appendix g wet season (2017) baseline biomonitoring...

Malingunde ESIA

APPENDIX G Wet Season (2017) Baseline Biomonitoring Report

GCS (Pty) Ltd. Reg No: 2004/000765/07 Est. 1987 Offices: Durban Gaborone Johannesburg Lusaka Maseru Ostrava Pretoria Windhoek Directors: AC Johnstone (Managing) PF Labuschagne AWC Marais S Napier S Pilane (HR) W Sherriff (Financial) Non-Executive Director: B Wilson-Jones www.gcs-sa.biz

63 Wessel Road, Rivonia, 2128 PO Box 2597, Rivonia, 2128 South Africa

Tel: +27 (0) 11 803 5726 Fax: +27 (0) 11 803 5745 Web: www.gcs-sa.biz

Wet Season Baseline Biomonitoring Report of the Lilongwe River associated with the Malingunde Flake

Graphite Study, Malawi

Report

Version – Final

07 July 2017

Sovereign Metals Limited

GCS Project Number: 17 - 0303

Client Reference: GCS Ref: 17 - 0303

Sovereign Metals Limited Aquatic Biomonitoring Assessment

17 - 0303 07 July 2017 Page ii

Report Version – Final

07 July 2017

Sovereign Metals Limited

17 - 0303

DOCUMENT ISSUE STATUS

Report Issue Final

GCS Reference Number GCS Ref: 17 - 0303

Client Reference GCS Ref: 17 - 0303

Title Wet Season Baseline Biomonitoring Report of the Lilongwe

River associated with the Malingunde Flake Graphite Study,

Malawi

Name Signature Date

Author Sandra Carminati

07/07/2017

Document Reviewer Jacques Harris

07/07/2017

Director Jacques Harris

07/07/2017

LEGAL NOTICE

This report or any proportion thereof and any associated documentation remain the property of GCS until the mandatory effects payment of all fees and disbursements due to GCS in terms of the GCS Conditions of Contract and Project Acceptance Form. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, any reproduction, duplication, copying, adaptation, editing, change, disclosure, publication, distribution, incorporation, modification, lending, transfer, sending, delivering, serving or broadcasting must be authorised in writing by GCS.


17 - 0303 07 July 2017 Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GCS Water and Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd (GCS) was requested by Dhamana

Consulting, on behalf of Sovereign Metals Limited, to conduct a wet season survey for the

proposed Malingunde Flake Graphite Project, 20 km southwest of Lilongwe, Malawi. This work

included an aquatic biological survey in the vicinity of the project site in order to characterise

the baseline environmental conditions and support the identification and assessment of

environmental and social impacts associated with the proposed Malingunde Project.

This survey included an assessment of in situ water quality, general habitat integrity, habitat

suitability for the macro-invertebrate community, aquatic macro-invertebrate community

integrity, diatom analysis and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. This was carried out in

order to determine the Present Ecological State (PES) of the aquatic resources in the vicinity

of the project area and define areas of aquatic ecological sensitivity.

During the April 2017 wet (high flow) season survey, the in situ water quality results indicated

that the water quality at Site MMD1 KAN within the Kankoma Dambo, and Sites MML1, MML2

and MML3 on the Lilongwe River, may be considered to be fair, with an elevated pH occurring

at Site MMD1 KAN indicating alkaline conditions. The water quality at Sites MMD2 KO within

the Kovuma Dambo, and MMDR within the drainage line, have elevated EC values in relation

to the other sites.

The remaining findings of the wet (high flow) season assessment conducted in April 2017 are

summarised in the table below.


