A review of two rapid in stream habitat bio-assessments to evaluate surface aquatic impacts from bulk water pipelines in different streams in Gauteng

COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made You may so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original How to cite this thesis Surname, Initial(s) (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation (Doctoral Thesis / Master’s Dissertation) Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/102000/0002 (Accessed: 22 August 2017) A review of two rapid in stream habitat bio-assessments to evaluate surface aquatic impacts from bulk water pipelines in different streams in Gauteng By GAIL ANDREWS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in AQUATIC HEALTH in the FACULTY OF SCIENCE at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG SUPERVISOR: DR AMINA NEL CO-SUPERVISOR: MR LESLIE HOY JUNE 2018 TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES ix ABBREVIATIONS x TERMS xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xiv ABSTRACT xv CHAPTER - GENERAL INTRODUCTION 16 1.1 Introduction 16 1.2 Hypothesis 21 1.3 Aims 21 1.4 Objectives 22 1.5 Study overview 22 CHAPTER - LITERATURE REVIEW 24 2.1 Introduction 24 2.2 Bio-assessment for stream habitat quality 25 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.3 Disturbances to in-streams habitat from Below Ground Bulk Water Pipelines (BGBWPL) 37 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4 Rand Water Below Ground Bulk Water Pipeline (BGBWPL) 41 Methodology of installing pipelines 42 Rehabilitation after construction and maintenance 43 Description of the study area 44 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 Water quality against guidelines and standards 26 Macro-invertebrates using SASS-5 26 Habitat assessment 33 The Rapid Habitat Assessment Method (RHAM) (DWAF, 2009) 34 Visual assessment approaches 36 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) visual based assessments of river habitat integrity (Barbour et al., 1999) 36 Visual Biotopes assessment for macro-invertebrate habitat/ Integrated Habitat Assessment (IHAS) (McMillan, 1998) 37 Topography and Geology 47 Climate 49 Vegetation 49 Conclusion from the literature review 50 CHAPTER – MATERIALS AND METHODS 54 3.1 Introduction 54 3.2 Primary objectives and approach of the study methods and materials design 54 3.3 Sampling sites 56 3.4 Bio-assessment tools 66 3.4.1 Water quality 66 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 Description of the water clarity tube: 67 Macro-invertebrate analysis using the South African Scoring System version SASS-5 (Dickens and Graham, 2002) 68 Rapid Habitat Assessment Method (RHAM) (DWAF, 2009) 71 Figure 3.24: The use of a velocity flow plank (VFP) Depth measurement using the VFP parallel to flow (source, G Andrews, October 2017) 73 Visual Bio-assessment methods 73 CHAPTER - RESULTS 78 4.2 In situ Water quality parameters analysis 78 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 pH 78 Temperature 78 Dissolves oxygen (DO) 80 Total dissolved Solids (TDS) 80 Clarity 80 4.2 South African Scoring System version (SASS-5) 81 4.2.1 4.2.1.1 4.2.1.2 4.2.1.3 4.2.2 4.2.2.1 4.2.2.2 4.2.2.3 4.2.3 4.2.3.1 4.2.3.2 4.2.3.3 4.2.4 4.2.4.1 4.2.4.2 4.2.4.3 4.3 Rapid Habitat Assessment Method for rivers (RHAM) 87 4.3.1 4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 4.3.1.3 4.3.2 4.3.2.1 4.3.2.2 4.3.2.3 4.4 Composition of macro-invertebrates 81 Site 1: Composition of macro-invertebrates 81 Site 2: Composition of macro-invertebrates 82 Site 3: Composition of macro-invertebrates 82 Spatial trends 82 Site 1: spatial trends 82 Site 2: spatial trends 82 Site 3: spatial trends 83 Temporal trends Error! Bookmark not defined Site 1: Temporal trends