Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring Winter 2015novobordecf.co.za/05 Water monitoring...
Transcript of Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring Winter 2015novobordecf.co.za/05 Water monitoring...
Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring – Winter 2015
Report Prepared for
Sonae Novobord
Report Number 489988/06/15
Report Prepared by
June 2015
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page i
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring – Winter 2015
Sonae Novobord 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 2015
Compiled by: Reviewed by:
Suzanne van Rooy Senior Environmental Scientist
Dr Andrew Wood Partner
Email: [email protected]
Authors:
Suzanne van Rooy
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page ii
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... iv
1 Introduction and Scope of Report ............................................................................... 5
1.1 Introduction and background .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Project team ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2 Background to Sonae Novobord’s operation ............................................................ 5
3 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Water Management Area .................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Ecoregions .......................................................................................................................................... 6
4 Biomonitoring Methodology ........................................................................................ 9
4.1 Background to Biomonitoring .............................................................................................................. 9
4.2 Biomonitoring Sample Sites ................................................................................................................ 9
4.1 Biomonitoring Methodology .............................................................................................................. 11
4.1.1 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 Toxicity Testing ..................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.3 Invertebrate Habitat Assessment .......................................................................................... 12
4.1.4 Aquatic Macro Invertebrates ................................................................................................. 12
5 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................. 15
5.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 15
5.1.1 Toxicity Testing ..................................................................................................................... 18
5.1.2 Invertebrate Habitat Assessment .......................................................................................... 18
5.1.3 Aquatic Macro Invertebrates ................................................................................................. 19
6 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 20
7 References .................................................................................................................. 23
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A: Water Quality Results ............................................................................. 25
Appendix B: Toxicity Results ....................................................................................... 26
Appendix C: IHAS Score Card ...................................................................................... 27
Appendix D: SASS5 Score Card ................................................................................... 28
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page iii
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
List of Tables Table 1-1: Project team for Sonae Novobord biomonitoring .............................................................................. 5
Table 4-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring site description and coordinates .................................................... 9
Table 4-2: Toxicity classification for screening tests (undiluted samples) ........................................................ 12
Table 4-3: Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (Version 2) .................................................................... 12
Table 4-4: Modelled reference condition for the North Eastern Highlands Upper zone ................................... 13
Table 5-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring water quality results – June 2015 ................................................ 15
Table 5-2: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring toxicity test results – June 2015 ................................................... 18
Table 5-3: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical Invertebrate Habitat Assessment results for monitoring point C ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Table 5-4: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C .......................... 19
List of Figures Figure 3-1: Regional Location of Sonae Novobord ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3-2: Level 1 Ecoregions of South Africa (Kleynhans et al, 2005) ............................................................ 8
Figure 4-1 Sonae Novobord monitoring sites June 2015 ................................................................................. 10
Figure 4-2 Monitoring point A – upstream of outflow ........................................................................................ 11
Figure 4-3 Monitoring point B - outflow ............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 4-4 Monitoring point C – downstream of outflow ................................................................................... 11
Figure 4-5: Guidelines used to delineate the Present Ecological State (PES) categories in term of SASS5 biomonitoring results .................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 5-1: Sonae Novobord Water Quality Results: March 2010 – June 2015 .............................................. 17
Figure 5-2: Sonae Novobord historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C (downstream of stormwater outflow) ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5-3: Simulidae (Black Flies) ................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5-4: Ancylidae (Freshwater Limpets)..................................................................................................... 20
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page iv
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
List of Abbreviations
ASPT Average Score Per Taxa
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
DWA Department of Water Affairs
DWS Department of Water and Sanitation
EC Electrical Conductivity
IHAS Integrated Habitat Assessment System
NWA National Water Act
PES Present Ecological State
SANS South African National Standards
SASS5 South African Scoring System Version 5
SGM Sand Gravel Mud
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
WUL Water Use Licence
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 5
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
1 Introduction and Scope of Report
1.1 Introduction and background
SRK 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, one of the largest wood based panel groups in the world. The company manufactures
particle-board, medium density fibreboard, melamine faced board, veneer faced board and
distributes high pressure laminates and laminated flooring.
Sonae Novobord has been granted a Water Use Licence (WUL) by the Department of Water Affairs
(DWA) (now the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS).This WUL was issued on 17 July 2009
(licence nr 24000091) in terms of the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA).
