WFW - Rustenberg Rehab Plan - 0

Report No: 109664/8822
REHABILITATION PLAN FOR THE WORKING FOR WETLANDS

PROGRAMME, NORTH WEST PROVINCE
PROJECT: RUSTENBURG
A21K, A22F, A24D
APRIL 2014
This page was left blank intentionally
REHABILITATION PLAN FOR THE RUSTENBURG WETLAND PROJECT, NORTH
WEST: PLANNING YEAR 2014
AS PART OF THE
WORKING FOR WETLANDS PROGRAMME
FOR THE
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE
MAIN REPORT
APRIL 2014
Prepared by: Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd

P O Box 494
Cape Town
8000
South Africa
Tel: 021 526 6022
Fax: 021 526 9500
Email: [email protected]
Prepared for: Working for Wetlands Programme

South African National Biodiversity Institute
Private Bag X101
Pretoria
South Africa
Tel: 012 843 5000
Fax: 012 804 3211
Website: www.sanbi.org
This report is to be referred to in bibliographies as:
South African National Biodiversity Institute, South Africa. 2014. Rehabilitation Plan for the
Rustenburg Wetland Project, North West: Planning Year 2014. Prepared by Franci Gresse
and Grace Shihepo, Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd as part of the planning phase for the
Working for Wetlands Rehabilitation Programme. SANBI Report No. 109664/8822
Page left blank intentionally
South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)
WORKING FOR WETLANDS: CONTEXT DOCUMENT

1. Introduction
Working for Wetlands (WfWetlands) is a government programme managed by the South African National
Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), and is a joint initiative of the Departments of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Water
Affairs (DWA) and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). In this way the programme is an expression of the
overlapping wetland-related mandates of the three parent departments, and besides giving effect to a range of
policy objectives, also honours South Africa’s commitments under several international agreements, especially
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
The programme is mandated to rehabilitate damaged wetlands and to protect pristine wetlands throughout South
Africa, with an emphasis on complying with the principles of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and
using only local Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs). The EPWP seeks to draw significant numbers of
unemployed people into the productive sector of the economy, gaining skills while they work and increasing their
capacity to earn an income.
2. Wetlands and their importance

Once considered valueless wastelands that needed to be drained or converted to more useful landuse purposes,
wetlands are now seen in an entirely different light. Today wetlands are more commonly perceived as natural
assets and natural infrastructure able to provide a range of products, functions and services free of charge.
That which actually constitutes a wetland is often not fully understood. Common misconceptions have been that
wetlands must be wet, must have a river running through them, or must always be situated in low-lying areas.
The definition of a wetland is much broader and more textured: they are characterised more by soil properties
and flora than by an abundance of water.
The National Water Act, No. 36 of 1998 defines a wetland as:

“land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or
near the surface or the land is periodically covered with water, and which land in normal circumstances
supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil”.
The Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as:

“areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water
that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low
tide does not exceed 6m” (Article 1, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. 1971).
Wetlands can therefore be seasonal and may experience regular dry spells (sometimes even staying dry for up to
several years), or they can be frequently or permanently wet. Wetlands can occur in a variety of locations across
the landscape (Plate A), and may even occur at the top of a hill, nowhere near a river. A pan, for example, is a
wetland which forms in a depression. Wetlands also come in many sizes; they can be as small as a few square
metres (e.g. at a low point along the side of a road) or cover a significant portion of a country (e.g. the Okavango
Delta).
i
Plate A: A large, seasonal wetland identifiable by the characteristic flora. This wetland contained no
surface water at the time of the photograph.
Wetland ecosystems provide a range of ecological and social services which benefit people, society and the
economy at large:
 Wetlands offer services such as water provision, regulation, purification and groundwater replenishment
are crucial in addressing objectives of water security and water for food security.
 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 provide ecological infrastructure, replacing the need for municipal infrastructure by providing
the same or better benefit at a fraction of the cost.
 Wetlands retard the movement of water in the landscape, which offers the dual benefit of flood control as
well as a means of purification. The slow movement of water allows heavier impurities to settle and
phreatic vegetation and micro-bacteria the opportunity to remove pollutants and nutrients. For these
reasons, artificially created wetlands are often used in newer urban drainage systems to aid both
mitigation of flooding and improvement of water quality.
 Wetlands 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 (Plate B).
Wetlands are thus considered to be critically important ecosystems as they provide both direct and indirect
benefits to the environment and society.
Plate B: Commercial products made by locals from reeds harvested from wetlands.
ii
3. Wetland Degradation
It has been estimated that originally over 10% of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) was covered by wetlands;
however, this figure decreases significantly every year owing to unsustainable land-use practices. It is estimated
that more than 50% of South Africa’s wetlands have been destroyed through drainage of wetlands for crops and
pastures, poorly managed burning regimes, overgrazing, disturbances to wetland soils, vegetation clearing as
well as industrial and urban development (including mining activities).
Although wetlands are high-value ecosystems that make up only a small fraction of the country; they rank among
the most threatened ecosystems in South Africa. According to a recent Council of Scientific Research (CSIR)
study,1 South Africa’s remaining wetlands were identified as the most threatened of all South Africa’s ecosystems,
with 48% of wetland ecosystem types being critically endangered, 12% endangered and 5% vulnerable. Only
11% of wetland ecosystem types are well protected, with 71% not protected at all.
The remaining wetland systems suffer from severe erosion and sedimentation, undesirable plant species and
aquatic fauna infestations, unsustainable exploitation, artificial drainage and damming, and pollution. The
continued degradation of wetlands will impact on biodiversity, ecological function, and the provision of ecosystem
services with subsequent impacts on livelihoods and economic activity, as well as health and wellbeing of
communities. In the absence of functional wetlands, the carbon cycle, the nutrient cycle and the water cycle
would be significantly altered, mostly detrimentally.
Wetland rehabilitation and conservation should be at the heart of water management. It is necessary to prioritise
South Africa’s remaining wetlands such that those that offer valuable ecosystem services and are least impacted
by current pressures or threats are offered immediate attention to avoid further loss, conversion or degradation.
4. The Working for Wetlands Programme

South Africa is a dry country, but is endowed with exceptionally rich biodiversity. The nation has a pressing
reason to value the water-related services that wetlands provide. It is estimated that by 2025, South Africa will be
one of fourteen African countries classified as “subject to water scarcity” (SANBI Working for Wetlands Strategy
2006-2010). The conservation of wetlands is fundamental to the sustainable management of water quality and
quantity, and wetland rehabilitation is therefore essential to conserving water resources in South Africa.
The guiding principles of the National Water Act, No. 36 of 1998, recognise the need to protect water resources.
In responding to the challenge of stemming the loss of wetlands and maintaining and enhancing the benefits they
provide, government has recognised that, in order to be truly effective, strategies for wetland conservation need
to include a combination of proactive measures for maintaining healthy wetlands, together with interventions for
rehabilitating those that have been degraded. These objectives are currently being expressed in a coordinated
and innovative way through the WfWetlands Programme.
The two main objectives of the WfWetlands Programme are wetland conservation in South Africa and poverty
reduction through job creation and skills development amongst vulnerable and marginalised groups.
Wetland conservation: The strategic framework of the WfWetlands Programme underlines the need for a more
refined planning process at catchment scale. Catchment scale planning seeks to promote ecosystem-scale
1
Nel J.L. and Driver A. 2012. South African National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical Report. Volume 2:
Freshwater Component. CSIR Report Number CSIR/NRE/ECO/IR/2012/0022/A, Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research, Stellenbosch.
iii
outcomes, long-term custodianship, and the entrenchment of rehabilitation in broader local institutions and
frameworks. The recent move to a systematic wetland rehabilitation planning process has provided a fertile and
conducive platform for partnerships to be formed and/or strengthened as the process draws in a much wider
stakeholder base.
Wetlands are not easy ecosystems to map at a broad scale as they are numerous, often small and difficult to
recognise and delineate on remotely sensed imagery such as satellite photos. The WfWetlands Programme
houses the National Wetlands Inventory Project (NWI) which aims to provide clarity on the extent, distribution and
condition of South Africa’s wetlands. The project clarifies how many and which rivers and wetlands have to be
maintained in a natural condition to sustain economic and social development, while still conserving South
Africa’s freshwater biodiversity.
The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) has used the NWI data to produce the most
comprehensive national wetland map to date, called the NFEPA Atlas. This atlas enables the planning of wetland
rehabilitation on a catchment scale.
Skills development: In the 12 years since its inception, the WfWetlands Programme has invested R530 million
in wetland rehabilitation and has been involved in over 900 wetlands, thereby improving or securing the health of
over 70 000 hectares of wetland environment. The WfWetlands Programme currently has a budget of
approximately R94 million per year, of which R32 million is allocated directly to paying wages. Being part of the
Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), the WfWetland Programme has created more than 12 800 jobs
and 2.2 million person-days of paid work. The local teams are made up of a minimum of 60% women, 20% youth
and 1% disabled persons.
Training and Capacity Building during the Working for Wetlands Programme
The WfWetlands Programme has established a working relationship with the Department of Public Works through
the Working for Water programme. This partnership provides accredited training in accordance with the special
public works Code of Good Practice agreements. Capacity building in the WfWetlands Programme operates
primarily at two levels:
o The first concerns the need to ensure the development of adequate capacity to rehabilitate, manage and
conserve wetlands in South Africa.
o The second relates to the commitment of the WfWetlands Programme as an EPWP to provide
appropriate training to its workers in order for them to exit the programme with marketable skills and
enhanced personal development.
Workers receive two days of training, either vocational or social development-related, for every 22 days worked.
Vocational training includes technical matters related to project activities, occupational health and safety, first aid,
fire awareness, and business skills (contractor development). Social development includes literacy, primary
health, personal finance, HIV/Aids and diversity awareness.
Wage information sourced from the best practice guidelines suggests that workers and contractors would be paid
daily rates of R 82 and R 2512 respectively and would be employed on limited term contracts, i.e. 24 months in a
five-year cycle. Employment of workers complies with the Ministerial Determination on Special Public Works
Programmes (Government Notice No. R 63, 25 January 2002) and the Code of Good Practice for Employment
and Conditions of Work for Special Public Works Programmes (Government Notice No. R 64, 25 January 2002).
2
Without a Supervisor
iv
Targets for employment specify that the programme’s workforce should comprise at least 60% women, 20%
youth and 2% disabled people.
The WfWetlands Programme engages with provinces, especially government departments and agencies
responsible for biodiversity and environment, and municipalities through individual projects. A stronger working
relationship with these spheres of government is being promoted through the programme’s emphasis on
partnerships. In particular, compatibility with Integrated Development Plans and rehabilitation project objectives
will be a key area of future focus. The WfWetlands Programme encourages municipalities to participate in
provincial wetland forums as these forums are the platform for the roll out of all the programmes’ processes,
including planning for future work. Provincial forums also offer support from the government departments and
private sectors that are represented. Partnerships with non-governmental organizations and the private sector are
also critical, requiring collaboration and cooperation with a wider range of stakeholders and role players in the
wetland management field.
Other activities that form part of the WfWetlands Programme include:

 Raising awareness of wetlands among workers, landowners and the general public; and
 Providing adult basic education and training, and technical skills transfer (in line with the emphasis of the
EPWP on training, the WfWetlands Programme has provided 168 400 days of training in vocation and
life skills).
5. Rehabilitation interventions
The successful rehabilitation of a wetland requires that the cause of damage or degradation is addressed, and
that the natural flow patterns of the wetland system are re-established (flow is encouraged to disperse rather than
to concentrate). Approximately 500 interventions are implemented every year in the WfWetlands Programme.
The key purposes of implementing interventions include:
 Restoration of hydrological integrity (e.g. raising the general water table or redistributing the water
across the wetland area);
 Recreation of wetland habitat towards the conservation of biodiversity; and
 Job creation and social upliftment.
Typical activities undertaken within the projects include:

 Plugging artificial drainage channels created by development or historical agricultural practices to drain
wetland areas for other land use purposes;
 Constructing structures (berms and weirs) to divert or redistribute water to more natural flow paths, or to
prevent erosion by unnatural flow rates that have resulted from unsustainable land use practices or
development; and
 Removing invasive alien or undesirable plant species from wetlands and their immediate catchments (in
conjunction with the Working for Water initiative).
Increased labour requirement for the Working for Wetlands Programme

In response to the government request to increase the labour component of all government funded projects, the
WfWetlands Programme project team has had to consider, and where practically feasible incorporate, more
labour intensive ways of rehabilitating wetlands in order to obtain the increased labour component. Accordingly
the project team members have factored this requirement into their planning when designing structures for
wetland rehabilitation.
v
Methods of wetland rehabilitation may include hard engineering interventions such as:
 Earth berms in conjunction with gabion systems to block artificial channels that drain water from or divert
polluted water to the wetland;
 Concrete and gabion weirs to act as settling ponds, to reduce flow velocity or to re-disperse water
across former wetland areas thereby re-establishing natural flow paths;
 Earth or gabion structure plugs to raise channel floors and reduce water velocity;
 Concrete or gabion structures to stabilise head-cut or other erosion and prevent gullies; and
 Gabion structures (mattresses, blankets or baskets) to provide a platform for the growth of desired
wetland vegetation.
Soft engineering interventions also offer successful rehabilitation methods, and the following are often used
together with the hard engineering interventions:
 The re-vegetation of stabilised areas with appropriate wetland and riparian plant species;
 The fencing off of sensitive areas within the wetland to keep grazers out and to allow for the
re-establishment of vegetation;
 The use of biodegradable or natural soil retention systems such as eco-logs, plant plugs, grass or hay
bales, and brush-packing techniques;
 In some instances, the use of appropriate fire management and burning regimes. The removal of
undesirable plant and animal species; and
 Alien invasive plant clearing, which is an important part of wetland rehabilitation (and this is supported by
the Working for Water Programme).
6. Programme, projects and phases

