GROOT DRAKENSTEIN SEWER BASIC ASSESSMENTprojects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/projects/201206 GrootDrak/APP...

GROOT DRAKENSTEIN SEWER BASIC ASSESSMENT

SPECIALIST REPORT: AQUATIC STUDY

PREPARED BY:

Earl Herdien Pr.Nat.Sci. (Reg No. 400211/11) Senior Environmental Consultant (Water)

SSI – Engineering and Environmental Consultants

Tel: +27 (0) 21 9367600 Fax: +27 (0) 21 9367606

Tel (Direct): +27 (0) 21 9367692 Mobile: +27 (0) 73 019 4824

Email: [email protected] www.ssi-dhv.com

J31020 January 2012

http://www.ssi-dhv.com/

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I, __________________________________ as duly authorised representative of

________________________________ [reference to specialist’s employer], hereby confirm my

independence (as well as that of _______________________ [reference to specialist’s employer]) as a

specialist and declare that neither I nor _____________________ [reference to specialist’s employer]

have any interest, be it business, financial, personal or other, in any proposed activity, application or

appeal in respect of which Arcus GIBB was appointed as environmental assessment practitioner in terms

of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), other than fair

remuneration for worked performed, specifically in connection with the Environmental Impact

Assessment for the proposed [insert project name]. I further declare that I am confident in the results of

the studies undertaken and conclusions drawn as a result of it – as is described in my attached report.

Signature: ______________________________

Full Name:

Date:

Title / Position:

Qualification(s):

Experience (years/ months):

Registration(s):

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Cape Winelands District Municipality has commissioned the Water Specialist Environmental

Consulting Service of SSI Engineering and Environmental Consulting to undertake an Aquatic

Ecological Study for the proposed Groot Drakenstein Bulk Sewer Pipeline.

The proposed development site investigated was in a predominantly good water quality state;

with a moderately transformed state for habitat integrity; and in a poor state for riparian

vegetation. In terms of the sampling site’s ecological importance and sensitivity it was assessed

as being high and classed as a D-class in respect to its overall ecostatus ecological management

category.

The impact of the proposed development is expected to be limited to the river crossing and can

be mitigated against. The following measures are recommended to mitigate likely impacts of the

pipeline construction:

No construction vehicles should be allowed within 15m of the berg river water edge,

except for those authorised to undertake activities applied for under section 21 c & i of

the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) and/or within the context of an endorsed Water-

Use License. Limited disturbance should be allowed within this buffer zone and as far as

possible the disturbed areas should be rehabilitated with vegetation characteristic of the

area’s biodiversity.

Where the pipeline route crosses the drainage lines, there should be minimal use of

machinery and disturbance within these areas should be kept to a minimum.

The rehabilitation and re‐vegetation of disturbed areas must take place during or

immediately after construction is complete. Only appropriate indigenous riparian

vegetation may be used for rehabilitation and re‐vegetation within the disturbed area.

Clearing or felling of all alien invasive trees should take place along the pipeline route.

Colonisation by alien invasive vegetation must be removed as soon as noted.

Clearing of debris and hard rubble associated with the construction activities should be

undertaken on completion of the pipeline construction activity.

Stormwater associated with the construction activities must be prevented from entering

the river as far as possible.

Other activities that may lead to elevated levels of turbidity must be minimised.

Contaminated run‐off from the construction site should be prevented from entering the

wetland areas and drainage systems. If possible construction activities should take place

during the low rainfall months when run off volumes will also be low.

Pipeline installation must not significantly obstruct the natural movement of water through

the surrounding landscapes’ soil profile (can result in localised damming and formation of

wet areas or ponds).

In conclusion, largely localised water quality impairment, flow modification and bed modification

associated impacts are likely to occur with the proposed construction phase. The maintenance

phase period of the proposed development only identifies impacts related to the physical damage

of the pipeline and associated impacts related to extreme events. The potential impacts identified

can be mitigated with the sound implementation of management measures and a compliance

audited environmental management programme.

PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL STUDY - PROPOSED GROOT DRAKENSTEIN BULK SEWER PIPELINE January 2012

BASIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED GROOT DRAKENSTEIN SEWER

CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

1 INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 Background 3

1.2 Legislative and Policy Context 4 1.2.1 NEMA and Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 4 1.2.2 National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) 4

1.3 Development Alternatives 5

1.4 Assessment Methodology 8 1.4.1 Approach 8

(a) Study Area Review: 8 (b) Ground-truth Studies: 8 (c) Study Analysis: 8

1.4.2 Assumptions and limitations of the Study 8 1.4.3 Use of the Report 9

2 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (STUDY REVIEW) 10

2.1 Visual characteristics, climate, ecology and land uses 10

2.2 Freshwater Assessment of the Berg River 14 2.2.1 Water Quality/Macroinvertebrates 16 2.2.2 Index of Habitat Integrity 17 2.2.3 Riparian Vegetation Index 19 2.2.4 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) 21 2.2.5 Overall Ecostatus and Recommended Ecological Management Category 22

3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 23

3.1 Potential Impacts 26 3.1.1 Construction and Operational Phases 26

3.2 Mitigation Measures 31 3.2.1 Construction 31 3.2.2 Operation 32

4 REFERENCES 33


APPENDICES Appendix 1: Aquatics Study Field Survey

ABBREVIATIONS

BA Basic Assessment DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DWA Department of Water Affairs PPP Public Participation Process WULA Water Use License Application EMProg Environmental Management Program RHP River Health Programme SASS5 South African Scoring System version 5 IHAS Index of Habitat Assessment RVI River Vegetation Index IHI Index of Habitat Integrity EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Cape Winelands District Municipality has commissioned the Water Specialist Environmental

Consulting Service of SSI Engineering and Environmental Consulting to undertake an Aquatic

Ecological Study for the proposed Groot Drakenstein Bulk Sewer Pipeline. As a result, an ecological

assessment has been undertaken to determine the current status of significant aquatic resources

potentially impacted by the proposed construction of a bulk sewer pipeline crossing and running-

along the Berg River, within the Groot Drakenstein area. In addition, potential construction impacts

and recommendations for undertaking the proposed development in compliance with relevant

environmental regulations are identified, assessed and discussed. The focus of the study aims to

provide a reference in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (1998), Environmental

Impact Assessment Regulations (2006 and 2010) and National Water Act (1998) Section 21

development considerations for water resource land-use and potential development impacts

associated with the construction and these regulations. The findings in this report will provide a

reference for input into the Basic Assessment (BA) of Arcus Gibb Engineering and Science as well as

the Information Questionnaire reference to the processing of the Water Use Licence Applications

(WULA) of Aurecon.