Section 7.2 of the WUL states that the licensee must sample aquatic macro invertebrates by using
the latest South African Scoring System method, as well as assess the habitat integrity by using the
rapid method as described by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (now known as DWS).
Biomonitoring 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 section 7.2 of the WUL
that was issued to Sonae Novobord.
The report contains the results of the biomonitoring undertaken of the unnamed tributary of the Sand
River during the low flow season in June 2015 by Ms Suzanne Venter, a registered natural scientist,
and Ms Selma Nel, an accredited SASS5 practitioner of SRK Consulting SA (Pty) Ltd.
1.2 Project team
The project team for the biomonitoring is shown in
Table 1-1: Project team for Sonae Novobord biomonitoring
Team member Role Qualifications
Dr Andrew Wood Project partner, technical reviewer
PhD, Pollution Control,
Suzanne van Rooy Project manager, field work, reporting
MPhil Environmental Management, Pr.Sci.Nat
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 detention ponds) that was established within the Sonae
Novobord site to assist in the balancing of peak stormwater flows and quality discharging to the
environment, specifically 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.
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 6
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
3 Setting
3.1 Regional Setting
Sonae Novobord White River is located approximately 12 km north of Nelspruit on the R40 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).
!.
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
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 8
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Figure 3-2: Level 1 Ecoregions of South Africa (Kleynhans et al, 2005)
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 9
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
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 2.3.
4.2 Biomonitoring Sample Sites
During the biomonitoring study in June 2015, 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.
Refer to Figure 4-1 for an indication of the positions of the monitoring points in relation to Sonae
Novobord White River’s plant, and Table 4-1 for a description of the monitoring sites. Table 4-1 also
provides coordinates of each monitoring site, and the type of monitoring undertaken at each site.
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.
Table 4-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring site description and coordinates
Site Coordinates
Site Description Monitoring undertaken South East
AA 25°22'26.16" S 30°59'30.33" E Upstream of stormwater
detention pond and wetland system outflow.
None
A 25° 22’ 28.7’’ S 30° 59’ 25.8’’ E Upstream of stormwater
detention pond and wetland system outflow
Water Quality
Toxicity
B 25°22’27.76’’ S 30°59’21.01’’ E Stormwater detention pond
and wetland system outflow Water Quality
Toxicity
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
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!? Bio-Monitoring 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
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 11
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Figure 4-2 Monitoring point A – upstream of outflow
Figure 4-3 Monitoring point B - outflow
Figure 4-4 Monitoring point C – downstream of outflow
4.1 Biomonitoring Methodology
The following sections details the methodology undertaken during the biomonitoring programme.
The field work was undertaken on 10 June 2015 by Ms Suzanne van Rooy and Ms Selma Nel of
SRK Consulting.
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 12
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
4.1.1 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 South African Water Quality Guidelines for Aquatic
Systems (DWAF, 1996).
4.1.2 Toxicity Testing
Water samples were also undertaken at site A, B and C and taken to Clean Stream Biological
Services (cc) 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
4.1.3 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.
Table 4-3: Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (Version 2)
IHAS Score Description
> 65% Good
55-65% Adequate/Fair
< 55% Poor
4.1.4 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
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 13
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
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
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 14
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Figure 4-5: Guidelines used to delineate the Present Ecological State (PES) categories in term of SASS5 biomonitoring results
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 15
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Water Quality
The water quality results are provided in Table 5-1 below, and historical trends are illustrated in
Figure 5-1. The results were compared with SANS 241:2006 Class I drinking water standards as well
as the guidelines provided by DWA for aquatic systems (South African Water Quality Guidelines for
Aquatic Ecosystems – DWAF, 1996). 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 returned to lower levels and within SANS Class I drinking water standards at the downstream
sampling point. In almost instances the water quality levels were elevated at the effluent 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 Biomonitoring water quality results – June 2015
Locality SN A SN B SN C SANS
241:2006 Class I
DWAF 1996
pH 7.69 7.68 7.84 5 – 9.7 5 – 9.5
EC 32.9 125 53.7 170 -
TDS - cal 196 689 270 1200 -
Alk 139 226 128 - -
Cl 34.4 284 76.6 300 N/A
SO4 2.73 10.7 9.23 500 N/A
NO3 0.283 -0.118 0.699 11 -
NH4 0.99 8.79 0.929 1.5 -
PO4 -0.002 0.008 -0.002 - -
F -0.213 0.648 0.323 1.5 0.75
Ca 35.7 42.6 31.4 - N/A
Mg 10.4 15.4 11 - N/A
Na 23 174 55.4 200 N/A
K 1.81 12.7 3.83 - -
Al -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 300 0.005
Fe -0.004 1.64 0.263 300 N/A
Mn 0.106 0.36 0.024 100 0.18
Cr -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 50 -
Cu -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 2000 0.0003
Ni -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 70 N/A
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 16
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
pH
SNA
SNB
SNC
SANS
SANS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Electrical Conductivity
SNA
SNB
SNC
SANS
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Total Dissolved Solids
SNA
SNB
SNC
SANS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Sulfate
SNA
SNB
SNC
SANS
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 17
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Figure 5-1: Sonae Novobord Water Quality Results: March 2010 – June 2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Nitrate
SNA
SNB
SNC
SANS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Ammonium
SNA
SNB
SNC
SANS
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 18
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
5.1.1 Toxicity Testing
Table 5-2 below summarises the results of the toxicity tests undertaken at the various monitoring
sites. The full report is available in Appendix B.
