Aquatic & Wetland Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Schurvekop Mine. Mpumalanga

Transcription

1 Aquatic & Wetland Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Schurvekop Mine Mpumalanga March 2017 REFERENCE Schurvekop CLIENT Prepared for: Beyers Office Park, Bosbok Road, Randpark Ridge Office: Fax: Prepared by: The Biodiversity Company 420 Vale Ave. Ferndale, 2194 Cell: Fax:

2 Report Name Aquatic & Wetland Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Schurvekop Mine Reference Schurvekop Submitted to Report writer (Aquatics) Jaco du Plessis Report writer (Wetlands) Ndumiso Dlamini Report reviewer Peter Kimberg

3 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES KEY LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS National Water Act (NWA, 1998) National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, 1998) PROJECT AREA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) Status River FEPAs Wetland FEPAs Present Ecological Status (PES), Ecological Importance (EI) and Ecological Sensitivity (ES) Mpumalanga Highveld Wetlands Geology & Soils LIMITATIONS METHODOLOGY Aquatic Assessment In Situ Water Quality Habitat Assessment Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Fish Presence of Species of Conservation Concern Wetland Assessment Wetland Classification System Desktop assessment Wetland Delineation Present Ecological Status (PES) Wetland Ecosystem Services Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) Impact Assessment i

4 6.4 Buffer Determination RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS Aquatic Assessment In situ water quality Habitat assessment Aquatic macroinvertebrates Fish Wetland Assessment (HGM 1) Floodplain (HGM 2) Seepage (HGM 3) Flat (HGM 4) Depression Present Ecological State (PES) Ecosystem Service Assessment Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) Buffer Zones IMPACTS Current Impacts Anticipated Impacts Impact Assessment Recommendations Mitigation Measures SUMMARY Aquatic ecosystems Wetland Ecosystems REFERENCES Appendix A ii

5 Tables Table 1: NFEPA description for the FEPA sites near the proposed development Table 2: Present Ecological Status of the Joubertvleispruit SQR B11A-1443 (SCH2)... 6 Table 3: Present Ecological Status of the Viskuile SQR B11A-1430 (SCH1)... 7 Table 4: Present Ecological Status of the Viskuile SQR B11A-1411 (SCH3 Downstream)... 8 Table 5: Integrated Habitat Assessment System Scoring Guidelines Table 6: Biological Bands / Ecological categories for interpreting SASS data (adapted from Dallas, 2007) Table 7: Expected species list for the Joubertvleispruit and Viskuile sub-quaternary catchments Table 8: The magnitude of impacts on wetland functionality (Macfarlane, et al., 2009) Table 9: The PES categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2009) Table 10: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied (Kotze et al, 2009) Table 11: Description of EIS categories Table 12: Significance ratings matrix Table 13: Photos, coordinates and descriptions of the aquatic ecosystems sampled during the February 2017 baseline assessment survey Table 14: In situ water quality results for the survey Table 15: IHAS Scores at each site during the survey Table 16: Results for the instream habitat integrity assessment (SCHs2) Table 17: Results for the riparian habitat integrity assessment Table 18: Results for the instream habitat integrity assessment (SCH2 and SCH3) Table 19: Results for the riparian habitat integrity assessment Table 20: Macroinvertebrate assessment results recorded during the survey Table 21: Fish species collected during the survey Table 22: Catch per unit effort (CPUE) during the survey Table 23: Photographs of fish species collected during the 2017 survey Table 24: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013) Table 25: The PES results for the Schurvekop project area Table 26: EcoServices rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied iii

6 Table 27: The EcoServices being provided by the wetlands at the Schurvekop site Table 28: The EIS results for the Schurvekop Project Table 29: The risk results from the wetland buffer model for the proposed mining development Table 30: MBSP 2010 Land Cover for the Schurvekop Mine study area Table 31: South African National Land Cover for the Schurvekop Mine study area Figures Figure 1: The FEPA wetlands associated with the proposed Schurvekop Mining area... 5 Figure 2: The Mpumalanga Highveld wetlands associated with the Schurvekop project Figure 3: Biological Bands for the Highveld - lower zone Ecoregion, calculated using percentiles Figure 4: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013) Figure 5: Locality map of the proposed Schurvekop Mining Area and aquatic sampling points Figure 6: Soil depths and classifications for the implemented grid Figure 7: Soil forms for the Schurvekop Mine Figure 8: Schurvekop study area wetland delineation Figure 9: The floodplain wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 1) Figure 10: The seepage wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 2) Figure 11: The flat wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 3) Figure 12: The depression wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 4) Figure 13: PES ratings of the wetlands associated with the Schurvekop project area Figure 14: The spider diagram for Ecoservices rendered by HGM units Figure 15: Land cover types according to MTPA (2010) and DEA (2015) for the Schurvekop Mine study area Figure 16: Current Impacts a) dam in seepage wetland b) erosion in floodplain wetland c) maize crops within flat wetland Figure 17: Proposed surface infrastructure at Schurvekop Mine and the local water resources Figure 18: Impact significance summary pre-and post-mitigation iv

7 DECLARATION I, Jaco du Plessis declare that: I act as the independent specialist in this application; 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 Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; 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. Jaco du Plessis Aquatic Specialist The Biodiversity Company 13 th March 2017 v

8 I, Ndumiso Dlamini declare that: I act as the independent specialist in this application; 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 Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; 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. Ndumiso Dlamini Wetland Ecologist The Biodiversity Company 13 th March 2017 vi

9 1 INTRODUCTION The Biodiversity Company was appointed by to conduct an impact assessment of aquatic & wetland ecosystems associated with the proposed underground coal mining activities at Schurvekop Mine, near to the town of Bethal in Mpumalanga. Wet season aquatic and wetland baseline surveys were conducted in February This report presents the integrated findings of the aquatic and wetland baseline and impact assessments. This report, after taking into consideration the findings and recommendations provided by the specialist herein, should inform and guide the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) and regulatory authorities, enabling informed decision making, as to the ecological viability of the proposed project. 2 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this assessment include the following: Characterise the baseline state of aquatic & wetland ecosystems associated with the proposed development; Identify sensitive features, i.e. habitats, species of conservation concern, unique features that may be negatively impacted upon by the proposed development; Assess the significance of potential impacts on aquatic and wetland ecosystems associated with the development; Identify potential mitigation measures that can be implemented in order to reduce the significance of impacts; Reassess the significance after implementation of mitigation measures; and Comment on the ecological sustainability and viability of the proposed development from the perspective of aquatic and wetland ecosystems. 3 KEY LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 National Water Act (NWA, 1998) The Department of Water & Sanitation (DWS) is the custodian of South Africa s water resources and therefore assumes public trusteeship of water resources, which includes watercourses, surface water, estuaries, or aquifers. The National Water Act (NWA) (Act No. 36 of 1998) allows for the protection of water resources, which includes: The maintenance of the quality of the water resource to the extent that the water resources may be used in an ecologically sustainable way; The prevention of the degradation of the water resource; and 1

10 The rehabilitation of the water resource. A watercourse means: A river or spring; A natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently; A wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows; and 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. The NWA recognises that the entire ecosystem, and not just the water itself, and any given water resource constitutes the resource and as such needs to be conserved. No activity may therefore take place within a watercourse unless it is authorised by the DWS. For the purposes of this project, a wetland area is defined according to the NWA (Act No. 36 of 1998): 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. Wetlands have one or more of the following attributes to meet the NWA wetland definition (DWAF, 2005): A high water table that results in the saturation at or near the surface, leading to anaerobic conditions developing in the top 50 cm of the soil; Wetland or hydromorphic soils that display characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation, i.e. mottling or grey soils; and The presence of, at least occasionally, hydrophilic plants, i.e. hydrophytes (water loving plants). 3.2 National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, 1998) The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) and the associated Regulations as amended in April 2017, states that prior to any development taking place within a wetland or riparian area, an environmental authorisation process needs to be followed. This could follow either the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process or the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process depending on the scale of the impact. Regulations pertaining to environmental impact assessments of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), with particular emphasis on Appendix 6 (specialist reports). 4 PROJECT AREA The proposed Schurvekop Mine project area is situated in the quaternary catchment B11A, in the Olifants Water Management Area (WMA 4) and the Highveld ecoregion. 2

