Vlakfontein-Ecological-Report-06-July-2015

Figure 1: Location of the Rand Water H43 pipeline...7Figure 2: The conservation status of the vegetation associated with the proposed H43 Pipeline...19 Figure 3: List of some of the plan

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAND WATER ADDITIONAL 210ML AND FUTURE PLANNED 200ML RESERVOIR ON VLAKFONTEIN FARM 69IR, CRYSTAL PARK, EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY

AUGUST 2015 vs 2

TITLE: ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAND WATER ADDITIONAL 210ML AND FUTURE PLANNED 200ML RESERVOIR ON VLAKFONTEIN FARM 69IR, CRYSTAL PARK, EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY

STATUS OF REPORT:

DOCUMENT CONTROL

FINAL DRAFT IN000034/2015_SP

of study Therefore the author reserves the right to modify aspects of the report, including therecommendations, if and when new information may become available from ongoing research

or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation

Although the author exercised due care and diligence in rendering services and preparingdocuments, she accepts no liability, and the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies theauthor against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expensesarising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by the author and bythe use of this document

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rand Water is proposing the construction and maintenance of the Rand Water H43 pipeline with

an internal diameter of 1200mm, and its associated structure (valve chambers and cathodicprotection) between Graham Street, centurion and Lyttelton within the Gauteng Province Theproposed pipeline is located in City of Tshwane and City of Johannesburg in the Gauteng Province.The extent of the pipeline is approximately 17,5km situated on Doornkloof JR391 portion 41, 116,

149, 157, 161, 193, 163, 322, 324, 232, Brakfontein JR 39 portion 67, 70, 71, 57, 10 and theRemaining portion of Randjesfontein JR405 farms The proposed development is in line with theCity of Tshwane and City of Johannesburg Urban Spatial Development Frameworks

Ecological assessments provide information to support a variety of decision making and projectplanning processes on project feasibility and a final site layout Methods of data collection andanalysis included a GIS desktop exercise, a review of aerial imagery, a site visit and samplingexercise, as well as the use of published data The results were then used to rate the sensitivitywithin the study area, to compile a species list and classify vegetation communities Theseattributes were then rated on their level of sensitivity, ecological functionality and conservationimportance

The vegetation type on site was described by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) as the CarletonvilleDolomite Grassland and Egoli Granite Grassland From the ecological data collected, a sensitivitymap was compiled as a precursor to this report Sections of the site were rated as low, medium orhigh sensitivity based on the level of disturbance, ecological condition and species composition

Results of the study indicate that the species composition of the vegetation of approximate lessthan 5% of the species suggested by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) However, species diversitywas low on the sites close to the in the zones around the portion mainly due to developments andagriculture Most of the area was degraded and these areas were found to be still in need forfurther rehabilitation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

