ELSBURGSPRUIT CATCHMENT

AQUATIC DELINEATIONS

2018

To be read with other documents of the catchment

Compiled by: Mr Bertus Fourie (M.Sc. Aquatic Health, Pr.Sci.Nat)

Elsburgspruit Catchment: delineation 1 of 62 pages TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 8 2. SITE DESCRIPTORS ...... 15 2.1. CATCHMENT DESCRIPTION ...... 15 2.2. REGIONAL DESCRIPTION AND VEGETATION ...... 16 2.2.1. Carletonville Dolomite Grassland ...... 17 2.2.2. Eastern Temperate Fresh Water Wetlands ...... 17 2.2.3. Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld ...... 18 2.2.4. Soweto Highveld Grassland ...... 18 2.2.5. Tsakane Clay Grassland ...... 19 2.3.1. Primary boundary determinants ...... 20 2.3.2. General ...... 20 3.1. CLASSIFICATION OF AQUATIC ...... 21 3.2. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS ...... 22 3.3. DELINEATION OF RIPARIAN EDGE ...... 23 3.4. WETLAND PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) CALCULATION METHOD ...... 24 3.5. RIPARIAN PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) CALCULATION METHOD ...... 24 3.6. WETLAND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES (WET-ECOSERVICES)...... 25 3.7. ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY (EIS) CALCULATION ...... 26 3.8. HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGERY ...... 27 3.9. SITE IMAGERY USING DRONE ...... 27 3.10. FISH POPULATION RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ...... 27 3.10.1. Step 1: Selection of river for assessment ...... 29 3.10.2. Step 2: Determination of the reference fish assemblage ...... 29 3.10.3. Table 4: Reference FROC list (0 = absent and 5 = very abundant) .... 29 3.10.4. Step 3: Determination of the present state of drivers ...... 30 3.10.5. Step 4: Selection of representative sampling sites ...... 30 3.10.6. Step 5: Determination of fish condition ...... 30 3.10.7. Step 6: Fish sampling ...... 30 3.10.8. Step 7: Collate and analyse fish sampling data ...... 31 3.10.9. Step 8: Execution of FRAI model ...... 31 3.11. SASS 5 METHODOLOGY ...... 32 3.11.1. Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System ...... 34 3.11.2. South African scoring system data interpretation guidelines ...... 34

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 2 of 62 pages 3.12. WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURE ...... 35 3.12.1. Laboratory assessments...... 35 3.12.2. Handheld probe ...... 35 4. RESULTS ...... 36 4.1. SHUTTLE RADAR TOPOGRAPHY MISSIONS MODELS ...... 36 4.2. AERIAL IMAGERY ...... 40 4.2.1. Google Earth ...... 40 4.3. DELINEATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ...... 44 4.4. PRESENT ECOLOGICAL SCORE (WETLAND IHI) RESULTS ...... 49 4.5. ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY ...... 51 4.6. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT...... 53 4.6.1. pH ...... 58 4.6.2. Temperature ...... 58 4.6.3. PPM (TDS and Conductivity) ...... 58 4.7. SASS 5 ...... 58 4.8. FISH POPULATION ASSESSMENT ...... 59 5. CONCLUSION ...... 59 6. REFERENCES ...... 59 7. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 62

FIGURES:

FIGURE 1: STUDY SITE LOCATION ...... 8

FIGURE 2: BASIC WORKINGS OF A CATCHMENT...... 9

FIGURE 3: HIERARCHY OF A SMALLER CATCHMENT AS PART OF A LARGER CATCHMENT ... 10

FIGURE 4: LEVELS OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS, CREATING A DRAINAGE NETWORK...... 10

FIGURE 5: LAND TYPES OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 11

FIGURE 6: THE VEGETATION TYPES OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 12

FIGURE 7: THE TYPES AND LOCATION OF INLAND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ...... 13

FIGURE 8: SKETCH INDICATING A CROSS SECTION OF RIPARIAN ZONATION ...... 15

FIGURE 9: THE CATCHMENT AND HYDROLOGICAL DATA FOR THE STUDY SITE...... 16

FIGURE 10: THE VEGETATION TYPES OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 16

FIGURE 11: ECOREGIONS OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 20

FIGURE 12: DESCRIPTION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF AN AREA (FROM DWAF, 2005) ...... 22

FIGURE 13: CROSS SECTION THROUGH A WETLAND ...... 23

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 3 of 62 pages FIGURE 14: THE LOCATION OF THE FROC SITES ...... 29

FIGURE 15: WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURE ...... 36

FIGURE 16: SRTM OF THE STUDY SITE AS OVERLAID IN QGIS SOFTWARE ...... 37

FIGURE 17: DEM DRAINAGE PATTERNS ...... 38

FIGURE 18: DEM DRAINAGE PATTERNS USED TO DRAW MANAGEMENT AREAS ...... 39

FIGURE 19: THE 2018 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE ...... 41

FIGURE 20: THE 2001 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE ...... 42

FIGURE 21: 1984 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE ...... 43

FIGURE 22: SECTIONS WHERE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS WAS EXPECTED ...... 44

FIGURE 23: THE WETLAND INVENTORY OF THE CATCHMENT ...... 45

FIGURE 24: PRELIMINARY DELINEATION AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE CATCHMENT ...... 46

FIGURE 25: NUMBERING OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ...... 47

FIGURE 26: CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT SAMPLE POINT LOCATION ...... 48

FIGURE 27: PES RESULTS OVERLAYING THE DELINEATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ..... 50

FIGURE 28: EIS RESULTS OVERLAYING THE DELINEATION OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 52

FIGURE 29: PH RESULTS OF THE SAMPLE SITES ...... 55

FIGURE 30: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) EXPRESSED AS PARTS PER MILLION ...... 56

FIGURE 31: TOTAL COLIFORM POLLUTION IN PARTS PER MILLION ...... 57

FIGURE 32: SASS 5 RESULTS AS ASPT OF THE CATCHMENT ...... 58

TABLES:

TABLE 1: THE DESCRIPTION OF THE HEALTH CATEGORY ...... 25

TABLE 2: EIS INTERPRETATION GUIDE ...... 26

TABLE 3: THE EIGHT STEPS OF FRAI AS DESCRIBED BY KLEYNHANS, 2007 ...... 28

TABLE 4: REFERENCE FROC LIST...... 29

TABLE 5: THE PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE CATEGORY INTERPRETATION GUIDE ...... 31

TABLE 6: ECOLOGICAL CATEGORIES FOR INTERPRETING SASS DATA ...... 33

TABLE 7: SITE GPS LOCATION LIST ...... 48

TABLE 8: THE PES RESULTS OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 49

TABLE 9: THE EIS CALCULATIONS OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 51

TABLE 10: WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS FOR THE CATCHMENT FOR AUTUMN 2018 ..... 54

