APPENDIX D

SPECIALIST REPORTS AND SPECIALISTS DECLARATION

APPENDIX D1

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

1

PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR

PROPOSED TWO D655 BRIDGE UPGRADES;

BETHAL, MPUMALANGA

Compiled for: SSI ENGINEERS & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

BY:

Mr C.L.COOK Pr.Nat.Sci 400084/08 (MSc. Zool. U.P)

Zoological Consultant: Specialist Herpetological Consultant

Cell No. 082 688 9585

Giant.bullfrog@gmail.com

REVISED: JULY 2012

2

1. Background Information Eskom has undertaken in 2009 to upgrade the D622 to a surfaced standard

from a well maintained gravel road standard. The D622 is located between

9km and 15km north of the town Bethal. The purpose of the D622 road

upgrade is to facilitate the transport of coal from Sudor mine to surrounding

power stations.

Three major bridges are encountered along the 34km upgraded D622 road.

Bridge 1 bisects the Klein Olifants River, Bridge 2 the Viskuile River and

Bridge 3 the Joubertsvlei Spruit. The location of the current bridges is

presented in Figure 1. Bridges 1 and 3 are low level single carriageway

bridges and are considered as a threat to road safety due to the recent road

upgrading as well as frequently flooded during high spates/floods. Bridge 2 is

7m wide and at a higher level and is deemed to be able to withstand flooding

events.

Bridge 1 is located at km 20.9, north of Bethal, crossing the Klein Olifants

River on the D622. The existing bridge has 3 spans of 3m x 2m, 6m x 3.2m

and 3m x 2m respectively and accommodates only single lane traffic over the

bridge. Reports were received that the bridge gets flooded regularly. D622 is

classified as Class 3 road (SANRAL Drainage Manual). However, due to the

strategic importance of coal supply to Eskom along the road, Mpumalanga

Roads Department requires the bridge to be designed for a 1:50 year flood.

The original bridge as designed previously was only designed for a 1:20year

flood. Therefore the proposed ARMCO (7x 3.5m diameter) culverts are not

sufficient to accommodate the required 1:50 design flood. It is thus

necessary to supplement the culverts with additional bridge capacity. It is

proposed that a concrete bridge be designed that can carry the bulk of the

flood while the ARMCO culverts be used to accommodate the excess. The

ARMCOS will also be positioned as such that they “serve” the wetlands to the

north east of the stream. The new bridge has 2 spans of 12.750 m and one

span of 15.500 m.

3

Bridge 3 is located at km 8.5, north of Bethal, crossing the Joubertsvlei

Spruit on the D622. The existing bridge has two spans of 3m x 3m and

accommodates only single lane traffic over the bridge. Reports were received

that the bridge gets flooded regularly. D622 is classified as Class 3 road

(SANRAL Drainage Manual). However, due to the strategic importance of coal

supply to Eskom along the road, Mpumalanga Roads Department requires the

bridge to be designed for a 1:50 year flood. The originally proposed bridge

was only designed for a 1:20year flood. Therefore the proposed ARMCO

(4x3.5m diameter) culverts are not sufficient to accommodate the 1:50

design flood. It is thus necessary to supplement the culverts with additional

bridge capacity. It is proposed that a concrete bridge be designed that can

carry the bulk of the flood while the ARMCO culverts be used to

accommodate the excess. The new bridge has 1 span of 15.500 m. The

ARMCOS will also positioned as such that they “serve” the wetlands to the

north east of the stream.

The project falls in the Mpumalanga Province in the Govan Mbeki Local

Municipality (MP307) within the Gert Sibande District Municipality (DC30).

The Govan Mbeki Local Municipality is situated on the western border

between Mpumalanga and Gauteng. The municipal area is bordered by the

Msukaligwa Municipality in the east; Lekwa Municipality to the south and

Dipaleseng Municipality to the west.

4

Figure1. Locality map of the proposed two upgraded bridge crossings (red

circles)

5

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Predictive methods

A 1:50 000 map of the study area was provided showing existing

infrastructure and the proposed alignments. This was used as far as possible

in order to identify potential “hot-spots” along the corridors, e.g. Patches of

undisturbed vegetation, river crossings, wetlands and dams and agricultural

areas. Satellite imagery of the area was obtained from Google Earth was

studied in order to get a three dimensional impression of the topography and

land use.

