Specialist Assessment: Aquatic Ecosystems Lonmin Platinum, Marikana Mine

For: Garreth Champion Agreenco Environmental Projects 071 895 8624 [email protected]

By: Wetland Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd PO Box 72295 Lynnwood Ridge Pretoria 0040 Tel: 012 349 2699 Fax: 012 349 2993Email: [email protected]

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

DOCUMENT SUMMARY DATA PROJECT:

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment

CLIENT:

Agreenco Environmental Projects

CONTACT DETAILS:

Garreth Champion Agreenco Environmental Projects 071 895 8624 [email protected]

CONSULTANT:

Wetland Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd.

CONTACT DETAILS:

Wetland Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd PO Box 72295 Lynnwood Ridge 0040 Telephone number: (012) 349 2699 Fax number: (012) 349 2993 E-mail: [email protected]

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

BACKGROUND INFORMATION INFORMATION

5

2

TERMS OF REFERENCE

5

3

LIMITATIONS

5

4

STUDY AREA

6

4.1 4.2

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Catchments National Freshwater Priority Areas

APPROACH

6.1 6.2 6.3

13 13 14

16 16 16 17

Sites MR-DS, MR-US and MT-DS Sites MR and MT-US

17 19

Habitat Integrity Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

20 23

Responses to water quality Responses to habitat availability and suitability

24 24

Fish habitat assessment Fish species composition (pre-disturbance/reference and present) Habitat preference and intolerance to environmental degradation Relative intolerance of fish to environmental change Conservation status Alien and introduced fish species Migration Biotic integrity based on fish

25 27 28 28 29 29 30 30

Fish 6.6.1 6.6.2 6.6.3 6.6.4 6.6.5 6.6.6 6.6.7 6.6.8

7

Habitat composition Site Fish Habitat Integrity (SHI) index Fish Assessments

Desktop Assessment Water Quality Assessment Diatom Assessment

6.5.1 6.5.2

6.6

8 11 11 12 12 12 13

FINDINGS

6.3.1 6.3.2

6.4 6.5

8

Sampling Sites Present Ecological State (PES) Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Habitat Integrity Water Quality Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Fish Assessment 5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3

6

6 6

25

CONCLUSION

32 i

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

8

REFERENCES

33

9

APPENDIX A: DIATOM RESULTS RESULTS

36

10 APPENDIX B. AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE RESULTS RESULTS

38

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Google Earth image showing the locality of the study area north of Mooinooi in the N4 highway between Brits and Rustenburg, North West Province. ........................................... 5 Figure 4-1. Map showing the position of the study area relative to watercourses within quaternary catchment A21K. ............................................................................................................ 6 Figure 5-1. Google Earth image showing aquatic sampling sites for the Marikana project. Sites marked with green were sampled for water quality and diatoms only. ................................... 8 Figure 6-1. Photographs showing observed impacts at sites MR (top row), MT-US (middle row) and MT-DS (bottom row) ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 6-2. Habitat Cover Ratings calculated for each site (November 2013). ............................. 26

LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1. Description of aquatic sampling sites for the Marikana project....................................... 9 Table 0-1. Descriptive categories used to describe the present ecological status (PES) of biotic components (adapted from Kleynhans, 1999). ..................................................................... 11 Table 6-1. Summary of water quality data from Marikana aquatic sampling sites. Shaded values indicate elevated values of concern. ................................................................................... 17 Table 6-2. On-site measurements of water quality at Marikana aquatic sampling sites. ............... 17 Table 6-3 Class limit boundaries for the Specific Pollution sensitivity Index (SPI) (Koekemoer and Taylor, 2011). ........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 6-4 OMNIDIA results of the Specific Pollution sensitivity Index (SPI) score classification for Marikana Sites MM2, MT-DS and ME. ................................................................ 18 Table 6-5 List of dominant diatom species occurring at the Marikana sites, expressed as a percentage of the total sample. ...................................................................................................... 18 Table 6-6. Results of the Index of Habitat Integrity Assessment for aquatic ecosystems sampled as part of the Marikana project. ....................................................................................... 21 Table 6-7. Summary of SASS5 results at Marikana sampling sites. .............................................. 23 Table 6-8. PES classification of sampling sites based on SASS5. ................................................ 23 Table 6-9. MIRAI assessment for Marikana sampling sites along the Maretlwane River (top) and Maretlwane tributary (bottom). ................................................................................................. 24 Table 6-10. Estimated human impacts on the fish habitat integrity in the study area (November 2013). ........................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6-11: Habitat composition and diversity for fish at different sites sampled. ........................ 26

ii

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

Table 6-12: Fish species sampled (number of individuals) at the various sampling sites in the study area (November 2013). ......................................................................................................... 27 Table 6-13. Habitat preferences (flow-depth and cover features) of the expected fish species (Kleynhans, 2003). .......................................................................................................................... 28 Table 6-14. Relative intolerance ratings of expected fish species (Kleynhans, 2003)................... 29 Table 6-15. Conservation status of indigenous fish species expected in the study area. ............. 29 Table 6-16: Estimated frequency of occurrence of indigenous fish species under reference and present conditions in the Maretlwane River sampling reach. .................................................. 31 Table 6-17: Estimated frequency of occurrence of indigenous fish species under reference and present conditions in the Maretlwana tributary. ....................................................................... 31