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 4 of 62 pages Glossary of terms: Buffer zone- The area of land next to a body of water, where activities such as construction are restricted in order to protect the water. - Decaying organic matter found in the top layer of or mixed with wetland waters; a food source for many small wetland organisms. Endangered species- Any species of plant or animal that is having trouble surviving and reproducing. This is often caused by loss of habitat, not enough food, or pollution. Endangered species are protected by the government in an effort to keep them from becoming extinct. Ecosystem- A network of plants and animals that live together and depend on each other for survival. Emergent- Soft stemmed plants that grow above the water level. Erosion- Process in which land is worn away by external forces, such as wind, water, or human activity. Freshwater- Water without salt, like ponds and streams. Gleyed soil- Mineral wetland soil that is or was always wet; this results in soil colours of grey, greenish grey, or bluish grey. Habitat- The environment in which an organism lives. Hydric soil- Soil that is wet long enough for anoxic (oxygenless) conditions to develop. The water in the soil forces air out. This soil type is found in wetlands. Hydrocarbon Oils, fuels and paints made using fossil fuels (including crude oils, coal etc.) Hydrophyte- A plant, which grows in water. Mesotrophic soil- with a moderate inherent fertility. An indicator of is its base status, which is expressed as a ratio relating the major nutrient cations (calcium, , and sodium) found there to the soil's clay percentage. Organic material- Anything that is living or was living; in soil it is usually made up of nuts, leaves, twigs, bark, etc. Organism- A living thing. Peat- Organic material (leaves, bark, nuts) that has decayed partially. It is dark brown with identifiable plant parts, and can be found in peatlands and bogs. Pollution- Waste, often made by humans, that damages the water, the air, and the soil. Precipitation- Rain, sleet, hail, snow. Riparian- Riparian habitat includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterized by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 5 of 62 pages frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species with a composition and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent land areas Redoximorphic conditions- a soil property, associated with wetness, which results from the reduction and oxidation of iron and manganese compounds in the soil after saturation with water and desaturation, respectively. Mottling are common redoximorphic features of soils. Runoff- Rainwater that flows over the land and into streams and lakes; it often picks up soil particles along the way and brings them into the streams and lakes. Salinity- The amount of salt in water. Saturation-The condition in which soil contains as much water as it can hold. Silt- One of three main parts of soil (sand, silt, and clay); silt is small rock particles that are between .05 mm and .002 mm in diameter. Submerged aquatic vegetation- Plants that live entirely under water. Top soil- The top layer of soil; it is full of organic material and good for growing crops. Water table- The highest level of soil that is saturated by water. Watershed - All the water from precipitation (rain, snow, etc.) that drains into a particular body of water (stream, pond, river, bay, etc.) Wetland- Land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil.”

Acronyms: AECO Aquatic Environmental EIS Ecological Importance and Control Officer Sensitivity

ASPT Average Score Per Taxon EWR Environmental Water Requirements CERM Comprehensive Ecological Reserve Methodology FRAI Fish Response Assessment Index DSS Decision Support System FROC Fish reference of occurrence DWA Department of Water Affairs GSM Gravel, Sand, Mud DWS Department of water and sanitation GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural EC Ecological Category Development

ECO Environmental control officer IERM Intermediate Ecological Reserve Methodology

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 6 of 62 pages IHAS Invertebrate Habitat WULA Water use licence application Assessment System (license application)

IHI Index of Habitat Integrity

MIRAI Macro-Invertebrate Response Assessment Index

MVIC Marginal Vegetation in Current

MVOOC Marginal Vegetation out of Current

NFEPA National Priority Areas

PES Present Ecological State

REC Recommended Ecological Category

REMC Recommended Ecological Management Class

RERM Rapid Ecological Reserve Methodology

RHP River Health Programme

SASS5 South African Scoring System (Version 5)

SIC Stones in current

SOG Soap, oil and grease

SOOC Stones out of current

TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

TWQR Target water quality range

VEGRAI Vegetation Response Assessment Index

Wetland IHI Wetland index of habitat integrity tool

WMA Water Management Area

WUL Water use licence (approved license)

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 7 of 62 pages 1. Introduction

Galago Environmental CC was appointed to assess the condition of the Elsburgspruit catchment and its associated aquatic ecosystems. The study site consists of the lower catchment of the Elsburgspruit within the Ekurhuleni municipal boundaries (Figure 1) of Ekurhuleni.

FIGURE 1: STUDY SITE LOCATION

Catchments or natural drainage systems is the natural collection and runoff of water from an area, with topographical higher to lower areas. Aquatic ecosystems in South Africa (with its high evapo-transpiration rates - which are usually nearly double the regional rainfall) (Schultze, 1997), depend on catchments to provide runoff and groundwater flows.

Catchments of aquatic ecosystems can be defined as the action of collecting water in an area, from the highest topographical point to the lowest collection point (SANBI, 1999). The condition of the catchment thus has a profound impact on the nature of the flows entering the aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, the extent of the catchment is determined, and its condition assessed by identifying possible impacts and sources of ecological condition degradation.

Catchments create various drainage lines, in the forms of aquatic ecosystems. These drainage systems is described by (Ollis, 2013) based on the drivers of the systems. A natural drainage basin is formed over millennia by the collation and drainage of water over

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 8 of 62 pages various substrates and geological areas. Some of these areas are more resistant to the flows, and as water always does, choose the path of least resistance. Erosion and transportation of sediments together with geological processes all collaborate to create drainage lines (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2: BASIC WORKINGS OF A CATCHMENT

Aquatic ecosystems forms and creates a network of systems draining into various other systems, and these catchments can be divided into a hierarchy of drainage systems (Rowntree and Wadeson, 1999). These are driven by relief and shape of the catchment, influenced by the abiotic factors and create sets of smaller catchments as part of a larger catchment system (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 9 of 62 pages

FIGURE 3: HIERARCHY OF A SMALLER CATCHMENT AS PART OF A LARGER CATCHMENT (ROWNTREE AND WADESON, 1999)

FIGURE 4: LEVELS OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS, CREATING A DRAINAGE NETWORK.

In the case of the study site, the landtype information for the site was obtained through the Department of Agriculture’s Global Information Service (AGIS1) to provide information regarding the abiotic factors. The study site lies within the Ab7, Ba1, Ba27, Ba35, Ba36 and Bb3 land type (Figure 5).

1 Data obtained January 2014. www.agis.agric.za/

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 10 of 62 pages

FIGURE 5: LAND TYPES OF THE STUDY SITE

The Ab land type is characterised by freely drained, red and yellow, dystrophic/mesotrophic, apedal soils comprise >40% of the land type (yellow soils <10%). The Ba land type is characterised by red and yellow, dystrophic/mesotrophic, apedal soils with plinthic subsoils (plinthic soils comprise >10% of land type, red soils comprise >33% of land type). The Bb land type is characterised by red and yellow, dystrophic/mesotrophic, apedal soils with plinthic subsoils (plinthic soils comprise >10% of land type, red soils comprise <33% of land type).

This impacts on the ecological drivers of the system and is emulated in the vegetation types of the site. Various vegetation types as per Mucina & Rutherford (2006) is present in the study area (Figure 6). These include Carletonville Dolomite Grassland, Eastern Temperate Fresh Water Wetlands, Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld, Soweto Highveld Grassland and Tsakane Clay Grassland.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 11 of 62 pages

FIGURE 6: THE VEGETATION TYPES OF THE STUDY AREA

Aquatic ecosystem is defined as “an ecosystem that is permanently or periodically inundated by flowing or standing water or which has soils that are permanently or periodically saturated within 0.5 m of the soil surface” (Ollis et al. 2013). This term is further defined by the definition of a watercourse. In the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) a watercourse is defined as: (a) A river or spring; (b) A natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently; (c) A wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows; and (d) Any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks;

Different inland (freshwater) watercourses occur in South Africa and are defined by their topographical location, water source, hydroperiod, soils, vegetation and functional units (Ollis, et al., 2013). The following illustration presents the types and typical locations of different inland aquatic systems found in South Africa (Figure 7).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 12 of 62 pages

FIGURE 7: THE TYPES AND LOCATION OF INLAND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS (OLLIS, ET AL., 2013)

This definition of a watercourse is important especially if an area of increased hydrological movement is found but cannot be classified as either a wetland or riparian area. Important to note is that according to the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), wetlands are defined as: “Land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil.”

It is very important that this definition is applied to both natural and manmade wetlands. Wetlands are very important in South Africa. Almost 50% of wetlands have been lost in South Africa and the conservation of the remaining wetlands is very important (WRC 2011) Wetlands provide many services to the ecosystem they are located in (Kotze, et al. 2007). One of the most important services provided by wetlands is that of the impeding and holding back of floodwater to be released more constantly as well as slow water release through dry periods (Collins, 2005). Other very important functions that wetlands provide are as a source of habitat to many different species of fauna and flora. Wetlands also lead

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 13 of 62 pages to an increase in the overall of the area and ecological functioning (Collins, 2005).

Wetland conditions are formed when the prolonged saturation of water in the soils create different niche conditions for various fauna and flora. The source of water feeding into a wetland is very important, as it is an indication of the type and in many cases can provide an indication of the condition of the wetland.

As South Africa is a signatory of the Ramsar Convention for the conservation of important wetlands, we are committed to the conservation of all our wetlands. The Convention on Wetlands came into force for South Africa on 21 December 1975. South Africa presently has 21 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 554,136 hectares (www.ramsar.org).