2.2 Literature Survey

A detailed literature search was undertaken to assess the current status of

threatened fauna that have been historically known to occur in the study

area within which the bridges are located. The literature search was

undertaken utilising The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland

(Mucina & Rutherford 2006) for the vegetation description. The Mammals of

the Southern African Subregion (Skinner & Chimiba 2005) and The Red Data

Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment

(Friedmann and Daly (editors) 2004) for mammals. Roberts-Birds of

Southern Africa VIIth ed. (Hockey, Dean and Ryan (editors) 2005) and The

Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa (Barnes 2000) for avifauna

(birds). A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa (du Preez &

Carruthers 2009) and The Atlas and Red Data Book of the frogs of South

Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Minter et al. 2004) for amphibians. The Field

Guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa (Branch 2001) and

South African Red Data Book-Reptiles and Amphibians (Branch 1988) for

reptiles.

2.3 Site Investigation Methodology

A preliminary assessment of the current status of the river as well as

threatened faunal species potentially occurring, as well as potential threats of

the bridge upgrades was conducted. For certain species, an estimate of the

expected or historical distribution for the area could be extrapolated from

published information and unpublished reports, while habitat and spatial

requirements were generally derived from the literature. For other species,

little of this information was readily available and conservation targets

6

remain speculative. Species assessments will be updated when additional

data becomes available and where appropriate, proposed conservation

targets will be revised.

Two general habitat sensitivity scans were carried out on the 22nd February

and the 9th March 2009. The proposed two upgraded bridge sites were re-

visited on the 27th June 2012. These site visits did not entail intensive

surveying or utilisation of any sampling methods and can rather be viewed as

being an opportunity to identify sensitive faunal habitats occurring adjacent

to the bridges.

2.4 Uncertainties in predicting results

• Limitation to a single season or base-line ecological survey for only

2 days (20 hours) during the late summer months (Feb-March) and

a single day sit visit during the winter months (June 2012).

• The majority of threatened species are seasonal only emerging

after sufficient early heavy summer rainfalls between October and

December.

• The majority of threatened species are extremely secretive and

difficult to observe even during intensive field surveys conducted

over several years.

• Limitation of historic data and available databases. Insufficient

knowledge on detailed habitat requirements (migratory, foraging

and breeding) of the majority of threatened species.

• The presence of threatened species on site is assessed mainly on

habitat availability and suitability as well as desk research

(literature, personal records and previous surveys conducted in

similar habitats between1999-2012).

• The majority of the red data atlases are outdated especially

pertaining to reptiles as well as inadequate coverage of some areas

by the atlases.

7

2.5 Gaps in the baseline data

• Little long-term, verified data of faunal species distribution on

micro-habitat level along the proposed D622 road.

• Little long-term, verified data on impacts of existing bridges and

culverts in the study area on fauna as well as hydrological patterns

of the associated wetlands and rivers.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Vegetation and Faunal habitat Availability

Vegetation structure is generally accepted to be more critical in determining

faunal habitat than actual plant composition. Therefore, the description of

vegetation presented in this study concentrates on factors relevant to faunal

species abundance and distribution, and does not give an exhaustive list of

plant species which occur in the study area.

8

Figure2. The upgraded D622 road; as well as the proposed upgraded

bridges falls within the Eastern Highveld Grassland (Gm 12) vegetation

unit (Mucina & Rutherford 2006).

9

The study area falls within the Eastern Highveld Grassland (Gm12)

(Mucina & Rutherford 2006) vegetation unit. This vegetation unit id

distributed In Mpumalnga and Gauteng Province on the plains between

Belfast in the east and the eastern-side of Johannesburg in the west and

extending southwards to Bethal, Ermelo and west of Piet Retief. The

vegetation is short dense grass dominated by the usual highveld grass

composition (Aristidia, Digitaria, Eragrostis, Themeda, Tristachya etc) with

small rocky outcrops with wiry, sour grasses and some woody species

(Acacia caffra, Celtis africana, Diospyros lycioides subs lyciodes, Parina

capensis, Protea caffra, P.welwithchii and Rhus magaliesmontanum) (Mucina

& Rutherford 2006). Sour grassland generally occurs in high rainfall areas on

leached soils. Vegetation is relatively short and dense, and nutrients are

withdrawn from the leaves during the winter months. The predominant rock

types are shales and sandstones of the Vryheid and Volksrust Formations

(Ecca Group, Karoo Sequence), giving rise to deep, red to yellow, sandy

soils.

