-205-00           Concrete Buttress                  Sneezewood Draft Rehab
Weir                                                                           Weir                               plan: Nov 2010
Debris clearing               -                       T52F-01-206-00           Debris clearing                    Sneezewood Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                  plan: Nov 2010
Debris clearing               -                       T52F-01-207-00           Debris clearing                    Sneezewood Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                  plan: Nov 2010
Debris clearing               -                       T52F-01-208-00           Debris clearing                    Sneezewood Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                  plan: Nov 2010
Debris clearing               -                       T52F-01-209-00           Debris clearing                    Sneezewood Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                  plan: Nov 2010
Debris clearing               -                       T52F-01-210-00           Debris clearing                    Sneezewood Draft   Rehab
                                                                                                                  plan: Nov 2010

*   Site previously identified and numbered, not designed, Sneezewood Rehab Plan, 2009.
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province                 xxvi
                                                                                        DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Alien Clearing               -                        T52F-01-211-00           Alien clearing                       Sneezewood Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks                   -                        T52F-01-212-00           Cut and fill earth berm and furrow   Sneezewood Draft Rehab
                                                                                                                    plan: Nov 2010
                                                                 MAINTENANCE
Concrete gravity weir        T52E-01-                 T52E-01-201-01    Excavate silted channel to wetland          Nsikeni     Rehabilitation
                                         †                              on right bank                               Plan: pre 2006
                             T52E0023
Concrete gravity weir        T52E-01-                 T52E-01-202-01           Construct concrete cut-off wall at   Nsikeni     Rehabilitation
                             T52E0024*                                         downstream end of stilling basin     Plan: pre 2006
Concrete gravity weir        T52E-01-                 T52E-01-203-01           Construct concrete cut-off wall at   Nsikeni     Rehabilitation
                             T52E0025*                                         downstream end of stilling basin     Plan: pre 2006
Concrete gravity weir        T52E-01-                 T52E-01-204-01           Block leaking pipe through wall      Nsikeni     Rehabilitation
                             T52E0027*                                                                              Plan: pre 2006
Concrete gravity weir        T52E-01-                 T52E-01-205-01           Construct concrete cut-off wall at   Nsikeni     Rehabilitation
                             T52E0029*                                         downstream end of stilling basin     Plan: pre 2006
Earthworks                   T52F-01-003              T52F-01-201-01           Close ditch with earth berms         Sneezewood
                                                                                                                    Rehabilitation   Plan:   Oct
                                                                                                                    2009
                                                            INTERVENTION REDESIGNS
n/a
                                                                 U P PER M Z IN TL AV A
                                                                            NEW
Earth Berm                    -                       T32B-03-201-00           Earth Berm                           Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earth Berm                    -                       T32B-03-202-00           Earth Berm                           Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earth Berm                    -                       T32B-03-206-00           Earth Berm                           Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010



†   Appeared in pre2006 rehab plan
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province             xxvii
                                                                                     DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Earthworks                   -                        T32B-03-207-00        Remove earth berm, fill drain        Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                 Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks                   -                        T32C-01-204-00        Cut berm, fill depression            Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                 Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks                   -                        T32C-01-206-00        Cut Berm, fill adjacent depression   Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                 Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Concrete causeway and        -                        T32C-01-207-00        Concrete causeway and low weir       Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
low weir                                                                                                         Rehab plan: Nov 2010


Concrete Buttress drop       -                        T32C-01-208-00        Concrete Buttress drop inlet         Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
inlet                                                                                                            Rehab plan: Nov 2010


Concrete Buttress drop       -                        T32C-01-209-00        Concrete Buttress drop inlet         Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
inlet                                                                                                            Rehab plan: Nov 2010


Concrete strip               -                        T32C-01-210-00        Centre Pivot concrete track          Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                 Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks     and earth     -                        T32C-01-211-00        Remove Berm and build new berm       Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
structure                                                                                                        Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Concrete             Drop    -                        T32C-05-201-00        Concrete Drop Structure              Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
Structure                                                                                                        Rehab plan: Nov 2010


Concrete             Drop    -                        T32C-05-202-00        Concrete Drop Structure              Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
Structure                                                                                                        Rehab plan: Nov 2010


Earth Berm                   -                        T32C-05-203-00        Earth Berm                           Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                 Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earth Berm                   -                        T32C-05-204-00        Earth Berm                           Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                 Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earth Berm                   -                        T32B-03-201-00        Earth Berm                           Upper   Mzintlava   Draft
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation project in the KwaZulu Natal Province             xxviii
                                                                                     DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: SUMMARY DOCUMENT

                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earth Berm                   -                        T32B-03-202-00        Earth Berm                              Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earth Berm                   -                        T32B-03-206-00        Earth Berm                              Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Earthworks                   -                        T32B-03-207-00        Remove earth berm, fill drain           Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
                                                                 MAINTENANCE
Concrete gravity             T32C-01-020              T32C-01-201-01    Construct concrete cut off wall             Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Concrete gravity             T32C-01-009              T32C-01-202-01        Hyson cells to compensate         for   Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                            insufficient stilling basin             Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Concrete gravity             T32C-01-018              T32C-01-203-01        Construct concrete cut off wall         Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
Concrete gravity             T32C-04-004              T32C-04-201-01        Fill scour holes with riprap            Upper   Mzintlava  Draft
                                                                                                                    Rehab plan: Nov 2010
                                                            INTERVENTION REDESIGNS
n/a
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                                                  1




                                                            (For official use only)
File Reference Number:
Application Number:
Date Received:

Basic Assessment Report in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107
of 1998), as amended, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006

Kindly note that:

1.   This basic assessment report is a standard report that may be required by a competent authority in terms of the EIA
     Regulations, 2006 and is meant to streamline applications. Please make sure that it is the report used by the particular
     competent authority for the activity that is being applied for.

2.   The report must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily
     indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The report is in the form of a table that can extend itself as each
     space is filled with typing.

3.   Where applicable tick the boxes that are applicable or black out the boxes that are not applicable in the report.

4.   An incomplete report may be returned to the applicant for revision.

5.   The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection because if it is used in respect of material
     information that is required by the competent authority for assessing the application, it may result in the rejection of the
     application as provided for in the regulations.

6.   This report must be handed in at offices of the relevant competent authority as determined by each authority.

7.   No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted.

8.   The report must be compiled by an independent environmental assessment practitioner.

9.   Unless protected by law, all information in the report will become public information on receipt by the competent
     authority. Any interested and affected party should be provided with the information contained in this report on request,
     during any stage of the application process.

10. A competent authority may require that for specified types of activities in defined situations only parts of this report
    need to be completed. In addition, if it is clear to the EAP that because of the particular circumstances of the case it is
    not sensible to complete any of the sections indicated under paragraph 3 of this report, he or she may apply for
    exemption from completing that part of the report in the spaces provided in the report. It must however be noted that if
    the application for exemption is turned down, the report may have to be resubmitted.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                             2



SECTION A: APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION

The relevant parts of this section must be completed if the environmental assessment practitioner
(EAP) on behalf of the applicant wishes to apply for exemption from completing or complying with
certain parts of this basic assessment report.


1.      APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM ASSESSING ALTERNATIVES:

At least two alternatives (site or activity) should be assessed. If that is not possible, the applicant
should apply for exemption from having to assess alternatives. Such exemption will, however, not
apply to the no-go alternative that must be assessed in all cases.

Provide a detailed motivation for not considering alternatives including an explanation of the
reason for the application for exemption (supporting documents, if any, should be attached to
this report):
N/A
I declare that the above motivation is accurate and, hereby apply for exemption in terms of
regulation 51 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006, from having to
assess alternatives in this application as required in section 24(4)(b) in the National
Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)

Signature of the EAP:                                 Date:


2.      APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM COMPLYING WITH PARTS OF REGULATION
        23(2) REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THIS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT:

Application for exemption from certain parts of regulation 23(2) regarding the completion of certain parts
of this basic assessment report may be made by completing the relevant sections below.

Indicate the numbers of the sections of this report for which exemption is applied for:
Section 7(a) 7(b) 7(c) 7(d) 8              9     10(c) 10(e) 10(f) 10(g) 10(h) 10(j) 10(k) 12
B:
Section 1        2    3      4      5      6
C:
Section 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) 1(d) 1(f) 1(g) 3
D:
Provide a detailed motivation including an explanation of the reason for the application for exemption
(supporting documents, if any, should be attached to this report):
N/A
I declare that the above motivation is accurate and, hereby apply for exemption in terms of regulation
51 of the EIA Regulations, 2006, from having to complete the indicated sections of the Basic
Assessment Report.

Signature of the EAP:                                  Date:
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                3



SECTION B: ACTIVITY INFORMATION

1.      ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Describe the activity, which is being applied for in detail (A1):
 Historically Working for Wetlands has worked within the following project areas
within KZN province: KZN North (V32G); KZN Midlands (previously divided into
two –Hlatikulu V20C and Ntabamhlope V70D); and Maputaland (W32B and
W31L).

Rehabilitation activities will be focussed in this next planning cycle in KZN North
(V32G & V60D); KZN Midlands (V20C & V70D); Maputaland (W31L); and in
addition Sneezwood (T52E and T52F); and Upper Mzintlava (T32B & C) have
been added to the KZN cluster of projects.

