sonae novobord white river biomonitoring – winter 2016 water monitoring...

Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring – Winter 2016

Report Prepared for

Sonae Novobord (Pty) Ltd

Report Number 489988/06/16

Report Prepared by

June 2016

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring – June 2016 Page i

VARS/WODA 484436_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring_June 2016_Final.docx June 2016

Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring – Winter 2016

Sonae Novobord (Pty) Ltd Heidelberg Road Rocky’s Drift White River 1240

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd 265 Oxford Rd Illovo 2196 Johannesburg South Africa

e-mail: [email protected] website: www.srk.co.za

Tel: +27 (0) 11 441 1111 Fax: +27 (0) 11 880 8086

SRK Project Number 489988

June 2016

Compiled by: Reviewed by:

Suzanne van Rooy Pr.Sci.Nat Senior Environmental Scientist

Dr Andrew Wood Partner

Email: [email protected]

http://www.srk.co.za/

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring – June 2016 Page ii


Executive Summary Introduction

Sonae Novobord White River obtained a Water Use Licence (WUL) from the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) (now known as the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)) in 2009. This licence stipulates Sonae Novobord to institute a biomonitoring programme which includes a habitat assessment and the sampling of aquatic macro invertebrates, using the rapid method as described by DWS, to assess the possible impact on aquatic life of Sonae Novobord’s stormwater outflow into the tributary of the Sand River.

Biomonitoring as part of the fulfilment of the WUL conditions has been undertaken bi-annually by SRK Consulting (SRK) since March 2010. This report contains the results of the biomonitoring undertaken of the tributary of the Sand River during the winter season during June 2016. It also includes the results of the toxicity testing undertaken and aims to address the requirements as stipulated in the WUL that was issued to Sonae Novobord.

Biomonitoring

During the biomonitoring study in June 2016 three monitoring sites were assessed that have been monitored since March 2010. These monitoring points have been chosen to assess the impact of Sonae Novobord White River’s stormwater detention pond and wetland system release into the tributary of the Sand River.

Results and Conclusion

• The water quality of the Sonae Novobord White River outflow is suitable to support aquatic life as is evident from the presence of aquatic invertebrates downstream of the outflow;

• The water quality results indicate that the release has, in general, higher concentration values than the upstream monitoring point, however, in almost all of the parameters measured, the values return to the upstream quality at the downstream monitoring point;

• Toxicity screen results indicate that the outflow into the tributary of the Sand River presents no acute or chronic hazard to the tributary, and acute testing is not required at this stage;

• Based on the IHAS and SASS5 results, biotic integrity in the tributary is naturally poor due to the inadequate availability of habitat for aquatic macro invertebrates, due the limited stones biotope and recent disturbance to the site by external parties;

• The biotic integrity of the aquatic environment in the tributary of the Sand River is low but this is associated with a lack of the necessary biotopes to ensure a healthy and thriving ecosystem, and not due Sonae Novobord’s outflow into the tributary.

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring – June 2016 Page iii


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction and Scope of Report ............................................................................... 6

1.1 Introduction and scope of report ......................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Project team ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2 Background to Sonae Novobord’s operation ............................................................ 7

3 Location ........................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Regional location ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Water management area .................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Ecoregions .......................................................................................................................................... 7

4 Biomonitoring methodology ..................................................................................... 10

4.1 Background to biomonitoring ............................................................................................................ 10

4.2 Biomonitoring sample sites ............................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Biomonitoring methodology .............................................................................................................. 14 4.3.1 Water quality ......................................................................................................................... 14

4.3.2 Toxicity testing ....................................................................................................................... 14

4.3.3 Invertebrate habitat assessment ........................................................................................... 14

4.3.4 Aquatic macro-invertebrates ................................................................................................. 15

5 Results and discussion ............................................................................................. 16

5.1 Water quality ..................................................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Toxicity testing .................................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Invertebrate habitat assessment ....................................................................................................... 21

5.4 Aquatic macro-invertebrates ............................................................................................................. 21

6 Conclusion and recommendation ............................................................................. 23

7 References .................................................................................................................. 25

Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A: Water quality results ............................................................................... 27

Appendix B: Toxicity test results ................................................................................. 28

Appendix C: IHAS scorecard ........................................................................................ 29

Appendix D: SASS5 scorecard ..................................................................................... 30

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring – June 2016 Page iv


List of Tables Table 1-1: Project team for Sonae Novobord biomonitoring .............................................................................. 6

Table 3-1: Main attributes of the North Eastern Highlands ecoregion ............................................................... 7

Table 4-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring site description and coordinates .................................................. 10

Table 4-2: Toxicity classification for screening tests (undiluted samples) ........................................................ 14

Table 4-3: Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (Version 2) .................................................................... 15

Table 4-4: Modelled reference condition for the North Eastern Highlands Upper zone ................................... 15 Table 5-1: Sonae Novobord water quality results – June 2016 ....................................................................... 17

Table 5-2: Sonae Novobord toxicity test results – June 2016 .......................................................................... 20

Table 5-3: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical toxicity results ............................................................... 20

Table 5-4: Sonae Novobord biomonitoring IHAS results (monitoring point C) ................................................. 21

Table 5-5: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C .......................... 21

List of Figures Figure 3-1: Regional location of Sonae Novobord ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 3-2: Ecoregions of South Africa ............................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4-1: Sonae Novobord monitoring points – June 2016 ........................................................................... 11

Figure 4-2: Monitoring point A .......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4-3: Monitoring point B .......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4-4: Monitoring point C .......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4-5: Guidelines used to delineate the Present Ecological State (PES) categories in term of SASS5 biomonitoring results .................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 5-1: Sonae Novobord historic water quality results: March 2010 - June 2016 ..................................... 19

Figure 5-2: Sonae Novobord biomonitoring historic SASS5 results (monitoring point SN C) .......................... 22

Figure 5-3: Freshwater shrimps (Atydiae) ........................................................................................................ 22

Figure 5-4: Minutes moss beetles (Hydraenidae) ............................................................................................ 23

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring – June 2016 Page v


List of Abbreviations

ASPT Average Score Per Taxa

DWA Department of Water Affairs

DWS Department of Water and Sanitation

EC Electrical conductivity

IHAS Integrated Habitat Assessment System

mamsl metres above mean sea level

NWA National Water Act

PES Present Ecological State

SANS South African National Standards

SASS5 South African Scoring System Version 5

TDS Total dissolved solids

WUL Water Use Licence

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring – June 2016 Page 6


1 Introduction and Scope of Report 1.1 Introduction and scope of report

SRK Consulting South Africa (Pty) Ltd was requested by Mr. Peter Viljoen of Sonae Novobord to undertake the bi-annual biomonitoring for its operation near White River, Mpumalanga Province. Sonae Novobord White River (Sonae Novobord) is a wood based panel producer and forms part of the Sonae Industria Group. The company manufactures particle-board, medium density fibreboard, veneer faced board and distributes high pressure laminates and laminated flooring.

Sonae Novobord was granted a Water Use Licence (WUL) by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) (now known as the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)) on 17 July 2009 (Licence No. 24000091) in terms of the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA).