Eastern Highveld Grassland is very suitable for crop production, with the

natural vegetation heavily used for grazing of sheep and cattle. The

conservation status of this vegetation type is very poor. Moist Sandy

Highveld Grassland is now largely ploughed, with natural vegetation

restricted to patchy remnants, which are often heavily grazed. The

Nooitgedacht Dam Nature Reserve and the Jericho Dam Nature Reserve are

the only official conservation areas of this vegetation type within the study

area, but the Ermelo Game Park represents a good example of this

vegetation type (Bredenkamp & van Rooyen, 1996).

The majority of Eastern Highveld Grassland along and surrounding the two

bridges has been completely transformed due to the surrounding agricultural

activities in the area. Large areas have been transformed into maize and

wheat mono-culture agricultural lands as well as extensive cattle and sheep

grazing lands. The road reserves and are dominated by Black Jacks (Bidens

pilosa), Khaki Bush (Tagetes minuta) and Cosmos (Cosmos bipinnatus). The

grass layer is dominated by anthropogenic asscoaited grass species such

Aristida congetsta and Aristida juncifromis subsp. galpinii, Cynodon dactylon,

Eragrostis curvula, Hyparrhenia tamba, Hyparrhenia hirta and Heteropogon

contortus

10

The majority of tree species found along the D622 are exotics (Oaks,

Quercus sp.) as well as alien invasive species such as Eucalyptus sp., Acacia

mearnsii, Acacia dealbata, Salyx babylonica, Populus alba.

Present in the lower-lying valley bottoms of the study area is an azonal

vegetation unit known as Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands

(AZf3; Mucina et al. 2006). This vegetation unit is embedded within the

Grassland Biome and can best be described as wetland vegetation

surrounding bodies of water and periodically flooded areas. It occurs in the

Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Free State, North-West, Gauteng, Mpumalanga

and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces as well as in neighbouring Lesotho and

Swaziland around water bodies with stagnant water (lakes, pans, periodically

flooded vleis, edges of calmly flowing rivers) with altitudes ranging from

750–2 000 m.

The percentage of area of this vegetation unit that is protected is 4.6%

(NSBA) with a conservation target of 24% (NSBA) with 85.1% (NSBA)

remaining intact it is classified as least threatened but poorly protected and

is conserved in the Blesbokspruit (Ramsar site), Marievale, Olifantsvlei,

Seekoeivlei (a Ramsar site), and others.

This unit is found embedded within the Grassland Biome where it occurs in

the Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Free State, North-West, Gauteng,

Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces as well as in neighboring Lesotho

and Swaziland around water bodies with stagnant water (lakes, pans,

periodically flooded vleis, edges of calmly flowing rivers) with altitudes

ranging from 750–2 000 m.

The wetlands vegetation primarily comprises grasses and sedges with very

few trees and no shrubs present. Vegetation covers 85 % of the total land

cover with bare soil comprising ~15% of the total cover. Soils are humus-

rich black turf. The topography or slope is between 1~4° and drainage is

good along the un-channelled valley bottoms but poor in the seasonally

inundated depressions with conditions becoming moister towards the centre

of the wetland. Degraded sections are dominated dense stands of Bidens

pilosa, Tagetes minuta, and Cosmos bipinnatus. Rocks are absent.