     A. Wetland Problems

•    The two KZN North projects – Blood River (V32G) and Padda Vlei (V60D)
     are located on privately owned agricultural land. Blood River (V32G-11) is
     an unchannelled valley bottom wetland used predominantly for livestock
     grazing. The ecological integrity of this wetland has been impacted by several
     factors including drainage by artificial channels (furrows); head-cut formation
     and associated erosion; and transformation of natural vegetation by alien
     plant infestation. Padda Vlei (V60D), is a large (~774 Ha) valley bottom
     wetland system, located in a shallow valley floor in the upper reaches of the
     Wasbank River system. Most of the wetland is un-channelled, although a
     channel has developed along certain sections of the wetland. The wetland is
     dominated by hygrophilous grassland communities which occur in the drier
     (temporary and seasonal) zones of the wetland. Bulrushes (Typha capensis)
     occur in dense stands in permanently wet areas where water stands. Some
     areas of the wetland have, however, been altered through historic cultivation.
     Although cultivation is no longer practiced in wetland areas, drains from
     historic attempts to lower the water table have had a significant effect on
     wetland hydrology and associated vegetation, particularly in the lower reaches
     of the wetland. Habitat transformation and alteration of natural hydrological
     processes by dams and roads has also occurred.

•    The two KZN Midland projects – Hlatikulu (V20C) and Ntabamhlope
     (V70D) are located on both privately owned (Hlatikulu) and communal land
     (Ntabamhlope). Hlatikulu (V20C) comprises a main wetland area with side
     arms (Northington); and two other wetlands on adjacent properties (Ntsonge
     and Tierhoek). Key problem areas are historic agriculture related impacts such
     as “ridge and furrowing”; roads and dams. The steep surrounding catchment
     has also contributed to high velocity flows with resulting erosion and
     deposition. Alien vegetation encroachment is also having a limited impact,
     especially in the watercourses. The systems within the Ntabamhlope (V70D)
     area are characterised by valley bottom wetlands. The land use within the
     catchment comprises of intensive grazing, forestry and agricultural
     operations. The implementation of agricultural activities within the area has
     resulted in the degradation of the system with the excavation of drainage
     canals and the alteration of the natural wetland profile (due to poor farming
     practices, including “ridge and furrowing”). The unstable nature of the soils
     within the area has resulted in the drainage canals actively eroding with
     vertical and horizontal erosion at a number of sites. The drainage canals are
     contributing to the canalisation of water, reducing the frequency with which
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                4

    water is spread across the wetland system. Many of the canals have been
    stabilised in the past and the proposed rehabilitation will continue to address
    the concentration of water within the drains and stabilisation of potential
    problem areas; as well as addressing the “ridge and furrowing” in the upper
    reaches of the system through labour-intensive interventions.

•   Wetland rehabilitation has been carried out for a number of years in the
    Maputaland area with mixed results. The proposed rehabilitation will focus
    on the Kleinspan wetland (W31L) in the Mkuze section of the iSimangaliso
    Wetland Park as the planned interventions in the Tshanetshe section
    (W32B) have been discontinued after extensive consultation and geotechnical
    investigations where the site conditions were deemed to be highly unstable
    and carried too high a risk. Work in the Tshanetshe section will only involve
    the decommissioning of the failed structure. The Kleinspan interventions are a
    continuation and expansion of the works as set out in the 2009 rehabilitation
    plan. The Kleinspan wetland has been extensively modified for agricultural
    purposes, with drains and earthen berms preventing flooding of a large part of
    the wetland surface. In addition, an avulsion of the Mkuze River is progressing
    through the wetland, and incision within this new Mkuze course may cause
    incision in the Msunduze stream which flows through Kleinspan, further
    isolating the wetland from floods.

•   The Nsikeni (Sneezewood) wetland rehabilitation project planning is being
    undertaken as a Category 1 project, with interventions being planned in
    historically identified wetlands where wetland rehabilitation has already been
    initiated. Detailed infield assessments were undertaken in the previous
    planning cycle (with no additional detailed study during this planning cycle) to
    identify problems; assess the ecosystem benefits and services, and ecological
    integrity of the wetland systems. Wetland rehabilitation efforts implemented
    for this project are located on the Upper Bisi River in quaternary catchments
    T52E and T52F. The affected wetlands are located northeast of Kokstad. The
    wetlands are likely to be of high importance for the conservation of
    biodiversity both regionally and nationally. Most of the problems in the
    Sneezewood (T53E) wetland such as drains, and an incised channel have
    been addressed with only some maintenance and some shallow furrows left to
    attend to. Mpur (T52F) wetland has signs of human impact; much of it has
    resulted from the forestry industry within the direct catchment. There have
    been extensive discussions regarding the ongoing intervention within the Mpur
    main channel as some specialists are of the opinion that such intervention is
    moving further away from reference, rather than towards it. Focus will
    therefore be placed on debris dam clearing and alien eradication with limited
    “hard” interventions within the channel.

•   Upper Mzintlava involves three project areas: Penny Park and Mt. Currie
    (T32C) are historical areas and a new area, Hebron (T32B). Penny Park and
    Hebron are on private land while Mt. Currie is a nature reserve. The wetlands
    are likely to be of high importance for the conservation of biodiversity both
    regionally and nationally. Key problem areas include: dams in the wetlands
    and upstream catchment; drainage by artificial drainage channels (furrows);
    livestock grazing; introduction of alien pasture grass species; head-cut
    formation and associated erosion.


    B. Wetland Rehabilitation Objectives

The rehabilitation objectives for the above mentioned wetlands include:
   a) Stabilisation of headcuts in wetlands - Prevention of further erosion;
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                               5

     b) Securing the integrity of the wetland area;
     c) Improving the value of the wetland for biodiversity conservation and the
        provision of natural resources;
     d) Re-instating near natural hydrological conditions wherever possible; and
     e) Raising the water table in order to rehydrate drained wetland areas and
        limit the chance of lateral head-cut formation.
     f) Removal of berms and blocking of drains that affect flow patterns within a
        wetland.
     g) Removal of all alien vegetation from a wetland.
     h) Removal of debris dams on channels in catchments where this large
        woody debris was formerly scarce or absent.

Furthermore the wetlands in T32B and C; T33B; and V60D are likely to be of high
importance for the conservation of biodiversity both regionally and nationally. For
example, both the Vulnerable Grey Crowned Cranes (Balearica regulorum) and
Critically Endangered Wattled Cranes (Bugeranus carunculatus) are known to
occur within wetlands in these catchments. Biodiversity conservation and the
promotion of wetland habitat would thus also be important rehabilitation
objectives.


In order to achieve the above mentioned objectives, a number of interventions
are being proposed, including weirs, earth berms and plugs, as well as alien and
debris clearing. During the site visits, the project team discussed and evaluated
potential intervention options while taking into account environmental, social and
economic considerations, as well as the rehabilitation objectives identified for the
wetland. This screening process was undertaken to ensure that the most suitable
intervention was identified, developed and assessed for each rehabilitation site.


2.      ALTERNATIVES

Describe alternatives that are considered in this application. Alternatives should include a consideration
of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity could be accomplished in
the specific instance taking account of the interest of the applicant in the activity. The no-go alternative
must in all cases be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of the
other alternatives are assessed. The determination of whether site or activity (including different
processes etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific circumstances of the activity
and its environment. After receipt of this report the competent authority may also request the applicant
to assess additional alternatives that could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed
activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been considered to a reasonable extent.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                                 6


2(a) Site alternatives:

Describe site alternative 1 (S1), for the activity described above, or for any other activity
alternative:
As a result of the Phase 1 planning and Phase 2 screening process undertaken on
site with the project team (consisting of the wetland ecologist, EAP, engineer and
SANBI’s Provincial Coordinator), coupled with the requirement of meeting the
wetland rehabilitation and the overall the programme’s objectives7, possible site
alternatives were considered and screened out during in-field discussions. For a
detailed discussion whereby the various alternatives are discussed and screened
out, refer to the relevant wetland in the 2010 Rehabilitation Plans for the six
project areas.     Each of the interventions and their associated location are
therefore based on expert opinion from both the wetland specialist and engineer
and are thus considered to be the most suitable and effective locations to achieve
the rehabilitation objectives for the wetland.
Describe site alternative 2 (S2), if any, for the activity described above, or for any other activity
alternative:

Describe site alternative 3 (S3), if any, for the activity described above, or for any other activity
alternative:



2(b) Activity alternatives:

Describe activity alternative 2 (A2), if any, for any or all of the site alternatives as appropriate:
Please refer to the alternatives section for the relevant wetland in the 2010
Rehabilitation Plans for the six KZN project areas.
Describe activity alternative 2 (A2), if any, for any or all of the site alternatives as appropriate:

Describe activity alternative 2 (A2), if any, for any or all of the site alternatives as appropriate:



3.           ACTIVITY POSITION

Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for
each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes. The minutes should
have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all
cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection.