The WUL authorises Sonae Novobord to undertake the following activities:

• Taking water from a water resource (boreholes);

• Storing of water (in steel galvanised tanks);

• Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource (storage of dirty stormwater in two sumps and thereafter into the four wetland dams); and

• Discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource (discharge dirty stormwater into the unnamed tributary of the Sand River).

Annexure IV Section 4.4 of the WUL states that the licensee must establish a monitoring programme for invertebrate habitat assessment and aquatic macro invertebrates by using the latest rapid habitat integrity method and South African Scoring System method respectively.

In addition, Annexure IV Section 4.5 of the WUL states that toxicity testing should be performed on the stormwater discharge, including at least three taxonomic groups.

Biomonitoring and toxicity testing as part of the fulfilment of the WUL conditions has been undertaken bi-annually since March 2010. This report aims to address the requirements as stipulated in Annexure IV of the WUL that was issued to Sonae Novobord.

This report contains the results of the biomonitoring and toxicity testing undertaken in the unnamed tributary of the Sand River during the winter season in June 2016 by Ms Suzanne van Rooy, a registered natural scientist, and Ms Selma Nel, an accredited SASS5 practitioner of SRK.

1.2 Project team The project team is shown in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Project team for Sonae Novobord biomonitoring

Team member Role Qualifications

Dr Andrew Wood Project partner, technical reviewer PhD, Pollution Control

Ms Suzanne van Rooy Project manager, field work, reporting BSc Hons Aquatic Health MPhil Environmental Management Pr.Sci.Nat

Ms Selma Nel Field work MA Environmental Management, SASS5 practitioner



2 Background to Sonae Novobord’s operation Stormwater arising on the Sonae Novobord operational areas is drained to a stormwater detention dam and wetland system (with four dams) that was established within the Sonae Novobord site to assist in the balancing of peak stormwater flows and quality discharging to the environment. This outflow is discharged at specific point into an unnamed tributary of the Sand River. The detention dam and wetland system provides some quality management provided by the biological, physical and chemical activity within the pond and wetland components.

3 Location 3.1 Regional location

Sonae Novobord White River is located approximately 12 km north of Nelspruit on the R40 towards White River in the Mpumalanga Province. Refer to Figure 3-1 for an indication of the regional location.

3.2 Water management area Sonae Novobord’s White River plant is situated adjacent to an unnamed tributary of the Sand River. The site is situated in the X22F quaternary catchment area that falls within the Inkomati Water Management Area. The Sand River is a tributary to the Sabie River, which is one of the ecologically most important rivers in South Africa (Basson & Rossouw, 2003).

3.3 Ecoregions Ecoregions refer to modelled physiographic areas that are selected on pre-defined regional characteristics, including rainfall, topography and vegetation. An ecoregion is therefore an area with similar physical characteristics, and is expected to support a unique combination of flora and fauna (Kleynhans et al, 2005). Refer to Figure 3-2 for an indication of the various ecoregions of South Africa. Sonae Novobord’s White River plant area falls within Ecoregion 4 (North Eastern Highlands).

North Eastern Highlands: This ecoregion is a mountainous area characterised by closed hills and mountains with moderate to high relief and vegetation comprising North-eastern Highveld Grassland and Lowveld Bushveld types. Patches with Afromontane Forest are scattered throughout the region. Generally this ecoregion can be regarded as transitional between the Lowveld and the Northern Escarpment. This region is characterised by moderate to high mean annual precipitation and stream frequency of low/medium to medium high. Refer to Figure 3-2 for an indication of the location of the North Eastern Highlands ecoregion (Ecoregion 4).

The main attributes of the North Eastern Highlands ecoregion are summarised in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Main attributes of the North Eastern Highlands ecoregion

Attribute Description Vegetation types Sour Lowveld Bushveld, North eastern mountain

grassland

Altitude (metres above mean sea level (mamsl)) 300 – 1 3000 mamsl

Mean annual precipitation 400 – 1 000 mm

Rainfall seasonality Early to mid-summer

Mean annual temperature 16 – 22 °C

!.

SONAE NOVOBORD PLANT

31°10'0"E

31°10'0"E

31°5'0"E

31°5'0"E

31°0'0"E

31°0'0"E

30°55'0"E

30°55'0"E

30°50'0"E

30°50'0"E

25°1

5'0"S

25°1

5'0"S

25°2

0'0"S

25°2

0'0"S

25°2

5'0"S

25°2

5'0"S

25°3

0'0"S

25°3

0'0"S

SONAE NOVOBORDREGIONAL LOCALITY MAP 489988Project No. Fig No.

Date:

3-1

Compiled by:

Scale

05/08/2015 LOUA

Datum:Projection:HH94Central Meridian/Zone:

1:200,000

Path: J:\Proj\489988_Sonae_Novobord_Update\8GIS\GISPROJ\MXD\489988_A4_Figure1_Regional_Locality_Updated_05082015.mxd

Data Source:

Revision: A Date: 00 00 2011

¯

Mo z

a mb i

q ue

Mo z

a mb i

q ueZ i m b a b w eZ i m b a b w e

B o t s w a n aB o t s w a n a

N a m i b i aN a m i b i a Study Area

FreeState

LesothoNorthernCape

Western Cape

Gauteng

MpumalangaNorthWest

Limpopo

KwaZulu-Natal

EasternCape

NGI, Municipal DemarcationBoard, SANPARKS

0 5 102.5 Kilometres



Figure 3-2: Ecoregions of South Africa



4 Biomonitoring methodology 4.1 Background to biomonitoring

Bio-monitoring is conducted by measuring and evaluating the change in biological response of aquatic macro invertebrates to the environment. Aquatic macro-invertebrate communities are affected by the following factors:

• Geomorphology (stream bank stability, bed material, biotopes such as stones in and out of current, vegetation and stones, gravel and mud);

• Hydrology (water depth, flow velocity); and

• Water chemistry (pH, salts, nutrients, suspended solids).

Two biological indices are used in order to ascertain the biological health of the river in terms of the macro invertebrates namely the Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS) and the South African Scoring System Version 5 (SASS5).

The site conditions are measured against the Ecoregion as described in Section 3.3.

4.2 Biomonitoring sample sites During the biomonitoring study in June 2016, the three monitoring sites (A to C) were assessed that have been monitored since March 2010. These monitoring points have been chosen previously to assess the impact of Sonae Novobord White River plant’s stormwater detention pond and wetland system release overflow into the unnamed tributary of the Sand River.

Table 4-1 indicates the positions and a description of the monitoring points in relation to Sonae Novobord White River’s plant. Table 4-1 also provides coordinates of each monitoring site, and the type of monitoring undertaken at each site. The monitoring points are shown in Figure 4-1.

Note that monitoring point AA is used in some instances, should monitoring point A be overgrown with reeds and the sampler is unable to take a sample at point A.

It was noted during the fieldwork that monitoring point C has recently been severely disturbed due to the construction of an underground pipeline through the tributary of the Sand River. The construction was undertaken by the local municipality.