iii

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

INDEMNITY AND CONDITIONS CONDITIONS RELATING TO THIS THIS REPORT The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on the author’s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as available information. The report is based on survey and assessment techniques which are limited by time and budgetary constraints relevant to the type and level of investigation undertaken and Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. and its staff reserve the right to modify aspects of the report including the recommendations if and when new information may become available from ongoing research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation. Although Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. exercises due care and diligence in rendering services and preparing documents, Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. accepts no liability, and the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. and its directors, managers, agents and employees against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses arising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. and by the use of the information contained in this document. This report must not be altered or added to without the prior written consent of the author. This also refers to electronic copies of this report which are supplied for the purposes of inclusion as part of other reports, including main reports. Similarly, any recommendations, statements or conclusions drawn from or based on this report must make reference to this report. If these form part of a main report relating to this investigation or report, this report must be included in its entirety as an appendix or separate section to the main report.

iv

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. was appointed by Agreenco Environmental Projects to undertake the specialist aquatic assessment as part of a biodiversity assessment for Lonmin’s Marikana Mine. The study area is located north of the N4 highway between Brits and Rustenburg, North West Province (Figure 1-1).

. Figure 1-1. Google Earth image showing the locality of the study area north of Mooinooi in the N4 highway between Brits and Rustenburg, North West Province.

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE The terms of reference provided for the study are detailed below: • Field assessment of aquatic ecosystems (including an assessment of fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates, on-site water quality, diatoms and habitat integrity); • Description of the PES and EIS of aquatic ecosystems; • Provide a report detailing the above information.

3 LIMITATIONS



Reference conditions are unknown. This limits the confidence with which the present ecological category is assigned; Aquatic ecosystems vary both temporally and spatially. Once-off surveys such as this are therefore likely to miss substantial ecological information, thus limiting accuracy, detail and confidence.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 5

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

4 STUDY AREA The Lonmin Marikana Mine is located in North West Province, between the towns of Brits and Rustenburg (Figure 1-1).

4.1 Catchments The study area is located within quaternary catchment A21K which falls within the Upper Crocodile Water Management Area (Figure 4-1). The study area is drained by ephemeral tributaries which join with the Maretlwane River immediately downstream of the study area. The Maretlwane River joins with the Sterkspruit which flows into the Roodekopjes Dam and Crocodile River at the downstream end of the quaternary catchment.

Figure 4-1. Map showing the position of the study area relative to watercourses within quaternary catchment A21K.

4.2 National Freshwater Priority Areas The recently published Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa (Nel et al, 2011) (The Atlas) which represents the culmination of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project (NFEPA), a partnership between SANBI, CSIR, WRC, DEA, DWA, WWF, SAIAB and SANParks, provides a series of maps detailing strategic spatial priorities for conserving South Africa’s freshwater ecosystems and supporting Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 6

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

sustainable use of water resources. Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPA’s) were identified through a systematic biodiversity planning approach that incorporated a range of biodiversity aspects such as ecoregion, current condition of habitat, presence of threatened vegetation, fish, frogs and birds, and importance in terms of maintaining downstream habitat. The Maretlwane River and its tributaries fall within a Fish Support Area.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 7

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

5 APPROACH 5.1 Sampling Sites Sites were selected to be representative of all the aquatic ecosystems within the study area, as well as downstream ecosystems that may be affected by activities within the study area. Final site selection was also determined by the availability of suitable habitats for sampling. Details of sampling sites are provided in Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1. The Maretlwane River and the ephemeral tributaries that flow through the study area were sampled for aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish (MR, MT-US and MT-DS), with additional water quality and diatom samples taken from sites upstream and downstream of the study area (MR-US and MR-DS).

Figure 5-1. Google Earth image showing aquatic sampling sites for the Marikana project. Sites marked with green were sampled for water quality and diatoms only.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 8

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

Table 5-1. Description of aquatic sampling sites for the Marikana project. Site

River name

Latitude/ Longitude

MTUS

Unnamed tributary of the Maretlwane River

25°41'12.8 8"S 27°33'1.63" E

MTDS

Unnamed tributary of the Maretlwane River

25°40'16.9 7"S 27°32'26.5 9"E

Aquatic component sampled On-site water quality, diatoms, fish

On-site water quality, diatoms, fish, aquatic macroinverte brates

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd.

Description/ Rationale

Site Photograph

Ephemeral stream flowing through the study area - upstream of all impacts. The stream was not flowing at the time of sampling and consisted of a series of pools. Minimal impacts due to cattle grazing were observed.

Ephemeral stream flowing through the study area downstream all mining impacts within the study area. Flow conditions were slow.

9

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

MR

Maretlwane River

25°41'18.2 3"S 27°32'9.55" E

On-site water quality, diatoms, fish, aquatic macroinverte brates

Maretlwane River adjacent to the study area, downstream of Middelkraal Dam; situated at a road crossing. There were zero flows at the time of sampling.