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page iv

Summary of the Results for the Wet (High Flow) Season in April 2017

Survey MML1 MML2 MML3 MMDR MMD1 KAN

MMD2 KO

IHAS Class Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate

IHIA Class C C B F A D

SASS5 Class E/F E/F C E/F D D

ASPT Score 4.1 4.9 6.7 5.0 4.7 4.5

WET Hazard Classification Slight Acute Hazard Acute Hazard Acute Hazard High Acute Hazard Slight Acute Hazard Slight Acute Hazard

Class I Class III Class III Class IV Class II Class II


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page v

The following is recommended after the current wet (high flow) aquatic biomonitoring

assessment:

x As the Lilongwe River was found to be in flood during the time of the survey, an

assessment during the normal high flow regime, when the river is not in flood, is

therefore required for a more accurate interpretation of the state of the macro-

invertebrate community structure at these sites. An assessment prior to a flood event

would be ideal;

x It is recommended that a bi-annual biomonitoring program be implemented going

forward in order to closely monitor any impacts resulting from the proposed mining

activities over time. This will enable the implementation of effective control

measures in order to manage and control any impacts that may compound upon the

existing impacts already occurring on the water resources in the vicinity of the

project area;

x With regards to water quality, the monitoring of spatial and temporal variations in

salt loads and pH should be carried out, and heavy metal testing should also be

conducted. The monitoring of an additional site within the site boundary to the north

of Site MMDR should be considered in order to provide a more comprehensive

indication of possible impacts on the water resources within the project area; and

x Definitive toxicological tests of the process water associated with the proposed

Malingunde Flake Graphite Project should be carried out on an annual basis in order

to determine the rate at which discharges should take place without severely

negatively affecting the receiving aquatic environment.


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 6

CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 10 2. SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................................... 11 3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 DESKTOP SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.1 Environmental Context of the Project Area .................................................................... 14

3.2 VISUAL SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 IN SITU WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 15

3.3.1 pH.................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Temperature ................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.3 Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).......................................... 16

3.4 HABITAT INTEGRITY ...................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.1 General Habitat Integrity ................................................................................................ 17 3.4.2 Habitat Suitability ........................................................................................................... 18

3.5 AQUATIC MACRO-INVERTEBRATE INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 19 3.6 DIATOM ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.7 WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTING .................................................................................... 22

3.7.1 Sample Preparation ........................................................................................................ 23 3.7.2 Detailed Methodologies .................................................................................................. 23 3.7.3 Toxicity Units................................................................................................................... 27

4. RESULTS & DISSCUSION ............................................................................................................ 28 4.1 DESKTOP SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 28

4.1.1 Environmental Context of the Project Area .................................................................... 28 4.2 VISUAL SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... 33 4.3 IN SITU WATER QUALITY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 39 4.4 HABITAT INTEGRITY ...................................................................................................................... 40

4.4.1 General Habitat Integrity ................................................................................................ 40 4.4.2 Habitat Suitability ........................................................................................................... 41

4.5 AQUATIC MACRO-INVERTEBRATE INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 42 4.6 DIATOM ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 44 4.7 WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTING .................................................................................... 46

5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 47 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 49 7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 50


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Aquatic Biomonitoring Monitoring Points for the Malingunde Flake Graphite Project ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4-1: Water Resource and Major Catchment Areas of the Project Area.................. 30 Figure 4-2: Major Wetlands and Reserves in the vicinity of the Project Area. ................. 32 Figure 4-3: Upstream view in a southerly direction indicating the abundant marginal and aquatic vegetation available at this point. ........................................................... 34 Figure 4-4: Downstream view in a northerly direction indicating the muddy substrate and limited flow diversity of the system. .................................................................. 34 Figure 4-5: Upstream view in a southerly direction indicating the fast flow of the system during the assessment. ................................................................................... 35 Figure 4-6: Downstream view in a northerly direction indicating the deep, silty pools observed at this site. ................................................................................................. 35 Figure 4-7: Upstream view in a south-westerly direction indicating the presence of the road bridge pillars and the deep pools at this point. ..................................................... 36 Figure 4-8: Downstream view in a north-easterly direction indicating excellent bank cover at this site. ..................................................................................................... 36 Figure 4-9: Upstream view in a northerly direction indicating the narrow drainage line with agricultural land on either side of the small stream. ............................................... 37 Figure 4-10: Downstream view in a southerly direction indicating the discoloured water within the stream with oily residue visible on the surface. ................................................ 37 Figure 4-11: North-easterly view of the Kankoma ................................................... 38 Figure 4-12: North-easterly view of the Kankoma ................................................... 38 Figure 4-13: Spatial Variation in Water Quality between the Monitoring Points on the Aquatic Resources in the vicinity of the Project Area in April 2017. ....................................... 40 Figure 4-14: Spatial Variation in SASS5, IHAS and ASPT scores between the Monitoring Points on the Aquatic Resources in the vicinity of the Project Area in April 2017. ...... 44