Table 4-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring site description and coordinates

Site Coordinates

Site Description Monitoring undertaken South East

SN AA 25°22'26.16" S 30°59'30.33" E Upstream of stormwater

detention pond and wetland system outflow.

None

SN A 25° 22’ 28.7’’ S 30° 59’ 25.8’’ E Upstream of stormwater

detention pond and wetland system outflow

Water Quality Toxicity

SN B 25°22’27.76’’ S 30°59’21.01’’ E Stormwater detention pond and

wetland system outflow Water Quality Toxicity

SN C 25°22’27.18’’ S 30°59’17.19’’ E Downstream of stormwater

detention pond and wetland system outflow

Water Quality Toxicity IHAS & SASS5

Photographs of the monitoring sites were taken at the time of the assessment and are shown in Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-4.

!? !?!?

!?

SONAE NOVOBORD PLANT

Tributary to Sand River

R40

To White River

To Nelspruit

ABC AA

30°59'45"E

30°59'45"E

30°59'30"E

30°59'30"E

30°59'15"E

30°59'15"E

30°59'0"E

30°59'0"E

30°58'45"E

30°58'45"E

25°2

2'15"S

25°2

2'15"S

25°2

2'30"S

25°2

2'30"S

25°2

2'45"S

25°2

2'45"S

Legend!? BioMonitoring Points

River

SONAE NOVOBORDLOCATION OF BIO-MONITORING POINTS 489988Project No. Fig No.

Date:

4-1

Compiled by:

Scale

05/08/2015 LOUA

Datum:Projection:HH94

Google Earth imagery

Central Meridian/Zone:

1:10,000

Path: J:\Proj\489988_Sonae_Novobord_Update\8GIS\GISPROJ\MXD\489988_A4_Figure3_1_BioMonitoring_Points_Updated_05082015.mxd

Data Source:

Revision: A Date: 00 00 2011

¯

0 250 500125 Metres



Figure 4-2: Monitoring point A Figure 4-3: Monitoring point B

Figure 4-4: Monitoring point C

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring – June 2016


4.3 Biomonitoring methodology The following sections details the methodology undertaken during the biomonitoring programme. The field work was undertaken on 14 June 2016 by Ms Suzanne van Rooy and Ms Selma Nel of SRK Consulting.

4.3.1 Water quality Water quality has a direct impact on the aquatic biota in river systems and is therefore important to include as part of a biomonitoring assessment.

Water samples were taken at site A, B and C. The samples were taken to Aquatico Scientific (Pty) Ltd for chemical analysis. A range of elements were analysed for and concentrations compared against the South African National Standards (SANS) 241-1:2011 for Drinking Water, Class I (recommended operational limit) and the standards as prescribed by the WUL.

4.3.2 Toxicity testing Water samples were also undertaken at site A, B and C and taken to Biotox Laboratory Services (Pty) Ltd for toxicity screening tests. These tests included bacteria (Vibrio fischeri), micro-algae (Selenastrum capricornutum), crustaceans (Daphnia magna) and fish (Poecilia reticulata).

Toxicity testing is undertaken in order to possibly predict potential effects of the resident water quality on the environment. The toxicity testing is applied by exposing biota to water sources in order to determine the potential risk of such water to the biota/biological integrity of the receiving water bodies. Table 4-2 indicates the classification for screening tests.

Table 4-2: Toxicity classification for screening tests (undiluted samples)

Class Description Class I No acute hazard – none of the tests shows a toxic effect.

Class II Slight acute hazard – a statistically significant percentage effect is reached in at least one test, but the effect level is below 50%

Class III Acute hazard – the percentage effect level is reached or exceeded in at least one test, but the effect level is below 100%

Class VI High acute hazard – the 100% percentage effect is reached in at least one test

Class V Very high acute hazard – the 100% percentage effect is reached in all the tests

4.3.3 Invertebrate habitat assessment The Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (IHAS, version 2) was applied at each of the sampling sites in order to assess the availability of habitat biotopes for macro invertebrates. The IHAS was developed specifically for use with the SASS5 protocol in South Africa (McMillan, 1998). Table 4-3 describes the IHAS scores and classifications. Three habitat biotopes are evaluated namely:

• Stones (including stones in current, stones out of current);

• Vegetation (including vegetation in current, vegetation out of current and aquatic vegetation); and

• SGM (stones, gravel and mud).



Table 4-3: Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (Version 2)

IHAS Score Description > 65% Good

55-65% Adequate/Fair

< 55% Poor

4.3.4 Aquatic macro-invertebrates Aquatic macro invertebrates were collected using the qualitative kick sampling method called the South African Scoring System Version 5 (SASS5) (Dickens & Graham, 2002). The SASS5 protocol is a biotic index of the condition of a river or stream, based on the resident macro invertebrate community, whereby each taxon is allocated a score according to its level of tolerance to river health degradation.

Three scores are obtained namely number of taxa, SASS score and Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT).

The Number of taxa indicates the number of different taxa found at a specific site, the SASS score is the combined sensitivity score for all taxa found/identified at a specific site and ASPT is the SASS score divided by the number of taxa.

A standard SASS net were utilised and invertebrates were identified to at least family level. Available biotopes sampled included, stones-in and –out of current, marginal vegetation-in and out-of-current and sediments (sand, gravel and mud).

Results for each biotope were kept separate to enable comparison of results from similar habitats. The SASS5 results were classified into one of six categories, ranging from Natural (Category A) to very Critically Modified (Category F), as summarised in Table 4-4.

The Present Ecological State (PES) classes were obtained from the South African Scoring System data interpretation guidelines (Dallas, 2007) for the North Eastern Highlands Upper Zone and are presented in Figure 4-5.

Table 4-4: Modelled reference condition for the North Eastern Highlands Upper zone

Class Description SASS Score

ASPT

A Excellent – Unimpaired, community structures and functions comparable to the best situation to be expected. Optimum community structure for stream size and habitat quality.

> 211 > 6.8

B Very Good – minimally impaired; largely natural with few modifications. A small change in community structure may have taken place but ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged.

177 - 210 6.5 - 67

C Good – moderately impaired; community structure and function less than the reference condition. Community composition lower than expected due to loss of some sensitive forms. Basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged.

151 - 176 6.1 – 6.4

D Fair – largely impaired; fewer families present than expected, due to loss of most intolerant forms. Basic ecosystem functions have changed.

115 -150 5.2 - 6

E/F Poor – seriously impaired, few aquatic families present, due to loss of most intolerant forms. An extensive loss of basic ecosystem function has occurred.

< 115 < 5.2



Figure 4-5: Guidelines used to delineate the Present Ecological State (PES) categories in term

of SASS5 biomonitoring results

5 Results and discussion 5.1 Water quality

The water quality results are provided in Table 5-1 and historical trends are illustrated in Figure 5-1. The results were compared with SANS 241-1:2015 Class I drinking water standards as well as limits as specified for waste water to be disposed and in-stream water quality in the WUL. The water quality results are available in Appendix A.

