The reason for presenting this paper today is to vent my frustration.

I was asked by a client to advise on a way of managing wetlands on a property that was being considered for a multiple use development, shopping complex, housing, business sites etc. The wetlands on the site were classified asFloodplain hillslope seepage feeding a watercourse, channelled valley bottom wetland, floodplain and riparian zone. We had had experienced in this particular area before where we had, because of lack of experience in this particular set of geological formations misinterpreted the hydrology responsible for the expression of the wetlands on the site. This was only revealed when the site was opened to the contractors. The soils on this site were derived from diabase, and were thus structured, Tukulu, Sepane, Arcadia/Rensburg soil forms. The water in this landscape exists in the subsurface and moves through the landscape at between 1.5 and 2m. Anyway on this new site when asked to develop a wetland management plan and based on our experience with the previous site, we attempted to, develop what we considered was a rational plan, recognizing that during the development process much of the soil on the site would be removed and have to be replaced to provide effective founding conditions. During this process the water in the landscape would be intercepted and diverted by the services, all outside of the designated wetland areas. As a consequence we were of the opinion that some of the wetlands on the site would be lost, while others such as the floodplain would gain water as the water intercepted by the services would be day lighted on the floodplain. As a consequence of this we developed a reasonably complex water management system in order to cater for the water intercepted in the services as well as that that would enter the site as rainfall. On submission of this report for comment to the local environmental management authority we were told that they were not interested in reading the report and the rules were apply a 50m buffer as that would protect the wetlands. In this particular case, the application of a 50 m or even a 100m buffer was in our opinion would afford any level of protection to the wetlands as the water that was responsible for their presence was likely to have been diverted (in areas outside of the designated wetland) as well as that which fell on the infrastructure would have runoff characteristics very different from the pre development landscape

Soils see Schulze 1985. Hydrological characteristics and properties of Southern Africa 1: Runoff response Water SA 11, 3: 121-128.

What is evident in this slide is the variation in bot h drainage density and patterns of drainage. This correlates with the principle geoogical formations found in the area, see next slide

Diskin, M H and Green, DRA. 1985. A case of delayed subsurface flow in an urban catchment. Water SA, 11, 3: 137- 148.

The WRC Commission is supporting a non solicited research project that aims to provide guidance to determining the width of buffer zones around wetlands. The definition of a buffer zone that has been proposed as a working definition is reproduced on the slide.

The purpose of buffer zones as synthesized from the literature is to reduce impacts of adjacent landuses on water resource quality, sustaining or improving the ability of the water resource to provide goods and services to society and providing protection of and providing habitat for aquatic and semi aquatic species

This is achieved by maintaining an environment that facilitates, sediment removal, nutrient removal, controlling the local microclimate, providing habitat for wildlife, screening of adjacent disturbances, creating linkages between habitats, improving channel stability, create opportunities for groundwater recharge and aesthetic appeal. Regulating the hydrology is not explicitly addressed although it could be inferred from the fact that sediments are removed that the hydrology is influenced by buffer zones.

10

I am now going to run through three sites where there is am impending change in landuse. As I go through these slides I would like you to assess whether the application of a buffer zone will contribute in anyway to the protection of the water resource, in this instance the wetland.

11

Erosion through a wetland as a consequence of development in the catchment: . Nelspruit , geology primarily granites.

12

Erosion of a wetland downstream of a housing estate and national road, R28 /R55 intersection on Granites

13

Proposed changes in land use on Granites showing the extent of the wetlands. A 50m buffer zone was advocated by wetland specialists to protect them from the impacts of development.

14

Control points in the way of exposed unweathered granites behind which sediments could accumulate and which effectively reduce velocities/store water.

15

Based on some simple calculations, the deeper soils on the site > 1.0m in depth can store the equivalent of about 3900m3/ha. The deep soils are the sources of water that keep the wetlands alive during the dry season

16

The placement of infrastructure on these non wetland soils will have a significant impact on the rainfall runoff characteristics, particularly as a consequence of the interception of rainfall, its collection in a storm water management system and its subsequent discharge into the environment as point discharges. The wetlands at the bottom of the site will erode if the 50m buffer is the only measure applied to protect them.

17

A site on the Mpumalanga highveld supporting wetlands .

18

Development on the non wetland areas required that groundwater be intercepted to protect foundations. This was the primary source of water for the wetlands downstream of the site. A 50m buffer around the wetlands will do nothing to protect them as their source of water has been inexorably altered.

19

A mining site, where a 100m buffer is advocated by most environmentalists and wetland scientists to protect areas of sensitivity and wetlands

20

A typical mining site on the highveld showing complete removal of aquicludes and other structures that regulate horizontal and vertical flow through the regolith. Any wetland downslope of this site will have its supply of water altered.

21

The area proposed for open cast and the wetland, if the catchments or portions of the catchments supporting wetlands are altered by open cast mining, then the wetlands are likely to disappear, and the application of a 100m buffer is unlikely to result in their salvation.

22

A Vector diagram that was used to define catchments and connectivity between non wetland and wetland areas

23

24

If the intention is to protect a wetland itself or the biodiversity associated with the ecotone between wetland and dryland, the concept of a buffer should extend to include not only a physical measurement, but also to the management of the water supporting the wetland. Should the volumes, periodicity of flow, quality or the manner in which the water reaches the wetland change it is unlikely that the wetland will continue to exist in its current state, and hence the application of linear buffer is unlikely to achieve the intention of protecting either the wetland or the biodiversity associated with the wetland and is associated ecotone The recommendation to provide a 15m buffer, as recommended in a guideline document prepared by Kotze et al is in our opinion an administrative convenience and fails to take into cognisance the hydrological complexities of wetlands as well as the influence of local geology and soils on the extent and maintenance requirements of wetlands. We thus consider that a more appropriate means of buffering wetlands is to ensure that the hydrology is responsibly managed, and that the buffer includes a range of interventions to ensure the future of the wetland, as well as any ecotone that might be required. The width of the ecotone in this event should be determined by identifying its future purpose or role.

25

We suggest that the primary function of a buffer should be to afford protection to the wetland from changes in hydrology associated with changes in landuse, ie manage the hydrology first. Once the wetland has been afforded a degree of protection only then should consideration be given to deciding whether a buffer zone is required or not. Based on the above selected examples, the changes in hydrology and associated water quality changes have a significant impact on the wetlands associated with these changes. This is not surprising given that wetlands and the types of wetlands in a landscape reflections of the hydrological processes in the particular landscape setting. As landuse changes so do the wetlands as the adjust to the imposed hydrology. For this reason we would advocate that in order to comply with the intentions of the Water Act, that the primary role of a buffer should be to afford protection to the wetland, .

26

27

28

29