MRUS

Unnamed tributary of Hlelo River

26°52'59.6 7°/ 30°17'50.7 1°

On-site water quality, diatoms

Maretlwane River upstream of the study area. Moderate flows. Water warm and foamy, contaminated by effluent discharges near Mooinooi.

MRDS

Unnamed tributary of Hlelo River

25°39'35.3 9"S 27°31'52.0 7"E

On-site water quality, diatoms

Maretlwane River downstream of the study area and downstream of Wonderkop township. Low flows. Maggots and syrphid fly larvae were prevalent as a result of decomposing cattle corpses and sewage.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd.

10

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

5.2 Present Ecological State (PES) The description of the present ecological status (PES) of the aquatic ecosystems in the study area was broadly conducted according to the methodology described for River EcoClassification during Reserve Determinations (Kleynhans & Louw, 2008) (Table 5-2).

5.3 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Kleynhans & Louw (2008) defined ecological importance of a river as its importance to maintain biological diversity and ecological functioning on a local and wider scale. The ecological sensitivity (or fragility) on the other hand refers to a river’s ability to resist disturbance and its capability to recover from disturbances once it has occurred. Table 0-1. Descriptive categories used to describe the present ecological status (PES) of biotic components (adapted from Kleynhans, 1999). CATEGORY

BIOTIC INTEGRITY

A

Excellent

B

Good

C

Fair

D

Poor

E

Very Poor

F

Critical

DESCRIPTION OF GENERALLY EXPECTED CONDITIONS Unmodified, or approximates natural conditions closely. The biotic assemblages compares to that expected under natural, unperturbed conditions. Largely natural with few modifications. A change in community characteristics may have taken place but species richness and presence of intolerant species indicate little modifications. Most aspects of the biotic assemblage as expected under natural unperturbed conditions. Moderately modified. A lower than expected species richness and presence of most intolerant species. Most of the characteristics of the biotic assemblages have been moderately modified from its naturally expected condition. Some impairment of health may be evident at the lower end of this class. Largely modified. A clearly lower than expected species richness and absence or much lowered presence of intolerant and moderately intolerant species. Most characteristics of the biotic assemblages have been largely modified from its naturally expected condition. Impairment of health may become evident at the lower end of this class. Seriously modified. A strikingly lower than expected species richness and general absence of intolerant and moderately tolerant species. Most of the characteristics of the biotic assemblages have been seriously modified from its naturally expected condition. Impairment of health may become very evident. Critically modified. Extremely lowered species richness and an absence of intolerant and moderately tolerant species. Only intolerant species may be present with complete loss of species at the lower end of the class. Most of the characteristics of the biotic assemblages have been critically modified from its naturally expected conditions. Impairment of health generally very evident.

It must be emphasised that the A→F scale represents a continuum, and that the boundaries between categories are notional, artificially-defined points along the continuum (as presented below). This situation falls within the concept of a fuzzy boundary, where a particular entity may potentially have membership of both classes (Robertson et al. 2004). These boundary categories are denoted as B/C, C/D, etc.

A A/B

B

B/C

C

C/D

D

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 11

D/E

E

E/F

F

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

5.4 Habitat Integrity The Index of Habitat Integrity (IHI) was used to determine habitat condition. This approach is based on the assessment of physical habitat disturbance (Kleynhans, 1997) and classifies the present ecological state of instream and riparian habitat integrity according to the Present Ecological State categories given in Table 5-2, ranging from pristine/undisturbed to critically modified. The following disturbances were considered: • Water abstraction, • Flow modification, • Bed modification, • Channel modification, • Inundation, • Water quality, • Exotic macrophytes, • Solid waste disposal, • Indigenous vegetation removal, • Exotic vegetation encroachment and • Bank erosion.

5.5 Water Quality Analysis of major anions and cations, conductivity, TDS, pH and temperature was conducted. These data were interpreted in terms of ecological responses only and do not constitute a detailed surface water assessment. Diatoms provide a rapid response to specific physico-chemical conditions in aquatic ecosystems and are often the first indication of change. The presence or absence of indicator taxa can be used to detect specific changes in environmental conditions such as eutrophication, organic enrichment, salinisation and changes in pH. Diatom slides were prepared by acid oxidation using hydrochloric acid and potassium permanganate. Clean diatom frustules were mounted onto a glass slide ready for analysis. Taxa were identified mainly according to standard floras (Krammer & Lange- Bertalot, 2000). The aim of the data analysis was to identify and count diatom valves (400 counts) to produce semi-quantitative data from which ecological conclusions can be drawn.

