Aquatic study, wetland delineation and dam assessment

for

ALBERTS FARM DAM ON THE REMAINDER OF THE FARM WATERVAL 211 IQ

June 2019

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

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 1 of 80 pages DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I, Bertus Fourie, declare that - I am subcontracted as specialist consultant by Galago Environmental cc. for the aquatic ecosystem delineation. I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; I will take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in Regulation 8; I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Bertus Fourie SACNASP Reg. No: 300025/13

COPYRIGHT Copyright to the text and other matter, including the manner of presentation, is the exclusively the property of the author. It is a criminal offence to reproduce and/or use, without written consent, any matter, technical procedure, and/or technique contained in this document. Criminal and civil proceedings will be taken as a matter of strict routine against any person and/or institution infringing the copyright of the author and/or proprietors.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 2 of 80 pages TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 9 1.1. BUFFERS AS PER GDARD GUIDELINES...... 12 1.2. SCOPE OF WORK ...... 17 2. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 17 3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 18 3.1. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ...... 18 3.2. REGIONAL DESCRIPTION AND VEGETATION ...... 18 3.3. CATCHMENT AND ECOREGION DESCRIPTION ...... 20 3.4. GEOLOGY AND LAND TYPES ...... 22 3.5. CATCHMENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT ...... 22 3.6. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY ...... 23 4. METHODS ...... 24 4.1. ABIOTIC DRIVERS ...... 25 4.1.1. Chemical drivers ...... 25 4.1.2. Physical properties of water ...... 26 4.1.3. Chemical properties of water ...... 27 4.1.4. Bacteriological properties of water ...... 34 4.1.5. Sediment analysis ...... 34 4.1.6. Physical ...... 35 4.2. BIOTIC REAGENTS ...... 35 4.2.1. Fauna ...... 35 4.2.2. SASS 5 method ...... 37 4.2.1. Flora ...... 38 4.3. INTERPRETATION METHODS ...... 38 4.3.1. WET-Ecoservices ...... 38 4.4. CLASSIFICATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ...... 39 4.5. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS ...... 39 4.6. DELINEATION OF RIPARIAN EDGE ...... 41 4.7. WETLAND PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) CALCULATION METHOD ...... 41 4.8. RIPARIAN PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) CALCULATION METHOD ...... 42 4.9. WETLAND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES (WET-ECOSERVICES)...... 43 4.10. ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY (EIS) CALCULATION ...... 43 4.11. HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGERY ...... 44 5. ABIOTIC RESULTS ...... 45 5.1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS ...... 45 5.2. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS ...... 48 5.3. BATHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT ...... 51 6. BIOTIC RESULTS ...... 52 6.1.1. Aquatic ecosystem classification (Ollis et al 2013) ...... 52 6.2. SASS 5 ASSESSMENT ...... 54 6.3. ICHTHYOFAUNAL ASSESSMENT ...... 55 6.4. PRESENT ECOLOGICAL SCORE ...... 56 6.4.1. Present Ecological Score (Wetland IHI) results ...... 56 6.5. ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY ...... 57 7. DISCUSSION, IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 59 7.1. IMPACTS ...... 61 7.2. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ...... 62

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 3 of 80 pages 7.3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 67 7.4. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 70 7.5. MITIGATION OF PROPOSED IMPACT ...... 72 7.5.1. Site specific mitigation measures ...... 72 7.5.2. Mitigation of impacts using buffers ...... 72 7.6. GENERAL MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 75 8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 77 8.1. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS ...... 78 9. REFERENCES ...... 78

FIGURES:

FIGURE 1: THE TYPES AND LOCATION OF INLAND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ...... 10 FIGURE 2: SKETCH INDICATING A CROSS SECTION OF RIPARIAN ZONATION ...... 12 FIGURE 3: LAYOUT OF A TYPICAL BUFFER AROUND A WETLAND ...... 13 FIGURE 4: STUDY SITE LOCATION ...... 18 FIGURE 5: THE VEGETATION TYPES OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 19 FIGURE 6: THE CATCHMENT AND HYDROLOGICAL DATA FOR THE STUDY SITE...... 20 FIGURE 7: ECOREGIONS OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 21 FIGURE 8: LAND TYPES OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 22 FIGURE 9: 2001 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE ...... 23 FIGURE 10: 2019 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE ...... 24 FIGURE 11: WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURE ...... 26 FIGURE 12: DESCRIPTION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF AN AREA (FROM DWAF, 2005) ...... 40 FIGURE 13: CROSS SECTION THROUGH A WETLAND ...... 40 FIGURE 14: WATER QUALITY RESULTS ...... 45 FIGURE 15: ANION RESULTS ...... 48 FIGURE 16: IPC DIGESTION RESULTS ...... 50 FIGURE 17: ORGANICS RESULTS ...... 51 FIGURE 18: BATHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ALBERTS FARM DAM ...... 51 FIGURE 19: THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 52 FIGURE 20: THE SASS 5 RESULTS ...... 54 FIGURE 21: IHAS RESULT OF THE SITE ...... 55 FIGURE 22: ALBERTS FARM DAM ...... 59 FIGURE 23: THE ARTESIAN SPRING FEEDING THE ALBERTS FARM DAM ...... 60 FIGURE 24: SECTION OF BANK REQUIRING EMERGENCY WORK ...... 60 FIGURE 25: AQUATIC ALIEN VEGETATION EXPECTED AND OBSERVED IN THE DAM ...... 61 FIGURE 26: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 61 FIGURE 27: PROPOSED LAYOUT OF ACTIVITIES ...... 63 FIGURE 28: CROSS SECTION OF DAM WALL REINSTATEMENT...... 64 FIGURE 29: SPILLWAY DESIGN ...... 65 FIGURE 30: CROSS SECTION OF SPILLWAY RETURN CHANNEL ...... 66 FIGURE 31: THE SEQUENTIAL NATURE OF EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND FLOODING ...... 67 FIGURE 32: BUFFER RECOMMENDATIONS AS PER GDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE 72

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 4 of 80 pages FIGURE 33: THE ENGINEERING REPORT THE PLACEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION CAMP .. 74 FIGURE 34: PROPOSED BUFFERS OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 74

TABLES:

TABLE 1: BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AS PER GDARD, 2014 ...... 12

TABLE 2: THE WETLAND HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) TYPES ...... 14

TABLE 3: THE REGULATORY BENEFITS POTENTIALLY PROVIDED BY WETLANDS ...... 16

TABLE 4: THE PERCENTILE LAND USE OF THE CATCHMENT OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 23

TABLE 5: METHODS TO MEASURE DRIVERS/ ABIOTIC FACTORS ...... 24

TABLE 6: METHODS TO MEASURE REAGENTS TO DRIVERS ...... 25

TABLE 7: METHODS TO INTERPRET INFORMATION ...... 25

TABLE 8: TABLE FOR COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF WATER ...... 27

TABLE 9: SOME OF THE CHEMICAL ASPECTS TESTED FOR ...... 28

TABLE 10: FAECAL COLIFORM RESULT INTERPRETATION GUIDE ...... 34

TABLE 11: THE EIGHT STEPS OF FRAI AS DESCRIBED BY KLEYNHANS, 2007 ...... 36

TABLE 12: FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM ...... 36

TABLE 13: THE DESCRIPTION OF THE HEALTH CATEGORY ...... 42

TABLE 14: EIS INTERPRETATION GUIDE ...... 44

TABLE 15: WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITH WATER QUALITY TARGET ...... 46

TABLE 16: SUMMARY OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION ...... 53

TABLE 17: LEVEL 6 DESCRIPTORS ...... 56

TABLE 18: THE WETLAND IHI PES RESULT OF THE WETLAND SYSTEM ...... 57

TABLE 19: THE EIS SCORE OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND REMC CLASSIFICATION . 58

TABLE 20: THE IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION RATING SCALE ...... 68

TABLE 21: THE IMPACT RATING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ...... 68

TABLE 22: RISK ASSESSMENT SCALING ...... 71

TABLE 23: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 71

TABLE 24: BUFFER SERVICE AND REQUIREMENTS ASSESSMENT ...... 73

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 5 of 80 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. Detritus- Decaying organic matter found in the top layer of soil 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- Soils with a moderate inherent fertility. An indicator of soil fertility is its base status, which is expressed as a ratio relating the major nutrient cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium 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 frequency sufficient

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 6 of 80 pages 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 Control EWR Environmental Water Officer Requirements ASPT Average Score Per Taxon FRAI Fish Response Assessment Index CERM Comprehensive Ecological FROC Fish reference of occurrence Reserve Methodology GSM Gravel, Sand, Mud DSS Decision Support System GDARD Gauteng Department of DWA Department of Water Affairs Agriculture and Rural Development DWS Department of water and IERM Intermediate Ecological Reserve sanitation Methodology EC Ecological Category IHAS Invertebrate Habitat Assessment ECO Environmental control officer System EIS Ecological Importance and IHI Index of Habitat Integrity Sensitivity

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 7 of 80 pages MIRAI Macro-Invertebrate Response SIC Stones in current Assessment Index SOG Soap, oil and grease MVIC Marginal Vegetation in Current SOOC Stones out of current MVOOC Marginal Vegetation out of TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons Current TWQR Target water quality range NFEPA National Freshwater VEGRAI Vegetation Response Ecosystem Priority Areas Assessment Index PES Present Ecological State Wetland IHI Wetland index of habitat REC Recommended Ecological integrity tool Category WMA Water Management Area REMC Recommended Ecological WUL Water use licence (approved Management Class license) RERM Rapid Ecological Reserve WULA Water use licence application Methodology (license application) RHP River Health Programme SASS5 South African Scoring System (Version 5)

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 8 of 80 pages 1. Introduction Galago Environmental CC was appointed to delineate possible edges of aquatic ecosystems (including riparian and wetland areas) on the remainder of the farm Waterval 211 IQ (henceforth known as the “study site”), scheduled for the upgrading and rehabilitation of the Alberts Farm dam wall and spillway. The investigation into the possible occurrence of wetlands on the neighbouring properties (up to 500 meters extended study area (ESA)) as in terms of General Notice 1199 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) was also done (albeit desktop derived). Also included in the scope of work is to propose mitigation measures to ensure that aquatic ecosystem integrity and functionality is kept at optimum.