11

Dominant grass and sedge species are Phragmites australis, Typha capensis,

Schoenoplectus corymbosus, Cyperus margaritaceus, Leersia hexandra and

Mariscus dregeanus. Indigenous herbs include hydrophilic or moisture-loving

species Persicaria lapathifolium and Polygonum attenuata together with the

Rumex lanceolatus, Crinum bulbispernum and Crinum macowanii. The

vegetation is dominated by grass and sedge species reaching a height of

~2.5 m (Typha capensis and Phragmites australis) while the herbaceous

component (averaging 40 cm tall) comprises a cover of about 5%, with only

one tree species present (Salyx babylonica*). Indigenous herbs were scarce,

as they cannot cope with the moist conditions and only specialized wetland

herbs are present together with some generalist species. The percentage of

area of this vegetation unit that is protected is 4.6% (NSBA) with a

conservation target of 24% (NSBA) with 85.1% (NSBA) remaining intact it is

classified as least threatened but poorly protected and is conserved in the

Blesbokspruit (Ramsar site), Hogsback, Marievale, Olifantsvlei, Seekoeivlei (a

Ramsar site), Wakkerstroom Wetland, Umgeni Vlei, Umvoti Vlei and Pamula

Park Nature Reserves. It is also protected in private nature reserves such as

the Korsman Bird Sanctuary and Langfontein. The area comprised by this

vegetation unit is 556.77 km2 with some 15% having been transformed to

cultivated land, urban areas or plantations. In places intensive grazing and

use of the Joubertsvlei as drinking pools for cattle causes major damage to

the wetland vegetation because of trampling and grazing in the winter

months when greens are scarce elsewhere; but present in the wetland due to

moisture (hydromorphic soils) present there. Extensive head-cur erosion

occurs within the seasonally inundated valley bottom wetland. The proposed bridge upgrades and temporary access roads are is situated within disturbed and transformed riparian habitat of the Klein Olifants and degraded sections of the Joubertsvlei valley bottom wetland. It is imperative that construction activities of the new bridges are restricted to the existing bridge servitudes as well as road reserves and that adequate drainage pipes and culverts are installed under the in-filled temporary access roads in order to maintain the present hydrological patterns of the valley bottom wetland and the Klein Olifants River. No threatened plants were recorded adjacent to the existing bridges or within the proposed temporary road alignments or are likely to occur in the immediate adjacent areas.

12

4. CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS OF

BRIDGE CROSSINGS 4.1 BRIDGE 1 KLEIN OLIFANTS RIVER

Figure1. A conglomerate of photographs displaying the impacts on

the Klein Olifants River Bridge Crossing observed in 2009:

A: The Olifants River upstream from the bridge displaying bank erosion as

well as alien vegetation invasion in the riparian zone; B: downstream from

the current single lane low-level bridge is invaded by alien vegetation as well

as severe dust (coal) smothering the vegetation; C: Extensive dust including

coal dust has smothered the majority of vegetation immediately surrounding

the bridge; D: Poorly positioned gabions prevent the natural migratory

movements as well as extensive weedy plant species invasion within the

riparian zone.

13

Figure2. A conglomerate of photographs displaying the impacts on

the Klein Olifants River Bridge Crossing observed during the June

2012 site visitation. A: The safety rails of the single lane bridge have been

destroyed. B: The riparian vegetation upstream and downstream from the

bridge has been transformed and invaded by the exotic grass kikuyu

(Pennisetum clandestinum*), Yellow Firethorn (Pyracantha angustifolia*) as

well as Weeping Willows (Salyyx babylonica*). C: Extensive bank erosion

immediately upstream and downstream from the bridge. The installed gabion

baskets have collapsed. D: The proposed temporary access road is situated

within transformed or secondary succession grasslands.

14

Existing impact recorded included:

Alien vegetation invasion in the riparian zone including Weeping Willow

(Salyx babylonica*) as well as kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum*).

Massive amounts of dust including coal dust results in siltation of the

river and smothering of surrounding vegetation (prevents transpiration

as well as photosynthesis).

Damage to safety rails is a potential safety hazard.

Extensive littering as well as dumping into the Klein Olifants River.

The raising of the road has resulted in the alteration of the natural

hydrological regime of an adjacent valley bottom and the artificial

damming or embankment by the D622.

Excessive speeds of the approaching coal transporting trucks are a

potential safety hazard as well as increasing road fatalities of

migrating animals.

The swallow nests under the bridge have been recently destroyed.

Uncovered coal trucks and coal dust results in deterioration of water

quality of the river.

The threatened Marsh Sylph Butterfly (Vulnerable) was observed

during previous surveys (2009) at a seasonal wetland adjacent to the

diversion road. No suitable habitat (seasonally inundated hygrophytic

vegetation such as Leersia hexandra) was observed adjacent to the

existing bridge on the Klein Olifants River for this species.