11 The Olifants WMA is mainly occupied by the South African portion of the Olifants River catchment, excluding the Letaba River catchment. The Letaba River catchment is a tributary catchment to the Limpopo Basin shared by South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The Olifants River originates to the east of Johannesburg, initially flowing northwards before gently curving eastwards towards the Kruger National Park, where it is met at the confluence with the Letaba River before flowing into Mozambique. The climate varies greatly from the cool Highveld in the south to subtropical, east of the escarpment. The region has a mean annual precipitation rate of 500 to 800 mm. Diverse economic activity includes mining, metallurgic industries, irrigation, dryland and subsistence agriculture, and ecotourism. The provision of water to meet ecological requirements in the Olifants River is one of the controlling factors in the management of water resources throughout the WMA. Several large dams control much of the flow in these rivers. The Olifants WMA receives substantial amounts of water from transfers to serves as cooling water for power generation, while smaller transfers are made to neighbouring WMAs (StatsSA, 2010). The study area is located in the lower reaches of the Joubertvleispruit north of Bethal, Mpumalanga, South Africa. The Joubertvleispruit flows in a northerly direction into the Viskuile River, a tributary of the Olifants River. 4.1 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) Status The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) database forms part of a comprehensive approach to the sustainable and equitable development of South Africa s scarce water resources. This database provides guidance on how many rivers, wetlands and estuaries, and which ones, should remain in a natural or near-natural condition to support the water resource protection goals of the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998). This directly applies to the National Water Act, which feeds into Catchment Management Strategies, water resource classification, reserve determination, and the setting and monitoring of resource quality objectives (Nel et al. 2011). The NFEPAs are intended to be conservation support tools and envisioned to guide the effective implementation of measures to achieve the National Environment Management Biodiversity Act s biodiversity goals (NEM:BA) (Act 10 of 2004), informing both the listing of threatened freshwater ecosystems and the process of bioregional planning provided for by this Act (Nel et al., 2011) River FEPAs The 3 SQRs (B11A-1443, B11A-1430 and B11A-1411) have no freshwater priority areas (FEPAs) designated to them Wetland FEPAs Four (4) FEPA wetlands were identified near to the study area (Figure 1). Details on those FEPA sites are provided in Table 1. The seepage, floodplain and flat FEPA wetlands were rated to be DEF systems (Riverine, associated with a D, E, F, or Z ecological category river) and are ranked as 6 (Table 1). The depression wetlands were classified as a C system (25-75% Natural Land Cover) and were ranked as 6 (Table 1). 3

12 Based on an assessment of historical imagery provided by Google Earth, the FEPA wetlands were classified as depressions, floodplains and the flat wetlands included in the seepage zone. These wetlands are ground truthed during this assessment. Table 1: NFEPA description for the FEPA sites near the proposed development. FEPA Wetland L1 (System) Classification Levels L2 (Ecoregion) L3 Landscape Position L4 HGM Classification Wetland Vegetation Class Natural / Artificial Condition Rank Hillslope seepage wetland Slope Seep DEF (Riverine, associated with a D,E, F, or Z ecological category river) Depression Bench Depression Inland System Highveld Floodplain Valley Floor Floodplain Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 4 Natural C % Natural Land Cover DEF (Riverine, asscoaciated with a D,E, F, or Z ecological category river 6 Flat Bench Flat DEF (Riverine, asscoaciated with a D,E, F, or Z ecological category river 4

13 Figure 1: The FEPA wetlands associated with the proposed Schurvekop Mining area 4.2 Present Ecological Status (PES), Ecological Importance (EI) and Ecological Sensitivity (ES) Desktop information on the PES, EI and ES of the 3 SQRs was obtained from DWS (2013). The upstream site (SCH2) in the Joubertvleispruit is situated in SQR B11A The reach spans 17 km of the Joubertvleispruit. The PES category of the reach is classed as largely modified (Class D) (Table 2). The largely modified state of the reach is attributed to moderate to large impacts to instream habitat, wetland and riparian zone continuity, flow modifications and minor potential impacts on physico-chemical conditions (water quality). The control site (SCH1) is situated in SQR B11A The reach spans 25 km of the Viskuile River. The PES category of the reach is classed as moderately modified (Class C) (Table 3). The moderately modified state of the reach is attributed to moderate to large impacts to instream habitat, wetland and riparian zone continuity, flow modifications and minor potential impacts on physico-chemical conditions (water quality). The downstream site (SCH3) is situated in SQR B11A The reach spans 5 km of the Viskuile River. The PES category of the reach is classed as moderately modified (Class C) (Table 4). The moderately modified state of the reach is attributed to moderate to large impacts to instream habitat, wetland and riparian zone continuity, flow modifications and minor potential impacts on physico-chemical conditions (water quality). 5

14 Table 2: Present Ecological Status of the Joubertvleispruit SQR B11A-1443 (SCH2) Present Ecological State Ecological Importance Ecological Sensitivity D (Largely modified) Moderate High Variable Status Variable Status Variable Status Modifications to Instream Habitat Continuity Moderate Fish species per sub quaternary catchment 6 Fish Physico-Chemical sensitivity description High Modifications to Riparian/ Wetland Zone Continuity Small Invertebrate taxa per sub quaternary catchment 41 Fish No-flow sensitivity description High Potential Instream habitat modifications Large Habitat Diversity Class Moderate Invertebrate Physico- Chemical sensitivity Very High Modifications to Riparian/ Wetland Zones Moderate Instream Migration Link Class High Invertebrate velocity sensitivity Very High Potential Flow Modifications Potential Physico-Chemical Modifications Large Large Riparian-Wetland Zone Migration Link Instream Habitat Integrity Class High Moderate Stream size sensitivity to modified flow/water level changes description Riparian-Wetland Vegetation intolerance to water level changes description Very High High Anthropogenic Impacts The following impacts/activities were identified: Small: Chicken farms, low crossings, Fire (rated if site is burnt) Roads Runoff/effluent: Irrigation Runoff/effluent: Urban areas Urbanization, Inundation, Moderate: Bed stabilisation, Erosion, Exotic vegetation, Irrigation, trampling, Vegetation removal, Large: Abstraction (run-of river)/increased flows, Sedimentation, Serious: Agricultural lands, Small dams (farm) 6

15 Table 3: Present Ecological Status of the Viskuile SQR B11A-1430 (SCH1) Present Ecological State Ecological Importance Ecological Sensitivity C (Moderately modified) High High Variable Status Variable Status Variable Status Modifications to Instream Habitat Continuity Moderate Fish species per sub quaternary catchment 7 Fish Physico-Chemical sensitivity description High Modifications to Riparian/ Wetland Zone Continuity Small Invertebrate taxa per sub quaternary catchment 45 Fish No-flow sensitivity description High Potential Instream habitat modifications Large Habitat Diversity Class Low Invertebrate Physico- Chemical sensitivity Very High Modifications to Riparian/ Wetland Zones Moderate Instream Migration Link Class High Invertebrate velocity sensitivity Very High Potential Flow Modifications Potential Physico-Chemical Modifications Large Moderate Riparian-Wetland Zone Migration Link Instream Habitat Integrity Class Very High Moderate Stream size sensitivity to modified flow/water level changes description Riparian-Wetland Vegetation intolerance to water level changes description Very High High Anthropogenic Impacts The following impacts/activities were identified: Small: low water crossings, Exotic vegetation, Mining, Roads Runoff/effluent; Urban areas, Urbanization Moderate: Algal growth, Irrigation Runoff/effluent: Irrigation Large: Abstraction (run-of river)/increased flows Sedimentation, trampling, Vegetation removal, Inundation, Serious: Agricultural lands, Erosion, Small dams (farm). 7