1 INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE 8

1.2 LIMITATIONS 8

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 10

2.1 LOCATION 10

2.2 LAND USE AND LAND COVER 10

2.3 GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILE 10

2.4 VEGETATION 11

3 METHODOLOGY 12

3.1 DATA COLLECTION, SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 12

3.1.1 Belt transect sampling 13

3.1.2 Description of Habitats 13

3.2 ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY RATING 13

3.3 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREAS 14

3.4 FIELD SURVEYS 15

4 FINDINGS OF ASSESSMENT 17

4.1 MUCINA AND RUTHERFORD’S VEGETATION ASSESSMENT 17

4.1.1 Carletonville Dolomite Grassland (Gh15) 17

4.1.2 Egoli Granite Grassland (Gm 10) 18

4.2 VEGETATION ON SITE 20

5 CURRENT IMPACTS 25

5.1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 25

5.2 URBAN SPRAWL 25

6 RED DATA FLORA SPECIES 28

6.1 FAUNAL ASSESSMENT 29

6.2 AVIFAUNA SPECIES 29

6.3 INVERTEBRATES SPECIES 29

6.4 Mammals Species 29

6.5 Protected Plant Species 29

6.6 MEDICINAL PLANT SPECIES 31

6.7 DECLARED WEEDS AND INVADERS 31

7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 34

8 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREAS 28

9 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 30

9.1 Nature of the Impact 30

9.2 Scale 30

9.3 Duration 30

9.4 Intensity 30

9.5 Probability 31

9.6 Determination of Significance – With and Without Mitigation 31

9.7 Confidence 31

10 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT 33

10.1 BIODIVERSITY NOTEWORTHINESS 33

10.1.1 Carletonville Dolomite Grassland 33

10.1.2 Egoli Granite Grassland 34

11 RECOMMENDATIONS 34

12 CONCLUSION 36

13 GLOSSARY 37

14 REFERENCES 39

APPENDICES 42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the Rand Water H43 pipeline 7

Figure 2: The conservation status of the vegetation associated with the proposed H43 Pipeline 19

Figure 3: List of some of the plant species identified on site 21

Figure 4: Evidence of Livestock grazing 25

Figure 5: Evidence of urban sprawl 27

Figure 6: Sensitivity Map 27

Figure 7: Gauteng ecological conservation plan of the H43 Pipeline 29

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Red Data species that may occur within the study area 30

Table 2: Alien and invasive species observed within the study area 32

Table 3: The study site is located in Units 28

Table 4: The Ecological Support Areas (ESA) 28

Table 5: Impacts on vegetation 32

Table 6: Biodiversity noteworthiness for the Income Carletonville Dolomite Grassland portions of the pipe line 33

Table 7: Biodiversity noteworthiness for the Egoli Granite Grassland portions of the pipe line 34

1 INTRODUCTION

Rand Water intends to apply for an environmental authorisation through a Basic Assessmentprocess for the proposed construction of the 210ML reservoir and the future planned 200 MLreservoir on Vlakfontein Farm in Crystal Park, Benoni, Gauteng Province The Vlakfontein storagereservoir that is directly being supplied by the Mapleton Pump Station was found to be partiallyinadequate due to its continuous leakages and projected Annual Average Daily Demand analysis.Based on the future projected Annual Average Daily Demand, a 210 ML additional reservoir and

200 ML reservoir is required to be constructed and will suffice until the year 2055 up to acompound growth rate for the sub system of 2% This proposed reservoirs are expected to becommissioned in 2025 and they will be constructed adjacent to the existing 410 ML Vlakfonteinreservoir

The inlet pipe works will be through the existing 2100mmø S1 pipeline The proposed reservoir will

be supplementing the existing reservoir to supply potable water to all areas en route to BronbergReservoir, through the existing 2100mmø S3 pipeline

The aim of this report is to assess the ecological sensitivities within the study area, and to guidethe process in an ecologically sound manner

Figure 1: Location of the proposed Rand Water 2010ML and future planned 200ML reservoirs

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference were as follows:

 To undertake a vegetation survey on site and provide species lists;

 To identify possible Red Data floral species and important habitat that may occur withinthe proposed site;

 To provide a desktop faunal survey of the area;

 To provide an indication of the relative conservation importance and ecological function ofthe study area in terms of flora and fauna This will be captured in a sensitivity map;

 To assess the impacts of the proposed activity on the ecological integrity of the area; and

 To provide recommendation on ecological mitigation measures for the proposeddevelopment

1.2 LIMITATIONS

The following limitations were associated with the fauna and flora assessment:

 Ideally an ecological assessment should be carried out over a longer time frame andshould be replicated over several seasons Due to the constraints of time and season, theresults were collected and concluded from sample plots laid out in areas of naturalvegetation

 Information about this study relied heavily on data from representative sections of naturalgrassland

 Flora species composition was used as an indication of disturbance and to identifypossible faunal habitat

 Published species lists from Mucina & Rutherford (2006) were relied upon for datacomparison

 The current site visit took place in autumn but the conditions for sampling were stillfavourable It is not likely that any additional sampling would yield any additional insights

or changes to the assessed sensitivity The lists of avifauna, amphibians, reptiles andmammals for the site were based on those observed at the site as well as those likely tooccur in the area based on their distribution and habitat preferences This represents asufficiently conservative and cautious approach which takes the study limitations intoaccount.