Although the term wetland describes the main functions provided by the wetland, there are actually many different hydrogeomorphic types of wetlands in South Africa. The word “riparian” is drawn from the Latin word “riparious” meaning “bank” (of the stream) and simply refers to land adjacent to a body of water or life on the bank of a body of water (Wagner & Hagan, 2000).

The National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) also defines riparian areas as: “Riparian habitat includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterized by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species with a composition and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent land areas”

The delineation of the riparian edge does not follow the same methodology, as is the case with wetlands. The riparian edge is demarcated using the physical structure of the vegetation found in the riparian area, as well as the micro topographical location of the riparian characteristics. In riparian areas, the increased water available to the plants (living in this area) has created a habitat with greater vegetation growth potential. This boundary of greater growth is used to delineate the riparian edge (Figure 8).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 14 of 62 pages

FIGURE 8: SKETCH INDICATING A CROSS SECTION OF RIPARIAN ZONATION COMMONLY FOUND IN SOUTH AFRICA – WWW.EPA.GOV/

The delineation guideline, Department of Water Affair’s: Practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas, Edition 1 September 2005, and revision 2 of 1998 was used. The site visit was conducted from April to October 2018. This identification and delineation of possible wetlands and riparian habitat is also done to mitigate any possible future contraventions of the National Water Act, 1998.

It is also important to note that when working within the Gauteng province, reports are written in line with the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s (GDARD) minimum requirements for biodiversity assessments.

2. Site descriptors 2.1. Catchment description The site lies in quaternary catchment C22B and has a mean annual precipitation of 691mm and mean annual runoff of 31mm, so the MAR/MAP is 4.5%. The study site drains to the Natalspruit, the Klip River and to the Vaal River systems. See Figure 9 below for the Google Earth description of the site, as provided by the Department of Water Affair’s Quality Services (RQS) department.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 15 of 62 pages

FIGURE 9: THE CATCHMENT AND HYDROLOGICAL DATA FOR THE STUDY SITE, AS AVAILABLE FROM DWA RQS SERVICES.

2.2. Regional description and vegetation Various vegetation types as per Mucina & Rutherford (2006) is present in the study area (Figure 10). These include Andesite Mountain Bushveld, Eastern Temperate Fresh Water Wetlands, Soweto Highveld Grasslands and Tsakane Clay Grassland.

FIGURE 10: THE VEGETATION TYPES OF THE STUDY SITE

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 16 of 62 pages 2.2.1. Carletonville Dolomite Grassland The study area is situated within the Dry Highveld Grassland Bioregion of the Grassland Biome and southern section more specifically within the Carletonville Dolomite Grassland vegetation type according to Mucina and Rutherford (2006).

The landscape is highly variable with extensive sloping plains and rocky ridges that are elevated slightly above the undulating surrounding plains. The plants within this vegetation type are species-rich, wiry, sour grassland, with small shrubs growing on the rocky ridges and outcrops that occur in isolated areas within this vegetation type. Dominant grasses on the plains belong to the genera Themeda, Eragrostis, Heteropogon and Elionurus. Another typical feature of this vegetation type is the high diversity of herbs, many of which belong to the Asteraceae, that grow between the grasses on the open plans. The open plains and rocky outcrops and ridges carry small pockets of sparse woodlands with Protea caffra and P. welwitschii, Acacia caffra and Celtis africana trees, and with shrubs such as the genus Searsia (Rhus) that grow between these trees.

Summer-rainfall ranging between 570 mm to 730 mm per annum with warm summers and very cold winter temperatures.

This vegetation type is considered as endangered with a target of 24% and poorly conserved (1%). Small conservation areas can be found within this vegetation type such as Rietvlei Nature Reserve (NR), Bronkhorstspruit NR, Boskop Dam NR and some small conservation areas such as Doornkop, Ezemvelo and Renosterpoort. Almost half of this vegetation type has been transformed, mostly by agricultural croplands, plantations such as wattle, urbanisation and dam-building

2.2.2. Eastern Temperate Fresh Water Wetlands The study area is situated within the Freshwater Wetlands of the Inland Azonal Vegetation and more specifically within the Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands (AZf 3) vegetation type according to Mucina and Rutherford (2006).

The vegetation and landscape features consists of flat landscape or shallow depressions filled with (temporary) water bodies supporting zoned systems of aquatic and hygrophilous vegetation of temporarily flooded grassland and ephemeral herblands.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 17 of 62 pages The study site is situated in an extensively summer-rainfall region with an mean average annual rainfall of between 421 - 915 mm with cool-temperate patterns with a mean average annual temperature of between 12.6ºC and 16.7ºC. Due to the high elevation, frost is a frequent phenomenon.

Only 5% is statutorily conserved in areas such as the Blesbokspuit which is also a Ramsar Site. Some 15% has been transformed by cultivated land, urban areas or plantations. In places intensive grazing and use of lakes and freshwater pans as drinking pools for cattle or sheep cause major damage to the wetland vegetation.

2.2.3. Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld The study area is situated within the Central Bushveld Bioregion of the Savanna Biome. More specifically, the most northern section is situated within the Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld (SVcb 9) vegetation type according to Mucina and Rutherford (2006).

The Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld consists of rocky hills and ridges, often west-east trending, with more dense woody vegetation often on the south-facing slopes of, in this case, the Daspoortrant mountain range dominated by Acacia caffra trees. Elsewhere the tree cover is variable. The tree and shrub layers are often continuous and the herbaceous layer is dominated by grasses.

The study site is situated in a summer rainfall region with very dry winters. The annual rainfall varies between 600 and 750 mm. Frost occurs frequently in winter but less commonly on the ridges and hills. Mean temperatures varies between 32.8°C in summer (January) and -1.8°C in winter (July).

The Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld vegetation type is considered least threatened.

2.2.4. Soweto Highveld Grassland The study area is situated within the Mesic Highveld Grassland Bioregion of the Grassland Biome and more specifically the northern section is located within the Soweto Highveld Grassland (Gm 10) vegetation type according to Mucina and Rutherford (2006).

The landscape consists of gentle to moderately undulating plains on the Highveld plateau supporting short to medium-high, dense, tufted grassland dominated almost entirely by Themeda triandra and accompanied by a variety of other grasses such as Elionurus

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 18 of 62 pages muticus, Eragrostis racemosa, Heteropogon contortus and Tristachya leucothix. In places where the natural vegetation is not disturbed only scattered small wetlands, narrow steams alluvia, pans and occasional ridges or rocky outcrops interrupt the continuous grassland cover.

The study site is situated in a summer-rainfall region with an average annual rainfall of 662 mm with cool-temperate climate and thermic continentality (high extremes between maximum summer and minimum winter temperatures, frequent occurrence of frost, large diurnal thermic differences, especially in autumn and spring).

This habitat type is considered endangered. Only a handful of patches are statutorily conserved or privately conserved. Almost half of the area has already been transformed by cultivation, urban sprawl, mining and building of road infrastructure. Some areas have been flooded by dams. Erosion is generally very low.

2.2.5. Tsakane Clay Grassland The study area is situated within the Mesic Highveld Grassland Bioregion of the Grassland Biome and more specifically the middle section of the study area within the Tsakane Clay Grassland vegetation type according to Mucina and Rutherford (2006).

The landscape consists of flat to slightly undulating plains and low hills. Vegetation is short, dense grassland dominated by a mixture of common highveld grasses such as Themeda triandra, Heteropogon contortus, Elionurus musticus and a number of Eragrostis species. Most prominent forbs are of the families Asteraceae, Rubiaceae, Malvaceae, Lamiaceae and Fabaceae. leads to an increase in the of the grasses Hyparrhenia hirta and Eragrostis chloromelas.

The study site is situated in a strongly seasonal summer-rainfall region. The rainfall varies between 630 to 720 mm of rainfall p/a. Winters are very dry with frequent frost , increasing to the south-east.