16 Table 4: Present Ecological Status of the Viskuile SQR B11A-1411 (SCH3 Downstream) Present Ecological State Ecological Importance Ecological Sensitivity C (Moderately modified) Moderate High Variable Status Variable Status Variable Status Modifications to Instream Habitat Continuity Small Fish species per sub quaternary catchment 7 Fish Physico-Chemical sensitivity description High Modifications to Riparian/ Wetland Zone Continuity Small Invertebrate taxa per sub quaternary catchment 38 Fish No-flow sensitivity description High Potential Instream habitat modifications Moderate Habitat Diversity Class Low Invertebrate Physico- Chemical sensitivity Very High Modifications to Riparian/ Wetland Zones Small Instream Migration Link Class Very High Invertebrate velocity sensitivity High Potential Flow Modifications Potential Physico-Chemical Modifications Large Moderate Riparian-Wetland Zone Migration Link Instream Habitat Integrity Class Very High High Stream size sensitivity to modified flow/water level changes description Riparian-Wetland Vegetation intolerance to water level changes description High High Anthropogenic Impacts The following impacts/activities were identified: Grassland dominated floodplain in fair condition, some erosion (especially tributaries) and perennial alien woody species evident. Backup at the lower portion of the SQ has facilitated the establishment of reed beds. 8

17 4.3 Mpumalanga Highveld Wetlands This layer codes Mpumalanga Highveld wetlands. The delineations were based on tracking wetlands on Spot 5 imagery within the Mpumalanga Highveld boundary supported by google earth, 1: contour lines, 1: river lines, exigent data, NFEPA wetlands. This focusses on updating previously mapped wetlands in three major steps which are desktop digitizing, field groundtruthing and mapped data reviewing. The identified wetlands included floodplain wetlands, seepage zones and depression wetlands. The wetlands are presented in Figure 2. Figure 2: The Mpumalanga Highveld wetlands associated with the Schurvekop project. 4.4 Geology & Soils The geology of the area is shale, sandstone, clay and conglomerate of the Ecca Group, Karoo Sequence; dolerite; occasional felsitic lava of the Rooiberg Group, Transvaal Sequence. According to the land type database (Land Type Survey Staff, ) the development falls within the Bb4 land type. It is expected that, the dominant soils in the crest and midslope positions will be soils of the Avalon and Ruston forms. The soils that dominate the footslopes and the valley bottoms are Phoenix and Rensburg soil forms. 9

18 5 LIMITATIONS The following aspects were considered as limitations; The results of this assessment are based on data collected during a single February survey. Aquatic & wetland ecosystems are dynamic by nature and seasonal changes can be extreme, the absence of phenological data is a limiting factor of this assessment; The GPS used for wetland and riparian delineations is accurate to within five meters. Therefore, the wetland delineation plotted digitally may be offset by at least five meters to either side; The lack of a detailed infrastructural layout, only allowed us to do a general assessment on the impacts and the buffer requirement; and Wetland systems identified at desktop level within 500 m of the project area were considered for the identification and desktop delineation, with wetland areas within the project area being the focus for ground truthing. Due to the extent of agricultural activities on site, the use of vegetation as a means to identify and delineate the boundary of wetlands was limited. In order to address this shortcoming, findings from the soil assessment were used to supplement the delineation and characterisation of the wetland areas. A buffer zone was determined using methods prescribed by Macfarlane et al., Whilst caution was taken in applying this tool, a notable limitation is that the tool does not consider groundwater linkages that may be sustaining a wetland system. 10

19 6 METHODOLOGY 6.1 Aquatic Assessment In Situ Water Quality During the survey a portable Hach HQ40d multimeter was used to measure the following parameters in situ: ph; Electrical Conductivity (EC); Dissolved Oxygen (DO); and Water Temperature. Water quality has a direct influence on aquatic life forms. Although these measurements only provide a snapshot, they can provide valuable insight into the characteristics and interpretation of a specific sample site at the time of the survey Habitat Assessment Habitat availability and diversity are major attributes for the biota found in a specific ecosystem, and thus knowledge of the quality of habitats is important in an overall assessment of ecosystem health. Habitat assessment can be defined as the evaluation of the structure of the surrounding physical habitat that influences the quality of the water resource and the condition of the resident aquatic community (Barbour et al. 1996). Both the quality and quantity of available habitat affect the structure and composition of resident biological communities (USEPA, 1998). Habitat quality and availability plays a critical role in the occurrence of aquatic biota. For this reason, habitat evaluation is conducted simultaneously with biological evaluations to facilitate the interpretation of results Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS) The quality of the instream and riparian habitat influences the structure and function of the aquatic community in a stream; therefore, assessment of the habitat is critical to any assessment of ecological integrity. The Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS, version 2) was applied at each of the sampling sites to assess the availability of habitat biotopes for macroinvertebrates. The IHAS was developed specifically for use with the SASS5 index and rapid biological assessment protocols in South Africa (McMillan, 1998). The index considers sampling habitat and stream characteristics. The sampling habitat is broken down into three sub-sections namely Stones-In-Current (SIC), Vegetation (VEG), Gravel Sand & Mud (GSM) and other habitat/ general. It is presently thought that a total IHAS score of over 65% represents good habitat conditions, a score over 55% indicates adequate/fair habitat conditions (McMillan, 1998) (Table 5). Table 5: Integrated Habitat Assessment System Scoring Guidelines 11

20 IHAS Score Description > 65% Good 55-65% Adequate/Fair < 55% Poor Aquatic Macroinvertebrates The monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates forms an integral part of the monitoring of the health of an aquatic ecosystem as they are relatively sedentary and enable the detection of localised disturbances. Their relatively long life histories (±1 year) allow for the integration of pollution effects over time. Field sampling is easy and since the communities are heterogeneous and several phyla are usually represented, response to environmental impacts is normally detectable in terms of the community as a whole (Hellawell, 1977). Aquatic macroinvertebrates were sampled using the qualitative kick sampling method called SASS5 (South African Scoring System, version 5) (Dickens & Graham, 2002). The SASS5 protocol is a biotic index of the condition of a river or stream, based on the resident macroinvertebrate community, whereby each taxon is allocated a score according to its level of tolerance to river health degradation (Dallas, 1997). This method relies on churning up the substrate with your feet and sweeping a finely meshed SASS net (mesh size of 1000 micron), over the churned up area. The SASS5 index was designed specifically for the assessment of perennial streams and rivers and is not suitable for assessment of impoundments, isolated pools, wetlands or pans (Dickens & Graham, 2002). In the Stones-In-Current (SIC) biotope the net is rested on the substrate and the area immediately upstream of the net disturbed by kicking the stones over and against each other to dislodge benthic invertebrates. The net is also swept under the edge of marginal and aquatic vegetation (VEG). Kick samples are collected from areas with gravel, sand and mud (GSM) substrates. Identification of the organisms is made to family level (Thirion et al., 1995; Davies & Day, 1998; Dickens & Graham, 2002; Gerber & Gabriel, 2002). The endpoint of any biological or ecosystem assessment is a value expressed either in the form of measurements (data collected) or in a more meaningful format by summarising these measurements into one or several index values (Cyrus et al., 2000). The indices used for this study were SASS5 Score and Average Score per Taxon (ASPT). The ASPT score is calculated as follows: SASS5 Score/ No. of Taxa Biotic Integrity Based on SASS5 Results Reference conditions reflect the best conditions that can be expected in rivers and streams within a specific area and also reflect natural variation over time. These reference conditions are used as a benchmark against which field data can be compared. Modelled reference conditions for the Highveld - lower zone ecoregion was obtained from Dallas (2007) (Table 6). The biological bands for the Highveld - lower zone ecoregion are presented in Figure 3. Table 6: Biological Bands / Ecological categories for interpreting SASS data (adapted from Dallas, 2007) 12

21 Class Ecological Category Description A Natural Unimpaired. High diversity of taxa with numerous sensitive taxa. B Largely natural Slightly impaired. High diversity of taxa, but with fewer sensitive taxa. C Moderately modified Moderately impaired. Moderate diversity of taxa. D Largely modified Considerably impaired. Mostly tolerant taxa present. E/F Seriously Modified Severely impaired. Only tolerant taxa present. * Average Score per Taxa Figure 3: Biological Bands for the Highveld - lower zone Ecoregion, calculated using percentiles Fish Fish samples were collected by means of electrofishing. Electrofishing is the use of electricity to catch fish. The electricity is generated by a system whereby a high voltage potential is applied between two electrodes placed in the water (USGS, 2004). The responses of fish to electricity are determined largely by the type of electrical current and its wave form. These responses include avoidance, electrotaxis (forced swimming), electrotetanus (muscle contraction), electronarcosis (muscle relaxation or stunning) and death (USGS, 2004). Electrofishing was conducted with a SAMUS 725MS portable electrofishing device (DC 12V pulsating). Electrofishing is regarded as the most effective single method for sampling fish communities in wadeable streams (Plafkin et al., 1989). 13

