water resourse baseline & impact assessment for the

Water Resource Baseline & Impact

Assessment for the proposed

upgrading of the Balfour Wastewater

Treatment Works

Balfour, Mpumalanga

July 2019

CLIENT

Prepared for:

SLR Consulting (Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Prepared by:

The Biodiversity Company

Cell: +27 81 319 1225

Fax: +27 86 527 1965

[email protected]

www.thebiodiversitycompanycom

mailto:[email protected]

Water Resource Baseline & Impact Assessment Balfour WWTW Upgrade

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com

i

Upstream of Balfour WWTW, Mpumalanga

Report Name WATER RESOURSE BASELINE & IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE

PROPOSED UPGRADING OF THE BALFOUR WWTW

Submitted to

Report Writer (Wetlands)

Andrew Husted (Pr. Sc. Nat. 400213/11)

Report Writer (Aquatics)

Michael Ryan (SASS 5 Accredited)

Report Reviewer Christian Fry

(Pr. Sc. Nat. 119082)

Declaration

The Biodiversity Company and its associates operate as independent consultants under the auspice of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions. We declare that we have no affiliation with or vested financial interests in the proponent, other than for work performed under the Ecological Assessment Regulations, 2017. We have no conflicting interests in the undertaking of this activity and have no interests in secondary developments resulting from the authorisation of this project. We have no vested interest in the project, other than to provide a professional service within the constraints of the project (timing, time and budget) based on the principals of science.



ii

Executive Summary

The Biodiversity Company was commissioned to conduct a water resource assessment,

consisting of baseline aquatic and a wetland assessment, as part of the Water Use Licence

(WUL no. 08/C21F/FG/2778) amendment for the watercourse including an impact assessment

for the proposed upgrading of the Balfour Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) in the

Balfour area, Mpumalanga. The project entails the upgrade of the existing Balfour WWTW,

increasing the capacity of the facility to 12 ML. A single (aquatic and wetland assessment) site

visit was conducted on the 3rd of July 2019, which would constitute a dry season survey.

This report, after taking into consideration the findings and recommendations provided by the

specialist herein, should inform and guide the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP),

enabling informed decision making as to the ecological viability of the proposed development

and to provide an opinion on the whether any environmental authorisation process or licensing

is required for the proposed activities.

Wetlands

Two (2) HGM units were identified and delineated within the project area. These HGM types

include a channelled valley bottom wetland and a dammed depression. The dam is considered

to be an artificial system and as a result of this, an ecological assessment was only completed

for the (natural) channelled valley bottom wetland system.

The ecological status of the system was determined to be that of Moderately Modified (C)

system. The Ecological Importance & Sensitivity was calculated to have a Moderate (C) level

of importance. The Hydrological Functionality of the wetland was determined to have a

Moderate (C) level of importance. The wetlands’ hydrology ensured that there was a constant

water source within the area. The Direct Human Benefits were calculated to have a Marginal

(D) level of importance.

Aquatics

The current state of the tributary associated Suikerbosrant reach associated with the proposed

Balfour wastewater treatment works upgrade was found to be in a seriously/critically modified

state. This was predominantly due to a culmination of water quality, habitat, and flow

modifications within the reach. Instream and riparian habitat modifications were predominantly

due to extensive solid waste disposal, indigenous vegetation clearing and alien vegetation

encroachment and bank erosion within the system. According to in situ water quality analysis

the system was found to be natural upstream of the wastewater treatment works and poor

water quality downstream of the wastewater treatment works due to sewage disposal

decreasing dissolved oxygen in water and conductivity. The condition of the local aquatic

macroinvertebrates within the system was rated as seriously/critically modified according to

the biological bands and MIRAI findings. These findings do not align with the desktop

assessment, which indicated the PES was classed D (largely modified), moderate ecological

importance and sensitivity, and the recommended ecological category is class C. The

proposed Balfour wastewater treatment works upgrade may provide opportunities to improve

the current impacts on the system by good maintenance of the wastewater treatment works,

as the results indicate that raw sewage is currently being released into the system and

discouraging people that dispose solid waste into the system.



iii

Risk Assessment

Impacts were assessed in terms of the construction and operational phases of the plant,

assuming upgrades are within the extent of the existing facility only.

Risks associated with the project ranged from low to moderate. Some of the moderate risks

could be mitigated to a low level of risk. Some risks could not be adequately mitigated to

reduce the level of risk from a moderate to a low level of risk. Low risks are expected for the

construction phase of the project, with low and moderate risks expected for the operational

phase of the facility. Moderate risks (post mitigation) are associated with the altered flows

within the system due to discharge, and the resulting alterations to water quality due to the

input of treated effluent.

In accordance with the GA in terms of section 39 of the NWA, for water uses as defined in

section 21 (c) or section 21 (i) a GA does not apply “to any water use in terms of section 21

(c) or (i) of the Act associated with the construction, installation or maintenance of any sewer

pipelines, pipelines carrying hazardous materials and to raw water and waste water treatment

works”. Owing to the fact that this project is for the upgrade of a sewer network that does

contain hazardous material, a General Authorisation would not be permissible for the project

and a full water use licence will be required

Professional Opinion

It is the specialist’s opinion that while there are moderate risks, no fatal flaws were identified

for the proposed activities, and that the WWTW upgrade should proceed.



iv

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Key Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................ 2

2.1 National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) ................................................................. 2

2.2 National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) ............................. 2

3 Project Area ................................................................................................................... 3

4 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3

4.1 Desktop Assessment .............................................................................................. 3

4.1.1 Wetland Identification and Mapping ................................................................. 4

4.1.2 Wetland Delineation ......................................................................................... 4

4.1.3 Wetland Functional Assessment ...................................................................... 5

4.1.4 Determining the Present Ecological Status of wetlands ................................... 5

4.1.5 Determining the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity of Wetlands ................ 5

4.1.6 Ecological Classification and Description ......................................................... 6

4.1.7 Buffer Determination ........................................................................................ 6

4.2 Aquatic Assessment ............................................................................................... 6

4.2.1 Water Quality ................................................................................................... 6

4.2.2 Aquatic Habitat Integrity ................................................................................... 6

4.2.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Assessment ........................................................... 7

4.3 Risk Assessment .................................................................................................... 9

5 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 9

6 Desktop Assessment ................................................................................................... 11

6.1 Climate ................................................................................................................. 11

6.2 Vegetation Types .................................................................................................. 11

6.3 Desktop Soils ........................................................................................................ 12

6.4 NFEPA (National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Status) ........................... 12

6.4.1 NFEPA’s for sub-quaternary catchment C21B- 1578 ..................................... 12

6.4.2 Present Ecological Status (PES) of sub-quaternary reach C21B- 1578.......... 13

7 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 14

7.1 Wetland Assessment ............................................................................................ 14



v

7.1.1 Wetland Unit Setting ...................................................................................... 17

7.1.2 Present Ecological State ................................................................................ 17

7.1.3 Ecosystem Services Assessment .................................................................. 18

7.1.4 Ecological Importance & Sensitivity ............................................................... 18

7.2 Aquatic Assessment ............................................................................................. 20

7.2.1 In situ water quality ........................................................................................ 21

7.2.2 Habitat Integrity Assessment ......................................................................... 22

7.2.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Assessment ......................................................... 23

7.3 Present Ecological State ....................................................................................... 25

8 Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................... 26

8.1 Mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 31

8.1.1 General Mitigation .......................................................................................... 31

8.1.2 Operation of Heavy Machinery ....................................................................... 32

8.1.3 Physical Maintenance .................................................................................... 32

8.1.4 Increased Runoff mitigation ........................................................................... 32

8.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 33

9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 33

10 References ............................................................................................................... 35



vi

Tables

Table 1: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied .......... 5

Table 2: The Present Ecological Status categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2009) ....................... 5

Table 3: Description of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories.............................. 6

Table 4: Criteria used in the assessment of habitat integrity (Kleynhans, 1996) .................... 7

Table 5: Descriptions used for the ratings of the various habitat criteria ................................ 7

Table 6: Integrated Habitat Assessment System Scoring Guidelines .................................... 8