In order to manage the WfWetlands Programme, wetlands have been grouped into “projects”, and each
Wetland Project encompasses several smaller wetland systems which are each divided into smaller, more
manageable and homogenous wetland units. A Wetland Project may be located within one or more quaternary
catchments within a Province. SANBI is currently managing 35 Wetland Projects countrywide, and rehabilitation
activities range from stabilising degradation to the more ambitious restoration of wetlands to their original
conditions.
Each Wetland Project is managed in three phases over a two-year cycle as shown in the flow diagram in Plate C.
The first two phases straddle the first year of the cycle and involve planning, identification, design and
authorisation of interventions. The third phase is implementation, which takes place during the second year.
The first phase is the identification of suitable wetlands which require intervention. The purpose of Phase 1 and
the associated reporting is to identify:
 Priority catchments and associated wetlands/ sites within which rehabilitation work needs to be
undertaken; and
 Key stakeholders who will provide meaningful input into the planning phases and wetland selection
processes, and who will review and comment on the rehabilitation proposals.
The Project Team currently comprises the SANBI Programme Manager who oversees the WfWetlands
Programme and Provincial Coordinators (PCs) who oversee the identification and implementation of projects in
their regions. They are supported by a small team based at the Pretoria Botanical Gardens who fulfil various roles
such as planning, monitoring and evaluation, implementation, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and
training. Independent Design Engineers and Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) are appointed to
vi
undertake the planning, design and authorisation components of the project. The project team is assisted by a
number of wetland ecologists who provide scientific insight into the operation of wetlands and bring expert and
often local knowledge to the project teams.
The programme makes use of external support to implement its work. External implementing agents are
currently employed and some are Section 21 companies. Implementers are responsible for employing contractors
and their teams (workers), and ensuring that rehabilitation plans are adequately implemented. Funds are
transferred from SANBI to the implementing agents, who in turn pay contractors and their teams.
Plate C: The Working for Wetlands planning process (Phase 1 to Phase 3).
Phase 1 commences with a catchment and wetland prioritisation process for every province. The wetland
ecologist responsible for a particular province undertakes a desktop study to determine the most suitable
wetlands for the WfWetlands rehabilitation efforts. The involvement of Provincial Wetland Forums and other key
stakeholders is a critical component of the wetland identification processes since these stakeholders are
representative of diverse groups with shared interests (e.g. from government institutions to amateur ecological
enthusiasts). This phase also involves initial communication with local land-owners and other Interested and
Affected Parties (I&APs) to gauge the social benefits of the work. Aerial surveys of the areas in question may be
undertaken, as well as limited fieldwork investigations or site visits to confirm the inclusion of certain wetland
projects or units. Once wetlands have been prioritised and agreed on by the various parties, specific rehabilitation
objectives are determined for each wetland following a rapid wetland status quo assessment undertaken by the
wetland ecologist.
vii
Phase 2 requires site visits attended by the fieldwork team comprising a wetland ecologist, a Design Engineer, an
Environmental Assessment practitioner, and a SANBI Provincial Coordinator. Other interested stakeholders or
authorities, landowners and in some instances the implementing agents may also attend the site visits on some
occasions. This allows for a highly collaborative approach, as options are discussed by experts from different
scientific disciplines, as well as local inhabitants with deep anecdotal knowledge. While on site, rehabilitation
opportunities are investigated. The details of the proposed interventions are discussed, some survey work is
undertaken by the engineers, and GPS coordinates and digital photographs are taken for record purposes.
Furthermore, appropriate dimensions of the locations are recorded in order to design and calculate quantities for
the interventions. At the end of the site visit the rehabilitation objectives together with the location layout of the
proposed interventions are agreed upon by the project team.
During Phase 2, monitoring systems are put in place to support the continuous evaluation of the interventions.
The systems monitor both the environmental and social benefits of the interventions. As part of the Phase 2 site
visit, a maintenance inventory of any existing interventions that are damaged and/or failing and thus requiring
maintenance is compiled by the PC, in consultation with the Design Engineer.
Based on certain criteria and data measurements (water volumes, flow rates, and soil types); the availability of
materials such as rock; labour intensive targets; maintenance requirements etc., the interventions are then
designed. Bills of quantity are calculated for the designs and cost estimates made. Maintenance requirements for
existing interventions in the assessed wetlands are similarly detailed and the costs calculated. The Design
Engineer also reviews and, if necessary, adjusts any previously planned interventions that are included into the
historical Rehabilitation Plans.
Phase 2 also comprises a reporting component where Rehabilitation Plans are prepared for each Wetland
Project. The Rehabilitation Plans include details of each intervention to be implemented, preliminary construction
drawings and all necessary documentation required by applicable legislation. The Rehabilitation Plans are
reviewed by various government departments, stakeholders and the general public before a specific subset of
interventions are selected for implementation.
Phase 3 requires that certain Environmental Authorisations are obtained before work can commence in the
wetlands (please see subsequent sections of this document for detail on Environmental Authorisations). Upon
approval of the wetland Rehabilitation Plans by DEA, DWA, and the directly affected landowners is obtained, the
work detailed for the project will be implemented within a year with on-going monitoring being undertaken
thereafter. The Rehabilitation Plans are considered to be the primary working document for the implementation of
the project via the construction/ undertaking of interventions3 listed in the Plan.
It is typically at this point in the process when the final construction drawings are issued to the Implementing
Agents (IAs). Seventeen Implementing Agents are currently employed in the WfWetlands Programme and are
responsible for employing contractors and their teams (workers) to construct the interventions detailed in each of
the Rehabilitation Plans. For all interventions that are based on engineering designs (typically hard engineered
interventions), the Design Engineer is required to visit the site before construction commences to ensure that the
original design is still appropriate in the dynamic and ever-changing wetland system. The Design Engineer will
assist the IAs in pegging and setting-out interventions. The setting-out activities often coincide with the Phase 1
activities for the next planning cycle. Phase 3 concludes with the construction of the interventions, but there is an
3
This could include soft options such as alien clearing, eco-logs, gabion structures as well as hard structures for
example weirs.
viii
on-going monitoring and auditing process that ensures the quality of interventions, the rectification of any
problems, and the feedback to the design team regarding lessons learnt.
Rehabilitation work within floodplain systems
Based on lessons learnt and project team discussions held during the National Prioritisation workshop in
November 2010 SANBI took an in-principle decision regarding work within floodplain systems.
Recognising the ecosystem services provided by floodplain wetlands and the extent to which they have been
transformed, SANBI do not intend to stop undertaking rehabilitation work in floodplains entirely. Instead, SANBI
propose to adopt an approach to the rehabilitation of floodplain areas that takes into account the following guiding
principles:
1. As a general rule, avoid constructing hard interventions within an active floodplain channel; and
rather
2. Explore rehabilitation opportunities on the floodplain surface using smaller (possibly more) softer
engineering options outside of the main channel.
When rehabilitation within a floodplain setting is being contemplated, it will be necessary to allocate additional
planning resources, including the necessary specialist expertise towards ensuring an adequate understanding of
the system and appropriate design of the interventions.
7. Environmental legislation
One of the core purposes of the WfWetlands Programme is the preservation of South Africa’s valuable wetland
systems through rehabilitation and restoration. The WfWetlands Programme operates within the context of the
Constitution of South Africa, Act No. 108 of 1996, whereby everyone has the right to have the environment
protected and conserved for the benefit of present and future generations. The following legislation (listed in
Table A) informs and guides the WfWetlands Programme in terms of its vision and objectives, whilst
simultaneously regulating the wetland rehabilitation activities which WfWetlands carries out.
South Africa has rigorous and comprehensive environmental legislation aimed at preventing degradation of the
environment, including damage to wetland systems. Development proposals within or near any wetland system
are subject to thorough bio-physical and socio-economic assessment as mandatory processes of related
legislation. These processes are required to prevent degradation of the environment and to ensure sustainable
and environmentally conscientious development.
The WfWetlands Programme requires that both hard and soft interventions are implemented in the wetland
system, and it is the activities associated with the construction of these interventions that triggers requirements
for various authorisations, licenses or permits. However, it is important to note that the very objective of the
WfWetlands Programme is to improve both environmental and social circumstances. The WfWetlands
Programme gives effect to a range of policy objectives of environmental legislation, and also honours South
Africa’s commitments under several international agreements, especially the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
Memorandum of Understanding for Working for Wetlands Programme

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been entered into between the DAFF, DEA, DWA and SANBI for
the WfWetlands Programme. Through co-operative governance and partnerships, this MOU aims to streamline
the authorisation processes required by the National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998, the
National Water Act. No. 36 of 1998, and the National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999 to facilitate efficient
ix
processing of applications for authorisation of wetland rehabilitation activities.
Table A: List of applicable legislation

Title of legislation, policy or guideline: Administering authority: Date:
The Constitution of South Africa, Act No.108 of 1996 National Government 1996
National Environmental Management Act, No.107 of 1998 Department of Environmental Affairs 1998
The National Water Act, No. 36 of 1998 Department of Water Affairs 1998
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, No. 43 of 1983 Department of Agriculture, Forestry & 1983
Fisheries
National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999 National Heritage Resources Agency 1999
World Heritage Conventions Act, No. 49 of 1999 Department of Environmental Affairs 1999
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No. 10 Department of Environmental Affairs 2004
of 2004
National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, No. 57 Department of Environmental Affairs 2003
of 2003
The Mountain Catchments Areas Act, No. 63 of 1970 Department of Water Affairs 1970
 EIA Guideline Series, in particular: Department of Environmental Affairs 2006 -
 Guideline 3 – General Guide to the Environmental Impact 2013
Assessment Regulations, 2006 (DEAT 2006)
 Guideline 4 – Public Participation in support of the EIA
regulations, 2006 (DEAT 2006)
 Guideline 5 – Assessment of Alternatives and Impacts, 2006
(DEAT 2006)
 Implementation Guidelines: Sector Guidelines for the EIA
Regulations (draft) (DEA, 2010).
 DEA&DP. 2013. Guideline on Public Participation (DEA&DP,
March 2013).
 DEA&DP. 2013. Guideline on Alternatives (DEA&DP, March
2013).
International Conventions, in particular: International Conventions N/A
 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)
Of particular relevance in Table A is the following legislation and the WfWetlands Programme has put systems in
place to achieve compliance:
 The National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA)
o In terms of Regulations pursuant to the NEMA, certain activities that may have a detrimental impact
on the environment (termed Listed Activities) require an Environmental Authorisation from the
Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). The implementation of interventions will trigger NEMA
Listing Notices 1 and 3 (G.N. R544 and G.N R546 respectively). In order to meet the requirements of
these Regulations, it is necessary to undertake a Basic Assessment Process and apply for an EA.
This was previously undertaken on an annual basis per Province as the Wetland Projects became
known. However as from 2014, an application is now made per Province for Wetland Projects
x
required in the next few planning cycles (anywhere from one to three planning cycles depending on
the information gained through the Catchment Prioritisation Process).
o Basic Assessment Reports (BARs) will be prepared for each Province where work is proposed by
the WfWetlands Programme. These BARs will present all Wetland Projects that are proposed in a
particular province, together with information regarding the quaternary catchments and the wetlands
that have been prioritised for the next few planning cycles (anywhere from one to three planning
cycles depending on the information gained through the Catchment Prioritisation Process). The EA’s
will be inclusive of all Listed Activities that may be triggered and will essentially authorise any typical
wetland rehabilitation activities required during the WfWetlands Programme implementation phase.
o A condition of the EA’s is that Rehabilitation Plans will be prepared every year after sufficient field
work has been undertaken in the wetlands that have an EA. These Rehabilitation Plans will be made
available to registered Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) before being submitted to DEA for
approval. The Rehabilitation Plans will describe the combination and number of interventions
selected to meet the rehabilitation objectives for each Wetland Project, as well as an indication of the
approximate location and approximate dimensions (including footprint) of each intervention.
 The National Water Act, No.36 of 1998 (NWA)
o In terms of Section 39 of the NWA, a General authorisation4 (GA) has been granted for certain
activities that are listed under the NWA that usually require a Water Use License; as long as these
activities are undertaken for wetland rehabilitation. These activities include ‘impeding or diverting the
flow of water in a watercourse5’ and ‘altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a
watercourse6’ where they are specifically undertaken for the purposes of rehabilitating7 a wetland for
conservation purposes. SANBI are required to register the ‘water use’ in terms of the GA.
 The National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999 (NHRA)
o In terms of Section 38 of the NHRA; any person who intends to undertake a development as
categorised in the NHRA must at the very earliest stages of initiating the development notify the
responsible heritage resources authority, namely the South African Heritage Resources Agency
(SAHRA) or the relevant provincial heritage agency. These agencies would in turn indicate whether
or not a full Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) would need to be undertaken. Should a permit be
required for the damaging or removal of specific heritage resources, a separate application will be
submitted to SAHRA or the relevant provincial heritage agency for the approval of such an activity.
SANBI has engaged with SAHRA regarding the wetland planning process and has committed to
achieving full compliance with the heritage act over the next few years.
4
Government Notice No. 1198, 18 December 2009
5
Section 21(c ) of the NWA, No. 36 of 1998
6
Section 21(i) of the NWA, No. 36 of 1998
7
Defined in the NWA as “the process of reinstating natural ecological driving forces within part of the whole of a
degraded watercourse to recover former or desired ecosystem structure, function, biotic composition and
associated ecosystem services”
xi
Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Rustenburg Wetland Project, North West
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WORKING FOR WETLANDS: CONTEXT DOCUMENT ........................................................................ I
I. CONTEXT OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REHABILITATION PLAN ............. VIII

II. CONTACT DETAILS ................................................................................................................... IX
III. ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................................X
IV. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................... XI
V. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................ XIII
VI. GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ........................................................................................................ XIV
VII. DISCLAIMER ......................................................................................................................... XIV
VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST ............................................................................................................. XVI
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 W ORKING FOR W ETLANDS PROGRAMME OVERVIEW ..................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Programme, projects and phases ................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Methods of rehabilitation ................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Intervention options ......................................................................................................... 2
1.2 PROJECT TEAM .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 NORTH W EST W ETLAND PROJECTS ............................................................................................ 3
1.3.1 The Rustenburg Wetland Project .................................................................................... 4
1.4 PROJECT SCOPE ........................................................................................................................ 4
2 GENERAL METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 1
2.1 LANDOWNER CONSENT............................................................................................................... 1

2.2 PHASE 1.................................................................................................................................... 1
2.3 PHASE 2.................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.1 Site visits ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.2 Wetland status quo assessment ..................................................................................... 3
2.3.3 Identification and location of intervention designs ........................................................... 4
2.3.4 Collection of Monitoring & Evaluation Baseline and Basic Assessments Data............... 6
2.3.5 Engineering design .......................................................................................................... 6
2.3.6 Development of the Rehabilitation Plan .......................................................................... 7
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 9
3.1 PROJECT DETAILS ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 RUSTENBURG LANDOWNER DETAILS ......................................................................................... 14
3.3 PROJECTED REHABILITATION INDICATORS ................................................................................. 14
3.4 PRIORITISATION OF WETLANDS ................................................................................................. 15
3.5 INTERVENTIONS REQUIRED ....................................................................................................... 16
4 RIETFONTEIN WETLAND – A21K-02 ......................................................................................... 22
4.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................... 22
4.2 SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 W ETLAND PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................... 25
4.4 REHABILITATION OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................... 25
4.5 SUMMARY PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS ...................................................................................... 25
4.6 DESIGN SELECTION AND SIZING ................................................................................................ 28
4.7 INTERVENTION DESIGNS ........................................................................................................... 29
4.7.1 Intervention: A21K-02-203-00 ....................................................................................... 29
4.7.3 Intervention: A21K-02-204-00 ....................................................................................... 31
4.7.4 Intervention: A21K-02-205-00 ....................................................................................... 33
4.7.5 Intervention: A21K-02-206-00 ....................................................................................... 35
4.7.6 Intervention: A21K-02-207-00 ....................................................................................... 37

ii
4.7.8 Intervention: A21K-02-208-00 ....................................................................................... 39
4.7.9 Intervention: A21K-02-209-00 ....................................................................................... 41
4.7.10 Intervention: A21K-02-210-00 ....................................................................................... 43
4.7.11 Intervention: A21K-02-211-00 ....................................................................................... 45
4.7.12 Intervention: A21K-02-212-00 ....................................................................................... 47
4.8 CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ISSUES .................................................. 49
4.9 W ETLAND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 50
4.10 BASELINE M&E DATA ............................................................................................................... 50
4.10.1 Erosion problems ........................................................................................................... 50
4.10.2 Fixed point photography ................................................................................................ 50
4.10.3 Baseline WET-Health data ............................................................................................ 52
5 PILANESBERG: NTSHWE WETLAND – A22F-01 ..................................................................... 53
5.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................... 53
5.2 SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................... 54
5.7.1 Intervention: A22F-01-201-00 ....................................................................................... 58
5.7.2 Intervention: A22F-01-202-00 ....................................................................................... 59
5.7.3 Intervention: A22F-01-203-00 ....................................................................................... 60
5.7.4 Intervention: A22F-01-204-00 ....................................................................................... 61
5.7.5 Intervention: A22F-01-205-00 ....................................................................................... 62
5.7.6 Intervention: A22F-01-206-00 ....................................................................................... 63
5.7.7 Intervention: A22F-01-207-00 ....................................................................................... 64
5.7.8 Intervention: A22F-01-208-00 ....................................................................................... 66
5.7.9 Intervention: A22F-01-209-00 ....................................................................................... 67
5.7.10 Intervention: A22F-01-210-00 ....................................................................................... 68
5.7.11 Intervention: A22F-01-211-00 ....................................................................................... 69
5.10 BASELINE M&E DATA ............................................................................................................... 70
6 PILANESBERG: NTSHWE 2 WETLAND – A22F-02 .................................................................. 72
6.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................... 72
6.2 SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................... 73
6.7.1 Intervention: A22F-02-201-00 ....................................................................................... 76
6.7.2 Intervention: A22F-02-202-00 ....................................................................................... 78
6.7.3 Intervention: A22F-02-203-00 ....................................................................................... 80
6.7.4 Intervention: A22F-02-204-00 ....................................................................................... 81
6.7.5 Intervention: A22F-02-205-00 ....................................................................................... 83
6.7.6 Intervention: A22F-02-206-00 ....................................................................................... 84

iii
6.10 BASELINE M&E DATA ............................................................................................................... 86
7 PILANESBERG KGAMA WETLAND SYSTEM – A22F-03 ......................................................... 88
7.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................... 88
7.2 SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................... 89
7.7.1 Intervention: A22F-03-201-00 ....................................................................................... 92
7.10 BASELINE M&E DATA ............................................................................................................... 94
8 PILANESBERG: KUBU WETLAND – A22F-04 ........................................................................... 95
8.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................... 95