Alternative:                                            Latitude (S):             Longitude (E):
Alternative S18 (preferred or only site alternative)    Please refer to the relevant wetland
                                                        section in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation
                                                        Plans.
Alternative S2 (if any)
Alternative S3 (if any)                                 o            ‘            o            ‘

7 wetland conservation and poverty reduction through job creation and skills development amongst

vulnerable and marginalised groups
8
    “Alternative S..” refer to site alternatives.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                                      7


5.           PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY

Indicate the physical size of the preferred activity/technology as well as alternative
activities/technologies (footprints):
Alternative:                                                 Size of the activity:
Alternative A19 (preferred activity alternative)             Please refer to the
                                                                                      relevant     wetland
                                                                                      section in the 2010
                                                                                      KZN Rehabilitation
                                                                                      Plans.
Alternative A2 (if any)                                                               m2
Alternative A3 (if any)                                                               m2

Indicate the size of the alternative sites or servitudes (within which the above footprints will occur):
Alternative:                                                                Size       of         the
                                                                            site/servitude:
Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative)                             Please refer to the
                                                                                      relevant     wetland
                                                                                      section in the 2010
                                                                                      KZN Rehabilitation
                                                                                      Plans.
Alternative A2 (if any)                                                               m2
Alternative A3 (if any)                                                               m2


6.           SITE ACCESS

Does ready access to the site exist, or is access directly from an existing road?             YES    NO
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built                        m
Describe the type of access road planned:
Please note that although easy access to a point of all of the wetlands exists,
some sections of the various wetlands will require that temporary access routes
be created. These routes would be “created” simply by driving a small utility
vehicle (i.e. bakkie) over the grass and will not be permanent nor require the
removal of any vegetation. The location of these routes will depend on a number
of factors including landowner requirements and the time of year and recent
weather conditions (i.e. how wet or dry the area is). For this reason it is not
possible to specify exactly where routes are needed or where they will be located,
however they will be temporary and seldom more than a few hundred metres
long. They are noted here for the sake of completeness.
Include the position of the access road on the site plan.




9
    “Alternative A..” refer to activity, process, technology or other alternatives.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                                         8


7.       WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT


7(a)     Solid waste management
Will the activity produce solid construction waste                          during     the YES        NO
construction/initiation phase?
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month?                                  m3
How will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?
Limited quantities of construction waste such as empty cement bags and litter
may be generated. These wastes are typically collected on site and would be
disposed of as per the Working for Wetlands Construction Environmental
Management Programme (CEMP) (Annexure D of the BAR).

Material that is excavated during construction or which results from the breaking
down of old structures is typically re-used on site in the construction and long-
term stabilization of other interventions on site. For example, rubble from an old
structure is typically used to provide backfill.

Ablution waste is usually handled through the provision of chemical toilet facilities
or pit latrines (where no chemical toilet hire facilities exist). Chemical toilet waste
is regularly removed by the toilet hire company and disposed of at a waste water
treatment works. Toilet facilities are located out of wet areas and in line with the
WfWet best management practices.

Please note that strict audits are carried out to ensure that the project
Implementers do not generate unnecessary waste.

Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase?                          YES      NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month?                                  m3
How and where will the solid waste be disposed of (describe)?

N/A


If the solid waste (construction or operational phases) will not be disposed of in a registered landfill site
or be taken up in a municipal waste stream, then the applicant should consult with the competent
authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Can any part of the solid waste be classified as hazardous in terms of the relevant YES NO
legislation?
If yes, inform the competent authority and request a change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Is the activity that is being applied for a solid waste handling or treatment facility?     YES NO
If yes, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is
necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.

Describe the measures, if any, that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of materials:

Excavated material and rubble from old failed structures is re-used in new
interventions and for backfill etc on site where-ever possible.
Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section?          YES         NO
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                                     19


7(b)     Liquid effluent

Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in YES NO
a municipal sewage system?
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month?                                 m3
Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site?     Yes      NO
If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to
change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Will the activity produce effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of at another YES NO
facility?
Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any:

Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section?       YES        NO


7(c)     Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the activity release emissions into the atmosphere?                       YES                 NO
If yes, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government?       YES                 NO
If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine
whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section? YES                 NO


7(d)     Generation of noise

Will the activity generate noise?                                              YES                 NO
If yes, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government?       YES                 NO
If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine
whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
If no, describe the noise in terms of type and level:

Noise generation would be limited to the workers interactions and activities;
limited noise may result from concrete mixers or pumps if utilized.
                                                                                     YES        NO
Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this
section?



8.       WATER USE

Please indicate the source(s) of water that will be used for the activity by ticking the appropriate box
(es)
municipal water board groundwater river,            stream, other          the activity will not
                                         dam or lake                       use water
Water use would mainly consist of drinking water for the construction team and
would be brought in daily. Concrete structures would however require minimal
water during the construction phase for batching.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                            20



If water is to be extracted from groundwater, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural
feature, please indicate
the volume that will be extracted per month: (average per concrete structures) 13728 Litres
Does the activity require a water use permit from the Department of Water YES NO
Affairs and Forestry?

In terms of Section 39 of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) (NWA), a
General Authorisation (GA) has been granted for certain activities that are listed
under the NWA that usually require a Water Use License. Such a GA exists for
wetland rehabilitation as long as the activities are for conservation purposes. As
some of the rehabilitation activities entail ‘impeding or diverting the flow of water
in a watercourse’ and/ or ‘altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a
watercourse, a number of GAs have been registered with the Department of Water
Affairs (DWA) for structures that would ordinarily require a Water Use License. For
each planning cycle the proposed rehabilitation work will be submitted to DWA, the
requisite approval sought and project monitoring reported as required.


9.      ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy
efficient:

Manual labour would be used during the construction phase, with material and
labourers being brought to site each day. Energy would thus only be required in
the form of vehicle/machine (limited) fuel.

Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the
design of the activity, if any:

N/A


10.     SITE OR ROUTE PLAN

Refer to the locality map and the wetland desktop maps included in the 2010 KZN
Rehabilitation Plans.


11.     SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Refer to the photos included in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.


12.     FACILITY ILLUSTRATION

Refer to the engineering drawings or designs included in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation
Plans.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                                               21


13.         ACTIVITY MOTIVATION


13(a) Socio-economic value of the activity
What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion?                                  R 7 512 000
What is the expected yearly income that will be generated by or as a result of                     R 00.00
the activity?
Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure?                                            YES         NO
Is the activity a public amenity?                                                                  YES         NO
How many new employment opportunities will be created in the development                           ~120*
phase of the activity?
What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the                              R 3 380 400
development phase?
What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals?                       ~ 70%
How many permanent new employment opportunities will be created during                             None
the operational phase of the activity?
What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during                          R 00.00
the first 10 years?
What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals?                       0%

* Employment opportunities are only created during the construction phase and
for many of the projects there are already teams (team size averages around
20-35 individuals) working on them and therefore there aren’t new work
opportunities as such. However, Working for Wetland principles ensure that a
very large percentage of those employed are from local communities.


13(b)       Need and desirability of the activity10

Motivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity):

Wetlands play a critical role in improving the ecological health of an ecosystem by
performing many functions that include flood control, water purification, sediment and
nutrient retention and export, recharge of groundwater as well as acting as vital
habitats for diverse plant and animal species. Wetlands are thus considered to be
extremely important in preserving biodiversity and are regarded as fundamental to the
sustainable management of South Africa’s water resources.

Wetlands also function as valuable open spaces and create recreational opportunities for
people that include hiking, fishing, boating and bird-watching. Many wetlands also have
cultural and spiritual significance for the communities living nearby. Commercially,
products such as reeds and peat are also harvested from wetlands. Wetlands are thus
considered to be critically important ecosystems as they provide both direct and indirect
benefits to the environment and society. Extensive damage to wetlands has occurred
as a result of poor land use practices, pollution, alien invasive species etc., which has
resulted in erosion and further degradation to aquatic ecosystems.

Various areas – including a number of the project areas or areas in close proximity to
them have been earmarked by the Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (2007) Conservation Plan for

10   References:
            Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitizia 19.
            South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
            WfWet. KZN Draft Basic Assessment Report. 2008. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                           22

protection, as is demonstrated in the figures below. Catchment V20C is regarded as
important from a conservation perspective. The catchment has been earmarked for
protection to meet aquatic conservation targets while sections of the catchment
(including wetland areas) are regarded as totally irreplaceable. This is attributed to a
large extent on the provision of habitat for breeding cranes. Entabeni training centre
(Crane Foundation), used for crane rehabilitation and environmental education is also
located within this quaternary catchment.




Figure 8: Excerpt of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Aquatic Conservation plan for the Hlatikulu
catchment (V20C).
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                       23




Figure 9: Outputs of the Terrestrial Conservation plan for the Hlatikulu catchment -
V20C (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2007).