22 Fish were identified in the field, photographed and released at the point of capture. Fish species were identified using the guide Freshwater Fishes of Southern Africa (Skelton, 2001) Expected Fish Species The list of expected fish species is presented in Table 7 (Skelton, 2001; DWS, 2013). Based on this, a total of 6 fish species are expected to occur in the Joubertvleispruit, whereas 7 fish species are expected within the Viskuile River. It should be noted that these expected species lists are compiled on a SQR basis and not on a site-specific basis. It is therefore highly unlikely that all of the expected species will be present at every site in the SQR with habitat type and availability being the main driver of species present. Therefore, Table 7 should be viewed as a list of potential species rather than an expected species list. The species richness within the SQR is considered high, and furthermore the species within the reach are generally considered to require largely unmodified physico-chemical conditions to survive and breed. Furthermore, species in the reach require flow during all phases of their life-cycle, often preferring fast flowing clear waters for breeding and survival (DWAF, 2013). Table 7: Expected species list for the Joubertvleispruit and Viskuile sub-quaternary catchments Scientific name Common name IUCN Status B11A B11A Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth Catfish LC X X X Enteromius anoplus Chubbyhead Barb LC X X X Enteromius neefi Sidespot Barb LC X X X Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin Barb LC X X X Labeobarbus polylepis Smallscale Yellowfish LC X X Pseudocrenilabrus philander Southern Mouthbrooder LC X X X Tilapia sparrmanii Banded Tilapia LC X X X Total number of expected species LC - Least Concern B11A Presence of Species of Conservation Concern The conservation status of the indigenous fish species was assessed in terms of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2016). Based on this assessment no species of special concern occur within the reach. 6.2 Wetland Assessment The National Wetland Classification Systems (NWCS), developed by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) was utilised for this study. This system comprises a hierarchical classification process of defining a wetland based on the principles of the 14

23 hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach at higher levels, and also then includes structural features at the lower levels of classification (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013) Wetland Classification System A distinction is made between 4 landscape units for inland systems on the basis of the landscape setting in which a HGM is situated, which broadly considers (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013): Slope; Valley floor; Plain; and Bench. The HGM Units, which are defined primarily according to: Landform, which defines the shape and localised setting of a wetland; Hydrological characteristics, which describe the nature of water movement into, through and out of the wetland; and Hydrodynamics, which describe the direction and strength of flow through the wetland. Seven primary HGM units are recognised for Inland Systems on the basis of hydrology and geomorphology (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013), namely: River: a linear landform with clearly discernible bed and banks, which permanently or periodically carries a concentrated flow of water; Channelled valley-bottom wetland: a valley-bottom wetland with a river channel running through it; Unchanneled valley-bottom wetland: a valley-bottom wetland without a river channel running through it; Floodplain wetland: the mostly flat or gently sloping land adjacent to and formed by an alluvial river channel, under its present climate and sediment load, which is subject to periodic inundation by over-topping of the channel bank; Depression: a landform with closed elevation contours that increases in depth from the perimeter to a central area of greatest depth, and within which water typically accumulates; Wetland Flat: a level or near-level wetland area that is not fed by water from a river channel, and which is typically situated on a plain or a bench. Closed elevation contours are not evident around the edge of a wetland flat; and Seep: a wetland area located on (gently to steeply) sloping land, which is dominated by the colluvium (i.e. gravity-driven), unidirectional movement of material down-slope. Seeps are often located on the side-slopes of a valley but they do not, typically, extend into a valley floor. 15

24 The above terms have been used in order to ensure consistency with the wetland classification terms in South Africa Desktop assessment The following information sources were considered for the desktop assessment; Information as presented by the South African National Biodiversity Institutes (SANBI s) Biodiversity Geographic Information Systems (BGIS) website ( Aerial imagery (Google Earth Pro); Land Type Data (Land Type Survey Staff, ) The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nel, et al., 2011); Contour data (5 m) Wetland Delineation The wetland areas are delineated in accordance with the DWAF (2005) guidelines, a cross section is presented in Figure 4. The outer edges of the wetland areas were identified by considering the following four specific indicators: The Terrain Unit Indicator helps to identify those parts of the landscape where wetlands are more likely to occur; The Soil Form Indicator identifies the soil forms, as defined by the Soil Classification Working Group (1991), which are associated with prolonged and frequent saturation; The soil forms (types of soil) found in the landscape were identified using the South African soil classification system namely; Soil Classification: A Taxonomic System for South Africa (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991); The Soil Wetness Indicator identifies the morphological "signatures" developed in the soil profile as a result of prolonged and frequent saturation; and The Vegetation Indicator identifies hydrophilic vegetation associated with frequently saturated soils. Vegetation is used as the primary wetland indicator. However, in practice the soil wetness indicator tends to be the most important, and the other three indicators are used in a confirmatory role. 16

25 Figure 4: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013) Present Ecological Status (PES) Healthy wetlands are known to provide important habitats for wildlife and to deliver a range of important goods and services to society (ecosystem services). Management of these systems is therefore essential if these attributes are to be retained within an ever-changing landscape. The primary purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the eco-physical health of wetlands, and in so doing promote their conservation and wise management Level of Evaluation WET-Health provides two levels of assessment: Level 1: Desktop evaluation, with limited field verification. This is generally applicable to situations where many wetlands need to be assessed at a very low resolution; or Level 2: On-site evaluation. This involves structured sampling and data collection in a single wetland and its surrounding catchment Units of Assessment Central to WET-Health is the characterisation of HGM Units, which have been defined based on geomorphic setting (e.g. hillslope or valley-bottom and whether drainage is open or closed), water source (surface water dominated or sub-surface water dominated) and pattern of water flow through the wetland unit (diffusely or channelled) Quantification of Present Ecological State (PES) of a Wetland The overall approach is to quantify the impacts of human activity or clearly visible impacts on wetland health, and then to convert the impact scores to a PES score. This takes the form of assessing the spatial extent of impact of individual activities/occurrences and then separately assessing the intensity of impact of each activity in the affected area. The extent and intensity are then combined to determine an overall magnitude of impact. The impact scores and Present State categories are provided in Table 8 and Table 9. 17

26 Table 8: The magnitude of impacts on wetland functionality (Macfarlane, et al., 2009) Impact Category None Description No Discernible modification or the modification is such that it has no impacts on the wetland integrity Score 0 to 0.9 Small Although identifiable, the impact of this modification on the wetland integrity is small. 1.0 to 1.9 Moderate The impact of this modification on the wetland integrity is clearly identifiable, but limited. 2.0 to 3.9 Large The modification has a clearly detrimental impact on the wetland integrity. Approximately 50% of wetland integrity has been lost. 4.0 to 5.9 Serious The modification has a highly detrimental effect on the wetland integrity. More than 50% of the wetland integrity has been lost. 6.0 to 7.9 Critical The modification is so great that the ecosystem process of the wetland integrity is almost totally destroyed, and 80% or more of the integrity has been lost. 8.0 to 10 Table 9: The PES categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2009) Impact Category Description Impact Score Range Present State Category None Unmodified, natural 0 to 0.9 A Small Moderate Large Serious Critical Largely Natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem processes is discernible and a small loss of natural habitats and biota may have taken place. Moderately Modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place, but the natural habitat remains predominantly intact. Largely Modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota has occurred. Seriously Modified. The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota is great, but some remaining natural habitat features are still recognizable. Critical Modification. The modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota. 1.0 to 1.9 B 2.0 to 3.9 C 4.0 to 5.9 D 6.0 to 7.9 E 8.0 to 10 F Overall Health of the Wetland Once all HGM Units have been assessed, a summary of health for the wetland as a whole is calculated. Since hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation are interlinked their scores are 18