This habitat type is considered endangered. Only 1.5% is conserved in statutory reserves. More than 60% of this vegetation type has undergone transformation mostly by urbanisation, cultivation, mining, dam-building and roads. Urbanisation is increasing and further expansion of especially the southern suburbs of Johannesburg and towns of the East Rand will bring further pressure on the remaining vegetation. Erosion is very low (87%) and low (11%) across the entire unit.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 19 of 62 pages 2.3. Ecoregion description Ecoregions are the larger division of drainage networks into main drainage regions of South Africa. The study area falls in the Upper Vaal water management area (WMA no 9)

(FIGURE 11) as described in the Level 1 Ecoregions by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF, 2005):

FIGURE 11: ECOREGIONS OF THE STUDY SITE

The site falls within the Highveld Ecoregion as described in the Level 1 Ecoregions by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF, 2005):

2.3.1. Primary boundary determinants Plains with a moderate to low relief, as well as various grassland vegetation types (with moist types present towards the east and drier types towards the west and south), define this high lying region.

2.3.2. General Several large rivers have their sources in the region, e.g. Vet, Modder, Riet, Vaal, Olifants, Steelpoort, Marico, Crocodile (west), Crocodile (east) and the Great Usutu. The level 12

2Level I: This level of typing is based on the premise that ecosystems and their components display regional patterns that are reflected in spatially variable combinations of causal factors such as climate, mineral availability (soils and geology), vegetation and

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 20 of 62 pages description of the Water Management Area, as from DWAF, 2007 lists the system as part of the Crocodile (West) River and is characterised by the following:

This is generally a low laying, dry to arid, hot region with virtually no perennial streams originating in the area itself. Perennial rivers that traverse this region include the Crocodile (west), Marico, Mokolo, Lephalala, and Mogalakwena. Mean annual precipitation: Low to arid. Coefficient of variation of annual precipitation: Moderately high to high Drainage density: Mostly low but with some areas in the north having a high drainage density. Stream frequency: Mostly low to medium, but high in north-eastern areas. Slopes <5%: Generally >80% of the area. Median annual simulated runoff: Very low to low. Mean annual temperature: High to very high

3. Methods for the assessment of the catchment 3.1. Classification of aquatic ecosystems To determine the classification of aquatic ecosystems is a very important aspect of the delineation process as wetlands and riparian systems require different delineation methods. To classify the systems the dichotomous key as found in the “Classification system for wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems in South Africa” (Ollis, et al., 2013) is used. Four keys have been developed for the classification of aquatic ecosystems: Landscape Units (Key 1) Hydrogeomorphic Units (Key 2) Hydrological regime Key 3a for river flow types and, Key 3b for hydroperiod category

physiography. In South Africa physiography, climate, geology, soils and potential natural vegetation have been used as the delineators of Level I (DWAF, 2007).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 21 of 62 pages 3.2. Wetland Delineation methods To delineate any wetland the following criteria are used as in line with Department of Water Affairs (DWA): A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas, Edition 1 September 2005. These criteria are: a) Wetland (hydromorphic) soils that display characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation such as grey horizons, mottling streaks, hard pans, organic matter depositions, iron and manganese concretion resulting from prolonged saturation, b) The presence, at least occasionally, of water loving plants (hydrophytes), c) A high water table that results in saturation at or near the surface, leading to anaerobic conditions developing in the top 50cm of the soil, and d) Topographical location of the wetland in relation to the landscape.

Also read with the guide is a draft updated report of the abovementioned guideline. The draft is used, as it provides a guideline to delineation of wetland areas: Updated Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas, prepared by M. Rountree, A. L. Batchelor, J. MacKenzie and D. Hoare. DWA (2008) Draft report. These criteria will mainly indicate a systematic as well as functional change in the aquatic ecosystem.

Wetlands occur throughout most topographical locations, with even the small depression wetlands occurring on the crest of the landscape. The topographical location of possible wetlands is purely an indication of the actions and movement of water in the landscape and is not a definitive delineator (FIGURE 12).

FIGURE 12: DESCRIPTION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF AN AREA (FROM DWAF, 2005)

Changes in the presence and frequency of mottling in the soils are the main methods of delineation. This is, as mottles are usually not influenced by short-term changes in the

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 22 of 62 pages hydrology and vegetation of the wetland (FIGURE 13). Mottling is formed when anaerobic conditions (increased water saturation) lead to redoximorphic conditions (iron is leached from the soil) and is precipitated in the increased saturation areas of the soil profile.

FIGURE 13: CROSS SECTION THROUGH A WETLAND WITH SOIL WETNESS AND VEGETATION INDICATORS. SOURCE: DONOVAN KOTZE, UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL (FROM WWW.WATERWISE.CO.ZA)

3.3. Delineation of riparian edge To delineate any riparian area the following criteria are used as in line with Department of Water Affairs (DWA) requirements: A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas, DWA Edition 1 September 2005.

Also read with the guide is a draft updated report of the abovementioned guideline. The draft is used, as it provides a guideline to delineation of riparian areas with specific emphasis on recent alluvial deposits: “Updated Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas”, prepared by M. Rountree, A. L. Batchelor, J. MacKenzie and D. Hoare., DWA (2008) (Draft report).

These criteria mainly used will indicate a system as well as individual change in the riparian area. The delineation process requires that the following be taken into account and deliberated: topography associated with the watercourse; vegetation; especially changes in the composition of communities found on site, alluvial soils and deposited materials.

Also of importance are the changes in the catchment of the area. Any changes in the use, extent of use as well as alien vegetation changes will influence the river condition and the

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 23 of 62 pages riparian characteristics. Historical imagery, Google Earth as well as the site visit is used to detect and enumerate any changes. The outer boundary of the riparian area is defined as: “the point where the indicators are no longer discernible” (DWA, 2008). Using the desktop delineation GPS points, sampling took place firstly to truth if the desktop GPS points did in fact represent a riparian area. Secondly using vegetation and topographic indicators, the riparian vegetation was identified and demarcated. A second delineation of the non-riparian area was done.

3.4. Wetland Present Ecological State (PES) calculation method The present ecological state (PES) of the wetland was determined using the methodology as described by Macfarlane DM, et al. 2007. The method encompasses the use of two aspects to determine the PES. Firstly, a site visit where all possible impacts are noted and the scale of the impacts area measured. The information along with the delineation of the wetland is then collated and calculated into three Level 2 suites of WET-Health Microsoft Excel programs.

These suites of programs then provide the PES in the form of Health category ratings from A (best) to F (worst). See the tables below for a layout and description of the category ratings per assessment (Macfarlane et. al. 2007).

3.5. Riparian Present Ecological State (PES) calculation method The South African River Health Program (RHP) under the Department of Water Affairs has developed a suite of programs to allow for the calculation of the ecological category for river and riparian areas. Included in this suite of programs is VEGRAI (Riparian Vegetation Response Assessment Index in River Eco classification as developed by Kleynhans et al (2007). This program is Microsoft Excel driven, and allows for two levels of calculations. For the study site, it was chosen to conduct a level 3 assessment3. The program does not give an indication on the impacts itself, but rather an indication on the extent of the impacts on the riparian areas. The program provides results in ranges and allows results to be allocated a Present Ecological State (PES) category. See TABLE 1 below.

3 Level 3 assessment is a basic assessment of the riparian vegetation composition, structure and impacts. The upper and lower marginal zones are combined in level 3 whereas the level 4 the zones are separately assessed.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 24 of 62 pages TABLE 1: THE DESCRIPTION OF THE HEALTH CATEGORY IMPACT HEALTH DESCRIPTION SCORE CATEGORY RANGE Unmodified/ natural 0-0.9 A Largely natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem processes is discernible and a small loss of natural and biota 1-1.9 B may have taken place. Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place but the natural habitat remains 2-3.9 C predominantly intact Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of 4-5.9 D natural habitat and biota and has occurred. The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota is great but some remaining natural habitat features are still 6-7.9 E recognizable. Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been modifiedcompletely with an almost complete loss of natural 8 – 10 F habitat and biota.

3.6. Wetland Ecological Services (WET-EcoServices) To determine and assess the ecological goods and services provided by a wetland, WET- EcoServices (Kotze et al., 2007) be used to assess the goods and services that individual wetlands provide, thereby aiding in formed planning and decision making.