Table 7: Significance ratings matrix ....................................................................................... 9

Table 8: The land type data for the project .......................................................................... 12

Table 9: NFEPA’s for the Balfour WWTW project area ........................................................ 13

Table 10: Summary of the Present Ecological State of the SQRs associated with the Balfour

WWTW project area ............................................................................................................ 13

Table 11: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis et al., 2013) ........................ 15

Table 12: Summary of the scores for the PES: HGM 2 ....................................................... 17

Table 13: The EcoServices being provided by the wetlands................................................ 18

Table 14: The EIS results for the delineated wetland .......................................................... 19

Table 15: Photos, co-ordinates and descriptions for the sites sampled (July 2019) ............. 20

Table 16: In situ surface water quality results (July 2019) ................................................... 21

Table 17: Intermediate Habitat Integrity Assessment for the associated Suikerbosrant tributary

........................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 18: IHAS score at each site during the July 2019 survey ........................................... 23

Table 19: Biotope availability at the sites (Rating 0-5) ......................................................... 24

Table 20: Macroinvertebrate assessment results recorded during the survey (July 2019) ... 24

Table 21: MIRAI Score for the Suikerbosrant reach (2019) ................................................. 25

Table 22: The Present Ecological Status of the Suikerbosrant reach .................................. 25

Table 23: Potential impacts associated with the WWTW upgrade ....................................... 28

Table 24: DWS Risk Impact Matrix for the proposed project ............................................... 29

Table 25: DWS Risk Impact Matrix for the proposed project continued ............................... 30



vii

Figures

Figure 1: The regional layout of the project site ..................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation

indicators change (Ollis et al. 2013) ...................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Biological Bands for the Highveld - Lower Ecoregion, calculated using percentiles 9

Figure 4: Construction activities underway within the facility and the upgrade of the perimeter

fence ................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 5: The climate summary for Balfour area (Climate-Data.org) .................................... 11

Figure 6: Map illustrating fish and river FEPAs for the project area, the project area is

represented by the yellow square (Nel et al., 2011) ............................................................ 13

Figure 7: Photographs of the soil characteristics. A) Vertic soils, Rensburg soil form. B) Signs

of mottling. C) Orthic-A horizon. D) Melanic soils, Willowbrook form ................................... 14

Figure 8: Photographs of the wetland systems. A & B) The channelled valley bottom wetland.

C) The breached dam wall. D) The channel below the dam ................................................ 15

Figure 9: The delineated watercourses within 500 m of the project area ............................. 16

Figure 10: Amalgamated diagram of HGM 1, highlighting the dominant water inputs,

throughputs and outputs, SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013) ............................................ 17

Figure 11: Illustration of sampling points for the Balfour wastewater treatment works upgrade

........................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 12: Photograph illustrating the railway crossing and livestock passing resulting in

riparian and instream modification (July 2019) .................................................................... 23

Figure 13: Photographs of untreated (or partially) treated sewerage being diverted into the

land scape .......................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 14: The mitigation hierarchy as described by the DEA (2013) .................................. 28



viii

Declaration

I, Andrew Husted declare that:

• I act as an 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 relevant Acts, 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 48 of the EIA

Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

Andrew Husted (Pr. Sci. Nat. 400213/11)


19 July 2019



ix

Declaration

I, Christian Fry 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.

Christian Fry (Pr. Sci. Nat. 119082)

Aquatic Specialist


19 July 2019



1

1 Introduction

The modification of land use within a river catchment has the potential to degrade local water

resources (Wepener et al., 2005). Industrial developments thus have the potential to

negatively impact on local water resources and ecosystem services. In order to holistically

manage water resources in South Africa, the use of standard water quality sampling methods

is considered in-effective. Non-point and point source pollutants are dynamic and can fluctuate

according to several factors such as rainfall, industrial discharges and extensive pollutant

seepage. Aquatic ecology is permanently exposed to the dynamic conditions within water

bodies and can therefore be an effective reflection of the environmental conditions within a

management area. Considering this, the monitoring of aquatic ecology is regarded as an

effective tool in water management strategies.

The Biodiversity Company was commissioned by SLR to conduct a water resource

assessment, consisting of baseline aquatic and a wetland assessment, as part of the Water

Use Licence (WUL no. 08/C21F/FG/2778) amendment for the watercourse including an

impact assessment for the proposed upgrading of the Balfour Wastewater Treatment Works

(WWTW) in the Balfour area, Mpumalanga.

The project entails the upgrade of the existing Balfour WWTW, increasing the capacity of the

facility to 12 ML. A single (aquatic and wetland assessment) site visit was conducted on the

3rd of July 2019, which would constitute a dry season survey.

This report, after taking into consideration the findings and recommendations provided by the

specialist herein, should inform and guide the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP),

enabling informed decision making as to the ecological viability of the proposed development

and to provide an opinion on the whether any environmental authorisation process or licensing

is required for the proposed activities.

1.1 Objectives

The aim of the assessment is to provide the water resource baseline and impact assessment

for the proposed wastewater treatment works upgrade project. This was achieved through the

following:

• Determining the present ecological status of the local watercourses:

o The assessment of water quality;

o The assessment of habitat quality;

o The assessment of biological responses;

• The delineation and assessment of wetlands within 500 m regulation area;

• A risk assessment for the proposed wastewater treatment works upgrade; and

• The prescription of mitigation measures and recommendations for identified risks.



2

2 Key Legislative Requirements

2.1 National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 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

• 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).

2.2 National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 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



3

could follow either the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process or the Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) process depending on the scale of the impact.

3 Project Area

The project area is situated in the C21B quaternary catchment within the Vaal Water

Management Area (WMA). The water course for this study falls along the C21B - 1578 Sub

Quaternary Reach (SQR) (Suikerbosrant River) and one of its tributary, in the Highveld –

Lower Ecoregion. The system at a desktop level is regarded at moderately modified due to

agricultural and livestock activities in the surrounding areas. The sampling points for this study

were selected according to the location of the Wastewater Treatment Works, three sites from

upstream to downstream. The illustration of the sampling points associated with the project

area are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The regional layout of the project site

4 Methodology

4.1 Desktop Assessment

The following information sources were considered for the desktop assessment;

• Aerial imagery (Google Earth Pro);

• Land Type Data (Land Type Survey Staff, 1972 - 2006);

• The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nel et al., 2011);

• Mpumalanga Highveld Wetlands dataset; and



4

• Contour data (5 m).

4.1.1 Wetland Identification and Mapping

The survey primarily focussed on the development footprint area, but also considered the

extended 500m regulation area. The wetland areas were delineated in accordance with the

DWAF (2005) guidelines, a cross section is presented in Figure 2. 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.

o 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;

• 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 practise the soil wetness

indicator tends to be the most important, and the other three indicators are used in a

confirmatory role.

Figure 2: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis et al. 2013)

4.1.2 Wetland Delineation

The wetland indicators described above are used to determine the boundaries of the wetlands

within the project area. These delineations are then illustrated by means of maps accompanied

by descriptions.



5

4.1.3 Wetland Functional Assessment

Wetland functionality refers to the ability of wetlands to provide healthy conditions for the wide

variety of organisms found in wetlands as well as humans. EcoServices serve as the main

factor contributing to wetland functionality.

The assessment of the ecosystem services supplied by the identified wetlands was conducted

per the guidelines as described in WET-EcoServices (Kotze et al. 2008). 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 1).

Table 1: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied

Score Rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied

< 0.5 Low

0.6 - 1.2 Moderately Low

1.3 - 2.0 Intermediate

2.1 - 3.0 Moderately High

> 3.0 High

4.1.4 Determining the Present Ecological Status of wetlands

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 Present Ecological Status (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 Present State categories are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: The Present Ecological Status categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2009)

Impact Category

Description Impact Score

Range PES

None Unmodified, natural 0 to 0.9 A

Small 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.

1.0 to 1.9 B

Moderate Moderately Modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place, but the natural habitat remains predominantly intact.

2.0 to 3.9 C

Large Largely Modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota has occurred.

4.0 to 5.9 D

Serious 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.

6.0 to 7.9 E

Critical 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.