Figure 1: Earth Google image of the proposed development area (red line indicates the proposed development route).


Task: Freshwater assessment and identification of impacts from the proposed development and the

provision of recommended mitigation measures

Conduct an assessment based on existing information for the area and contextualise

according to the focus of the proposed developments study.

Conduct a freshwater assessment, which includes mapping and descriptions of the

freshwater features in the proposed development footprint, GIS sensitivity analysis and

current state of the freshwater/wetland features within and related to the development

footprint.

Evaluate the proposed development activities for the various alternatives, the potential

impacts, and propose mitigation measures for the proposed development.

Write up findings and recommendations for the WULA submission to the relevant

authorities.

Write up findings and recommendations for the BA submission to the relevant authorities.

1.2 Legislative and Policy Context

This development aims to be in alignment with the guidelines and principals of the National Spatial

Development Perspective, the Development Facilitation Act, the Water Services Act, the Berg River

Internal Strategic Perspective, the National Water Act and the National Environmental Management

Acts, amongst others.

1.2.1 NEMA and Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

In terms of undertaking an EIA process and in terms of compliance with NEMA, the proposed

development does involve ‘listed activities’, as defined by NEMA (Listed activities are activities, which

may have potentially detrimental impacts on the environment and therefore require environmental

authorisation from the relevant authorising body) as the proposed development construction activity

does falls within 32 meters of the Berg River margin.

1.2.2 National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998)

The National Water Act guides the management of water in South Africa. The Act aims to regulate

the use of water and activities that may impact on water resources through the categorisation of

‘listed water uses’ encompassing water extraction and flow attenuation within catchments as well as

the potential contamination of water resources, where the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) is the

administering body in this regard.

In terms of the definitions provided from these regulations, activities included under Sections 21(c)

and 21(i) are (amongst others) the construction of roads, bridges, culverts and structures for slope

stabilisation and erosion protection. Infilling of floodplains is also considered by DWAF to be a

Section 21(i) activity. The Berg River "bed", "banks" and "watercourse" will be impacted with the

construction of the proposed pipeline. Listed activities require the approval of DWAF in the form of a


Water Use Licence application. The proposed pipeline development will require a Section 21 (c) & (i)

Water Use Authorisation.

Section 22(3) of the National Water Act allows for a responsible authority (DWA) to dispense with the

requirement for a Water Use Licence if it is satisfied that the purpose of the Act will be met by the

granting of a license, permit or authorisation under any other law. This provision is rarely used but

should be discussed with DWA and provincial environmental officials (in a pre-application phase) to

ascertain whether compliance is necessitated, as the proposed development does fall within the

1:50yr or 1:100 floodlines.

1.3 Development Alternatives

The proposed development consists of bulk sewer pipeline infrastructure (approximately 5km of

‘heavy duty uPVC gravity sewer mains, approximately 600m of rising mains and related sewage

pumps), connecting the Pearl Valley Treatment Works with the wastewater from Portion 1 of Farm

1006 Meerlust. It has been identified as part of the proposed developments BA application that the

pipeline route will cross the Berg River main stream found within the project footprint.

Development alternatives are limited to pipeline installation: using a gravity fed system (preferred

alternative) or pressure pump system.

Excavations:

Most excavations will be done by machine, except in areas where hand excavations will be required.

One reason for hand excavations is restricted access for machinery.

Excavation material stockpiling:

Pipeline trench excavation will take place in accordance with specifications as per SABS 1200. All

working activities will be confined to the registered servitude area, with the exception being the

alternative agreement reached with the relevant property owner.

Stockpiling of excavated material will be restricted to the registered servitude area. To assist with

ensuring that stockpiling will be contained to the registered servitude area, the following actions are

proposed:

Contractor to submit programme to Engineer prior to construction, indicating length of trench

excavation segments and stockpiling areas.

Over-excavation to be limited to avoid unnecessary stockpiling of material. This will be

monitored by the Engineer on a continuous basis. In areas where stockpiling next to the


trench excavation in the registered servitude area is not possible due to restrictions on the

properties, an agreement will be reached with the relevant property owner regarding a suitable

area for stockpiling on the property.

Site access:

Access to the site will take place via existing roads.

Spoil site:

Unsuitable material from excavations (rocks, etc) will be disposed of at an approved landfill site. The

Contractor may make alternative arrangements, but it will have to be approved by the Engineer,

property owner as well as the ECO on the project.

River crossing:

There are different options with regard to the river-crossing for the pipeline:

Option 1 (shallow excavation option): A rising main will be installed up-stream of the existing

causeway with suitable gabions/rheno mattress protection. The proposed pipeline will be anchored to

the side of the causeway in a suitable fashion.

Option 2 (deep excavation option): The proposed pipeline will be installed in a trench next to the

causeway and protected with suitable gabions/rheno mattress elements.

Option 3 (pipe jacking): The proposed pipeline will be jacked underneath/across the riverbed. Pipe

jacking in areas where "spoelklippe" are present, as is the case of the river at the proposed site, will be

difficult to implement. Pipe jacking or drilling works best if the material is more or less homogeneous.

Option 4 (Steel pipe bridge): Pipeline to cross the river via a newly constructed steel pipe bridge

above the 50 year flood level of the river. This option is normally not taken, due to the visual aspects

of the steel structure.


Figure 2: The proposed development layout plan (proposed pipeline in green


1.4 Assessment Methodology

The methodology employed to determine the ecological reference conditions for the aquatic features

(Berg River) found within the proposed development footprint is the standard DWA accepted

ecological techniques and followed a project review, ground-truth studies, study analysis and EIA

contexualisation approach.