Water quality results were mainly within the SANS Class I drinking water standards, with exception of ammonium which was elevated at the effluent outflow monitoring point (SN B). The ammonium quality were within SANS Class I drinking water standards at the downstream sampling point. In almost all instances the water quality levels were elevated at the outflow monitoring point (SN B) when compared to the upstream monitoring point (SN A), but returned to lower levels at the downstream monitoring point (SN C).



Table 5-1: Sonae Novobord water quality results – June 2016

Parameter SN A SN B SN C SANS

241- 1:2015

Sonae Novobord WUL in-stream

Sonae Novobord

WUL waste water

pH 7.45 7.67 7.61 5 – 9.7 6.5 – 8.4 6.5 – 8.4

Electrical conductivity (EC) 42.1 129 46.6 170 70 70

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 240 682 266 1 2000 - 1

Sulfate (SO4) 10.5 40 17.1 500 40 40

Nitrate (NO3) 0.789 0.541 1.78 11 15 15

Ammonium (NH4) 2.78 12.5 0.739 1.5 - 7



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

pH

SNA SNB SNC SANS SANS

020406080

100120140160180

Electrical conductivity (mS/m)

SNA SNB SNC SANS

0200400600800

100012001400

Total dissolved solids (mg/l)

SNA SNB SNC SANS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Sulfate (mg/l)

SNA SNB SNC SANS



Figure 5-1: Sonae Novobord historic water quality results: March 2010 - June 2016

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nitrate (mg/l)

SNA SNB SNC SANS

02468

101214161820

Ammonium (mg/l)

SNA SNB SNC SANS



5.2 Toxicity testing Table 5-2 summarises the results of the toxicity screening tests undertaken at the various monitoring sites. The full report is available in Appendix B.

Table 5-2: Sonae Novobord toxicity test results – June 2016

Test Results

SN A SN B SN C

Bacteria (Vibrio fischeri)

No short-chronic hazard



Micro-algae (Selenastrum capricornutum)




Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

No acute hazard SDOTH1 SDOTH

Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)

SDOTH SDOTH No acute hazard

Overall classification

Class II –slight acute/chronic hazard



Results from the toxicity testing show that all monitoring points show slight acute/chronic hazard of at least one of the test organisms. However, the overall hazard classification takes into account the full battery of test organisms, which in all of the monitoring points show that the overall effect is below 50%.

The historical results of the toxicity tests are shown in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical toxicity results

Date Class

March 2010 A B C

August 2010 AA B C

June 2011 A B C

June 2012 A B C

February 2013 AA B C

October 2013 A B C

September 2014 A B C

December 2014 A B C

June 2015 A B C

February 2016 A B C

June 2016 A B C

1 SDOTH: Some degree of acute/chronic toxic hazard based on this single test organism, refer to overall hazard classification, which takes into account the full battery of test organisms.



*Green: Class I – no acute/chronic hazard, Blue: Class II – slight acute/chronic hazard

5.3 Invertebrate habitat assessment The quality of the instream and riparian habitat has a direct influence on the aquatic community. Evaluating the structure and functioning of an aquatic ecosystem must therefore take into account the physical habitat to assess the site’s ecological integrity.

The IHAS was developed by McMillan (1998) for use in conjunction with the SASS5 protocol.

Note that in terms of conducting IHAS and SASS5 monitoring methods, only monitoring site C was assessed, as vegetation cover restricted the application of the kick/swipe sampling method (SASS5 sampling method) at site SN A and at site SN B is an effluent outflow only.

The result of the IHAS assessment at site SN C is provided in Table 5-4. The IHAS score card for June 2016 is available in Appendix C.

Table 5-4: Sonae Novobord biomonitoring IHAS results (monitoring point C)

Date IHAS Score

March 2010 53

August 2010 58

June 2011 64

June 2012 54

February 2013 54

October 2013 53

September 2014 54

December 2014 61

June 2015 57

February 2016 42

June 2016 46

The score for June 2016 is low due to the recent disturbance (construction of a pipeline by the local municipality) at monitoring site C.

5.4 Aquatic macro-invertebrates The result for the SASS5 analysis at site SN C is shown in Table 5-5 below. The SASS5 scorecard for June 2016 is available in Appendix D.

Table 5-5: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C

Date SASS5 Score No. of taxa ASPT

March 2010 57 13 4.4

August 2010 46 11 4.2

June 2011 59 12 4.9

June 2012 35 8 4.4

June 2013 49 11 4.5

October 2013 52 11 4.7

September 2014 48 10 4.8

December 2014 60 13 4.6



Date SASS5 Score No. of taxa ASPT

June 2015 42 9 4.7

February 2016 65 15 4.3

June 2016 49 11 4.5

Figure 5-2 provides a graphical presentation of the SASS5 results over the past 6 years (2010 – 2016)

Figure 5-2: Sonae Novobord biomonitoring historic SASS5 results (monitoring point SN C)

Although the Table 5-5 show low ASPT, this can be attributed to the fact that the habitat available for macro invertebrate communities to flourish in, is not ideal, mainly due to the recent disturbance at monitoring site SN C and the limited availability of the stones habitat. However, the results have remained similar over the last six years, and have not shown major variations, indicating that the impact of the stormwater outflow does not exacerbate the water quality of the tributary.

As the water quality is considered adequate to support aquatic biota, it can be assumed that the lack of habitat is the major contributor to the low SASS and ASPT scores, and not due to the influence of the Sonae Novobord White River plant’s stormwater outflow.

Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show relatively sensitive species captured during the sampling procedure in June 2016.

Figure 5-3: Freshwater shrimps (Atydiae)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SASS5 Score Card

SASS5 Score

No. of Taxa

ASPT



Figure 5-4: Minutes moss beetles (Hydraenidae)

6 Conclusion and recommendation The following conclusions remain regarding the on-going biomonitoring survey undertaken in the tributary of the Sand River during June 2016, as well as the historical biomonitoring undertaken since March 2010:

• Sonae Novobord White River plant’s stormwater detention pond and wetland outflow improves the appearance of the downstream tributary of the Sand River by increasing the flow of the unnamed tributary and creating additional habitat for fauna community;

• The numerous bird life and plentiful insects within the various wetland dams and wetland system indicates that the system supports a diversity of lifeforms also shows that the water quality in these systems are suitable to support aquatic and terrestrial animal life and flora species;

• The water quality results indicate that the stormwater outflow has the highest concentration values, however, in all of the parameters, the values return to the upstream quality at the downstream monitoring point, and within in SANS drinking water quality standards;

• Toxicity screen results indicate that the outflow discharged into the unnamed tributary of the Sand River presents slight chronic hazard to the tributary. However, the toxicity screen results did indicate that the upstream and downstream monitoring points also show slight acute/chronic hazard. Definitive testing is not required at this stage, however, toxicity testing should be continued to monitor the levels of toxicity;

• The IHAS data collected indicates that the habitat to accommodate aquatic macro-invertebrates is not adequate, due to limited availability of the stones habitat biotope in the tributary and the recent disturbance around monitoring site SN C. This is the major limiting factor and reason for the low SASS5 results. It is suggested to also monitor the stream a few metres upstream of monitoring site C in order to eliminate the impact of the recent disturbance (construction of a pipeline); and

• Based on the SASS5 results, biotic integrity in the unnamed tributary is limited due to inadequate availability and diversity of habitat for macro invertebrate communities to establish themselves. SASS5 results have remained comparable during the last 6 years of monitoring and therefore indicates that the outflow from Sonae Novobord into the tributary does not impact severely on the macro invertebrate community.