It is designed for a class of wetlands known as palustrine wetlands (marshes, floodplains, vleis or seeps). The tool provides guidelines for scoring the importance of a wetland in delivering each of 15 different ecosystem services (including flood attenuation, sediment trapping and provision of livestock grazing). The first step is to characterise wetlands according to their hydro-geomorphic setting (see Table 1).

The program then entails two aspects assessed namely: Level 1, based on existing knowledge or at Level 2, based on a field assessment of key descriptors. The wetland goods and services are also determined by the topographical location and hydrological inputs and regimes of the system (Table 2).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 25 of 62 pages 3.7. Ecological importance and sensitivity (EIS) calculation EIS calculations are compiled to determine how important a specific wetland system is as well as give an indication of the sensitivity of the system. The method was originally designed for floodplain systems, but is being applied for other aquatic ecosystems. Ecological importance is defined as “an expression of its importance to the maintenance of ecological diversity and functioning on local and wider scales”. Ecological sensitivity is defined as “the system’s ability to resist disturbance and its capability to recover from disturbance once it has occurred” (Duthie et al., 1999). The Ecological Importance and sensitivity (EIS) provides a guideline for determination of the Ecological Management Class (EMC)

In the method outlined here, a series of determinants for EIS are assessed on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no importance and 4 indicates very high importance. The median score for the biotic and habitat determinants is interpreted and translated into a recommended ecological management class (REMC) as indicated in Error! Reference source not found.. Although the method was designed for floodplain wetlands, it is generally widely applied to all wetland types.

TABLE 2: EIS INTERPRETATION GUIDE Recommended Range Ecological Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Category (EIS) of Management Median Class Very high Aquatic ecosystems that are considered ecologically important and >3 and sensitive on a national or even international level. The biodiversity of <=4 A these floodplains is usually very sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a major role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers. High Aquatic ecosystems that are considered to be ecologically important and >2 and sensitive. The biodiversity of these floodplains may be sensitive to flow <=3 B and habitat modifications. They play a role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers. Moderate Aquatic ecosystems that are considered to be ecologically important and >1 and sensitive on a provincial or local scale. The biodiversity of these <=2 C floodplains is not usually sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a small role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers. Low/marginal Aquatic ecosystems that is not ecologically important and sensitive at >0 and any scale. The biodiversity of these floodplains is ubiquitous and not <=1 D sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play an insignificant role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 26 of 62 pages 3.8. Historical aerial imagery National Geo-spatial Information (NGI) is the government component (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform) responsible for aerial photography and has an archive of aerial photographs dating back to the 1930's. The user, although unable to make accurate measurements on the photograph, is able to perform his or her own interpretation of what exists on the ground. Aerial photographs are also an historic record of what existed at the time the photograph was taken.

The photography is at a variety of scales and has provided complete coverage of the country since the 1950's. These are all vertical aerial photographs taken from aircraft. Photography is continuously re-flown to provide new photography for ongoing map revision and for sale to users. The data set was obtained from the department in 2012.

The photos are divided into job numbers, strings (or line numbers) and finally photo numbers.

3.9. Site imagery using drone To access better quality (and on the date of site visit) aerial drone photography of the site is used. Using DJI MAVIC hardware and Dronedeploy software (www.dronedeploy.com), aerial images is stitched to create an orthomosaic image of the site. Analysis of this data can then also be completed to compile a digital elevation map (DEM). The information is exported and used on Google Earth Pro.

3.10. Fish population response assessment The fish population response assessment is done using the Fish Response Assessment

Index (FRAI), which consists of 8 steps as described by (Kleynhans, 2007c) (TABLE 3).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 27 of 62 pages TABLE 3: THE EIGHT STEPS OF FRAI AS DESCRIBED BY KLEYNHANS, 2007 Steps 1-8 Procedure Step 1: Selection of river for As for study requirements and design assessment Use historical data & expert knowledge Model: use ecoregions and other Step 2: Determination of the environmental information reference fish assemblage Use expert fish reference frequency if occurrence database if available Hydrology Physico-chemical Step 3: Determination of the Geomorphology present state of drivers Or Index of habitat integrity

Step 4: Selection of Field survey in combination with other survey activities representative sampling sites

Step 5: Determination of fish Assess fish habitat potential habitat condition Assess fish habitat condition Sample all velocity depth classes per site if feasible Step 6: Fish sampling Sample at least three stream sections per site. Step 7: Collate and analyse fish Transform fish sampling data to frequency of sampling data occurrence ratings Rate the FRAI metrics in each metric group Enter species reference frequency of occurrence data Enter species observed frequency of Step 8: Execution of FRAI model occurrence data Determine weights for metric groups Obtain FRAI value and category Present both modelled FRAI and adjusted FRAI

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 28 of 62 pages 3.10.1. Step 1: Selection of river for assessment As per the study site location, in situ flow and habitat conditions.

3.10.2. Step 2: Determination of the reference fish assemblage Fish Response Assessment Index (FRAI) is based on a comparison between historical and in situ fish population assemblage data i.e. a historical list of all fish species present at a specific site compared to a current list of species identified. Two Fish Reference of Occurrence (FROC) lists were available and used for the catchment (River Eco- classification: Manual for EcoStatus determination (Version 2) Module D Volume 2) (Kleynhans, et al., 2007a). The references only listed 5 fish species (Table 4).

FIGURE 14: THE LOCATION OF THE FROC SITES

3.10.3. Table 4: Reference FROC list (0 = absent and 5 = very abundant) FRAI and FROC Scientific name Common name Location abbreviation ASCL AUSTROGLANIS SCLATERI ROCK-CATFISH C2 8 EF1 (BOULENGER, 1901) BAEN LABEOBARBUS AENEUS SMALLMOUTH C2 8 EF1 (BURCHELL, 1822) YELLOWFISH BANO BARBUS ANOPLUS WEBER, CHUBBYHEAD C2 Boksburg 1897 BARB C2 8 EF1 BNEE BARBUS NEEFI GREENWOOD, SIDESPOT BARB C2 8 EF1 1962

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 29 of 62 pages FRAI and FROC Scientific name Common name Location abbreviation Barbus paludinosus C2 8 EF1 BPAU Straightfin barb (PETERS, 1852) CCAR CYPRINUS CARPIO LINNAEUS, CARP (EX) C2 Boksburg 1758 C2 8 EF1 LCAP LABEO CAPENSIS (SMITH, 1841) ORANGE RIVER C2 Boksburg LABEO C2 8 EF1 LUMB LABEO UMBRATUS (SMITH, MOGGEL C2 Boksburg 1841) C2 8 EF1 MSAL MICROPTERUS SALMOIDES LARGEMOUTH C2 Boksburg (LACEPÈDE, 1802) BASS (EX) C2 8 EF1 Pseudocrenilabrus philander Southern C2 Boksburg PPHI (WEBER, 1897) mouthbrooder C2 8 EF1 TSPA TILAPIA SPARRMANII SMITH, BANDED TILAPIA C2 8 EF1 1840

3.10.4. Step 3: Determination of the present state of drivers See water quality assessments.

3.10.5. Step 4: Selection of representative sampling sites As per site selection determination set out by SASS 5 protocol and other possible fish habitat areas.

3.10.6. Step 5: Determination of fish habitat condition Habitat condition is determined according to the FRAI field data sheet per habitat type including the identification and rating of overhanging vegetation, undercut banks and root wads, substrate and aquatic macrophytes. A rating scale of 0 – 5 is used to assess the habitat condition where 0 = absent and 5 = very abundant (Kleynhans, 2007c).