1.4.1 Approach

(a) Study Area Review:

A desktop review of the study area was undertaken to describe and provide a reference

for broad ecological habitats, veld types, endangered species, ecological sensitivity,

biodiversity patterns, connectivity, habitat and species priority listings (threatened and

vulnerable ecosystems) as well as broad catchment classification (streams and wetlands

within the catchment).

(b) Ground-truth Studies:

Vegetation descriptions and a wetland delineation map were undertaken according to the

Department of Water Affairs standard wetlands delineation guideline (DWA 2005).

River Health Assessments were undertaken according to the Department of Water Affairs

Standard River Health Indices assessment techniques for (DWA 1999):

o SASS5 (macro-invertebrate assessment from water quality study)

o IHAS (in-stream habitat assessment from water quality study)

o VEGRAII (riparian vegetation assessment)

o IHI (overall habitat integrity assessment)

o EIS (ecological importance and sensitivity assessment)

(c) Study Analysis:

Analysis of data collected was undertaken post field assessment and contextualised for

EIA input for construction and operational phases.

Findings and recommendations for Environmental Management Plans were also

contexualised.

1.4.2 Assumptions and limitations of the Study

Limitations and uncertainties often exist within the various techniques adopted to assess the

condition of ecosystems. The following limitations apply to the techniques and methodology

utilized to undertake this study:

Analysis of the freshwater ecosystems was undertaken according to nationally developed

methodologies as defined by Department of Water Affairs (DWA) as part of the national

River Health Programme (RHP) and will be undertaken at a rapid level (in field).


Recommendations are made based on the river's functioning and site characteristics.

These recommendations are based on professional opinion as RHP developed

technologies are based on a qualitative assessment.

Seasonality and site condition may not always be favourable for undertaking the RHP

assessments and will result in assessments being descriptive and informative.

1.4.3 Use of the Report

This report reflects the professional judgment of its author. The full and unedited content of

this should be presented to the client. Any summary of these findings should only be

produced in consultation with the author.


2 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (STUDY REVIEW)

2.1 Visual characteristics, climate, ecology and land uses

Visual

Situated on a valley within close proximity to the Paarlberg Reserve, the natural topography of the

site is flat, sloping gently towards the Berg River. The landscape is scattered with renosterveld and

fynbos vegetation amidst established stands of alien tree species and problematic weeds. Overall,

the Drakenstein Municipal area is classified as 60.9%1 no longer containing natural habitat. This is

mostly due to the fact that the area is largely used for agricultural purposes.

Figure 3: Ecological Importance and Sensitivity map of the Study Area (SANBI BGIS 2011)

1 SANBI, Landuse Decision Support (LUDS) Tool: Drakenstein Municipality Biodiversity Summary

(http://bgis.sanbi.org/municipalities/show-muni-summaries.asp?muni=WC023)


Climate

From a climate perspective, Paarl receives on average about 657mm of rain per year and because

it receives most of its rainfall during winter it has a Mediterranean climate. The graph below (left)

shows the average monthly rainfall values for Paarl. The lowest rainfall (9mm) occurs in February

and the highest (121mm) in June. The average midday temperatures for Paarl range from 16.4°C

in July to 28.2°C in February.

Figure 4: Average rainfall (left) and temperature (right) graphs for the Paarl area (SA Explorer 2011)

Geology

The geology can be described as quaternary alluvium derived from a mix of the Table Mountain

sandstones and Cape Granite in the wetter vicinities of the site; and Quartzite over Cape Granite in

the larger extent of the site and landscape. There is a considerable depth of alluvial material that is

sandy and clay organics, overlying basement bedrock of Granite. The soil profile can be estimated

to lie between 0.8 m and 2 m deep with very few rocks and stones in the upper half (predominantly

clay with sandy organics on the surface horizon). Soil forming is dominated by the accumulation of

the organic material as a result of high water levels over the winter periods (possibly perched) and

vegetation erosion.

Ecology

After overlaying SANBI’s Western Cape Ecostatus GIS layer, the study footprint falls within the

Swartland Aluvium Fynbos which is classed as endangered and the study area falls within the

Boland Granite Fynbos which has an endangered class. The development site is in proximity to the

Paarlberg Nature Reserve of the Drakenstein Mountains and is occupied by a fynbos biome

covering 153764.6ha and 15 vegetation types (SANBI). The veld type is classified as critically

endangered (17767.7ha or 11.6%) and vulnerable (134.6ha or 0%) vegetation (See Figure 3:

Vegetation of the Drakenstein Municipal area1). However, the proposed pipeline lies predominantly

across the region which is classified as ‘area where no natural habitat is remaining’, apart from the

river and small pockets of habitat which are categorised as critically endangered. Therefore, this

site displays varying degrees of disturbance including cultivation, invasive alien species, and


urbanisation. Consequently, this region has a moderate to high degree of vegetation

transformation.

Land-use

The land use practice in the foothill reaches of the Berg River, east of the N1 highway is

predominantly agricultural. Downstream of the N1 highway, the river has been significantly modified

by the peri-urban activities around Paarl, which consist of industrial sites and farming in the Berg

River channel.


Figure 5: Vegetation of the Drakenstein Municipal area1


2.2 Freshwater Assessment of the Berg River

The Study site was comprised of cultivated orchards and vineyards situated at the proposed Berg

River crossing point.

Table 1. Physical conditions of the Berg River at the sampling point

Geomorphological zone Foothill

Lateral mobility or entrenchment Confined

Channel form Simple channel

Channel pattern Single thread: medium sinuosity

Channel type cobble bed channel with some boulders

Dominant biotopes Run with shallow pools and riffles

Hydrological Type Permanent

Associated systems Floodplain

Figure 6. Location of the water crossing sampling site on the Berg River (Google Earth, 2011)


Figure 7.Upstream View of the proposed upper sewer line crossing

Figure 8. View of the proposed sewer line crossing area (at present an artificial concrete bedrock

crossing point exists at this point).