27 aggregated to obtain an overall PES health score using the following formula (Macfarlane, et al., 2009): Health = ((Hydrology score) x3 + (Geomorphology score) x2 + (Vegetation score) x2)) Wetland Ecosystem Services The assessment of the ecosystem services supplied by the identified wetlands was conducted per the guidelines as described in WET-EcoServices Kotze et al, An assessment was undertaken that examines and rates the following services according to their degree of importance and the degree to which the services are provided (Table 10): Flood attenuation Stream flow regulation Sediment trapping Phosphate trapping Nitrate removal Toxicant removal Erosion control Carbon storage Maintenance of biodiversity Water supply for human use Natural resources Cultivated foods Cultural significance Tourism and recreation Education and research Table 10: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied (Kotze et al, 2009) Score Rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied < 0.5 Low Moderately Low Intermediate Moderately High > 3.0 High 19

28 6.2.6 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) The method takes into consideration PES scores obtained for WET-Health as well as function and service provision to enable the assessor to determine the most representative EIS category for the wetland feature or group being assessed. 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 mean of the determinants is used to assign the EIS category as listed in Table 11. Table 11: Description of EIS categories EIS Category Range of Mean Recommended Ecological Management Class Very High 3.1 to 4.0 A High 2.1 to 3.0 B Moderate 1.1 to 2.0 C Low Marginal < 1.0 D 6.3 Impact Assessment The matrix assesses impacts in terms of consequence and likelihood. Consequence is calculated based on the following formula: Whereas likelihood is calculated as: Consequence = Severity + Spatial Scale + Duration Likelihood=Frequency of Activity + Frequency of Incident +Legal Issues + Detection. Significance is calculated as: Significance \Risk= Consequence X Likelihood. The significance of the impact is calculated according to Table

29 Hi unl. Improb. Unlikely Prob. Likely Probability Hi prob. Certain Schurvekop Aquatic & Wetland Impact Assessment Report Table 12: Significance ratings matrix Pre-mitigation Extreme High Moderate Slight Negligible Slight Moderate High Extreme Detrimental Consequence Beneficial 6.4 Buffer Determination A buffer zone is defined as A strip of land with a use, function or zoning specifically designed to protect one area of land against impacts from another. (Macfarlane et al., 2014). Buffer zones protect water resources in a variety of ways, such as; Maintenance of basic aquatic processes; The reduction of impacts on water resources from activities and adjoining land uses; The provision of habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic species; The provision of habitat for terrestrial species; and The provision of societal benefits. The Preliminary Guideline for the Determination of Buffer Zones for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries (Macfarlane et al., 2014) was used to determine the appropriate buffer zone for the proposed activity. 21

30 7 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 7.1 Aquatic Assessment Aquatic baseline data was collected three sites, one site is situated upstream of the Schurvekop Mining area in the Joubertvleispruit, a control site is located in the middle reaches of the Viskuile River. The third site is situated downstream of the confluence with the Viskuile River (Figure 5). Land uses in the area surrounding the proposed project site consists of mining and agricultural activities. These activities have had impacts on the aquatic and wetland ecosystems and visible disturbances were rated as moderate. Due to these activities, the aquatic ecosystems are regarded as moderately to largely modified at a desktop level. A site description, photographs and GPS coordinates for the sampled reach are presented in Table

31 Figure 5: Locality map of the proposed Schurvekop Mining Area and aquatic sampling points 23

32 Table 13: Photos, coordinates and descriptions of the aquatic ecosystems sampled during the February 2017 baseline assessment survey Upstream Downstream SCH1 Viskuile River (Control site) GPS coordinates 26 16'42.03"S 29 30'30.68"E Site description Onsite impacts SCH1 acts as the control site located in the Viskuile River. The site is characterized by slow flowing water over stones and sandy substrate with marginal vegetation limited to grasses. Impacts from livestock, solid waste, erosion of the riparian area Upstream Downstream SCH2 Joubertvleispruit (Upstream) GPS coordinates 26 17'49.56"S 29 29'58.87"E Site description Onsite impacts SCH2 is located on the Joubertvleispruit, upstream of the proposed Schurvekop Mining area. The site was characterised by slow flowing waters over stones. Good marginal vegetation is present mainly in the form of grasses. Impacts from livestock, and solid waste 24

33 Upstream Downstream SCH3 Joubertvleispruit (Downstream) GPS coordinates Site description Onsite impacts 26 16'9.98"S 29 29'42.59"E SCH3 is located on the Viskuile River downstream of the proposed Schurvekop mining area. The site was characterised by homogenous habitat with slow flowing water over a sandy substrate, stones and boulder habitats were present but limited. Marginal vegetation was abundant. The riparian habitat was characterised by grass. Impacts from livestock In situ water quality In situ water quality analysis was conducted at all sites during the high flow survey (Table 14). These results are important to assist in the interpretation of biological results due to the direct influence water quality has on aquatic life forms. Table 14: In situ water quality results for the survey Site ph Conductivity (µs/cm) DO (mg/l) DO Saturation (%) Temperature ( C) TWQR* <700 > SCH SCH SCH *Levels exceeding recommended guideline levels are indicated in red ph Most fresh waters are usually relatively well buffered and more or less neutral, with a ph range from 6.5 to 8.5, and most are slightly alkaline due to the presence of bicarbonates of the alkali 25

34 and alkaline earth metals (Barbour et al, 1996). The ph target for fish health is presented as ranging between 6.5 and 9.0 (Table 14). The ph results complied with the recommended guideline levels. Therefore ph did not have a limiting effect on aquatic biota at the time of the survey Electrical Conductivity (EC) Electrical conductivity (EC) is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. This ability is a result of the presence in water of ions such as carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulphate, nitrate, sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium, all of which carry an electrical charge. Conductivity levels at all the sampled sites were below recommended guideline levels and was not a limiting factor of aquatic biota at the time of the survey. A small increase in conductivity was observed after the confluence with the Joubertvleispruit, this higher conductivity may be due to an increase in nutrients entering the system from agricultural activities Dissolved Oxygen (DO) The maintenance of adequate Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is critical for the survival of aquatic biota as it is required for the respiration of all aerobic organisms (DWS, 1996). Therefore, DO concentration provides a useful measure of the health of an ecosystem (DWS, 1996). The median guideline for DO for the protection of freshwater fish, determined by a variety of fish faunas is > 4-5 mg/l (Doudoroff & Shumway, 1970 and DWS, 1996). Exposure to DO concentrations below 2 mg/l will lead to death of most fishes (UNESCO, 1996). Percentage saturation (% sat) is the amount of oxygen (O 2) in a litre of water relative to the total amount of oxygen that the water can hold at that temperature. DO levels fluctuate seasonally and diurnally over a 24-hour period and vary with water temperature and altitude (DWS, 1996). The South African Water Quality Guidelines (1996), state that the target water quality range (TWQR) for DO to protect aquatic biota through most life stages is 80% - 120% of saturation, and that saturation levels below 40% would be lethal. During the survey the DO levels at site SCH2 were marginally low. This suggests that the DO levels potentially had a limiting effect on aquatic biota (Table 14). The low DO may be attributed to return flows from agriculture leading to increased biological/ chemical oxygen demand. The DO levels at sites SCH1 and SCH3 were adequate (Table 14) Water Temperature Water temperature plays an important role in aquatic ecosystems by affecting the rates of chemical reactions and therefore also the metabolic rates of organisms (DWS, 1996). Temperature affects the rate of development, reproductive periods and emergence time of organisms (DWS, 2005b). Temperature varies with season and the life cycles of many aquatic macroinvertebrates are cued to temperature (DWS, 2005b). During the survey all water temperatures were within the recommended guideline range and was not expected to have had a limiting effect on aquatic ecosystem. 26

35 7.1.2 Habitat assessment Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS, Version 2) The IHAS index was developed by McMillan (1998) for use in conjunction with the SASS5 protocol. The IHAS results for the survey are presented in Table 15. Table 15: IHAS Scores at each site during the survey Site SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 Score Suitability Poor Poor Poor According to the IHAS results, habitat availability for aquatic macroinvertebrates was poor at all 3 sites (Table 15). Therefore, habitat availability was a limiting factor of aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity at all 3 sites. The habitat at site SCH1 was characterized a sandy substrate (gravel, sand and mud biotope) with abundant marginal vegetation. The Stones-In-Current biotope was absent. The habitat at site SCH2 was characterised by slow flows and a soft muddy substrate. Marginal vegetation was abundant but Stones-In-Current very limited. The habitat at site SCH3 was characterised by moderate to slow flows and a uniform sand and gravel substrate. Marginal vegetation was abundant along the banks but the Stones-In-Current (SIC) habitat was absent Intermediate Habitat Integrity Assessment The results for the instream and riparian habitat integrity assessment for the Joubertvleispruit reach are presented in Table 16 and Table 17. The reach includes the 17 km section of the Joubertvleispruit system covered by the baseline survey. Table 16: Results for the instream habitat integrity assessment (SCHs2) Instream Average Score Water abstraction Flow modification Bed modification Channel modification Water quality Inundation 15 6 Exotic macrophytes