Figure 10: Outputs of the Aquatic Conservation plan for the KZN North planning area
(Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2007)
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                           24




Figure 11: Outputs of the Terrestrial Conservation plan for the KZN North planning area
(Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2007). Note: Irreplaceable areas around Vryheid have been
flagged for Oribi conservation


The Maputaland project falls within the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany biodiversity
hotspot, which stretches along the east coast of southern Africa below the Great
Escarpment. It is an important center of plant endemism. The region’s warm temperate
forests are home to nearly 600 tree species, the highest tree richness of any temperate
forest on the planet. Unfortunately much of the once expansive grasslands and forests
are facing increased threats from plantations and local farming and also the expansion
of grazing lands in this area. The project location in and adjacent to the iSimangaliso
Wetland Park is of relevance as it supports both conservation management and
community development alike. The Park, which was listed as South Africa’s first World
Heritage Site in 1999 in recognition of its superlative natural beauty and unique global
values, covers 332 000 ha. It contains three major lake systems, eight interlinking
ecosystems, 700 year old fishing traditions, most of South Africa’s remaining swamp
forests, highest concentration of mires and other wetlands, Africa’s largest estuarine
system, 526 bird species and among the highest coastal dunes in the world.

Although the section of the T52F catchment in which rehabilitation is underway has not
been highlighted as an important area in the provincial conservation plan the site does
potentially support a number of important species. The Data Deficient Striped Caco
(Cacosternum striatum), Endangered Long-toed Tree Frog (Leptopelis xenodactylus)
and Critically Endangered Mistbelt Moss Frog (Arthroleptella ngongoniensis) have all
been recorded in the Mpur forestry area.

The Upper Mzintlava projects fall within T32B and C. These catchments are important
for a number of wetland-dependant species, including the wattled crane and white-
winged flufftail. Important areas within each of the quaternary catchment for meeting
aquatic and terrestrial conservation targets are highlighted in Figures below.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                       25




Figure14: Outputs of the Aquatic Conservation plan for catchments
(Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2007).




Figure15: Figure 1: Outputs of the Terrestrial Conservation plan for catchments T32B
(Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, 2007).
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                      26




Figure16: Grey Crowned Crane (above left) and Wattled                       Crane   (above   right)
photographed during phase 2 site visits at project sites

Both the Critically Endangered Wattled Crane (Bugeranus carunculatus) and Vulnerable
Grey Crowned Crane (Balearica regulorum) occur in the project areas and utilise
wetland areas for foraging and breeding.

Without the implementation of the planned rehabilitation activities, the programme’s
objectives11 would not be realized; and the loss of wetland habitat and its associated
eco-system services would be significantly greater. The strategic importance of the
Working for Wetlands programme is clear as evidenced by the distinct positive impacts
associated with the programme which has resulted in a net benefit/ gain as wetland
health and integrity is improved and the associated eco-services enhanced. Overall the
cumulative impact of wetland rehabilitation would thus be positive to both human
beings and the environment, now and in the future. Based on the above information, it
is clear that rehabilitating wetlands is considered to be the ‘best practicable
environmental option’ as a result of the positive impact that the programme has on
both the natural and socio-economic environment.

Indicate any benefits that the activity will have for society in general:
Wetlands provide numerous benefits to society in general through the ecosystem
services they perform. As noted earlier, the proposed rehabilitation interventions are
aimed at improving the current degraded state of wetlands, which would ultimately
enhance the integrity and thus the ecosystem services (flood control, water purification
etc.) of the wetland. The continued degradation of these wetlands would, in the long-
term, result in the permanent loss of these specialised habitats and associated
biodiversity, as well as reduce water quantity and quality.          As a rehabilitation
programme, the objective of Working for Wetlands is to protect natural wetland systems,
while improving these unique ecological environments. The programme also aims at
promoting the sustainable use of South Africa’s natural water resources.

The proposed interventions assessed in this application would improve and/or protect
one or more of the following ecosystem services:

    a) Flood attenuation by the spreading out floodwater and/or reduing the velocity
       of flow (smaller impact on downstream areas);

    b) Regulation of stream flow by increasing the water table to provide water


11 wetland conservation and poverty reduction through job creation and skills

development amongst vulnerable and marginalised groups
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                             27

        during low flow/dry periods;

   c) Trapping of sediment, thereby preventing wetland degradation and sediment
      being carried downstream;

   d) Erosion control through wetland           vegetation,   which    also   prevent    the
      sedimentation of downstream areas;

   e) Removal of phosphates, nitrates and toxins that occurs in runoff, and
      thereby improving water quality;

   f)   Trapping and storage of carbon primarily in the form of organic matter;

   g) Maintenance of biodiversity by providing unique habitats and maintaining
      wetland processes;

   h) Water resource for human and ecological needs;

   i)   Renewable natural resource that provides grazing, food, craft material, etc.;
        and

   j)   Food cultivation by providing land that is favourable for agricultural practices
        and/or food cultivation.

Key benefits derived from the projects can be summarised as follows:

   •    KZN North – The most important services are probably sediment trapping,
        stream-flow regulation and provision of food for livestock.
   •    KZN Midlands – The most important services are probably sediment trapping,
        erosion control and biodiversity conservation.
   •    Maputaland – biodiversity benefits.
   •    Sneezewood – social upliftment of local community and possibly a measure of
        biodiversity maintenance are benefits derived from this project area.
   •    Upper Mzintlava – winter livestock grazing and biodiversity maintenance are the
        most important services currently supplied by the wetland. Other important
        services include education and research and carbon storage.

Therefore, the purpose and motivation for the rehabilitation of these wetlands are to:

   a) prevent further erosion and degradation;
   b) secure the integrity and healthy functioning of the wetland area (ecosystem
      services);
   c) improve the value of the wetland for biodiversity conservation and the provision
      of natural resources;
   d) reinstate near natural hydrological conditions to improve water quantity and
      quality, conserve and improve biodiversity; and
   e) raise awareness among the public to promote sustainable use of wetland
      resources.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                        19


Indicate any benefits that the activity will have for the local communities where the activity will be
located:
Please refer to the above section regarding the benefits of wetland rehabilitation to
society in general.

In addition to rehabilitating wetlands, the Working for Wetlands programme aims to
reduce poverty through job creation and skills development amongst vulnerable and
marginalised groups.     The programme forms part of the Expanded Public Works
Programme, which seeks to draw significant numbers of unemployed into the productive
sector of the economy, gaining skills while they work and increasing their capacity to
earn income.     Projects are thus focused on rehabilitation, conservation and the
appropriate use of wetlands in a way that attempts to maximize employment creation,
support for small business and the transfer of skills to the unemployed and poor.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                           19


14. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES

List all legislation, policies and/or guidelines of any sphere of government that are applicable to the
application as contemplated in the EIA regulations, if applicable:

Title of legislation, policy or guideline:                 Administering authority:       Date:
The Constitution of South Africa (Act 108)                 National Government            1996
National Environmental Management Act (107)                Department of                  1998
                                                           Environmental Affairs
National Environmental Management Act (107)                Department of                  1998
Amendment Act                                              Environmental Affairs
The National Water Act (36)                                Department of Water            1998
                                                           Affairs
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43)            Department            of       1983
                                                           Agriculture, Forestry &
                                                           Fisheries
National Heritage Resources Act (25)                       National        Heritage       1999
                                                           Resources Agency
World Heritage Conventions Act (49)                        Department            of       1999
                                                           Environmental Affairs
The    National    Environmental Management:               Department of                  2004
Biodiversity Act (10)                                      Environmental Affairs
National Environmental Management: Protected               Department of                  2003
Areas Act (57)                                             Environmental Affairs
The Mountain Catchments Areas Act (63)                     Department of Water            1970
                                                           Affairs
EIA Guideline Series, in particular:                       Department            of
 o Guideline 3 – General Guide to the                      Environmental Affairs
    Environmental        Impact      Assessment
    Regulations, 2006 (DEAT 2006)
 o Guideline 4 – Public Participation in support
    of the EIA regulations, 2006 (DEAT 2006)
 o Guideline 5 – Assessment of Alternatives and
    Impacts, 2006 (DEAT 2006)
KZN Biodiversity Conservation Plan                         Department            of
                                                           Economic Development
                                                           & Environmental Affairs/
                                                           Ezemvelo/KZN Wildlife
International Conventions, in particular:
    • The Ramsar Convention
    • Convention on Biological Diversity
    • United Nations Conventions to Combat
       Desertification
    • New Partnership for Africa’s Development
       (NEPAD)
    • The World Summit on Sustainable
       Development (WSSD)
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                            20


SECTION C: SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION

Important note: For linear activities (pipelines etc) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it
may be necessary to complete Section C for each part of the site that has a significantly different
environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section C and indicate the area, which is
covered by each copy No. on the Site Plan.

Section C Copy No.
(e.g. A):
(Complete only when appropriate)


1.      GRADIENT OF THE SITE

Indicate the general gradient of the sites.

Please refer to the relevant section in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.


2.      LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE

Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site.

Please refer to the relevant section in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.


3.      GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE

Is the site(s) located on any of the following (tick the appropriate boxes)?

Please refer to the relevant section in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.

Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this YES                 NO
section?

4.      GROUNDCOVER

Please refer to the relevant section in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.

5.   LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA

Black out land uses and/or prominent features that do not currently occur within a 500m radius of the
site

Please refer to the relevant section in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.