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Location of the Aquatic Sampling Sites .................................................. 11 Table 3-1: Classification of Present Ecological State Classes in terms of General Habitat Integrity (Kemper, 1999). ................................................................................ 17 Table 3-2: Reference Conditions for Sandy and Rocky River Systems based ASPT scores (Tambala et al., 2016) ................................................................................... 21 Table 3-3: Limit and class values used for diatom indices in the evaluation of water quality [adapted from Eloranta & Soininen (2002)]........................................................... 22 Table 3-4: Interpretation of the % PTV scores (adapted from Kelly, 1998) ..................... 22 Table 3-5: Summary of the Test Conditions and Test Acceptability Criteria for the Vibrio fischeri and Selenastrum capricornutum Acute Toxicity Screening Tests. ..................... 25 Table 3-6: Summary of the Test Conditions and Test Acceptability Criteria for the Daphnia magna and Poecilia reticulata Acute Toxicity Screening Tests. .................................. 25 Table 3-7. Hazard Classification System for Daphnia magna and Poecilia reticulata Screening Tests ......................................................................................................... 26 Table 3-8: Grouping of Toxicity Units. ................................................................ 27 Table 4-1: Summary of Descriptions and Photographs of Each Site for the High Flow Survey in April 2017 ................................................................................................... 34 Table 4-2: In situ Water Quality for the Wet (High Flow) Season in April 2017 ................ 39 Table 4-3: IHIA Results for the Wet (High Flow) Season in April 2017 ........................... 41 Table 4-4: IHAS Results for the High Flow Season in April 2017 .................................. 42 Table 4-5: SASS5 Results for the Wet (High Flow) Season in April 2017 ......................... 43 Table 4-6: Limit and Class Values used for Diatom Indices in the Evaluation of Water Quality [adapted from Eloranta and Soininen, (2002)] ....................................................... 44 Table 4-7: Interpretation of the % PTV scores (adapted from Kelly, 1998) ..................... 45


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 8

Table 4-8: Summary of the Results obtained for Toxicological Testing in April 2017. ........ 46

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TOXICOLOGICAL REPORT.

APPENDIX B: DIATOM ANALYSIS REPORT.


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 9

GLOSSARY AND ABREVIATIONS

Aquatic Ecology

ASPT Average Score Per Taxa

BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information Systems

BDI Biological Diatom Index

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EC Electrical Conductivity

EPT Index Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera Index FEPAs Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas

GSM Gravel, Sand & Mud

Heterogeneous Diverse in character or content.

IHAS Integrated Habitat Assessment System

IHIA Intermediate Habitat Integrity Assessment

MBS Malawi Bureau of Standards

Phyla A biological taxon between Kingdom and Class.

PES Present Ecological State

PTV Pollution Tolerant Valves SASS5 South African Scoring System Version 5 SPI Specific Pollution Index Taxa A taxonomic category or group TDS Total Dissolved Solids USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WET Whole Effluent Toxicity WHO World Health Organization Ecotoxicology Analysis

Bioluminescent The production and emission of light by a living organism

Daphnia magna Common species of water flea representing the invertebrate trophic level

LC10 Lethal Concentration 10% Concentration at which 10% of the test population will perish

LC50

Lethal Concentration 50% Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the test population will perish

Luminescence The emission of light by a substance that has not been heated

Lyophilised Freeze-drying

Neonate New born

Poecilia reticulata A small, colourful tropical species of freshwater fish also known as the Guppy