Table 5-2: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring toxicity test results – June 2015
Test Results
SN A SN B SN C
Bacteria
(Vibrio fischeri)
no short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
Micro-algae
(Selenastrum capricornutum)
no short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
Waterflea
(Daphnia magna)
S.D.O.T.H
(Some degree of acute/chronic toxic hazard)
no acute hazard S.D.O.T.H
(Some degree of acute/chronic toxic hazard)
Guppy
(Poecilia reticulata)
no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard
Overall classification
Class II - Slight
acute/chronic hazard
Class I - No
acute/chronic hazard
Class II - Slight
acute/chronic hazard
Results from the toxicity testing show that the up and down stream monitoring points (SN A and SN
C) showed slight acute/chronic hazard, but the effluent outflow (SN B) shows no acute/chronic
hazard.
5.1.2 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 Invertebrate Habitat Assessment (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 results of the IHAS assessment are provided in Table 5-3. The IHAS score card for June 2015 is
available in Appendix C.
Table 5-3: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical Invertebrate Habitat Assessment results for monitoring point C
Date IHAS Score
March 2010 53
August 2010 58
June 2011 64
June 2012 54
February 2013 54
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 19
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Date IHAS Score
October 2013 53
September 2014 54
December 2014 61
June 2015 57
IHAS considers three biotypes, namely stones (in and out of current, bedrock), vegetation (riparian
vegetation in and out of current, aquatic) and sand, gravel and mud (SGM).
Stones were completely absent from Site C and in addition, the stream is narrow and shallow, which
resulted in the low scores.
5.1.3 Aquatic Macro Invertebrates
The result for the SASS5 analysis at site SN C is shown in Table 5-4 below. The SASS5 scorecard
for June 2015 is available in Appendix D.
Table 5-4: 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
June 2015 42 9 4.7
Figure 5-2 provides a graphical representation of the SASS5 results over the last four years.
Figure 5-2: Sonae Novobord historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C (downstream of stormwater outflow)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SASS5 Score Card
SASS5 Score
No. of Taxa
ASPT
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 20
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Although the Table 5-4 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 absence of the stones
biotope. The results have remained similar over the last five 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 relatively sensitive organisms capture during the sampling procedure.
Figure 5-3: Simulidae (Black Flies)
Figure 5-4: Ancylidae (Freshwater Limpets)
6 Conclusions and Recommendations The following conclusions remain regarding the on-going biomonitoring survey undertaken in the
tributary of the Sand River during June 2015, as well as the historical biomonitoring undertaken
since March 2010:
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 21
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Sonae Novobord White River plant’s stormwater detention pond and wetland discharge
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 stormwater detention ponds and
wetland system indicates that the system supports a diversity of animal life 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 almost all of the parameters, the values return to the upstream quality at the
downstream monitoring point;
Toxicity screen results indicate that the effluent discharged into the unnamed tributary of the
Sand River presents no acute or chronic hazard to the tributary. The toxicity screen results did
indicate that the upstream and downstream monitoring points 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 the absence of the stones biotope in the tributary. This is the major
limiting factor and reason for the low SASS5 results; and
Based on the SASS5 results, biotic integrity in the unnamed tributary is poor due to inadequate
availability and diversity of habitat for macro invertebrates communities to establish themselves.
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 stormwater detention pond and wetland outflow associated with
the Sonae Novobord White River’s plant;
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; and
Consider sampling the up and downstream of the outflow located slightly east of Sonae
Novobord’s plant (also on the tributary to the Sand River) to establish if the outflow is impacting
on the river’s water quality.