Figure 9. Downstream view of the proposed upper sewer line crossing


2.2.1 Water Quality/Macroinvertebrates

The South African Scoring System Version 5 (SASS5) was used to estimate the stream’s water quality

and aspects of its ecology, as the aquatic macro-invertebrate community contributes as a vital

component to riverine ecosystems (recycling the energy budget, etc.). In addition to contributing to

the biodiversity of the river, it also plays a role in the functioning of the river (food webs, water clarity,

etc.). Due to the differing sensitivities of the organisms (some tolerant, others sensitive), the

composition of the communities present can be used as an indicator to estimate of the water quality

and general river health at the sampling sites.

The results from the SASS5 survey (Appendix), would probably equate to a category C/B (largely

good to moderately modified – see Appendix, since flow is controlled by the Berg River Scheme just

upstream in Franschoek). This classification of the state of the river based on macroinvertebrates is

based on SASS data interpretation guidelines that were generated based on available SASS data that

was grouped into ecoregions and geomorphological zones. The spread of available data within the

ecoregions indicated a range of degree of impairment and allowed for the development of biological

bands that are linked to the river health categories (Figure 10).

Table 2. Results of SASS5 assessment on the Berg River ASPT = Average Score per Taxa

Site Date Total SASS Score

No. of taxa ASPT River Health

Category

Berg River September 2011 94 17 5.5 C/B

The macroinvertebrate sample from the Berg River consisted of moderate abundances of

macroinvertebrate families (see appendices) which are of a moderate sensitivity and prefer flowing

conditions. The site sampled at the upper section of the river is still largely natural, with a good

availability of suitable habitat and water quality.

Figure 10. Data interpretation guidelines for the South Western Coastal Belt – Upper zone, calculated

using percentiles for existing SASS5 data on rivers that are in the same eco-region (Dallas 2007)


2.2.2 Index of Habitat Integrity The evaluation of Habitat Integrity (HI) provides a measure of the degree to which a river has been

modified from its natural state. The methodology (DWAF, 1999) involves a qualitative assessment of the

number and severity of anthropogenic perturbations on a river and the damage they potentially inflict

upon the system. These disturbances include both abiotic and biotic factors, which are regarded as the

primary causes of degradation of a river. The severity of each impact is ranked using a six-point scale

with 0 (no impact), 1 to 5 (small impact), 6 to 10 (moderate impact), 11 to 15 (large impact), 16 to 20

(serious impact) and 21 to 25 (critical impact).

The Habitat Integrity Assessment is based on assessment of the impacts of two components of the river,

the riparian zone and the instream habitat. Assessments are made separately for both components, but

data for the riparian zone are interpreted primarily in terms of the potential impact on the instream

component. The estimated impact of each criterion is calculated as follows:

Rating for the criterion/maximum value (25) x weight (percent)

The estimated impacts of all criteria calculated in this way are summed, expressed as a percentage

and subtracted from 100 to arrive at an assessment of habitat integrity for the instream and riparian

components respectively. The total scores for the instream and riparian zone components are then

used to place the habitat integrity of both in a specific habitat category (Table 3).

Table 3. Habitat Integrity categories (From DWAF, 1999)

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION SCORE (% OF

TOTAL)

A Unmodified, natural. 90-100

B Largely natural with few modifications. A small change in natural habitats and biota may have taken place but the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged.

80-90

C Moderately modified. A loss and change of natural habitat and biota have occurred but the basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged.

60-79

D Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions has occurred.

40-59

E The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions is extensive.

20-39

F

Modifications have reached a critical level and the lotic system has been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In worst instances, basic ecosystem functions have been destroyed and changes are irreversible.

0


Table 4. Index of Habitat Integrity Assessment results and criteria assessed at the sites

INSTREAM HABITAT INTEGRITY

Berg River Comment

Water Abstraction (Impact 1 - 25) 10

Run-of-river abstraction in upstream catchment

Flow Modification ( (Impact 1 - 25) 12

Upstream instream dam and off channel dams reduce medium to low flows and irrigation releases

Bed Modification (Impact 1 - 25) 10 Siltation

Channel Modification (Impact 1 - 25)

9 Some alteration of banks for flood protection (channel straitening)

Water Quality (Impact 1 - 25) 12

Adjacent farming impacts, septic tanks and interbasin transfer

Inundation (Impact 1 - 25) 5

Some inundation as a result of bed modifications

Exotic Macrophytes (Impact 1 - 25)

4 Few

Exotic Fauna (Impact 1 - 25) 5 trout

Rubbish Dumping (Impact 1 - 25) 8 Some littering

Instream Habitat Integrity Score 64.6

Integrity Class C

RIPARIAN ZONE HABITAT INTEGRITY

Vegetation Removal (Impact 1 - 25)

7 Some vegetation removal due to farming activities on banks

Exotic Vegetation (Impact 1 - 25) 11

Limited alien plant invasion due to farming disturbances

Bank Erosion (Impact 1 - 25) 6

Bank erosion due to removal of indigenous vegetation

Channel Modification (Impact 1 - 25)

9 Some bank modification and stabilisation by farming activities

Water Abstraction (Impact 1 - 25) 12 See comment above

Inundation (Impact 1 - 25) 5 See comment above

Flow Modification (Impact 1 - 25) 14 See comment above

Water Quality (Impact 1 - 25) 12 See comment above

Riparian Zone Habitat Integrity Score

61.48

Integrity Class C

From cross referencing the IHI with available literature, the IHI results have been adapted to provide a

higher confidence assessment from the initial field assessment. As a result, the instream as well as

riparian habitat integrity of the Berg River at the development area was calculated to be classed in a

moderately modified state. The impacts on the habitat are largely as a result of surrounding farming

activities, as well as the Berg River Dam in the upper reaches of the river. The urban are of

Franschoek has also significantly degraded the river in its foothill reaches.


2.2.3 Riparian Vegetation Index

Riparian zones, as well as the impact assessment of riparian zones, rely exceedingly on the

interpretation of characteristic riparian vegetation: its function to stream condition and bank structure.