8.0 to 10 F

4.1.5 Determining the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity of Wetlands

The method used for the EIS determination was adapted from the method as provided by

DWS (1999) for floodplains. 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



6

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 3, (Rountree et al., 2012).

Table 3: Description of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity 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

4.1.6 Ecological Classification and Description

The National Wetland Classification Systems (NWCS) developed by the South African

National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) will be considered for this study. This system comprises

a hierarchical classification process of defining a wetland based on the principles of the

hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach at higher levels, and then also includes structural features

at the lower levels of classification (Ollis et al. 2013).

4.1.7 Buffer Determination

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.

4.2 Aquatic Assessment

4.2.1 Water Quality

Water quality was measured in situ using a handheld calibrated Extech DO700 multi-meter.

The constituents considered that were measured included: pH, conductivity (µS/cm), water

temperature (°C) and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) in mg/l.

4.2.2 Aquatic Habitat Integrity

The Intermediate Habitat Assessment Index (IHIA) as described in the Procedure for Rapid

Determination of Resource Directed Measures for River Ecosystems (Section D), 1999 were

used to define the ecological status of the river reach.

The area covered in this assessment included the assessed Suikerbosrant River tributary.

This habitat assessment model compares current conditions with reference conditions that are

expected to have been present.

The IHIA model was used to assess the integrity of the habitats from a riparian and instream

perspective. The habitat integrity of a river refers to the maintenance of a balanced

composition of physico-chemical and habitat characteristics on a temporal and spatial scale

that are comparable to the characteristics of natural habitats of the region (Kleynhans, 1996).

The criteria and ratings utilised in the assessment of habitat integrity in the current study are

presented in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively.



7

Table 4: Criteria used in the assessment of habitat integrity (Kleynhans, 1996)

Criterion Relevance

Water abstraction Direct impact on habitat type, abundance and size. Also implicated in flow, bed, channel and water quality characteristics. Riparian vegetation may be influenced by a decrease in the supply of water.

Flow modification

Consequence of abstraction or regulation by impoundments. Changes in temporal and spatial characteristics of flow can have an impact on habitat attributes such as an increase in duration of low flow season, resulting in low availability of certain habitat types or water at the start of the breeding, flowering or growing season.

Bed modification

Regarded as the result of increased input of sediment from the catchment or a decrease in the ability of the river to transport sediment. Indirect indications of sedimentation are stream bank and catchment erosion. Purposeful alteration of the stream bed, e.g. the removal of rapids for navigation is also included.

Channel modification

May be the result of a change in flow, which may alter channel characteristics causing a change in marginal instream and riparian habitat. Purposeful channel modification to improve drainage is also included.

Water quality modification

Originates from point and diffuse point sources. Measured directly or alternatively agricultural activities, human settlements and industrial activities may indicate the likelihood of modification. Aggravated by a decrease in the volume of water during low or no flow conditions.

Inundation Destruction of riffle, rapid and riparian zone habitat. Obstruction to the movement of aquatic fauna and influences water quality and the movement of sediments.

Exotic macrophytes Alteration of habitat by obstruction of flow and may influence water quality. Dependent upon the species involved and scale of infestation.

Exotic aquatic fauna

The disturbance of the stream bottom during feeding may influence the water quality and increase turbidity. Dependent upon the species involved and their abundance.

Solid waste disposal

A direct anthropogenic impact which may alter habitat structurally. Also, a general indication of the misuse and mismanagement of the river.

Indigenous vegetation removal

Impairment of the buffer the vegetation forms to the movement of sediment and other catchment runoff products into the river. Refers to physical removal for farming, firewood and overgrazing.

Exotic vegetation encroachment

Excludes natural vegetation due to vigorous growth, causing bank instability and decreasing the buffering function of the riparian zone. Allochtonous organic matter input will also be changed. Riparian zone habitat diversity is also reduced.

Bank erosion

Decrease in bank stability will cause sedimentation and possible collapse of the river bank resulting in a loss or modification of both instream and riparian habitats. Increased erosion can be the result of natural vegetation removal, overgrazing or exotic vegetation encroachment.

Table 5: Descriptions used for the ratings of the various habitat criteria

Impact Category

Description Score

None No discernible impact or the modification is located in such a way that it has no impact on habitat quality, diversity, size and variability.

0

Small The modification is limited to very few localities and the impact on habitat quality, diversity, size and variability are also very small.

1-5

Moderate The modifications are present at a small number of localities and the impact on habitat quality, diversity, size and variability are also limited.

6-10

Large The modification is generally present with a clearly detrimental impact on habitat quality, diversity, size and variability. Large areas are, however, not influenced.

11-15

Serious The modification is frequently present and the habitat quality, diversity, size and variability in almost the whole of the defined area are affected. Only small areas are not influenced.

16-20

Critical The modification is present overall with a high intensity. The habitat quality, diversity, size and variability in almost the whole of the defined section are influenced detrimentally.

21-25

4.2.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Assessment

Macroinvertebrate assemblages are good indicators of localised conditions because many

benthic macroinvertebrates have limited migration patterns or a sessile mode of life. They are

particularly well-suited for assessing site-specific impacts (upstream and downstream studies)



8

(Barbour et al., 1999). Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages are made up of species that

constitute a broad range of trophic levels and pollution tolerances, thus providing strong

information for interpreting cumulative effects (Barbour et al., 1999). The assessment and

monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrate communities forms an integral part of the monitoring

of the health of an aquatic ecosystem.

4.2.3.1 Integrated Habitat Assessment System

The quality of the instream and riparian habitat influences the structure and function of the

aquatic community in a stream; therefore, the 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 in order 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 and a score below 55% indicates poor habitat (McMillan, 1998) (Table 6).

Table 6: Integrated Habitat Assessment System Scoring Guidelines

IHAS Score Description

> 65% Good

55-65% Adequate/Fair

< 55% Poor

Macroinvertebrate assemblages are good indicators of localised conditions because many

benthic macroinvertebrates have limited migration patterns or a sessile mode of life. They are

particularly well-suited for assessing site-specific impacts (upstream and downstream studies)

(Barbour et al., 1999). Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages are made up of species that

constitute a broad range of trophic levels and pollution tolerances, thus providing strong

information for interpreting cumulative effects (Barbour et al., 1999). The assessment and

monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrate communities forms an integral part of the monitoring

of the health of an aquatic ecosystem.

4.2.3.2 South African Scoring System

The South African Scoring System version 5 (SASS5) is the current index being used to

assess the status of riverine macroinvertebrates in South Africa. According to Dickens and

Graham (2002), the index is based on the presence of aquatic invertebrate families and the

perceived sensitivity to water quality changes of these families. Different families exhibit

different sensitivities to pollution, these sensitivities range from highly tolerant families (e.g.

Chironomidae) to highly sensitive families (e.g. Perlidae). SASS results are expressed both

as an index score (SASS score) and the Average Score Per recorded Taxon (ASPT value).

Sampled invertebrates were identified using the “Aquatic Invertebrates of South African

Rivers” Illustrations book, by Gerber and Gabriel (2002). Identification of organisms was made

to family level (Thirion et al., 1995; Dickens and Graham, 2002; Gerber and Gabriel, 2002).



9

All SASS5 and ASPT scores are compared with the SASS5 Data Interpretation Guidelines

(Dallas, 2007) for the Highveld - lower ecoregion (Figure 3). This method seeks to develop

biological bands depicting the various ecological states and is derived from data contained

within the Rivers Database and supplemented with other data not yet in the database.

Figure 3: Biological Bands for the Highveld - Lower Ecoregion, calculated using percentiles

4.3 Risk Assessment

The risk assessment will be completed in accordance with the requirements of the DWS

General Authorisation (GA) in terms of Section 39 of the NWA for water uses as defined in

Section 21(c) or Section 21(i) (GN 509 of 2016). The significance of the impact is calculated

according to Table 7.

Table 7: Significance ratings matrix

Rating Class Management Description

1 – 55 (L) Low Risk Acceptable as is or consider requirement for mitigation. Impact to watercourses and resource quality small and easily mitigated. Wetlands may be excluded.