Error! Bookmark not defined Site 2: Temporal trends Error! Bookmark not defined Site 3: Temporal trends Error! Bookmark not defined Biotopes 85 Site 1: Biotope results 85 Site 2: Biotope results 85 Site 3: Biotope results 85 Temporal changes in velocity flow classes 87 Site 1: RHAM velocity class composition results 90 Site 2: RHAM velocity class composition results 90 Site 3: RHAM velocity class composition results 90 Substrate composition 90 Site 1: RHAM substrate composition results 92 Site 2: RHAM substrate composition results 92 Site 3: RHAM substrate composition results 95 Visual Bio-assessment methods 95 4.4.1 US EPA visual tool 95 4.4.1.1 4.4.1.2 4.4.1.3 4.4.1.3.1 4.4.1.3.2 4.4.1.3.3 US EPA spatial changes 95 US EPA temporal changes 95 US EPA tool results at the different sites 95 Site 1: US EPA 96 Site 1: US EPA 96 Site 1: US EPA 96 4.4.2 IHAS visual tool 97 4.4.2.1 IHAS spatial changes 97 4.4.2.2 IHAS temporal changes 97 4.4.2.2.1 Site 1: IHAS 98 4.4.2.2.2 Site 1: IHAS 98 4.4.2.2.3 Site 2: IHAS 99 4.4.2.2.4 Site 3: IHAS 99 CHAPTER – DISCUSSION 101 5.1 In-situ Water quality parameters 101 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 pH 101 Temperature 102 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 102 Dissolved oxygen (DO) 103 Clarity 104 Summary remarks on in situ water quality 104 5.2 South African Scoring System version (SASS-5) 104 5.2.1 5.2.1.1 5.2.1.2 5.2.1.3 5.2.2 5.2.2.1 5.2.2.2 5.2.2.3 5.2.3 Composition of macro-invertebrates 104 Site one Composition of macro-invertebrates 105 Site Two Composition of macro-invertebrates 106 Site three Composition of macro-invertebrates 107 Spatial and temporal trends across sites 107 Site biotope discussion: 109 Site biotope discussion: 111 Site biotope discussion: 114 Summary remarks on SASS-5 for bio-assessment monitoring 115 5.3 Rapid Habitat Assessment Method for rivers (RHAM) 116 5.3.1 Velocity class composition observations 116 5.3.1.1 Site (RHAM) velocity classes composition 117 5.3.1.2 Site (RHAM) velocity classes composition 117 5.3.1.3 Site (RHAM) velocity classes composition 118 5.3.2 Substrates composition observation 118 5.3.2.1 Site (RHAM) substrate composition 119 5.3.2.2 Site 2(RHAM) substrate composition 119 5.3.2.3 Site (RHAM) substrate composition 119 5.3.3 Temporal observations of substrate compositions 120 5.3.4 Concluding remarks on RHAM 120 5.4 Visual Bio-assessment methods 120 5.4.1 (US EPA) United States environmental protection agency 121 5.4.1.1 Site US EPA 121 5.4.1.2 Site US EPA 122 5.4.1.3 Site US EPA 122 5.4.2 Summary remarks on US EPA 123 5.4.3 (IHAS) visual bio-assessment discussion 123 5.4.3.1 Site IHAS 127 5.4.3.2 Site IHAS 127 5.4.3.3 Site IHAS 128 5.4.4 Summary remarks on IHAS 128 CHAPTER – CONCLUSION 129 6.1 Conclusion and recommendations 129 6.2 Aims 129 6.3 Objectives 131 6.4 Hypothesis 132 6.5 Recommendations 133 References 136 Annexures 169 Annexure A: In-situ Water Quality 169 The following Extracts from the: SOUTH AFRICAN WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES, Volume 7: Aquatic Ecosystems, First Edition, 1996 Are provided as further information to interpreted the data 169 Annexure B: SASS-5 172 Annexure B: ITEM Extracts from : The South African Scoring System (SASS) Version Rapid Bio-assessment Method for Rivers (Dickens and Graham, 2002) are provided for further clarification on sampling method 172 Annexure B: ITEM The river health program, DWAAF, WRC, DEAT, SASS-5 official field sheet 176 Annexure C: RHAM 181 Annexure C: ITEM RHAM spread sheet 183 Annexure D: US EPA 188 The US EPA visual-based habitat assessment manual 188 The US EPA visual-based habitat assessment field sheet 188 Annexure E: IHAS 191 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: CONCEPT OF RIVER “HEALTH” (ADAPTED