Selenastrum capricornutum A species of green microalgae

NaCl Sodium Chloride. Also known as salt or halite Toxicity The degree to which a substance can damage an organism

Vibrio fischeri A species of bioluminescent bacterium


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 10

1. INTRODUCTION

GCS Water and Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd (GCS) was requested by Dhamana

Consulting, on behalf of Sovereign Metals Limited, to conduct a wet season survey for the

proposed Malingunde Flake Graphite Project, 20 km southwest of Lilongwe, Malawi. This work

included an aquatic biological survey in the vicinity of the project site in order to characterise

the baseline environmental conditions and support the identification and assessment of

environmental and social impacts associated with the proposed Malingunde Project.

The aquatic biological assessment was conducted from the 18th to the 22nd of April 2017.

Two dambos, namely the Kankhoma Dambo and the Kovuma Dambo, were selected upstream

of the project area to determine baseline conditions in the vicinity of the area. Three

biomonitoring sites were selected on the Lilongwe River, one upstream of the project area

(the reference site) and two downstream of the project area to determine any impacts

(positive or negative) on this surface water system. A point on a drainage channel within the

Project Area was also selected to determine baseline conditions within the project area

boundary.

Biological indicators provide a means of determining the effects of changes in water quality

on whole ecosystems. This involves utilising living organisms as indicators of disturbance in

an ecosystem and this method has been proven successful (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). In

fact, bio-assessment has been acclaimed as a more sensitive and reliable measure of

environmental conditions than physical or chemical measurements (Warren, 1971).

This survey included an assessment of in situ water quality, general habitat integrity, habitat

suitability for the macro-invertebrate community, aquatic macro-invertebrate community

integrity, diatom analysis and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. This was carried out in

order to determine the Present Ecological State (PES) of the aquatic resources in the vicinity

of the project area and define areas of aquatic ecological sensitivity. It must be noted that

the assessment of the macro-invertebrate integrity using the EPT index was not carried out

in this study as this protocol strongly relies on the presence of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera

and Trichoptera, which were not observed at all the sites. Therefore, the SASS5 protocol was

utilised in this assessment.


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 11

2. SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of the aquatic assessment was to characterise the baseline environmental

conditions and support the identification and assessment of environmental and social impacts

associated with the proposed Malingunde Project by determining the Present Ecological State

(PES) of the aquatic resources associated with the project area.

The objectives of the survey were to:

• Determine the Present Ecological State of the surface water system;

• Define areas of aquatic ecological sensitivity;

• Identify potential impacts (positive and/or negative) that the proposed development

may have on the surface water system, and

• Provide recommendations for future monitoring programs.

The biomonitoring sites are located on the Lilongwe River, a drainage channel and two

dambos. One site, Site MML1, was assessed upstream of the project area on the Lilongwe

River. Two sites, Sites MMD1 KAN and MMD2 KO, were assessed upstream of the project area

on the opposite side of the watershed. Two sites, namely, Sites MML2 and MML3, are located

downstream of the project area on the Lilongwe River. Six toxicity sample points were also

selected at each biomonitoring site and analysed on four trophic levels. Diatoms were also

analysed on these water samples.

The positions of the biomonitoring and toxicity sampling points in relation to the proposed

Malingunde Project Area are presented in Figure 2-1. Table 2-1 provides geographical location

information, along with a description of each point.

Table 2-1: Location of the Aquatic Sampling Sites

Site Description UTM 36 S X Y

MML1

Situated on the upper section of the Lilongwe River, upstream of the project area and the Kamuzu Reservoir. This site serves to indicate the state of the system prior to any influence from the project area and reservoir.

566381.419

8427953


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 12

Site Description UTM 36 S

X Y

MML2

Located in the lower section of the Lilongwe River, downstream of Site MML1 and the project area. An indication of the state of the system following any influence from the project area and reservoir is given at this site.

574476.692

8434100

MML3

Located on the Lilongwe River, downstream of Site MML2. This site serves to indicate the cumulative impact of the surrounding activities on the Lilongwe River.