5.6 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates were assessed using the SASS 5 (South African Scoring System) methodology. SASS5 is based on the presence or absence of sensitive aquatic macroinvertebrates collected and analysed according to the methods outlined in Dickens and Graham (2002). A high relative abundance and diversity of sensitive taxa present indicates a relatively healthy system with good water quality. Disturbance to water quality and habitat results in the loss of sensitive taxa. Table 5-2 summarises the categories used to classify sites according to both aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 12

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

5.7 Fish Assessment 5.7.1

Habitat composition

The aquatic habitats form the template of the biological composition of any system. If the habitat components are undisturbed, and in good condition, the biological composition of the system can be expected to be normal and one can expect a high biodiversity within the system (water quality permitting). If the habitat components are however degraded, due to human activities, the biota of the system will reflect this by a loss, firstly of the most intolerant species (Davies & Day, 1998). An evaluation of habitat quality and availability to biota is therefore critical to any assessment of ecological integrity and should be conducted at each site at the time of biological sampling. On-site habitat assessments were conducted by using existing habitat evaluation indices. The general characteristics of the site and its immediate surroundings were described. The composition and ability of the habitats to meet the requirements of different fish species were broadly based on the Habitat Cover Rating method (Kleynhans, 1997). This approach was developed to assess habitats according to different attributes that are surmised to satisfy the habitat requirements of various fish species (Kleynhans, 1997). At each site, the following velocity-depth classes were identified: • Slow (0.3m/s), Shallow (FS) - Riffles, rapids and runs, and • Fast, Deep (FD) - Usually rapids and runs. The relative contribution of each of the above mentioned classes at a site is estimated and indicated as follows (adapted from Rankin, 1995):

Descriptor None Rare Sparse Common Abundant Very abundant

Relative ecological value/abundance score 0 1 2 3 4 5

Occurrence (% of area covered) 0 0-5 5-25 25-75 75-90 90-100

For each depth-flow class, the following cover features, considered to provide fish with the necessary cover to utilise a particular flow and depth class, were investigated and similarly rated as described above: - Overhanging vegetation - Undercut banks and root wads - Stream substrate - Aquatic macrophytes

5.7.2

Site Fish Habitat Integrity (SHI) index

A simplified index of habitat integrity, namely Site Habitat Integrity (SHI) was used to determine the broad habitat integrity or condition, based on the extent that different human activities may have on the fish habitats at each sampling site. This approach is based on the Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 13

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

assessment of physical habitat disturbance (Kleynhans, 1997). The following impacts were investigated, namely: • Water abstraction, • Flow modification, • Bed modification, • Channel modification, • Inundation, • Exotic macrophytes, • Solid waste disposal, • Indigenous vegetation removal, • Exotic vegetation encroachment and • Bank erosion. Estimation of the impact of each of these modifications on the fish habitat integrity at a site is scored as follows: • No Impact = 0 • Small impact = 1 • Moderate Impact = 3 • Large impact = 5

5.7.3

Fish Assessments

The study area was visited on 28 November 2013, and representative sites were selected in the primary aquatic ecosystems in the study area. Fish sampling of representative sites and habitats was performed using a SAMUS battery operated electro-fisher by wading. All fish species were identified to species level and returned to their natural habitats. Due to the difficulty of applying the generally used Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) in rivers of South Africa, Kleynhans (1997) developed an alternative approach which assesses fish integrity based on the presence of intolerant species, together with the observed health of the fish sampled. The following procedures were used in the application of the FAII (Fish assemblage Integrity Index):

Species tolerance ratings The species intolerance ratings used in the calculation of the FAII were taken from Kleynhans (2002). Four components are taken into account in estimating the intolerance of the relevant fish species, namely habitat preferences and specialisation (HS), food preference and specialisation (TS), requirements for flowing water during different life-stages (FW) and water quality requirements (WQ). Each of these aspects are scored for a species according to low requirement/specialisation (rating=1), moderate requirement/ specialisation (rating=3) and high requirement/specialisation (rating=5). The total intolerance (IT) of a fish species is estimated as follows: IT = (HS+TS+FW+WQ)/4 Health The percentage of fish with externally evident disease or other anomalies are used to score this metric. The following procedure is used to score the health of individual species: Frequency of affected fish >5%, score = 1 Frequency of affected fish 2 - 5%, score = 3 Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 14

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

Frequency of affected fish 4-5 =VERY HIGH PREFERENCE

Relative intolerance of fish to environmental change

The fish species associated with the study area also differ in their tolerance level to disturbance of the environment (Table 6-14). The fish species sampled in the study area during November 2013 range from tolerant to moderately tolerant to moderately intolerant (B. trimaculatus). It can therefore be expected that B. trimaculatus would be the first of the sampled species to reflect any changes in integrity. Five of the expected fish species are also classified as moderately intolerant, namely Labeobarbus marequensis, Clarias flaviventris, Mesobola breviannalis and Labeo molybdenis. Should these species be present within or downstream of the proposed project area, they would react rapidly to any deterioration. Labeo molybdinus is specifically intolerant to water quality deterioration, and will therefore be particularly vulnerable to water quality deterioration associated with mining activities.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 28