56 – 169 M) Moderate Risk Risk and impact on watercourses are notably and require mitigation measures on a higher level, which costs more and require specialist input. Wetlands are excluded.

170 – 300 (H) High Risk Always involves wetlands. Watercourse(s)impacts by the activity are such that they impose a long-term threat on a large scale and lowering of the Reserve.

5 Limitations

The following aspects were considered as limitations:

• Site B2 was found dry, therefore it was not sampled;



10

• The downstream site B3 had excessive sewage impacting water quality, limiting

macroinvertebrate communities, and further considered hazardous to the aquatics

practitioner;

• Due to the size of the project area, its incised topography and limited road access

some areas relied on extrapolation of field data and satellite imagery for delineation;

• Wetlands within the 500 m regulated area were considered but not explicitly sampled

and delineated in-field, wetland delineations within these areas should be considered

desktop;

• The GPS used for water resource delineations is accurate to within five meters.

Therefore, the wetland delineation plotted digitally may be offset by at least five meters

to either side;

• No buffer was applied to the identified wetland as this is for the upgrade of the facility,

with all activities located within the extent of the WWTW; and

• It was apparent that construction of the facility was underway at the time of the site

assessment (pictured below). The risk assessment is there based on expected and

observed risks.

Figure 4: Construction activities underway within the facility and the upgrade of the perimeter fence



11

6 Desktop Assessment

6.1 Climate

This region is classified as warm and temperate. Balfour has more rainfall in summer than

winter season, with an average annual rainfall of 694 mm. The average temperature for this

region is 15.4 °C. The coldest month for Balfour is June with an average temperature of 8.6

°C. Köppen and Geiger classified the area as experiencing Subtropical highland climate. See

Figure 5 (Climate-Data.org).

Figure 5: The climate summary for Balfour area (Climate-Data.org)

6.2 Vegetation Types

The project area is predominantly associated the Andesite Mountain Bushveld (SVcb11)

vegetation type.

Distribution: Gauteng, North-West, Mpumalanga and Free State Provinces: Several separate

occurrences of which the main are: the Bronberg Ridge in eastern Pretoria extending to

Welbekend; from Hartebeesthoek in the west along the valley between the two parallel ranges

of hills to Atteridgeville; hills in southern Johannesburg; several hills encompassing Nigel,

Willemsdal, Coalbrook and Suikerbosrand (in part); and the outer ring of ridges of the

Vredefort Dome and some hills to the northwest around Potchefstroom. Altitude about 1 350–

1 800 m.

Vegetation & Landscape: Features Dense, medium-tall thorny bushveld with a well-

developed grass layer on hill slopes and some valleys with undulating landscape.

Climate: Summer rainfall with very dry winters. MAP from about 550 mm in the southwest to

about 750 mm in the northeast. Frequent frost in winter, but less on the ridges and hills. See

also climate diagram for SVcb 11 Andesite Mountain Bushveld.

Conservation: Least threatened. Target 24%. About 7% statutorily conserved mainly in the

Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve and Magaliesberg Nature Area. An additional 1–2% conserved



12

in other reserves mainly in the Hartbeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory. Some 15%

already transformed, mainly cultivated and some urban and built-up areas. Some of the unit

fringes on major urban areas. Erosion is generally very low.

6.3 Desktop Soils

The land type characteristics are presented in Table 8. The project area is associated with the

Ba27 land type.

The geology and soils for the area are characterised by Tholeitic basalt of the Kliprivierberg

Group (Randian Ventersdorp Supergroup), also dark shale, micaceous sandstone and

siltstone and thin coal seams of the Madzaringwe Formation [Karoo Supergroup, and andesite

and conglomerate of the Pretoria Group (Vaalian Transvaal Supergroup)]. Weathering of

these rocks gives rise to shallow, rocky, clayey soils of mainly Mispah and Glenrosa soil forms.

Land types mainly Ib and Fb, with some Ba and Bb.

Table 8: The land type data for the project

Broad Land Type Class

Description

Ba PLINTHIC CATENA: UPLAND DUPLEX AND MARGALITIC SOILS RARE; Dystrophic and/or mesotrophic; red soils widespread

6.4 NFEPA (National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Status)

There is one NFEPA wetland within the 500m regulation area, classified as a channelled valley

bottom wetland. The system is actually a dam and is recognised by the NFEPA dataset as an

artificial wetland. Based on this, no natural NFEPA wetlands are located within the 500m

regulation area.

6.4.1 NFEPA’s for sub-quaternary catchment C21B- 1578

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).

According to Nel et al. (2011), the Balfour WWTW fall predominantly within the C21B-1578

SQR. The sub-quaternary reach C21B-1578 is located in a sub-quaternary catchment Which

contains wetland FEPA’s (Figure 6). The catchment has 5 freshwater priority areas designated

to it (Table 9). No further NFEPAs are categorised for the SQR. The catchment is crucial to

manage the wetlands in the area, as wetlands form depression which concentrate all the water

in catchment.



13

Table 9: NFEPA’s for the Balfour WWTW project area

Type of FEPA map category Biodiversity features

Suikerbosrant C21B-1578

FEPA: Number of wetland clusters 1 Wet Cluster FEPA

FEPA: Wetland ecosystem type Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3_Depression

FEPA: Wetland ecosystem type Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3_Flat

FEPA: Wetland ecosystem type Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3_Floodplain wetland

FEPA: Wetland ecosystem type Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 3_Valleyhead seep

Figure 6: Map illustrating fish and river FEPAs for the project area, the project area is represented by the yellow square (Nel et al., 2011)

6.4.2 Present Ecological Status (PES) of sub-quaternary reach C21B- 1578

Desktop information for SQR’s was obtained from DWS, 2018. The C21B-1578 SQR spans

22 km of the Suikerbosrant tributary. The PES category of the reach is classed as largely

modified (class D) (Table 10). The largely modified state of the reach was due to large to

serious impacts to instream habitat, wetland and riparian zone continuity, flow modifications

and moderate potential impacts on physico-chemical conditions (water quality). Anthropogenic

impacts identified within the associated Suikerbosrant sub-quaternary catchment include low

water crossings, agricultural activities, small instream dams, bank erosion, and effluent from

the Balfour wastewater treatment works.

Table 10: Summary of the Present Ecological State of the SQRs associated with the Balfour WWTW project area

SQR Desktop PES EI* ES** REC***

C21B-1578 D Moderate Moderate C

*EI – Ecological Importance; **ES – Ecological Sensitivity; **REC Recommended Ecological Category



14

7 Results and Discussion

7.1 Wetland Assessment

The wetland area was delineated in accordance with the DWAF (2005) guidelines (see Figure

9), indicating some of the wetland sampling sites. Two (2) hydro-geomorphic (HGM) wetland

types were identified and delineated for this assessment. The two systems include a

channelled valley bottom wetland, and a depression (or dam). The dam has been breached

downstream of the delineated valley bottom system and is regarded as an artificial system.

For the purposes of this assessment, the ecological assessments were only undertaken for

the natural wetland system, namely the channelled valley bottom wetland. Photographs of the

dominant soil characteristics identified for the assessment are presented in Figure 7. The two

dominant wetland soil forms identified for the assessment include the Willowbrook and

Rensburg forms.

Figure 7: Photographs of the soil characteristics. A) Vertic soils, Rensburg soil form. B) Signs of mottling. C) Orthic-A horizon. D) Melanic soils, Willowbrook form

The vertic A horizon of the Rensburg soil form has clearly visible slickensides in the transition

to the lower layers and is characteristically cracked when dry. The vertic A horizon ranges

from moist to dry depending on the frequency and duration of wetting when the soils are

flooded. The underlying G horizon is often saturated unless the system has been drained and

has typical grey matrix colours often with blue or green tint with or without mottling. In places

in the project area, this form was calcareous in the upper G horizon.

The Willowbrook soil form has been identified within the project area. This soil form consists

of a Melanic A-horizon on top of a G-horizon. The Melanic clays are very similar to that of the

Vertic clays in saturated conditions, especially those located at the bottom of an eroded and

saturated stream channel. The high erodibility of Melanic soil types has resulted in large

volumes of this soil form being eroded away in a stream channel with high energy after high

intensity rainfall events, only leaving behind the portions with high concentrations of clay.