No threatened plants were recorded adjacent to the existing bridge or

within the proposed temporary road alignments or are likely to occur

in the immediate adjacent areas.

15

BRIDGE3. JOUBERTSVLEI SPRUIT

Figure3. Existing impacts at the Joubertsvlei Spruit bridge crossing

observed during the 2009 site visitations included: A: Due to

alteration of natural drainage areas by the compacted road results in a head-

cut erosion adjacent to the Joubertsvlei Spruit; B: The gabions have

collapsed resulting in further bank erosion; C: Several dead Barn Swallow

chicks were observed due to destruction of the nests under the bridge; D:

insufficient sub-surface drainage under the road as well as the silting up of

the single concrete pipe.

16

Figure4. A conglomerate of photographs displaying the impacts on

the Joubertsvlei Spruit observed during the June 2012 site visitation.

A: The current bridge is a single lane. The riparian vegetation along the

Joubertsvlei Spruit has been totally transformed due to extensive overgrazing

and trampling by cattle B: The macro-channel banks of the Joubertsvlei

Spruit have been extensively eroded due to uncontrolled drinking of livestock

(cattle). The gabion baskets have collapsed. C & D: A head-cur or head-cut

erosion channel occurs upstream from the current bridge. This erosion

channel has increased considerably since the 2009 site visitation. The

proposed temporary access road is situated within transformed habitats or

secondary succession grasslands.

17

Existing impacts include:

Alteration of the natural hydrological regime of the upstream valley

bottom wetland.

Totally insufficient concrete pipes or ideally culverts have been placed

under the current D622 road. This will result in massive changes in

the surface as well as sub-surface drainage patterns of the adjacent

valley bottom wetland.

Inadequate fencing allows easy access to the sensitive valley bottom

wetland as well as Joubertsvlei Spruit.

Needless destruction of the Barn Swallow nests under the current

bridge is strongly condemned by the consultant. All the nests have

been totally destroyed.

Extensive head-cur erosion occurs parallel to the road. The erosion

channel has increased considerable since previous site visits.

Extensive siltation and sedimentation of the Jouvbertsvlei Spruit from

bank erosion as well as head-cur erosion channel.

High speeds of the coal trucks results in increased road fatalities of

migrating fauna as well as a severe safety hazard for neighbouring

settlement.

Extensive alien vegetation invasion within the riparian zone including

Bidens pilosa*, Cirsium vulgare*, Pennisetum clandestinum*, Datura

stramonium*, Cosmos bipinnatus*, Tagtes minuta* and Verbena

bonariensis*.

The threatened Marsh Sylph butterfly (Vulnerable) was observed

along the seepage wetlands upstream and downstream from the

current bridge as well as within the Leersia hexdandra seasonally

inundated zones of the adjacent valley bottom wetland. No threatened

plants were recorded adjacent to the existing bridge or within the

proposed temporary road alignments or are likely to occur in the

immediate adjacent areas.

18

5. Discussion and Recommendations The existing bridge structures are situated within degraded sections of the

Klein Olifants River and the Joubertsvlei Spruit. The riparian zones are

dominated by completely transformed or severely degraded riparian zones.

No red data plants were observed or are likely to occur within these

degraded and transformed habitats. One red data faunal species namely the

Marsh Sylph (Metisella meninx) butterfly was observed dispersing along the

Joubertsvlei Spruit as well as within a seasonally inundated wetland to the

north-east of the Klein Olifants River during a previous site visitation in

February and March 2009. The proposed upgrading of the existing bridge

structure will most likely result in a medium-low, short-long term impact

on the transformed riparian vegetation as well as associated fauna if

environmentally sensitive practices are implemented during all phases of the

project. The proposed new bridges could potentially result in a positive

impact if the macro-channel banks are appropriately rehabilitated and re-

vegetated with indigenous (to the area) plant species. This will result in

reduced levels of siltation and sedimentation as well as allowing for the

natural dispersal movements of remaining faunal species along the rivers.