8.3 SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................... 96
8.7.1 Intervention: A22F-04-201-00 ....................................................................................... 99
8.7.2 Intervention: A22F-04-202-00 ..................................................................................... 101
8.7.3 Intervention: A22F-04-203-00 ..................................................................................... 103
8.7.4 Intervention: A22F-04-204-00 ..................................................................................... 105
8.7.5 Intervention: A22F-04-205-00 ..................................................................................... 106
8.7.6 Intervention: A22F-04-206-00 ..................................................................................... 108
8.8 CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ISSUES ................................................ 109
8.9 W ETLAND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 109
8.10 BASELINE M&E DATA ............................................................................................................. 109
8.10.1 Baseline WET-Health data .......................................................................................... 109
8 PILANESBERG: TLHWARE WETLAND – A24D-01................................................................. 110
9.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................. 110
9.2 SITE PHOTOS ......................................................................................................................... 111
9.3 W ETLAND PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................. 111
9.4 REHABILITATION OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................. 112
9.5 SUMMARY PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS .................................................................................... 112
9.6 DESIGN SELECTION AND SIZING .............................................................................................. 112
9.7 INTERVENTION DESIGNS ......................................................................................................... 114
9.7.1 Intervention: A24D-01-201-00 ..................................................................................... 114
9.7.2 Intervention: A24D-01-202-00 ..................................................................................... 115
9.7.3 Intervention: A24D-01-203-00 ..................................................................................... 116
9.7.4 Intervention: A24D-01-204-00 ..................................................................................... 118
9.7.5 Intervention: A24D-01-205-00 ..................................................................................... 119

iv
9.10 BASELINE M&E DATA ............................................................................................................. 120
10 PILANESBERG: TLHWARE 2 WETLAND – A22F-05 .......................................................... 121
10.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................. 121

10.2 SITE PHOTOS ......................................................................................................................... 122
10.7.1 Intervention: A22F-05-201-00 ..................................................................................... 125
10.7.2 Intervention: A22F-05-202-00 ..................................................................................... 127
10.7.3 Intervention: A22F-05-203-00 ..................................................................................... 128
10.10 W ETLAND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 130
10.11 BASELINE M&E DATA ......................................................................................................... 130
10.11.1 Baseline WET-Health data ...................................................................................... 130
11 PILANESBERG: MANYANE WETLAND – A22F-06 ............................................................. 131
11.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................. 131

THE FOLLOWING PROBLEM HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POSING A RISK TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE WETLAND
SYSTEM: ............................................................................................................................................ 131
11.3 SITE PHOTOS ......................................................................................................................... 132
11.7.1 Intervention: A22F-06-201-00 ..................................................................................... 135
11.9.1 Baseline M&E data ...................................................................................................... 137
Annexures
Appendix A: Wetland Status Quo Assessment
Appendix B: General Construction Notes
Appendix C: Design Drawings
Appendix D: Environmental Authorisation
Appendix E: Landowner Agreements
Appendix F: Construction Environmental Management Plan
Appendix G: National Stakeholder Database
Appendix H: Provincial Stakeholder Database

v
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: THE THREE PHASES THAT MUST BE UNDERTAKEN FOR THE SUCCESSFUL REHABILITATION OF
WETLANDS ......................................................................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 2: HIERARCHY USED IN THE W ETLAND REHABILITATION PLAN .......................................................... 8
FIGURE 3: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING A21K QUATERNARY CATCHMENT’S LOCALITY................................ 11
FIGURE 4: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING A22F QUATERNARY CATCHMENT’S LOCALITY ................................ 12
FIGURE 5: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING A24D QUATERNARY CATCHMENT’S LOCALITY ............................... 13
FIGURE 6: GUNNERA PURPENSA, A HYDROPHYTE THAT IS A SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN, WAS
RECORDED WITHIN THE WETLAND. OTHER PROMINENT SPECIES WITHIN THE WETLAND INCLUDED THE
FERNS CYATHEA CF. DREGEI AND PTERIDIUM AQUILINUM. .................................................................. 23
FIGURE 7: SITE PHOTOS OF THE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM SECTIONS OF THE RIETFONTEIN WETLAND .. 24
FIGURE 9: INTERVENTION SITE A21K-02-203-00 ...................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 10: INTERVENTION SITE A21K-02-204-00 .................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 19: SITE PHOTOS OF NTSHWE W ETLAND, NOTE THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE WETLAND. .. 54
FIGURE 22: INTERVENTION SITE A22F-01-201-00 .................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 33: AN OLD PLOUGH LINE THAT HAS DEVELOPED INTO AN EROSION CHANNEL .................................. 72
FIGURE 34: SITE PHOTOS OF THE NTSHWE 2 W ETLAND ............................................................................ 73
FIGURE 42: SITE PHOTOS OF THE KGAMA W ETLAND ................................................................................. 89
FIGURE 43: W ETLAND MAP, A22F-03 WITH THE PROPOSED NEW WETLAND INTERVENTION INDICATED.......... 91
FIGURE 45: PHOTOS OF PROBLEMS WITHIN THE PILANESBERG KUBU W ETLAND .......................................... 96
FIGURE 46: W ETLAND MAP, A22F-04 WITH PROPOSED NEW WETLAND INTERVENTIONS INDICATED. ............. 98
FIGURE 48: INTERVENTION SITE A22F-04-202-00 .................................................................................. 101

vi
FIGURE 53: SITE PHOTOS OF THE TLHWARE WETLAND SYSTEM, ILLUSTRATING EROSION PROBLEMS THAT HAS
RESULTED FROM HISTORIC CULTIVATION PRACTICES ........................................................................ 111
FIGURE 55: INTERVENTION SITE A24D-01-201-00 .................................................................................. 114
FIGURE 57: INTERVENTION SITE T A24D-01-203-00 ............................................................................... 116
FIGURE 60: PHOTOS OF THE DAM AT PILANESBERG TLHWARE 2 WETLAND ................................................ 121
FIGURE 61: SITE PHOTOS OF THE PILANESBERG TLHWARE 2 WETLAND AREA............................................ 122
FIGURE 62: PHOTOS ILLUSTRATING EROSION CAUSED BY ERODED PLOUGH LINES AND A BREACHED DAM WALL
..................................................................................................................................................... 122
FIGURE 67: SITE PHOTOS OF THE MANYANE WETLAND SYSTEM AREA ....................................................... 132
List of Tables
TABLE 1: NORTH W EST W ETLAND PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 4

TABLE 2: PROJECT SCOPE ......................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE 3: PROJECT DETAILS........................................................................................................................ 9
TABLE 4: IDENTIFIED WETLANDS WITHIN THE RUSTENBURG W ETLAND PROJECT ......................................... 10
TABLE 5: LIST OF LANDOWNERS AND SG KEY ........................................................................................... 14
TABLE 6: PROJECTED VALUES .................................................................................................................. 15
TABLE 7: PRIORITISATION OF WETLANDS ................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF THE NEW INTERVENTIONS ...................................................................................... 17
TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF THE INTERVENTIONS REQUIRING MAINTENANCE OR REDESIGNS ............................... 21
TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF THE WETLAND DETAILS ........................................................................................ 23
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW INTERVENTIONS, A21K-02 ......................................................... 26
TABLE 13: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW INTERVENTIONS, A22F-01 ......................................................... 55
TABLE 20: SUMMARY OF THE WETLAND DETAILS ...................................................................................... 110
TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW INTERVENTIONS, A24D-01 ....................................................... 112
TABLE 23: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW INTERVENTIONS, A22F-05 ....................................................... 123
TABLE 25: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW INTERVENTIONS, A22F-06 ....................................................... 133

vii
I. CONTEXT OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REHABILITATION PLAN
Approach to the NEMA Environmental Process
The legislation protecting the environment in South Africa was not written with the intention of preventing wetland
rehabilitation efforts, but rather at curtailing development in sensitive environments. It is important to remember
that the WfWetlands Programme is not a development proposal, and although this programme technically
requires authorisations, licenses and permits, such rehabilitation projects were never meant to be sent through
legislative processes aimed at preventing negative environmental impact.
In terms of the environmental management principles of the National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of
1998 (NEMA), certain activities that may have a detrimental impact on the environment (termed Listed Activities)
require Environmental Authorisation (EA) from the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). The WfWetlands
Programme will require that interventions be implemented and/or constructed in the wetland systems to ultimately
restore some of the more natural wetland functions that have been lost to unsustainable land use practices or
development. The implementation of certain interventions triggers Listing Notices 1 and 3 (G.N. R544 and G.N
R546 respectively).
In order to meet the requirements of the Regulations pursuant to NEMA, it was necessary to undertake a Basic
Assessment Process. Basic Assessment Report (BARs) were prepared and these reports presented all Wetland
Projects for each Province, together with information regarding the quaternary catchments and the wetlands that
were prioritised for the next few planning cycles (anywhere from one to three planning cycles depending on the
information gained through the Catchment Prioritisation Process).
The EA that has been applied for will be inclusive of all Listed Activities that may be triggered whilst implementing
the wetland rehabilitation interventions. Essentially this EA would authorise any typical wetland rehabilitation
activities on condition that the specific intervention proposals are submitted in a Rehabilitation Plan to DEA for
approval.
The Rehabilitation Plans for each Wetland Project will be prepared annually after sufficient field work and
stakeholder consultation has been undertaken in the wetlands that have an EA. These Rehabilitation Plans will
be submitted to DEA for approval as a condition of the EA for the respective Provincial BAR.

viii
II. CONTACT DETAILS
Details of the applicant: SANBI

Contact Person: Mr Umesh Bahadur
Street Address: Pretoria National Botanical Garden, 2 Cussonia Ave, Brummeria,
Pretoria, 0001
Postal Address: Private Bag X101, Pretoria 0001
Tel: 012-843 5200
Fax: 086-555 9838
Details of the Provincial Coordinator: SANBI

Contact Person: Malaika Koali-Lebona
Street Address: 2 Cussonia Avenue, Brummeria
Postal Address: Pretoria, 0001
Tel: 082 419 5927
Fax: 086 665 9345
Details of the EAP: Aurecon

Contact Person: Franci Gresse
Street Address: 1 Century City Drive, Waterford Precinct, Century City, Cape Town
Postal Address: PO Box 494, Cape town, 8000
Tel: +27 21 526 6022
Fax: +27 21 529 9500

ix
III. ABBREVIATIONS
BAR Basic Assessment Report

BGIS Biodiversity Geographical Information System
BMP Best Management Practise
CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Programme
CPP Catchment Prioritisation Process
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DWA Department of Water Affairs
EA Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA
EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMF Environmental Management Framework
EMP Environmental Management Programme
EPWP Expanded Public Works Programme
GA General authorisation in terms of the NWA
GIS Geographical Information System
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
IA Implementing Agent
I&APs Interested and Affected Parties
IDP Integrated Development Plans
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAP Mean Annual Precipitation
NEMA National Environmental Management Act
NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area
NHRA National Heritage Resources Act
NWA National Water Act
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OHSA Occupational Health and Safety Act
PC Provincial Coordinator
PIP Project Implementation Plan
PPP Public Participation Process
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
SANParks South African National Parks
SMME Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises
SPWP Special Public Works Programme
WfWetlands Working for Wetlands

x
IV. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Auger: An instrument used for boring or perforating soils or rocks, in order to determine the
quality of soil, or the nature of the rocks or strata upon which they lie, and for obtaining water
(Wetland Management Series: WET-Origins, WRC Report TT 334/08, March 2008).
Avulsion: An abrupt change in the course of a stream from one flow path to another.
Bedload: Sediment that is transported by being rolled or bounced along the bed of the
stream (Wetland Management Series: WET-Origins, WRC Report TT 334/08, March 2008).
Bedrock: The solid rock that underlies unconsolidated material, such as soil, sand, clay, or
gravel (Wetland Management Series: WET-Origins, WRC Report TT 334/08, March 2008).
BAR: A report as described in regulation 23 of the EIA regulation, 2006 that describes the
proposed activities and their potential impacts.
BMP: Procedures and guidelines to ensure the effective and appropriate implementation of
wetland rehabilitation by WfWet implementers.
Biophysical: The biological and physical components of the environment (Wetland
Management Series: WET-Origins, WRC Report TT 334/08, March 2008).
Catchment: All the land area from mountaintop to seashore which is drained by a single
river and its tributaries. Each catchment in South Africa has been subdivided into secondary
catchments, which in turn have been divided into tertiary catchments. Finally, all tertiary
catchments have been divided into interconnected quaternary catchments. A total of 1946
quaternary catchments have been identified for South Africa. These subdivided catchments
provide the main basis on which catchments are subdivided for integrated catchment
planning and management (consult DWAF [1994]) (Wetland Management Series: WET-
Origins, WRC Report TT 334/08, March 2008).
Collation Report: A report describing the Basic Assessment process followed for a
provinces and collating the Basic Assessment reports for the various WfWet Projects within a
province.
EAP: The individual responsible for the planning, management and coordination of the
environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments, environmental
management plans and/or other appropriate environmental instruments introduced through
regulations of NEMA.
Eco-log: A cylindrical wire mesh sleeve filled with organic material and/or soil used to
prevent and/ or repair minor erosion.
Ecosystem Services or ‘eco services’: The services such as sediment trapping or water
supply, supplied by an ecosystem (in this case a wetland ecosystem).
EIA: A study of the environmental consequences of a proposed course of action via the
process of collecting, organising, analysing, interpreting and communicating information that
is relevant to the consideration of that application.
Gabion: A structure made of wire mesh baskets filled with regularly sized stones, and used
to prevent and/ or repair erosion. They are flexible and permeable structures which allow
water to filter through them. Vegetation and other biota can also establish in/around the
habitat they create.
I&APs: People and organizations that have interest(s) in the proposed activities.

xi
Environmental Impact: An environmental change caused by some human act.
Implementer: The person or organization responsible for the construction of WfWet
rehabilitation interventions.
Intervention: An engineered structure such as a concrete or gabion weir, earthworks or re-
vegetation that that achieves identified objectives within a wetland e.g. raising of the water
table within a drainage canal.
Mitigation: Actions to reduce the impact of a particular activity.
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’).
Perched wetland: A wetland where the wetland water table is higher than the local and
regional water-table (Wetland Management Series: WET-Origins, WRC Report TT 334/08,
March 2008).
PPP: A process of involving the public in order to identify issues and concerns, and obtain
feedback on options and impacts associated with a proposed project, programme or
development. Public Participation Process in terms of NEMA refers to: a process in which
potential interested and affected parties are given an opportunity to comment on, or raise
issues relevant to specific project matters.
Project: An area of WfWetlands intervention generally defined by a quaternary catchment or
similar management unit such as a national park in which a single implementer operates.
Q value: The peak flow (m³/s) for which a structure is designed, based on a given likely
return period rainfall within the catchment
Quaternary Catchment: All land area drained by a fourth order tributary river and its
tributaries.
Rehabilitation: Refers to re-instating the driving ecological forces (including hydrological,
geomorphological and biological processes) that underlie a wetland, so as to improve the
wetland’s health and the ecological services that it delivers.
Rehabilitation: Restoring processes and characteristics that are sympathetic to and not
conflicting with the natural dynamic of an ecological or physical system (Wetland
Management Series: WET-Origins, WRC Report TT 334/08, March 2008).
Significant impact: An impact that by its magnitude, duration, intensity or probability of
occurrence may have a notable effect on one or more aspects of the environment.
Weir: A dam-type structure placed across a watercourse to raise the water table of the
surrounding ground and trap sediment on the upstream face without preventing water flow.
Weirs are generally used to prevent erosion from progressing up exposed gullies.
Wetland: “Land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow
water and which in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated soils.” (SA Water Act of1998).