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

Table 6-14. Relative intolerance ratings of expected fish species (Kleynhans, 2003) REQUIRE AVERAGE MENT: TROPHIC HABITAT FLOW OVERALL ABBREV UNMODIFI SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH COMMON NAME SPECIALI SPECIALI REQUIRE INTOLERA IATION ED ZATION ZATION MENT NCE WATER RATING QUALITY BMAR LABEOBARBUS MAREQUENSIS SMITH, 1841 LARGESCALE YELLOWFISH 2.4 2.8 3.2 2.1 2.6 BPAU BARBUS PALUDINOSUS PETERS, 1852 STRAIGHTFIN BARB 1.6 1.4 2.3 1.8 1.8 BTRI BARBUS TRIMACULATUS PETERS, 1852 THREESPOT BARB 3.1 1.4 2.7 1.8 2.2 BUNI BARBUS UNITAENIATUS LONGBEARD BARB 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.2 1.7 CFLA CHETIA FLAVIVENTRIS TREWAVAS, 1961 CANARY KURPER 3.3 1.5 1.3 2 2 CGAR CLARIAS GARIEPINUS (BURCHELL, 1822) SHARPTOOTH CATFISH 1 1.2 1.7 1 1.2 LMOL LABEO MOLYBDINUS DU PLESSIS, 1963 LEADEN LABEO 3.3 3 3.3 3.2 3.2 MBRE MESOBOLA BREVIANALIS (BOULENGER, 1908) RIVER SARDINE 3.1 2.2 1.1 2.8 2.3 OMOS OREOCHROMIS MOSSAMBICUS (PETERS, 1852) MOZAMBIQUE TILAPIA 1.2 1.9 0.9 1.3 1.3 PPHI PSEUDOCRENILABRUS PHILANDER (WEBER, 1897) SOUTHERN MOUTHBROODER 1.3 1.4 1 1.4 1.3 TSPA TILAPIA SPARRMANII SMITH, 1840 BANDED TILAPIA 1.6 1.4 0.9 1.4 1.3

0-1.9 = TOLERANT; >3-3.9 = MODERATELY INTOLERANT

6.6.5

>2-2.9 = MODERATELY TOLERANT >4-5.0 = INTOLERANT

Conservation status

Most expected or observed fish species are considered ‘Least Concern’ according to the IUCN Red List. A notable exception is Orechromus mossambicus which is classified as ‘Near Threatened’. This species is threatened by hybidizationhybridization with another species. It should be noted that the distribution ranges of many of the Least Concern species are decreasing due to increased development and deterioration in the condition of their habitat. Labeobarbus marequensis (Largescale Yellowfish), for example, was classified as “least concern” by Wolhuter & Impson (2007). However, the natural distribution ranges of most yellowfish in South Africa are shrinking, even though they remain widely distributed and relatively abundant in specific rivers (Roux, F: in Wolhuter & Impson, 2007). Table 6-15. Conservation status of indigenous fish species expected in the study area. LABEOBARBUS MAREQUENSIS SMITH, 1841 BARBUS PALUDINOSUS PETERS, 1852 BARBUS TRIMACULATUS PETERS, 1852 BARBUS UNITAENIATUS CHETIA FLAVIVENTRIS TREWAVAS, 1961 CLARIAS GARIEPINUS (BURCHELL, 1822) LABEO MOLYBDINUS DU PLESSIS, 1963 MESOBOLA BREVIANALIS (BOULENGER, 1908) OREOCHROMIS MOSSAMBICUS (PETERS, 1852) PSEUDOCRENILABRUS PHILANDER (WEBER, 1897) TILAPIA SPARRMANII SMITH, 1840

6.6.6

Least concern* (Natural distribution range however shrinking)

Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern NEAR THREATENED Least Concern Least Concern

Alien and introduced fish species

No alien or introduced species were recorded or expected on site.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 29

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

6.6.7

Migration

The fish species vary in their migratory behaviour. The presence of dams impact seriously on the migratory ability of certain species. All fish species expected or observed in the study area are classified as potadromous in terms of migratory life history (i.e. they require movement between reaches), with the exception of Pseudocrenilabrus philander which primarily migrates within a reach. The presence of existing dams, weirs and road crossings may create further migration barriers to fish both within and downstream of the study area. Chemical barriers, as a result of poor water quality, may also act as migration barriers but this was not observed on site as yet. It is however important to ensure that any proposed activities (such as mining activities) should not result in water quality deterioration which could act as chemical migration barriers. Care should be taken that road crossings do not create further migration barriers to fish. Free passage should always be allowed, but is of particular importance during the wet season when spawning migrations occur. Care should also be taken during the planning phase to ensure that large drops in water levels are prevented at bridge crossings. It is furthermore recommended that all obstructions should be removed after completion of the proposed project and that any other redundant dams should be removed from streams in the study area (and region where applicable). No new instream dams should be constructed.