3.10.7. Step 6: Fish sampling Sampling is done through electronarcosis in each habitat type (fast-deep, fast-shallow, slow-deep, slow-shallow depending on availability) for 15 minutes at each site as described by Kleynhans (2007). Electronarcosis involves the induction of an electric current in the water, which renders the fish in close proximity to the electrical field immobile for a short period of time, allowing the collection of fish using a scoop net. The specific equipment used is a Samus 725M electrofisher. This sampling method is in line with the methodology recommended for the FRAI protocol as described by Kleynhans (2007c). Each fish collected is identified to species level and the frequency of occurrence of each species is noted on a pre-prepared FRAI fish data sheet. After identification, fish are returned to the river.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 30 of 62 pages 3.10.8. Step 7: Collate and analyse fish sampling data Data collected is collated into an occurrence rating. A rating scale of 0 – 5 is used where 0 = absent and 5 = very abundant (Kleynhans, 2007c).

3.10.9. Step 8: Execution of FRAI model All the data collected from steps 1-7 is imported into the FRAI Excel model (Kleynhans, 2007c). A FRAI percentage value and EcoCondition (Present Ecological State (PES)) rating (A-F) is calculated per site (TABLE 5):

TABLE 5: THE PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE CATEGORY INTERPRETATION GUIDE Combined impact Description PES Category score Unmodified, natural. 0-0.9 A Largely natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem processes is 1-1.9 B discernible and a small loss of natural habitats and biota may have taken place. Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place but the 2-3.9 C natural habitat remains predominantly intact Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural 4-5.9 D habitat and biota has occurred.

The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota is great 6-7.9 E but some remaining natural habitat features are still recognizable. Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been 8 – 10 F modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 31 of 62 pages 3.11. SASS 5 methodology In South Africa, the River Health Programme (under the Department of Water Affairs) has developed a suite of different programs to rapidly assess the quality of aquatic systems. One of the most popular and robust indicators of aquatic health is the South African Scoring System or SASS currently in version 5 (SASS5).

The South African Scoring System is a biotic index initially developed by Chutter (1998). It has been tested and refined over several years and the current version is SASS5 (Dickens and Graham, 2002). This technique is based on a British biotic index called the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) scoring system and has been modified to suit South African aquatic micro-invertebrate fauna and conditions. SASS5 is a rapid biological assessment method developed to evaluate the impact of changes in water quality using aquatic macro-invertebrates as indicator organisms. SASS is widely used as a bio- assessment tool in South Africa because of the following reasons: It does not require sophisticated equipment Method is rapid and relatively easy to apply. This method is very cheap in comparison to chemical analysis of water samples and analysis and interpretation of output data is simple. Sampling is generally non-destructive, except where representative collections are required, (the biodiversity index of SASS5 is described in Dickens and Graham (2002). It provides some measure of the biological status of rivers in terms of water quality.

SASS is therefore a method for detection of current water quality impairment and for monitoring long-term trends in water from an aquatic invertebrate’s perspective. Although SASS5 is user-friendly and cheap, it has some limitations. The method is dependent on the sampling effort of the operator and the total SASS score is greatly affected by the number of biotopes sampled.

SASS5 is not accurate for lentic conditions (standing water) and should be used with caution in ephemeral rivers (systems that do not always flow) (Dickens and Graham, 2002) The resolution of SASS5 is at family level; therefore changes in species composition within the same family due to environmental changes cannot be detected.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 32 of 62 pages Although the SASS5 score acts as a warning ‘red flag’ for water quality deterioration, it cannot pinpoint the exact cause and quantity of a change. SASS5 does not cover all invertebrate taxa. SASS also cannot provide information about the degradation of habitat, so habitat assessment also indices, to show the state of the habitat. The initial SASS protocol was described by Chutter (1998) and refined by Dickens and Graham (2002) require collections of macro-invertebrates from a full range of biotopes available at each site.

The biotopes sampled include vegetation both in and out of current (VG- aquatic and marginal), stones (S- both stones in current and out of current) and gravel, sand and mud (GSM) (Dickens & Graham, 2002). The standardised sampling methods allow comparisons between studies and sites. Macro-invertebrate sampling is done using a standard SASS net (mesh size 1000 mm, and a frame of 30 cm x 30 cm). There are nineteen (19) possible macro-invertebrates from each biotope that are tipped into a SASS tray half filled with water and families are identified for not more than 15 minutes/biotype at the streamside.

Invertebrates encountered from each biotope are recorded on a SASS5 score sheet, with their abundance being noted on the sheet. Each taxon (usually a family) of invertebrates from South African rivers has been allocated a score ranging from 1 for those taxa that are most tolerant of pollutants, to 15 for those that are most sensitive to pollutants (Chutter, 1998). To complete the SASS exercise the scores for all the taxa are added together (total score). The average score per taxon (ASPT) is calculated by dividing the total score by the number of taxa. All three scores (SASS5, ASPT and number of families) are used in the interpretation of the status of the site or river being assessed dependant on operator choice.

TABLE 6: ECOLOGICAL CATEGORIES FOR INTERPRETING SASS DATA Ecological Ecological Description Colour Category Category Name A Natural Unmodified natural Blue

B Good Largely natural with Green few modifications C Fair Moderately modified Yellow D Poor Largely modified Red E Seriously modified Seriously modified Purple F Critically modified Critically or Black extremely modified

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 33 of 62 pages 3.11.1. Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (IHAS) was specifically developed to be used in conjunction with SASS, based on habitat availability (McMillan, 1998). The scoring system is based on sampling habitat (i.e. availability of a range of habitats, which could be utilized by in-stream invertebrates) and more general stream characteristics such as anthropogenic or natural impacts (McMillan, 1998). This habitat scoring system is based on 100 points (or percentage) and is divided into two sections reflecting the sampling habitat (50 points) and stream characteristics (50 points).

The sampling habitat section is further broken down into three subsections: stones in current (20 points), vegetation (15 points) and other habitats (15 points) (McMillan, 1998). Very specific questions and answers score between 0 and 5. Higher scores indicate better habitat for macro-invertebrates. The ideal condition is not based on the ultimate pristine stream, but rather on the representation of all habitats adequately and in reasonable conditions. The IHAS form must be completed for each site sampled during each sampling season. This index is mostly subjective with the data collected dependent on the assessor’s visual observation and level of expertise. IHAS data was to aid the interpretation of SASS data.

3.11.2. South African scoring system data interpretation guidelines Using the River health programme (RHP): South African scoring system (SASS) data interpretation guidelines, the calculated ASPT scores can then be compared to a regional benchmark, thus indicating the condition of the system in comparison with the rest of the area (Dallas 2007). Methods were used as a reference to which the average ASPT scores calculated per site were compared to provide an indication of the present water quality state based on SASS5. This data was used as part of a suite of parameters to provide an overall present water quality state. This method provides an indication of the Eco Condition class of the system. Given the spatial variation in rivers within South Africa, it is important that variation amongst regions, both geographically and longitudinally be taken into account when interpreting SASS data (e.g. Dallas, 2004).The different bio - monitoring indices are not only established to support the different findings, but to help identify the impacts found on the site. Using the different manuals, the overall Eco - Status (or PES) of the system under investigation can be identified.

The manuals for Eco - Status determination emanates from studies which were initiated within the WRC research consultancy, K8/619, titled: “Designing a Riparian Vegetation

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 34 of 62 pages Response Assessment Index as part of the existing Eco - Status determination process”. These suites of manuals for eco - status determination include, but are not limited to:

MIRAI using (SASS- aquatic invertebrates) as described in: Thirion, C. 2007. Module E: Macro - invertebrate Response Assessment Index in River Eco - Classification: Manual for Eco - Status Determination (version 2). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report No. TT 332/08.

3.12. Water sampling procedure 3.12.1. Laboratory assessments All sampling of water quality is done in accordance with the Department of Water and Sanitation’s guide: Quality of domestic water supplies Volume 2: Sampling Guide I (ISBN No: 1 86845 543 2, Water Research Commission No: TT 117/99). See Figure 15 for an image of the sampling procedure as taken from the guide.

3.12.2. Handheld probe In addition to laboratory assessment of water quality, sampling was also completed using a Hanna handheld probe- HI 9813-5 Portable pH, EC, TDS, Temperature (°C) meter. The probe is placed in water and a minimum of one minute is timed. Results are reviewed until readings on the LCD screen are stable. The result is then photographed using a GPS recording camera (Nikon AW110).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 35 of 62 pages

FIGURE 15: WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURE

4. Results

The study site is large- 15200 hectares with many aquatic ecosystems occurring on site. The study site has also been extensively impacted since the late 1800’s. This made for the delineation of the natural drainage patterns in the system very difficult.