Considerations made in making this assessment encourage the rating of bank zonation, riparian

vegetation cover (in particular indicator and canopy species), riparian vegetation abundance, riparian

vegetation recruitment rates, the population structure of the riparian zone captured and the species

alpha and beta diversity. In turn, the facets that drives riparian zone ecology, is assessed with a

perceived reference state. This reference state is usually a pristine benchmark or one that has the

least heterogeneous factors impacting on its natural functionality (DWAF 2007). However, the purpose

of this assessment will not be to determine the impacts on the riparian zone to the reference state, but

to provide some suggestions on the degree of change the existing land-uses have placed on this

already impacted river segment.

The data collected in the field was analysed using the RVI method and the results are tabulated and

discussed from the set of Tables below (described as Sections A to D):

RVI = [(EVC)+((SI x PCIRS)+(RIRS))]

RVI = [(5)+((0.25(4x0.3(1x0.7))+(1)))]

RVI = 6.84 E –Poor

The major impacts found in this assessment are: the removal of riparian vegetation (previous

cultivation practice); the invasion of exotic trees and weeds over the site; flow modification (channel

straightening, abstraction and storage impacts) and over-abstraction practice (farm-dams and

irrigation). This can be discussed via referring to the conditions of the respective riparian zones in the

context of the degree of change from the riparian reference state:

Marginal Zone:

The riparian marginal zone was not comprised of any true riparian indigenous vegetation. Alien weedy

grasses –Spanish reed (Arundo donax), common grass (Cynodon dicotylon) and kikuyu grass species

(Pennisetum cladestinum and P. Seraceum) – were the only vegetation found in this zone besides the

alien weeping willow (Salix babylonica), black wattle (Acacia Mearnsii), castor oil (Ricinis communis)

and poplars (Populus spp.) amongst others.

Lower Zone/ Wetbank:

The lower zone was characterised by homogenous stands of alien tree species black wattle

(A.mearnsii), buckweed (Solanum elaeagnifolium), blue-gums, oaks and pines. A complete lack of

adequate riparian shrubs and tree species was evident.

Upper Zone/Dry bank:

The primary feature of this zone is weedy grasses species in the midst of mix cultivated orchards and

vineyards.


Table 5. Intermediate River Vegetation Index categories (from Kemper, 2001)

RVI Score

Assessment class

Description

19-20 A Unmodified, natural.

17-18 B Largely natural with few modifications. A small change in natural habitats and biota may have taken place, but the ecosystem functions remain unchanged.

13-16 C Modified. A loss and change of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions have occurred.

9-12 D Largely modified. A moderate to large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions have occurred.

5-8 E The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions are extensive.

0-4 F

Modifications have reached a critical level and the system has been modified completely with complete loss of habitat and biota. In the worst instances, the basic ecosystem functions have been destroyed to the extent that changes are irreversible.

Ecological status: The ecological status of the site was analysed as Class E, RVI = 6.84 E –Poor

which indicates a large to extensively modified riparian zone state often associated with multiple

disturbances coming into the system. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem

functions has occurred. This is primarily due to the impacts of land-use pressures over time onto the

system as well as the associated stream modification practice. This stream has lost most of its natural

ecological services it provides from the riparian zone’s perspective, but still has moderately good

instream habitat and some over-stabilisation of banks by large alien tree representation.

Table 6. The river health categories

Category Ecological Perspective Management Perspective

Natural (N) No or negligible modification Relatively little human impact

Good (G) Biodiversity and integrity largely intact Some human-related disturbance but ecosystems essentially in a good state

Fair (F) Sensitive species may be lost, with tolerant or opportunistic species dominating

Multiple disturbances associated with the need for socio-economic development

Poor (P) Mostly tolerant species; alien invasion,

disrupted population dynamics; species are

often diseased

High human densities or extensive resource

exploitation


2.2.4 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS)

EIS considers a number of biotic and habitat determinants surmised to indicate either importance or

sensitivity. The determinants are rated according to a four-point scale. The median of the resultant

score is calculated to derive the EIS category.

Table 7. Definition of the four-point scale used to assess biotic and habitat determinants presumed to

indicate either importance or sensitivity

Four point scale

Definition

1 One species/taxon judged as rare or endangered at a local scale.

2 More than one species/taxon judged to be rare or endangered on a local scale.

3 One or more species/taxon judged to be rare or endangered on a Provincial/regional scale.

4 One or more species/taxon judged as rare or endangered on a National scale (i.e. SA Red Data Books)

Table 8. Ecological importance and sensitivity categories (DWAF, 1999)

EISC General description Range

of median

Very high Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a national and international level based on unique biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) are usually very sensitive to flow modifications and have no or only a small capacity for use.

>3-4

High Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a national scale based on their biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) may be sensitive to flow modifications but in some cases may have substantial capacity for use.

>2- 3

Moderate Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a provincial or local scale due to biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) are not usually very sensitive to flow modifications and often have substantial capacity for use.

>1- 2

Low/ marginal

Quaternaries/delineations that are not unique on any scale. These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) are generally not very sensitive to flow modifications and usually have substantial capacity for use.

1

Table 9. Results of the EIS assessment for the Berg River at the assessed site

BIOTIC DETERMINANTS Score

Rare and endangered biota 1.5

Unique biota 1.5

Intolerant biota 2

Species/taxon richness 1.5

Aquatic Habitat Determinants

Diversity of aquatic habitat types or features 2

Refuge value of habitat type 2

Sensitivity of habitat to flow changes 2

Sensitivity of flow related water quality changes 2.5

Migration route/corridor for instream and riparian biota 3

Nature Reserves, Natural Heritage sites, Natural areas, PNEs 2

RATINGS 2.0

EIS CATEGORY Moderate to high


2.2.5 Overall Eco-status and Recommended Ecological Management Category

The overall eco-status of the reach in this assessment degrades from a C or moderately modified state

to a largely modified state (D category) and has a moderate to high ecological importance and

sensitivity.