The following recommendations are suggested:

• Continue with biomonitoring of the unnamed tributary of the Sand River to establish trend lines and monitor the impact of the wetland dams and outflow associated with the Sonae Novobord White River’s plant; and



• Undertake toxicity testing on a quarterly basis to monitoring toxicity levels in the effluent outflow as well as downstream of the effluent outflow, as per the WUL requirements.

Prepared by

Suzanne van Rooy Pr.Sci.Nat

Senior Environmental Scientist

Reviewed by

Dr Andrew Wood

Partner

All data used as source material plus the text, tables, figures, and attachments of this document have been reviewed and prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and environmental practices.



7 References Basson, M.S. & J.D. Rossouw, 2003. Inkomati Water Management Area – Overview of Water Resources Availability and Utilisation. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, DWAF Report No. P WMA 05/000/00/0203

Dallas, H.F. 2007. River Health Programme: South African Scoring System (SASS) data interpretation guidelines. Report prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group and the Freshwater Research Unit, University of Cape Town. South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pietermaritzburg.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines. Volume 7: Aquatic Ecosystems. CSIR Environmental Services.

Dickens, C.W.S. and Graham P.M. 2002. The South African Scoring System (SASS5) Version 5 Rapid bioassessment method for rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science 27(1): 1-10.

Kleynhans, C.J., 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.

McMillan, P.H. 1998. An Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS v2) for the Rapid Biological Assessment of Rivers and Streams. A CSIR research project, number ENV-P-I 98132 for the Water Resources Management Programme. CSIR. ii + 44pp.



Appendices



Appendix A: Water quality results

Test Report Page 1 of 1

Client:

Address:

Report no:

Project:

SRK Consulting - Johannesburg

SRK House, 265 Oxford Road, Illovo, Johannesburg

31635

SRK Consulting

Date of certificate:

Date accepted:

Date completed:

Revision:

27 June 2016

14 June 2016

27 June 2016

0

Lab no:

Date sampled:

Sample type:

Locality description:

Analyses Unit Method

The results relates only to the test item tested.

Results reported against the limit of detection.

A = Accredited N = Non accredited O = Outsourced S = Sub-contracted NR = Not requested RTF = Results to follow NATD = Not able to determine

Results marked 'Not SANAS Accredited' in this report are not included in the SANAS Schedule of Accreditation for this laboratory.

Uncertainty of measurement available on request for all methods included in the SANAS Schedule of Accreditation.

www.aquatico.co.za 89 Regency Drive, R21 Corporate Park, Centurion, South Africa Tel: +27 12 450 3800 Fax: +27 12 450 3851

3593

14-Jun-2016

Water

SN A

3594

14-Jun-2016

Water

SN B

3595

14-Jun-2016

Water

SN C

A pH @ 25°C pH ALM 20 7.45 7.67 7.61

A Electrical conductivity (EC) @ 25°C mS/m ALM 20 42.1 129 46.6

A Total Dissolved solids @ 180°C mg/l ALM 24 240 682 266

A Sulphate (SO₄) mg/l ALM 03 10.5 40.0 17.1

A Nitrate (NO₃) as N mg/l ALM 06 0.789 0.541 1.78

A Ammonium (NH₄) as N mg/l ALM 05 2.78 12.5 0.739



Appendix B: Toxicity test results

TOXICITY TEST REPORT

For: SRK

Sonae Novobord

Survey: 2016-02

Report reference:

SRK-A-2016

Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC

Tests performed by: Warren Smith (Senior Analyst); Nadia Olivier (Laboratory Manager) Inputs and results verified by: Lizet Moore (Quality Manager) Classification (DEEEP) performed by: Lizet Moore (Quality Manager) Report authorized by:

Lizet Moore (Director)

of 8

Toxicity test report – 2016-02-15 –SRK – Sonae Novobord

The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested

Table of contents

1. Analyses requested and sample description ......................................................................................................... 3

2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Sampling and sample handling ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Bio-toxicity assessments .................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Toxicity test results classification system ........................................................................................................ 6

3. Results and discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 2016-02 survey .................................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Literature references ................................................................................................................................................. 8

END OF REPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

List of Tables

Table 1: Analyses requested and description for the different samples, including sampling and delivery

dates. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Table 2: Test results and risk classification during February 2016. ...................................................................... 7

of 8



Da

ph

nia

ma

gn

aP

oec

ilia

reti

cula

ta

Vib

rio

fis

cher

i

Sele

na

stru

m

cap

rico

rnu

tum

Ph

yto

see

ds

Ost

raco

d

SNA 2016-02-02 SRK 2016-02-03 Aquatico None x x x x x

SNB 2016-02-02 SRK 2016-02-03 Aquatico None x x x x x

SNC 2016-02-02 SRK 2016-02-03 Aquatico None x x x x x

Key:

Screening = 100% (undiluted) sample tested only

Definitive = Series of sample dilutions tested to enhance classification accuracy and to determine safe dilution

Sam

ple

nam

e

Del

iver

ed b

y

Sam

ple

d b

y

Del

iver

y d

ate Sediment

Scre

enin

g

Def

init

ive

Tests requested - Marked with X

Sam

plin

g d

ate Water

Additional comments (sample

description or deviations)

1. Analyses requested and sample description Table 1: Analyses requested and description for the different samples, including sampling and delivery dates.

2. Methodology

2.1 Sampling and sample handling Refer to Technical Standard Operating procedures 05 & 06 (SOP05 & SOP06). These documents are available on request.

2.2 Bio-toxicity assessments

Acute (and short-chronic) toxicity testing (as applied for this assessment) is applied by exposing biota to water sources in order to determine the potential risk of such waters to the biota/biological integrity of the receiving water bodies. A risk category is determined based on the percentage of mortalities (or inhibition-stimulation) of the exposed biota. It is important to note that the hazard classification is based on the standardised battery of selected test biota and therefore represents the risk/hazard towards similar biota in the receiving aquatic environment. The toxicity hazard is therefore in terms of the aquatic biotic integrity and does in no way represent toxicology towards humans or other mammals. Standard, internationally accepted methods and materials were applied in order to conduct acute and short-chronic toxicity testing and hazard classification based on 4 trophic levels (4 taxonomic groups) at each of the selected sites/samples. For this purpose Vibrio fischeri (bacteria), Selenastrum capricornutum (micro-algae), Daphnia magna (crustaceans) and Poecilia reticulata (fish) were used as test organisms prior to hazard classification.