2.1 LOCATION

The proposed Rand Water additional 210ML and future planned 200ML reservoir constructionand associated infrastructures are located at the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality on theVlakfontein 69IR farm The area is bordered by the 7th road that runs on the north westerlydirection and the 5th road that runs on the south easterly direction (see Figure 1) There is anexisting 410ML reservoir on site adjacent to the proposed reservoirs

2.2 LAND USE AND LAND COVER

The assessment site has been transformed where natural vegetation was removed andreplaced with lawn The land use around the study area consists of Built-up area, tarred roads,and agricultural activities The primary current land cover can be described as Urban - built-upland used for residential purposes with small holdings that have patches of grass in variousparts dominated by highly disturbed grasslands

Figure 2 and 3 below indicate the general overview of the assessment area

Figure 2: View of the proposed additional 210ML and future planned 200ML reservoir construction

site Note the existing reservoir at the back of the picture

Figure 3: Overview of the assessment area

3 METHODOLOGY

Satellite images (Google-Earth, 2015) and topographical maps (scale: 1:1 000) were used todelineate relatively homogeneous units within the study area Transects were walked within theperceived habitat types on the site, concentrating on moving through environmental gradientsencountered within the habitat type in order to identify species and communities This wascontinued until few to no new species were encountered Any additional information on anyother feature thought to have ecological significance within the site, such as fauna or evidence

of fauna, soil type, altitude, erosion, rocky cover, alien/exotic/invasive plants as well as Red DataSpecies and/or their habitat were also recorded

3.1 DATA COLLECTION, SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

A site visit and formal sampling was done on the 28th May 2015 Vegetation refers to the greatdiversity of plant species which occur in repeating assemblages A combination ofphysiognomy, floristic composition, and profile was used to identify and describe plantcommunities The following brief descriptions of most common vegetation parameters were used

in the current ecological assessments as follows:

 Species Occurrence: The species component is the fundamental structure of a plant

community A species list is an essential part of all vegetation survey activities

 Frequency: The frequency of a species is defined as the probability of finding it within a

plot when the plot is placed on the ground The prime requirement in estimating frequency

is to use as large a sample size as possible

 Cover: The cover of a species is defined as the proportion of ground occupied by vertical

projection Cover is normally expressed as a percentage and the maximum cover of anyone species is 100 percent For classification purposes, the most common practice isestimation of cover in field There are a number of "scales" or ratings based on cover(Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg, 1974; Causton, 1988) Sampling of percentage cover isvery similar in principle to the sampling of frequency

In this study a GIS desktop exercise and literature review preceded the site visits Areas ofnatural vegetation were identified from imagery and groundtruthed upon arrival on site

Vegetation sampling within the project area was then focused on the identified areas, datawas collected during the sampling visit The adopted methodology comprised of scientificvegetation sampling (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg, 1974) method, where data was collectedusing the Belt transect sampling.

3.1.1 Belt transect sampling

The Belt transect sampling method was undertaken during the site visits at the same time,species were recorded at 500m intervals whilst walking along the altitudinal gradient of the site

3.1.2 Description of Habitats

The ecological status of the vegetation is discussed below in terms of species composition,ecological sensitivity and conservation importance A corridor width of 500m wide was coveredand examined for the presence of protected or sensitive species In addition, data gatheredfrom databases such as the Gauteng Conservation Plan (C-Plan 3.3) and South African NationalBiodiversity Institute (SANBI) were consulted

3.2 ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY RATING

The ecological sensitivity rating was based on the ecological function and conservationimportance of the pipeline site The relative ecological function (e.g connectivity & presence ofwetland systems) of an area was based upon the inherent function of the system or portion ofland For example, highly sensitive or dynamic systems will be those systems contributing toecosystem service (e.g wetlands) or the total preservation of biodiversity Secondly, it relates tothe degree of ecological connectivity between systems within a landscape matrix Systems with ahigh degree of landscape connectivity among each other are perceived to be more sensitive