Melanic clays have extremely good structure, which therefore allows for rapid infiltration and



15

percolation without the possibility of precipitation accumulating within the first 50cm. Melanic

clays will have a blocky structure which are approximately 5cm in diameter with extremely

dark colours being present.

The wetland classification as per SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013) is presented in Table 11.

The two (2) wetland types delineated for the assessment include a channelled valley bottom

wetland and a dammed depression. Photographs of the identified and delineated wetland

systems are presented in Figure 8.

Table 11: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis et al., 2013)

Wetland Name

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

System DWS

Ecoregion/s NFEPA Wet Veg Group/s

Landscape Unit

4A (HGM) 4B 4C

HGM 1 Inland Highveld Central

Bushveld Group 1

Valley Floor

Channelled Valley Bottom

N/A N/A

HGM 2 Inland Highveld Central

Bushveld Group 1

Valley Floor

Depression Dammed With channel

inflow

Figure 8: Photographs of the wetland systems. A & B) The channelled valley bottom wetland. C) The breached dam wall. D) The channel below the dam



16

Figure 9: The delineated watercourses within 500 m of the project area



17

7.1.1 Wetland Unit Setting

HGM 1 is located on the “valley floor” landscape unit. Channelled valley-bottom wetlands are

typically found on valley-floors with a clearly defined, finite stream channel and lacks floodplain

features, referring specifically to meanders. Channelled valley-bottom wetlands are known to

undergo loss of sediment in cases where the wetlands’ slope is high and the deposition thereof

in cases of low relief. Figure 10 presents a diagram of HGM 1, showing the dominant

movement of water into, through and out of the system.

Figure 10: Amalgamated diagram of HGM 1, highlighting the dominant water inputs, throughputs and outputs, SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013)

7.1.2 Present Ecological State

The PES for the assessed HGM unit is presented in Table 12. The overall wetland health for

HGM was determined to be that of Moderately Modified (C) systems. Although the wetlands

are impacted upon, the wetlands maintained the habitat structure and functioning.

Table 12: Summary of the scores for the PES: HGM 2

Component PES

Score PES

Rating Description

Hydrology 2.8 C

Moderately Modified: The modifications in the hydrological component are as a result of the development of the catchment. These developments include an access route and the WWTW facility on the periphery of the system. The dam downstream of the system is now breached and has a reduced impact on the hydrology of the overall system. Activities associated with the WWTW, namely trenches and diversions of untreated sewerage into the landscape have also negligibly contributed to altered flows.

Geomorphology 3.8 C/D Moderate (to Largely) Modified: Due to the increase in flow volumes and velocities across the system, erosion is evident. This has resulted in



18

an incised channel in selected reaches, and the straightening of the watercourse in these reaches.

Vegetation 3.1 C

Moderate Modified: The general development (and disturbance) to the catchment area has resulted in the alteration in the natural vegetation through the establishment and encroachment of alien vegetation, especially onto the embankments of the system. Alien vegetation is well established in areas that have been disturbed by the WWTW, and encroachment of alien vegetation into adjoining areas is evident.

Overall 3.2 C Moderately Modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place, but the natural habitat remains predominantly intact.

7.1.3 Ecosystem Services Assessment

The Ecosystem services provided by the HGM unit present at the site was assessed and rated

using the WET-EcoServices method (Kotze, et al. 2009). The summarised results for the HGM

units are shown in Table 13. HGM 1 had an overall Intermediate level of service. The wetland

showed an elevated functionality for flood attenuation and streamflow regulation. Although the

wetland are impacted upon, in the local setting, the wetland areas allow for floods to be

attenuated and slowed down and minimise damage. The direct benefits provided by the

system are largely rated from low to moderately low.

Table 13: The EcoServices being provided by the wetlands

Wetland Unit HGM 1

Ec

os

ys

tem

Se

rvic

es S

up

plied

by

We

tla

nd

s

Ind

irec

t B

en

efi

ts

Reg

ula

tin

g a

nd

su

pp

ort

ing

be

ne

fits

Flood attenuation 2,2

Streamflow regulation 2,2

Wa

ter

Qualit

y

en

ha

ncem

en

t

be

ne

fits

Sediment trapping 2.0

Phosphate assimilation 2,0

Nitrate assimilation 1,8

Toxicant assimilation 2,0

Erosion control 1,8

Carbon storage 0,7

Dir

ec

t B

en

efi

ts

Biodiversity maintenance 1,5

Pro

vis

ion

be

ne

fits

Provisioning of water for human use 1,1

Provisioning of harvestable resources 0,4

Provisioning of cultivated foods 1,0

Cu

ltu

ral

be

ne

fits

Cultural heritage 0,0

Tourism and recreation 1,0

Education and research 0,8

Overall 20,5

Average 1,3

7.1.4 Ecological Importance & Sensitivity

The EIS assessment was applied to the HGM unit 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 14.



19

The EIS for the HGM unit was calculated to have a Moderate (C) level of importance. The EIS

was determined to be moderate as there were no signs of ecologically important taxa within

the wetland areas and none had been recorded within the area. The wetland did however,

provide a suitable habitat for birds and other faunal species.

The Hydrological Functionality of the wetland was determined to have a Moderate (C) level of

importance. The wetlands’ hydrology ensured that there was a constant water source within

the area. Furthermore, the flood attenuation and streamflow regulation offered by the wetlands

contributes to the protection of the local area from flooding and drought. The Direct Human

Benefits were calculated to have a Marginal (D) level of importance.

Table 14: The EIS results for the delineated wetland

Wetland Importance and Sensitivity

HGM 1

Ecological Importance & Sensitivity 1.8

Hydrological/Functional Importance 1.8

Direct Human Benefits 0.7



20

7.2 Aquatic Assessment

The aquatic assessment was conducted at points along the reach, from upstream to downstream

of the proposed Wastewater Treatment Works upgrade (Figure 11). A single reach was assessed

for the study. The sites were selected to effectively determine current state of the aquatic systems,

and to determine risks associated with the proposed upgrading of WWTW. Site photographs and

GPS coordinates are presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Photos, co-ordinates and descriptions for the sites sampled (July 2019)

Upstream Downstream

B1

GPS 26°38'56.48"S 28°34'56.02"E

B2

GPS 26°38'15.04"S 28°34'51.95"E

B3

GPS 26°37'59.50"S 28°34'19.29"E



21

Figure 11: Illustration of sampling points for the Balfour wastewater treatment works upgrade

7.2.1 In situ water quality

In situ water quality analysis was conducted during the study. Results have been compared to

limits stipulated in the Target Water Quality Range (TWQR) for aquatic ecosystems (DWS,

1996a). The results of the July 2019 assessment are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: In situ surface water quality results (July 2019)

Site pH Conductivity (µS/cm) DO (mg/l) Temperature (°C)

TWQR* 6.5-8.5** - >5.00* 5-30*

B1 7.13 373 10.2 6.7

B2 Dry

B3 6.98 1380 3.2 11.6

*TWQR – Target Water Quality Range; Levels exceeding guideline levels are indicated in red

In situ water quality at B1 indicated largely natural water quality conditions within the system

observed during the survey, reflected by all parameters falling within the TWQR. The pH ranged

from 7.13 at B1 upstream to 6.98 at B3 downstream. There was a significant increase in

Conductivity between upstream and downstream ranged from 373 µS/cm at B1 to 1380 µS/cm at

B3, which indicates an influx of contaminants into the system from the Balfour WWTW, as site B2

was dry. The dissolved oxygen at B3 would be considered as a limiting factor to sensitive local



22

aquatic biota. All temperatures of the sampled sites during the survey were within the expected

ranges for the region during the low flow survey.

In situ water quality results indicate a deterioration in water quality between the upstream and

downstream sites. Water quality within the downstream reach would be considered a limiting

factor to local aquatic biota.