6.6.8

Biotic integrity based on fish

Fish distribution also varies naturally over time (especially different seasons) and space (especially different habitats or geomorphological units). Long term monitoring is therefore required (including seasonal assessments) to allow for accurate and high confidence assessment of the biotic integrity based on fish. At the time of sampling, flows were particularly low and habitat diversity and abundance was poor at all sites, with only two velocity-depth categories being present. It is likely that additional fish species are present under higher flow conditions and that integrity would improve. For this reason, species with a high requirement for fast flowing conditions have been removed from the list of expected species to reflect flow conditions at the time of sampling. These species may, however, be present during high flow periods. The upstream tributary site was not analysed using FAII as the zero flow conditions rendered the sampling unreliable and not representative of species currently occurring there. Four of the eleven native expected fish species were recorded at the sub-catchment sites. The percentage observed species (as a function of expected species) was low at all sites, ranging between 26% and 29% (Table 6-16 and 6-17). This is indicative of communities that have been altered largely from natural conditions. No intolerant species were present, reflecting alterations to the habitat, flow and water quality. Only one moderately intolerant species, Barbus trimaculatus was collected from the upstream tributary site. Several individuals sampled within the Maretlwana River displayed anomalies, indicating impaired health.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 30

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

This is indicative of communities that have been altered largely from natural conditions and fall within an ecological category E (Seriously Modified). However, this conflicts with previous sampling at these sites under higher flow conditions (see Clean Stream Biological Services, May 2013), which classified the reach as Category C/D (Moderately – Largely Modified). This latter classification is considered to be a more accurate reflection of integrity, based on fish. It bears repeating that the classification based on this single survey is of low confidence and could very likely be an underestimation of the diversity due to seasonal limitations. In addition, the integrity of the upstream tributary site could not be reliably assessed. Follow up surveys are recommended to verify and supplement these results. Table 6-16: Estimated frequency of occurrence of indigenous fish species under reference and present conditions in the Maretlwane River sampling reach. ABBREV IATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME

BPAU BTRI BUNI CFLA CGAR MBRE OMOS

BARBUS PALUDINOSUS PETERS, 1852 BARBUS TRIMACULATUS PETERS, 1852 BARBUS UNITAENIATUS CHETIA FLAVIVENTRIS TREWAVAS, 1961 CLARIAS GARIEPINUS (BURCHELL, 1822) MESOBOLA BREVIANALIS (BOULENGER, 1908) OREOCHROMIS MOSSAMBICUS (PETERS, 1852)

PPHI TSPA

PSEUDOCRENILABRUS PHILANDER (WEBER, 1897) TILAPIA SPARRMANII SMITH, 1840

ENGLISH COMMON NAME STRAIGHTFIN BARB THREESPOT BARB LONGBEARD BARB CANARY KURPER SHARPTOOTH CATFISH RIVER SARDINE MOZAMBIQUE TILAPIA SOUTHERN MOUTHBROODER BANDED TILAPIA Total IR scores Relative FAII Integrity class

MR EX P.

OB S.

1.8 2.2 1.7 2 1.2 2.3 1.3

1.8

1.3 1.3 15.1

1.3 1.3 4.4 29 E

Table 6-17: Estimated frequency of occurrence of indigenous fish species under reference and present conditions in the Maretlwana tributary.

SCIENTIFIC NAME

ENGLISH COMMON NAME

MT-DS EX OB P. S.

BPAU

BARBUS PALUDINOSUS PETERS, 1852

STRAIGHTFIN BARB

1.8

1.8

BTRI

BARBUS TRIMACULATUS PETERS, 1852

THREESPOT BARB

2.2

2.2

BUNI

BARBUS UNITAENIATUS

LONGBEARD BARB

1.7

CFLA

CHETIA FLAVIVENTRIS TREWAVAS, 1961

CANARY KURPER

CGAR

CLARIAS GARIEPINUS (BURCHELL, 1822)

SHARPTOOTH CATFISH

1.2

MBRE

MESOBOLA BREVIANALIS (BOULENGER, 1908)

RIVER SARDINE

2.3

OMOS

MOZAMBIQUE TILAPIA SOUTHERN MOUTHBROODER

1.3

PPHI

OREOCHROMIS MOSSAMBICUS (PETERS, 1852) PSEUDOCRENILABRUS PHILANDER (WEBER, 1897)

TSPA

TILAPIA SPARRMANII SMITH, 1840

BANDED TILAPIA

1.3

ABBREVI ATION

Total IR scores

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 31

2

1.3 15.1

Relative FAII

26

Integrity class

E

4.0

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

7 CONCLUSION Two watercourses will potentially be impacted upon by developments within the Marikana study area: a seasonal tributary that flows through the study area and the Maretlwane River with which it joins immediately downstream of the study area. Flows were extremely low to zero at the time of sampling, resulting in a low availability of aquatic habitats for sampling. As such, the results are of low confidence and are likely to be an underestimate of aquatic integrity and biotic diversity within affected watercourses. Nevertheless, it is clear that water quality has been compromised by mining impacts, with the resulting loss of taxa sensitive to declines in water quality. The seasonal tributary was classified as Largely Natural (Category B) within its upper reaches to Moderately Modified (Category C) at the downstream site in terms of habitat integrity and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Sampling of the upstream site was, however, incomplete due to low flows and a lack of habitats available for sampling. It is recommended that additional wet season sampling be conducted to more accurately determine the integrity at this site. It is likely that, considering the ephemeral to seasonal nature of the upper tributaries within the study area, that species adapted to seasonal drying will be present, contributing to the overall biodiversity of the area. An additional component of aquatic biodiversity is the vertebrates that are associated with watercourses and waterbodies, including leguan and otter, both of which were observed along the tributary. The Maretlwane River was classified, on average, as Category D (Largely Modified), with riparian habitat integrity being seriously modified (Category E) and aquatic macroinvertebrates being Moderately to Largely Modified (Category C/D). Both the Maretlwane River and its tributary were classified as Seriously Modified (Category E) for fish. However, this is considered to be an underestimate of integrity and diversity in response to low flow conditions. Based on previous surveys in the area it is likely that the fish integrity is closer to a Category C-D (Moderately to Largely Modified). Further declines to water quality pose the greatest threat to aquatic biodiversity within the study area, together with habitat deterioration as a result of erosion and sedimentation that may result from further developments. Impoundments within the tributary should be avoided and the tributary, together with its riparian buffer, should be considered no-go areas as far as possible.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 32