6.      CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES

Please refer to the relevant section in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                            21


SECTION D: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The public participation process has consisted of the following steps to date:
   a) Notification of intention to submit an application in terms of the 2006 EIA
      regulations was submitted to DEA on 5 July 2010. A copy of this notice of intent is
      included in Appendix E.
   b) Stakeholders in addition to the above, such as local nature conservation
      specialists, heritage association representatives and NGOs, were identified from
      consultation with WfWet Provincial Coordinators and other individuals involved in
      the planning and implementation of the wetland rehabilitation projects. These
      stakeholders were notified on 5 July 2010 of the availability of the Phase 1
      wetland rehabilitation reports which outline the WfWet process and identify which
      wetlands work is proposed to take place in. Stakeholders were afforded a 2 week
      comment period on these reports and were also offered the opportunity to
      register as IAPs. A copy of the notification letter is supplied in Appendix E.
   c) Application forms in terms of the 2006 EIA regulations were submitted to DEA on
      30 July 2010.
   d) As agreed with DEA (see minutes attached in Appendix 3) advertisements were
      published in the national newspapers The Sunday Times (in English) and in Die
      Rapport (in Afrikaans) on 8 August 2010. Copies of the advertisements are
      supplied in Appendix E.
   e) Notice boards were placed at the Project sites giving details of the application and
      describing the nature and location of the proposed activities in both English and
      at least one other local language. These notices served to inform neighbouring
      landowners of the proposed projects. Copies of these notices are supplied along
      with photographs and details of the placement of the notices in Appendix E.
   f) I&APs were registered when they responded to the Notices of Application, Phase 1
      reports, Advertisements and Notice boards. Proactive identification of I&APs was
      also done via scrutiny of previous BAR processes and identifying potentially
      interested and/or affected parties based on previous experience with BAR
      processes. An Issues Register was maintained to record any comments received
      from I&APs and the responses given to these comments. The Issues Register,
      along with copies of written submissions, is included in Appendix E.
   g) Since the applicant is not the landowner, written consent for the proposed
      activities to be undertaken by WfWet was requested of each landowner by the
      WfWet provincial coordinator. Copies of the landowner consents are included in
      Appendix E of the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.



1.     ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES
Please refer to Appendix E


2.     COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT
Please refer to Appendix E
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                             22


3.      LOCAL AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION

Local authorities are key interested and affected parties in each application and no decision on any
application will be made before the relevant local authority is provided with the opportunity to give input.
The planning and the environmental sections of the local authority must be informed of the application
at least 30 (thirty) calendar days before the submission of the application.

Has any comment been received from the local authority?                          YES NO
If “YES”, briefly describe the feedback below (also attach any correspondence to and from the
local authority to this application):



4.      CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

Any stakeholder that has a direct interest in the site or property, such as servitude holders and service
providers, should be informed of the application at least 30 (thirty) calendar days before the submission
of the application and be provided with the opportunity to comment.

Has any comment been received from stakeholders?                                   YES NO
If “YES”, briefly describe the feedback below (also attach copies of any correspondence to and
from the stakeholders to this application):
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                             23



SECTION E: IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Please refer to Appendix H for the impact assessment methodology that was used
during the impact assessment process.

The assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2006,
and should take applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affected
parties should also be addressed in the assessment of impacts.


1.      ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES

List the issues raised by interested and affected parties.

The only issue raised to date has been concern regarding the Mpur (Sneezewood)
wetland where it is thought that continued “hard” interventions in the channel
could alter the natural hydrological regime of the system, thus creating an
artificially stabilized channelled valley-bottom wetland system rather than a
floodplain with a dynamic and meandering channel.

A list of all issues raised on the Draft BAR by Interested and Affected Parties will
be provided in the Final BAR.

Response from the practitioner to the issues raised by the interested and affected parties (A full
response must be given in the Comments and Response Report that must be attached to this report):

Intervention in the Mpur wetland will focus on “soft” options, with limited “hard”
interventions, in order to satisfy the social commitment made to that local
community, and ensure a measure of biodiversity improvement; while preparing
to move out of that system.

All comments received on the Draft BAR will be included and responded to in a
Comments and Responses Report which will be included as an Annexure in the
Final BAR.


2.      IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE

List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of
the planning and design phase, including impacts relating to the choice of site alternatives.

Alternative S1 (preferred alternative)
None identified. There is however a positive synergy in that the project team (i.e.
provincial co-ordinator, wetland specialist, engineer and EAP) all work together at
the planning stage. This helps to ensure that potential environmental impacts are
identified and mitigated at the design stage wherever possible. This positive
synergy has been maximised by the fact that the engineers and EAPs are from
the same organisation which allows constant discussion and exchange of ideas.
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                             24


        List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur
        as a result of the planning and design phase:

        Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)

        The only form of impact during the planning/design phase is the limited
        Geotechnical investigations which need to take place at some sites due to the size
        of the proposed interventions. KZN North as well as certain proposed measures in
        Maputaland;     require this investigation. Knowledge of the founding stability is
        vital and thus a limited number of test pits will need to be dug. These pits can be
        dug by hand or machinery. In order to minimise the impact the pits are dug by
        hand and then re-filled.




        3.          IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE

        List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of
        the construction phase:

        Alternative S1 (preferred alternative)
        Alternative sites were screened out during the planning and prioritisation process
        and will therefore not be assessed in further detail. Refer to the alternatives
        discussion in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.

        List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur
        as a result of the construction phase:

        Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)
                                 DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
                                        SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
                                      General Impacts For The Province
                                          Significance                                                  Significance
                                            rating of                                                     rating of
                                         impacts (Low,                                                 impacts after
             Potential Impact:                                      Proposed mitigation:
                                         Medium, High)                                                   mitigation
                                                                                                      (Low, Medium,
                                                                                                            High)

JOB CREATION
One of the primary objectives                            •        Ensure that the required
of the WfWet programme is to                               Project workers are sourced
create jobs and to teach                                   from local communities and
transferrable       skills     to                          that maximum employment
unemployed members of the                                  numbers      are     maintained
local community so that they                               throughout       the    Project
can     be    drawn    into   the                          duration.
permanent job market. The                Medium (+)                                                     High (+)
                                                         •        Project implementers to
potential impact of this is
                                                           support local businesses (e.g.
significant and has a number of
                                                           local quarry owners to obtain
indirect positive impacts
                                                           rock    for   gabions)   where
such as improvement in quality
                                                           possible.
of life of the workers, increased
spending in the local economy
and the support of small
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                 25


business in the local area.
Cumulatively, the impact of
the Working for Wetlands
projects is judged to be of high
positive     significance.   The
programme has a budget of
over R75 million, has created
in the region of 1500 jobs and
transferred skills to numerous
previously unskilled persons.                     •         Encourage landowners to
                                                    become more aware of, and
INCREASED AWARENESS OF                              educated in, the ecological
WETLAND IMPORTANCE                                  values and sensitivity of the
As an indirect impact there is                      wetland environments.
likely to be some increased          Medium (+)   •         Consider the erection of        High (+)
awareness       amongst     the                     a SANBI/Working for Wetlands
construction teams and land-                        information signs to describe,
owners      regarding   wetland                     and increase awareness of, the
ecology and the importance of                       activities and the ‘ecological’
rehabilitation.                                     investment taking place in the
                                                    Project areas


FIRE RISK
Construction    usually   takes                   •        Ensure that workers are
place in the dry winter months                      aware of the potential for fires
when the danger of veld fires is                    and the damage that could be
highest. There is a possibility                     caused.
that construction workers could
                                                  •        Ensure    that   a    fire
light a fire on site that could
                                                    response procedure is in place
become out of control. The risk
                                                    and that all dry season work is
of this happening is assessed
                                      High (-)
                                                    organized in liaison with the            Low (-)
to be low, although the
                                                    landowners so that it fits into
significance in terms of the
                                                    their firebreak/fire protection
economic damage that could
                                                    programme.
be caused (especially in a
commercial forestry area) is
high. Adequate site supervision
would considerably mitigate
this impact.

NUISANCE IMPACTS                                  • All site workers to undergo
Construction can result in                          environmental              induction
nuisance impacts, particularly                      training (“toolbox talks”) before
for land-owners. These impacts                      undertaking work so that they
include:                                            are aware of the various
• Noise       from    construction                  environmental requirements.
  activities,     personnel   and                 • Landowners          should        be
  vehicles.                           Low (-)       consulted       regarding        the   Very Low (-)
• An increase in the amount of                      placement of stockpile sites and
  litter being generated.                           toilets as well as access routes.
• Dust.                                           • Ensure that closed gates are
• Security concerns such as                         kept closed. When in doubt, the
  theft or leaving gates open.                      landowner should be consulted.
• Non-use         of    sanitation                • Follow CEMP with regards to
  facilities.                                       sanitation     facilities,    waste
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                26


• Temporary loss of access to                         management, noise and site
  areas due to construction                           management
  activities.                                       • Utilise local labour wherever
                                                      possible to reduce potential
Given the isolated working                            friction within the community
environment (i.e. far from                            caused by bringing outside
communities      and     public                       personnel in.
routes), the relatively few                         • Ensure that all workers wear
number of people on site and                          the yellow/blue attire indicative
constant supervision by the                           of     Working   for    Wetlands
project implementer, the above                        personnel so that they are not
impacts are likely to be of low                       mistaken for trespassers.
magnitude.