574689.708

8435476

MMDR

Located on a drainage channel within the project area boundary. An indication of the state of the system within the project area boundary is given at this site.

571810.371

8435452

MMD1 KAN

Located approximately 1.3 km upstream of the project area on the opposite side of the watershed. This site serves to indicate the state of the dambos prior to any influence from the project area.

570573.266

8440136

MMD2 KO

Located approximately 2 km upstream of the project area on the opposite side of the watershed. This site serves to indicate the state of the dambos prior to any influence from the project area.

572041.35

8438449


17 - 0303 07 July 2017 Page 13

Figure 2-1: Aquatic Biomonitoring Monitoring Points for the Malingunde Flake Graphite Project


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 14

3. METHODOLOGY

The following methodology was adhered to in compiling the aquatic biomonitoring assessment

report.

3.1 Desktop Survey

A detailed desktop survey of the information available for the Project Area was conducted in

terms of the environmental context of the area.

3.1.1 Environmental Context of the Project Area

The environmental context of the Project Area was determined with regards to climate,

topography, relief, slope, water resource management, ecological importance, sensitivity

and conservation value with regards to freshwater ecosystems within, or in close proximity

to, the project area. This was done by reviewing the data available for the specific region

within which the project area occurs.

3.2 Visual Survey

A visual survey of each biomonitoring site was carried out during the assessment. Both

instream and riparian zone factors were recorded. Instream characteristics included the type

of biotopes present, diversity of flow and depth, visual attributes of the water, and types of

macrophytes and fauna present. Riparian zone characteristics recorded included the type of

riparian vegetation present, stream bank incision and potential for erosion and the presence

of man-made structures such as gabions, weirs and bridges. Photographs were taken at each

site to document the status of the site during the assessment.

Visible impacts from surrounding anthropogenic activities and any natural limitations on the

system were also noted. Examples of such natural limitations include a lack of habitat

diversity due to the dominance of bedrock at the site and a lack of flow due to the non-

perennial nature of the system.


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 15

3.3 In Situ Water Quality

According to Palmer et al., (2004), water quality may be defined as the combined effects of

the physical attributes and the chemical constituents of an aquatic ecosystem. Water quality

has a direct impact on the aquatic biota residing within river systems and therefore the data

obtained during in situ testing is used to aid in the interpretation of the biomonitoring results.

The biota-specific water quality variables measured during the assessment include pH,

temperature, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Electrical Conductivity (EC). The in situ water

quality results were compared against the guidelines specified by the Malawi Bureau of

Standards (MBS) (2005) and the World Health Organization (WHO) (2011). The in situ field

measurements are discussed below.

3.3.1 pH

The pH of natural waters is determined by both geological and atmospheric influences, as

well as by biological activities. Most fresh waters are usually relatively well buffered with a

pH range from 6 to 8 (Davies and Day, 1998) and are slightly alkaline due to the presence of

bicarbonates of the alkali and alkaline earth metals (DWAF, 1996). The pH target for fish

health should range between 6.5 and 9.0, as most species will tolerate and reproduce

successfully within this pH range (Alabaster and Lloyd, 1982). A pH value of > 9.0 usually

indicates eutrophic conditions (nutrient enrichment) (Davies and Day, 1998). The nutrient

loads that cause eutrophication are usually a consequence of human activities and may result

from runoff from farms, industrial, urban and animal waste. According to the Malawi Bureau

of Standards (2005) and the World Health Organization (2011), the acceptable pH range is

between 6.5 and 8.5. In addition, spatial and temporal variations in pH level along a

watercourse should not vary by more than 5% (DWAF, 1996), as this may limit the integrity of

aquatic communities.