An 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 0.5m 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 1).

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 9 of 80 pages

FIGURE 1: 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

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 10 of 80 pages to an increase in the overall biodiversity 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 2).

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 11 of 80 pages

FIGURE 2: 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 visits were conducted from June - August 2019. 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. This document provides guidelines for the minimum mitigation measures when development is proposed for all biodiversity assessments, including wetlands.

1.1. Buffers as per GDARD guidelines The Minimum requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, 2014 of the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD, 2014) state that different buffers must be applied to sites inside and outside the urban edge (Table 1).

TABLE 1: BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AS PER GDARD, 2014 Wetlands Riparian areas Inside urban edge 30 meters 32 meters Outside urban edge 50 meters 100 meters

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 12 of 80 pages Buffer areas are seen as part of the aquatic ecosystem and may not be developed or affected in any way by the construction activities and is rated the same sensitivity as the system. Buffers are a strip of land surrounding a wetland or riparian area in which activities are controlled or restricted, in order to reduce the impact of adjacent land uses on the wetland or riparian area. Buffers are in essence a fabricated ecotone. This ensures the wetland functioning is kept at an optimum and the services provided by wetlands are maintained. To ensure the buffer is maintained it must be fenced off prior to the physical construction of the site and the building contractors of the site contractually bound to the conservation of the area.

FIGURE 3: LAYOUT OF A TYPICAL BUFFER AROUND A WETLAND WITH THE SETBACK LINE CLEARLY DEFINED

Although the term wetland describes the main functions provided by the wetland, there are many different hydrogeomorphic types of wetlands in South Africa. The following table (Table 2) from Kotze, et al. 2007 illustrates the type of wetland as well as the hydrological source of the wetland. Important is Table 3 concerning the regulatory benefits provided by the wetland types.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 13 of 80 pages TABLE 2: THE WETLAND HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) TYPES TYPICALLY SUPPORTING INLAND WETLANDS IN SOUTH AFRICA (FROM KOTZE, ET AL. 2007) Source of water Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) types Description maintaining wetland Surface Subsurface Valley bottom areas with a well-defined stream channel, gently sloped and characterized by floodplain features such as oxbow depressions and natural levees and Floodplain the alluvial (by water) transport and deposition of sediment, usually leading to a net *** *

accumulation of sediment. Water inputs from main channel (when channel banks overspill) and from adjacent slopes. Valley bottom areas with a well-defined stream channel but lacking characteristic Valley floodplain features. May be gently sloped and characterized by the net accumulation of bottom with a alluvial deposits or may have steeper slopes and be characterized by the net loss of *** */*** channel sediment. Water inputs from main channel (when channel banks overspill) and from adjacent slopes. Valley Valley bottom areas with no clearly defined stream channel usually gently sloped and bottom characterized by alluvial sediment deposition, generally leading to a net accumulation of *** */*** without a sediment. Water inputs mainly from channel entering the wetland and also from channel adjacent slopes Hillslope Slopes on hillsides, which are characterized by the colluvial (transported by gravity) seepage movement of materials. Water inputs are mainly from sub-surface flow and outflow is * *** linked to a usually via a well defines stream channel connecting the area directly to a stream stream channel.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 14 of 80 pages Source of water Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) types Description maintaining wetland Surface Subsurface channel Slopes on hillsides, which are characterized by the colluvial (transported by gravity) Isolated movement of materials. Water inputs mainly from sub-surface flow and outflow either hillslope * *** very limited or through diffuse sub-surface and/or surface flow but with no direct surface seepage water connection to a stream channel A basin shaped area with a closed elevation contour that allows for the accumulation of Depression surface water (i.e. it is inward draining). It may also receive sub-surface water. An outlet (including is usually absent, and therefore this type is usually isolated from the stream channel */*** */***

Pans) network.

Precipitation is an important water source and evapotranspiration an important output in all of the above settings. indicates wetland

Water source: * Contribution usually small *** Contribution usually large */ *** Contribution may be small or important depending on the local circumstances */ *** Contribution may be small or important depending on the local circumstances.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 15 of 80 pages TABLE 3: THE REGULATORY BENEFITS POTENTIALLY PROVIDED BY WETLANDS (FROM KOTZE ET AL. 2007) Regulatory benefits potentially provided by wetland Flood Attenuation Enhancement of Water Quality Stream- Wetland Hydrogeomorphic types (HGM) Early Late flow Erosion Sediment Wet wet Phosphates Nitrates Toxicants regulation control Trapping Season season Floodplain ** * 0 ** ** ** * * Valley bottom- channelled * 0 0 ** * * * * Valley bottom unchannelled * * *? ** ** * * ** Hillslope seepage connected to a stream * 0 * ** 0 0 ** ** Isolated hillslope seepage * 0 0 ** 0 0 ** * Pan/ Depression * * 0 0 0 0 * * Rating: 0 Benefit unlikely to be provided to any significant level * Benefit likely to be present as least to some degree ** Benefit very likely to be present (and often supplied to a high level)

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 16 of 80 pages 1.2. Scope of work The scope of this project is: Delineation of aquatic ecosystems, Determine where possible the present ecological score (PES) of the aquatic systems, Assessment of the aquatic ecosystem on the site Assessment of the impact ratings, Recommend mitigation measures.

2. 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 indicator’s 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.

The condition, quantity, and quality of the water found in the study site were not established as it is outside the scope and extent of the study. 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.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 17 of 80 pages 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.

3. Site location and description The study site is situated in Northcliff, east of the N1 highway and west of Beyers Naude Drive in Johannesburg (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4: STUDY SITE LOCATION

3.1. Proposed Activities The proposed development for the site is the upgrading and rehabilitation of the dam embankment and spillway.

3.2. Regional description and vegetation According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006) the site is situated within two vegetation units, viz Egoli Granite Grassland and Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld. The Egoli Granite Grassland features archaean granite and gneiss of the Halfway House Granite at the core of the Johannesburg Dome, supporting leached, shallow, coarsely grained, sandy soil poor in nutrients. This grassland falls within a strongly seasonal summer-rainfall region and very dry winters with frequent frosts.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 18 of 80 pages The Egoli Granite Grassland vegetation unit is considered endangered. Its conservation target is 24%. Only about 3% of this vegetation unit is conserved in statutory reserves and a few private conservation areas. More than two-thirds of the unit has already undergone transformation, mostly by urbanization, cultivation and by building of roads. Current rates of transformation threaten most of the remaining unconserved areas.

FIGURE 5: THE VEGETATION TYPES OF THE STUDY AREA

Mucina and Rutherford, 2006 described the Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld vegetation unit as featuring rocky hills and ridges, often west-east trending, with more dense woody vegetation on the south-facing slopes associated with distinct floristic differences (e.g. preponderance of Acacia caffra on the southern slopes). Tree cover elsewhere is variable. Tree and shrub layers are often continuous. The herbaceous layer is dominated by grasses.

The geology of the Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld consists predominantly of quartzites, conglomerates and some shale horizons of the Magaliesberg, Daspoort and Silverton Formations and the Hospital Hill, Turffontein and Government subgroups. Soils are shallow, gravel lithosols.

The Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld vegetation unit falls within a summer-rainfall region with very dry winters and frequent winter frosts, less common on the ridges and hills. This vegetation unit is considered least threatened. Its conservation target is 24%. Some 22% is

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 19 of 80 pages conserved in statutory reserves such as Magaliesberg Nature Area and the Rustenburg, Wonderboom and Suikerbosrand Nature Reserves. About 15% is transformed, mainly by cultivation and urbanization.

3.3. Catchment and ecoregion description The study area falls in the Crocodile (West) and Marico (WMA no 4) and is located in quaternary catchments A21C. The quaternary catchment A21C has a mean annual precipitation of 682.17mm and mean annual runoff of 49%. The study site drains to the Braamfonteinspruit. See Figure 6 below for the Google Earth description of the site, as provided by the Department of Water Affair’s Resource Quality Services (RQS) department.

FIGURE 6: THE CATCHMENT AND HYDROLOGICAL DATA FOR THE STUDY SITE, AS AVAILABLE FROM DWA RQS SERVICES.

The site falls within the Highveld Ecoregion (Figure 7) as described in the Level 1 Ecoregions by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF, 2005):

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 20 of 80 pages

FIGURE 7: ECOREGIONS OF THE STUDY SITE

The ecoregion is defined by: 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.

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 11 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.

1Level 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 physiography. In South Africa physiography, climate, geology, soils and potential natural vegetation have been used as the delineators of Level I (DWAF, 2007). Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 21 of 80 pages 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

3.4. Geology and land types Land type information for the site was obtained through the Department of Agriculture’s Global Information Service (AGIS2). The study site lies within the Bb1 and Ib41 land types (Figure 8). 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).

FIGURE 8: LAND TYPES OF THE STUDY SITE

3.5. Catchment condition assessment Wetlands 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 wetlands can be defined as the action of collecting water in an area, from the highest topographical point to the lowest collection point (and in the case of the wetland found on site, a valley bottom wetland and isolated hillslope seepage system) (SANBI, 1999). The condition of a wetland’s catchment thus has a profound impact

2 Data obtained January 2014. www.agis.agric.za/ Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 22 of 80 pages on the nature of the flows entering the wetland. Therefore, the extent of the catchment is determined and its condition assessed by identifying possible impacts and sources of pollution. The wetland and riparian area of the study site forms part of a larger HydroGeomorphic (HGM) drainage network and thus share a larger catchment (Table 4 for the catchment use descriptions and proportional percentage).