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

8 REFERENCES CEMAGREF.1982. Etude des méthodes biologiques quantitatives d'appréciation de la qualité des eaux. Rapport Division Qualité des Eaux Lyon - Agence Financiére de Bassin Rhône- Méditerranée- Corse. Pierre-Benite Clean Stream Biological Services 2013. Biomonitoring and toxicity testing of the receiving water bodies in the vicinity of Lonmin Platinum (Marikana operations) – May 2013 survey. Dallas, H.F., Day, D. E., 1993. The effect of water quality variables on riverine ecosystems: a review. WRC Report No. TT 61/93. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Davies, B. and Day, J. (1998). Vanishing Waters. University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town, South Africa. 487pp. De Moor IJ and Bruton MN (1988). Atlas of alien and translocated indigenous aquatic animals in southern Africa. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No 144/1988. South Africa. 310pp. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 1999. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 1. River Ecosystems Version 1.0, Pretoria. Dickens, C.W.S. and Graham, P.M. (1998). Biomonitoring for effective management of wastewater discharges and health of the river environment. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health. 1 199-217. Dickens, C.W.S., Graham, P.M., 2002. The South African Scoring System version 5 rapid bioassessment system for rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science 27, 1-10. IUCN. 2012. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Red list of threatened species. www.iucnredlist.org. Kemspter, P.L, Hattingh, W.A.J. & Van Vliet, H.R. 1980. Summarized water quality criteria. Department of Water Affairs, forestry and environmental Conservation, Pretoria. Technical Report No TR 108. 45pp. Kleynhans, C.J. 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity status of the Luvuvhu River. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 5: 41 - 54. Kleynhans, CJ (1997). An exploratory investigation of the Instream Biological Integrity of the Crocodile River, Mpumalanga, as based on the Assessment of Fish Communities. Draft Report, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Institute for Water Quality Studies. 61 pp. Kleynhans, CJ (1999). The development of a fish Index to assess the biological integrity of South African rivers. Water SA 25(3): 265-278. Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 33

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

Kleynhans CJ (2003). National Aquatic Ecosystem Biomonitoring Programme: Report on a National Workshop on the use of Fish in Aquatic System Health Assessment. NAEBP Report Series No. 16. Institute for Water Quality Studies, DWAF, Pretoria. South Africa. Kleynhans, CJ, Thirion, C and Moolman, J (2005). A Level I River Ecoregion classification System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa. Kleynhans CJ (2008). Module D: Fish Response Assessment Index in River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2) Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report No. TT330/08. Kleynhans CJ, Louw MD, Moolman J. (2007). Reference frequency of occurrence of fish species in South Africa. Report produced for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (Resource Quality Services) and the Water Research Commission. Kleynhans CJ & Louw, MD (2008). Module A: Ecoclassification and Ecostatus determination: River Ecoclassification Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2) Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report No. TT329/08. Koekemoer. S. and J. Taylor. 2011. Rapid methodology for inferring wetland water quality based on diatom analysis. Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Wetlands (Version 2.0). Department of Water Affairs. Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot. 2000. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Bd. 2/2: Bacillariophyceae: Teil 2: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag GmbH. Berlin Ed. Lecointe, C, Coste, M and Prygiel, J (1993). “Omnidia”: Software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269/270: 509-513. Odum, E.P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology. Third Edition. W. B. Saunders Co. London. 310pp Roux, D.J. (1999). Incorporating technologies for the monitoring and assessment of biological indicators into a holistic resource-based water quality management approach - conceptual models and some case studies. Ph.D Thesis. Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South Africa. Skelton, P.H. 2001. A Complete Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 395pp. Taylor, JC, Harding, WR and Archibald, CGM 2007. A methods manual for the collection, preparation and analysis of diatom samples. Water Research Commission Report TT281/07. Water Research Commission. Pretori Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 34

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

Uys, M.C., Goetch, P. A., & O'Keeffe, J. H., 1996. National Biomonitoring Program for Riverine Ecosystems: Ecological Indicators, a review and recommendations. NBP Report Series No. Institute for Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. South Africa. Wolhuter L.E. & Impson D. (2007). The state of the Yellowfishes in South Africa, 2007. WRC Report no. TT 302/07, Pretoria, South Africa.