3.3.2 Temperature

Water temperature plays an important role in aquatic ecosystems by affecting the rates of

chemical reactions and therefore also the metabolic rates of organisms (Davies and Day,

1998). Temperature affects the overall physiological processes of organisms, such as; the

rate of development, reproductive periods and emergence time of organisms (Davies and

Day, 1998). Temperature varies with season and the life cycles of many aquatic

macroinvertebrates are cued by temperature (Davies and Day, 1998). The temperatures of

inland waters in South Africa generally range from 5 - 30 ̊C (DWAF, 1996). As no guidelines

for temperature are specified according to the Malawi Bureau of Standards (2005) and the

World Health Organization (2011), the above target range of 5 - 30 ̊C was adhered to.


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 16

Aquatic organisms have upper and lower thermal tolerance limits, an optimal temperature

for growth, a preferred temperature range in thermal gradients, and temperature limitations

for migration, spawning and egg incubation. Therefore, rapid changes in temperature may

severely affect aquatic organisms and lead to mass mortality. Less severe temperature

changes in water bodies may have sub-lethal effects or lead to an alteration in the existing

aquatic community.

3.3.3 Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Electrical conductivity (EC) is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical

current (DWAF, 1996). This ability is a result of the presence in water of ions such as

carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulphate, nitrate, sodium, potassium, calcium and

magnesium, all of which carry an electrical charge (DWAF, 1996). Many organic compounds

dissolve in water do not dissociate into ions (ionise), and consequently they do not affect the

EC (DWAF, 1996). EC is a rapid and useful surrogate measure of the Total Dissolved Solids

(TDS) concentration of waters with a low organic content (DWAF, 1996). For the purpose of

interpretation of the biological results collected during the survey, the TDS concentrations

were calculated using the following generic constant (DWAF, 1996):

TDS (mg/l) = EC (mS/m at 25 ˚C) x 6.5

If more accurate estimates of the TDS concentration from EC measurements are required

then the conversion factor should be experimentally determined for each specific site and

for specific runoff events (DWAF, 1996). According to Davies & Day (1998), freshwater

organisms usually occur where TDS values are less than 3000 mg/l. According to the Malawi

Bureau of Standards (2005) and the World Health Organization (2011), TDS levels of less than

1000 mg/l and EC levels of less than 140 mg/l are considered acceptable. In addition, spatial

and temporal variations in EC level along a watercourse should not vary by more than 15%,

as this may lead to osmotic stress within aquatic communities (DWAF, 1996).

3.3.4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) The maintenance of adequate Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is critical for the survival and

functioning of aquatic biota as it is required for the respiration of all aerobic organisms.

Therefore, the DO concentration provides a useful measure of the health of an ecosystem

(DWAF, 1996). As no guidelines for DO are specified according to the Malawi Bureau of

Standards (2005) and the World Health Organization (2011), the median guideline for DO of

more than 5 mg/l for the protection of aquatic biota was utilised (Kempster et al., 1980).


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 17

3.4 Habitat Integrity

3.4.1 General Habitat Integrity

The general habitat integrity of each site was assessed using the Intermediate Habitat

Integrity Assessment (IHIA) developed by Kleynhans (1996) and adapted Kemper (1999) for

application in rapid intermediate habitat assessments. Results obtained from this index were

used to aid in the interpretation of the biotic integrity results. The method assesses the PES

of both the instream and riparian zone habitat integrity in terms of impacts such as water

abstraction, flow and channel modifications, inundation and water quality. Scores are

allocated according to the extent of the impact related to each factor and total scores for

instream and riparian zone integrity are summed up and averaged to provide an overall

percentage for the PES of the general habitat integrity. The method classifies the PES into

one of six classes, ranging from Unmodified/Natural (Class A), to Critically Modified (Class F)

(Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Classification of Present Ecological State Classes in terms of General Habitat

Integrity (Kemper, 1999).