7.2.2 Habitat Integrity Assessment

The IHIA was completed for the associated Suikerbosrant tributary as described in the IHIA

methodology component of this study, and the results thereof are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Intermediate Habitat Integrity Assessment for the associated Suikerbosrant tributary

The results of the instream and riparian habitat assessment in the associated Suikerbosrant

tributary indicates seriously/critically modified state (class E/F). The modified state can be

attributed to the modification of riparian habitat due to channel modification, inundation, bank

erosion (Figure 12) and flow modification. Impacts to instream habitat includes flow and channel

Criterion Impact Score Weighted Score

Instream

Water abstraction 11 6.2

Flow modification 18 9.4

Bed modification 20 10.4

Channel modification 18 9.4

Water quality 21 11.8

Inundation 20 8.0

Exotic macrophytes 0 0.0

Exotic fauna 0 0.0

Solid waste disposal 21 5.0

Total Instream Score 39.9

Instream Category class E/F

Riparian

Indigenous vegetation removal 14 7.3

Exotic vegetation encroachment 15 7.2

Bank erosion 18 10.1

Channel modification 18 8.6

Water abstraction 11 5.7

Inundation 19 8.4

Flow modification 17 8.2

Water quality 21 10.9

Total Riparian Score 33.6

Riparian Category class E/F



23

modification through instream impoundments, extensive solid waste, strong odour due to raw

sewage ‘in the downstream reach, and inundation.

Figure 12: Photograph illustrating the railway crossing and livestock passing resulting in riparian and instream modification (July 2019)

7.2.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Assessment

7.2.3.1 The Integrated Habitat Assessment System

The Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS) index was developed by McMillan (1998) for

use in conjunction with the SASS5 protocol. The IHAS results are presented in Table 18

Table 18: IHAS score at each site during the July 2019 survey

Site B1 B2 B3

Score 60 DRY

42

Suitability Adequate Poor

Based on the IHAS results, habitat availability for aquatic macroinvertebrates was varied through

the tributary of the Suikerbosrant River. Upstream of the WWTW at B1 there was considered

adequate while downstream of the WWTW the habitat was poor. Habitat has a large influence on

the aquatic macroinvertebrates which inhabit a reach. Poor habitat limits the potential

macroinvertebrate diversity found in a system.



24

An indication of the available instream biotopes (habitat) sampled during the low flow survey are

presented in Table 19. Biological assessments were completed at representative site in the

considered river reach. The invertebrate habitat at the site was assessed using the South African

Scoring System version 5 (SASS5) biotope rating assessment as applied in Tate and Husted

(2015). The results of the biotope assessment are provided below (Table 19). A rating system of

0 to 5 was applied, 0 being not available. The weightings for lower foothills rivers (slope class E)

were used to categorize biotope ratings (Rowntree et al. 2000; Rowntree and Ziervogel, 1999).

Table 19: Biotope availability at the sites (Rating 0-5)

Biotope Weighting B1 B2 B3

Stones in current 18 3

DRY

1

Stones out of current 12 3 1

Bedrock 3 2 0

Aquatic Vegetation 1 3 2

Marginal Vegetation In Current 2 2 1

Marginal Vegetation Out Of Current 2 3 2

Gravel 4 3 2

Sand 2 1 2

Mud 1 1 2

Biotope Score 21 13

Weighted Biotope Score (%) 55 23

Biotope Category (Tate and Husted, 2015) C F

Moderate habitat availability was observed during the survey at B1. This is largely due to diversity

of presence of stones in and out of current, presence of marginal vegetation and availability of

gravel. There was a very poor habitat availability at site B3 categorized as class F (Tate and

Husted, 2015). This site had a very low biotope score that can be attributed to the limited diversity

of stones, and marginal vegetation in current biotopes. The B2 site was dry, no sampling was

conducted. The biotope results at B1 indicate that the habitat availability would not be a limiting

factor for the macroinvertebrate community, however, habitat diversity at site B3 was limited.

7.2.3.2 South African Scoring System

The aquatic macroinvertebrate results for the survey are presented in Table 20.

Table 20: Macroinvertebrate assessment results recorded during the survey (July 2019)

Site SASS Score No. of Taxa ASPT* Category

(Dallas, 2007)**

B1 39 10 3.9 E/F

B2 DRY

B3 14 4 3.5 E/F

*ASPT: Average score per taxon; **Highveld - Lower ecoregion



25

The SASS5 assessment results generated a SASS5 scores that ranged from 39 at B1 to 14 at

B3. The number of taxa sampled during the survey was found to vary from 10 at B1 to 4 at B3.

The average score per taxon (ASPT) indicated that tolerant macroinvertebrates assemblages

collected during this low flow survey were dominant. Including Chironomidae and Oligochaeta at

B1 that generated an ASPT score of 3.9. Therefore, classifying B1 as seriously/critically modified

(class E/F; Dallas, 2007). The ASPT of B3 was found to be 3.5, categorized as class E/F

(seriously/critically modified) according to the biological bands (Dallas,2007). Both sites (B1 and

B3) indicate the absence of key taxa and provide evidence for water quality deterioration within

the reach.

7.2.3.3 Macroinvertebrate Response Assessment Index

The Macroinvertebrate Response Assessment Index (MIRAI) methodology was conducted

according to Thirion, (2007). Data collected from the SASS5 method was applied to the MIRAI

model. The MIRAI model provides a habitat-based cause-and-effect foundation to interpret the

deviation of the aquatic invertebrate community (assemblage) from the reference condition

(unmodified river). Results for the reaches assessed are presented in Table 21. The results

indicate that modifications to water quality and habitat drivers are the dominant factors driving

modifications to the macroinvertebrate communities, further, flow modifications contribute to biotic

integrity deterioration.

Table 21: MIRAI Score for the Suikerbosrant reach (2019)

Invertebrate Metric Group Score

Flow Modifications 32.0

Habitat 25.0

Water Quality 22.5

Ecological Score 26.5

Category E

7.3 Present Ecological State

The Present Ecological State of the reach assessed for the study is presented in Table 22. The

findings of the study were based on a single survey, of which time constraints limit sampling effort

within the reaches, and therefore the confidence of the findings are low.

Table 22: The Present Ecological Status of the Suikerbosrant reach

Category Score Ecological Category

Riparian 33.6 E/F

Macroinvertebrate 26.5 E/F

EcoStatus E/F



26

8 Risk Assessment

The construction of infrastructure in proximity to a watercourse creates potential for negative

effects to downstream waterbodies. In this case the WWTW which is being upgraded was

constructed within a historic wetland, with its outlet in a tributary of the Suikerbosrant. Soluble

construction materials have the potential to dissolve in runoff of the area. This can result in the

increase of dissolved solids in downstream waterbodies resulting in a water quality impact.

Further to this, suspended materials emanating from the construction area may alter the physical

water parameters and result in the sedimentation of downstream areas which will have negative

effects to local aquatic ecology. This impact will only occur during the construction phase and it

is anticipated that no further impacts can be anticipated beyond the construction phase.

Figure 13 presents photographs of sewerage stemming from the exiting facility being diverted into

the landscape. It was apparent from the site assessment that measures have been taken to divert

this sewerage away from the facility into the watercourse. Evidence of sewerage was also present

in the dam that has been breached. Based on this, the upgrade of the facility is necessary and

urgent.

Figure 13: Photographs of untreated (or partially) treated sewerage being diverted into the land scape

The current plant is functioning under capacity which results in raw sewage being released into

the receiving environment. The release of treated water will increase the overall water quality of



27

the surrounding systems as all effluent can be treated. The upgrade does however signify a larger

capacity for effluent with will result in a larger discharge into the receiving watercourses resulting

in the physical change in velocity flow classes downstream of the discharge point. This direct

modification to flows will have an impact on the hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation of the

channel. Activities that would form part of the project include the following:

Construction Phase

• Clearance of vegetation;

• Earthworks – excavations, levelling, soil movement etc.;

• Installation of water supply pipelines, electrical cables;

• Storm water management;

• Building – construction of infrastructure; and

• Existing discharge of untreated (or partially) treated effluent.

Operational Phase

• Treated water discharge (improved water quality);

• Flow modification within the channel;

• Erosion casing incised banks of the channel;

• Habitat modification resulting in differential biota assemblages colonising the system; and

• Altered landscape (visual).