FROM KARR, 1996; MEYER, 1997; BOULTON, 1999) 17 FIGURE 1.2: THE LOCATION OF THE THREE SITES IN TWO TRIBUTARIES OF THE HEADWATERS OF THE KLIP RIVER (GENERATED BY RAND WATER GIS, 2017) 20 FIGURE 2.1: A CONCEPT OF THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH A RIVER BECOMES UNHEALTHY AND WHEN A DISTURBANCE BECOMES UNSUSTAINABLE (MEYER, 1997 ADOPTED FROM KARR, 1999) 24 FIGURE 2: A TYPICAL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION SHOWING RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW), TOPSOIL STRIPPING AND A TRENCH IN WHICH THE PIPE IS BURIED (DESSERUD ET AL., 2010) 42 FIGURE 3: PIPE JACKING UNDER A RIVER (ZOLMAT, 2018) 43 FIGURE 4: DIFFERENT STUDY SITES AND QUATERNARY DRAINAGE REGIONS (GENERATED BY RAND WATER GIS SECTION, 2018) 46 FIGURE 5: SAMPLING SITES AWAY FROM POTENTIAL ACID MINE DRAIN POLLUTION AND SURROUNDING HEAVY INDUSTRIES LOCATED AROUND MINES (ADAPTION FROM WEPENER ET AL., 2015) 47 FIGURE 2.6: A CONTOUR MAP OF THE STUDY AREA (SOURCE, RAND WATER GIS SECTION) 48 FIGURE 2.7: A VEGETATION MAP INDICATING THE THREE SAMPLING SITES (SANBI, 2017) 50 FIGURE 2.8: SUMMARY APPROACH TO BIOMONITORING BGBWPL PRODUCED FROM INFORMATION IN THE LITERATURE REVIEW 52 FIGURE 3.1: SITE 1, (US) VIEW FROM THE ROAD BRIDGE ON COLUMBINE AVE (PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE, N ANDREWS, NOVEMBER 2017) 57 FIGURE 3.2: SITE SUB SITES TRANSECTS AND PIPELINE POSITIONS DELIMITATED (ADAPTED FROM GOOGLE MAPS, OCTOBER 2017) 58 FIGURE 3.3: SITE IN 2008 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROCK MATRICES (SOURCE, G ANDREWS) 58 FIGURE 3.4: SITE2 (US), DEMONSTRATES THE SITE TRANSECT POSITIONS FROM THE UPSTREAM (US) VIEW (SOURCE,, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 59 FIGURE 3.5: SITE (ON), DEPICTING THE SITE TRANSECTS POSITIONS FROM ON THE PIPELINE (ON) (SOURCE,, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 59 FIGURE 3.6: SITE 2(DS), DEPICTING THE SITE TERRAIN AND LOCATION FROM DOWNSTREAM OF THE PIPELINE (DS) (SOURCE,, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 60 FIGURE 3.7: SITE DEMONSTRATES THE SITE LOCATION FROM ABOVE NEAR SILVER A (ON) VIEW (SOURCE, N ANDREWS, NOVEMBER 2017) 60 FIGURE 3.8: SITE SUB SITES TRANSECTS AND PIPELINE POSITIONS DELIMITATED (ADAPTED FROM GOOGLE MAPS, OCTOBER 2017) 61 FIGURE 3.9: SITE 2, CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROCK MATRICES DURING 2008 (SOURCE,, G ANDREWS) 61 FIGURE 3.10: SITE (US) POSITION OF TRANSECTS, (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 62 FIGURE 3.11: SITE (ON) POSITION OF TRANSECTS (SOURCE, N ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 62 FIGURE 3.12: SITE (DS) POSITION OF TRANSECTS LINES (SOURCE, N ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 63 FIGURE 3.13: SITE VIEWED FROM UPSTREAM NEAR DONINGTON DRIVE INDICATING PIPELINE POSITION (SOURCE, N ANDREWS, NOVEMBER 2017) 63 FIGURE 3.14: SITE SUB SITES TRANSECTS AND PIPELINE POSITIONS DELIMITATED (ADAPTED FROM GOOGLE MAPS, OCTOBER 2017 64 FIGURE 3.15: SITE (ON) DETAIL OF CONCRETE ENCASEMENT OVER THE PIPELINE(SOURCE,, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 64 FIGURE 16: SITE (US) POSITION OF TRANSECTS (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) (SOURCE,, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 65 FIGURE 3.17: SITE (ON) POSITION OF TRANSECTS SHOWN IN YELLOW LINES (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 65 FIGURE 3.18: SITE (DS) POSITION OF TRANSECTS (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, JULY 2017) 66 FIGURE 3.19: YSI PRO PLUS MULTI-METER USED TO MONITOR IN SITU WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, 2017) 67 FIGURE 3.20: WATER CLARITY TUBE IN USE (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, 