The size of watercourse to be crossed and the costs associated with bridging

structures have meant that single or multi-barrel culverts are often the

preferred means of providing passage over streams. Traditionally, culverts

have been installed with consideration for their hydraulic capacity, and little

thought has been given to the needs of fauna passage or migration. The

installation of a culvert alters the hydraulic conditions of the stream at that

location, and may also create upstream passage or dispersal problems for

fauna, both within the culvert itself and at the inlet and outlet.

A second major problem can be the elevation of the culvert outlet. An outlet

with the invert above the natural stream level, particularly if it is positioned

above the water surface is often an insurmountable obstacle for smaller

animal species such as fish, frogs, reptiles and smaller mammals. This

situation may result from either the way in which the culvert was initially

installed or from subsequent erosion below it. In some circumstances, this

may be a desired result to prevent the migration of certain species to upper

catchment areas. Badly designed and poorly installed culverts/pipes can be

impassable to riverine fauna. Increased water velocities combined with

19

shallow water depth, “stepped” culvert entrances and smooth uniform

surfaces all create barriers to fauna migration.

Culverting results in the loss of natural in-stream and bank-side habitats

through direct removal and loss of daylight. The culverting of watercourses

leads to fragmentation and loss of wildlife corridors in agricultural

environments. These corridors and habitats can be important for mammals,

bird, reptile and amphibian species and fish, along with other biodiversity

interests such as vegetation. Culverted sections may create or exacerbate

downstream or upstream bank and bed erosion as well as sediment

deposition, as a result of altered water velocities and disruption to the

natural transport of sediment. This in turn drives demand for further hard

engineering responses (e.g. gabion baskets, concrete banks) which may

create additional erosion and deposition problems, and the need to carry out

sediment removal. Culverts are prone to blockage by debris, both natural

wood and litter, leading to localised flooding during periods of high river flow.

Badly designed or undersized culverts also form restrictions to high flows

causing upstream flooding. Once installed, if flood flows increase due to

climate change or upstream development, it is very difficult to change the

amount of water that a culvert can carry and therefore avoid flooding.

The proposed new bridge and metal arch structures over the Klein Olifants

River and the Joubertsvlei Spruit are the preferred alternatives from an

ecological perspective compared to the ARMCO culverts. The bridges will

allow for the natural dispersal movements of remaining fauna including the

threatened Marsh Sylph (Metisella meninx) butterfly as well as minimizing

potential impacts on the river beds and alteration of the natural hydrological

patterns of the watercourses. It is imperative that after the construction of

the new bridges that the adjacent macro-channel banks are appropriately

rehabilitated and stabilized. This will require the installation of sufficient

gabions for erosion control as well as the re-vegetation of the riparian zone

with indigenous plant, forb and tree species (see attached species lists). The

temporary access roads will require rehabilitation including the ripping of the

road and the re-vegetation with indigenous (to the area) plant species.

20

STANDARD MITIGATIONS OF THE PROPOSED TWO BRIDGE

UPGRADES INCLUDE:

The following generic mitigation measures for the two bridge

upgrades are provided:

• Construction activities should be scheduled as far as possible to take

place during low flow periods when as little of the construction site and

exposed sediment is in contact with the flow as possible.

• All temporary construction or access roads in or adjacent to riparian

zones and watercourses should be aligned and managed so as to

minimise disturbance of the watercourses as well as in-stream habitats.

• The original geometry, topography and geomorphology, in both cross-

sectional and longitudinal profile, should be reinstated at, above and

below the watercourse crossings following construction.

• Appropriate mitigation measures for controlling sediment input into the

watercourses will be required during the construction phase. This should

include methods for controlling Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in pools

and actively flowing reaches of the watercourses affected by

construction activities.

• Erosion prevention structures such as gabions should be constructed

adjacent to the macro-channel banks; where there is a risk of high

stormwater flows. The existing gabion baskets at bridge 1 and 3 will

require upgrading.

• Where necessary and according to risks in terms of bank erosion, as

discussed for each crossing, gabions or storm water control structures

should be used to disperse stormwater flows and/or prevent/control

erosion.

• Where necessary and according to slope and risks in terms of bank

erosion as discussed for each crossing, disturbed areas of the riparian

zone should be re-vegetated using either a specified seed mix and/or

appropriate indigenous trees.