The impact assessment considered both direct and indirect impacts, if any, to the water

resources. The mitigation hierarchy as discussed by the Department of Environmental Affairs

(2013) will be considered for this component of the study (Figure 14). In accordance with the

mitigation hierarchy, the preferred mitigatory measure is to avoid impacts by considering options

in project location, sitting, scale, layout, technology and phasing to avoid impacts. Findings from

the DWS aspect and impact register / risk assessment are provided in Table 23,Table 24 and

Table 25. The points of direct impact or risk are presented in Figure 14.



28

Figure 14: The mitigation hierarchy as described by the DEA (2013)

Table 23: Potential impacts associated with the WWTW upgrade

Christian Fry Pr. Sci. Nat. 119082

Activity Aspect Impacts

Construction and upgrade of WWTW

• Site clearing and preparation

• Excavation of foundations and erection of buildings/infrastructure.

• Delivery of building material (heavy vehicles)

• Soil stockpile management

• Operation of machinery and vehicles within watercourse area

• Final landscaping and shaping

• Post-construction rehabilitation

• Diversion of effluent

• Increase in sediment inputs & turbidity

• Vegetation removal

• Alteration to flow volumes (underlying wetland)

• Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks)


• Inputs of toxic organic contaminants

• Alteration of acidity (pH)

Operation of WWTW

• Alteration of in channel flows

• Alteration of surface drainage and runoff

• Establishment of alien plants on disturbed areas

• Solid waste disposal

• Discharge of treated water

• Human disturbance in wetland areas

• Conducting routine maintenance

• Alteration to flow volumes

• Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks)


• Inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants

• Alteration of acidity (pH)

• Inputs of toxic organic contaminants

• Altered flow dynamics.

• Physico-chemical modifications.

• Disturbance of interflow of water.

• Loss of aquatic habitat.

• Erosion of watercourse.

• Flow sediment equilibrium change.



29

Table 24: DWS Risk Impact Matrix for the proposed project

Aspect Flow

Regime Water

Quality Habitat Biota Severity

Spatial scale

Duration Consequence

Construction Phase

Site clearing and preparation 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 6

Excavation of foundations and erection of buildings/infrastructure 4 3 3 1 2.75 2 2 6.75

Delivery of building material (heavy vehicles) 2 2 2 1 1.75 2 2 5.75

Soil stockpile management 2 2 2 1 1.75 2 2 5.75

Operation of machinery and vehicles within watercourse area 4 3 3 1 2.75 2 2 6.75

Final landscaping and shaping 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 6

Post-construction rehabilitation 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 6

Operational Phase

Alteration of in-channel flows 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 10

Alteration of surface drainage and runoff 4 2 3 2 2.75 2 5 9.75

Establishment of alien plants on disturbed areas 2 2 3 3 2.5 2 4 8.5

Solid waste disposal 1 3 2 3 2.25 2 4 8.25

Discharge of treated water (Increased organic pollutants) 1 3 2 3 2.25 3 4 9.25

Human disturbance in wetland areas 1 3 2 3 2.25 2 4 8.25

Conducting routine maintenance 1 2 2 1 1.5 2 4 7.5



30

Table 25: DWS Risk Impact Matrix for the proposed project continued

Aspect Frequency of activity

Frequency of impact

Legal Issues

Detection Likelihoo

d Sig.

Without Mitigation

With Mitigation

Construction Phase

Site clearing and preparation 1 2 1 1 5 30 Low Low

Excavation of foundations 1 2 1 2 6 40.5 Low Low

Delivery of building material (heavy vehicles) 1 1 1 1 4 23 Low Low

Soil stockpile management 1 1 1 1 4 23 Low Low

Operation of machinery and vehicles within watercourse area 1 2 1 1 5 33.75 Low Low

Final landscaping and shaping 1 2 1 1 5 30 Low Low

Post-construction rehabilitation 1 1 1 1 4 24 Low Low

Operational Phase

Alteration of in-channel flows 5 4 5 2 16 160 Moderate Moderate

Alteration of surface drainage and runoff 5 2 1 3 11 107,25 Moderate Low

Establishment of alien plants on disturbed areas 3 2 1 3 9 76.5 Moderate* Low

Solid waste disposal 2 2 1 2 7 54.25 Low Low

Discharge of treated water (Increased organic pollutants) 5 3 5 4 17 157.25 Moderate Moderate

Human disturbance in wetland areas 2 2 1 2 7 54.25 Low Low

Conducting routine maintenance 2 1 1 3 7 52.5 Low Low

( * ) denotes - In accordance with General Notice 509 “Risk is determined after considering all listed control / mitigation measures. Borderline Low / Moderate risk scores can

be manually adapted downwards up to a maximum of 25 points (from a score of 80) subject to listing of additional mitigation measures detailed below.”



31

The construction phase of the project identifies no risks to be of moderate significance. This

is largely attributed to the fact that the upgrade will only be conducted within the extent of the

existing facility, with no direct risks posed to the local water resources. The aspects considered

for the construction phase pose an indirect risk to the systems, specifically considering the

position of the WWTW (upslope) of the resource and the proximity to the system. These

indirect risks are unavoidable however are short term and can be further mitigated.

As the physical upgrade of the existing network and facilities occurs there would typically be

sewerage leakages and spillages which could prove detrimental to the health of the water

resource, it is the specialist’s opinion that leakages are unlikely to occur if the responsible

party takes appropriate precautionary measures. The proposed upgrade of the WWTW should

eliminates any current outflows of raw sewage as experienced on site due to the increased

capacity which should in turn improve the systems water quality. This is only identified at a

moderate risk due to the current state where raw effluence is leaving the WWTW and there is

potential for this to continue or occur if there are malfunctions, leaks, spillages etc.

In the operational phase of the Balfour WWTW there are two notable risks identified as of

moderate risk which cannot be reduced to a low risk, despite the prescription of mitigation

measures. The identified concerns are: Alteration of in-channel flows and the discharge of

treated water. For the purposes of this risk assessment, only upgrades within the facility have

been considered, and not the associated infrastructure. The first three risks are all as a result

of the increase of flow within the system which has the potential to change the geomorphology

of the catchment area. The establishment of alien vegetation can be managed with mitigation

measure to be considered a low risk.







and a full water use licence will be required.

8.1 Mitigation measures

The mitigation measures for the project include the following:

8.1.1 General Mitigation

• The upgrade of the facility must be within the existing facility only, gaining access from

the existing point of entry along the provincial dirt road;

• The contractors used for the construction should have spill kits available prior to

construction to ensure that any fuel, oil or hazardous substance spills are cleaned-up

and discarded correctly;

• The construction activities, laydown yards, camps or dumping of construction material

are to be restricted to within the existing facility;

• It is preferable that construction takes place during the dry season (as much as

possible) to reduce the erosion potential of the exposed surfaces;



32

• During construction activities, all rubble generated must be removed from the site and

not dumped in the instream, nor within the wetland habitats;

• Contamination of the watercourse with unset cement or cement powder should be

negated as it is detrimental to aquatic biota. It is preferable that on-site mixing is

avoided and that prefabricated materials be prioritised (where feasible);

• Temporary stormwater management systems must be in place and preferential runoff

channels be filled with aggregate and/or logs (branches included) to dissipate flows,

limiting erosion and sedimentation;

• All contractors and employees should undergo induction which is to include a

component of environmental awareness. The induction is to include aspects such as

the need to avoid littering, the reporting and cleaning of spills and leaks and general

good “housekeeping”;

• Have action plans on site, and training for contactors and employees in the event of

spills, leaks and other impacts to the aquatic systems;

• All stockpiles must be protected from erosion, stored on flat areas where run-off will be

minimised, and be surrounded by bunds;

• Any exposed earth should be rehabilitated promptly by planting suitable vegetation

(vigorous indigenous grasses) to protect the exposed soil; and

• All waste generated on-site during construction must be adequately managed.

Separation and recycling of different waste materials should be supported.