of 8



All tests were conducted in environmental controlled rooms using the following internationally standardized methods: 2.2.1 Vibrio fischeri bioluminescent test Standard method: EN ISO 11348-3, 1998 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Vibrio fischeri (NRRL B-11177) Exposure period: 15 and 30 minutes Test sample volume: 500 µl Number of replicates: 2 Measurement equipment: Luminoscan TL, Hygiena Monitoring System Test endpoint: Screening test - % growth inhibition or stimulation relative to control; Definitive test - EC20 and EC50 -values Statistical method used: Manual plotting – Normalized regression of relevant data points Batch numbers/expiry dates: VF 3415 / 2017-08; RD 3415 / 2017-08; SD 3415 / 2017-08 Correction factor (validity of test): 1.033 (valid if between 0,6 & 1,8) 2.2.2 Selenastrum capricornutum growth inhibition test Standard method: OECD Guideline 201, 1984 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Selenastrum capricornutum, Printz (CCAP 278/4 Cambridge, UK) Exposure period: 72h Test sample volume: 25 ml Test chamber type: 10 cm long cell Number of replicates: 3 Algal batch number: SC241115

Test temperature: 21 - 25C Measurement equipment: Jenway 6300 spectrophotometer Test endpoint: Screening test - % growth inhibition or stimulation relative to control. Definitive test - EC20 and EC50 values Statistical method used: EXCEL spread sheet formulated by supplier (MicroBioTests Inc., Belgium) 2.2.3 Daphnia magna acute toxicity test Standard method: US EPA, 1993 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Daphnia magna Test species age: Less than 24h old Exposure period: 24 and 48h Test sample volume: 25 ml Number of test organisms per well: 5 Replicate number of wells per sample: 4

Test temperature: 21 2C Test endpoint: Screening test - % mortality. Definitive test – LC10 and LC50 values Statistical method used: Graphical interpolation calculated by linear regression of relevant data points, EXCEL spread sheet Batch numbers: Ephippia - 221015; ISO control medium - 170815 Control mortality/immobility rate (validity of test): 0% (valid if below 10%)

of 8



2.2.4 Poecilia reticulata acute toxicity test Standard method: US EPA, 1996 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Poecilia reticulata (In-house breeding) Test species age: Less than 21 days Exposure period: 96h Test sample volume: 200 ml Number of test organisms per beaker: 5 Replicate number beakers per sample: 2

Test temperature: 212C Test endpoint: Screening test - %mortality; Definitive test – LC10 and LC50 values Statistical method used: Graphical interpolation calculated by linear regression of relevant data points, EXCEL spread sheet Batch numbers: Control medium - 170815 Test validation: 0% control mortalities (valid if below 10%) Quality assurance The following quality assurance information would be made available on request:

In-house reference toxicant test data and control charts.

Additional lot, batch numbers and raw test data.

Participation in proficiency testing scheme (SABS, Rand Water & NLA)

of 8



2.3 Toxicity test results classification system A risk/hazard category was determined by application of the DEEEP1 DWA recommended protocols and hazard classification. This risk category equates to the level of acute/chronic risk posed by the selected potential pollution source (water sample).

After the determination of the percentage effect2 (EP), obtained with each of the battery of toxicity screening tests performed, the sample is ranked into one of the following five classes, based on either screening or definitive testing protocols:

Hazard classification system for screening tests

Hazard classification system for definitive tests

Weighting: Each sample is furthermore weighted according to its relative toxicity levels (out of 100%). Higher values indicate that

more of the individual tests indicated toxicity within a specific class.

1 DEEEP = Direct Estimation of Ecological Effect Potential. This is a battery of tests that can measure toxicity of complex mixtures based on a set of parameters stemming from the results of effects, even if all constituents are not known. Consequently a hazard class is determined based on the resulting parameters of the battery of tests 2 EP (Percentage effect) = an effect measured either as a mortality rate or inhibition rate (depending on the type of test). A 10% effect is regarded as slight acute/chronic toxicity for daphnia and guppies, while a 20% effect is regarded as slight acute/chronic toxicity for algae, plant seed root growth and bacteria (vibrio). A 50% effect is regarded as an acute/chronic toxicity for all of the tests (daphnia, guppies, algae, bacteria and plant seed growth)

Class I No acute/chronic hazard - none of the tests shows a toxic effect

Slight acute/chronic hazard - a statistically significant percentage effect

is reached in at least one test, but the effect level is below 50%

Acute/chronic hazard - the percentage effect level is reached or exceeded

in at least one test, but the effect level is below 100%

High acute/chronic hazard - the 100% percentage effect is reached in at

least one test

Very high acute/chronic hazard - the 100% percentage effect is reached

in all the tests

Note:

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Class V

After the determination of the percentage effect (EP), obtained with each of the battery of toxicity screening

tests performed, the sample is ranked into one of the five above classes

Class I No acute/chronic hazard - none of the tests shows a toxic effect

Slight acute/chronic hazard - the percentage effect observed in at least one

toxicity test is significantly higher than in the control, but the effect level is

below 50% (TU is <1)

Acute/chronic hazard - the L(E)C50 is reached or exceeded in at least one

test, but in the 10 fold dilution of the sample the effect level is below 50%

(TU is between 1 and 10)

High acute/chronic hazard - the L(E)C50 is reached in the 10 fold dilution

for at least one test, but not in the 100 fold dilution (TU is between 10 and 100)

Very high acute/chronic hazard - the L(E)C50 is reached in the 100 fold dilution

for at least one test (TU is >100)

Note:

The samples are classified into one of the above five classes on the basis of the highest toxicity unit (TU)

found in the battery of toxicity definitive tests performed

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Class V

of 8



3. Results and discussion 3.1 2016-02 survey Refer to table 2 below for individual test results and overall hazard classification of the different samples.

Table 2: Test results and risk classification during February 2016.

Results SNA SNB SNC

pH 6,9 7 7,1

EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 32,8 122,5 33,5

Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8 7,5 8,3

Test started on yy/mm/dd 16-02-12 16-02-12 16-02-12

%30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 28 22 17

EC/LC20 (30 mins) * * *

EC/LC50 (30 mins) * * *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard


%72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 0 0 0

EC/LC20 (72hours) * * *

EC/LC50 (72hours) * * *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard


%48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 -15 -25

EC/LC10 (48hours) * * *

EC/LC50 (48hours) * * *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H.


%96hour mortality rate (-%) -10 -10 0

EC/LC10 (96hours) * * *

EC/LC50 (96hours) * * *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. no acute hazard

Class II - Slight

acute/chronic hazard

Class II - Slight


Class II - Slight


25 50 25

Key:

WQ

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Weight (%)

Overall classification - Hazard class***

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing

only]

V. fi

sch

eri

(b

acte

ria)

S. cap

rico

rnu

tum

(mic

ro-a

lga

e)

D.

ma

gn

a (

wate

rfle

a)

P. re

ticu

lata

(g

up

py)

*** = The overall hazard classification takes into account the full battery of tests and is not based on a single test result. Note that the overall

hazard classification is expressed as acute/chronic level of toxicity, due to the fact that the S. capricornutum (micro-algae) and the V. fischeri

tests are regarded as short-chronic levels of toxicity tests and the overall classification therefore contains a degree of chronic toxicity

assessment.