Table 10. Overall Eco-status scores for the Berg River at the sites assessed (score between

0=critically modified and 5=natural/unmodified)

River Reach Sampling

point

Bed modification 3

Flow modification 2.0

Introduced instream biota 3.5

Inundation 3.0

Riparian/ bank condition 2.5

Water quality modification 2.0

Habitat Integrity 2.7

Fish integrity 3.5

Invertebrate 2.5

Instream biotic integrity 3.0

INSTREAM HEALTH 2.8

Rip Veg Integrity 2.0

RIP ZONE INT 2.3

RIVER HEALTH SCORE 52

ECOLOGICAL CATEGORY

D


3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

The objective of the assessment of impacts is to assess all the significant impacts that may

arise as a result of the proposed sewer development. Additional impacts may be identified

through the PPP to be incorporated as interested and affected party concerns.

ARCUS GIBB (PTY) Ltd. Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) managing the

processing of the environmental authorisations for the proposed development’s scope, has

provided the following criteria to assess environmental impacts. This assessment criteria is

inline with best practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the National

Environmental Management Act’s 2010 EIA Regulations.

For each of the two main project phases (construction and operation), the existing and

potential future impacts and benefits (associated only with the proposed development) should

be contexualised using the following criteria table.

Table 11. In line with the 2010 EIA Regulations, specialists are required to describe and

assess the potential impacts in terms of the following criteria:

Criteria Rating Scales Notes

Nature

Positive This is an evaluation of the type of effect the

construction, operation and management of the

proposed development would have on the

affected environment

Negative

Neutral

Extent

Low Site-specific, affects only the development

footprint

Medium Local (limited to the site and its immediate

surroundings, including the surrounding towns

and settlements within a 10 km radius)

High Regional (beyond a 10 km radius) to national

Duration

Low 0-3 years

Medium 4-8 years (i.e. full duration of construction

phase)

High More than 9 years to permanent

Intensity

Low Where the impact affects the environment in

such a way that natural, cultural and social

functions and processes are minimally affected

Medium

Where the affected environment is altered but

natural, cultural and social functions and

processes continue albeit in a modified way; and

valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable

systems or communities are negatively affected



High

Where natural, cultural or social functions and

processes are altered to the extent that the

impact will temporarily or permanently cease;

and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable

systems or communities are substantially

affected.

Potential for

impact on

irreplaceable

resources

Low No irreplaceable resources will be impacted.

Medium Resources that will be impacted can be

replaced, with effort.

High There is no potential for replacing a particular

vulnerable resource that will be impacted.

Consequence

(a combination

of extent,

duration,

intensity and the

potential for

impact on

irreplaceable

resources).

Low

A combination of any of the following

Intensity, duration, extent and impact on

irreplaceable resources are all rated low

Intensity, duration and extent are rated low

but impact on irreplaceable resources is

rated medium to high

Intensity is low and up to two of the other

criteria are rated medium

Intensity is medium and all three other

criteria are rated low

Medium

Intensity is medium and one other

criteria is rated high, with the

remainder being rated low

Intensity is low and at least two

other criteria are rated medium or

higher

Intensity is rated medium and at

least two of the other criteria are

rated medium or higher

Intensity is high and at least two

other criteria are medium or higher

Intensity is rated low, but

irreplaceability and duration are

rated high

High

Intensity and impact on

irreplaceable resources are rated

high, with any combination of

extent and duration

Intensity is rated high, with all of

the other criteria being rated

medium or higher

Probability (the

likelihood of the

impact

occurring)

Low It is highly unlikely or less than 50 % likely that

an impact will occur.

Medium It is between 50 and 70 % certain that the

impact will occur.

High It is more than 75 % certain that the impact will

occur or it is definite that the impact will occur.



Significance

(all impacts

including

potential

cumulative

impacts)

Low

Low consequence and low

probability

Low consequence and medium

probability

Low consequence and high

probability

Low to medium

Low consequence and high

probability

Medium consequence and low

probability

Medium

Medium consequence and low

probability

Medium consequence and

medium probability

Medium consequence and high

probability

High consequence and low

probability

Medium to high High consequence and medium

probability

High High consequence and high

probability

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS – Type 1 (different types of impact on one receptor) and Type 2

(different developments on one type of receptor (e.g. ecology).


3.1 Potential Impacts

3.1.1 Construction Phase

Impact - water quality impairment:

In a direct sense, water quality impacts by construction equipment, vehicles and material will

be a likely water quality impairment point source. From an indirect and non-point source,

runoff of building materials (e.g. cement) into the river during construction of the

pipeline/bridge is also possible.

Significance of impacts without mitigation:

A medium negative impact is expected, as impacts are localised and will be absorbed in the

run of the river, depending on the scale of impairment.

Proposed mitigation:

The water quality impacts during the construction phase in particular should be addressed

through the compliance of an Environmental Management Plan/Programme, implementation

of which is monitored by an on‐site Environmental Officer. Runoff from the construction site

should be prevented from directly entering the Berg River as far as possible by implementing

features such as the use of silt/sand traps and other measures. Construction should also

preferably take place during the drier months when run off is low.

A buffer refers to a riparian area adjacent to the water body that comprises of natural or near-

natural vegetation, designed to protect aquatic and riparian areas from the impacts associated

with various human activities. Buffers serve to reduce the levels of sediment and pollutants

from directly entering the rivers and wetlands. A buffer zone should therefore be adopted to

protect aquatic habitats from the impacts associated with any development.

Significance of impacts after mitigation:

Provided that the mitigation measures are effectively implemented, the water quality-related

impacts of the proposed development should be limited.

Impact - flow modification:

Infilling and compacting of soil layers covering the pipeline is likely to alter the sub‐surface

flow from the terrestrial surroundings to the river as well as the flow through the channel banks. This may cause the river flow to increase or be impeded. Nevertheless, the erosion potential of the river will be compromised and is likely to cause erosion at the point of infilling or downstream of such point. However, this is seen as a small surface area impact as well as only short term.


Low to Medium impact – this is due to the large size of the river and current homogenous

state of the river during this reach as a result of flow regulation by the Berg River Dam.


Due to the small section of the river being impacted by flow modification, some channel

straightening should be undertaken in the section, so as to not cause any erosion potential at

the development points within the banks or channel bed. If significant straightening of the


channel is considered, the past flow velocity, volume and variability data would have to be

assessed so as to mimic and maintain as natural a flow regime post construction.