Prepared by
Suzanne van Rooy Pr.Sci.Nat
Senior Environmental Scientist
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 22
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
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.
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 23
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
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.
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 24
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Appendices
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
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
24926
SRK Consulting
Date of certificate:
Date accepted:
Date completed:
Revision:
17 June 2015
10 June 2015
17 June 2015
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 12 348 2813/4 Fax: +27 12 348 85
216667
10-Jun-15
Water
SN A
216668
10-Jun-15
Water
SN B
216669
10-Jun-15
Water
SN C
A pH @ 25°C pH ALM 20 7.69 7.68 7.84
A Electrical conductivity (EC) @ 25°C mS/m ALM 20 32.9 125 53.7
A Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/l ALM 26 196 689 270
A Total alkalinity mg CaCO₃/l ALM 01 139 226 128
A Chloride (Cl) mg/l ALM 02 34.4 284 76.6
A Sulphate (SO₄) mg/l ALM 03 2.73 10.7 9.23
A Nitrate (NO₃) as N mg/l ALM 06 0.283 <0.118 0.699
A Ammonium (NH₄) as N mg/l ALM 05 0.990 8.79 0.929
A Orthophosphate (PO₄) as P mg/l ALM 04 <0.002 0.008 <0.002
A Fluoride (F) mg/l ALM 08 <0.213 0.648 0.323
A Calcium (Ca) mg/l ALM 30 35.7 42.6 31.4
A Magnesium (Mg) mg/l ALM 30 10.4 15.4 11.0
A Sodium (Na) mg/l ALM 30 23.0 174 55.4
A Potassium (K) mg/l ALM 30 1.81 12.7 3.83
A Aluminium (Al) mg/l ALM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Iron (Fe) mg/l ALM 31 <0.004 1.64 0.263
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l ALM 31 0.106 0.360 0.024
A Total chromium (Cr) mg/l ALM 31 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
A Copper (Cu) mg/l ALM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Nickel (Ni) mg/l ALM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Total hardness mg CaCO₃/l ALM 26 132 170 124
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Appendix B: Toxicity Results
TOXICITY TEST REPORT
For: SRK Consulting – Sonae Novobord
Survey: 2015-06
Report reference:
SRK-A-2015
Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
Tests performed by: Warren Smith (Technical Laboratory Manager); Hendrik Roets (Analyst); Nadia Olivier (Technical Signatory) Inputs and results verified by: Nadia Olivier (Technical Signatory) Classification (DEEEP) performed by: Lizet Moore (Quality Manager) Report authorized by:
Brenton Niehaus (Managing Director)
Page 2 of 8
Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
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 2015-06 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 June 2015. ............................................................................. 7
Page 3 of 8
Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested
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.
Da
ph
nia
ma
gn
a
Po
eci
lia
reti
cula
ta
Vib
rio
fis
che
ri
Se
len
ast
rum
cap
rico
rnu
tum
Ph
yto
se
ed
s
Ost
raco
d
SNA 2015-06-10 SRK 2015-06-10 CSBS None x x x x x
SNB 2015-06-10 SRK 2015-06-10 CSBS None x x x x x
SNC 2015-06-10 SRK 2015-06-10 CSBS 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
CSBS = Clean Stream Biological Services
Sa
mp
le n
am
e
De
liv
ere
d b
y
Sa
mp
led
by
De
liv
ery
da
te
Sediment
Scr
ee
nin
g
De
fin
itiv
e
Tests requested - Marked with X
Sa
mp
lin
g d
ate Water
Additional comments (sample
description or deviations)
Page 4 of 8
Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested
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 1014 / 2016-03; RD 1014 / 2016-03; SD 1014 / 2016-03 Correction factor (validity of test): 0,685 (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 Algae batch number: SC050315
Test temperature: 21 - 25°C 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: 3
Test temperature: 21 ± 2°C 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 - 290115; ISO control medium - 070115 Control mortality/immobility rate (validity of test): 0% (valid if below 10%)
Page 5 of 8
Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested
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: 1
Test temperature: 21±2°C 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 - 070115 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 & Golder Associates)
Page 6 of 8
Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested
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
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 Hazard classification system for definitive tests
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
Weighing: Each sample is furthermore weighed 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)