Weight (%) = relative toxicity levels (out of 100%), higher values indicate that more of the individual tests indicated toxicity within a specific

class

site/sample name shaded in purple = screening test

site/sample name shaded in orange = definitive test

WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing.

* = EC/LC values not determined, definitive testing required if a hazard was observed and persists over subsequent sampling runs

S.D.O.T.H = Some degree of acute/chronic toxic hazard based on this single test organism, refer to overall hazard classification, which takes

into account the full battery of test organisms.

% = for definitive testing, only the 100% concentration (undiluted) sample mortality/inhibition/stimulation is reflected by this summary table. The

of 8



4. Literature references ABOATOX Oy. 2012. BO1243-500 BioToxTM Kit. Instructions for use. Savikuja 2. FIN-21250, Masku Finland.

www.aboatox.com DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY, 2003. The Management of Complex Industrial Waste Water

Discharges. Introducing the Direct Estimation of Ecological Effect Potential (DEEEP) approach, a discussion document. Institute of Water Quality Studies, Pretoria.

EUROPEAN Standard, 1998. “Water quality – Determination of the inhibitory effect of water samples on the light

emission of Vibrio fischeri (Luminescent bacteria test) – Part 3 for the method using freeze-dried bacteria”, EN ISO 11348-3. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

MICROBIOTEST INC. 2012. DAPHTOXKIT FTM MAGNA. Crustacean Toxicity Screening Test for freshwater.

Standard Operational Procedure. Kleimoer 15, 9030 Mariakerke (Gent), Belgium. www.microbiotest.be. PERSOONE G, BLAHOSLAV M, BLINOVA I, TöRöKNE A, ZARINA T, MANUSADZIANAS L, NALECZ-JAWECKI G,

TOFAN L, STEPANOVA L, TOTHOVA L, KOLAR B. A practical and user-friendly toxicity classification system with Microbiotests for natural waters and wastewaters (personal communication).

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMNETAL PROTECTION AGENCY (US EPA), 1996. Ecological effects test guidelines.

Fish acute toxicity test – Freshwater and marine. OPPTS 850.1075. Report number EPA-712-c-96-118. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMNETAL PROTECTION AGENCY (US EPA), 1993. Method for measuring the acute

toxicity of effluent and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms. EPA/600/4-90/027F, 4th edition. Office of Research and Development, Washington.

END OF REPORT

http://www.aboatox.com/

http://www.microbiotest.be/



Appendix C: IHAS scorecard

Project Name Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring

Date 14 June 2016

Site code SNC

Sampler S Nel, S van Rooy

River Tributary to the Sand River

Ecoregion North Eastern Highlands

Quaternary Catchment X22F

Grid Reference S 25 22 27.18 E 30 59 17.19

Altitude

Datum WGS84

SAMPLING HABITAT

Stones in Current (SIC) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total length of white water (riffle/rapid) (in metres) none 0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-5 >5

Total length of submerged stones in current (run) (in metres) none 0-2 >2-5 >5-10 >10

Number of separate SIC area's kicked (not individual stones) 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+

Average stone size's kicked (cm’s) (<2 or >20 is ‘<2<20’) (gravel is <2; bedrock is >20)

none <2>20 2-10 11-20 2-20

Amount of stone surface clear (of algae, sediment etc) (in %)* n/a 0-25 26-50 51-75 >75

Protocol: time spent actually kicking SIC's (in minutes), (gravel/bedrock = 0 min) 0 <1 >1-2 2 >2-3 >3

SIC Score (Max 20) *NOTE up to 25% of stone is usually embedded in the stream bottom

7

Vegetation 0 1 2 3 4 5 Length of marginal vegetation sampled (river banks) (m) none 0-½ >½-1 >1-2 2 >2

Amount of aquatic vegetation/algae sampled (underwater) (m2) none 0-½ >½-1 >1

Marginal vegetation sampled in or out of current none In current Out of

current both

Type of vegetation (percent leafy vegetation as opposed to stems/shoots) (aquatic vegetation only = 49%) (e.g. Mostly leafy = >75%; mostly stems/shoots = 1-25%)

none 1-25 26-50 51-75 >75

Vegetation Score (Max 15) 8

Other Habitat/General 0 1 2 3 4 5

Stones out of current (SOOC) sampled (m2) none 0-½ >½-1 1 >1

Sand sampled (in minutes) ('under' = present but only under stones) none under 0-½ >½-1 1 >1

Mud sampled (in minutes) ('under' = present, but only under stones none under 0-½ ½ >½

Gravel samples (in minutes) (if all gravel, SIC stone size = <2) none 0-½ ½ >½**

Bedrock samples ('all' = no SIC, sand or gravel, then SIC stone size >20 none some all**

Algal presence ('1-2m2 = algal bed, 'rocks' = on rocks, isol = 'isolated' clumps) >2m2 rocks 1-2m2 <1m2 isol none

Tray identification (protocol - using time, 'corr' = corrected time under corr over

Other Habitat Score (Max 20) 10

Habitat Total (Max 55) 25

STREAM CONDITION 0 1 2 3 4 5 Physical River make up: (pool = pool/still/dam only; ‘run’ only; ‘rapid’ only; ‘2mix’ = 2 types etc) pool run rapid 2 mix 3 mix

Average width of stream (metres) > 10 > 5 - 10 < 1 1 – 2 > 2 - 5

Average depth of stream (metres) > 1 1 > ½ - 1 ½ < ½ - ¼ < ¼ Approximate velocity of stream: (‘slow’ < ½ m/s; ‘fast’ = >1m/s; (use twig etc. to test) still slow fast med. mix

Water colour: (‘disc’ = discoloured with visible colour but still transparent) silty opaque disc clear

Recent disturbances due to: (‘constr.’ = construction; fl/dr = flood or drought) fl/dr fire constr. other none

Bank/riparian vegetation is: (grass = includes reeds; shrubs = includes trees) none grass shrubs mix

Surrounding impacts: (erosion = erosion/shear bank; farm = farmlands/settlement) erosn. farm trees other open

Left bank cover (rocks and vegetation): in percent % 0 - 50 51 - 75 75 - 95 > 95 Right bank cover (rocks and vegetation): in percent % 0 - 50 51 - 75 75 - 95 > 95

Stream condition total (Max 45) 21

TOTAL IHAS SCORE % 46



Appendix D: SASS5 scorecard

SASS Version 5 Score Sheet Version date: Sep 2005

Date (dd-mm-yr): (dd.ddddd) Biotopes Sampled (tick & rate) Rating (1 - 5) Time (min)Site Code: Grid reference (dd mm ss.s) Lat: S Stones In Current (SIC) 2 2Collector/Sampler: Long: E Stones Out Of Current (SOOC) 0 0River: Datum (WGS84/Cape): Bedrock 0 0Level 1 Ecoregion: Altitude (m): Aquatic Veg 0Quaternary Catchment: Zonation: MargVeg In Current 3

Temp (°C): Routine or Project? (circle one) Flow: MargVeg Out Of Current 3Site Description: pH: Project Name: Clarity (cm): Gravel 3