TABLE 4: THE PERCENTILE LAND USE OF THE CATCHMENT OF THE STUDY SITE Catchment land use Agriculture 0 Housing 60 Industrial 0 Roads 20 Natural (disturbed) 20 Natural (reference condition) 00 Total 100

3.6. Historical and Current use of the property Google Earth’s Timeline function was used as reference imagery (Accessed 2019). Google Earth imagery from 2001 (Figure 10) to early 2019 (Figure 9) is available and was used to determine the historical land use and whether the site was extensively altered in the past or to detect large changes in the land use of the catchment. The maps are also used to identify areas where possible aquatic ecosystems occur (Figures 9-10).

FIGURE 9: 2001 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 23 of 80 pages

FIGURE 10: 2019 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

4. Methods The assessment of dams as per the scope of the project is difficult. It entails the assessment of various drivers to facilitate an understanding of the systems and ultimately the compilation of a rehabilitation action plan. The methods are based on two main drivers (Table 3) with reagents being the biodiversity assessment.

TABLE 5: METHODS TO MEASURE DRIVERS/ ABIOTIC FACTORS Drivers/ Abiotic Aspect How Water quality assessment using handheld probe and laboratory Chemical assessments Water column, bank height and shape and morphology were simply Physical measured and calculated using common knowledge methods. This includes fauna and flora identification.

The reagents to the drivers are basically the fauna and flora occurring in the specific area where the construction activities are planned. To assess the reagents, basic EcoStatus models were applied (Louw and Kleynhans, 2007). This includes SASS 5 and fish population assessments. See Table 6 for the methods employed to determine the reagents to the drivers.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 24 of 80 pages TABLE 6: METHODS TO MEASURE REAGENTS TO DRIVERS Reagents to drivers Aspect How Fauna Benthic fauna in line with SASS 5 methods (Dickens and Graham, 2002) Species identification per sample site in line with VEGRAI methods (Louw Flora and Kleynhans, 2007). Population densities estimated visually Description of habitats in line with (Dickens and Graham, 2002) and Habitat (Kleynhans and Louw, 2008)

This information is then used to interpret results and provide management information. This includes ecological goods and services as well as the methods employed to determine the reagents to the drivers (Table 7).

TABLE 7: METHODS TO INTERPRET INFORMATION Reagents to drivers Aspect How Using method and program as described by (Breen, Uys and Goods and services Batchelor, 2008)

See sections below for detailed description of methods employed for the assessments.

The Environmental Management Plan Remedial for the Alberts Farm Conservancy provided done by Paul Fairall, 2017, was also scrutinised to verify the delineation of the wetlands found on site.

4.1. Abiotic drivers 4.1.1. Chemical drivers 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 (DWAF, 1996). See Figure 11 for an image of the sampling procedure as taken from the guide.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 25 of 80 pages

FIGURE 11: WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURE

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).

4.1.2. Physical properties of water The physical properties of water are based on the temperature, Electrical conductivity (EC), pH, and oxygen content of the water- using physical methods. The physical properties of water influence the aesthetical – as well as the chemical qualities of water. Relevance of the indicators of the physical properties of water include pH- affects the corrosiveness of water and EC- an indication of the “freshness” of water (indicates the presence of dissolved salts and other dissolved particles). Included in the physical properties of water are the suspendoid’s effects on water quality. This includes turbidity, and total suspended solids. Turbidity is measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU’s) and is the indication of the ability of light to pass through water. See Table 8 for a list of physical properties of water and comparative results.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 26 of 80 pages TABLE 8: TABLE FOR COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF WATER pH Values pH > 8.5 Alkaline pH 6.0-8.5 Circumneutral pH < 6.0 Acidic Total Hardness (in mg CaCO3/l) Hardness < 50 mg/l Soft Hardness 50-100 mg/l Moderately soft Hardness 100- 150 mg/l Slightly hard Hardness 150-200 mg/l Moderately hard Hardness 200-300 mg/l Hard Hardness 300-600 mg/l Very hard Total Dissolved Solids as indicator of salinity of water TDS <450 mg/l Non saline TDS 450-1000 mg/l Saline TDS 1000-2400 mg/l Very saline TDS 2400-3400 mg/l Extremely saline Total suspended solids (TSS) Any increase in TSS concentrations must Background TSS concentrations are < 100 be limited to < 10 % of the background mg/l TSS concentrations at a specific site and time. Turbidity (Measured in NTU) Any increase in TSS concentrations must < 100 mg/l be limited to < 10 % of the background TSS concentrations at a specific site and time. Total Alkalinity Indication of the water’s ability to resist 80-120 ppm change in pH.

4.1.3. Chemical properties of water The chemical quality of the water refers to the nature and concentrations of dissolved substances such as organic or inorganic compounds (including metals) in the water body. Many chemicals in water are essential for the biotic community and may form an integral part of the nutritional requirements. Various chemical properties can be tested for and is costly to conduct full spectrum analysis. For that reason, only selected aspects are tested for. See Table 9 for a list of some of the chemical aspects tested for.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 27 of 80 pages TABLE 9: SOME OF THE CHEMICAL ASPECTS TESTED FOR Aspect Comment Range Dissolved oxygen concentrations can be increased by natural diffusion of gaseous oxygen from the atmosphere into water. Diffusion continues until the saturation concentration is reached. The rate of increase of dissolution of oxygen can be accelerated if turbulence of the water increases, causing entrainment of air from the atmosphere. Under anoxic conditions (in the <80-120% Dissolved absence of free and bound >60% Sub lethal oxygen oxygen) in the water column or in >40% Lethal sediments, heavy metals such as iron and manganese can appear in solution, as ferrous (Fe2+) and manganous (Mn2+) species, and toxic sulphides (S-) may also be released. High water temperatures combined with low dissolved oxygen levels can compound stress effects on aquatic organisms. The depletion of dissolved oxygen in conjunction with the presence of toxic

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 28 of 80 pages substances can also lead to a compounded stress response in aquatic organisms. Under such conditions increased toxicity of zinc, lead, copper, cyanide, sulphide and ammonia have been observed. Normally all types of water contain chloride ion but its concentration is very low in natural water system. Chloride ion concentration increases in case of urine and sewage contaminated water. High concentration of chloride Aquatic ecosystems= 0 mg/l Chloride ion: gives salty taste and also corrodes Human consumption= 0-100 mg/l pipelines of water. Normally 150 mg/l of chloride ion is harmless. Maximum permissible limit of chloride ion in drinking water is 200mg/ l. In water ammonia come from decomposition of organic matter like protein, amino acids etc. Its concentration also increases Aquatic ecosystems = 0.007 mg NH /l Ammonia during water disinfection process 3 Human consumption= 0-1.0 mg NH /l using chloramine. 3 In water Ammonia (NH3) is first oxidized into nitrite and then into nitrate. Therefore, by measuring

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 29 of 80 pages the concentration of NH3, nitrite and nitrate, we can predict the time of contamination of organic matter in water. In recently contamination, concentration of NH3 is very high than nitrite and nitrate. Concentration of NH3 in ground water system is usually 3mg/l If its concentration is greater than 50mg/l it gives characteristic taste and odor. Fluorine is a natural trace element and exists in almost all soils. Fluoride is classified as any binary compound of fluorine with another element. Perhaps the most widely known use of fluoride is its 0.75 mg/l Aquatic ecosystems addition to public drinking water supplies at about one milligram per liter (mg/L) of a fluoride salt, Fluoride measured as fluoride, for the purpose of reducing tooth decay. Children under nine years of age Human consumption exposed to levels of fluoride greater than about 2 mg/L may develop a condition known as 0-1 mg/l mottling or discoloration of the permanent teeth. Exposure to drinking water levels above 4

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 30 of 80 pages mg/L for many years may result in cases of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which is a serious bone disorder resembling osteopetrosis and characterized by extreme density and hardness and abnormal fragility of the bones (sometimes called “marble bones”). It is very unstable intermediate Oligotrophic conditions; usually moderate levels of species formed during conversion of NH diversity; usually low productivity systems with rapid nutrient 2 <0.5 mg/l into nitrate. cycling; no nuisance growth of aquatic plants or the presence In aerobic condition nitrite is of blue-green algal blooms. oxidized into nitrate whereas in Mesotrophic conditions; usually high levels of species diversity; anaerobic condition, nitrite is 0.5-2.5 mg/l usually productive systems; nuisance growth of aquatic plants reduced to ammonia. and blooms of blue-green algae; algal blooms seldom toxic. If concentration of nitrite is greater Eutrophic conditions; usually low levels of species diversity; Nitrite in drinking water, it brings serious usually highly productive systems, nuisance growth of aquatic 2.5-10 mg/l health hazard to the consumers. plants and blooms of blue-green algae; algal blooms may Disease caused by high include species which are toxic to man, livestock and wildlife. concentration of nitrite in infants is Hypertrophic conditions; usually very low levels of species called Blue baby syndrome, which diversity; usually very highly productive systems; nuisance is characterized by blue coloration growth of aquatic plants and blooms of blue-green algae, often >10 mg/l of skin including species which are toxic to man, livestock and wildlife. Level of nitrite in drinking water should not exceed 3mg/l. It is most stable oxidized form of Oligotrophic conditions; usually moderate levels of species nitrogen. In water nitrate comes diversity; usually low productivity systems with rapid nutrient Nitrate <0.5 mg/l from organic matter cycling; no nuisance growth of aquatic plants or the presence decomposition and from of blue-green algal blooms.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 31 of 80 pages atmospheric nitrogen fixation. Mesotrophic conditions; usually high levels of species diversity; Like nitrite Nitrate should not 0.5-2.5 mg/l usually productive systems; nuisance growth of aquatic plants exceed 3mg/l in drinking water. It and blooms of blue-green algae; algal blooms seldom toxic. is because nitrate can be reduced Eutrophic conditions; usually low levels of species diversity; into nitrite in gut of infants and usually highly productive systems, nuisance growth of aquatic 2.5-10 mg/l causes nitrite poisoning. plants and blooms of blue-green algae; algal blooms may Nitrate is very important in natural include species which are toxic to man, livestock and wildlife. water system like lake and pond Hypertrophic conditions; usually very low levels of species because high concentration of diversity; usually very highly productive systems; nuisance nitrate facilitates heavy growth of >10 mg/l growth of aquatic plants and blooms of blue-green algae, often aquatic plants causing including species which are toxic to man, livestock and wildlife. eutrophication. Oligotrophic conditions; usually moderate levels of species diversity; usually low productivity systems with rapid nutrient <5 g/l cycling; no nuisance growth of aquatic plants or blue-green In water phosphate is present in algae.