4.1. Shuttle Radar Topography Missions models Using digital elevation models as provided by the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) downloaded in 2018 from the United States Geological Services (USGS) website. The image models were employed into QGIS4 (Figure 16). This allows for topographical assessments of an area without the effect of small buildings. Mine tailings and other larger man-made objects are however still detected. From this clear drainage lines can be

4 https://www.qgis.org/en/site/

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 36 of 62 pages distinguished from the normal satellite images (darker areas) because of lower topographical locations.

FIGURE 16: SRTM OF THE STUDY SITE AS OVERLAID IN QGIS SOFTWARE

To determine the topographical drainage of the system, digital elevation models (DEM) was used. These provide a guideline as to the topographical location of drainage areas in the catchment (Figure 17).

Using the drainage patterns of the catchment, the study site was divided into three main management areas. This reduces the site of the overall catchment, and clumps drainage networks into broad groups (Figure 18).

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 37 of 62 pages

FIGURE 17: DEM DRAINAGE PATTERNS

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 38 of 62 pages

FIGURE 18: DEM DRAINAGE PATTERNS USED TO DRAW MANAGEMENT AREAS

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 39 of 62 pages 4.2. Aerial imagery The primary assessment of the catchment involves the investigation of aerial images both current as well as historic. This is the premises of desktop investigations and will allow for better understanding of the systems. Large scale land use will alter the flow patterns of the catchment and will easily be detected by the aerial image assessments.

4.2.1. Google Earth Using images as provided by Google Earth, images from current 2018 to 1983 was accessed. Due to the large scale of the study site, some of the image accuracy was lost. See Figure 19 (2018), Figure 20 (2001) and Figure 21 (1983) for images of the catchment. Areas of interest will be investigated in more detail later in the project.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 40 of 62 pages

FIGURE 19: THE 2018 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 41 of 62 pages

FIGURE 20: THE 2001 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 42 of 62 pages

FIGURE 21: 1984 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 43 of 62 pages 4.3. Delineation of aquatic ecosystems The Wetland inventory of the site was accessed and is given in Figure 23. Large scale delineation of the aquatic ecosystems was completed in (Figure 24). It must be noted that this did not include the field verification and delineation of all aquatic ecosystems. To the north of the catchment the delineation of the aquatic ecosystems is difficult. This is due to the systems being converted and impacted by the storm water management of the catchment. In some places the natural drainage is diverted to a pipeline, that releases into a natural drainage area (Figure 22). Numbering of the systems is given in Figure 25.

FIGURE 22: SECTIONS WHERE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS WAS EXPECTED BUT DUE TO STORM WATER MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN ALTERED

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 44 of 62 pages

FIGURE 23: THE WETLAND INVENTORY OF THE CATCHMENT

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 45 of 62 pages

FIGURE 24: PRELIMINARY DELINEATION AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE CATCHMENT

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 46 of 62 pages

FIGURE 25: NUMBERING OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 47 of 62 pages To understand the catchment and impacts of land use on the aquatic ecosystem, various sample points were established in the study area. Sampling for biotic factors included SASS5, and fish population and water physicochemical aspects. The location of the sample points is given in Figure 26 with a list of the sample sites and GPS locations in Table 7.

FIGURE 26: CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT SAMPLE POINT LOCATION

TABLE 7: SITE GPS LOCATION LIST Site number GPS

A -26.277155° 28.202363° B -26.276236° 28.213288° C -26.273794° 28.240131° D -26.262445° 28.221767° E -26.259695° 28.209977° F -26.239523° 28.205521° G -26.231529° 28.187729° H -26.222825° 28.175936° I -26.227141° 28.202426° J -26.220924° 28.206990° K -26.221693° 28.200032° L -26.245311° 28.236070° M -26.223688° 28.241833° N -26.193342° 28.293338° O -26.204167° 28.189096°

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 48 of 62 pages 4.4. Present Ecological Score (Wetland IHI) results The PES was calculated for all systems using the WetHealth (Ellery, Breen and Uys, 2008) method. This is to be able to empirically compare the different aquatic ecosystems with relative amount of confidence. See Table 8 for the PES results and Figure 27 for colouring of the PES results on the AED.

TABLE 8: THE PES RESULTS OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS OF THE STUDY SITE Wetland PES Classification number Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Overall PES 1 Channellled valley bottom wetland C C/D B C 2 Channellled valley bottom wetland E E B D/E 3 Channellled valley bottom wetland D/E D C D 4 Channellled valley bottom wetland E E E E 5 Channellled valley bottom wetland D D B D 6 Channellled valley bottom wetland B B B B 7 Channellled valley bottom wetland D/E D B D 8 Channellled valley bottom wetland C C/D C C 9 Channellled valley bottom wetland C E D D 10 Channellled valley bottom wetland C/D E B D 11 Channellled valley bottom wetland E E E E 12 Channellled valley bottom wetland E C/D C D 13 Depression wetland C B B B 14 Depression wetland E E E E 15 Depression wetland E D/E D D 16 Depression wetland C C C C 17 Floodplain wetland with channel B B B B 18 Drainage line 19 Drainage line 20 Drainage line 21 Drainage line 22 Drainage line 23 Impoundment (Artificial) METHOD NOT APPLICABLE TO ARTIFICIAL SYSTEMS 24 Impoundment (Artificial) (INCLUDING DRAINAGE LINES) 25 Impoundment (Artificial) 26 Impoundment (Artificial) 27 Impoundment (Artificial) 28 Impoundment (Artificial) 29 Impoundment (Artificial) 30 Seepage wetland B B/C B B 31 Underground storm water pipes METHOD NOT APPLICABLE TO ARTIFICIAL SYSTEMS 32 Underground storm water pipes (INCLUDING DRAINAGE LINES)

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 49 of 62 pages

FIGURE 27: PES RESULTS OVERLAYING THE DELINEATION OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 50 of 62 pages 4.5. Ecological Importance and Sensitivity The EIS was calculated for the aquatic ecosystems in Table 9.

TABLE 9: THE EIS CALCULATIONS OF THE STUDY SITE Wetland Classification EIS number 1 Channellled valley bottom wetland 1,9 Moderate 2 Channellled valley bottom wetland 1,8 Moderate 3 Channellled valley bottom wetland 0,7 Low/ Marginal 4 Channellled valley bottom wetland 0,7 Low/ Marginal 5 Channellled valley bottom wetland 0,9 Low/ Marginal 6 Channellled valley bottom wetland 2,1 High 7 Channellled valley bottom wetland 2,2 High 8 Channellled valley bottom wetland 1,6 Moderate 9 Channellled valley bottom wetland 1,6 Moderate 10 Channellled valley bottom wetland 2,4 High 11 Channellled valley bottom wetland 2 Moderate 12 Channellled valley bottom wetland 3,1 Very High 13 Depression wetland 2,6 High 14 Depression wetland 0,9 Low/ Marginal 15 Depression wetland 0,7 Low/ Marginal 16 Depression wetland 1,1 Moderate 17 Floodplain wetland with channel 3,4 Very High 18 Drainage line 19 Drainage line 20 Drainage line 21 Drainage line 22 Drainage line METHOD NOT APPLICABLE TO 23 Impoundment (Artificial) ARTIFICIAL SYSTEMS 24 Impoundment (Artificial) (INCLUDING DRAINAGE 25 Impoundment (Artificial) LINES) 26 Impoundment (Artificial) 27 Impoundment (Artificial) 28 Impoundment (Artificial) 29 Impoundment (Artificial) 30 Seepage wetland 2,1 High 31 Underground storm water pipes METHOD NOT APPLICABLE TO ARTIFICIAL SYSTEMS 32 Underground storm water pipes (INCLUDING DRAINAGE LINES)