xii
V. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
In compiling this report, the following has been assumed:
 The information provided in this report is based on site visits that have been
undertaken by the project team (EAP, Engineer, Wetland Ecologist, and SANBI PC)
and their subsequent input into the Reporting, which includes intervention design
drawings, the wetland status quo assessment, in addition to input from SANBI’s PC. It
is understood that this information is sufficient for the authorisation processes and
associated Phase 3 (Implementation phase). This data and relevant information has
informed the findings and conclusions of this report.
 Information contained in this Report will be used during Phase 3 to guide and inform
the Implementing Agents on design and construction specifications as part of Phase
3. Implementing Agents will thus use this Rehabilitation Plan and the information
contained therein when constructing all interventions, the designs of which have been
included in this Report.
 SANBI’s PCs will be undertaking the landowner engagement and have obtained the
requisite landowner consent forms required as part of Phase 1 and 2 of this project.
These include:
 WW(0): Standard operating procedure,
 WW(1): Wetland survey and Inspection consent,
 WW(2): Terms and Conditions for carrying out wetland rehabilitation,
 WW(3): Wetland Rehabilitation Activities Consent, and
 WW(4): Property Inspection Prior to Wetland Rehabilitation.
 SANBI have provided all relevant information and documentation required to compile
this Rehabilitation Plan.
 Rehabilitation activities should not be carried out until the final Wetland Rehabilitation
Plan has been approved by DEA and formally signed off by SANBI.
 The implementation of this rehabilitation plan must take into account all relevant
provisions of Working for Wetlands Best Management Practices and Construction
Environmental Management Plan, the recommendations of the Basic Assessments
and the requirements of the Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the project.
 DEA’s prerequisite to increase the requirement of percentage of funding to be spent
on labour within the Working for Wetlands (WfWet) programme, has been taken into
consideration by the project team during the planning process for wetland
rehabilitation.
 Due to the dynamic nature of site conditions and associated biophysical changes
within wetlands, this wetland rehabilitation plan is only valid for the 2013/14 financial
year. Where appropriate interventions that have not been previously implemented or
included in the 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/2013 and 2013/14 Project
Implementation Plans (PIPs) were reviewed and where necessary re-designed for
inclusion into the 2013/14 wetland rehabilitation plan. This wetland rehabilitation plan
therefore supersedes all previous plans for this project and only interventions from
this plan should be included in the 2014/15 PIP.
 Should it be necessary to exclude interventions from the rehabilitation plan, the
prioritisation of interventions across the project should strictly be followed.

xiii
VI. GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE
 The information in this Report is based on existing available information and input
from SANBI’s PC, the specialist wetland ecologists, the Engineer, EAP as well as
comments from Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs). Until this Final Report has
been finalised and signed off by SANBI, the content of the Report should be
considered as preliminary.
 Designs for the rehabilitation interventions have been developed for site conditions as
at the time of the planning site visits. Should site conditions change before the
designs are implemented, changes to the design may be necessary. In this case,
project implementers will require the assistance of a professional engineer during
construction and provisions should be made accordingly in the PIP.
 The cost of construction at each project location will vary due to factors such as the
local cost and availability of material, transport distances etc. The unit costs have
been agreed with SANBI’s PCs based on their knowledge of past projects and
include an allowance for escalation.
 The labour intensive targets identified in this project are based on assumed
productivity rates for various components of the construction process. This will vary in
practise and will require regular monitoring to ensure that labour targets are attained.
Aurecon acknowledges the authorship of any information contained in this document from
previous planning years, to the previous provider: Land Resources International (LRI).
This Report must be read in conjunction with the following reports for this project:
1. Other Phase 2 Planning Reports which include the:
a. North West Basic Assessment Report (2014), and the
b. Wetland Status Quo Assessments (Appendix A of this report).
VII. DISCLAIMER
o This Rehabilitation Plan is for the Rustenburg Wetland Project in the North West
Province. The plan is to be used to implement the interventions identified as
necessary to rehabilitate the Rustenburg wetlands, and is to be approved by the
Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) as part of the conditions of Environmental
Authorisation (EA).
o The intervention points and wetland boundary polygons provided in this report are
based on the shapefiles that have been provided by the South African National
Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). The datasets included in the Phase 1 Reports have
been updated by the Wetland ecologists and verified by the SANBI Provincial Co-
ordinators (PCs). All reasonable efforts have therefore been made to ensure that the
data is accurate. However Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Aurecon) does not accept
responsibility for any remaining inaccuracies in the spatial data provided to us, which
may be reflected in this report.
o Aurecon accepts responsibility for the engineering design to the extent that this is
based on available information. The available information is limited to what could be
interpreted during a single site visit of no longer than a few hours. No geotechnical,
topographical, geomorphologic and other engineering related surveys have been
undertaken to inform the design. This is non-standard engineering practice and
therefore Aurecon is indemnified by the Client and does not accept responsibility for
xiv
the associated risk of failure from the above limitations or any damages that may
occur.
o This Rehabilitation Plan must not be amended without prior consultation and approval
from DEA, the responsible Aurecon Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP),
Engineer, SANBI PC and the SANBI Planning, Evaluation and Monitoring Manager.
o All changes must be motivated using the standard change request form
supplemented with additional information as necessary.
o Aurecon is indemnified against any associated damages and accepts no liability
associated with the construction and implementation of engineering interventions due
to Aurecon being instructed to have limited contact with the implementer during the
construction phase resulting in our inability to diligently supervise and assess any
progress.
o The Client confirms that by accepting these drawings or reports, he acknowledges
and accepts the abovementioned limitation of Aurecon’s liability.

xv
VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST
RECEIVED
FOR FOR
NAME TITLE PRIOR TO
ACTION INFORMATION
RELEASE
PROPONENT
Umesh Programme 
Bahadur Manager:
Working for
Wetlands
Eric Implementation 
Munzhedzi Manager
Malaika SANBI  
Koali- Provincial
Lebona coordinator
NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
Refer to Appendix G (E-copy of

Rehab Plan)
PROVINCIAL STAKEHOLDERS & I&APs
Refer to Appendix H (E-mail

notification)
LANDOWNERS
Refer to Appendix E (E-copy of

Rehab Plan)

xvi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Working for Wetlands programme overview

The Working for Wetlands (WfWetlands) Programme is a government programme (similar to
Working for Water, Working on Fire and Working on Land) managed by the South African
National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) on behalf of the national government departments of
Environmental Affairs (DEA), Water Affairs (DWA), and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(DAFF), and forms part of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP).
The vision of the WfWetlands Programme is to facilitate the protection, conservation,

rehabilitation and sustainable use of wetlands in South Africa, in accordance with national
policies and commitment to international conventions and regional relationships. 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.
The WfWetlands Programme forms part of the EPWP which seeks to draw significant
numbers of unemployed into the productive sector of the economy. These individuals gain
skills while they work thus increasing their capacity to earn an income. Rehabilitation efforts
are thus focused on wetland 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.
In the 12 years since its inception, the WfWetlands Programme has invested R530 million in
wetland rehabilitation and has been involved in over 900 wetlands thereby improving or
securing the health of over 70 000 hectares of wetland environment. The WfWetlands
Programme has created more than 12 800 jobs and 2.2 million person-days of paid work.
Local people are recruited to work and targets for employment specify that the programme’s
workforce should comprise at least 60% women, 20% youth and 2% disabled people.
1.1.1 Programme, projects and phases

In order to manage the WfWetlands Programme, prioritised wetlands that have been
identified for rehabilitation have been grouped into “Wetland Projects” within each Province,
and each Wetland Project encompasses several wetland systems which are each divided
into smaller, more manageable and homogenous wetland units. A Wetland Project may be
located within one or more quaternary catchments within a Province.
Each Project is managed in three phases over a two-year cycle. The first two phases (Phase
1 and Phase 2) straddle the first year of the cycle and involve planning, identification, design
and authorisation of interventions. The third phase (Phase 3) is implementation of specific
interventions to achieve rehabilitation, and this takes place during the second year. SANBI is
currently managing 35 Wetland Projects countrywide, and approximately 500 interventions
within these Wetland Projects will be implemented to meet the objectives of the Programme.

1
1.1.2 Methods of rehabilitation
The successful rehabilitation of a wetland requires that the cause of damage or degradation
is addressed, and that the natural flow patterns of the wetland system are re-established
(and flow is encouraged to disperse rather than to concentrate). The main aims of the
WfWetlands Programme are:
 Restoration of hydrological integrity (e.g. raising the general water table or
redistributing the water across the wetland area);
 Recreation of wetland habitat towards the conservation of biodiversity;
 Job creation and social upliftment.
Rehabilitation activities range from stabilising degradation to the more ambitious restoration
of wetlands to their original conditions. Typical activities within the Wetland Projects include:
 Plugging artificial drainage channels created by development or historical agricultural

practices to drain wetland areas for other land use purposes;
 Constructing structures (berms and weirs) to divert or redistribute water to more
natural flow paths, or to prevent erosion by unnatural flow rates that have resulted
from unsustainable land use practices or development.
 Removing invasive alien or undesirable plant species from wetlands and their
immediate catchments as part of the Working for Water Programme.
1.1.3 Intervention options

Methods of wetland rehabilitation may include hard engineering interventions such as:
 Earth berms in conjunction with gabion systems to block artificial channels that drain
water from or divert polluted water to the wetland;
 Concrete weirs to act as settling ponds, to reduce flow velocity or to re-disperse water
across former wetland areas thereby re-establishing natural flow paths;
 Concrete, earth or gabion structures plugs to raise channel floors and reduce water
velocity;
 Concrete or gabion structures to stabilise head-cut or other erosion and prevent
gullies; and
 Gabion structures (mattresses, blankets or baskets) to provide a platform for the
growth of desired wetland vegetation.
Soft engineering interventions also offer successful rehabilitation methods, and the following
are often used together with the hard engineering interventions:
 The re-vegetation of stabilised areas with appropriate wetland and riparian species;
 The fencing off of sensitive areas within the wetland to keep grazers out and to allow
for vegetation to become re-established;
 The use of biodegradable or natural soil retention systems such as eco-logs, plant
plugs, grass or hay bales, and brush-packing techniques.
 The removal of undesirable plant and animal species as part of the Working for Water
initiative. Alien invasive plant clearing is an important part of wetland rehabilitation;

2
 In some instances, the use of appropriate fire management and burning regimes.
For more information on the WfWetlands Programme, please refer to the WfWetlands
Context Document included in the front of this report.
1.2 Project team

The project team currently comprises the SANBI Programme Manager who oversees the
WfWetlands Programme and provincial coordinators (PCs) who oversee the identification
and implementation of projects in their regions. They are supported by a small team based at
the Pretoria Botanical Gardens who fulfil various roles such as finance, Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) and training.
Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Aurecon) has been appointed to undertake the project
activities and associated reporting required by the WfWetlands Programme. The Aurecon
team comprises design engineers and environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) who
undertake the planning, design and authorisation components of the project. The Aurecon
Team is assisted by an external team of Wetland Ecologists who provide scientific insight
into the operation of wetlands and bring expert and often local knowledge of the wetlands.
The project team is also complimented by the SANBI Provincial Coordinators (PCs) who are
each responsible for provincial planning and implementation.
1.3 North West Wetland Projects

Wetland Projects for the 2014/2015 planning cycle were identified during the Phase 1
activities associated with the WfWetlands Programme. Catchment and wetland prioritisation
assessments were undertaken by the wetland ecologist/s to identify priority catchments and
associated wetlands within which rehabilitation work needed to be undertaken. A review was
undertaken to determine local knowledge and identify existing studies of the quaternary
catchments in the province. SANBI’s current five year strategic plans were further used as a
guide to identify wetlands, as well as data from the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority
Areas (NFEPA) project. Decisions on priority areas were informed by input from wetland
forums, biodiversity/ conservation plans, municipalities, state departments and various other
stakeholders.
Based on this process, the following quaternary catchments (and associated wetland
systems) were identified for the 2014/2015 planning cycle in the North West Province (Table
1):

3
Table 1: North West Wetland Projects
Project Name Wetland Number Wetland System

A21K-02 Rietfontein
A22F-01 Pilanesberg: Ntshwe
A22F-02 Pilanesberg: Ntshwe2
A22F-03 Pilanesberg: Kgama
RUSTENBURG
A22F-04 Pilanesberg: Kubu
A22F-05 Pilanesberg: Tlhware 2
A22F-06 Pilanesberg: Manyane
A24D-01 Pilanesberg: Tlhware
A basic EIA application has been lodged with the National DEA on the 4 March 2014 for the
undertaking of listed activities in terms of NEMA. The DEA will issue an EA that will permit
the WfWetlands Programme to undertake wetland rehabilitation in the abovementioned
wetland systems within the North West Province. This Rehabilitation Plan focusses on the
Rustenburg Wetland Project and is to be submitted to DEA for their approval as a condition
of the EA.
1.3.1 The Rustenburg Wetland Project

This document comprises the Rehabilitation Plan for the Rustenburg Wetland Project and
includes the following wetland systems: Rietfontein and Pilanesberg. The Rehabilitation Plan
will be the primary working document for the project via the implementation (construction/
undertaking of) of interventions8 required to meet the wetland rehabilitation objectives. The
document details the general methodology that has been adopted for the planning of
rehabilitation interventions for identified wetlands. Details of the rehabilitation planning for
each wetland and the selected intervention options (including designs, dimensions and
locations) within each wetland are presented, along with baseline Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E) data.
Detailed wetland status quo assessment reports and design drawings are included as
Appendix A of this report. Upon approval of this Rehabilitation Plan by both DEA and the
directly affected landowners, the work detail for the project will be implemented within a year
with on-going monitoring being undertaken from thereon.
1.4 Project scope

The scope of this Wetland Project is detailed in Table 2 below:
8
This could include soft options such as alien clearing, eco-logs, gabion structures as well as hard structures, for
example weirs.