Class

Description Score (% of total)

A Unmodified, natural. 90-100

B Largely natural, with few modifications. 80-89

C Moderately modified. 60-79

D Largely modified. 40-59

E Extensively modified. 20-39

F Critically modified. <20


17- 0303 07 July 2017 Page 18

3.4.2 Habitat Suitability

The Integrated Habitat Assessment System Version 2 (IHAS v2) was developed by McMillan

(1998) for use in conjunction with the SASS5 protocol. The IHAS was applied at each

biomonitoring site in order to assess the specific habitat suitability for aquatic macro-

invertebrates and aid in the interpretation of the SASS5 results. The habitat scoring system

is based on a total score of 100%, and is divided into two sections, namely the sampling

habitat, comprising 55% of the total score, and the general stream condition, comprising 45%

of the total score. Summation of the scores obtained for the two sections provide an overall

habitat percentage. Scores for the IHAS index were interpreted according to the following

guidelines:

• <65%: habitat diversity and structure is inadequate for supporting a diverse aquatic

macro-invertebrate community.

• 65%-75%: habitat diversity and structure is adequate for supporting a diverse aquatic


• >75%: habitat diversity and structure is highly suited for supporting a diverse aquatic



17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 19

3.5 Aquatic Macro-Invertebrate Integrity Assessment

The monitoring of the integrity of the macro-invertebrate community of an aquatic ecosystem

forms an integral part in monitoring of integrity of that ecosystem for the following reasons:

x The relatively sedentary nature of the community that enables the detection of

localised disturbances;

x The relatively long life-cycles of ±1 year that allows for the integration of pollution

effects over time;

x The ease with which field sampling is carried out; and

x The heterogeneity of the community allows for several phyla to be represented, and

therefore responses to environmental impacts are detectable in terms of the

community as a whole (Hellawell, 1977).

The South African Scoring System Version 5 (SASS5) index was designed specifically for the

evaluation of low/moderate flow hydrology and is not applicable in wetlands, impoundments,

estuaries and other lentic habitats (Dickens & Graham, 2002). The standard SASS5 sampling

methodology was applied as defined by Dickens & Graham (2002) by an accredited River Eco-

Status Monitoring Programme (REMP) practitioner.

The endpoint of any biological or ecosystem assessment is a value expressed, either in the

form of measurement i.e. data collected, or by summarising the measurements into one or

several indices. The endpoints used for this study are the total SASS5 score, providing an

indication of the diversity of the macro-invertebrate community, and the Average Score Per

Taxon (ASPT), indicating community sensitivity. As the purpose of this study is to characterise

the current ecological status of the aquatic ecosystem, the current survey results were

compared to those of previous surveys.

According to Dickens and Graham (2002), the index is based on the presence of aquatic

invertebrate families and the perceived sensitivity to water quality changes of these families.

Different families show different sensitivities to pollution. These sensitivities range from

highly tolerant families such as the Family Muscidae, specifically House flies and Family

Psychodidae, specifically Moth flies; to highly sensitive families such as the Family

Oligoneuridae, specifically Brushlegged mayflies.

According to Van der Merwe (2003), a broad explanation of the sensitivity scales are as

follows:

• 1 – 5: Highly tolerant to pollution, i.e. Family Baetidae, score: 4;


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 20

• 6 – 10: Moderately tolerant to pollution, i.e. Family Ecnomidae, score: 8; and

• 11 – 15: Very low tolerances to pollution, i.e. Family Heptageniidae, score: 13.

Results from the IHAS Index were used to aid in the interpretation of the SASS5 results by

taking into account the effects of habitat variation on the macro-invertebrate community

integrity. This is because the three biotopes incorporated in the SASS5 protocol, namely,

stones and bedrock; Gravel, Sand and Mud (GSM); marginal and aquatic riparian vegetation

in and out of current may not be present in all river systems. Therefore, a system with a low

SASS5 score along with a low IHAS score may not necessarily be a reflection of poor water

quality. Rather, the low SASS5 score may be attributed to a lack of habitat diversity.

In addition, the water quality in a system that has achieved a high SASS5 score with a high

IHAS score may not be as pristine as a system achieving a high SASS5 score with a low IHAS

score. In this case, the diversity of the macro-invertebrate community is high despite a low

IHAS score, likely indicating good water quality. However, a system that achieves a high IHAS

score along with a low SASS5 score is likely to reflect poor water quality. This is because the

habitat was not a limiting factor and the low SASS5 score is therefore likely to be attributed

to the poor water quality of the system. Confirmation of this result may be made by taking

the ASPT score into consideration as it provides an indication of the sensitivity of the macro-

invertebrate community.