Low impact if the anti-erosion structures function properly.

Impact - loss of riparian habitat and bed/bank modification:

The loss of instream and riparian habitat and modification to the bed or banks of the stream, at

the proposed site and immediately downstream is highly likely.


Localised moderate to high impact – loss of aquatic habitat integrity and bed/bank modification

could be expected. This impact is expected to be small due to the already degraded state of

the river along the lower sections on the site (high alien vegetation presence and past

bank/bed modification practise). In addition, the disturbance of aquatic habitat during and after

the construction activities will provide an opportunity for invasive alien plants to establish

within the riparian zone. Furthermore, exposed banks can lead to channel being eroded and is

an undesirable impact that needs to be closely monitored.


During the construction phase of the project, the impact on the riparian zone of the river

system should be kept to a minimum, particularly in the channel margins and wetbanks.

Impacted areas should be re-vegetated as soon as incurred. No significant soil embankments

must become exposed for long periods as a result of run-of-river erosion potential and

potential freshets.

Any impacted areas within the riparian zone should be rehabilitated, specifically to re-vegetate

the area with suitable vegetation. It is desirable to maintain and re-establish a buffer strip of at

least 30m to protect the river from the impacts to the site. However, this should be addressed

in consultation with farming rights and farm management (as cultivation takes place in the

upper riparian zones).


Low to negligible impact –the impact could in fact have a positive impact for the riparian

vegetation which is already highly modified, should revegetation occur with representative

aquatic species.

Cumulative Impacts:

The cumulative impact is associated with upstream disturbances impacting on the proposed

site development and includes the regulated “new Berg River dam” as well as associated

surrounding agricultural and township land-uses. With effective implementation of the EMPr

and the recommended mitigation measures, the condition of the stream will be maintained at

an acceptable level. In the context of the proposed development’s potential impacts

cumulatively becoming realise, the effect would remain localised but will require rehabilitation

as soon as occurred.


3.1.2 Operational Phase

It is the findings of this investigation that the potential direct and indirect ecological related impacts for the operational phases of the proposed development will be largely related to construction structures accidental deterioration or maintenance mismanagement.

Impact - water quality impairment

Due to the nature of the development (sewer), the potential for leaks and damage to the

pipeline is largely unlikely, but will provide a high water quality impact should any sewer water

leak into the river directly or indirectly during the operations phase of the development.


Very high negative impact as direct sewer water should not be allowed to be discharged into a

river system without pre-treatment to an acceptable DWA water quality standard.


Routing maintenance checks on the pipeline must be performed to check for leaks as part of the proposed development adopted Environmental Management Programme. Any such leaks must be repaired immediately and be handled as a disaster management priority. As part of EMP general maintenance work, any pollutants or rubble should be removed from

the river during the dry season so as to reduce the likelihood of pollution within the river. The

restoration of a good riparian buffer on areas where vegetation has been cleared will also

restore the ability of the river to restore water quality levels where impacted.

The following design features of the pipeline will further mitigate the risks of the sewer pipeline

bursting or leaking:

The pipe will be made of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) with butt welded joints.

The pipe will be pressure tested upon completion of the installation to confirm the

integrity of the pipe’s strength/durability/leakage.

All other quality assurance criteria as specified by SANS 1200 will be adhered to.


Provided that the mitigation measures are effectively implemented, the water quality-related

impacts of the proposed development should be limited to an unlikely occurrence.

Cumulative Impacts:

The significance of cumulative impacts are not relevant to the operations phase.


Table 12. Significance of impacts during construction

Impact Nat

ure

Extent Duration Intensity Impact on Ir-

replaceable

Resources

Con-

sequence

Probability Significance

without

mitigation

Mitigation Measure

(further detailed in the

‘Mitigation Measures’

section below)

Significance

with

mitigation

Confidence

Water quality im-pairment

-

neg

Local Short-

term

Medium

to high

Low Medium High Medium Best construction practise

and EMP implementation

in construction

Low High

Flow modifica-tion

-

neg

Site Medium-

term

Medium

to high

Low Low High Medium Restore bank and bed

profiles

Low High

Loss of riparian habitat and bed/bank modifica-tion

-

neg

Local Medium-

term

Medium Low Low High high Revegetating impacted

areas with appropriate

indigenous vegetation

Very low High


Table 13. Significance of impacts during operation

Impact Nat

ure

Extent Duration Intensity Impact on

Irreplaceable

Resources

Conseque

nce

Probability Significance

without

mitigation

Mitigation Measure

(further detailed in the

‘Mitigation Measures’

section below)

Significance

with

mitigation

Confidence

Water quality impairment (leaks and pipe damage)

-

neg

Local medium Medium

to high

high High Low High Negative Regular maintenance

practice and EMP

implementation in

operation phases.

Disaster Management

monitoring during flooding

Low High


3.2 Mitigation Measures

The following measures are recommended to mitigate likely impacts of the pipeline construction:

No construction vehicles should be allowed within 15m of the berg river water edge,

except for those authorised to undertake activities applied for under section 21 c & i of

the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) and/or within the context of an endorsed

Water-Use License. Limited disturbance should be allowed within this buffer zone and

as far as possible the disturbed areas should be rehabilitated with vegetation

characteristic of the area’s biodiversity.

Where the pipeline route crosses the drainage lines, there should be minimal use of

machinery and disturbance within these areas should be kept to a minimum.

The rehabilitation and re‐vegetation of disturbed areas must take place during or

immediately after construction is complete. Only appropriate indigenous riparian

vegetation may be used for rehabilitation and re‐vegetation within the disturbed area.

Clearing or felling of all alien invasive trees should take place along the pipeline route.

Colonisation by alien invasive vegetation must be removed as soon as noted.

Clearing of debris and hard rubble associated with the construction activities should be

undertaken on completion of the pipeline construction activity.

Stormwater associated with the construction activities must be prevented from entering

the river as far as possible.

Other activities that may lead to elevated levels of turbidity must be minimised. If

possible construction activities should take place during the low rainfall months when

run off volumes will also be low.