8.1.2 Operation of Heavy Machinery

• Machinery (small trucks and other vehicles) required for the proposed activities should

only be allowed to use existing roads (including dirt roads); and

• Machinery is permitted within the extent of the WWTW facility, but not beyond this

facility where existing roads are not available.

8.1.3 Physical Maintenance

• In order to avoid leakages during the upgrade, all systems under interrogation must be

blocked off and pumped clean to ensure that no raw sewage leaks from the system;

• The diversion and discharge of untreated (or partially) treated effluent into the

landscape must be stopped, and treated prior to the release; and

• The areas contaminated with effluent must be cleaned, this will require the expertise

of a soil contamination specialist.

8.1.4 Increased Runoff mitigation

• A suitable stormwater management plan must be compiled for the development. This

plan must attempt to displace and divert stormwater from the facility and discharge the

water into adjacent areas without eroding the receiving areas. It is preferable that run-



33

off velocities be reduced with energy dissipaters and flows discharged into the local

watercourses;

• Stormwater infrastructure should be maintained regularly;

• Energy dissipation methods should be used at the outflow point of the WWTW. This

point source has high erosive power and needs to be controlled. It is suggested that

gabion baskets are installed as well as water cushions or spillways downstream; and

• Encouraged indigenous vegetation growth within the disturbed area to assist in bank

stability and minimise erosion.

8.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations are proposed for the upgrade of the WWTW:

• The existing plant and equipment be brought up to full operational capacity;

• Emergency overflow to be constructed to convey excess flows to the temporary

storage pond;

• An alien vegetation control and eradication plan must be compiled and implemented

for the areas adjacent to the facility, prioritise the delineated wetland areas;

• Water quality and biomonitoring be conducted for the facility, with biomonitoring to be

conducted on a bi-annual basis. Water quality monitoring, consisting of a single

upstream and downstream site should be conducted on a monthly basis.

9 Conclusion

Wetlands

Two (2) HGM units were identified and delineated within the project area. These HGM types

include a channelled valley bottom wetland and a dammed depression. The dam is considered

to be an artificial system and as a result of this, an ecological assessment was only completed

for the (natural) channelled valley bottom wetland system.

The ecological status of the system was determined to be that of Moderately Modified (C)

system. The Ecological Importance & Sensitivity was calculated to have a Moderate (C) level

of importance. The Hydrological Functionality of the wetland was determined to have a

Moderate (C) level of importance. The wetlands’ hydrology ensured that there was a constant

water source within the area. The Direct Human Benefits were calculated to have a Marginal

(D) level of importance.

Aquatics

The current state of the tributary associated Suikerbosrant reach associated with the proposed

Balfour wastewater treatment works upgrade was found to be in a seriously/critically modified

state. This was predominantly due to a culmination of water quality, habitat, and flow

modifications within the reach. Instream and riparian habitat modifications were predominantly

due to extensive solid waste disposal, indigenous vegetation clearing and alien vegetation

encroachment and bank erosion within the system. According to in situ water quality analysis

the system was found to be natural upstream of the wastewater treatment works and poor

water quality downstream of the wastewater treatment works due to sewage disposal



34

decreasing dissolved oxygen in water and conductivity. The condition of the local aquatic

macroinvertebrates within the system was rated as seriously/critically modified according to

the biological bands and MIRAI findings. These findings do not align with the desktop

assessment, which indicated the PES was classed D (largely modified), moderate ecological

importance and sensitivity, and the recommended ecological category is class C. The

proposed Balfour wastewater treatment works upgrade may provide opportunities to improve

the current impacts on the system by good maintenance of the wastewater treatment works,

as the results indicate that raw sewage is currently being released into the system and

discouraging people that dispose solid waste into the system.

Risk Assessment

The proposed activity includes the upgrade of the Balfour WWTW to increase its capacity to

manage effluent discharge. Impacts were assessed in terms of the construction and

operational phases of the plant, assuming upgrades are within the extent of the existing facility

only.

Risks associated with the project ranged from low to moderate. Some of the moderate risks

could be mitigated to a low level of risk. Some risks could not be adequately mitigated to

reduce the level of risk from a moderate to a low level of risk. Low risks are expected for the

construction phase of the project, with low and moderate risks expected for the operational

phase of the facility. Moderate risks (post mitigation) are associated with the altered flows

within the system due to discharge, and the resulting alterations to water quality due to the

input of treated effluent.







and a full water use licence will be required

Professional Opinion

It is the specialist’s opinion that while there are moderate risks, no fatal flaws were identified

for the proposed activities, and that the WWTW upgrade should proceed.



35

10 References

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J. & White, J.S. 1996. Development of a stream condition index

(SCI) for Florida. Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Tallahassee,

Florida.

Dallas, H.F. 1997. A preliminary evaluation of aspects of SASS (South African Scoring

System) or the rapid bioassessment of water in rivers with particular reference to the

incorporation of SASS in a national biomonitoring programme. South African Journal of

Aquatic Science, 23: 79-94.

Dallas, H.F. 2007. River Health Programme: South African Scoring System (SASS) Data

Interpretation Guidelines. Report produced for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

(Resource Quality Services) and the Institute of Natural Resources.

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines.

Volume 7: Aquatic Ecosystems. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 2005. A Practical Field Procedure for

Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas.

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). 2005. River Ecoclassification: Manual for

Ecostatus Determination. First Draft for Training Purposes. Department of Water Affairs and

Forestry.

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). 2018. A Desktop Assessment of the Present

Ecological State, Ecological Importance and Ecological Sensitivity per Sub Quaternary

Reaches for Secondary Catchments in South Africa. Draft. Compiled by RQS-RDM.

Dickens, C. W. S. and Graham, P.M. 2002. The South African Scoring System (SASS) Version

5: Rapid bioassessment method for rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science. 27 (1): 1 -10.

Gerber, A. & Gabriel, M.J.M. 2002. Aquatic Invertebrates of South African Rivers Field Guide.

Institute for Water Quality Studies. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 150pp

Hellawell, J.M. 1977. Biological Surveillance and Water Quality Monitoring. In: JS Alabaster

(Ed). Biological monitoring of inland fisheries. Applied Science, London. Pp 69-88.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2018. Red list

of threatened species - 2017.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 20th May 2017

Kleynhans, CJ. 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity status

of the Luvuvhu River (Limpopo System, South Africa) Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health

5:41-54.

Kotze, D.C., Marneweck, G.C., Batchelor, A.L., Lindley, D.C., and Collins, N.B. 2009. A

Technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. Mondi Wetland

Project.

Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. and

Goge, C. 2007. A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health: WET-Health. WRC Report

TT 340/08.



36

Macfarlane, D.M., Bredin, I.P., Adams, J.B., Zungu, M.M., Bate, G.C. and Dickens, C.W.S.

2014. Preliminary guideline for the determination of buffer zones for rivers, wetlands and

estuaries. Final Consolidated Report. WRC Report No TT 610/14, Water Research

Commission, Pretoria.

McMillan, P.H. 1998. An Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (IHASv2), for the Rapid

Biological Assessment of Rivers and Streams. A CSIR research project, number ENV – P-I

98132 for the Water Resource Management Program, CSIR. Ii + 44p.

Nel JL, Murray KM, Maherry AM, Petersen CP, Roux DJ, Driver A, Hill L, Van Deventer H,

Funke N, Swartz ER, Smith-Adao LB, Mbona N, Downsborough L and Nienaber S. 2011.

Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. WRC Report

No. K5/1801.

Ollis DJ, Snaddon CD, Job NM, and Mbona N. 2013. Classification System for Wetlands and

other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland Systems. SANBI Biodiversity

Series 22. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross S.K., Hughes, R.M., 1989. Rapid Bio-

assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2009. Further Development of a

Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report.

Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National

Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

Skelton, P.H. 2001. A complete guide to the freshwater fishes of southern Africa. Struik

Publishers, South Africa.

Thirion, C.A., Mocke, A. & Woest, R. 1995. Biological monitoring of streams and rivers using

SASS4. A User’s Manual. Internal Report No. N 000/00REQ/1195. Institute for Water Quality

Studies. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 46

water resourse baseline & impact assessment for the

Documents