the form of H2PO4-, polyphosphate Mesotrophic conditions; usually high levels of species diversity; and as organic phosphate. 5-25 g/l usually productive systems; nuisance growth of aquatic plants Phosphate in water sources and blooms of blue-green algae; algal blooms seldom toxic. comes from agricultural wastes, Eutrophic conditions; usually low levels of species diversity; sewage and from industrial usually highly productive systems, with nuisance growth of Phosphate effluent. aquatic plants and blooms of blue green algae; algal blooms 25-250 g/l Phosphate is not toxic to human may include species which are toxic to man, livestock and being, but it is important chemical wildlife. in natural water system like pond because its high concentration Hypertrophic conditions; usually very low levels of species facilitates eutrophication. diversity; usually very highly productive systems; nuisance >250 g/l growth of aquatic plants and blooms of blue-green algae, often including species which are toxic to man, livestock and wildlife.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 32 of 80 pages Sulfates (SO4--) can be naturally No guide is available for the range of sulphates in aquatic

occurring or the result of municipal ecosystems. or industrial discharges. 0-200 mg/l Human consumption range When naturally occurring, they are 0-1000mg/l Livestock watering often the result of the breakdown Sulphate of leaves that fall into a stream, of water passing through rock or soil

containing gypsum and other common minerals, or of atmospheric deposition A product of local geology, N/A Aquatic ecosystems Sodium (NA) Salt (NACl), 0-100 mg/l Human consumption High levels may be beneficial (see 0 Aquatic ecosystems below) and waters which are rich Human consumption Calcium (Ca) in calcium (and hence are very 0-32 mg/l hard) are very palatable N/A Aquatic ecosystems Potassium (K) Linked to total hardness in water 0-50 mg/l Human consumption Like calcium (q.v.), magnesium is 0 Aquatic ecosystems abundant and a major dietary Human consumption requirement for humans (0.3-0.5 g/day). It is the second major constituent of hardness (see Magnesium above) and it generally comprises 0-30 mg/l 15-20 per cent of the total hardness expressed as CaCO3. Its concentration is very significant when considered in conjunction with that of sulphate.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 33 of 80 pages 4.1.4. Bacteriological properties of water Generally, the microbiological quality of water refers to the presence of organisms that cannot be individually seen with the naked eye, such as protozoa, bacteria and viruses. Many of these microbes are associated with the transmission of infectious water-borne diseases such as gastro-enteritis and cholera. In order to determine the bacteriological status and safety of water, testing specifically focuses on total coliforms and E. coli (indicator of faecal coliforms) bacteria. Faecal Coliforms indicates recent faecal pollution and the potential risk of contracting infectious diseases and Total coliforms indicates the general hygienic quality of the water. See Table 10 for interpretation guide for the results.

TABLE 10: FAECAL COLIFORM RESULT INTERPRETATION GUIDE Faecal Effects coliform EFFECTS Range (counts/100 ML) Which occasionally fall in this range. Risk increases if the geometric mean or median levels are consistently in this Target Water Quality range range quality range coliforms indicate a possible risk to 0 - 130 health, but the absence of indicators does not guarantee no risk Risk of gastrointestinal illness indicated at faecal coliforms 130 - 600 levels effects expected. The presence of faecal Noticeable gastrointestinal health effects expected in the swimmer and bather population. Some health risk, if single samples fall in this range, particularly if such events occur 600 - 2 000 frequently. Four out of five samples should contain < 600 faecal coliforms/100 mr, or 95 % of Faecal coliform analyses should be < 2 000/100 mr As the faecal coliform count increases above this limit, the risk of contracting gastrointestinal illness increases. The > 2 000 volume of water ingested in order to cause adverse effects decreases as the faecal coliform density increases

4.1.5. Sediment analysis Soil samples was taken in accordance with the guidelines of the Agricultural Research commission (ARC)3 with a clean spade. Basic steps for sampling of soils are given below: first removing the top surface of soil (1 – 3 cm for the arid and semi-arid regions), taking the top soil, which is located up to 30 cm into the soil from the top surface, taking the sub soil, which is a further 30 cm deeper into the soil, repeating the three steps above at other randomly chosen spots to ensure that the samples will be representative of the whole area, mixing all the top soils together to form a composite top soil, and doing the same for the sub soils,

3 http://gadi.agric.za/news/soilsampling.htm

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 34 of 80 pages and finally obtaining a laboratory sample of about 1,5 kg of each composite sample.

Samples were placed in a soil sample bag and a part of the sample was placed in a clean glass jar for the assessment of hydrocarbons. It is important to note that for the study two samples were taken, with a composite of three samples making up the sample.

Analysis of the soil samples was completed at Waterlab in accordance with the “National Norms and Standards for the Remediation of Contaminated Land and Soil Quality in the Republic of South Africa” as part of General Notice no 3314 of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act no 59 of 2008). Soil screening value one (SSV1) was used as minimum limits as these are for “all land uses Protective of the water resources”.

4.1.6. Physical To determine the physical aspect of the dam, two aspects were measured- firstly, the bank morphology of the system above water and secondly, the bathometric topography. To assess the above water bank morphology, a dumpy level was used to determine the height of the bank to the water level. Secondly, the distance from the edge of the bank’s vertical point to the edge of the bank’s horizontal point was measured. This was then used to graphically show the slope of the bank.

For the bathometric assessment a Deeper Pro5 Sonar, set to boat mode was used. This information is then automatically sent to the Deeper Lakebook6 website, for analysis. Other aspects such as fish presence and size could also be extrapolated from this information.

4.2. Biotic reagents 4.2.1. Fauna 4.2.1.1. 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 11).

4 Staatskoerant, 2 Mei 2014 (No 37603) 5 https://deepersonar.com/us/ 6 https://maps.deepersonar.com/us/ Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 35 of 80 pages TABLE 11: 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.

4.2.1.2. Ichnofauna habitat assessment The velocity depth classification of the site in terms of fish habitat as described by (Kleynhans, 1991; Barbour et al., 1998; Dallas, 2005) will be completed. This is based on the descriptor abundance of velocity-depth class and cover types.

TABLE 12: FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 36 of 80 pages 4.2.2. SASS 5 method 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 ecology 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 SASS 5 (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. SASS 5 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 SASS 5 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.

SASS 5 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 SASS 5 is at family level; therefore changes in species composition within the same family due to environmental changes cannot be detected.

Although the SASS 5 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 Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 37 of 80 pages 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.

4.2.1. Flora Basic flora identification was completed by this specialist on site using a strip transect method as per the sample transects. It must be noted that species identification could possibly be erroneous, but a high degree of confidence is attached to the identification.

4.3. Interpretation methods 4.3.1. WET-Ecoservices Ecological services of the system were calculated using wetland methods. Although the system is riparian, a section of wetland will be impacted by the diversion. To determine and assess the ecological goods and services provided by a wetland, WET-EcoServices (Breen, Uys and Batchelor, 2008) must be used to assess the goods and services that individual wetlands provide, thereby aiding informed 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 (Table 2).

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

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 38 of 80 pages goods and services are also determined by the topographical location and hydrological inputs and regimes of the system (Table 3).

All of this will be completed in collaboration with the following main aspects.

4.4. 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

4.5. 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 50 cm 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.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 39 of 80 pages 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 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)

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 40 of 80 pages 4.6. 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 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.

4.7. 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.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 41 of 80 pages 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).

4.8. 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 assessment7. 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 13 below.

TABLE 13: 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 1-1.9 B 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 2-3.9 C the natural habitat remains predominantly intact Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes 4-5.9 D and loss of 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 6-7.9 E habitat features are still recognizable. Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been modifiedcompletely with 8 – 10 F an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.

7 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. Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 42 of 80 pages 4.9. 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).

4.10. 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) provide 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 Table 14. Although the method was designed for floodplain wetlands, it is generally widely applied to all wetland types.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 43 of 80 pages TABLE 14: 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 sensitive on a national or even international >3 and level. The biodiversity of these floodplains is usually very <=4 A 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 >2 and important and sensitive. The biodiversity of these <=3 B floodplains may be sensitive to flow 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 >1 and important and sensitive on a provincial or local scale. The <=2 C biodiversity of these 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 >0 and sensitive at any scale. The biodiversity of these floodplains <=1 D is ubiquitous and not sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play an insignificant role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

4.11. 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.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 44 of 80 pages 5. Abiotic results 5.1. Water Quality assessments Water quality assessments were completed on 5 June 2019. The analysis was completed by Aquatico Laboratories (Lab no 16424). See Figure 14 for a screenshot of the results and Table 15 for interpretation of the results.

FIGURE 14: WATER QUALITY RESULTS

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 45 of 80 pages TABLE 15: WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS RESULTS WITH WATER QUALITY TARGET Aspect 1 Target water quality range Discussion pH 7.91 6.5-8.5 Circumneutral- not of concern and within range EC is a functional assessment of TDS and thus results can be interpreted EC 13.9 Within range as the same as the TDS. TDS 79 450-1000 mg/l Non Saline water Total Indication of waters ability to resist change in pH. Ideal between 80- 40.3 80-120 alkalinity 120ppm Cl2 (Free Normally all types of water contain chloride ion but its concentration is 16.3 Within range chlorine) very low in natural water system

SO4 8.75 Within range Mesotrophic conditions; usually high levels of species diversity; usually

NO3 0.873 Mesotrophic conditions productive systems; nuisance growth of aquatic plants and blooms of blue-green algae Oligotrophic conditions; usually moderate levels of species diversity;

NO2 0.147 Oligotrophic conditions usually low productivity systems with rapid nutrient cycling; no nuisance growth of aquatic plants or the presence of blue-green algal blooms.