On the other hand, ecological conservation importance relates to species diversity, endemism(unique species or unique processes) and the high occurrence of threatened species and species(or ecosystems) protected by legislation The following categories were used to describe theecological sensitivity of the study site:

 High ecological function: Sensitive ecosystems with either low inherent resistance orresilience towards disturbance factors or highly dynamic systems considered to be stableand important for the maintenance of ecosystems integrity and offering ecosystemservices (e.g large pristine grasslands, wetlands and ridge systems) These areas are

not suitable for development.

 Medium ecological function: Relatively important ecosystems at gradients ofintermediate disturbances An area may also be considered to be of medium ecologicalfunction if it is directly adjacent to sensitive/pristine ecosystem These areas may beconsidered suitable for development, if mitigation measures are included

 Low ecological function: Degraded and highly disturbed systems with no ecologicalfunction These areas are suitable for development

 High conservation importance: Ecosystems with high species richness and usuallyprovide suitable habitat for a number of threatened species Usually termed ‘no-go’areas and unsuitable for development, and should be protected

 Medium conservation importance: Ecosystems with intermediate levels of speciesdiversity without any threatened species These areas may be considered suitable fordevelopment, if mitigation measures are included

 Low conservation importance: Areas with little or no conservation potential and usuallyspecies poor (most species are usually exotic) These areas are considered suitablefor development

3.3 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREAS

A Gauteng Conservation plan (C-Plan 3.3) was used to determine the ecological status ofthe p r o p o s e d Vlakfontein 210ML and future planned 200ML reservoir construction.Landscape features associated with ESAs (termed spatial surrogates for ESAs) that areessential for the maintenance and generation of biodiversity in sensitive areas and that requiresensitive management were incorporated into C-Plan 3 Spatial surrogates included dolomite,rivers, wetlands, pans, corridors for climate change and species migration, ridges and low costareas for Gauteng received from Dr S Holness)

3.4 FIELD SURVEYS

The fieldwork component of this survey was conducted on the 28 May and 15 June 2015 Thereservoir sites were examined for the presence of protected or sensitive species In eachsample site the following data was collected:

 Species present;

 Cover estimation of each species;

 Amount of bare soil and rock cover;

 Slope, aspect in degrees, latitude and longitude position (from GPS) in decimal degrees; and

 Presence of biotic disturbances, e.g grazing, animal burrows, etc

Additional checklists of plant species were compiled by traversing areas around each site on footand recording species as they were encountered Plant names follow Germishuizen & Meyer(2003)

Searches were undertaken specifically for Red List plant species (according to SANBI andGDARD) and any other species with potential conservation value (according to GDARD).Historical occurrences of threatened plant species were obtained from the South AfricanNational Biodiversity Institute and GDARD For all threatened plant species that may occur alongthe proposed site, a rating of the likelihood of it occurring is given as follows:

 LOW: no suitable habitats occur on site / habitats on site do not match habitat description

for species;

 MEDIUM: habitats on site match general habitat description for species (e.g grassland),

but detailed microhabitat requirements (e.g rocky grassland on shallow soils overlyingdolomite) are absent on the site or are unknown from the descriptions given in theliterature or from the authorities;

 HIGH: habitats found on site match very strongly the general and microhabitat description

for the species (e.g rocky grassland on shallow soils overlying dolomite);

 DEFINITE: species found on site.