4
Table 2: Project Scope
Quaternary Catchments A21K, A22F & A24D
Quaternary Catchment area (Ha) A21K 86 383
A22F 168 822
A24D 132 649
Number of wetlands identified during the

8
assessment
Extension of existing work (previous No

financial year)
Work to commence at new wetlands in Yes

2014/ 2015
Available budget for new interventions
Available budget for maintenance to R91 750.00

existing interventions
Estimated cost of new interventions Total: R 6 714 686.71

(Rietfontein: R5 594 581.91)
(Pilanesberg: R1 120 104.80)
Estimated cost of maintenance to existing

R91 750.00
interventions

5
2 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
Each Wetland Project is managed in three phases over a two-year cycle as shown in the flow
diagram in Figure 1 below. The first two phases straddle the first year of the cycle and
involve planning, identification, design and authorisation of interventions. The third phase is
implementation, which takes place during the second year.
2.1 Landowner consent

The flow diagram Figure 1 also clearly demonstrates the point at which various consent
forms must be approved via signature from the directly affected landowner. SANBI’s PCs are
responsible for undertaking the necessary landowner engagement and for ensuring that the
requisite landowner consent forms required as part of Phase 1 and 2 of this project are
signed. These include:
 WW(0): Standard operating procedure
 WW(1): Wetland survey and Inspection consent,
 WW(2): Terms and Conditions for carrying out wetland rehabilitation,
 WW(3): Wetland Rehabilitation Activities Consent,
 WW(4): Property Inspection Prior to Wetland Rehabilitation, and
 WW(5): Notification of Completion of Rehabilitation.
Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the landowner agreements.
2.2 Phase 1
The wetland ecologist responsible for the North West Province undertook a desktop study to
determine the most suitable wetlands for the WfWetlands rehabilitation efforts. The
involvement of Provincial Wetland Forums and other key stakeholders was a critical
component of the wetland identification processes since these stakeholders are
representative of diverse groups with shared interests (e.g. from government institutions to
amateur ecological enthusiasts). This phase also involved initial communication with local
land-owners and other interested and affected parties to gauge the social benefits of the
work. The following wetlands were prioritised and agreed to by the various parties for the
Rustenburg Wetland Project:
1. Rietfontein Wetland
2. Pilanesberg Wetland

1
Figure 1: The three phases that must be undertaken for the successful rehabilitation of wetlands

2
2.3 Phase 2
2.3.1 Site visits
Phase 2 required site visits were attended by the fieldwork team comprising a wetland
ecologist, a design engineer, an EAP, and a SANBI provincial coordinator. The landowner at
the Rietfontein wetland also attended the site visit. This allowed for a highly collaborative
approach to be used, as options were discussed by experts from different scientific
disciplines, as well as local inhabitants with deep anecdotal knowledge. The following site
visits were undertaken for the Rustenburg Wetland Project:
1. Pilanesberg Wetland: 1-3 October 2014
2. Rietfontein: 30 September 2014 and 26 February 2014
The following team members attended the site visits:

 Malaika Koali-Lebona (SANBI PC)
 Retief Grobler(wetland ecologists),
 Claudia Nunes (engineer), and
 Franci Gresse (EAP).
At the end of the site visit the rehabilitation objectives together with the location layout of the
proposed interventions were agreed upon by the project team.
During Phase 2, monitoring systems were put in place to support the continuous evaluation
of interventions. The systems monitor both the environmental and social benefits of the
interventions. As part of Phase 2 site visit, a maintenance inventory of any existing
interventions that were damaged and / or failing and thus requiring maintenance was
compiled by the PC, in consultation with the Design Engineer.
2.3.2 Wetland status quo assessment

The time and resources required for detailed assessments of the wetlands was generally
limited, and thus a rapid procedure was adopted to assist the project team in systematically
carrying out the assessments under constraints. The procedure was based on the following
steps:
a. Assess impacts and threats

The following steps were used by the wetland ecologist to assess the impacts and threats
within each wetland system:
 The hydro-geomorphic setting of the wetland was described according to Kotze et al.
(2005);
 The overall health of the wetland at a Level 1 assessment using WET-Health
(Macfarlane et al., 2006) was described and verified; and
 Based on the above findings, the specific impacts and/or threats to be addressed by
structural rehabilitation were identified, and described at a Level 2 assessment (e.g.
for headcut erosion, the specific dimensions and level of activity of headcuts would be
described).

3
b. Set rehabilitation objectives and choose appropriate measures for achieving
the objectives
Rehabilitation objectives were informed by the above assessments (e.g., if the primary threat
to the wetland was identified as headcut erosion threatening to propagate through the
wetland then an appropriate rehabilitation objective would be to halt propagation of the
erosion headcut). The engineer was assisted by the wetland ecologist in selecting
appropriate interventions to achieve the identified rehabilitation objectives.
c. Assess the likely contribution of rehabilitation interventions to wetland health

and ecosystem delivery
An assessment of the predicted contribution that the identified rehabilitation interventions
would make to improving wetland health and ecosystem delivery through addressing the
identified impacts/threats was required. Without these assessments, a wetland rehabilitation
programme is unlikely to have a well-informed basis on which to improve the rehabilitation’s
“return on investment” (with return being measured in terms of wetland health and ecosystem
services delivery). This is directly linked into the WfWet Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework. The following steps were followed to assess the contribution of rehabilitation
interventions within each wetland system:
 The spatial area likely to be affected by the proposed intervention/s was identified.
 The benefits that were likely to result from achievement of the rehabilitation
objective/s were determined in terms of the integrity of the affected area of the
wetland (using WET-Health) and the ecosystem services that the area delivers (using
WET-Ecoservices: Kotze et al., 2005).
The same approach was used for the assessment of the different threats/impacts that would
be addressed through rehabilitation. In this instance, the situation without rehabilitation (i.e.
no intervention or status quo) was compared to the situation with rehabilitation. For health,
both situations were scored on a scale of 0 (critically altered) to 10 (pristine), and this was
undertaken for the hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation components of health.
The benefit achieved is the improvement in relation to the maximum score. For example, in
areas threatened by headcut erosion which are to be rehabilitated by halting the spreading of
the headcut, the benefits in terms of health would be determined based on the difference
between the current health and the projected health if the headcut proceeded to erode
through the threatened area. In such a case, stopping the expansion of the headcut would
presumably secure the current situation.
Refer to Appendix A which contains the Wetland Status Quo Assessment Reports.
2.3.3 Identification and location of intervention designs

The project teams evaluated the various rehabilitation intervention options available and
selected the most appropriate intervention options to achieve the rehabilitation objectives for
the wetland. Choices of intervention options were also informed by the increased labour
component as required by DEA.

4
Any previously planned interventions that had not been implemented or included into the
previous planning cycle reports were assessed and included into the current year’s selection,
if appropriate to the re-assessed rehabilitation objectives for the wetland. Agreed cost/benefit
ratios in terms of ‘Rands per hectare of rehabilitated wetland’ were taken into account, along
with operational considerations and larger scale project objectives.
After the appropriate intervention options were selected by the planning team, the engineer,
in consultation with the wetland ecologist determined the most appropriate designs and
locations for the identified interventions in order to achieve the rehabilitation objectives for
the wetland in question. GPS coordinates and digital photographs – sufficiently detailed to
clearly identify the selected locations were then taken for record purposes. Appropriate
dimensions of the locations were measured in order to be able to design and calculate
quantities for the interventions.
a. Intervention naming convention

A new naming convention was introduced in the 2011/2012 planning phase and this has
been continued in this years’ Rehabilitation Plans.
The historical naming convention for interventions is explained below:

A00A-00-000, where
Number Explanation
A00A quaternary number
00 wetland number
000 intervention number
The accepted naming convention which has been applied to all interventions (old and new)
is explained below with examples being provided as well.
A00A-00-000-00 (new),
A00A-00-000-01 (maintenance), where

Number Explanation
A00A quaternary number
00 wetland number
200 intervention number with the ‘200’
included for differentiation from
previous interventions
00 New intervention 01 Maintenance to intervention
An additional two digits will therefore be added to the end of each of the intervention
numbers to indicate maintenance on this specific intervention and/ or whether the structure is
new (00) for tracking purposes. All new interventions will have a default of 00.

5
Should built structures require maintenance, they would be numbered numerically beginning
with ‘01’ e.g. 01, 02, 03, etc. for each year that maintenance is undertaken on the
intervention. In addition, the new naming convention also added a ‘200’ digit in the front of
the intervention number to avoid confusion from previously named interventions.
2.3.4 Collection of Monitoring & Evaluation Baseline and Basic Assessments Data
In accordance with WET-Rehab-Evaluate (Cowden & Kotze, 2007) the collection of baseline
monitoring information is important to allow for the evaluation of the performance of wetland
rehabilitation activities. Monitoring and evaluation facilitate the dissemination of lessons
learnt and provide a means of reporting on the success of specific wetland rehabilitation
initiatives. The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of an identified wetland rehabilitation
project’s performance is therefore considered vital to inform the evaluation of wetland
rehabilitation success. Baseline monitoring needs to be carried out prior to the
implementation of rehabilitation activities to provide comparable data for monitoring at a later
stage, following the wetland rehabilitation.
While the engineer was working on measurement of the intervention locations, the wetland
ecologist gathered the additional data required for M&E baselines which included the
following:
 Photographs and GPS co-ordinates of the identified problems;
 Fixed-point photography (in accordance with the guidelines outlined in WET-Rehab-
Evaluate: Cowden & Kotze, 2007);
 WET-Health information (allowing the comparison of wetland ecological integrity
before and after rehabilitation activities); and
 Details relating to the estimated hectare equivalents.
Any additional data/information required for the assessment of the potential impacts of the
proposed interventions and construction activities was also collected by the wetland ecologist
and the EAP to inform the Basic Assessments.
At the end of the site visit a location layout of the agreed interventions and rehabilitation
objectives was signed off by the SANBI PC and landowner, as indicated by SANBI Signoff 2
in Figure 1.
2.3.5 Engineering design

The detailed procedure followed by the engineers is described in the Engineering Design
Brief, which documents the procedure agreed upon by Aurecon and SANBI. The document
also addresses important issues such as risk and liability. A summary of the process followed
for the engineering design is described below:
 A hydrological assessment was undertaken to quantify the volume of water expected
to be dealt with by the intervention for various recurrence intervals. The results of this
assessment allowed the engineer to select a design flow to be applied to the
intervention.

6
 Construction materials were selected based on a range of site specific criteria
including expected velocities, availability of materials such as rock, labour intensive
targets, maintenance requirements etc.
 Interventions were designed based on the above to meet the objectives for wetland
rehabilitation.
 The intervention designs were drafted to show, at a minimum, a plan view, a
longitudinal section and front elevation at appropriate scales, and appropriate
dimensions. A legend indicating basket sizes was included for gabion structures to
improve design clarity for the implementers.
 Bills of quantities were calculated for the designs and cost estimates were made
based on unit costs and norms for each project area, as agreed with the SANBI PC.
 The estimated budget allocation towards labour was indicated.
 Maintenance requirements for existing interventions in the assessed wetlands were
similarly detailed and the anticipated costs calculated.
The engineer also reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted any previously planned interventions
that are included into the current rehabilitation plan.
2.3.6 Development of the Rehabilitation Plan

The standardised Rehabilitation Plan format has been approved by SANBI Programme
Manager: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation.
Summaries of the wetland prioritisation, problems and rehabilitation objectives were

documented in the Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan. Detailed wetland status quo assessment
reports, based on, inter alia, the information collected during the implementation of WET-
Tools, were prepared by the wetland ecologist and/ or the EAP, and included as Appendix A
to this report.
The Final Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan was submitted to the SANBI PC and wetland
ecologist for review before it was made available to stakeholders for comment. Any
comments received during the comments period were taken into account in the finalisation of
the Rehabilitation Plans.
a. Reporting Format
All relevant information acquired during the assessments and field visits has been included in
this document and its appendices in a hierarchy as shown in Figure 2 below.
 All intervention locations are given in geographical coordinates, (degrees, minutes
and seconds), based on the WGS84 datum.
 Mapping was done in Albers Equal Area Conic projection, WGS84 datum. The grids
displayed on all maps are geographic and measured in Degrees Minutes and
Seconds. The scale bar on each map is based on Albers Equal Area Conic projection
and measured in metres.

7
Figure 2: Hierarchy used in the Wetland Rehabilitation Plan

8
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project details

Background: The Rustenburg Wetland Project is located in the A21K, A22F and A24D
quaternary catchments near the town of Rustenburg in the North West Province (refer
Figure 3 and Table 3 below):
Table 3: Project details
Project Name Rustenburg

Region (Province) North West
Project Budget R6.7 million
Planning Category Category 2
Nearest Town/s Rustenburg
Pilanesberg Park, private landowners,
Partnership Rustenburg local municipality, Bafokeng
administration, Department of Health
Seven wetlands were identified within the Pilanesberg National Park for rehabilitation
purposes. These wetlands are located within the upstream reaches of quaternary
catchments Pilanesberg A22F and A24D and are comparable with one another based on the
low occurrence of landscape transformation within the protected area. Further downstream,
once outside of the Park, differences between the two catchments become more prominent,
with urban development and platinum mining activities in quaternary catchment A22F being
more common.
Quaternary catchment A22F is located in the Elands River catchment area, with the Mankwe
River forming the closest river tributary of the Elands River system (Driver et al,. 2004). Six of
the seven watercourses in the project are located within this catchment. Quaternary
catchment A24D is located in the Bierspruit catchment area, with the non-perennial
Wilgespruit forming the closest river tributary. Only one of the seven watercourses in the
project, the Tlhware Wetland, is located within this catchment. Both quaternary catchment
A22F and A24D is located within the Crocodile and Marico West Water Management Area.
The Riefontein wetland is located in quaternary catchment A21K which is located in the
Sterkstroom River catchment area that forms part of the Crocodile West and Marico Water
Management Area. The Sterkstroom River forms a confluence with the Crocodile River at the
north-eastern border of quaternary catchment A21K. Two prominent dams are present within
the catchment, namely:
 Buffelspoort Dam: located in the upper margin of the catchment; and
 Roodekop-jes Dam: located at the confluence of the Sterkstroom and Crocodile
Rivers.

9
The catchment covers an area of approximately 86 383 ha, with the Magaliesberg Mountain
Range forming a prominent catchment divide along its southern boundary. The Magaliesberg
Protected Natural Environment, under the auspices of North West Parks Board, is a
protected area along the Magaliesberg range, which provides a green corridor that links the
catchment to other protected areas: Vaalkop Dam Nature reserve in the east and Marico-
Bosveld Nature Reserve to the west thereof. Other forms of landuse within the catchment
includes agriculture (irrigated and dryland cultivation), dams, silviculture and urban
Wetlands selected: The wetlands within the Rustenburg Wetland Project that have been
identified for rehabilitation efforts for this planning cycle are listed in the table below (Table 4).
Table 4: Identified wetlands within the Rustenburg Wetland Project
Wetland Number Wetland Name Longitude Latitude

A21K-02 Rietfontein 27°22'30.40"E 25°50'12.50"S
A22F-01 Pilanesberg Ntshwe 27°03'10.1''E 25°17'56.9'S
A22F-02 Pilanesberg Ntshwe2 27°03'39.4''E 25°18'12.5''S
A22F-03 Pilanesberg Kgama 27°02'38.0''E 25°18'14.2''S
A22F-04 Pilanesberg Kubu 27°04'28.3''E 25°18'14.7''S
A22F-05 Pilanesberg Tlhware 2 27°02'24.3''E 25°12'32.8''S
A22F-06 Pilanesberg Manyane 27°09'49.9''E 25°15'09.9''S
A24D-01 Pilanesberg Tlhware 27°01'53.0''E 25°12'49.4''S

10
Figure 3: Topographic map showing A21K quaternary catchment’s locality
11
Figure 4: Topographic map showing A22F quaternary catchment’s locality

12
Figure 5: Topographic map showing A24D quaternary catchment’s locality

13
3.2 Rustenburg Landowner details
The landowners were identified for this Wetland Project (Table 5) and consent for any
proposed wetland rehabilitation (subject to the approval of the Final Rehabilitation Plans)
has been sought. Copies of the consent obtained are provided in Appendix E.
Table 5: List of Landowners and SG Key
Wetland Consent
Property SG Key Owner
Number Obtained
A21K-02 T0JQ00000000035600049 Magaliesvallei Ontwikkelings BK 10/10/2013
North West Parks and Tourism
A22F-01 B0JQ00000000009200002 01/10/2013
Board
A22F-02 B0JQ00000000009200003 01/10/2013
Board
A22F-03 B0JQ00000000009200002 01/10/2013
Board
A22F-04 B0JQ00000000009200002 01/10/2013
Board
A22F-05 B0JQ00000000004800006 01/10/2013
Board
A22F-06 B0JQ00000000005400001 01/10/2013
Board
A24D-01 B0JQ00000000004800006 01/10/2013
Board
3.3 Projected rehabilitation indicators

The rehabilitation planning process relies on the measurement of wetland ecological integrity
based on the assessment of the hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation components of
the specified systems. In theory this information could be converted into a hectare equivalent
which could serve as a baseline indicator to then provide a projection of the area of wetland
habitat gained or secured. In practice the level of confidence associated with interpretations
of this nature are usually low and difficult to defend and hence should be interpreted with
great caution. For example, this approach should not be followed for hectare equivalents
secured where a large wetland complex with many contiguous tributary arms of unknown
size are present upstream. Similarly, the area of wetland gained should not be determined if
there isn’t good knowledge of inter alia the hydrogeological characteristics of both the
bedrock and unconsolidated sedimentary cover. In well-known systems rehabilitation plans
can outline the following projected values for the proposed wetland rehabilitation, which can
be used as an indicator of wetland rehabilitation success within each wetland system (Table
6).