NH4 1.04 Exceeds the 0.007mg/l Exceeds limit for human consumption

NH3 0.034 Exceeds the 0.007mg/l Oligotrophic conditions; usually moderate levels of species diversity; <5000 mg/l PO4 <0.005 usually low productivity systems with rapid nutrient cycling; no nuisance Oligotrophic conditions growth of aquatic plants or blue-green algae. F <0.263 Within range

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 46 of 80 pages Aspect 1 Target water quality range Discussion Exceeds limits for aquatic ecosystems and close to the maximum for 0= aquatic ecosystems Ca 6.99 human consumption. This is of concern as all the samples had elevated 0-32 mg/l human consumption Mg results. Could indicated hardness in water Exceeds limits for aquatic ecosystems within range for the maximum for 0= aquatic ecosystems Mg 7.72 human consumption. This is of concern as all the samples had elevated 0-30 mg/l human consumption Ca results. Could indicated hardness in water NA 8.60 Exceeds limits K 0.480 See total hardness Which occasionally fall in this range. Risk increases if the geometric E.Coli 19 mean or median levels are consistently in this range quality range 0-130 mg/l Total coliforms indicate a possible risk to health, but the absence of indicators 83 Coliforms does not guarantee no risk Turbidity 30.8 <10% of TSS Exceeds with TSS at 31 mg/l. Thus 100% of TSS (NTU) TOTAL Hardness 49 Soft

(mg CaCO3) Background TSS Any increase in TSS concentrations must be limited to < 10 % of the TSS 31 concentrations are < 100 mg/l background TSS concentrations at a specific site and time

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 47 of 80 pages 5.2. Sediment analysis Sediment analysis was completed in June 2019. The results are presented in three main categories (See Figure 15-17 for results). It is important to note that only the Lead (Pb) and Copper (Cu) variables tested exceeded the GN 311 limits.

Analyses Alberts Dam 1 Sample Number 65114 Digestion HNO3 : HF GN331 Limits Discussion Dry Mass Used (g) 0.25

Volume Used (mℓ) 100

Units mg/kg

Chloride as Cl [s] mg/kg 92.46 12000 Below limits

Sulphate as SO4 [s] mg/kg <20 4000 Below limits

Nitrate as N [s] mg/kg 43.29 120 Below limits

Nitrite as N [s] mg/kg <1.3 120 Below limits

Fluoride as F [s] mg/kg <0.5 30 Below limits

Total Cyanide as CN [s] mg/kg <0.5 14 Below limits

Hexavalent Chromium as Cr6+ <5 [s] mg/kg

FIGURE 15: ANION RESULTS

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 48 of 80 pages Extract Sample Dry Mass Mass (g/l) Factor

HNO3 : HF 0.25 2.5 400 Sample Id Sample number As* Limit in mg/kg Discussion mg/kg Det Limit <0.0400 Alberts Dam 1 65114 4.02 6 Below limit Sample Id Sample number Cd mg/kg Det Limit <1.20 Alberts Dam 1 65114 6.40 8 Below limit Sample Id Sample number Co mg/kg Det Limit <10 Alberts Dam 1 65114 <10 300 Below limit Sample Id Sample number Cr mg/kg Det Limit <10 Alberts Dam 1 65114 464 46000 Below limit Sample Id Sample number Cu mg/kg Det Limit <4.00 Alberts Dam 1 65114 28 16 Exceeds limit Sample Id Sample number Hg* mg/kg Det Limit <0.400 Alberts Dam 1 65114 <0.400 0.93 Sample Id Sample number Mn mg/kg Det Limit <10 Alberts Dam 1 65114 292 750 Below limit Sample Id Sample number Ni mg/kg Det Limit <10 Alberts Dam 1 65114 59 91 Below limit Sample Id Sample number Pb mg/kg Det Limit <4.00 Alberts Dam 1 65114 26 20 Exceeds limit Sample Id Sample number V mg/kg Det Limit <10 Alberts Dam 1 65114 22 150 Below limit Sample Id Sample number Zn

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 49 of 80 pages Extract Sample Dry Mass Mass (g/l) Factor

mg/kg Det Limit <10 Alberts Dam 1 65114 18 240 Below limit FIGURE 16: IPC DIGESTION RESULTS

Sample Identification Analyses Alberts Dam 1 Limits in ug/kg Sample Number 65114 Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons Parameter Benzene µg/kg <20 30 Toluene µg/kg <200 25000 Ethylbenzene µg/kg <40 26000 Xylenes Total µg/kg <80 45000 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons Parameter Naphthalene µg/kg <40 28000 Pyrene µg/kg <4 5300 Benzo[a]pyrene µg/kg <4 340 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)

Parameter Estiamated Total PCB's µg/kg <351 610 Speciated Phenols Parameter 2-Chlorophenol µg/kg <200 140000 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol µg/kg <200 4000

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH's)

Parameter GRO TPH C7-C9 µg/kg <200 2300000 TPH C10-C14 mg/kg <20 440000 TPH C15-C36 mg/kg 23 45000000 Volatile Organic Compounds Parameter Carbon tetrachloride µg/kg <100 250 Chlorobenzene µg/kg <40 620000 Chloroform µg/kg <100 110 1,2 Dichlorobenzene µg/kg <40 89000 1,4 Dichlorobenzene µg/kg <40 26000 1,2 Dichloroethane µg/kg <200 10000 1,1-Dichloroethylene µg/kg <200 230 Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 50 of 80 pages 1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/kg <200 1,3,5 Trimethyl benzene µg/kg <40 280 1,2,4 Trimethyl benzene µg/kg <40 1,2,3 Trimethyl benzene µg/kg <40 280 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene µg/kg <40 1,2,3 Trichlorobenzene µg/kg <40 1,3,5 Trichlorobenzene µg/kg <40 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/kg <200 320 Nitrobenzene µg/kg <200 2800 Vinyl Chloride µg/kg <20 3.7 MTBE µg/kg <100 3.6 FIGURE 17: ORGANICS RESULTS

5.3. Bathometric assessment During the assessment of June 2019, the bathometric assessment of the dam was completed using a Deeper Pro+. Data was uploaded to the Deeper Lakebook software for analysis (Figure 18).

FIGURE 18: BATHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ALBERTS FARM DAM

From this data it is clear to see that the dam is shallow - less than 1 meter in depth with no discernible variation in the depth profiles of the dam.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 51 of 80 pages 6. Biotic results During the site visit, a seepage wetland and Channelled Valley Bottom wetland were found (Figure 19). The wetlands are fed by a spring upstream of the dam from where it drains to a channelled valley bottom wetland system. The system is also impounded near the source.

FIGURE 19: THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS OF THE STUDY AREA AS DELINEATED BY PAUL FAIRALL

6.1.1. Aquatic ecosystem classification (Ollis et al 2013) The classification of the system was done using the dichotomous key in Ollis et al. (2013) (Table 16) with the services provided by the aquatic ecosystems found on site in Table 5.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 52 of 80 pages TABLE 16: SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION OF LEVELS 1 TO 5 OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DICHOTOMOUS KEY FROM OLLIS ET AL. 2013 Level 4: Level 3 Level 5 HGM Unit

Key 1 Key 3a Key 3b Key 2 Landscape Unit River Flow types Hydroperiod

Watercourse Level 4b River zonation/ Level 4c Level 5 a Level 5b Level 5 c Level 3a Level 4a Level 3b Landform/ River Flow Level 5a Level 5b Inundation Saturation Inundation (Figure 12) HGM Type Outflow type period period depth class drainage

Without Hilltop Permanently Unknown depth Seepage wetland Shelf Seep channeled Permanent (no 1) saturated class outflow

Channelled valley Valley floor Permanently Valley bottom Permanent Limnetic bottom wetland (no 5) saturated

Valley floor Seasonal Permanently Riparian area River Perennial Seasonal Limnetic (no 5) inundated saturated

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 53 of 80 pages 6.2. SASS 5 assessment The aquatic macroinvertebrate assessment using the SASS 5 method (Dickens and Graham, 2001) was completed for the site only at the outflow of the dam. This is as the short section from the artesian spring to the dam will not show influence from activities. The impoundment also alters the water condition and thus makes comparative results from upstream of the dam not applicable.