36 Exotic fauna Solid waste disposal Total Instream Category D Table 17: Results for the riparian habitat integrity assessment Riparian Average Score Indigenous vegetation removal Exotic vegetation encroachment Bank erosion Channel modification Water abstraction Inundation Flow modification Water quality Total Riparian 45.2 Category D Based on the IHIA results instream habitat integrity in the reach is in a Class D, or largely modified (Table 16). A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem function has occurred due to agricultural activities. Riparian habitat within the reach is in a Class D, or largely modified (Table 17): A loss and change of natural habitat and biota has occurred but the basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged. Impacts to the bed, channel, flow modification and available habitat in the catchment are large to serious with the construction of instream weirs used for agricultural purposes. Agricultural activities in the reach have resulted in large amounts of abstraction from the Joubertvleispruit and return flows have resulted in eutrophication of the reach. The results for the instream and riparian habitat integrity assessment for the Viskuile River reach are presented in Table 18 and Table 19. The reach includes the 30 km section of the Viskuile system covered by the baseline survey. Table 18: Results for the instream habitat integrity assessment (SCH2 and SCH3) Instream Average Score Water abstraction Flow modification

37 Bed modification Channel modification Water quality Inundation Exotic macrophytes Exotic fauna Solid waste disposal Total Instream Category C Table 19: Results for the riparian habitat integrity assessment Riparian Average Score Indigenous vegetation removal Exotic vegetation encroachment Bank erosion Channel modification Water abstraction Inundation Flow modification Water quality Total Riparian Category D Based on the IHIA results instream habitat integrity in the reach is considered to be a Class C, or moderately modified (Table 18). A moderate loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem function has occurred. Riparian habitat within the reach is in a Class D, or largely modified (Table 19,). A loss and change of natural habitat and biota has occurred but the basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged. Impacts to the bed, channel, flow modification and available habitat in the catchment are large. The agricultural activities in the reach have resulted in large amounts of abstraction paired with the construction of instream weirs from the Viskuile river system and return flows have resulted in sedimentation of the reach. 29

38 7.1.3 Aquatic macroinvertebrates The aquatic macroinvertebrate results for the survey are presented in Table 20. The number of taxa ranged from 12 at SCH3 to 17 at SCH2. The SASS5 scores ranged from 58 at SCH3 to 69 at SCH2. Based on the ASPT scores the aquatic macroinvertebrate communities at all 3 sites were composed primarily of tolerant taxa (Intolerance Rating < 5) (Table 20). The macroinvertebrate communities did include some semi-intolerant taxa (Intolerance Rating 6-10) in low abundances. Table 20: Macroinvertebrate assessment results recorded during the survey Site SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 SASS Score No. of Taxa ASPT* Category D C C Biotic Integrity based on SASS5 Results Biotic integrity at the control site SCH1 was categorised as largely modified (PES Class D) ( Table 20). As shown in the IHAS assessment, habitat availability was a limiting factor at this site. Other factors that may have contributed to the poor SASS5 results included the high turbidity observed at the time of the survey The biotic integrity of site SCH2 was categorised as moderately modified (PES Class C). This indicates that the macroinvertebrate assemblage is in an impacted state. The low diversity of Dipteran taxa at the site indicates impaired water quality. The moderately intolerant taxa found on site included Hydraenidae (intolerance rating 8) and Hydracarina (intolerance rating 8). The ASPT score indicates a community comprised primarily of tolerant taxa. Biotic integrity at site SCH3 was categorised as moderately modified (PES Class C) (Table 20). Taxa recorded at the site included the moderately intolerant Naucoridae (intolerance rating 7). The ASPT score indicates a high percentage of tolerant and moderately intolerant taxa Fish Fish were collected by means of electrofishing in all available biotopes. Biotopes sampled were predominantly slow flowing water over the mud, gravel and stones biotopes. Cover features included marginal vegetation and undercut banks. 30

39 Fish sampling was conducted at all the sites. Three (3) of the 5 (60%) potential fish species were collected in the Joubertvleispruit (Table 21). Four (4) of the 7 (57%) potential fish species were collected in the Viskuile during the survey. The results of the fish assessment indicate that the community structure in the Joubertvleispruit and Viskuile River are in a moderately modified state; a large number of expected fish species were collected, with good abundances. Expected species that were not collected included Enteromius neefi and Tilapia sparrmanii. Images of fish collected are presented in Table 23. Table 21: Fish species collected during the survey Scientific name Common name Site SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 Sensitivity Noflow Physchem Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth catfish Enteromius anoplus Chubbyhead barb Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin Barb Labeobarbus polylepis Smallscale yellowfish Pseudocrenilabrus philander Southern Brooder Mouth Total species expected Total species recorded *OBS- Observed fish species Table 22: Catch per unit effort (CPUE) during the survey Site SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 Method Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Effort 25 min 25 min 25 min Sample size

40 CPUE (catch per minute) Table 23: Photographs of fish species collected during the 2017 survey Clarias gariepinus Enteromius anoplus Enteromius paludinosus Labeobarbus polylepis Pseudocrenilabrus philander 7.2 Wetland Assessment The survey included assessing all the wetland indicators as well as assessing the Present Ecological Score (PES) or health of the wetland, the wetland s ability to provide goods and services (eco-services) and the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of the wetlands. A detailed soil survey was conducted for the Schurvekop Mine site in March 2017 using a handheld auger and a GPS tablet to log all information in the field (Figure 6). The soils were classified to the family level as per the Soil Classification - A Taxonomic System for South Africa (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991). Owing to the extent of agricultural activities within the project area, Soil Form was used to supplement the wetland study. 32

41 Figure 6: Soil depths and classifications for the implemented grid The project area is gently sloping from the south to the north. The midslopes were dominated by Longlands and Tukulu soils, and the foot slopes and valley bottoms were Katspruit and Sepane soils. There is a rocky outcrop situated to the north east of the project area and this was mainly of the Mispah form. Figure 7 shows the distribution of the soils across the site. The dominant soil forms within the project area all show signs of moisture. And are hydrologically functional as interflow soils. Water moves vertically through the upper profile and then either moves laterally (Longlands) or stays in situ to created redox conditions (Tukulu/Sepane). The project area slopes to the north with the pan to the west being fed by these soils. The stream in the east is also to a lesser degree fed by these interflow soils. The clay content increases as you move down the profile as well as down slope 33

42 Figure 7: Soil forms for the Schurvekop Mine. 34

43 The wetland delineation is shown in Figure 8 and the HGM units in Table 24 with the wetland classification as per SANBI guidelines (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013) Four (4) HGM units were identified within the project boundary, namely; Floodplain (HGM 1); Seepage (HGM 2); Flat (HGM 3); and Depression (HGM 4). The wetlands are described in the following sections. For the sake of this assessment, HGM units have been collectively assessed for this study. Figure 8: Schurvekop study area wetland delineation Table 24: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis, Snaddon, Job, & Mbona, 2013). Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Wetland Name DWS NFEPA Wet Landscape System 4A (HGM) 4B 4C Ecoregion/s Veg Group/s Unit Mesic HGM 1 Valley Floor Floodplain Highveld Inland Highveld N/A N/A grassland HGM 2 Slope Seepage group 4 35

44 HGM 3 HGM 4 Bench Flat Depression (HGM 1) Floodplain The floodplain wetland was located in the north of the study area. The wetland vegetation was dominated by Phragmites australis (Reed) and Typha capensis (Bulrush) along the edges of the banks, which aided in the delineation of the wetland. The banks of the channel were dominated by Themeda triandra (Red grass), Digitaria spp and Sporobolus Africana (African dropseed), these are not regarded as wetland indicators. The floodplain wetland is presented in Figure 9, with photographs of floodplain features such as an oxbow also presented. Figure 9: The floodplain wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 1) (HGM 2) Seepage The seepage wetland was found across the study area, predominantly on the western border and in the northern project area. The wetland was dominated by separated clumps of Juncus spp (Figure 10) and shorter well grazed grasses. In other areas the dominant plant was 36