14
Table 6: Projected values
Projected Total % Increase Projected
Current
Wetland Area hectare projected on current hectare
hectare
No. (ha) equivalents hectare hectare equivalents
equivalents
gained equivalents equivalents secured
A21K-02 8.8 5.1 4.1 6.8 61.2 4.1
A22F-01 76.7 39 48 53 90 83
A22F-02 52.3 32 41 48 85 41
A22F-03 6.5 4 5.2 6.1 85 5.2
A22F-04 40.2 23 31 37 83 31
A22F-05 47.3 18 31 34 91 31
A22F-06 15.3 9 6 11.5 52 6
A24D-01 8.6 6.1 7.5 7.9 94 7.5
Please note that important factors such as biodiversity, species habitat, sense of place
cultural significance etc. are not incorporated into hectare equivalents and therefore the full
value of the system is not quantified. For the purpose of this report and due to the reasons
above, the above table (Table 6) only reflects the amount of hectares physically gained as a
result of the interventions.
3.4 Prioritisation of wetlands

Based on the wetland status quo assessments conducted, the current progress of
implementation within the project and the prioritisation of the rehabilitation interventions
detailed in the following sections, the wetlands will be prioritised for rehabilitation in the
following order (Table 7):
Table 7: Prioritisation of wetlands
Priority Wetland number Wetland name Rationale

1 A21K-02 Rietfontein The wetland is threatened
by a large and actively
eroding headcut that has
advanced approximately
15 m between October 2013
and February 2014.
2 A22F-01 Pilanesberg (Ntshwe) The implementation priority
3 A22F-02 Pilanesberg (Ntshwe 2) among the different
wetlands and watercourses
4 A22F-03 Pilanesberg (Kgama)
in Pilanesberg Nature
5 A22F-04 Pilanesberg (Kubu) Reserve differ little from one
6 A22F-05 Pilanesberg (Tlhware2) another, with the main

15
Priority Wetland number Wetland name Rationale
7 A22F-06 Pilanesberg Manyane separation being between
wetland and non-wetland
8 A24D-01 Pilanesberg Tlhware
watercourses. The number
of interventions and
interpretations of the activity
(severity) of erosion features
were used to help rank the
assessed wetlands. The
process is largely subjective
in nature and therefore open
to interpretation.
3.5 Interventions required

The following table (Table 8) provides a list of interventions requiring redesign, maintenance
and or new structures for this project and their associated new intervention number.

16
Table 8: Summary of the new interventions
Inter vention
Descri pti ve nam e Pr oposed acti on Refer ence document
number
NEW
Ri etfontei n (A21K -02)
Concrete weir A21K-02-203-00 Construct concrete drop-inlet weir Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Concrete weir A21K-02-204-00 Construct concrete drop-inlet weir Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Gabion weir A21K-02-205-00 Construct gabion drop-inlet weir. LB key wall to be joined with Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
RB key wall of intervention A21K-02-206-00 April 2014
Concrete weir A21K-02-206-00 Construct concrete drop-inlet weir. RB key wall to be joined Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
with LB key wall of intervention A21K-02-205-00 and extended April 2014
RB key wall of intervention A21K-02-209-00
Earthworks A21K-02-207-00 Construct ecologs Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:

April 2014
Gabion weir A21K-02-208-00 Construct gabion drop-inlet weir Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Gabion weir A21K-02-209-00 Construct gabion drop-inlet weir with berms. RB key wall to be Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
joined with key wall of interventions A21K-02-206-00 April 2014
Earthworks A21K-02-210-00 Fill, slope and re-vegetate eroded channel embankment Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Earthworks A21K-02-211-00 Fill, slope and re-vegetate eroded off-channel headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Stone masonry weir A21K-02-212-00 Construct stone masonry drop-inlet weir on gabion base Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
17
Inter vention
number
Pilanesberg Ntshwe (A22F-01)
Fill, slope and re-vegetate headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:

Earthworks A22F-01-201-00
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
Widen dam breach, slope and re-vegetate Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
Pilanesberg Ntshwe 2 (A22F-02)
Earth plug A22F-02-201-00 Earth plug Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:

April 2014

18
Inter vention
number

April 2014
Earthworks A22F-02-203-00 Fill, slope and re-vegetate headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014
Earthworks A22F-02-206-00 Widen dam breach, cut slope and re-vegetate Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Pilanesberg Kgama (A22F-03)
April 2014
Pilanesberg Kubu (A22F-04)
April 2014
Earthworks A22F-04-202-00 Widen dam breach, slope headcut and re-vegetate Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
April 2014
Earthworks A22F-04-204-00 Fill headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
April 2014
April 2014

19
Inter vention
number
Pilanesberg Tlhware 2(A22F-05)
April 2014
April 2014
Earthworks A22F-05-203-00 Widen dam breach, slope headcut and re-vegetate Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Pilanesberg Manyane (A22F-06)
Earthworks A22F-06-201-00 Rock pack and slope headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Pilanesberg Tlhware (A24D-01)
Earthworks A24D-01-201-00 Fill, slope and re-vegetate headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Earthworks Fill, slope and re-vegetate headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
A24D-01-202-00
April 2014
Earthworks A24D-01-203-00 Widen dam breach, cut slope and re-vegetate Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Earthworks A24D-01-204-00 Fill and slope headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014
Earthworks A24D-01-205-00 Fill, slope and re-vegetate headcut Rustenburg Rehabilitation Plan:
April 2014

20
Table 9: Summary of the interventions requiring maintenance or redesigns
Ol d
New
inter vention
Descri pti ve nam e Inter vention Pr oposed acti on Refer ence document
number (i f
number
appli cabl e)
MAI NTENANCE
Buttress weir A22H-02-004 N/A Concrete structure Rustenburg Rehabilitation

Plan: 2008
Buttress weir A22H-08-024 N/A Backfill and compact eroded section at RB key Rustenburg Rehabilitation
wall Plan: 2008
INTERVENTI ON REDE SI GNS
Buttress weir A22H-08-006 N/A Extend LB keywall by 14m Rustenburg Rehabilitation

Plan: 2008

21
4 RIETFONTEIN WETLAND – A21K-02
4.1 Wetland details

The Rietfontein wetland is located in quaternary catchment A21K in the Sterkstroom River
catchment of the North West Province (see Figure 3 in Section 3 of this report). The
catchment covers an area of approximately 86 383 ha, with the Magaliesberg Mountain
Range forming a prominent catchment divide along its southern boundary. The
Magaliesberg Protected Natural Environment, under the auspices of North West Parks
Board, is a protected area along the Magaliesberg range, which provides a green corridor
that links the catchment to other protected areas located to the east and west. The
assessment of the Rietfontein wetland A21K-02, its problems, and the development of the
rehabilitation objectives are described in detail in Appendix A: Wetland Status Quo
Assessment Reports. The following sections provide a brief summary for this wetland.
The wetland (see Table 9) has been classified as a channelled valley bottom wetland with a
size of approximately 8.8 ha. However, the channels might be a recent feature due to
erosion. Seep zones and a spring are also present within the delineated wetland area, but
the general character of the system is still regarded as a channelled valley bottom with
seepage zones. This results in the presence of riparian woody vegetation, such as Buddleja
salviifolia along portions of the channel, and obligated hydrophytes, such as Gunnera
perpensa on areas characterised by seepage.
As a result, the wetland has a relative high sensitivity to change in the local hydrology. The
wetland is located on the Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld vegetation unit, described by
Mucina & Rutherford (2006). Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld has a Least Threatened
Conservation Status (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The wetland does not overlap with natural
or artificial wetland habitat identified in the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area
(NFEPA) database.
During 2012/ 2013 a veldfire and subsequent heavy rain events initiated a serious erosion
threat at the Rietfontein wetland A21K-02. The wetland falls within a conservancy and
protected area, but has been modified through water abstraction from a spring for irrigation
and domestic use. The influence of catchment land use and transformation on water inputs
are considered to be of low impact. However, the steep nature of the catchment with its
shallow soils and exposed rock surfaces contribute towards wetland deterioration over time
in the absence of interventions.

22
Table 10: Summary of the wetland details
Wetland Name Rietfontein

Wetland Number A21K-02
River System Name Sterkstroom
Land Use in Catchment Nature reserve
Land Use in Wetland Conservation
No. of Properties Intersecting Wetland
1
Area
Date of Planning Site visit October 2013
Wetland Assessor(s) Retief Grobler
Wetland size 8.8 ha
4.2 Site photos
Figure 6: Gunnera purpensa, a hydrophyte that is a species of conservation concern, was recorded within the
wetland (top left and right). Other prominent species within the wetland included the ferns Cyathea cf. dregei and
Pteridium aquilinum (bottom left and right).

23
Figure 7: Site photos of the upstream (top four photos) and downstream (bottom four photos) sections of the
Rietfontein wetland

24
4.3 Wetland problems
The wetland has been subjected to a number of impacts that have changed the ecological
processes, especially in the lower portion of the wetland where multiple headcut branching is
occurring. Upstream catchment related impacts and conditions (e.g. a steep catchment with shallow
soils and exposed bedrock) have a reduced effect on the downstream wetland due to its
position in the headwaters. The influence of catchment land use (i.e. conservation) and
transformation on water inputs are considered to be of low impact. However the steep nature
of the catchment with its shallow soils and exposed rock surfaces will contribute to
deterioration over time without intervention. Furthermore, there are a number of clearly
identifiable impacts within the wetland unit itself which are currently affecting the patterns of
water movement and retention within the wetland. These include water abstraction, and an
extensive drainage channel linked to gully incision (plus some headcut erosion) that
encourages draining of the wetland. These impacts have resulted in a significant change to
water distribution and retention patterns within the wetland.
4.4 Rehabilitation objectives

The primary objective is to prevent headcut migration and wetland loss, including the loss of
habitat for Gunnera perpensa, which is both a medicinal plant and Red Listed as Declining9
(latest IUCN version 3.1 conservation status category). The secondary objective is to reduce
erosive energy from surface inflow and which will also decrease the risk of further channel
incision.
4.5 Summary proposed interventions

Table 11 provides a summary of the new interventions that are discussed in detail in the
subsequent sections of this report. The “implementation order” as depicted in the table
indicates the timing order in which interventions should be implemented within the wetland
(number 1 first). The “priority” as depicted in the table indicates the relative importance of
each intervention across the project as a whole – if interventions have to be omitted for any
reason, those with the lowest priority (highest number) across the whole project should be
omitted first.
Please note that the location of the interventions described in Section 4.7 may change as a
result of changes in the landscape (due to continued erosion, for example) during the time
period that has lapsed between the initial planning site visit and the actual implementation
thereof.
9
Status follows the latest Red Data Plant Book of South African Plants (Raimondo et al., 2009), and the
continuously updated online Red List of SANBI (http://redlist.sanbi.org, accessed in January 2014). Conservation
Status Category assessment according to IUCN Ver. 3.1 (IUCN, 2001).

25
Table 11: Summary of proposed new interventions, A21K-02
Intervention Intervention Implementation Structure Cost

Priority
Number Structure Type Order (Excl. Vat)
A21K-02-203-00 Concrete drop-inlet

2 2 R 144 950.00
weir

5 5 R 256 100.00
weir
A21K-02-205-00 Gabion drop-inlet 1 1 R 2 175 562.80

3 3 R 328 350.00
weir
A21K-02-207-00 Ecologs 7 7 R 1 300.00
A21K-02-208-00 Gabion drop-inlet

6 6 R 103 518.00
weir
A21K-02-209-00 Gabion drop-inlet

2 2 R 2 062 595.60
weir
A21K-02-210-00 Earthworks (Fill) 4 4 R 41 144.96
A21K-02-211-00 Earthworks (Fill) 8 8 R 5 904.20
A21K-02-212-00 Stone masonry

9 9 R 577 984.35
drop-inlet weir
Total R 5 697 409.91

26
Figure 8: Wetland map, A21K-02 with proposed new wetland interventions indicated

27
4.6 Design selection and sizing
The objective of the interventions is to prevent further erosion in the existing drain and create
control points to control the surface water flow to spread into the surrounding wetlands. The
most appropriate and cost effective method of doing this was considered to involve:
 The construction of hard structures (concrete, gabion or stone masonry weirs) in the
main channel with spillways set at a level that would allow for varying levels of back
flooding, preventing further erosion of the channel. The hard structures are meant to
create controlled surface water flow points to accommodate the drop in elevation in
the channel.
 Construction of a combination of gabion and earth key wall, as part of the control
structures, would divert surface water flows during high flow conditions through the
drop inlet structures. .
 Earth back filling and re-vegetation is specified to fill off-channel headcuts caused by
high surface water flows re-entering the main channel.
 Some rock pack berms were specified for possible later implementation in the main
channel to act as sediment trap.
 Material selection considered the foundation conditions, design parameters,
limitations, suitability for possible future adjustments and the labour content for
construction cost.

28
4.7 Intervention designs
4.7.1 Intervention: A21K-02-203-00
Designer Claudia Nunes
Design Date October 2013
Intervention Description Concrete drop-inlet weir
Rehabilitation Objective Prevent the headcut from moving upstream and

subsequent wetland loss.
Latitude (DºM'S") 25°50'12.50"S
Longitude (DºM'S") 27°22'30.40"E
Engineering Drawings A21K-02-203-00
Figure 9: Intervention site A21K-02-203-00
4.7.1.1 Bill of quantities: A21K-02-203-00
Item Units Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost

Concrete
m³ 22.30 R 6 500.00 R 144 950.00
structure
Total R 144 950.00

29
4.7.1.2 Construction Notes
General construction notes as set out in Appendix B apply, along with all construction notes
shown on design drawings.
During construction best management practices for especially deep excavation should be
adhered to, in order to stabilise probable unstable soil conditions. Please refer to “National
guidelines and methods for wetland rehabilitation” part of the Wetland Management Series
(WRC Report TT341/09, March 2009).
Provision should be made for the draining of sub-surface seepage water during construction.
Diversion channels (to divert flow around construction site) should be avoided as far as
possible and consulted with the Engineer prior to excavation as this may escalate to further
erosion due to the nature of surrounding soil conditions.
Flash flooding may occur during summer months and therefor priority should be given to
complete construction during winter months to prevent excessive erosion, damage to
equipment, loss of material, injury to workers etc. Care should be taken to complete
construction as per engineering site instructions.
The Engineer will include site specific instructions in the site instructions to be issued prior to
construction of this intervention.
Please refer to section 4.8 for a detailed description for the proposed mitigation measures
regarding Cyathea cf. dregei (tree fern) and Gunnera purpensa (river pumpkin).

30
Intervention Description Concrete drop-inlet weir
Rehabilitation Objective To reduce energy from surface inflow and

simultaneously decrease the risk of the channel
incising further.

Concrete
m³ 39.40 R 6 500.00 R 256,100.00
structure
Total R 256,100.00

31

32
Designer Cilliers Blaauw
Design Date February 2014
Intervention Description Gabion drop-inlet weir with concrete capping,

earthworks (backfill to spillway), re-vegetate, rock
pack (berms) & reno gabions (toe of rock berms).

Latitude (DºM'S") 25°50'17.3''S

Gabion drop-
m³ 320.20 R 3 834.00 R 1 227 646.80
Inlet
Earthworks
(backfill to m³ 4.00 R 371.00 R 1 484.00
spillway)
Re-vegetate m³ 120.00 R 17.00 R 2,040.00

33
Rock pack m³
45.00 R 3 052.80 R 137,376.00
(berms)
Reno gabions m³
(toe of rock 24.00 R 3 834.00 R 92,016.00
berms)
Concrete
m³ 110.00 R 6 500.00 R 715,000.00
capping
Total R 2,175,562.80

34
Intervention Description Concrete drop-inlet weir with

earth structure (berm)


Concrete
m³ 48.90 R 6 500.00 R 317,850.00
structure
Earthworks m³ 30.00 R 350.00 R 10,500.00
Total R 328,350.00

35

36
Intervention Description Eco-logs
Rehabilitation Objective Reduce surface water flow velocity; prevent the

headcut from moving upstream and subsequent
wetland loss.