Taxon QV S Veg GSM TOT Taxon QV S Veg GSM TOT Taxon QV S Veg GSM TOT PORIFERA (Sponge) 5 HEMIPTERA (Bugs) DIPTERA (Flies) COELENTERATA (Cnidaria) 1 Belostomatidae* (Giant water bugs) 3 A Athericidae (Snipe flies) 10 TURBELLARIA (Flatworms) 3 Corixidae* (Water boatmen) 3 Blepharoceridae (Mountain midges) 15 ANNELIDA Gerridae* (Pond skaters/Water striders) 5 A A Ceratopogonidae (Biting midges) 5 Oligochaeta (Earthworms) 1 Hydrometridae* (Water measurers) 6 Chironomidae (Midges) 2 A A Hirudinea (Leeches) 3 Naucoridae* (Creeping water bugs) 7 A A Culicidae* (Mosquitoes) 1 A A CRUSTACEA Nepidae* (Water scorpions) 3 Dixidae* (Dixid midge) 10 Amphipoda (Scuds) 13 Notonectidae* (Backswimmers) 3 A A Empididae (Dance flies) 6 Potamonautidae* (Crabs) 3 Pleidae* (Pygmy backswimmers) 4 Ephydridae (Shore flies) 3 Atyidae (Freshwater Shrimps) 8 Veliidae/M...veliidae* (Ripple bugs) 5 A A Muscidae (House flies, Stable flies) 1 Palaemonidae (Freshwater Prawns) 10 MEGALOPTERA (Fishflies, Dobsonflies & Alderflies) Psychodidae (Moth flies) 1 HYDRACARINA (Mites) 8 Corydalidae (Fishflies & Dobsonflies) 8 Simuliidae (Blackflies) 5 PLECOPTERA (Stoneflies) Sialidae (Alderflies) 6 Syrphidae* (Rat tailed maggots) 1 Notonemouridae 14 TRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies) Tabanidae (Horse flies) 5 Perlidae 12 Dipseudopsidae 10 Tipulidae (Crane flies) 5 EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) Ecnomidae 8 GASTROPODA (Snails) Baetidae 1sp 4 A A A Hydropsychidae 1 sp 4 Ancylidae (Limpets) 6 Baetidae 2 sp 6 Hydropsychidae 2 sp 6 Bulininae* 3 Baetidae > 2 sp 12 Hydropsychidae > 2 sp 12 Hydrobiidae* 3 Caenidae (Squaregills/Cainfles) 6 Philopotamidae 10 Lymnaeidae* (Pond snails) 3 Ephemeridae 15 Polycentropodidae 12 Physidae* (Pouch snails) 3 Heptageniidae (Flatheaded mayflies) 13 Psychomyiidae/Xiphocentronidae 8 Planorbinae* (Orb snails) 3 Leptophlebiidae (Prongills) 9 Cased caddis: Thiaridae* (=Melanidae) 3 Oligoneuridae (Brushlegged mayflies) 15 Barbarochthonidae SWC 13 Viviparidae* ST 5 Polymitarcyidae (Pale Burrowers) 10 Calamoceratidae ST 11 PELECYPODA (Bivalvles) Prosopistomatidae (Water specs) 15 Glossosomatidae SWC 11 Corbiculidae (Clams) 5 Teloganodidae SWC (Spiny Crawlers) 12 Hydroptilidae 6 Sphaeriidae (Pill clams) 3 Tricorythidae (Stout Crawlers) 9 Hydrosalpingidae SWC 15 Unionidae (Perly mussels) 6 ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies) Lepidostomatidae 10 SASS Score 56 Calopterygidae ST,T (Demoiselles) 10 Leptoceridae 6 No. of Taxa 12 Chlorocyphidae (Jewels) 10 Petrothrincidae SWC 11 ASPT 4,7 Synlestidae (Chlorolestidae)(Sylphs) 8 Pisuliidae 10 Other biota: Coenagrionidae (Sprites and blues) 4 Sericostomatidae SWC 13 Lestidae (Emerald Damselflies/Spreadwings) 8 COLEOPTERA (Beetles) Platycnemidae (Stream Damselflies) 10 Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving beetles) 5 A A Protoneuridae (Threadwings) 8 Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles) 8 Aeshnidae (Hawkers & Emperors) 8 A A A Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles) 5 A A Comments/Observations: Corduliidae (Cruisers) 8 Haliplidae* (Crawling water beetles) 5 Gomphidae (Clubtails) 6 A A A Helodidae (Marsh beetles) 12 Libellulidae (Darters/Skimmers) 4 Hydraenidae* (Minute moss beetles) 8 LEPIDOPTERA (Aquatic Caterpillars/Moths) Hydrophilidae* (Water scavenger beetles) 5 Crambidae (Pyralidae) 12 Limnichidae (Marsh-Loving Beetles) 10 Psephenidae (Water Pennies) 10 FIGURE 20: THE SASS 5 RESULTS

From this assessment the SASS score was calculated to 56 with 12 taxa. The average score per taxa was calculated to 4.7. This indicates the system to be in lower SASS scores conditions due to the impoundment reducing the habitat viability for many of the more sensitive species. This was emulated by the IHAS score of the site (Figure 21). This showed the system to only have a 37.6% habitat suitability.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 54 of 80 pages SAMPLING HABITAT RATING (K) SCORE 0 1 2 3 4 5 Stones in current (SIC) Total lengths of white water rapids (riffles)(in metres) None 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-5 5+ Total length of submerged stones in current (run) (in metres) None 0-2 2-5 5-10 10+ Number of separate SIC area's kicked (not individual stones 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+ Average stone sizes kicked (in cm's)(< 2>10<2or>10)(<2=gravel) None <2>10 2-5 5-10 2-10 Amount of stone surface clear (of algae,sediment,etc)(in percent) 0-25 25-50 50-75 >75 PROTOCOL: time spent actually kicking SIC's (in minutes 0 <1 1 2 3 >3 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 (A=SIC boxes total; B=adjustment to equal 20 PERCENT C=final total) 0 A 0 B 0 C Vegetation Length of fringing vegetation sampled (banks) (in metres) None 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-2 2 >2 Amount of aquatic vegetation/algaesampled (underwater)(in m²) None 0-0.5 0.5-1 >1 Fringing vegetation sampled in: (none, pool or still only, mixture or both) None run pool mix Type of veg (% leafy vegetation as opposed to stems/shoots)(aq.veg.only=50) 0 1-25 25-50 50-75 >75 Subtotal 3 5 (D=veg. boxes total; E=adjustment to equal 15 PERCENT ; F=final total) 8 D 1,2 E 9,2 F Other Habitat Stones out of Current (SOOC) sampled: PROTOCOL in m² None 0-0.5 0.5-1 1 >1 Sand Sampled (PROTOCOL in Minutes) None 0-0.5 0.5-1 1 >1 Mud sampled ( PROTOCOL in minutes) None 0-0.5 0,5 >0.5 Gravel sampled (PROTOCOL in minutes) all None 0-0.5 0,5 >0.5 Bedrock sampled (all=no SIC,sand, gravel) None Some all Tray identification (PROTOCOL using time corr = correct times Under corr over Subtotal 1 2 9 4 (G= O>H boxes total; H=adjustment to equal 15 PERCENT ; I=final total) 16 G 2,4 H 18,4 I

(J=Total adjustment (B+E+H) K=Total habitat (C+F+I) 3,6 J 27,6 K

STREAM CHARACTERISTICS (L) Physical River make up (pool=pool/stil/dam only; run only; rapid only: 2 mix=2 types etc) pool run rapid 2mix 3mix Average width of stream: (meters) >10 5-10 <1 1-2 2-5 Average depth of stream: (meters) >2 1-2 1 0.5-1 0,5 <0.5 Approximately velocity of stream (slow = 0.5m/s fast = 1m/s) still slow fast med mix Water colour (disc=discoloured with visible colour but still clearish silly opaq discol clear crystal Visible disturbance due to: (constr. = ongoing construction) flood constr livest other none Bank/riparian vegetation is: (grass=includes reeds, shrubs=includes trees) none grass shrub mix Surrounding impacts:(erosn=erosion, informal settlements, farmland, nature. erosn settle farm trees clear nature Left bank cover (rocks and vegetation): in % (shear =0%) shear <50 50-80 80-95 >95 Right bank cover (rocks and vegetation): in % (shear =0%) shear <50 50-80 80-95 >95 Subtotal 1 2 3 2 2 (L=Physical boxes final total) Stream Characteristics Total; 10 L Total IHAS Score: (K+L) 37,6 FIGURE 21: IHAS RESULT OF THE SITE

6.3. Ichthyofaunal assessment During the site visit various fish trapping methods were employed with no luck (this could be due to the winter season): Due to the water depth, electrofishing was not successful. Fish trapping did not provide any samples. Cast netting was not possible due to obstructions in the system,

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 55 of 80 pages However, during the site visit recreational fishing was observed in the system. The targeted species was Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Both these exotic species have a detrimental impact to aquatic ecosystems and prefer impoundments such as the Albert Farm dam. Other species known to occur in the dam is Barbel / Sharptooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus)

6.4. Present ecological score Ollis et al (2013) provides for additional information to be obtained from the site, known as Descriptors, and forms part of the final level of assessment (Level 6). This has been included in the report as the information obtained here will increase the understanding of the system in terms of genesis and functionality. See TABLE 17 below for the level 6 assessment. It must be noted that the information gathered here must be used with caution as the information is based on visual observations and assessments. Aspects such as the vegetation cover, with emphasis on the aquatic section, are highly subject to stochastic events, altering composition.

TABLE 17: LEVEL 6 DESCRIPTORS Natural x Artificial The impoundment Salinity Fresh (TDS<3g/l) Physiochemical pH Circum-neutral 6-8 Pebbles/ Gravel, Sandy soils, Substratum Clayed soils, type Loamy Soils, Silt (mud) Unvegetated N/A Indigenous Aquatic Fringing and Alien Grasses Herbs/forbs Vegetation Herbaceous Indigenous Sedges/ rushes Reeds Shrub/ N/A Thicket Forest N/A

6.4.1. Present Ecological Score (Wetland IHI) results Using the method described above, the following calculations were completed to determine the Present Ecological Score (PES) of the aquatic ecosystem found on site. See Table 18 for the PES calculation and Table 13 for interpretation of the results. Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 56 of 80 pages The calculations indicate the system to be: Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place but the natural habitat remains predominantly intact.