45 Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu grass), which is not regarded as a wetland indicator, however, the species does invade wetland areas due to grazing and spread through cattle. Figure 10: The seepage wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 2) (HGM 3) Flat The flat wetland was found in isolated patches in the central and southern regions of the project area. The wetland was surrounded by maize fields and portions of the wetland had been altered to maize fields. These units were characterised by Agrostis lacnantha, an obligate wetland indicator, but the dominant plant was Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu grass) (Figure 11). Due to the extent of agricultural activities across the project area, soils have been tilled and ripped which has impacted on the both the vegetation and soil characteristics of the area. Despite these agricultural activities, the Soil Form was still regarded as a key aspect for the delineation of wetlands. Figure 11: The flat wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 3). 37

46 7.2.4 (HGM 4) Depression A photograph of the depression wetland is shown in Figure 12. The depression wetland was intersected by the southern border of the study area. The wetland was surrounded by maize fields, however, the wetland remained intact and maintained its functionality. Digitaria eriantha (Pangola grass) was identified within the system, which is not regarded as a wetland indicator. Depressions were also characterised by sections of open water. Figure 12: The depression wetland at Schurvekop (HGM 4) Present Ecological State (PES) The PES results are described in the sections below with Table 25 showing the combined results and Figure 13 showing the PES results for the area in the map. Table 25: The PES results for the Schurvekop project area Wetland Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score HGM 1 C: Moderately Modified 3.5 C: Moderately Modified 2.1 C: Moderately Modified 2.6 Overall PES Score Wetland HGM 2 Overall PES Score 2.8 Overall PES Class C: Moderately Modified Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score C: Moderately Modified 3.5 C: Moderately Modified 2.3 E: Seriously Modified 3.9 Overall PES Class C: Moderately Modified

47 Wetland Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score HGM 3 D: Largely Modified 4.0 C: Moderately Modified 2.2 D: Largely Modified 5.4 Overall PES Score Wetland 3.9 Overall PES Class C: Moderately Modified Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score HGM 4 B: Largely Natural 1.0 B: Largely Natural 1.4 C: Moderately Modified 2.5 Overall PES Score 1.6 Overall PES Class B: Largely Natural HYDROLOGY The hydrological component of HGM units 1 and 2 was categorised as a C (Moderately Modified). The hydrological component of HGM 3 was categorised as a D (Largely Modified) and the hydrological component of HGM 4 was categorised as a B (Largely Natural). The wetlands have been impacted and altered by the agricultural; crop fields in the study area. Areas of HGM 3 (Flat) have been altered to crop fields and altered the hydrological regime. The catchment is within a rural area and the impervious areas as well as patches of bare soil reduce the wetlands health. There is also evidence of alien vegetation in the area. GEOMORPHOLOGY The geomorphology of HGM 1, 2 and 3 was categorised as a C (Moderately Modified). The geomorphological component of HGM 4 was categorised as a B (Largely Natural). The geomorphological health has been impacted on by the altered hydrological conditions and the tillage within HGM 3. VEGETATION The vegetation component was categorised as a C (Moderately Modified) for HGM 1, 2 and 3. The vegetation component of HGM 4 was categorised as a B (Largely Natural) The vegetation component was affected by the alteration of the natural vegetation with crop fields and the grazing of the wetland areas 39

48 Figure 13: PES ratings of the wetlands associated with the Schurvekop project area Ecosystem Service Assessment The ecosystem services provided by the HGM unit present at the site were assessed and rated as per Table 26 using the WET-EcoServices method (Kotze, Marneweck, Batchelor, Lindley, & Collins, 2009). The summarised results for the HGM units are shown in Table 27. HGM 1 had an overall intermediate level of service with the following showing moderately high levels of services; Flood attenuation; and Erosion control. HGM 2 had an overall intermediate level of service with the following showing moderately high levels of services; Toxicant & Nitrate assimilation; and Erosion control. HGM 3 had an overall intermediate level of service with the following showing moderately high levels of services; Phosphate/Nitrate/Toxicant assimilation; and Erosion control. 40

49 Cultural benefits Ecosystem Services Supplied by Wetlands Direct Benefits Provisioning benefits Indirect Benefits Regulating and supporting benefits Water Quality enhancement benefits Schurvekop Aquatic & Wetland Impact Assessment Report HGM 4 had an overall moderately low level of service with no services showing moderately high levels of services. The remaining services for the HGM units were scored as intermediate or lower. Table 26: EcoServices rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied Score Rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied < 0.5 Low Moderately Low Intermediate Moderately High > 3.0 High Table 27: The EcoServices being provided by the wetlands at the Schurvekop site Wetland Unit HGM 1 HGM 2 HGM 3 HGM 4 Flood attenuation Streamflow regulation Sediment trapping Phosphate assimilation Nitrate assimilation Toxicant assimilation Erosion control Carbon storage Biodiversity maintenance Provisioning of water for human use Provisioning of harvestable resources Provisioning of cultivated foods Cultural heritage Tourism and recreation Education and research Overall Average

50 Figure 14: The spider diagram for Ecoservices rendered by HGM units Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) The EIS assessment was applied to the HGM units described in the previous section in order to assess the levels of sensitivity and ecological importance of the wetlands. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 28. All the HGM units in the Schurvekop study area showed Moderate (C) levels of importance for the EIS as well as for the hydrological importance. The direct human benefits were rated to be Low with a (D) rating. Table 28: The EIS results for the Schurvekop Project WETLAND IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY HGM 1 HGM 2 HGM 3 HGM 4 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY HYDROLOGICAL/FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS

51 7.2.8 Buffer Zones The wetland buffer zone tool was used to calculate the appropriate buffer required for the establishment of a mining project. The model shows that the largest risk posed by the worstcase mining scenario during the construction phase is that of increased sediment inputs and turbidity. During the operational phase the risks of increased sediment inputs and turbidity, inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants, alteration of ph and increased inputs of salts were rated as very high. These risks are based on what could threaten the wetland and what buffer would be required at a desktop level. A conservative buffer zone of 180 m was suggested at the desktop level. A comprehensive application of the buffer tool was undertaken, considering the in-field findings of the wetland areas. The recommended buffer zone was determined to be 22 m during the construction phase and 70 m during the operational phase (Table 29). The largest buffer zone of 70 m is applied for all the phases to ensure wetland protection. According to the buffer guideline (Macfarlane, et al., 2014) a high risk activity would require a buffer that is 95% effective to reduce the risk of the impact to a low level threat. The considerably large discrepancy between the prescribed desktop and calculated buffer zones may largely be attributed to limitations associated with the tool. Whilst every measure is taken to be conservative in implementing the tool, the tool does not disntinguisj between different mining methods, so a worst case scenario was considered. Additionally, the tool does not factor in local land uses and any likely linkages between the groundwater system and the wetland areas. Owing to the fact that the project is for an underground mining operation, surface risks to the wetlands are further reduced, allowing the buffer zone to be reduced accordingly. 43

52 Operational Phase Construction Phase Schurvekop Aquatic & Wetland Impact Assessment Report Table 29: The risk results from the wetland buffer model for the proposed mining development Threat Posed by the proposed land use / activity 1. Alteration to flow volumes 2. Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks) 3. Increase in sediment inputs & turbidity 4. Increased nutrient inputs 5. Inputs of toxic organic contaminants 6. Inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants 7. Alteration of acidity (ph) 8. Increased inputs of salts (salinization) 9. Change (elevation) of water temperature 10. Pathogen inputs (i.e. disease-causing organisms) 1. Alteration to flow volumes 2. Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks) 3. Increase in sediment inputs & turbidity 4. Increased nutrient inputs 5. Inputs of toxic organic contaminants 6. Inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants 7. Alteration of acidity (ph) 8. Increased inputs of salts (salinization) 9. Change (elevation) of water temperature 10. Pathogen inputs (i.e. disease-causing organisms) Construction Phase 22 Operational Phase 70 Desktop Threat Rating L L VH VL M M L L L VL H H VH L L VH VH VH M VL 8 IMPACTS 8.1 Current Impacts Current impacts associated with the proposed Schurvekop Mining area include modification of water quality and flow associated with the extensive transformation of the catchment to agriculture. The modification of the catchment is reflected in the impaired biotic integrity observed in the SASS5 results, although it should be noted that limited habitat availability contributed to the lower than expected SASS5 results. Clearing of indigenous grassland vegetation during cultivation results in changes in runoff and absorption rates. This results in increased runoff after rainfall events, in turn resulting in incising of the channel, increased turbidity and sedimentation. These impacts were clear in the project area during the February 2017 survey. In 2010, the impact of mining upstream of the proposed Schurvekop Mining area was very limited. Assessment of 2016 satellite images obtained from Google Earth shows that there has been some increase in mining activities in the catchment, but mining still remains a minor component of the total land use compared to agricultural activities. Mining activities have the potential to contribute a different suite of especially water quality related impacts to the catchment. 44