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 51 of 62 pages

FIGURE 28: EIS RESULTS OVERLAYING THE DELINEATION OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 52 of 62 pages 4.6. Water Quality assessment The samples were taken during the site visit at the sample points described in Figure 26. The samples collected were analysed at a South African National Standards (SANS) approved laboratory (Aquatico Laboratories cc). The Department of Water Affair’s Target for Water Quality Range (TWQR) (Department of Water Affairs, 1996) for aquatic ecosystems was used as reference. The results are given in TABLE 10 below and in Figure 29 to Figure 31.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 53 of 62 pages TABLE 10: THE WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS FOR THE CATCHMENT FOR AUTUMN 2018 Site A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O No No No No No No Temp 13,2 11,2 13,5 13,4 18,5 17,3 16,2 No No Data Data Data Data Data Data pH 7,3 7 8,4 8,3 Data 7,5 7,6 7,5 Flow

1 (out of ppm 1909 367 245 413 266 961 range) Conductivity 2,55 0,51 0,34 0,58 3,42 0,37 1,32 (m S/m)

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 54 of 62 pages

FIGURE 29: PH RESULTS OF THE SAMPLE SITES

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 55 of 62 pages

FIGURE 30: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) EXPRESSED AS PARTS PER MILLION

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 56 of 62 pages

FIGURE 31: TOTAL COLIFORM POLLUTION IN PARTS PER MILLION

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 57 of 62 pages 4.6.1. pH The pH of the site did not differ much between the sample sites. This can be attributed to the same water source feeding the systems. It is a concern that the pH exceeds the TWQR.

4.6.2. Temperature The temperature is within range, although at some of the sites, the temperature was higher than the norm.

4.6.3. PPM (TDS and Conductivity) The TDS is very high and exceeds the maximum excepted values. The system is degraded, and the high TDS shows impacts from the mine reclamation process releases of water.

4.7. SASS 5 All SASS 5 assessments are bound to the habitat requirements as per the method statement (Dickens and Graham, 2002). Some of the sites met all the requirements, but as was the case with most of the sites, the stones habitat was lacking. This will influence the overall SASS score. To provide an accurate comparison on the SASS scores found throughout the catchment, the ASPT (average score per taxon) was calculated and provided in FIGURE 32

FIGURE 32: SASS 5 RESULTS AS ASPT OF THE CATCHMENT

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 58 of 62 pages 4.8. Fish population assessment Sampling was done on all the sites using passive capture methods. Due to the high conductivity in the water, reaction of the fish was well away from the sampler. No fish species was found in the catchment. This can be attributed to the following aspects: No fish left in that section of the system- if this was the case it would have been echoed by the SASS scores of the system. The SASS scores were in line and not indicative of a system impacted in recent times, Hydrological disconnect from the rest of the system- this is not the case as the FROC and RQS indicates fish in the system, No fish in the specific area of sample due to local migration, habitat not suiting (unlikely), or other not observed reasons. Stochastic event (possibly pollution) reducing habitat viability and removing fish from the sample site, Sampling equipment error- unlikely, as aquatic macroinvertebrates responded to the electro-narcosis.

More information is required to determine the true fish population of the system, and with the summer sample set, more attention will be given to the impoundments found in the catchment.

5. Conclusion

The catchment is large, with many impacts to the system. These impacts to the system have been in place for many years. Historical anthropogenic degradation of the system has altered the status quo of the system to such an extent that most of the catchment can be seen as seriously modified - this is also reflected by the PES of the systems (average D). The ecological integrity of the catchment remains, but is impacted. The most important aspect of the ecological functioning provided by the catchment is the provision of movement corridors. The aquatic ecosystem creates a network of movement for the catchment allowing fauna and flora dispersal in the system.

6. References Publications: DWA (Department of Water Affairs) Draft Updated Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas, prepared by M. Rountree, A. L. Batchelor, J. MacKenzie and D. Hoare. (2008) DWAF (Department of Water Affairs) (2005) A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas, Edition 1 September 2005

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 59 of 62 pages DWAF (Department of Water Affairs) (2005). A level I river Ecoregional classification system for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland- final. Dickens CWS, Graham PM, (2002). The South African Scoring System (SASS) Version 5 Rapid Bioassessment Method for Rivers. African journal of aquatic science. 2002, 27: 1ñ10 South African Government. DWAF (Department of Water Affairs). The National Water Act of 1998 (Act No. 98 of 1998). Government printers. GDARD (Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development). Gauteng Conservation Plan: Version 3.1.0.12. Kleynhans CJ, Louw MD, Moolman J. 2007. Reference frequency of occurrence of fish species in South Africa. Report produced for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (Resource Quality Services) and the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No TT331/08. Kleynhans CJ, MacKenzie J, Louw MD. 2007. Module F: Riparian Vegetation Response Assessment Index in River Eco Classification: Manual for Eco Status Determination (version 2). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report No. TT 333/08 Kotze DC, Marneweck GC, Batchelor AL, Lindley DS and Collins NB, 2007.WET- EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report No TT 339/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria Affairs, D. o. W., 1998. National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998.. Department of Water Affairs: Republic of South Africa. Government Printers.. CSIR, 2005. Guideline for human settlement planning and design. 1 ed. Pretoria: CSIR. Davies, B. & Day, J., 1998. Vanishing Waters. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Duthie, A, MacKay, H. de Lange H. Appendix w5: IER (floodplain wetlands) determining the ecological importance and sensitivity (EIS) and ecological management class (EMC) DWA RQS Google Earth. [Online] Available at: www.googleearth.com [Accessed April 2013]. Department of Water Affairs, 1999. Quality of domestic water supplies Volume 2: Sampling Guide I., Water Research Commission No: TT 117/99 (ISBN No: 1 86845 543 2) Gauteng Department of Agriculture Rural Development, 2014. GDARD requirements for biodiversity assessments- version 3. Johannesburg: GDARD. Kleynhans, C. J., Thirion, C. & Moolman, J., 2005. A Level 1 river Ecoregion classification System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Afri, Issue Report no. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality Services. Mucina, L. &. Rutherford, R. M., 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. ed. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 60 of 62 pages Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L. and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801 Ollis, D. J., Snaddon, C. D., Job, N. M. & Mbona, N., 2013. Classification system for wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland Systems. Pretorai: South African National Biodiversity institute. SANBI, 1999. Further development of a proposed national wetland classification system for South Africa, Pretoria: South African Biodiversity Institute. Macfarlane DM, Kotze DC, Ellery WN, Walters D, Koopman V, Goodman P and Goge C. 2007. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report No TT 340/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria Wagner RG & Hagan JM (Editors). 2000. Forestry and the riparian zone. Conference Proceedings. Wells Conference Centre, University of Maine Orono, Maine October 2000. Websites: www.waterwise.co.za http://gcro1.wits.ac.za/gcrogis1/ www.googleearth.com

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 61 of 62 pages 7. Assumptions and limitations To determine the riparian or wetland boundary, indicators (as discussed above) are used. If these are not present during the site visit, it can be assumed that they were dormant or absent and thus if any further indicators are found during any future phases of the project, the author cannot be held responsible due to the indicators variability. Even though every care was taken to ensure the accuracy of this report, environmental assessment studies are limited in scope, time, and budget. Discussions and proposed mitigations are to some extent made on reasonable and informed assumptions built on bona fide information sources, as well as deductive reasoning. No biomonitoring or physical chemical aspects of water found on the study were done. The safety of the delineator is of priority and thus in areas deemed, as unsafe limited time was spent.

If the location of the study site is on and near underlying granitic geology the possible presence of cryptic wetlands must be investigated by a suitably qualified soil scientist with field experience.

Deriving a 100% factual report based on field collecting and observations can only be done over several years and seasons to account for fluctuating environmental conditions and migrations. Since environmental impact studies deal with dynamic natural systems additional information may come to light at a later stage.

As aquatic systems are directly linked to the frequency and quantity of rain it will influence the systems drastically. If during dry months or dry seasons studies are done, the accuracy of the report’s findings could be affected.

Galago Environmental can thus not accept responsibility for conclusions and mitigation measures made in good faith based on own databases or on the information provided at the time of the directive. This report should therefore be viewed and acted upon with these limitations in mind.

Elsburgspruit Catchment: Aquatic ecosystem delineation 62 of 62 pages