TABLE 18: THE WETLAND IHI PES RESULT OF THE WETLAND SYSTEM OVERALL PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) SCORE Ranking Weighting Score Confidence PES Category DRIVING PROCESSES: 100 2,0 Rating Hydrology 1 100 2,1 2,3 C/D Geomorphology 2 80 2,0 2,6 C/D Water Quality 3 0 1,0 1,5 B/C WETLAND LANDUSE ACTIVITIES: 80 0,7 3,0 Vegetation Alteration Score 1 100 0,7 3,0 B Weighting needs to consider the sensitivity of the type of wetland (e.g.: nutrient poor wetlands will be more sensitive to nutrient loading)

OVERALL SCORE: 1,5 Confidence PES % 71,0 Rating PES Category: C 1,3

6.5. Ecological Importance and Sensitivity EIS was calculated in Table 19. The wetland found within the study area can be considered to be of moderate ecological management class. The REMC was calculated to be in Low/ Marginal condition “Aquatic ecosystems that is not ecologically important and sensitive at any scale. The biodiversity of these floodplains is ubiquitous and not sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play an insignificant role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers”. The impacts of urban hardening and alien vegetation have reduced the system to, in essence, a storm water system. Perennial hydrology of the system does however provide an important corridor for the movement of species.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 57 of 80 pages TABLE 19: THE EIS SCORE OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND REMC CLASSIFICATION (0 INDICATES NO IMPORTANCE AND 4 INDICATE VERY HIGH IMPORTANCE) Determinant Score Confidence Discussion PRIMARY DETERMINANTS Rare & Endangered Species 1 3 Not observed but expected to harbour unique species Populations of Unique Species 2 4 due to only type of system in larger area. Species/taxon Richness 3 3 Diverse due to type and setting in local landscape Diversity of Habitat Types or Features 2 2 Migration route/breeding and feeding site for wetland 3 2 Important open water harbour species Sensitivity to Changes in the Natural Hydrological 2 3 Regime See Table 2 and Table 3 above for description of 2 3 Sensitivity to Water Quality Changes guidelines for ratings Flood Storage, Energy Dissipation & Particulate/Element 2 2 Removal MODIFYING DETERMINANTS Somewhat protected by 1:100 year flood lines but 1 3 Protected Status impacted System remains operational and key ecological facility 3 3 Ecological Integrity in local landscape. TOTAL 21 Aquatic ecosystems that are considered to be ecologically important and sensitive. The biodiversity of MEAN (Total / 10) 2.1 these floodplains may be sensitive to flow and habitat Recommended Ecological Management class High modifications. They play a role in moderating the (REMC) (Table 14) quantity and quality of water of major rivers.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 58 of 80 pages 7. Discussion, Impact assessment and general mitigation measures

The Alberts Farm dam is an open water system (Figure 22) fed by water from an artesian spring (Figure 23). The system is in average condition (WetlandIHI PES= C) and the EIS was calculated to High.

From the dam water enter the wetland systems downstream of the dam via an impacted and degraded overflow system. The overflow has been plugged due to the dam wall collapsing (emergency precaution). This has lowered the expected water table by approximately 1 meter (Figure 24).

FIGURE 22: ALBERTS FARM DAM

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 59 of 80 pages

FIGURE 23: THE ARTESIAN SPRING FEEDING THE ALBERTS FARM DAM

FIGURE 24: SECTION OF BANK REQUIRING EMERGENCY WORK

The banks of the dam were mostly stable with good vegetation cover. Phragmites dominates the open areas not impacted by wind driven wave action. Thypha capensis was observed in some areas. Aquatic alien vegetation was expected and sadly observed (Myriophyllum aquaticum in Figure 25).

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 60 of 80 pages

FIGURE 25: AQUATIC ALIEN VEGETATION EXPECTED AND OBSERVED IN THE DAM

7.1. Impacts The list of impacts to the wetland on the study site and adjacent areas follows: Alien vegetation establishment and expansion, both on site (in the dam) and in the catchment. Various road crossings and culvert systems in the catchment, Dumping and litter, Urbanisation of the catchment of the system, Pollution, including hydrocarbons, Recreational use of the aquatic ecosystems, including dog walking and fishing, Religious activities, Impoundment of the systems, and Channelization.

FIGURE 26: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT (HTTP://WWW.THESUSTAINABLELEADER.ORG/SUSTAINABLE-DEVELOPMENT/)

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 61 of 80 pages 7.2. Proposed activities The proposed activities of the development are: Raising and stabilisation of the dam wall and crest to become more stable and comply to engineering requirements, Install a new overflow from the dam releasing water into the wetland Construction of a pedestrian bridge over the spillway.

Please see Figure 27 to Figure 30 for engineering sketches of the proposed activities8. These have been designed with the guidance of this specialist. This has allowed for the alignment of engineering and ecological requirements.

8 Rehabilitation of the Braamfontein West Water Management Unit Albert’s Farm Dam: Detailed Design Report for Rehabilitation Johannesburg Road Agency & City of Johannesburg Reference: 504630 Revision: 01 2019-06-26

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 62 of 80 pages

FIGURE 27: PROPOSED LAYOUT OF ACTIVITIES

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 63 of 80 pages

FIGURE 28: CROSS SECTION OF DAM WALL REINSTATEMENT

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 64 of 80 pages

FIGURE 29: SPILLWAY DESIGN

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 65 of 80 pages

FIGURE 30: CROSS SECTION OF SPILLWAY RETURN CHANNEL

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 66 of 80 pages 7.3. Impact assessment The proposed activities planned on site are to improve the current condition of the dam. The improvement will have an impact to the system but this will be only for the duration of the construction. Aspects such as the overflow reinstatement will in the long run improve the condition in situ.

The proposed development of the site can be divided into different periods with different impacts (Figure 31) especially on flooding and erosion after development. See the rating scale in TABLE 20 and the calculations of the impact in TABLE 21. The calculations determine the impact score to 4 (Low): “The project can be authorised with a low risk to of environmental degradation”.

FIGURE 31: THE SEQUENTIAL NATURE OF EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND FLOODING BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER DEVELOPMENT (CSIR, 2005)

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 67 of 80 pages TABLE 20: THE IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION RATING SCALE Descriptors Definitions Rating None The project can be authorised < 3 Low The project can be authorised with a low risk to of environmental degradation 3 - 4 Moderate The project can be authorised but with conditions and routine inspections 5 – 8 High The project can be authorised but with strict conditions and high levels of compliance and enforcement in respect 9 – 15 of the impact in question Fatally Flawed The project cannot be authorised > 15

TABLE 21: THE IMPACT RATING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT* FOR IN SITU PRE-MITIGATED CONDITIONS (* BLUE FILLED RATING SCALES ARE APPLICABLE TO THE SITE) Rating Score Criteria Duration descriptors Definitions total Positive This is an evaluation of the type of effect the construction, operation and Nature Negative management of the proposed development would have on the affected Neutral environment. Site Site-specific, affects only the development footprint. 1 Local (limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, including the 2 Local surrounding towns and settlements within a 10 km radius). Scale/ The impact footprint includes the greater surrounding area within which the 3 Regional 2 Extent site is located National The scale/ extent of the impact is applicable to the Republic of South Africa 4

Global The scale / extent of the impact is global (or world-wide) 5 Construction/ The impact endures for only as long as the Construction/ Decommissioning 1 Decommissioning period period of the proposed activity. This implies the impact is fully reversible. only Short term The impact continues to manifest for a period of between 3 – 10 years. The 2 Duration 1 impact is reversible. Medium term The impact continues to manifest for a period of 10-30 years. The impact is 3 reversible with relevant and applicable mitigation and management actions. Long term The impact continues for a period in excess of 30 years. However, the 4

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 68 of 80 pages Rating Score Criteria Duration descriptors Definitions total impact is still reversible with relevant and applicable mitigation and management actions. Permanent The impact will continue indefinitely and is irreversible. 5 Descriptors: potential consequence (negative) High Human health morbidity/ mortality. Loss of species 16 Moderate-high Reduced faunal populations, loss of livelihoods, individual economic loss, 8 Moderate 2 Reduction in environmental quality – air, soil, water. Loss of habitat, loss of 4 4 heritage, amenity Intensity Moderate-low Nuisance 2 or severity Low Negative change – with no other consequences 1 of the Descriptors: potential consequence (positive) impact Moderate-high Net improvement in human welfare 8 Moderate Improved environmental quality – air, soil, water. Improved individual 4 livelihoods 1 Economic development Moderate-low 2 Low Positive change – with no other consequences 1 Score total 8 Improbable The possibility of the impact occurring is negligible and only under 0.1 Likelihood/ exceptional circumstances. Probability Unlikely The possibility of the impact occurring is low with a less than 10% chance 0.2 (the of occurring. The impact has not occurred before. 0.5 likelihood of Probable The impact has a 10-40% chance of occurring. Only likely to happen once 0.5 the impact every three or more years. occurring) Highly Probable It is most likely that the impact will occur. A 41 – 75% chance of occurring. 0.75 Definite More than 75% chance of occurrence. The impact occurs regularly. 1 Impact significance before mitigation (Table 13) (Extent + Duration + Potential Intensity) x Probability/ Likelihood =8x0.5 Impact rating =4 (LOW)

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 69 of 80 pages 7.4. Ecological risk assessment Risk assessment of the development is mainly based on a basic perceived risk and rating scale for the development. This is based on previous experience working on other similar projects as well as guiding documentation. A simple equation is used to quantify the perceived ecological risk:

퐸푅 (퐸푐표푙표푔푖푐푎푙 푟푖푠푘) = (푀푎푔푛푖푡푢푑푒 + 푑푢푟푎푡푖표푛 + 푠푐푎푙푒) × 푃푟표푏푎푏푖푙푖푡푦

The risk assessment scaling is given in Table 22. Using the information from the equation the score is then used to quantify the following: ER >75 High ecological risk; ER 30 to 75 Moderate ecological risk ER <30 Low ecological risk

The main possible risks to the system are calculated in TABLE 23. From the calculations, it is clear to see that the proposed activities have on average a LOW ECOLOGICAL RISK profile.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 70 of 80 pages TABLE 22: RISK ASSESSMENT SCALING Magnitude Duration Scale Probability 10 Very High/ Unclear 5 Permanent 5 International 5 Definite/ don’t know Long term (impact ceases after 8 High 4 4 National 4 High Probability closure) 6 Moderate 3 Medium term (5-15 years) 3 Regional 3 Medium probability 4 Low 2 Short term (0-5 years) 2 Local 2 Low probability 2 Minor 1 Transient 1 Site only 1 Improbable 1 None 0 None

TABLE 23: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Risk score of impact ER >75 High ecological risk; Ecological aspect Ecological ER 30 to 75 Moderate ecological Probability at risk Magnitude Duration Scale Total Risk (ER) risk ER <30 Low ecological risk Flow 2 5 1 8 3 24 Low ecological risk Sediment regime 2 5 1 8 2 16 Low ecological risk Water quality 2 1 2 4 5 20 Low ecological risk Geomorphology 8 5 1 14 5 70 Moderate ecological risk Habitat 2 1 1 4 5 20 Low ecological risk Biota 2 1 1 4 5 20 Low ecological risk MEAN/ AVERAGE 3 3 1 7 4 28 Low ecological risk

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 71 of 80 pages 7.5. Mitigation of proposed impact The mitigation of the impacts to the system is based on the perceived impacts for the proposed activities.