HERITAGE IMPACTS                                    • Should      any    artefact    or
No       significant     heritage                     suspected artefact (including
resources within the wetlands                         fossils and grave sites), or any
were identified during the                            site of cultural significance be
desktop       research,      I&AP                     encountered                during
interactions or site visit for the                    construction,      then       the
project.                                              Contractor must immediately
                                                      stop work in the vicinity of the
Given the low likelihood of          Very Low (-)     artefact and alert the relevant     Neutral (-)
heritage sites being disturbed                        authorities. The area around
and provided that construction                        the discovery shall be cordoned
is immediately stopped should                         off until such time that work is
a    heritage   resource    be                        authorised to proceed.
encountered       then     the
magnitude of this impact
should be zero.

                                      Project Specific Impacts

WORKER SAFETY                                       • All site workers to undergo
Debris and Alien Clearing                              specific safety training before
(Sneezewood        and     KZN                         undertaking this work so that
North)                                                 they are aware of the various
Alien and      Debris clearing                         risks and measures to be taken
requires very specific training                        in emergency situations.            Low (-)
                                       High (-)
and     involves    high    risk                    • Follow CEMP with regards to
equipment such as chainsaws.                          Occupational Health and Safety
It sometimes involves large                           requirements
trees and therefore extreme
caution needs to be exercised.

Work within a game reserve
(Maputaland) has a risk since
                                                                                           Low (-)
there is big game (buffalo,          Medium (-)
elephant and possibly leopard)
in the area and vegetation is
dense which limits visibility.
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                    27


                                      BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
                                General Impacts For The Province
                                      Significance                                             Significance
                                        rating of                                                rating of
                                     impacts (Low,                                            impacts after
          Potential Impact:                                    Proposed mitigation:
                                     Medium, High)                                              mitigation
                                                                                             (Low, Medium,
                                                                                                   High)

FLORA & FAUNA
Habitat disturbance                                  •         Before moving onto site
Habitat disturbance during the                           the    project    manager      or
construction stage is typically                          implementer must liaise with
temporary. In addition most                              the    landowner       and    the
species are relatively tolerant                          Endangered      Wildlife   Trust:
of disturbance and will be able                          Crane    Working      Group    to
to utilise the similar alternative                       determine if wattled cranes are
habitat available in the study                           known to be breeding in the
area. The area of habitat loss                           project area (a breeding pair
is also likely to be small and                           was observed on the new
limited    to    the   immediate                         Hebron site, part of the
surroundings          of       the                       Upper Mzintlava Project). If
intervention being constructed.                          these    cranes    have     been
                                                         observed as being present then
Disturbance of fauna during                              the advice of the Crane
the breeding season                                      Working Group as to how best
Construction         of        the                       to proceed should be sought
interventions for this project                           and discussed with the SANBI
takes place during winter (the                           provincial co-ordinator.
dry period) which is when
wattled       cranes       breed.
Construction activities could
potentially result in disturbance
to breeding pairs, possibly          Medium (-)                                                Low (-)
causing them to leave their
nest site. Given the critically
endangered status of these
birds, this impact could be
significant. It can however be
almost completely mitigated by
liaising with the Crane Working
Group          whose         local
representatives can advise on
areas where breeding has been
observed         and        where
construction activities should
not occur.

Alien species invasion
A potential construction-related
impact on vegetation is the                          •          Implement              the
possibility of an increase in                            provisions    of    the    CEMP
alien invasive species due to                            regarding stockpiling borrowed
disturbance and weed seeds                               material    and    rehabilitation
being brought in with borrow                             after construction
and construction material.
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                   28


Poaching
Poaching by the construction
teams is possible, but can be
mitigated by the fact that the
teams are not resident on site
and are closely supervised.

AQUATIC            ECO-SYSTEM
IMPACTS

Temporary       alteration        to                •           Implement             the
stream flow patterns                                    provisions     of    the    CEMP
Construction must often take                            regarding stockpile location
place    in   areas      that    are                    and site management.
permanently wet. This requires                      •           If sandbags are used to
that water be diverted away                             temporarily divert water then
from working areas, leading to                          these bags should be in good
temporary alterations in the                            condition.
current                    drainage                 •           Sand/earth to fill the
characteristics. Water diversion                        bags should come from and be
is typically done using sand                            returned to existing excavation
bags to slow/block flow and                             points.
then a pump to remove water                         •           Soil       used         in
and     discharge     it     further                    interventions       must       be
downstream. This can result in                          stabilised as per the engineer’s
a slight drying in the working                          recommendations                to
areas and may affect aquatic                            counteract      the    dispersive
organisms. This will however                            tendencies.
be of a temporary nature and                        •           Water abstracted above
is unlikely to significantly alter                      the      General    Authorization
flow patterns.                                          limits must be authorized by
                                       Medium (-)       DWAF prior to such abstraction       Low (-)
Sedimentation                                           taking place.
Construction     activities     can
result in additional sediment
ending up in the water course
(e.g. due to earthworks or
breakage of sandbags used to
divert    water     away      from
working areas). Sediment can
result     in    silt     build-up
downstream,       increase      the
turbidity of the water and
result in habitat changes.
However, as wetlands are
typically low-energy systems,
much of the excess sediment is
likely to be trapped before it is
washed far downstream. Also,
given the limited nature of the
earthworks, sedimentation is
not anticipated to occur to a
significant degree.

Pollution of water-courses
Construction activities close to
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                           29


a water-course/wetland carry
the    attendant     risk    that
construction-related pollutants
could end up in the wetland
system.     Typical    pollutants
include    hydrocarbons     (e.g.
from fuel leaks, shutter oil and
lubricating fluid spills), litter,
cement      and    contaminated
wash-down water.

Disturbance       of   wetland
vegetation       and    stream
banks
Some disturbance to stream
banks and wetland vegetation
will be inevitable in order to
construct      the     proposed
interventions.    This   impact
generally occurs on a small
scale and can be mitigated via
good management practices
                                     Project Specific Impacts

Sourcing borrow material
(KZN       North,     Midlands,
Sneezewood,               Upper
Mzintlava) – borrow material                      • Implement the provisions of
(earth and rocks) is not always                     the CEMP.
sufficiently available on site,                   • Any quantities in excess of the
and     has   to   be   sourced                     minimum requirements for a
elsewhere. This can have a                          borrow pit licence will require
negative biophysical impact to                      authorisation through DME.
the area where it is sourced.                     • Borrow areas will need to be
                                                    properly re-sloped and re-
The quantities required are not      Medium (-)     vegetated after use.               Low (-)
such that they require a
borrow    pit   licence.   Costs
increase the further one gets
from site and therefore borrow
material is sourced as close to
site   as   possible.    Sources
include existing borrow areas
on      neighbouring      farms,
decommissioned dam walls,
man-made berms which are no
longer required.
Work within conservation
areas    (Maputaland,    Mt.
Currie and Midlands) -
A number of the projects fall                     • Close co-operation is required
within   conservation  areas         Medium (-)     with       the     conservation    Low (-)
which requires a more astute                        authorities.     Any    specific
attitude on the part of the                         requirements     need   to   be
implementers       to    the                        included in the documentation.
surrounding environment and                       • Tierhoek (a property within the
       BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                30


the possible negative impacts                     KZN Midlands project) has a
they can have on it.                              Crane Rehabilitation project on
                                                  site and therefore activities on
                                                  site need to be carefully co-
                                                  ordinated with the Centre’s
                                                  management.
                                                • Implement the provisions of
                                                  the CEMP.

       No-go alternative (compulsory)

       The impact of following the ‘no go’ for the identified construction phase impacts is
       assessed as follows:

       Aquatic ecosystem
       If the no go alternative is pursued, then the construction-related impacts will not
       be realised. However, the overall impact of the no go option on the aquatic
       ecosystem is likely to be negative, especially in the long-term as rehabilitation
       activities will not take place and the existing problems (such as erosion) in the
       wetland will continue. Over time these existing problems are likely to have a
       greater negative impact than the short-term and fairly minor construction related
       impacts. Although the no go option is likely to have significant long-term negative
       consequences, only the expected impact of the no go in the short term (i.e.
       construction-related time frame) has been assessed in this section so as to
       facilitate comparison between the no go and preferred alternative during the
       construction period. The longer term impact of the no go is assessed in the
       operational phase. The expected impact of the no go is Low (-).

       Fauna and flora
       If the no go alternative is pursued, then the construction-related impacts will not
       be realised. However, the overall impact of the no go option on the flora and
       fauna is likely to be negative, especially in the long-term as rehabilitation
       activities will not take place and there is thus unlikely to be an expansion in
       wetland habitat or biodiversity. The non-expansion in habitat would be
       particularly detrimental to wetland dependent species s. Although the no go
       option is likely to have significant long-term negative consequences, only the
       expected impact of the no go in the short term (i.e. construction-related time
       frame) has been assessed here so as to facilitate comparison between the no go
       and preferred alternative during the construction period. The longer term impact
       of the no go is assessed in the operational phase. The significance of the impact
       assigned to the no go for the construction phase on flora and fauna is Very Low
       (-).

       Heritage
       The no go alternative is unlikely to have a significant impact – either positive or
       negative – due to the low likelihood of disturbance to heritage resources. An
       impact rating of neutral has thus been given.
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                             31

        Nuisance impacts
        Pursuing the no go alternative will mean that the nuisance impacts associated
        with construction will not be realised. The impact is thus rated as neutral.