2017) 68 FIGURE 3.21: EQUIPMENT USED FOR SASS-5 SAMPLING INCLUDE: A) BAGS AND CONTAINERS, B) BOOTS, C) NET, D) TRAY, E) STOP WATCH, F) MAGNIFYING LENSES AND G) MICROSCOPE 69 FIGURE 3.22: A DEMONSTRATION OF SASS-5 SAMPLING OF THE BIOTOPES STONE INCURRENT (SIC) AND GRAVEL, SAND AND MUD (GSM) (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, OCTOBER 2017) 70 3.4.5 FIGURE 3.24: THE USE OF A VELOCITY FLOW PLANK (VFP) DEPTH MEASUREMENT USING THE VFP PARALLEL TO FLOW (SOURCE, G ANDREWS, OCTOBER 2017) 73 FIGURE 23: A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF SITE 1, ON (NOT TO SCALE), AND A CORRESPONDING DELINEATED TRANSECTS AND NUMBER NOTATION 74 FIGURE 4.1: SASS-5 PARAMETERS WITHIN SUB SITES – UPSTREAM (US) ON THE PIPELINE (ON) AND DOWNSTREAM (DS) ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED FIGURE 4.2: SASS-5 SCORES WITHIN BIOTOPES (STONES (S), VEGETATION (VEG), GRAVEL SAND AND MUD (GSM)) 86 FIGURE 4.4: SITE 1:1ST AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD SHOWING THE SPATIAL TEMPORAL COMPOSITIONS OF THE VARIOUS WATER VELOCITY CLASSES AT DIFFERENT SUB SITES IN THE RIVER 89 FIGURE 4.5: SITE 1:TEMPORAL CHANGES IN THE PERCENTAGE PROPORTION OF WATER VELOCITY CLASSES BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIODS AT SITE 91 FIGURE 4.6: SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION ON SITE 93 FIGURE 4.7: TEMPORAL CHANGES IN SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION AT SITE 1, AND 394 FIGURE 4.8: COMPARATIVE DATA FROM IHAS AND US EPA FOR 1ST AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD 100 FIGURE 5.1: SUBSTRATE COMPOSITIONS FROM SITE 1, ON, DURING THE 1ST SAMPLING PERIOD (A) AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD (B) USING THE RHAM METHOD DISPLAYED THE DOMINANT SAND BIOTOPE IN SITE 111 FIGURE 5.2: SUBSTRATE COMPOSITIONS FROM SITE ON (1ST (A) AND 2ND (B) SAMPLING PERIODS) USING THE RHAM METHOD DISPLAYED THE DOMINANT COBBLE/STONE BIOTOPE AT SITE 112 FIGURE 5.3: 1ST AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD DATA, OVERLAY OF VISUAL METHODS SASS-5 TAXA AND SASS SCORES 125 FIGURE 5.4: SASS-5 TAXON WITHIN BIOTOPES STONES (S), VEGETATION (VEG), GRAVEL SAND AND MUD (GSM) AND SUB SITES (UPSTREAM (US), ON THE PIPELINE (ON) AND DOWNSTREAM (DS)) INCLUDING INSTREAM VISUAL ASSESSMENT (IHAS) 126 ANNEXURE C: FIGURE DIAGRAM OF A CROSS-SECTION INDICATE THE POSITIONS FOR TAKING READINGS ALONG THE LINE (SOURCE, DWAF., 2009) 181 ANNEXURE C: FIGURE 2: GUIDELINE ON SPACING CROSS-SECTION FOR DATA COLLECTION (SOURCE, DWAF., 2009) 182 ANNEXURE C: FIGURE DIAGRAM OF AN EXAMPLE OF THE SPACING OF CROSS SECTIONS (SOURCE, DWAF., 2009) 182 ANNEXURE C: FIGURE 1ST SAMPLING, ALL SITES AND SUB SITES SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL COMPARATIVE VELOCITY CLASSES 184 ANNEXURE C: FIGURE SUBSTRATE COMPOSITIONS USING RHAM METHOD FOR SITE ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED ANNEXURE C: FIGURE SUBSTRATE COMPOSITIONS USING RHAM METHOD FOR SITE 186 ANNEXURE C:: FIGURE SUBSTRATE COMPOSITIONS USING RHAM METHOD FOR SITE 187 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1: WATER QUALITY VARIABLES IN THE AQUATIC LANDSCAPE 30 TABLE 2.2: POTENTIAL VISUAL OBSERVATION AND HOW IT RELATES TO HABITAT INTEGRITY 35 TABLE 2.3: THE US EPA HABITAT RESPONSE VISUAL PARAMETERS AND BGBWPL (ADAPTED FROM BARBOUR ET AL., 1999) 40 TABLE 3.1: ATTRIBUTES OF THE THREE SAMPLING SITES 55 TABLE 4.1: IN SITU WATER QUALITY RESULTS FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD (SP), WITH THE RELEVANT TARGET WATER QUALITY RANGE (TWQR) OF THE WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS (WQG/AE), (DWAF, 1996) 79 TABLE 4.2: SUMMARY OF SASS-5 RESULTS FROM THE 1ST AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD 83 TABLE 4.3: SASS-5 TEMPORAL CHANGES BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED TABLE 4.4: FIRST SAMPLING PERIOD VELOCITY FLOW CLASSES 88 TABLE 4.5: SECOND SAMPLING VELOCITY FLOW CLASSES 88 TABLE 4.6: TEMPORAL DIFFERENCES OF VELOCITY CLASSES BETWEEN THE 1ST SAMPLING PERIOD AND THE 2ND SAMPLING PERIOD (*RED FIGURES ARE NEGATIVE VALUES.) 