Eco-logs m³ 1.00 R 1 300.00 R 1,300.00
Total R 1,300.00

37

38
Intervention Description Gabion drop-inlet weir


Gabion
m³ 27.00 R 3 834.00 R 103,518.00
structure
Total R 103,518.00

39

40
Intervention Description Gabion drop-inlet weir with concrete capping,

earthworks (backfill to spillway), re-vegetate,
MacMat-R, gabions (supporting earth berms),
earth structure (berm),

subsequent wetland loss. Create control point for
high surface water flows.

41

Gabion drop-
m³ 287.80 R 3 834.00 R 1,103,425.20
inlet
Earthworks m³ 3.00 R 371.00 R 1,113.00
Re-vegetate m³ 165.00 R 16.96 R 2,798.40
MacMat-R m³ 256.00 R 350.00 R 89,600.00
Gabions m³ 144.00 R 3,816.00 R 549,504.00
Earth m³
35.00 R 583.00 R 20,405.00
structures
Concrete m³
45.50 R 6,500.00 R 295,750.00
capping
Total R 2,062,595.60

42
Intervention Description Earthworks (fill & slope), re-vegetate
Rehabilitation Objective Stabilise the eroded embankment to prevent

further erosion subsequent wetland loss
Latitude (DºM'S") 25°50'16"S

Earthworks m³ 104.00 R 3 71.00 R 38 940.16
Re-vegetate m³ 130.00 R 16.96 R 2 204.80
Total R 41 144.96

43

44
Intervention Description Earthworks (Fill & Slope), re-vegetate
Rehabilitation Objective Prevent the headcut (created by re-entry of

surface water in to the channel) from moving
upstream and subsequent wetland loss

Earthworks m³ 15.00 R 371.00 R 5 565.00
Re-vegetate m³ 20 R 16.96 R 339.20
Total R 5 904.20

45

46
Intervention Description Stone masonry, gabions (base to stone masonry),

concrete capping, re-vegetate, earthworks
(backfill to spillway)
Rehabilitation Objective Prevent the series of headcuts from moving

upstream and subsequent wetland loss. Promote
sedimentation at control point.

Stone masonry m³ 82.00 R 6 040.47 R 498 943.12
Gabions m³ 2.60 R 3,816.00 R 15,705.23
Concrete
m³ 16.00 R 6,500.00 R 61,056.00
capping

47
Re-vegetate m³ 25.00 R 17.00 R 425.00
Earth Works
(Backfill to m³ 5.00 R 371.00 R 1,855.00
Spillway)
Total R 577,984.35

48
4.8 Construction Environmental Management Plan issues
The proposed rehabilitation is to be undertaken on privately owned land and the project
team should access the site and manage the site in accordance with the WfWetlands Best
Management Practices and specific requirements of the landowner. The implementation of
these interventions must also take into account all relevant provisions of WfWetlands Best
Management Practices and the Construction Environmental Management Plan, the
recommendations of the approved Basic Assessments and EA for the project.
The general construction notes, the Construction phase EMP (CEMP) are included as
Appendix B and F.
The following project-specific management issues apply:

 Rehabilitation activities within the wetland should take measures to prevent impacts
to Gunnera purpensa, should the proposed interventions be implemented. Impacts to
tree ferns, such as Cyathea cf. dregei, should also be avoided during the
construction phase of the proposed rehabilitation interventions.
 These species or areas around them can be marked on site with non-harmful and
clearly noticeable measures (e.g. snow nets) immediately prior to the construction
phase by a suitably qualified wetland ecologist or botanist. Snow nets or other
suitable material used for demarcation should span the circumference of the crown of
each individual tree fern along the surface, while large populations of G. purpensa
can be partially fenced off near construction areas in such a manner than access is
prohibited.
 Identification of the species and avoidance of impacts during the construction phase
should be encouraged and made clear to the implementation team as well. It is
recommended that a well-qualified botanist spends a few hours with the construction
team or team leader on site prior to the onset of construction. The intention thereof is
to illustrate and help them identify the two species that need to be treated with
sensitivity. Input can also be provided to help with the allocation of stockpile sites and
assist with the demarcation of protective measures around large populations of
G. purpensa and affected individuals of Cyathea cf. dregei.
 The botantist can also help with the temporary relocation of localised individuals of
G. purpensa that have an unavoidable overlap with the proposed rehabilitation
interventions. Relocation refers here specifically to the temporary onsite transplant of
individuals of G. purpensa to suitable habitat identified within the delineated wetland
by the botanist. Transplanted individuals of G. purpensa should be marked with tags
and GPS coordinates so that they can again be replanted to their original positions
after construction is completed. No individuals of Cyathea cf. dregei should be
relocated or transplanted as far as possible, but need to be demarcated and avoided
during construction activities. Relocation can only be considered under exceptional
conditions in consultation with a suitably qualified botanist.

49
4.9 Wetland management recommendations
The system is currently utilised for nature conservation and will continue as such. The
proposed rehabilitation interventions will not only affect the ecological integrity of the broader
wetland system but will also have a number of positive impacts on the supply of goods and
services provided by the wetland.
However, all geotextiles will have to be maintained after rainfall and fire events, while weirs
must be inspected after the rain season. Sections that have been re-vegetated after
construction must be monitored on a quarterly basis to ensure that the areas have stabilised.
Ideally the water pipeline system through the wetland should be repaired, closed and
maintained by the landowner to help prevent drainage along the open furrow and possible
future erosion from occurring.
4.10 Baseline M&E data

The collection of baseline information was carried out to show changes in the system
associated with the wetland rehabilitation activities.
4.10.1 Erosion problems

The slope of 2.7% of the wetland in the headwaters suggests that the wetland is playing an important
role in retaining sediment and preventing erosion. Head-cut development and gullying have however
led to notable erosion in the wetland, detracting from the relative importance of this service.
Development of head-cuts should be monitored.
4.10.2 Fixed point photography

In order to provide the ability to visually determine the degree of change within the wetland
system photography of the wetland system has been taken prior to the implementation of
wetland rehabilitation activities.

50
FPP Number A21K-02-201-00
Latitude 25°50'11.7''S
GPS Location (DMS)
Longitude 27°22'30.6''E
Description of Photography Point
Type/ Orientation: Photo taken direction east (facing downstream).
FPP Number A21K-02-202-00

Latitude 25°50'12'S
GPS Location (DMS)
Longitude 27°22'30.2''E
Description of Photography Point
Type/ Orientation: Photo taken direction east (facing downstream).

51
4.10.3 Baseline WET-Health data
The assessment of the current level of ecological integrity of the wetland system provides a
baseline assessment for comparative assessments that would be carried out for monitoring
purposes 3 years after completion of the wetland rehabilitation activities. The following WET-
Health information was collected for the wetland (Refer to Appendix A):
Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation

Wetland
Ha Impact Change Impact Change Impact Change
No
Score Score Score Score Score Score
A21K-02 9 6.5 1 3.1 1 1.9 1
PES Categories E ↑ C ↑ B ↑
Wetland Impact
4.21
Score
Wetland PES D

52
5 PILANESBERG: NTSHWE WETLAND – A22F-01
5.1 Wetland details

Quaternary catchment A22F is located in the Elands River catchment area, with the Mankwe
River forming the closest river tributary of the Elands River system (Driver et al,. 2004) and
is located within the Crocodile & Marico West Water Management Area.
The Pilanesberg Ntshwe wetland forms part of headwater systems for this quaternary
catchment and consists primarily of seeps. Wetland condition and rehabilitation opportunities
were investigated in seepage and unchannelled valley bottom wetland areas which mainly
displayed wetland conditions ranging from marginal temporary to seasonally wet.
Wetland Name Pilanesberg Ntshwe
Wetland Number A22F-01

River System Name Mankwe River within the Elands River
Catchment Area
Land Use in Catchment Wetland and the catchment area is situated
in a formal conservation area
1
Area
Date of Planning Site visit 10 June 2011
Wetland size 77 ha

53
5.2 Site photos
Figure 19: Site photos of Ntshwe Wetland, note the problems identified within the wetland.

A number of problems were identified within the Ntshwe wetland that are impacting the
overland flow of water and retention within the seep zones and pose a risk to the integrity of
the wetland:
 Wetland habitat desiccation caused by eroded plough lines;
 Active headcut erosion within the wetlands; and
 The risk of scour erosion during large flow events at breached dam walls that contain
narrow gaps.

The primary objective is to re-instate more natural water distribution and retention patterns in
order to improve the overall functioning of the wetland and associated habitat for important
wetland-dependant biota. The secondary objective is to arrest erosion within the wetland.

The table below (Table 13) provides a summary of the new interventions. The
“implementation order” as depicted in the table indicates the timing order in which

54
interventions should be implemented within the wetland (number 1 first). The “priority” as
depicted in the table indicates the relative importance of each intervention across the project
as a whole – if interventions have to be omitted for any reason, those with the lowest priority
(highest number) across the whole project should be omitted first.
thereof.
Table 13: Summary of proposed new interventions, A22F-01

Priority
A22F-01-201-00 Earthworks 11 17 R 8 021.75
A22F-01-202-00 Earthworks 9 15 R 409.88
A22F-01-203-00 Earthworks 10 16 R 1 351.48
A22F-01-204-00 Earthworks 5 11 R 1 536.30
A22F-01-205-00 Earthworks 6 12 R 1 536.30
A22F-01-206-00 Earthworks 7 13 R 1 537.45
A22F-01-207-00 Earthworks 1 7 R 132 447.90
A22F-01-208-00 Earthworks 2 8 R 8 240.10
A22F-01-209-00 Earthworks 4 10 R 719.64
A22F-01-210-00 Earthworks 8 14 R 1 876.18
A22F-01-211-00 Earthworks 3 9 R 3 533.90
Total R 161 210.86

55
Figure 20: Wetland map, A22F-01 with proposed new wetland interventions indicated.

56
The objective of the interventions is to prevent further erosion due to surface water run-off
especially during end of the dry season after the first few rain storms when vegetation is not
yet grown back after winter. The most appropriate and cost effective method of doing this
was considered to involve:
 Earth works that include backfilling, sloping and re-vegetation of the affected areas.
 To reduce possible future recurrence of erosion, actions were also considered to
reduce the concentration of surface water flow (e.g. widening of breach in a dam
wall.
 Due to the position and size of the erosion no hard interventions were considered.

57
5.7.1 Intervention: A22F-01-201-00
Intervention Description Earth Works
Rehabilitation Objective To prevent headcut migration and wetland loss.
Engineering Drawings A22F-01-201-00
Figure 21: Intervention site A22F-01-201-00
5.7.1.1 Bill of quantities: A22F-01-201-00

Earth Works m³ 14.10 R 367.50 R 5181.75
Re-vegetation m³ 71.00 R 40.00 R 2840.00
Total R 8021.75
shown on design drawings. The Engineer will include site specific instructions in the site
instructions to be issued prior to construction of this intervention.
58

Earth works m³ 0.25 R 367.50 R 91.88
Total R 409.88

59

Earth works m³ 1.05 R 367.50 R 385.88
Total R 1 351.48

60

Earth works m³ 1.80 R 367.50 R 661.50
Total R 1 536.30

61

Earth works m³ 1.80 R 367.50 R 661.50
Total R 1 536.30

62

Earth works m³ 1.58 R 367.50 R 580.65
Total R 1 537.45

63
Rehabilitation Objective Reduce the risk of erosion by spreading out

surface flows in earth berm barriers; reduce
desiccation impacts by widening gaps in the flow
barrier (dam wall).

Earth works m³ 333.00 R 367.50 R 122 377.50
Re-vegetation m³ 251.76 R 40.00 R 10 070.40
Total R 132 447.90

64

65

Earth works m³ 17.72 R 367.50 R 6 512.10
Total R 8 240.10
66

Earth works m³ 0.41 R 367.50 R 148.84
Total R 719.64

67

Earth works m³ 1.25 R 367.50 R 459.38
Total R 1 876.18

68

Earth works m³ 3.40 R 367.50 R 1 249.50
Total R 3 533.90
5.7.11.2 Construction Notes:
The diversion is to be constructed at an angle across the channel to divert flows to the east
of the channel. Also see Section 4.7.8.2. General construction notes as set out in Appendix
B apply, along with all construction notes shown on design drawings.

69
The establishment of a good vegetation cover at intervention sites are important, especially
in recently disturbed areas that are expected to be more prone to the encroachment of alien
plants. In order to achieved revegetation of indigenous species the localised broad casting of
Eragrostis tef is recommended along with manual scarification (e.g. through the use of
rakes). E. tef is an annual species that can grow in a wide variety of soil conditions and is
quickly replaced by indigenous species. No fertilisers need to be applied with E. tef, as it can
grow in nutrient poor soils. The application of fertilisers and nutrients in wetlands and other
watercourses may create unfavourable growing conditions for indigenous species that are
adapted to soils with an expected low nutrient status.
Appendix B and F.

Large herbivores (e.g. elephant) could be attracted to geotextile, while grazer species may
target new growth at sites treated for re-vegetation. Interventions should thus be monitored
after completion to allow preventative measures to be put in place to prevent further
damage. Examples of preventative measures include the implementation and maintenance
of brush packing around exposed geotextile and re-vegetation works (e.g. areas that have
been reseeded or treated with shade cloth/ biojute).Sections that have been re-vegetated
must be monitored on a quarterly basis to ensure that the areas have stabilised.


The erosional features within the wetland are generally limited to channel incision and are
relatively stable, and will therefore not be monitored specifically. If these features were to
become unstable at any point, monitoring should be undertaken.

70
No WET-Health analyses were performed for any of the targeted wetlands and watercourses
within Pilanesberg Nature Reserve. This was due to an approach that primarily focussed on
the use of soft rehabilitation interventions. Consequently a more simplistic wetland status
quo assessment approach was followed.

71
6 PILANESBERG: NTSHWE 2 WETLAND – A22F-02
6.1 Wetland details

The wetland conditions and description for the Pilanesberg Ntshwe 2 wetland is similar to
Pilanesberg Ntshwe. Please refer to Chapter 5 as well as Annexure A (which contains the
Wetland Status Quo Assessment Report) for more information on this wetland.
Wetland Name Pilanesberg Ntshwe 2
River System Name Mankwe River within the Elands River Catchment
Area
Land Use in Catchment Wetland and the catchment area is situated in a
formal conservation area

1
Area
Wetland size 52 ha
Figure 32: An old plough line that has developed into an erosion channel

72
6.2 Site photos
Figure 33: Site Photos of the Ntshwe 2 Wetland (top left: north; top right: east; bottom left: south; bottom right:
west)

The following problems have been identified as posing a risk to the integrity of the wetland:
 Wetland habitat desiccation caused by eroded plough lines (see Figure 32);
narrow gaps.

The primary objective is to re-instate natural water distribution and retention patterns in order
to improve the overall functioning of the wetland and associated habitat for wildlife. The
secondary objective is to arrest erosion within the wetland, which includes the protection of
grassland vegetation for grazers.

The table below (Table 15) provides a summary of the new interventions. The
73
thereof.

Priority
A22F-02-201-00 Earth Plug 2 2 R 33 103.03
A22F-02-202-00 Earth Plug 3 3 R 38 083.63
A22F-02-203-00 Earth Works 5 5 R 2 825.25
A22F-02-204-00 Earth Plug 4 4 R 28 795.15
A22F-02-205-00 Earth Works 1 1 R 3 813.38
A22F-02-206-00 Earth Works 6 6 R 34 870.00
Total R 141 490.44

The objective of the interventions is to deactivate plough lines that have developed into
erosion channels and spread the water into the surrounding wetlands.
The most appropriate and cost effective method of doing this was considered to involve:
 In addition to the above considerations, earth plugs were also introduced to
deactivate flow in smaller channels while acting as list traps.