        Socio-economic
        Pursuing the no go alternative in this case will mean that the positive socio-
        economic benefits of job creation, skills transfer and support of the local economy
        will not be realised. This impact is rated as medium (-)



        4.       IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE OPERATIONAL PHASE

        List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of
        the operational phase:

        Alternative S1 (preferred alternative)
        Alternative sites were screened out during the planning and prioritisation process
        and will therefore not be assessed in further detail. Refer to the alternatives
        discussion in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.

        List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur
        as a result of the operational phase:

        Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)
                              DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
                                      SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
                                   General Impacts For The Province
                                         Significance                                                   Significance
                                           rating of                                                      rating of
                                        impacts (Low,                                                  impacts after
          Potential Impact:                                         Proposed mitigation:
                                        Medium, High)                                                    mitigation
                                                                                                      (Low, Medium,
                                                                                                            High)

Changes in land use
The increase in wetland area                            • Ensure     good    access    for
may have both positive and                                landowners in the form of
negative        impacts        for                        crossing points
landowners.      Wetlands     are                       • Provision of watering points for
often utilised for winter grazing                         stock to minimise extensive
and an increase in wetland                                trampling    in  the   wetlands
area may, in certain instances,                           (especially in the wetter times
improve grazing conditions for                            of year)                                    Medium (+)
                                          Low (+)
the    farmer.    However     the
increase in wet areas may also
make     previously    accessible                                                                        Low (-)
                                        Medium (-)
areas inaccessible for farming
purposes. The extent and
magnitude of this impact will
depend to a large degree on
how      much      value     each
individual landowner places on
wetland conservation. It is
however assumed that if the
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                       32


landowner is willing to allow
wetland rehabilitation to take
place on their property that
they see the value in the
WfWet programme and are
willing to accept the increase in
wetland area.
Reduced water storage and
treatment costs
Wetlands can offer valuable
stream flow regulation and
filtration services. By restoring
wetland area it is likely that
downstream users will benefit
by having a more reliable and
possibly cleaner source of
water.      In     addition,   by   Medium (+)                    Medium (+)
addressing erosion, wetland
rehabilitation can decrease the
amount          of       sediment
downstream. This can help to
reduce water treatment costs
for downstream users and will
also reduce the sedimentation
of downstream water storage
facilities such as dams.
Employment
Ideally, the skills learned by
the project team during the
construction phase – such as
                                    Medium (+)                    Medium (+)
how to work with concrete,
build gabions etc – can be used
to    assist  them     to   find
permanent employment.
                                       Project Specific Impacts

None
        BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                33


                                     BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
                                General Impacts For The Province
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING
Restoring wetland corridors
In areas where wetlands have
been      artificially   drained,
restoration can result in the re-
wetting of areas and link up
previously wet areas, thus
creating and extending a
network of wetland areas.
These wetland corridors can
provide valuable refuges for
wetland species and allow for
greater                ecosystem
connectivity.

Changes in water quality             Medium (+)                                            Medium (+)
and quantity
More natural stream flow
patterns within the wetland, as
well as an improvement in
water quality and quantity (due
to     improved      ecosystem
services) can be expected after
rehabilitation.

This improvement in water
quality and a more reliable
supply of water is particularly
important given the water
scarcity  that  faces    South
Africa.
FLORA & FAUNA                                     •          Power lines were noted
Improved wetland habitat                              in the proximity of many of the
Rehabilitation of wetland areas                       wetland sites. Creating habitat
will result in an increase in                         could bring more cranes to the
habitat for wetland-dependent                         area and they could be
species. This is a positive                           vulnerable     to    electrocution
impact, especially in light of                        from existing lines. It is thus
the fact that a number of the                         recommended that Eskom and
KZN wetlands are utilised by                          the Crane Working Group
the vulnerable grey crowned                           assess the significance of the
crane    and     the    critically                    threat and discuss feasible
                                     Medium (+)                                            Medium (+)
endangered     wattled    crane,                      mitigation     measures      (e.g.
among other protected species.                        attaching bird flappers in areas
                                                      of high collision risk). This was
Increased biodiversity                                particularly noted in the Padda
A large proportion of the                             Vlei wetland.
natural    vegetation   in    the
greater area has already been
lost to forestry and agriculture.
Restoring wetland habitat will
help to increase the species
richness of the overall area by
       BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                            34


encouraging        the      re-
establishment     of   wetland
species.

Obstruction of movement of
aquatic biota
The potential for the proposed
interventions to hinder the
movement of aquatic species
such as fish was considered
and the following noted:
o The overall impact of the
     structures on aquatic biota
     is expected to be positive
     due the increase in quality
     and quantity of habitat.
o The interventions may help
     to contain the spread of
     alien exotic fish
Based on the above, fish
ladders were not considered
critical and were thus not
designed for this system.

Change        in       species
composition
In wetlands that have been
subject to desiccation, plants
that are tolerant of drier
conditions are likely to have
become established. With the
restoration of the wetland,
these species are likely to be
replaced with wetland-adapted
vegetation. This change in
composition reflects a shift
back to historical species
composition    and   is   thus
considered positive.
                                   Project Specific Impacts
Burning regimes in wetland
areas (KZN North – Blood
River)     –    Wetlands     are                • It is preferable that wetlands
considered high risk areas for                    only get burnt every second year
runaway fires and therefore                       at the least, however, if this is
some farmers use the wetland                      not possible the optimum time is
areas as firebreaks to protect                    after Aug – end Sept. (Flora
the rest of their property, with                  need opportunity to seed, and
the result that the entire                        Cranes need opportunity to
wetland is burnt every year. If    Medium (-)     breed).                             Medium (-)
burnt at the wrong time it
could have negative impacts on
endangered fauna (particularly
the breeding cranes) and flora.
Wetlands do require burning,
but in a responsible manner.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                35



No-go alternative (compulsory)

'No-go’ Alternative on a Provincial level

As noted earlier, the interventions identified for the proposed rehabilitation
projects were identified during a screening process that was undertaken to ensure
that the most suitable intervention was identified, developed and assessed for
each rehabilitation site. During this screening process the project team also took
into account environmental, social and economic considerations, as well as the
rehabilitation objectives identified for the wetlands.

Should these interventions not be implemented, the current rate of degradation
at the assessed wetlands could continue and in some cases even result in the
permanent loss of the integrity and functioning of some of these systems. It
would also not be possible to achieve the rehabilitation objectives identified for
the wetlands (also see Section B.13(b) of this Application).         Without the
implementation of wetland rehabilitation as part of the Working for Wetlands
project, the overall programme objectives12 and the EPWP requirements would
not be realised.

The impact of following the ‘no go’ for the identified operational phase impacts is
assessed as follows:

Ecosystem functioning
Pursuing the no-go option would result in the current negative ecosystem impacts
continuing. These impacts include desiccation, erosion, channel incision etc. This
has been assessed as medium (-).

Fauna and flora
The no go alternative would mean that the positive impacts identified above
would not be realised and this alternative has thus been assessed as having a
medium (-) impact. Continued wetland degradation and habitat loss is likely to
result in exponential increase in the significance of the no go alternative, leading
to an eventual loss of biodiversity and disruption of floral and faunal ecosystems.

Socio-economic
The no go alternative would mean that the positive impacts identified above
would not be realised and this alternative has thus been assessed as having a
low (-) impact.

'No-go’ alternative on a Project level

In addition to the general impacts expressed above some project specific impacts
could be summarised as follows:

KZN North – Diminished wetland habitat and biodiversity impacts
KZN Midlands - Conservation objectives in the area will be negatively affected

12   wetland conservation and poverty reduction through job creation and skills
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                             36

Maputaland – Conservation objectives in Mkuze will be negatively affected
Sneezewood – Social impacts (loss of income to the local community)
Upper Mzintlava – Crane conservation in the area will be negatively impacted




5.      IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE
        PHASE

List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of
the decommissioning or closure phase:

Alternative S1 (preferred alternative)
Alternative sites were screened out during the planning and prioritisation process
and will therefore not be assessed in further detail. Refer to the alternatives
discussion in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.

List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur
as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase:

Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)
The only project in KZN to be affected is Maputaland where a failed structure at
the Tshanetshe breach will be decommissioned. The soilcrete structure will be
broken down and removed from site and the area rehabilitated. The discussion
surrounding this structure and the alternatives considered is detailed in the
Maputaland 2010 Rehabilitation Plan.

No-go alternative (compulsory)
Direct impacts:
Ecosystem functioning –the failed structure forms a partial barrier to the
hydrological functioning of the Mkuze river, which results in the river cutting a
new course around it which erodes into the banks and undermines their stability.
Safety – there is a constant danger that a flood situation could bring the
remaining structure downstream which could be a danger to people and livestock.
Pollution – the remaining section of the structure will over time be eroded and
this soil/concrete mix will pollute/silt up downstream areas.
Socio-Economic – there will be a loss of income to the local community who
would have been employed to construct a new structure (as well as possibly
breaking down the failed structure); but they will be employed to break down the
failed structure.

Indirect impacts:

Cumulative impacts:
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                                 37


6.      PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Indicate how identified impacts and mitigation will be monitored and/or audited.