• Appropriate mitigatory measures for controlling sediment input into the

rivers will be required during the construction phase. The use of hay

bales packed in rows across diversions and active flow areas during

construction may be one way of limiting sediment inputs. They also help

to buffer the pH. The bales will need to be removed and disposed of

after construction. Other alternative methods of controlling sediment

should also be considered.

21

• All coffer dams, causeway and construction materials should be removed

from the river and riparian zone immediately after construction at the

site is completed.

• Ripping and discing of temporary access roads in the riparian zone

should be undertaken in order to assist with natural vegetation re-

establishment and the control of bank erosion.

• The environmental management, which is prescribed, should be audited

during construction, and monitored for a period thereafter, until full

rehabilitation is assured and stability demonstrated.

22

6. REFERENCES ACOCKS, J.P.H. (1988). Veld Types of South Africa. Memoirs of the

Botanical Survey of South Africa, No.57: 1-146. Botanical Research

Institute, Pretoria.

BARNES, K.N. (ed.) (2000). The Escom Red Data Book of Birds of South

Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg.

BRANCH, W.R. (1988). Field Guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of

Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

CARRUTHERS, V.C. (2001). Frogs and Frogging in South Africa. Struik

Publishers, Cape Town.

DE GRAAF, G. (1981). The rodents of southern Africa. Butterworth Press,

Pretoria.

JACOBSEN, N.H.G. (1989). A herpetological survey of the Transvaal.

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Natal, Durban.

LOW, A.B. and REBELO, A.G. (1998). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho

and Swaziland. D.E.A.&T., Pretoria.

MINTER, L.R., BURGER, M., HARRISON, J.A., BRAAK, H.H, BISHOP,

P.J, AND KLOEPFER, D. 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the frogs

of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series 9. Smithsonian

Institution, Washington, DC.

MUCINA, L AND RUTHERFORD, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of

South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. SANBI, Pretoria.

PASSMORE, N.I. and CARRUTHERS, V.C. (1995). Frogs of South Africa.

A Complete Guide. Wits University Press, Witwatersrand.

23

ROBERTS, A. (1951). The mammals of South Africa. Central News

Agency, Cape Town.

SIEGFIED, W.R. (1989). Preservation of species in southern African nature

reserves. In: Huntley, B.J. (Ed). Biotic Diversity in Southern Africa, 186-201.

Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

SKINNER, J.D. and SMITHERS, R.H.N. (1990). The Mammals of the

Southern African Subregion. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

SKINNER, J.D. & CHIMIMBA, C.T. (2005). The Mammals of the Southern

African Subregion 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press.

SKINNER, J.D. and SMITHERS, R.H.N. (1990). The Mammals of the

Southern African Subregion. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

SMITHERS, R.H.N. (1986). South African Red Data Book-Terrestrial

Mammals. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No.125: 1-

214.

24

7. APPENDIX Table1. Grass species list (ideally grass species endemic to the area should be used for rehabilitation/re-vegetation)

Alloteropsis semialata ssp. eckloniana Alloteropsis semialata ssp. Semialata Andropogon appendiculatus Andropogon chinensis Anthephora pubescens Aristida adscensionis Aristida canescens ssp. canescens Aristida congesta ssp. congesta Aristida diffusa ssp. burkei Aristida scabrivalvis ssp. scabrivalvis Aristida transvaalensis Arundinella nepalensis Avena sp. Bewsia biflora Brachiaria brizantha Brachiaria eruciformis Brachiaria serrata Bromus leptoclados Bromus sp. Cenchrus ciliaris Cymbopogon caesius Cymbopogon pospischilii Cyperus esculentus Digitaria debilis Digitaria diagonalis var. diagonalis Digitaria eriantha Digitaria monodactyla Digitaria sp. Digitaria ternate Digitaria tricholaenoides Diheteropogon amplectens var. amplectens Ehrharta erecta var. erecta Elionurus muticus Enneapogon cenchroides Enneapogon scoparius