Page 7 of 8
Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested
3. Results and discussion 3.1 2015-06 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 June 2015.
Results SNA SNB SNC
pH 8,6 8,3 8,3
EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 22,3 80,4 31,9
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,7 7 7,7
Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 15-06-24 15-06-24
%30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 29 21 26
EC/LC20 (30 mins) * * *
EC/LC50 (30 mins) * * *
Toxicity unit (TU) / Descriptionno short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17
%72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -3 8 36
EC/LC20 (72hours) * * *
EC/LC50 (72hours) * * *
Toxicity unit (TU) / Descriptionno short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
no short-chronic
hazard
Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 15-06-15
%48hour mortality rate (-%) -40 -7 -20
EC/LC10 (48hours) * * *
EC/LC50 (48hours) * * *
Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. no acute hazard S.D.O.T.H.
Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17
%96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0
EC/LC10 (96hours) * * *
EC/LC50 (96hours) * * *
Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard
Class II - Slight
acute/chronic hazard
Class I - No
acute/chronic hazard
Class II - Slight
acute/chronic hazard
25 0 25
Key:
*** = 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 dilution series results are considered for EC/LC values and Toxicity unit determinations
WQ
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Weight (%)
Overall classification - Hazard class***
Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing
only]
V. fi
sch
eri
(b
ac
teri
a)
S.
ca
pri
co
rnu
tum
(mic
ro-a
lga
e)
D.
ma
gn
a (
wa
terf
lea
)P
. re
tic
ula
ta (
gu
pp
y)
Page 8 of 8
Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC
The results contained in this report relate only to the items tested
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
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Appendix C: IHAS Score Card
Project Name Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring
Date 10 June 2010
Site code SN C
Sampler S Nel, S van Rooy
River Tributary to the Sand River
Ecoregion North Eatern Highlands
Quaternary Catchment X22F
Grid Reference S 25°22’27.18’’ S
E 30°59’17.19’’ E
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
0
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) 10
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) 15
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) 32
TOTAL IHAS SCORE % 57
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
Appendix D: SASS5 Score Card
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) Collector/Sampler: Long: E Stones Out Of Current (SOOC) River: Datum (WGS84/Cape): Bedrock Level 1 Ecoregion: Altitude (m): Aquatic Veg Quaternary Catchment: Zonation: MargVeg In Current
Temp (°C): Routine or Project? (circle one) Flow: MargVeg Out Of Current Site Description: pH: Project Name: Clarity (cm): Gravel
DO (mg/L): Turbidity: Sand Cond (mS/m): Colour: Mud Riparian Disturbance: Hand picking/Visual observation Instream Disturbance: Biotope Score (%) -
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 Ceratopogonidae (Biting midges) 5
Oligochaeta (Earthworms) 1 A A Hydrometridae* (Water measurers) 6 Chironomidae (Midges) 2 A A AHirudinea (Leeches) 3 Naucoridae* (Creeping water bugs) 7 Culicidae* (Mosquitoes) 1
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 1 B Veliidae/M...veliidae* (Ripple bugs) 5 1 1 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 A 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 Hydropsychidae 1 sp 4 Ancylidae (Limpets) 6 A ABaetidae 2 sp 6 A A 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 42Calopterygidae ST,T (Demoiselles) 10 Leptoceridae 6 No. of Taxa 9Chlorocyphidae (Jewels) 10 Petrothrincidae SWC 11 ASPT 4.7 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) 5 1 1Protoneuridae (Threadwings) 8 Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles) 8Aeshnidae (Hawkers & Emperors) 8 Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles) 5 Corduliidae (Cruisers) 8 Haliplidae* (Crawling water beetles) 5Gomphidae (Clubtails) 6 Helodidae (Marsh beetles) 12Libellulidae (Darters/Skimmers) 4 Hydraenidae* (Minute moss beetles) 8
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 1m 2. 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
LowClearV lowTransparent
10-Jun-15SNCS. Nel, S. van Rooy
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
Many tadpoles. A lot of debris at SGM site due to low flow.
Comments/Observations:
SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring
VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015
SRK Report Distribution Record
Report No. 489988/06/15
Copy No.
Name/Title Company Copy Date Authorised by
Peter Viljoen Sonae Novobord 1 02/08/2015 Dr A. Wood
SRK Library SRK Consulting 2 02/08/2015 Dr A. Wood
Suzanne van Rooy SRK Consulting 3 02/08/2015 Dr A. Wood
Approval Signature:
This report is protected by copyright vested in SRK (SA) (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.