Alternative A1                     Alternative A2                     Alternative A3
Construction phase
All construction related impacts would be monitored according to the
requirements of the CEMP. During the construction phase, monthly audits and
associated reporting would be undertaken based on the CEMP requirements and
associated mitigation measures listed in the reporting which relate to construction
phase impacts.

Operational phase
During the Phase 2 site visits, baseline monitoring is carried out prior to the
rehabilitation of the wetland to provide comparable data for monitoring at a later
stage (once the intervention(s) have been constructed). Monitoring and
evaluation is considered to be a vital component of the project as it allows for the
evaluation of the performance of the interventions in successfully rehabilitating
the affected wetland.

Based on the WET-RehabEvaluate tool, protocols for data collection for monitoring
purposes have been developed, which includes compulsory collection of certain
data13, while other data collection for monitoring would be considered to be
optional14 depending on the importance of the wetland, costs of rehabilitation
undertaken etc.

Upon completion of the interventions within a wetland, the Engineer would revisit
the site to sign off on the interventions based on what was detailed in the
rehabilitation plan; while the Wetland ecologist would assess the effectiveness of
the intervention(s) in achieving the specified objectives and contributing towards
the rehabilitation objectives. Appropriate corrective action would be specified if
either of the project team members were unsatisfied with the intervention’s
effectiveness in terms of achieving the objectives and long-term stability. An
annual Monitoring and Evaluation report would be compiled by the project team.



7.      ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Taking the assessment of potential impacts into account, please provide an environmental impact
statement that sums up the impact that the proposed activity and its alternatives may have on the
environment after the management and mitigation of impacts have been taken into account with
specific reference to types of impact, duration of impacts, likelihood of potential impacts actually
occurring and the significance of impacts.

Alternative S1 (preferred alternative)
Alternative sites were screened out during the planning and prioritisation process
and will therefore not be assessed in further detail. Refer to the alternatives
discussion in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.
Alternative S2



13 Maintenance inventory, rehabilitation effectiveness, fixed point photography/ site photographs, and wetland
assessments
14 Sediment and erosion control, hydrology, vegetation and water quality
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                    38


Alternative S3


Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)

                              IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

  High negative                                    Red
  Medium negative                                  Green
  Low negative                                     Blue
  Neutral
  Positive impact                                  Yellow



                                                            Significance of Impact
              Construction Phase:
             Description of Impact
                                                     No Mitigation       With mitigation

 Job creation                                         Medium (+)            High (+)
 Increased       awareness       of      wetland                            High (+)
                                                      Medium (+)
 importance
 Fire risk                                                High (-)           Low (-)

 Nuisance impacts                                         Low (-)         Very Low (-)

 Heritage impacts                                         Low (-)          Neutral (-)

 Flora & Fauna                                        Medium (-)             Low (-)

 Aquatic eco-system impacts                           Medium (-)             Low (-)

 Operational Phase: Description of Impact
                                                          Low (+)          Medium (+)
 Changes in land use
                                                      Medium (-)             Low (-)
 Reduced water storage and treatment
                                                      Medium (+)           Medium (+)
 costs
 Employment                                           Medium (+)           Medium (+)

 Ecosystem functioning                                Medium (+)           Medium (+)

 Flora and Fauna                                      Medium (+)           Medium (+)




Based on the above, it is the opinion of the EAP that the positive long-term bio-
physical and socio-economic aspects of the project as a whole greatly outweigh the
minor negative construction related impacts, particularly since effective mitigation
measures to reduce the negative impacts exist. There are no indications to suggest
that the preferred alternative will have a significant detrimental impact on the
environment. Instead, a long-term positive impact is anticipated. This is discussed in
further detail below:
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                              39

CONSTRUCTION PHASE:

It is most likely that all identified construction related impacts would be limited to
the duration of this phase. Impacts on the bio-physical environment are generally
considered to be of Medium (-) to Low (-) significance, which can be reduced to
Low (-) and Very Low (-) with the implementation of appropriate mitigation
measures. Construction related impacts can generally be very effectively managed
through the implementation and regular auditing of a CEMP. The impact on the
socio-economic environment is expected to be Medium to High (+) due largely to
the creation of jobs and up-skilling of local workers.


OPERATIONAL PHASE:

Potential Operational Phase related impacts for both the bio-physical and socio-
economic environments are generally considered to be of Medium to High (+)
significance. These positive impacts are expected to arise due to the following:
        • Improved wetland habitat for red data species
        • Improved wetland services (which has benefits for downstream as well as
           local users)
        • Empowering of local community

Alternative A2


Alternative A3


No-go alternative (compulsory)
As noted earlier, the interventions identified for the proposed rehabilitation project
were identified during a screening process that was undertaken to ensure that the
most suitable intervention was identified, developed and assessed for each
rehabilitation site. During this screening process the project team also took into
account environmental, social and economic considerations, as well as the
rehabilitation objectives identified for the wetland.

Should these interventions not be implemented, the current rate of degradation at
the assessed wetlands would continue and in some cases even result in the
permanent loss of the integrity and functioning of these systems. It would also not
be possible to achieve the rehabilitation objectives identified for the wetlands (also
see Section B.13(b) of this Application). Without the implementation of wetland
rehabilitation as part of the Working for Wetlands project, the overall programme
objectives15 and the EPWP requirements would not be realised. These impacts range
in significance from Very Low to High (-).

If the no go alternative is pursued, then the operational-related impacts will not be
realised. However, the overall impact of the no go option on the aquatic ecosystem is
likely to be negative, especially in the long-term as rehabilitation activities will not
take place and the existing problems (such as erosion) in the wetland will continue.
Over time these existing problems are likely to have a greater negative impact than
the short-term and fairly minor construction related impacts.


15   wetland conservation and poverty reduction through job creation and skills
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                                         40


8.      RECOMMENDATION OF PRACTITIONER

Is the information contained in this report and the documentation attached YES NO
hereto sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for (in the
view of the environmental assessment practitioner)?
Is an EMP attached?                                                                 YES NO
If “NO”, indicate the aspects that should be assessed further as part of a Scoping and EIA process
before a decision can be made (list the aspects that require further assessment):

If “YES”, please list any recommended conditions, including mitigation measures that should be
considered for inclusion in any authorisation that may be granted by the competent authority in respect
of the application:
Based on the information provided in this report, the outcome of the impact
assessment and the supporting documentation it is the recommendation of the
EAP that authorization be granted for the following reasons:
   • The proposed rehabilitation activities are likely to have significant positive
       bio-physical and socio-economic benefits, not just for the local community
       for the country as a whole.
   • Effective mitigation measures exist to manage the limited negative
       impacts that were identified.
   • The proposed rehabilitation activities are in line with the principles of
       NEMA (in particular: people and their needs – particularly women and
       children – are placed at the forefront of development via the EPWP; the
       development can be considered to be socially, environmentally and
       economically sustainable; the environmental impacts of the activity are
       not unfairly distributed and the potential environmental impacts have been
       assessed and evaluated).
   • The WfWet programme is an important part of the government’s EPWP
       and given that the impacts of the proposed activities are not likely to be
       detrimental to the environment, this programme should be supported in
       the spirit of co-operative governance.

It is recommended that the following conditions should be included by the
Department of Environmental Affairs in the Environmental Authorisation (should a
positive decision be reached):

     a) Mitigation measures listed in this BAR, as well as those indicated in the
        2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans, should be referenced as conditions of
        approval.
     b) Construction activities must take place in accordance to the requirements
        of the attached CEMP, which also includes general requirements from the
        Working for Wetlands Best Management Practices Plan.
     c) Regular auditing of the CEMP must take place as per the audit checklist in
        the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plan.
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT                                                               41



SECTION F: APPENDIXES

The following appendixes must be attached as appropriate:

Appendix A: Site plan(s)

Refer to the locality maps and the wetland desktop maps included in the 2010 KZN
Rehabilitation Plans.

Appendix B: Photographs

Refer to the site photographs included in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.



Appendix C: Facility illustration(s)

Refer to the design drawings of each intervention included in the 2010 KZN
Rehabilitation Plans.

Appendix D: Specialist reports

D1   –   Draft Rehabilitation Plan:   KZN North
D2   –   Draft Rehabilitation Plan:   Maputaland
D3   –   Draft Rehabilitation Plan:   KZN Midlands
D4   –   Draft Rehabilitation Plan:   Sneezewood
D5   –   Draft Rehabilitation Plan:   Upper Mzintlava
D6   –   Geotechnical report

All rehabilitation plans include specialist wetland assessments and specialist engineering
input.

Appendix E: Public Participation Process (including: Comments and responses report)

E1   –   I&AP database
E2   –   Adverts
E3   –   Letters to I&AP’s
E4   –   Photos of Site Notices
E5   –   I&AP comments in response to PPP initiation
E6   –   Comments and Response report

Appendix F: Information in support of applications for exemption

Appendix G: Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

Refer to the Construction Phase EMP included in the 2010 KZN Rehabilitation Plans.

Appendix H: Other information

H1 – Impact assessment methodology
H2 – Notes of meetings with DEA and DWA
H3 – Wetland forum minutes

								
To top