All exotic species categorised as alien invaders or weeds (as listed in amendments toConservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983, Act No 43 of 1983) were recorded

4 FINDINGS OF ASSESSMENT

4.1 CONSERVATION STATUS

4.1.1 Threatened Ecosystem assessment

Routine communication with the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development(GDARD), a GIS scan and site observations revealed that no red data fauna and flora werehistorically confirmed on site The site for the proposed Vlakfontein reservoir constructioncontains plant communities that may be broadly classified as Eastern Highveld Grasslands, whichare vulnerable This area is adjacent to the Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland, which is regarded

as a critical biodiversity site (Figure 2) Description of the Eastern Highveld Grassland area isprovided on the section below

The Eastern Highveld Grassland (Mapping Unit Gm 12) is considered endangered (Mucina &

Rutherford, 2006) Only a very small fraction is conserved in statutory reserves (NooitgedachtDam and Jericho Dam Nature Reserves) and in private reserves (Holkranse, Kransbank,Morgenstond) Some 44% is transformed primarily by cultivation, plantations, mines, andurbanisation and by building of dams Cultivation may have had a more extensive impact,

indicated by land-cover data No serious alien invasions are reported, but Acacia mearnsii can

become dominant in disturbed areas Erosion is very low (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006)

The Mean Annual Soil Moisture Stress (MASMS) value for the region is 73% These values, whencompared to the Mean Annual Temperature (MAT) and Mean Annual Potential for Evaporation(MAPE) averages of 14.7°C and 1,926mm, respectively, show the region to be a relatively water-

stressed area Conservation of surface (and ground) water resources is therefore imperative tobiodiversity conservation within the region.

The Eastern Highveld Grassland vegetation is short dense grassland dominated by the usual

highveld grass composition, for example Aristida, Digitaria, Eragrostis, Themeda and Tristachya,

with small, scattered rocky outcrops of wiry, sour grasses and some woody species, for example

Acacia caffra, Celtis africana, Diospyros lycioides subsp lycioides, Parinari capensis, Protea caffra, P welwitschii and Rhus magalismontanum.

Figure 2 below illustrates the study area in relation to the demarcated Eastern HighveldGrassland area

Figure 2: The conservation status of the vegetation associated with the proposed Vlakfontein reservoir construction

4.1.2 Gauteng Conservation Plan

C-Plan 3 is based on the systematic conservation protocol developed by Margules & Pressey(2000) and is based on the principles of complementarity, efficiency, defensibility and flexibility,irreplaceability, retention, persistence and accountability Systematic conservation planning is aniterative process Knowledge of the distribution of biodiversity, the status of species, approachesfor dealing with aspects such as climate change, methods of data analysis, and the nature ofthreats to biodiversity within a planning region are constantly changing, especially in theGauteng province which is developing at an extremely rapid rate This requires that theconservation plan be treated as a living document with periodic review and updates

According to the Gauteng Conservation Plan, the proposed reservoir construction sites arelocated on the intermittent sections of the ecologically support area (Figure 3)

Figure 3: Gauteng Conservation Plan

4.2 VEGETATION ON SITE

Vegetation assessment was undertaken at the proposed reservoir construction sites Thisreport defines habitat units in terms of: Trees and shrubs; Grasses and sedges; Medicinalplants; and alien invasive species All species identified attached as Appendix A

4.2.1 Trees and shrubs

No indigenous trees and shrubs were observed on site

4.2.2 Grasses and sedges

The site was dominated by Cynadon dactylon, which is used as lawn grass Other grasses observed on site included: Hyperenia hirta, Pennisetum purpureum, Cymbopogon validus,

Cymbopogon plurinodis, and Erogrostis curvula

4.2.3 Flowers

No protected or threatened flowers were observed on site

4.2.4 Declared weed and invaders

Concern is growing over the way in which alien/exotic plants are invading large areas withinSouth Africa Invasive species are a major threat to the ecological functioning of naturalsystems as well as the productive use of the land, and should ideally be removed if they areserving no ecological function In terms of the amendments to the regulations under theNational Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act no 10 of 2004) – Alien andInvasive Species (AIS) Regulations which became law on 1 October 2014, landowners arelegally responsible for the control of invasive alien plants on their properties There are currently

198 alien species listed as declared weeds and invaders, and have been divided into threecategories (Henderson, 2001):

 Category 1 plants are prohibited and must be controlled;

 Category 2 plants (commercially used plants) may be grown in demarcated areas

21 | P a g e

proving that there is a permit and that steps are taken to prevent their spread; and