88 TABLE 4.7: US EPA RESULTS ON SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION 96 TABLE 4.8: IHAS RESULTS ON SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION 97 TABLE 4.9: INTEGRATED HABITAT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (IHAS) ADAPTED FROM MCMILLAN (1998) 98 Annexure B: Table Annexure B: Table Annexure B: Table SASS-5 Field Sheet…………………………… …157 1st and 2nd sampling list of macro-invertebrates encounter indicating sensitivity scores, (Adapted from Gerber and Gabriel 2002)…………….……………158 Data collected during the 1st SASS-5 sampling, only listing applicable taxa (Adapted Dickens and Graham, 2002)………………………………………159 Annexure B: Table Data collected during the 2nd SASS-5 sampling, only listing applicable taxa (Adapted Dickens and Graham, 2002)……………………………… …….160 Annexure D: Table Annexure D: Table Annexure E: Table Extract from field data sheet of US EPA…………168 :US EPA results for 1st and 2nd sampling period 170 IHA results for 1st and 2nd sampling period……………171 ABBREVIATIONS ANZECC Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council ASPT Average Score per Taxon BGBWPL Below Ground Bulk Water Pipelines BGIS Biodiversity Geo-referenced information CMA’s Catchment Management Agencies DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DO Dissolved oxygen DS Downstream DWAF Department of Water and Forestry DWAS Department of Water and Sanitation EI Ecological Infrastructure EPA Environmental Protection EU European Union GIS Geographic Information System GSM Gravel Sand and Mud MEPC Ministry of Environmental Conservation of China NEMA South Africa National Environmental Management Act NWA National Water Act OEH The Australian Office of Environment and Heritage ON On the pipeline footprint PDA Primary Drainage Area QDA Quaternary Drainage Area RBPs Rapid Bio-assessment Protocols RHAM Rapid Habitat Assessment Method S Stones SA South Africa SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SASS-5 South African Scoring System Version TDS Total dissolved Solids TWQR Target Water Quality Range US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency US Upstream Annexure B: Table Annexures SASS-5 Field Sheet 177 1st and 2nd sampling list of macro-invertebrates encounter indicating sensitivity scores, (Adapted from Gerber and Gabriel 2002) Annexure B: Table SENSITIVITY RANKING (source Gerber and Gabriel 2002) KEY Very low toleance to pollution 11-15 Moderat tolerance to polution Observations unique to that sampling QV Quality value of sinsitivity to polution 6-10 High tolerance to pollution 1-5 1st SAMPLING 2nd SAMPLING Table ranking macro invertabrates collected Table ranking macro invertabrates collected QV 8 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 Order 11 Orders Annexures Family COLEOPTERA (Beetles) Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles) EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) Baetidae sp EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) Caenidae (Squaregills/Cainfles) GASTROPODA (Snails) Ancylidae (Limpets) PORIFERA (Sponge) PORIFERA (Sponge) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) Gerridae* (Pond skaters/Water striders) COLEOPTERA (Beetles) Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving beetles) COLEOPTERA (Beetles) Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles) COLEOPTERA (Beetles) Hydrophilidae* (Water scavenger beetles) DIPTERA (Flies) Simuliidae (Blackflies) DIPTERA (Flies) Tipulidae (Crane flies) DIPTERA (Flies) Tipulidae (Crane flies) EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) Baetidae 1sp ODONATA (Dragonflies & DamselfliesCoenagrionidae (Sprites and blues) ODONATA (Dragonflies & DamselfliesLibellulidae (Darters/Skimmers) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) Pleidae* (Pygmy backswimmers) TRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies) Hydropsychidae sp TURBELLARIA (Flatworms) TURBELLARIA (Flatworms) ANNELIDA Hirudinea (Leeches) CRUSTACEA Potamonautidae* (Crabs) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) Belostomatidae* (Giant water bugs) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) Corixidae* (Water boatmen) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) Notonectidae* (Backswimmers) GASTROPODA (Snails) Lymnaeidae* (Pond snails) GASTROPODA (Snails) Physidae* (Pouch snails) GASTROPODA (Snails) Planorbinae* (Orb snails) DIPTERA (Flies) Chironomidae (Midges) ANNELIDA Oligochaeta (Earthworms) DIPTERA (Flies) Culicidae* (Mosquitoes) DIPTERA (Flies) Muscidae (House flies, Stable flies) QV Order 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 COLEOPTERA (Beetles) EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) GASTROPODA (Snails) PORIFERA (Sponge) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) COLEOPTERA (Beetles) COLEOPTERA (Beetles) COLEOPTERA (Beetles) DIPTERA (Flies) EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies) ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) TRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies) TURBELLARIA (Flatworms) ANNELIDA CRUSTACEA HEMIPTERA (Bugs) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) HEMIPTERA (Bugs) GASTROPODA (Snails) GASTROPODA (Snails) GASTROPODA (Snails) DIPTERA (Flies) ANNELIDA DIPTERA (Flies) DIPTERA (Flies) 11 Orders Family Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles) Caenidae (Squaregills/Cainfles) Ancylidae (Limpets) PORIFERA (Sponge) Gerridae* (Pond skaters/Water striders) Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving beetles) Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles) Hydrophilidae* (Water scavenger beetle Simuliidae (Blackflies) Baetidae 1sp Coenagrionidae (Sprites and blues) Libellulidae (Darters/Skimmers) Pleidae* (Pygmy backswimmers) Hydropsychidae sp TURBELLARIA (Flatworms) Hirudinea (Leeches) Potamonautidae* (Crabs) Belostomatidae* (Giant water bugs) Corixidae* (Water boatmen) Notonectidae* (Backswimmers) Lymnaeidae* (Pond snails) Physidae* (Pouch snails) Planorbinae* (Orb snails) Chironomidae (Midges) Oligochaeta (Earthworms) Muscidae (House flies, Stable flies) Psychodidae (Moth flies) 27 Families 30 Families 178 Data collected during the 1st SASS-5 sampling, only listing applicable taxa (Adapted Dickens Annexure B: Table and Graham, 2002) SITE ONE US QV PORIFERA (Sponge) TURBELLARIA (Flatworms) Oligochaeta (Earthworms) Hirudinea (Leeches) Potamonautidae* (Crabs) Baetidae sp Caenidae (Squaregills/Cainfl Coenagrionidae (Sprites and Libellulidae (Darters/Skimme 6 4 Belostomatidae* (Giant water Corixidae* (Water boatmen) Gerridae* (Pond skaters/Wa Notonectidae* (Backswimme Pleidae* (Pygmy backswimm 3 Hydropsychidae sp A B DS US ON DS US A A A B A B A B 1 B C B C B B A A A B A A B B A A A B 1 A B A B A B B B A A A B B B B B A B C B B B B B B B C B B A B A ON DS A A A A A 1 B A A A A A A A A B B B B B A B A A B A B B A A A A Chironomidae (Midges) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B A B A A A A A A A A B B A A B C B B A A B A A A A 1 A B A A A A A A A B C A A A A A 1 A B A B A B B A A B B A B A B B B B A A A A B C B B B B A C B C A A B A A B C A A B B A A Culicidae* (Mosquitoes) Muscidae (House flies, Stable Simuliidae (Blackflies) Tipulidae (Crane flies) 3 A B Ancylidae (Limpets) Lymnaeidae* (Pond snails) Physidae* (Pouch snails) Planorbinae* (Orb snails) ON S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT S VegGSMTOT A A A A ` A A Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle b Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles Hydrophilidae* (Water scave SITE THREE B A B A B B B A A A A A A B A A A A A A B B B B B B B QV + the sensitivity score as per (Adapted from Gerber and Gabriel 2002) Red figures indicate hand picking Annexures 179 Annexure B: Table Data collected during the 2nd SASS-5 sampling, only listing applicable taxa (Adapted Dickens and Graham, 2002) *QV + the sensitivity score as per (Adapted from Gerber and Gabriel 2002) Red figures indicate hand picking Annexures 180 Annexure C: RHAM Annexure C: ITEM Extracts from: The Rapid Habitat Assessment Method (RHAM) Manual, Collecting data from cross-sections Habitat data must be collected at the cross-sections Essential habitat for instream biota requires the following to be measured: Depth Velocity Substrate Cover To take across-section measurement (Annexure C: Figure 1)a, depth measurements at the cross-section points Velocity and substrate must be measured as well as any instream cover features a Transparent Velocity Head Rod (Fonstad, et al 2005) is used to records the velocity Equipment required to measure cross-section-habitat are, Velocity Rod or flow meter; Depth rod (can use the Velocity Rod to measure depth) Annexure C: Figure Diagram of a cross-section indicate the positions for taking readings along the line (source, DWAF., 2009) Annexures 181 Annexure C: Figure Guideline on spacing cross-section for data collection (source, DWAF., 2009) The spacing of the cross section is explained in Annexure C: Figure and also in Annexure C: Figure Annexure C: Figure Diagram of an example of the spacing of cross sections (source, DWAF., 2009) Annexures 182 Annexure C: ITEM RHAM spread sheet RHAM spreadsheet Annexures 183 US 80 On 60 DS 40 20 DS On Slow Percentage flow class 80 On 60 DS 40 20 DS On Very Slow Very Fast Slow US 100 80 On 60 DS 40 DS 20 On On 60 40 DS 20 DS On US Fast Slow Very Fast Temporal comparison of water velocity at different samplings 100 1st Sampling 80 60 2nd Sampling 40 20 Very Slow Slow Fast Velocity flow classes Annexure C: Figure Annexures 20 DS On Fast Very Fast 100 On 60 DS 40 20 DS On Very Slow 2nd Sampling 40 20 Slow Fast Velocity flow classes Slow US Fast Velocity flow classes 1st Sampling Very Fast US Very Fast 80 60 Fast 80 US Temporal comparison of water velocity at different samplings Very Slow Slow US 2nd SAMPLING: Spatial proportion of water velocity at different sub sites in the river 100 Velocity flow classes Percentage flow class Percentage flow class Velocity flow classes DS 40 Very Fast US Very Slow On 60 Velocity flow classes 80 US 80 Very Slow 2nd SAMPLING: Spatial proportion of water velocity at different sub sites in the river 100 1st SAMPLING:Spatial proportion of water velocity at different sub sites in the river 100 US Fast Velocity flow classes 2nd SAMPLING: Spatial proportions of water velocity at different sub sites in the river Slow US US Fast Velocity flow classes Very Slow 100 Percentage flow class Very Slow 1st SAMPLING: Spatial proportion of water velocity at different sub sites in the river Percentage flow class 100 Percentage flow class Percentage flow class 1st SAMPLING: Spatial proportion of water velocity at different sub sites in the river SITE Percentage flow class SITE Percentage flow class SITE Very Fast Temporal comparison of water velocity at different samplings 1st Sampling 100 80 2nd Sampling 60 40 20 Very Slow Slow Fast Very Fast Very Fast Velocity flow classes 1st sampling, all