74

75
Intervention Description Earth plug
Rehabilitation Objective Trap sediment, rewet surrounding area after flow

events and reduce dessication effect in eroded
channel.
Longitude (DºM'S") 27°03'39.4''E

Earth plug m³ 74.43 R 367.50 R 27 353.03
Total R 33 103.03

76

77

channel.

Earth Plug m³ 86.35 R 367.50 R 31 733.63
Total R 38 083.63

78

79
Rehabilitation Objective Prevent headcut migration and wetland loss.

Earth Works m³ 3.90 R 367.50 R 1 433.25
Total R 2 825.25

80

channel.

Earth Plug m³ 63.78 R 367.50 R 23 439.15
Total R 28 795.15

81

82
Rehabilitation Objective Prevent headcut migration and wetland loss

Earth Plug m³ 5.25 R 367.50 R 1 929.38
Total R 3 813.38

83

Dam breech widening
Rehabilitation Objective Reduce the risk of erosion by spreading out

dessication impacts by widening gaps in the flow
barrier (dam wall).

Earth Works m³ 84.00 R 367.50 R 30 870.00
Total R 34 870.00

84

85
Appendix B and F.

been reseeded or treated with shade cloth/ biojute). Sections that have been revegetated



86

87
7 PILANESBERG KGAMA WETLAND SYSTEM – A22F-03
7.1 Wetland details

The watercourse in the Mankwe system is regarded as a non-wetland drainage line / natural
channel that support intermittent (ephemeral) flow for a short duration after sufficient rainfall
events. This system was targeted for rehabilitation as continued erosion has resulted in a
loss of adjacent grazing habitat. The gully located within quaternary catchment A22F and fall
within the Pilanesberg Mountain Bushveld vegetation unit (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) and
does not overlap with wetland areas indicated on the NFEPA. The local climate is
characterised by a low mean annual precipitation (MAP) of approximately 600 mm and a
high mean annual evapotranspiration (MAE) of ±1801 mm (Middleton & Bailey 2008). As a
result, the gully has a relative high sensitivity to change in the local hydrology.
Wetland Name Kgama Wetland System

Catchment Area
1
Area
Wetland size 6.4 ha

88
7.2 Site photos
Figure 41: Site Photos of the Kgama Wetland (top left: north; top right: east; bottom left: south; bottom right: west)

 Expected advancement of lateral headcut erosion features that threatens grazing
habitat.
 Accelerated erosion above natural levels may also result in increased sediment
deposition in downstream wetlands and other watercourses.

The primary objective is to rehabilitate the gully in order to protect biodiversity and stop
sediments from moving down the system.

The intervention proposed for this system is discussed in detail in the subsequent sections of
this report. The table below (Table 17) provides a summary of the new intervention. The
“priority” as depicted in the table indicates the relative importance of each intervention

89
across the project as a whole – if interventions have to be omitted for any reason, those with
the lowest priority (highest number) across the whole project should be omitted first.
thereof.

Priority
A22F-03-201-00 Earth Works 1 32 R 2 391.28
Total R 2 391.28

The objective of the interventions is to deactivate a drain and spread the water that it would
have carried into the surrounding wetlands to the east and west. The most appropriate and
cost effective method of doing this was considered to involve:

90
Figure 42: Wetland map, A22F-03 with the proposed new wetland intervention indicated.

91
Rehabilitation Objective Prevent headcut migration and aggravated

sediment release into watercourse.

92

Earth Works m³ 2.25 R 367.50 R 826.88
Total R 2 391.28

Appendix B and F.


93
been reseeded or treated with shade cloth/ biojute). Sections that have been re-vegetated




94
8 PILANESBERG: KUBU WETLAND – A22F-04
8.1 Wetland details

The wetland conditions and description for the Pilanesberg Kubu wetland is similar to Ntshwe
wetland. Please refer to Chapter 5 as well as Annexure A (which contains the Wetland
Status Quo Assessment Report) for more information on this wetland.
Wetland Name Pilanesberg Kubu

Catchment Area
1
Area
Wetland size 40 ha

narrow gaps.
Photographs illustrating these problems are available in Figure 44.

95
8.3 Site photos
Figure 44: Photos of problems within the Pilanesberg Kubu Wetland

The primary objective of the rehabilitation is to re-instate more natural water distribution and
retention patterns in order to improve the overall functioning of the wetland and associated
habitat for important wetland-dependant biota. Furthermore the secondary objective is to
arrest erosion within the wetland.

96
Table 19 provides a summary of the interventions identified for the Pilanesberg Kubu
wetland. The “implementation order” as depicted in the table indicates the timing order in
which interventions should be implemented within the wetland (number 1 first). The “priority”
as depicted in the table indicates the relative importance of each intervention across the
project as a whole – if interventions have to be omitted for any reason, those with the lowest
priority (highest number) across the whole project should be omitted first.
thereof.

Priority
A22F-04-201-00 Earth Works 2 19 R 236 015.40
A22F-04-202-00 Earth Works 3 20 R 32 179.78
A22F-04-203-00 Earth Works 1 18 R 100 219.05
A22F-04-204-00 Earth Works 5 23 R 551.25
A22F-04-205-00 Earth Works 6 22 R 30 042.33
A22F-04-206-00 Earth Works 4 21 R 6 195.25
Total R 405 203.05


97

98
Intervention Description Earth Works_ Dam breech widening
Rehabilitation Objective To reduce the risk of erosion by spreading out

barrier (dam wall).

99

Earth Works m³ 570.00 R 367.50 R 209 475.00
Total R 236 015.40

100

barrier (dam wall).

Earth Works m³ 75.97 R 367.50 R 27 918.98
Total R 32 179.78

101

102

barrier (dam wall).

Earth Works m³ 247.66 R 367.50 R 91 015.05
Total R 100 219.05

103

104
Intervention Description Earth Works_ Fill

Earth Works m³ 1.50 R 367.50 R 551.25
Total R 551.25

105
Intervention Description Earth Plug
Rehabilitation Objective To trap sediment, rewet surrounding area after

flow events, reduce dessication effect in eroded
channel.

Earth Plug m³ 67.19 R 367.50 R 24 692.33
Total R 30 042.33

106

107

Earth Works m³ 9.50 R 367.50 R 3 491.25
Total R 6 195.25

108
Appendix B and F.




109
9 PILANESBERG: TLHWARE WETLAND – A24D-01
9.1 Wetland details

The Tlhware wetland system primarily consists of seeps, as well as unchannelled valley
bottom wetland areas. These wetland areas mainly display conditions ranging from marginal
temporary to seasonally wet. The wetlands overlap primarily with the Pilanesberg Mountain
Bushveld and secondarily with the Zeerust Thornveld vegetation units, both of which have a
least threatened conservation status (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The local climate is
characterised by a low mean annual precipitation (MAP) of approximately 604 mm and a
high mean annual evapotranspiration (MAE) of ±1801-1849 mm (Middleton & Bailey 2008).
As a result, the wetland has a relative high sensitivity to change in the local hydrology.
Prior to the establishment of the Pilanesberg National Park, dryland cultivation took place
within these wetlands. Cultivation practices such as ploughing, including ridge and furrow
practices, has resulted in the development of erosion channels. Currently grazing and the
game paths further contribute to erosion in the already disturbed wetland soils. In addition,
old dam walls have been breached to reduce the number of water bodies for game, which
poses a risk to flow concentration and potential scour damage during high rainfall events at
the breached sites.
Wetland Name Tlhware

Wetland Number A24D-01
Catchment Area
1
Area
Wetland size 8.6 ha

110
9.2 Site photos
Figure 52: Site photos of the Tlhware wetland system, illustrating erosion problems that has resulted from historic
cultivation practices

The wetland has been subjected to a number of impacts associated with historic cultivation
practices, overgrazing, incorrect road placements and the absence of storm water
management. The changes to water distribution and retention patterns are severe where the
roads and dams haves impeded, channelled and interrupted hillslope flow (intermediate and
surface). Desiccation is especially evident downslope of dams and road crossings. The
hydrology of the wetland area is largely modified adjacent to dams, canals and roads where
runoff created gully erosion, with a moderate-large change in ecological processes.
narrow gaps (see Figure 52).

111
The primary objective is to re-instate more natural water distribution and retention patterns to
improve the overall functioning of the wetland and associated habitat for important wetland-
dependant biota.

The table below (Table 21) provides a summary of the interventions identified for Tlhware
wetland. The “implementation order” as depicted in the table indicates the timing order in
which interventions should be implemented within the wetland (number 1 first). The “priority”
as depicted in the table indicates the relative importance of each intervention across the
project as a whole – if interventions have to be omitted for any reason, those with the lowest
priority (highest number) across the whole project should be omitted first.
thereof.
Table 21: Summary of proposed new interventions, A24D-01

Priority
A24D-01-201-00 Earth Works 5 31 R 2 644.20
A24D-01-202-00 Earth Works 4 30 R 3 416.38
A24D-01-203-00 Earth Works 1 27 R 93 757.75
A24D-01-204-00 Earth Works 3 29 R 16 206.50
A24D-01-205-00 Earth Works 2 28 R 4 409.05
Total R 120 433.88


112
Figure 53: Wetland map, A24D-01 with proposed new wetland interventions indicated.

113
9.7.1 Intervention: A24D-01-201-00
Engineering Drawings A24D-01-201-00
Figure 54: Intervention site A24D-01-201-00
9.7.1.1 Bill of quantities: A24D-01-201-00

Earth Works m³ 2.00 R 367.50 R 735.00
Total R 2 644.20
114

Earth Works m³ 3.25 R 367.50 R 1 194.38
Total R 3 416.38

115

barrier (dam wall).
Figure 56: Intervention site t A24D-01-203-00

Earth Works m³ 217.30 R 367.50 R 79 857.75
Total R 93 757.75

116

117

Earth Works m³ 35.00 R 367.50 R 12 862.50
Total R 16 206.50

118

Earth Works m³ 5.10 R 367.50 R 1 874.25
Total R 4 409.05

119
Appendix B and F.




120
10 PILANESBERG: TLHWARE 2 WETLAND – A22F-05
10.1 Wetland details

The wetland conditions and description for the Pilanesberg Tlhware 2 wetland is similar to
Pilanesberg Ntshwe. Please refer to Chapter 5 as well as Annexure A (which contains the
Wetland Status Quo Assessment Report) for more information on this wetland.
Figure 59: Photos of the dam at Pilanesberg Tlhware 2 wetland
The Pilanesberg Tlhware 2 wetland includes dam that appears to have been constructed in
the early 1960’s. The dam is considered to be of low heritage significance and is graded as a
local site with GRADE 3E heritage status (NGT Projects & Heritage Consultants, 2014).
Wetland Name Pilanesberg Tlhware 2

Catchment Area
1
Area
Wetland size 47 ha

121
10.2 Site photos
Figure 60: Site photos of the Pilanesberg Tlhware 2 wetland area

narrow gaps.
Figure 61: Photos illustrating erosion caused by eroded plough lines (left) and a breached dam wall (right)

122
The primary objective is to re-instate more natural water distribution and retention patterns to
improve the overall functioning of the wetland and associated habitat for important wetland-
dependant biota. Furthermore the secondary objective is to arrest erosion within the wetland.

Table 23 provides a summary of the interventions identified for the Tlhware 2 wetland. The
thereof.

Priority
A22F-05-201-00 Earth Works 3 26 R 3 261.40
A22F-05-202-00 Earth Works 2 25 R 1 605.60
A22F-05-203-00 Earth Work 1 24 R 90 862.63
Total R 95 729.63


123

124

Earth Works m³ 3.92 R 367.50 R 1 440.60
Total R 3 261.40

125

126

Earth Works m³ 1.92 R 367.50 R 705.60
Total R 1 605.60

127

surface flows in earth berm barriers. Reduce
barrier (dam wall), while simultaneously filling a
trench.
Longitude (DºM'S") 27°02'36.9.3"E

Earth Works m³ 180.75 R 367.50 R 66 425.63
PCC Poles 60.00 R 111.65 R 6 699.00
Total R 90 862.63

128
Note that a permit is required from the North West Provincial Heritage Resources Authority
prior to implementation. The process of obtaining this permit is currently underway.

129
Appendix B and F.




130
11 PILANESBERG: MANYANE WETLAND – A22F-06
11.1 Wetland details

The watercourse in the Manyane system is regarded as a non-wetland drainage line /
natural channel that support intermittent (ephemeral) flow for a short duration after sufficient
rainfall events. The Manyane gully’s erosive nature is threatening the catchment in that the
sediment originating from it negatively affects river health downstream and potentially
tourism infrastructure (roads).
Wetland Name Manyane

Catchment Area
1
Area
Wetland size 15 ha

The following problem has been identified as posing a risk to the integrity of the wetland
system:
 Expected advancement of lateral headcut erosion features that threatens an upslope
tar road (gully A22F-06).
 Accelerated erosion above natural levels may also result in increased sediment
deposition in downstream wetlands and other watercourses.

131
11.3 Site photos
Figure 66: Site photos of the Manyane wetland system area

The primary objective is to rehabilitate the gully in order to protect biodiversity and stop
sediments from moving down the system.

Table 25 provides information on the intervention identified for the Manyane wetland. The
(highest number) across the whole project should be omitted first. Also refer to Figure 67
which provides the location of the intervention.
thereof.

132

Priority
A22F-06-201-00 Earth Works 1 33 R 22 856.63
Total R 22 856.63


133

134
Intervention Description Earth Works and rock packing
Rehabilitation Objective To prevent headcut migration and aggravated

sediment release into watercourse.

Earth Works m³ 24.75 R 367.50 R 9 095.63
Rock packs m³ 25.02 R 500.00 R 12 510.00
Extra heavy UV block shade
m2 25.02 R 50.00 R 1251.00
cloth
Total R 22 856.63

135

136
Appendix B and F.

11.9.1 Baseline M&E data



137

WFW - Rustenberg Rehab Plan - 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WFW - Rustenberg Rehab Plan - 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WFW - Rustenberg Rehab Plan - 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report No: 109664/8822

REHABILITATION PLAN FOR THE WORKING FOR WETLANDS

WORKING FOR WETLANDS PROGRAMME

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE

Prepared by: Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Prepared for: Working for Wetlands Programme

This report is to be referred to in bibliographies as:

WORKING FOR WETLANDS: CONTEXT DOCUMENT

2. Wetlands and their importance

The National Water Act, No. 36 of 1998 defines a wetland as:

The Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as:

4. The Working for Wetlands Programme

Other activities that form part of the WfWetlands Programme include:

Typical activities undertaken within the projects include:

Increased labour requirement for the Working for Wetlands Programme

6. Programme, projects and phases

Rehabilitation work within floodplain systems

Memorandum of Understanding for Working for Wetlands Programme

processing of applications for authorisation of wetland rehabilitation activities.

Table A: List of applicable legislation

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

WORKING FOR WETLANDS: CONTEXT DOCUMENT ........................................................................ I

I. CONTEXT OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REHABILITATION PLAN ............. VIII

1.1 W ORKING FOR W ETLANDS PROGRAMME OVERVIEW ..................................................................... 1

2.1 LANDOWNER CONSENT............................................................................................................... 1

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

8.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................... 95

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

10.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................. 121

11.1 W ETLAND DETAILS ................................................................................................................. 131

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

TABLE 1: NORTH W EST W ETLAND PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 4

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Approach to the NEMA Environmental Process

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Details of the applicant: SANBI

Details of the Provincial Coordinator: SANBI

Details of the EAP: Aurecon

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

BAR Basic Assessment Report

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

Refer to Appendix G (E-copy of

PROVINCIAL STAKEHOLDERS & I&APs

Refer to Appendix H (E-mail

Refer to Appendix E (E-copy of

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

1.1 Working for Wetlands programme overview

The vision of the WfWetlands Programme is to facilitate the protection, conservation,

1.1.1 Programme, projects and phases

Wetland Rehabilitation Plan April 2014

 Plugging artificial drainage channels created by development or historical agricultural

1.1.3 Intervention options