53 Two land cover datasets were queried as part of the desktop study. The first is the Mpumalanga Land Cover dataset developed in 2010 (MTPA, 2010). This dataset was developed using 2010 SPOT5 satellite imagery and was divided into six broad category classes. The intended scale for use is at 1:10,000. According to this dataset, approximately 26% of the Schurvekop Mine study area is regarded as completely natural areas (i.e. no record of past/present anthropogenic land use) (Table 30). Table 30: MBSP 2010 Land Cover for the Schurvekop Mine study area MBSP Land Cover (2010) Area (ha) Area (%) Cultivated Old lands Urban & Homesteads MBSP Natural Areas Grand Total The second land cover dataset queried was the South African National Land Cover dataset developed in 2014 (DEA, 2015). This dataset was developed using multi-seasonal Landsat 8 satellite imagery and was divided into 72 land cover types which was simplified into nine broad parent category classes. The intended scale for use is at 1:75,000+. According to this dataset, approximately 47% of the Schurvekop Mine study area is regarded as natural (Table 31). Table 31: South African National Land Cover for the Schurvekop Mine study area SA Land Cover (2015) Parent Land Cover Category Area (ha) Area (%) Bare none vegetated Bare Cultivated commercial fields (low) Cultivated Cultivated commercial fields (med) Cultivated Grassland Natural Vegetation Low shrubland Natural Vegetation Thicket/Dense bush Natural Vegetation Urban built-up (low vegetation/grass) Urban Urban built-up(dense trees/bush) Urban Water permanent Water Water seasonal Water Wetlands Wetland Woodland/Open bush Natural Vegetation Grand Total The land cover types according to MTPA (2010) and DEA (2015) applicable to the Schurvekop Mine study area is shown in Figure 15 below. 45

54 Figure 15: Land cover types according to MTPA (2010) and DEA (2015) for the Schurvekop Mine study area Current impacts on the water resources included the following: A dam in the seepage wetland; Grazing within the wetland areas; Maize crops within the wetland areas; Erosion within the floodplain wetland; and Alien vegetation encroachment (Figure 16). 46

55 A B C Figure 16: Current Impacts a) dam in seepage wetland b) erosion in floodplain wetland c) maize crops within flat wetland 8.2 Anticipated Impacts The following list provides a framework for the anticipated major impacts associated with the project. 1. Loss of wetland areas 47

56 a. Project activities that can cause loss of wetland areas i. Soil excavations [Construction, Operation and Decommission] ii. Underground mining [Operation and Decommission] iii. Access roads and servitudes [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iv. Construction camps & laydown areas [Construction, Operation and Decommission] v. Infrastructure development (buildings) [Construction, Operation] vi. Linear trench excavation [Operation] b. Secondary impacts associated with loss of wetlands i. Loss of ecosystem services 2. Altered hydrological regime a. Project aspects that can causes changes to surface hydrology i. Vegetation removal [Construction, Operation and Decommission] ii. Soil excavations [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iii. An increase in extent of hardened surfaces [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iv. Infrastructure development (buildings) [Construction, Operation] v. Separation of clean & dirty water [Construction, Operation and Decommission] vi. Underground mining [Operation and Decommission] vii. Stormwater management [Construction, Operation and Decommission] b. Secondary impacts associated with the altered hydrological regime i. Loss of ecosystem services ii. Worsening of the ecological status of wetlands iii. Increased or reduced runoff dependent on system manipulation iv. Loss of wetland and riparian ecosystem services through interruption of seasonal recharge and natural flow v. Loss of soil fertility and topsoil recharge through interruption of seasonal recharge and natural flow, including natural sedimentation vi. Scouring and erosion of wetlands 3. Impaired water quality a. Project activities that can impact on the local water quality i. Clearing of vegetation [Construction and Operation] ii. Earth moving (removal and storage of topsoil and overburden) [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iii. Blasting and excavation [Operation] iv. Pollution of water courses due to dust effects, chemical spills, acid mine drainage etc. [Construction, Operation and Decommission] v. Soil dust precipitation [Construction, Operation and Decommission] vi. Coal dust precipitation [Operation] vii. Chemical (organic/inorganic) spills [Construction, Operation and Decommission] viii. Erosion [Construction, Operation and Decommission] ix. Acid mine drainage (decanting) [Operation and Decommission] 48

57 x. Untreated runoff or effluent [Construction, Operation and Decommission] 4. Erosion and sedimentation of water resources a. Project activities that can cause increased erosion and sedimentation i. Vegetation removal [Construction, Operation and Decommission] ii. Soil excavations and stockpiles [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iii. An increase in extent of hardened surfaces [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iv. Erosion [Construction, Operation and Decommission] v. Stormwater management [Construction, Operation and Decommission] b. Secondary impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation i. Loss of ecosystem services ii. Loss of aquatic habitat 5. Spread and/or establishment of alien and/or invasive species a. Project activities that can cause the spread and/or establishment of alien and/or invasive species i. Vegetation removal [Construction, Operation and Decommission] ii. Soil excavations, transportation and stockpiles [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iii. Transportation vehicles potentially spreading seed while moving on, to and from mining areas [Construction, Operation and Decommission] iv. Unsanitary conditions surrounding infrastructure promoting the establishment of alien and/or invasive rodents [Construction and Operation] v. Creation of infrastructure suitable for breeding activities of alien and/or invasive birds [Construction and Operation] b. Secondary impacts associated with the spread and/or establishment of alien and/or invasive species i. Worsening of the ecological status of wetlands 8.3 Impact Assessment The project is for the proposed Schurvekop Coal Mine. Proposed activities at the Schurvekop Mine will include a limited surface footprint, which will at its closest point be just over 1 km from the Joubertvleispruit, as well as extensive underground bord and pillar mining which will extend under the Joubertvleispruit and Viskuile (Figure 15). The placement of surface infrastructure is located within delineated wetland areas, and it is likely that some extent of wetland systems will be lost as a result of this. 49

58 Figure 17: Proposed surface infrastructure at Schurvekop Mine and the local water resources The comprehensive qualitative impact assessment results with mitigation measures are given in Appendix A and accompany this document as a comprehensive Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The overall visual summary of the significance of potential impacts before and after mitigation is presented in Figure 16. From the summary, it is clear that the overall impact significance ranges from Major to Minor before mitigation but that this changes to a significance range of between Minor and Negligible following the implementation of mitigation measures. This is with the exception of the loss of wetland area which cannot be mitigated. The significance for the loss of wetland area is considered to be major. Wetlands are recognised at a national level as critical habitats for species of concern, furthermore wetlands provide critical ecosystem services such as regulation of flow into rivers. Wetlands also face considerable threats due to the extent of proposed coal mining activities in the Mpumalanga Highveld. Therefore, despite the degraded state of wetlands in the project area any further permanent loss of wetland habitat is regarded as highly significant The development and operation of the mining project and the accompanying projects aspects are expected to incur a moderate risk to the water resources, the wetlands in particular. Changes to the hydrological regime, impaired water quality and the establishment of alien vegetation is likely to present a moderate risk prior to mitigation. The significance of this risk is reduced to minor post mitigation. The potential impact on water quality in the Joubertvleispruit and Viskuile rivers associated with surface infrastructure was rated as moderate. Although infrastructure such as discard 50