 Category 3 plants (ornamentally used plants) may no longer be planted; existing plantsmay remain, as long as all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the spreading there of,except within the flood line of watercourses and wetlands

The proposed construction area as well as the outskirts are dominated by alien invasive species

which included: Solanium mauritianum, Bidens pilosa, Eucalyptus camaldunensis, Pyrus spp,

Glycosmis trifoliate, Morus alba, and Papulus alba

Table 1: Alien and invasive species observed within the study area

Datura ferox Large Thorn Apple Declared weed Category 1

Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass Declared weed Category 2

Tagetes minuta Tall Khakiweed Declared weed Category 1

Senna didymotbotrya Peanut butter cassia Category 1 invasive

There were a few locations which were infested by stands of the Datura ferox These

species invade riparian and seep zones with disastrous impacts on water resources, especiallywithin the upper catchment regions These species should be controlled to prevent furtherinfestation and it is recommended that all individuals of the above invader species be removedand eradicated

Due to the high abundance of alien species in the surrounding areas, their competitiveadvantage, resulting from their primary ecological strategy, these species are able to colonisenew areas rapidly and out-compete existing indigenous vegetation Plants can be classified

according to their primary ecological strategies Alien plant species are r-selected plant species, with the following characteristics distinguishing them from k-selected plants.

 R-selected plants are those that maximize their intrinsic rate of reproductive increase.

This is done through high seed production, and minimizing costs for maintenance Theygenerally grow in highly unpredictable climates or habitats, have low long term

22 | P a g e

survivorship, and are poor competitors, short development times, short life-span, andstrong reproductive focus with a monocarpic reproductive effort (MacArthur and Wilson,1967).

 K-Selected species tend to grow in more predictable climates Mortality is density

dependent, they have Type I or II survivorship The population is near constant, near thecarrying capacity They are strongly affected by competition They have a longdevelopment time, long life span, and generally a small seed bank Allocation is tosurvivorship and delayed reproduction, which is typically polycarpic (MacArthur andWilson, 1967)

A caveat here is that not all r-selected plants are alien invader species, many plants that arethe first plants to colonise disturbed areas are r-selected plants However, the majority ofinvader species exhibit all or most of the following characteristics;

 Fast growth

 Rapid reproduction

 High dispersal ability

 Tolerance of a wide range of environmental conditions (Ecological competence)

 Ability to live off of a wide range of food types (generalist)

 Association with humans

 Prior successful invasions

4.2.5 Medicinal Plant Species

South Africa is home to a diversity of cultural groups all of which utilise plant species for somepurpose A number of these species are highly prized for their traditional healing properties;especially for “muthi” (they have ethno-medicinal value) An estimated 28 million people inSouth Africa consume about 19 500 tonnes of medicinal plant material per annum (Mander,1998) The Gauteng Province alone has around 1 049 plant taxa utilised for medicinalproperties, 31 % of the total estimated number of ethno-medicinal plants in South Africa(Arnold et al, 2002) It is therefore imperative that the population demographics of thesespecies (especially the more conspicuous and sought-after species) be closely monitored andutilised in a sustainable manner The proposed increase in development, and at a local scale

23 | P a g e

the construction phase of any developmental project will increase human activities within thearea, leading to uncontrolled harvesting of such resources Although most of these plantspecies are regionally widespread and abundant, some of the more economically important

species should be envisaged as high priority conservation entities (Van Wyk et al, 1997;

Pooley, 1998)

No medicinal plants were observed on site

4.2.6 Red Data Species

According to the IUCN Red data database, Threatened species are species that are facing ahigh risk of extinction Any species classified in the IUCN categories Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable is a threatened species (figure 5)

Species of conservation concern are species that have a high conservation importance in terms

of preserving South Africa's high floristic diversity and include not only threatened species, butalso those classified in the categories Extinct in the Wild (EW), Regionally Extinct (RE), NearThreatened (NT), Critically Rare, Rare, Declining and Data Deficient - Insufficient Information(DDD)

24 | P a g e