DO (mg/L): Turbidity: Sand 2Cond (mS/m): Colour: Mud 2Riparian Disturbance: Hand picking/Visual observation YesInstream Disturbance: Biotope Score (%) 33

Taxon QV S Veg GSM TOT Taxon QV S Veg GSM TOT Taxon QV S Veg GSM TOTPORIFERA (Sponge) 5 HEMIPTERA (Bugs) DIPTERA (Flies)COELENTERATA (Cnidaria) 1 Belostomatidae* (Giant water bugs) 3 Athericidae (Snipe flies) 10TURBELLARIA (Flatworms) 3 Corixidae* (Water boatmen) 3 Blepharoceridae (Mountain midges) 15 ANNELIDA Gerridae* (Pond skaters/Water striders) 5 A A Ceratopogonidae (Biting midges) 5

Oligochaeta (Earthworms) 1 A 1 A Hydrometridae* (Water measurers) 6 Chironomidae (Midges) 2 B A B BHirudinea (Leeches) 3 Naucoridae* (Creeping water bugs) 7 Culicidae* (Mosquitoes) 1 A A A

CRUSTACEA Nepidae* (Water scorpions) 3 Dixidae* (Dixid midge) 10Amphipoda (Scuds) 13 Notonectidae* (Backswimmers) 3 Empididae (Dance flies) 6Potamonautidae* (Crabs) 3 Pleidae* (Pygmy backswimmers) 4 Ephydridae (Shore flies) 3Atyidae (Freshwater Shrimps) 8 B A B Veliidae/M...veliidae* (Ripple bugs) 5 Muscidae (House flies, Stable flies) 1Palaemonidae (Freshwater Prawns) 10 MEGALOPTERA (Fishflies, Dobsonflies & Alderflies) Psychodidae (Moth flies) 1

HYDRACARINA (Mites) 8 Corydalidae (Fishflies & Dobsonflies) 8 Simuliidae (Blackflies) 5 1 1 APLECOPTERA (Stoneflies) Sialidae (Alderflies) 6 Syrphidae* (Rat tailed maggots) 1

Notonemouridae 14 TRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies) Tabanidae (Horse flies) 5Perlidae 12 Dipseudopsidae 10 Tipulidae (Crane flies) 5

EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) Ecnomidae 8 GASTROPODA (Snails)Baetidae 1sp 4 A A Hydropsychidae 1 sp 4 Ancylidae (Limpets) 6 Baetidae 2 sp 6 Hydropsychidae 2 sp 6 Bulininae* 3Baetidae > 2 sp 12 Hydropsychidae > 2 sp 12 Hydrobiidae* 3Caenidae (Squaregills/Cainfles) 6 Philopotamidae 10 Lymnaeidae* (Pond snails) 3Ephemeridae 15 Polycentropodidae 12 Physidae* (Pouch snails) 3Heptageniidae (Flatheaded mayflies) 13 Psychomyiidae/Xiphocentronidae 8 Planorbinae* (Orb snails) 3Leptophlebiidae (Prongills) 9 Cased caddis: Thiaridae* (=Melanidae) 3Oligoneuridae (Brushlegged mayflies) 15 Barbarochthonidae SWC 13 Viviparidae* ST 5Polymitarcyidae (Pale Burrowers) 10 Calamoceratidae ST 11 PELECYPODA (Bivalvles)Prosopistomatidae (Water specs) 15 Glossosomatidae SWC 11 Corbiculidae (Clams) 5Teloganodidae SWC (Spiny Crawlers) 12 Hydroptilidae 6 Sphaeriidae (Pill clams) 3Tricorythidae (Stout Crawlers) 9 Hydrosalpingidae SWC 15 Unionidae (Perly mussels) 6

Lepidostomatidae 10 SASS Score 49Calopterygidae ST,T (Demoiselles) 10 Leptoceridae 6 No. of Taxa 11Chlorocyphidae (Jewels) 10 Petrothrincidae SWC 11 ASPT 4.5 Synlestidae (Chlorolestidae)(Sylphs) 8 Pisuliidae 10 Other biota:Coenagrionidae (Sprites and blues) 4 A A Sericostomatidae SWC 13Lestidae (Emerald Damselflies/Spreadwings 8 COLEOPTERA (Beetles)Platycnemidae (Stream Damselflies) 10 Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving beetles) 5Protoneuridae (Threadwings) 8 Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles) 8Aeshnidae (Hawkers & Emperors) 8 Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles) 5 1 1Corduliidae (Cruisers) 8 Haliplidae* (Crawling water beetles) 5Gomphidae (Clubtails) 6 1 1 Helodidae (Marsh beetles) 12Libellulidae (Darters/Skimmers) 4 Hydraenidae* (Minute moss beetles) 8 A A

Hydrophilidae* (Water scavenger beetles) 5Crambidae (Pyralidae) 12 Limnichidae (Marsh-Loving Beetles) 10

Psephenidae (Water Pennies) 10

Procedure: Kick SIC & bedrock for 2 mins, max. 5 mins. Kick SOOC & bedrock for 1 min. Sweep marginal vegetation (IC & OOC) for 2m total and aquatic veg 1m2. Stir & sweep gravel, sand, mud for 1 min total. * = airbreathersHand picking & visual observation for 1 min - record in biotope where found (by circling estimated abundance on score sheet). Score for 15 mins/biotope but stop if no new taxa seen after 5 mins. Estimate abundances: 1 = 1, A = 2-10, B = 10-100, C = 100-1000, D = >1000 S = Stone, rock & solid objects; Veg = All vegetation; GSM = Gravel, sand, mud SWC = South Western Cape, T = Tropical, ST = Sub-tropicalRate each biotope sampled: 1=very poor (i.e. limited diversity), 5=highly suitable (i.e. wide diversity) Rate turbidity: V low, Low, Medium, High, Very HighRate flows: Zero, trickle, low, medium, high, flood Rate colour: transparent, tea brown, light brown, dark brown, light green, dark green, yellow, red, grey, milky white, black

4: NORTH EASTERN HIGHLANDSX22F

lowbotomlowtransparent

14-Jun-16SNCS. Nel & S. van Rooy

WGS84

25.37419d

30.98808d

25 22 27.1830 59 17.19

ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies)

LEPIDOPTERA (Aquatic Caterpillars/Moths)

Tributary to Sand River

Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring

TadpolesChironomidae in casing found in SGM biotope Comments/Observations:



SRK Report Distribution Record

Report No. 489988/06/16

Copy No.

Name/Title Company Copy Date Authorised by Peter Viljoen Sonae Novobord .pdf 4 August 2016 Dr Andrew Wood

SRK Library SRK Consulting 1 4 August 2016 Dr Andrew Wood

Suzanne van Rooy SRK Consulting 2 4 August 2016 Dr Andrew Wood

Approval Signature:

This report is protected by copyright vested in SRK (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. It may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever to any person without the written permission of the copyright holder, SRK.

sonae novobord white river biomonitoring – winter 2016 water monitoring...

Documents