Pipeline installation must not significantly obstruct the natural movement of water

through the surrounding landscapes’ soil profile (can result in localised damming and

formation of wet areas or ponds).

Manholes, if possible, should be located as far as possible away from water features

and pipelines should be regularly monitored for spillages.

3.2.1 Construction

In terms of construction related mitigation measures, the compliance with an EMPr and related

audit for correct material use and disposal (via materials and disposal register) as well as the

implementation of environmental education to pipe-laying workers on a weekly basis is

strongly encouraged. In addition, an incident register should be kept on site for the duration of

the activity to provide a basis against to monitor. As a result, corrective action should take

place within the incident reporting framework and should consist of regular (weekly or bi-

weekly) water quality monitoring for the duration of the construction activity (just downstream


of the river crossing point) using DWA approved measuring standards. Post construction, the

ECO should submit a site closure report to provide a basis for assessing any additional

rehabilitation requirements to the site.

3.2.2 Operation

During the operation of the sewer pipeline, e-coli variables must be assessed as part of a

monthly monitoring program. Also, linkages of this information to the municipal monitoring

programmes or Berg River Catchment Management agency should be established and

undertaken in terms of corporative governance and compliance monitoring initiatives.


4 REFERENCES

Dallas, H. (2007). South African Scoring System (SASS) Data Interpretation Guideline,

Institute of Natural Resources and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1999). Resource Directed Measures for Protection

of Water Resources. Volume 3: River Ecosystems Version 1.0. Resource Directed Measures

for Protection of Water Resources, Pretoria, South Africa.

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

and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas. Pretoria.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (2007). River Ecoclassification: Manual for

Ecostatus Determination (Version 2). Riparian Vegetation Response Index, Water Research

Commission Report Number KV 168/05. Pretoria.

The River Health Programme of South Africa (2004). State of Berg River. Department of

Water Affairs & Forestry, Pretoria.


5 APPENDIX: ASSIGNING SIGNIFICANCE RATING TO IMPACTS DEFINITIONS

Nature

This is an evaluation of the type of effect the construction, operation and management of the

development would have on the affected environment. Would it be positive, negative or neutral?

Extent or scale

This refers to the spatial scale at which the impact will occur. Extent of the impact is described as: low

(site-specific - affecting only the footprint of the development), medium (limited to the site and its

immediate surroundings and closest towns) and high (regional and national).

Duration

The lifespan of the impact is indicated as low (short-term: 0-5 years, typically impacts that are quickly

reversible within the construction phase of the project), medium (medium-term, 6-10 years, reversible

over time) and high (long-term, 10-60 years, and continue for the operational life span of the

development).

Intensity or severity

This is a relative evaluation within the context of all the activities and the other impacts within the

framework of the project. Does the activity destroy the impacted environment, alter its functioning, or

render it slightly altered? The specialist studies must attempt to quantify the magnitude of the impacts

and outline the rationale used.

Impact on irreplaceable resources

This refers to the potential for an environmental resource to be replaced, should it be impacted. A

resource could possibly be replaced by natural processes (e.g. by natural colonisation from

surrounding areas), through artificial means (e.g. by reseeding disturbed areas or replanting rescued

species) or by providing a substitute resource, in certain cases. In natural systems, providing

substitute resources is usually not possible, but in social systems substitutes are often possible (e.g.

by constructing new social facilities for those that are lost). Should it not be possible to replace a

resource, the resource is essentially irreplaceable e.g. red data species that are restricted to a

particular site or habitat of very limited extent.

Consequence

The consequence of the potential impacts is a summation of above criteria, namely the extent,

duration, intensity and impact on irreplaceable resources.

Probability of occurrence

The probability of the impact actually occurring, based on professional experience of the specialist

with environments of a similar nature to the site and/or with similar projects. Probability is described as

low (improbable), medium (distinct possibility), and high (most likely). It is important to distinguish

between probability of the impact occurring and probability that the activity causing a potential

impact will occur. Probability is defined as the probability of the impact occurring, not as the

probability of the activities that may result in the impact. The fact that an activity will occur does not


necessarily imply that an impact will occur. For instance, the fact that a road will be built does not

necessarily imply that it will impact on a wetland. If the road is properly routed to avoid the wetland,

the impact may not occur at all, or the probability of the impact will be low, even though it is certain

that the activity will occur.

Significance

Impact significance is defined to be a combination of the consequence (as described below) and

probability of the impact occurring. The relationship between consequence and probability highlights

that the risk (or impact significance) must be evaluated in terms of the seriousness (consequence) of

the impact, weighted by the probability of the impact actually occurring. The following analogy

provides an illustration of the relationship between consequence and probability. The use of a vehicle

may result in an accident (an impact) with multiple fatalities, not only for the driver of the vehicle, but

also for passengers and other road users. There are certain mitigation measures (e.g. the use of

seatbelts, adhering to speed limits, airbags, anti-lock braking, etc.) that may reduce the consequence

or probability or both. The probability of the impact is low enough that millions of vehicle users are

prepared to accept the risk of driving a vehicle on a daily basis. Similarly, the consequence of an

aircraft crashing is very high, but the risk is low enough that thousands of passengers happily accept

this risk to travel by air on a daily basis.

In simple terms, if the consequence and probability of an impact is high, then the impact will have a

high significance. The significance defines the level to which the impact will influence the proposed

development and/or environment. It determines whether mitigation measures need to be identified and

implemented and whether the impact is important for decision-making.

Specialists are also required to identify the following in their assessments:

Degree of confidence in predictions

Specialists were required to provide an indication of the degree of confidence (low, medium or high)

that there is in the predictions made for each impact, based on the available information and their level

of knowledge and expertise. Degree of confidence is not taken into account in the determination of

consequence or probability.

Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures are designed to reduce the consequence or probability of an impact, or to reduce

both consequence and probability. The significance of impacts must be assessed both with mitigation

and without mitigation.

Date post:	11-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongbao
View:	220 times
Download:	3 times

GROOT DRAKENSTEIN SEWER BASIC ASSESSMENTprojects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/projects/201206 GrootDrak/APP...

Documents