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 35

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

9 APPENDIX A: DIATOM RESULTS List of diatom species and associated abundances at the Marikana sites in November 2013. MRMRTaxa MR DS MT-US MT-DS US Achnanthidium saprophilum (Kobayasi et Mayama) Round & Buk. 4 0 0 0 0 Achnanthidium minutissima Kützing 0 0 90 40 0 Amphora pediculus (Kützing) Grunow 10 0 0 0 0 Anomoeoneis sphaerophora (Ehr.) Pfitzer 0 0 4 0 0 Amphora veneta Kützing 296 4 0 0 0 Brachysira neoexilis Lange-Bertalot 0 0 38 6 0 Caloneis aequatorialis Hustedt 0 0 10 18 0 Cyclotella meneghiniana Kützing 4 0 0 0 6 Cocconeis placentula Ehrenberg var. placentula 0 2 0 0 0 Craticula accomoda (Hustedt) Mann 0 6 0 0 2 Craticula buderi (Hustedt) Lange-Bertalot 8 0 20 220 0 Encyonopsis minuta Krammer & Reichardt 0 0 52 6 0 Eolimna minima(Grunow) Lange-Bertalot 0 0 0 2 0 Eolimna subminuscula (Manguin) Moser Lange-Bertalot & Metzeltin 8 16 0 0 2 Fragilaria biceps (Kützing) Lange-Bertalot 0 0 2 0 0 Fragilaria fasciculata (C.A. Agardh) LangeBertalot sensu lato 12 0 0 0 0 Fragilaria tenera (W.Smith) Lange-Bertalot 0 0 2 2 0 Gomphonema gracile Ehrenberg 0 0 0 2 0 Gyrosigma attenuatum (Kützing) Rabenhorst 0 0 4 0 0 Mayamaea atomus (Kützing) Lange-Bertalot 0 0 0 0 4 Nitzschia amphibia Grunow f.amphibia 6 36 34 52 0 Nitzschia aurariae Cholnoky 8 0 0 4 6 Nitzschia capitellata Hustedt in A.Schmidt & al. 12 8 0 0 86 Navicula cryptotenella Lange-Bertalot 0 2 0 0 0 Nitzschia desertorum Hustedt 0 34 0 6 4 Navicula erifuga Lange-Bertalot 0 20 0 0 2 Nitzschia heufleriana Grunow 0 0 2 0 0 Nitzschia archibaldii Lange-Bertalot 2 0 0 0 0 Nitzschia frustulum(Kützing)Grunow var.frustulum 0 4 0 4 2 Nitzschia inconspicua Grunow 8 172 0 0 0 Nitzschia linearis(Agardh) W.M.Smith var.linearis 4 6 0 0 2 Nitzschia microcephala Grunow in Cleve & Moller 0 0 0 2 0 Nitzschia palea (Kützing) W.Smith 12 50 24 10 264 Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 36

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

Taxa Navicula radiosa Kützing Navicula recens (Lange-Bertalot) LangeBertalot Nitzschia umbonata(Ehrenberg)LangeBertalot Navicula veneta Kützing Planothidium frequentissimum(LangeBertalot)Lange-Bertalot Rhoicosphenia abbreviata (C.Agardh) Lange-Bertalot Surirella ovalis Brebisson Sellaphora pupula (Kützing) Mereschkowksy Tryblionella gracilis w. Smith Tryblionella hungarica (Grunow) D.G. Mann

MR 0

MRDS 0

MT-US 24

MT-DS 0

MRUS 0

0

12

0

14

0

0 0

0 0

0 94

0 12

6 2

2

0

0

0

0

4 0

16 0

0 0

0 0

2 2

0 0 0

4 2 6

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 8

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 37

Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment for the Marikana Biodiversity Assessment January 2014

10

APPENDIX B. AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE RESULTS

Taxon Potamonautidae* Atyidae Palaemonidae HYDRACARINA Baetidae 1 sp. Baetidae 2 spp. Baetidae >2 spp. Caenidae Coenagrionidae Aeshnidae Libelludae Corixidae* Gerridae* Hydrometridae* Naucoridae* Nepidae* Notonectidae* Pleidae* Veliidae* Hydropsychidae 1sp. Hydropsychidae 2spp. Hydropsychidae >2spp. Dytiscidae (adults*) Gyrinidae (adults*) Hydrophilidae (adults*) Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae Tabanidae Ancylidae Lymnaeidae* Physidae* Total SASS5 score No. of families ASPT

Stones A A A A 1 A A A 1 38 8 4.75

MT-DS Veg GSM A 1 1 A A B A A A A A A 1 A A B A A 60 22 13 5 4.62 4.40

Total A A 1 A A B B A B 1 A A A A A B A A 84 17 4.94

High requirement for unmodified water quality Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality Low requirement for unmodified water quality Very low requirement for unmodified water quality A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon. Veg=Vegetation

Copyright © 2014 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty.) Ltd. 38

Stones 1 A A A A A A 31 7 4.43

Veg A B A A 1 A A 1 A A 1 1 A 64 13 4.92

MR GSM A B 1 1 1 A 28 6 4.67

Total 1 A B A A A A B A A 1 A A 1 1 A 1 A 86 18 4.78