25

Eragrostis chloromelas Eragrostis curvula Eragrostis planiculmis Eragrostis racemosa Eragrostis sp. Eustachys paspaloides Helictotrichon turgidulum (Stapf) Schweick. Hemarthria altissima Heteropogon contortus. Hyparrhenia anamesa Hyparrhenia cymbaria Hyparrhenia filipendula var. pilosa Hyparrhenia hirta Hyparrhenia quarrei Hyparrhenia tamba Imperata cylindrical Koeleria capensis Leersia hexandra Lolium multiflorum Lolium temulentum Loudetia simplex Melinis nerviglumis Melinis repens ssp. repens Monocymbium ceresiiforme Panicum maximum Panicum miliaceum Panicum natalense. Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum notatum Paspalum scrobiculatum Pennisetum thunbergii Pennisetum villosum Perotis sp. Poa annua Poa pratensis Pogonarthria sp. Potamogeton pusillus Schizachyrium sanguineum Setaria lindenbergiana

26

Setaria megaphylla Setaria nigrirostris Setaria sp. Setaria sphacelata var. sphacelata Setaria sphacelata var. torta Sorghum bicolor ssp. arundinaceum Sorghum halepense Sorghum versicolor Sporobolus africanus Sporobolus discosporus Sporobolus fimbriatus Sporobolus natalensis Sporobolus nitens Sporobolus sp. Sporobolus stapfianus Stipagrostis uniplumis var. neesii Stipagrostis zeyheri ssp. Sericans Themeda triandra Forssk. Trachypogon spicatus Tragus berteronianus Triraphis andropogonoides Tristachya rehmannii Typha capensis Urelytrum agropyroides Urochloa mosambicensis Urochloa panicoides P.Beauv.

27

Table2. Suggested indigenous trees for bank rehabilitation (species indigenous to the area are indicated with an . It is strongly recommended that only these are planted as far as possible)

Botanical Name Common Name Acacia karroo Sweet Thorn Acacia natalitia Pale-bark Sweet Thorn Acacia caffra Common Hook Thorn Acacia robusta Robust Acacia Acacia tortilis Umbrella Thorn Apodytes dimidiate White Pear Calodendron capense Cape Chestnut Celtis africana White stinkwood Combretum erythrophylum River Bushwillow Cussonia paniculata Highveld cabbage Diospyros lycoides Blue bush Dombeya rotundifolia Wild pear Ekenbergia capensis Cape ash Erythrina lysistemon Corral Tree Ficus natalensis Natal Fig Ficus sycomorus Sycamore fig Grewia occidentalis Cross berry Gymnosporia buxifolia Common Spike-Thorn Halleria lucida Tree fuschia Harpephyllum caffrum Wild plum Kiggelaria africana Wild peach Leucosidea serricea Ouhout Olea europaea subsp. africana Wild olive Pappea capenis Jacket plum Pittosporum viridiflorum Cheesewood Podocarpus henkelli Henkell’s yellowwood Pterocarpus rotundifolius Round leaved kiaat Searsia/Rhus chiridensis Red Currant Searsia/Rhus prinoides Dogwood Searsia/Rhus leptodictya Mountain karee Searsia/Rhus lancea Karee Searsia/Rhus pyroides Common wild currant Salix mucronata Safsaf willow

28

Schotia brachypetala Weeping boer-bean Syzigium cordatum Water berry Trichilia emetica Natal mahogany Vepris lanceolata White ironwood Ziziphus mucronata Buffalo thorn

Table3. Indigenous shrub species marked with should be used for re-vegetation.

Botanical Name Common Name Aloe arborescens (gabions) Aloe greatheadii Aloe marlothii Bauhinia species Pride-of de-Kaap Buddleja salinga False olive Buddleja salvifolia Sagewood Burchellia bubaline Wild pomegranate Carissa macrocarpa Bird num-num Dietes species Wild iris Dovyalis caffra Kei apple Ehretia rigida Puzzle bush Erica species Heaths Euryops species Golden daisies Felicia species Wild daisy Grewia flava Wild currant Helichrysum kraussii Everlastings Leonotis leonorus Wild dagga Leucospernum species Pincushions Mackaya bella Forest bell bush Pavetta lanceolata Forest’s pride bush Plectranthus species Spur flowers Plumbago auriculata Cape leadwort Protea caffra Sugarbush Psychotria capensis Black birdberry Rhamnus prinoides Dogwood Strelitzia nicolai Strelitzea reginae Crane flower Tecoma capensis Cape honeysuckle Thunbergia natalensis Natal bluebell