sites and sub sites Spatial and temporal comparative velocity classes 184 Site 1, 1st sampling period: Upstream 5% 5% 5% Site 1, 2nd sampling period: _Upstream 11% 4% 2% 5% 1% 1% 6% GRAVEL, 26% 9% 9% 16% 9% BEDRO CK, 43% 6% 16% 5% COBBLE, 16% On the pipeline On the pipeline 1% 2% 13% 14% 5% 16% 18% 5% 10% 2% 1% 2% 21% 7% 15% 16% 13% 13% 20% 6% Downstream Downstream 5% 9% 7% 8% 4% 1% 5% 5% 8% 11% 4% 3% 5% 13% 25% 6% 13% 18% 7% 10% 15% 18% Annexure C: Figure Substrate compositions using RHAM method for site Annexures 185 Site 2, 1st sampling period: Upstream Site 2nd sampling period: _Upstream 2% 3% Algae, 23% 8% 14% 14% 13% 13% Sand, 29% 19% On the pipeline :Algae, 19% 16% On the pipeline 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 10% 13% 3% 3% 3% 7% 12% 3% 2% 6% Algae, 21% 11% Sand, 27% 3% 1% Bed rock, 9% 9% Bed rock, 11% Cobble 37% Downstream Cobble, 29% Downstream 3% 16% 5% 3% 5% 16% 11% 14% 2% 6% 2% 10% 6% 13% 4% 2% 10% 13% Fines, 25% 4% 8% 0% Site 3, 1st sampling period _Upstream Annexure C: Figure Annexures Cobbles , 22% Site 2nd sampling period _Upstream Substrate compositions using RHAM method for site 186 6% 7% 12% 3% 7% 2% 25% 12% 9% 26% 15% 12% 19% 8% 20% On the pipeline On the pipeline 0% 19% 15% 2% 1% 1% 12% 1% 3% 21% 31% 9% 18% 7% 9% 2% 11% 8% 1% 1% 11% Downstream 25% 9% Downstream 4% 1% 3% 2% 4% 12% 26% 23% 35% 16% 7% 16% 1% 5% 5% Annexure C:: Figure Annexures 7% 15% 2% 2% 14% Substrate compositions using RHAM method for site 187 Annexure D: US EPA The US EPA visual-based habitat assessment manual Please Refer to: 5.2., in the Rapid Bio-assessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition (Barbour et al., 1999) The US EPA visual-based habitat assessment field sheet Annexure D: Table Annexures Extract from field data sheet of US EPA 188 Annexure D Table Continued (Source, chapter 5.2 of rapid biomonitoring protocols by Barbour et al., 1999) Annexures 189 Annexure D: Table :US EPA results for 1st and 2nd sampling period 1st sampling: 1st sampling: 1st sampling: 2nd sampling: 2nd sampling: 2nd sampling: Site Site Site Site Site Site US ON DS US ON DS US ON DS US ON DS US ON DS US ON DS Epifaunal Substrate/ 15 16 15 10 15 10 16 15 16 15 10 15 10 16 Available Cover Embeddedness 10 15 16 20 18 10 12 16 10 15 16 20 16 10 16 3.Velocity/Depth 11 8 10 8 10 13 17 11 8 10 8 10 13 17 regime Sediment Deposition 15 13 16 12 15 10 10 10 18 14 10 12 12 17 10 10 10 15 Channel Flow Status 13 12 16 12 18 13 13 16 13 12 14 12 18 13 13 16 Channel Alteration 14 15 10 12 13 16 14 10 15 10 12 13 16 Frequency of Riffles 15 17 16 14 16 10 15 15 17 16 14 16 10 15 (or bends) Bank Stability per 10 16 19 15 17 14 10 5 10 16 19 15 17 14 10 5 bank Bank Stability per bank 9.Vegetative Protection 6 6 7 6 per bank 9.Vegetative Protection 6 6 7 6 per bank 10 Riparian Vegetative 8 5 8 5 Zone 10 Riparian Vegetative 6 5 8 5 Zone Score 133 116 144 112 109 140 105 106 145 132 118 144 112 111 138 105 102 142 EPA Habitat score in 67 58 72 56 55 70 53 53 73 66 59 72 56 56 69 53 51 71 % Annexures 190 Annexure E: IHAS Annexure E: Table IHA results for 1st and 2nd sampling period 1st sampling period Annexures 2nd sampling period 191 .. .A review of two rapid in stream habitat bio-assessments to evaluate surface aquatic impacts from bulk water pipelines in different streams in Gauteng By GAIL ANDREWS A dissertation submitted... physicochemical and habitat characteristics on a temporal and spatial scale that are comparable to the characteristics of natural habitats of the region (Kleynhans, 1996) Water quality along with habitat. .. runs of high gradient streams (Table 2.3) (Barbour et al., 1999) CHANNEL ALTERATION Is a measure of large-scale changes in the shape of the stream channel Many streams in urban and agricultural areas