7.5.1. Site specific mitigation measures The use of only endemic indigenous plants for the landscaping of the development, Storm water management on site must take cognisance of possible pollution arising from the site, with emphasis on hydrocarbon pollution. This must also include the mitigation of speeds of storm water entering the wetland from the study site. Signage must also be included to increase awareness of the wetland found on site and the impact of customers on the wetland. Increased bins for litter, combined with signage indicating the use of the bins.

7.5.2. Mitigation of impacts using buffers The study site is located inside the urban edge, and a generic buffer of 30 meters is given as minimum by the GDARD minimum requirements guideline (GDARD, 2014) (Figure 32).

FIGURE 32: BUFFER RECOMMENDATIONS AS PER GDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE

To determine if the buffer requirements set by GDARD are sufficient, an assessment of the requirement of the buffer is completed in Table 24. Without empirical data requirements the increase in buffers are difficult to ascertain in meters and a percentage of recommended buffer is used. It is important to note that the buffer is only applicable to the site during the

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 72 of 80 pages construction phase. Therefore, the buffer requirement for construction is set to 120 meters. The engineering report for the site indicates the construction camp clearly (Figure 339).

TABLE 24: BUFFER SERVICE AND REQUIREMENTS ASSESSMENT Buffer service Requirement on site Possible percentage (1= not at all, 10= increase in buffer of 30 paramount importance) meters Sediment reduction and removal 1 Ecotone provision 6 Physical barrier 10 Nutrient reduction and Toxic 10 removal (including hydrocarbons) Control of microclimate 10 Regulation of water 10 temperatures Provision of habitat for wildlife 10 (both terrestrial and aquatic). This includes any species of conservation concern Connectivity 10 Channel stability and flood 10 attenuation Groundwater recharge 10 Aesthetic 10 Rehabilitation effort 10 Maximum percentage 10 75% or 120 meters

The GDARD buffer is set at 30 meters. The information garnered from Table 24 requires the buffer to be increased to 120 meters. See Figure 34 for a proposed buffer use on site.

9 Rehabilitation of the Braamfontein West Water Management Unit Albert’s Farm Dam: Detailed Design Report for Rehabilitation Johannesburg Road Agency & City of Johannesburg Reference: 504630 Revision: 01 2019-06-26 Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 73 of 80 pages

FIGURE 33: AS PER THE ENGINEERING REPORT THE PLACEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION CAMP

FIGURE 34: PROPOSED BUFFERS OF THE STUDY SITE

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 74 of 80 pages 7.6. General mitigation measures The following general mitigation measures are proposed10: An alien vegetation eradication programme should be implemented on the site to remove the alien vegetation from the wetland areas. An environmental control officer (ECO), specialising in aquatic systems (AECO) must be appointed throughout the project to ensure the longevity of the impacted aquatic system. The use of cement lined channels must be avoided at all costs and lining must be done with Loffel stones (or Amourflex stones) or similar products. This is to prevent the loss of habitat to aquatic organisms living in the system. The ramps for the in- and out flows from the construction site must be lined with Reno mattresses and or gabions to prevent structure undermining and to ensure flow is dispersed and mitigated. Vertical steps should not exceed 200 mm, to ensure aquatic fauna movement and migration. The use of gabion structures, well keyed into the surrounding bank walls and secured to the ground is recommended. If any construction activity must occur within the riparian areas then it must commence from upstream proceeding downstream with proper sedimentation barriers in place to prevent sediments and pollution moving downstream from the site. This includes non-perennial systems. The removal and translocation of impacted hydrophytes must be done prior to construction commencing. Due to the perennial nature of the system, construction should preferably commence during the dry months. All sensitive areas together with the associated buffer zones should be fenced during the construction phase to prevent any human activity from encroaching onto these areas. Monitoring of the fences is of paramount importance to ensure no infringement of the fences occurs. Removal of debris and other obstructing materials from the site must take place and erosion-preventing structures must be constructed. This is done to prevent damming of water and increasing flooding danger. Removed soil and stockpiling of soil must occur outside the extent of the watercourse to prevent siltation and increased runoff during construction. This includes the buffer zones and 1:100 year flood lines.

10 The contractor appointed for construction must be contractually bound to the requirements and mitigating measures listed in this document and any other documents relating to the construction (ecological management plan, rehabilitation plant etc.). Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 75 of 80 pages Proper toilet facilities must be located outside the sensitive areas: The impact of human waste on the system is immense. Chemical toilets must be provided which should always be well serviced and spaced as per occupational health and safety laws, and placed outside the buffer and 1:100 year flood lines. Spill kits must be stored on site: In case of accidental spills of oil, petroleum products etc., good oil absorbent materials must be on hand to allow for the quick remediation of the spill. The kits should also be well marked and all personnel should be educated to deal with the spill. Vehicles must be kept in good working order and leaks must be fixed immediately on an oil absorbent mat. The use of a product such as Sunsorb is advised. No plant machinery may be stored or left near the aquatic areas, when not in use. Frequent inspection of the site must be done to ensure that no harmful practices occur on site. A photo collection must be taken from fixed demarcated spots to detect changes in the construction area over time. These photographs must be dated and should include the entire site. No construction personnel are allowed to collect, harvest or kill any species of fauna and flora on the site. Any species of fauna encountered during the construction phase should be moved to a safe location where no harm can be bestowed on the species. If water is sprayed on the construction surface for any reason during the construction process, utmost care must be taken to ensure the runoff water does not pollute the system or any of the associated catchment areas. A storm water cut- off drain should be constructed between the construction area and the aquatic system to ensure that storm water flowing through the construction area cannot flow into the aquatic system. The water from the cut-off drain must be collected in a sedimentation pond before entering the aquatic system. Any new erosion gullies must be remediated immediately. Construction should commence during the dry season or when flows are at their lowest where reasonably possible. Regular inspection of erosion preventing devices is needed. Construction camps: Plant parking areas and material stockpiles must be located outside the extent of the wetland. Access routes should be demarcated and located properly so that no damage to the system can occur. These roads must be adhered to at all times. A large turning place must be provided for larger trucks and machinery. No grading of temporary access roads is allowed as this will create dust and water runoff problems.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 76 of 80 pages Increased runoff due to removal of vegetation and increased soil compaction must be managed to ensure the prevention of siltation and the maximum stream bank stability. The velocity of storm water must be attenuated and spread. As far as possible the link between the stream and the local environment must be maintained. This is to ensure water movement into the soils and ensuring the survival of associated vegetation. Storm water leaving the site downstream must be clean and of the same quality as in situ before it enters the construction site (upstream). Preconstruction measures must be in place to ensure sediments are trapped. The overall alluvial characteristics of the drainage line (balance between sand, gravel, and stone) must be similar to before construction to ensure natural systems of flooding and sedimentation deportation and conveyance occur.

8. Conclusion and recommendations The aquatic ecosystems of the study area are all in an impacted condition by many activities over years. Most of the catchment of the system is transformed, with surface hardening the largest concern. At this stage the studies are still being done to determine the classification and sensitivity of the system.

The GDARD minimum requirements (GDARD, 2014) were used for this project as guide (inside urban edge). All environmental assessments (including biodiversity assessments) must always be based on the three main aspects of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998). These main aspects are the social, the economic, and the environmental aspects of the proposed development. It is also of concern that these aspects must be in balance and that if one outweighs another, good reasoning be sought to ensure the balance is restored.

A buffer of 30 meters (for inside the urban edge) increased to 120 meters must be applied to the wetlands on the study site (see section 1.1 above). It must be clearly noted that any development on the study site will have an impact on the aquatic ecosystems and must be authorised in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act (1998).

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 77 of 80 pages 8.1. Environmental laws The following environmental laws could be applicable to the study site. These are only recommendations and to ensure compliance, a lawyer specialising in environmental law should be consulted: National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) The National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) with specific reference paid to Section 21 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No.36 of 1998) The National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) General Notice 1199 - development within 500 meters of a wetland The National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) General Notice 1198 - Rehabilitation of a wetland area Regulation No. 543 – 545, 2010 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) National Environment Management Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003); National Environment Management Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008); National Veld and Forest Fire Act, 1998 (Act No.101 of 1998); Mountain Catchment Act, 1970 (Act No. 63 of 1970); National Heritage Recourses Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999); World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 (Act No. 49 of 1999); Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000); Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act No. 24 of 2008); Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983); Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 and the planning ordinances depending on the province in South Africa where construction will take place

9. 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 DWAF (Department of Water Affairs) (2005). A level I river Ecoregional classification system for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland- final. South African Government. DWAF (Department of Water Affairs). The National Water Act of 1998 (Act No. 98 of 1998). Government printers.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 78 of 80 pages 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 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]. Friends of Alberts Farm Conservancy (FOAFC). Environmental Management Plan for Alberts Farm Conservancy. Compiled by Colleen Rood and Julie Gouws. Friends of Alberts Farm Conservancy (FOAFC), 2017. Environmental Management Plan Remedial for Alberts Farm Conservancy. Compiled by Paul Fairall. 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. 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.

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 79 of 80 pages 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

Wetland Report: Alberts Farm dam June 2019 80 of 80 pages