Table 3-2 presents the interpretation guidelines used for this assessment which is based on

the methodology applied by Tambala et al. (2016) in order to retain consistency for

comparative purposes. Based on the methodology described, ASPT scores of more than 6.9

attained in sandy rivers and more than 7.9 attained in rocky rivers, are regarded as the

reference scores. Current results were therefore interpreted in relation to these reference

scores.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 21

Table 3-2: Reference Conditions for Sandy and Rocky River Systems based ASPT scores

(Tambala et al., 2016)

Class Description ASPT

(Sandy) ASPT

(Rocky)

A Unmodified, natural. >6.9 >7.9

B Largely natural, with few modifications. 5.8 – 6.9 6.8 – 7.9

C Moderately modified. 4.9 – 5.8 6.1 – 6.8

D Largely modified. 4.3 – 4.9 5.1 – 6.1

E/F Seriously to Critically modified. <4.3 <5.1

3.6 Diatom Analysis

Diatom samples were prepared for microscopy by using the hot hydrochloric acid (HCl) and

potassium permanganate (KMnO4) method (Hasle, 1978). Between 300 to 400 diatom valves

were identified and counted for ecological analysis (Prygiel et al., 2002). Suggested rules for

counting diatoms according to Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN, 2004) were followed.

Where samples had insufficient cells for counting presence and absence of taxa was recorded.

The taxonomic guide by Taylor et al. (2007) was consulted for identification purposes. Where

necessary, Krammer & Lange-Bertalot (1986, 1988, 1991a,b) were used for identification and

confirmation of species identification. Environmental preferences were inferred from Taylor

et al (2007) and Koekemoer and Taylor (2012) to describe the environmental water quality

at each site.

The Specific Pollution Index (SPI; CEMAGREF, 1982) and the Biological Diatom Index (BDI;

Lenoir & Coste, 1996) were used in the diatom assessment and were calculated using OMNIDIA

software (Lecointe et al., 1993). In addition, the percentage of Pollution Tolerant Valves

(%PTV; Kelly & Whitton, 1995) and Ecological descriptor indices (Van Dam et al., 1994) were

also applied in this study to indicate possible impacts of organic pollution. The limit values

and associated ecological water quality classes used in this study to interpret the SPI and BDI

scores are indicated in Table 3-3. For the SPI and BDI the maximum value is 20, where a score

of zero indicates an increasing level of pollution or eutrophication. The %PTV has a maximum

score of 100, where a score of zero indicates no organic pollution and a score of 100 indicates

definite and severe organic pollution (Table 3-4).


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 22

Table 3-3: Limit and class values used for diatom indices in the evaluation of water quality

[adapted from Eloranta & Soininen (2002)]

Index Score Class

>17 High quality

13 to 17 Good quality

9 to 13 Moderate quality

5 to 9 Poor quality

<5 Bad quality

Table 3-4: Interpretation of the % PTV scores (adapted from Kelly, 1998)

% PTV Interpretation

<20 Site free from organic pollution.

21 to 40 There is some evidence of organic pollution.

41 to 60 Organic pollution likely to contribute significantly to eutrophication.

>61 Site is heavily contaminated with organic pollution.

3.7 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing

Acute toxicological screening of water samples were conducted within environmental control

rooms on four trophic levels using Vibrio fischeri (bacteria), Selenastrum capricornutum

(algae), Daphnia magna (macro-invertebrates) and Poecilia reticulata (Guppy) as test

organisms. The OECD Guideline 201 (1984) was adhered to for the Selenastrum capricornutum

growth inhibition test and the European Standard (EN ISO 11348-3, 1998) was performed for

the Vibrio fischeri bioluminescent test (Table 3-5). The US EPA (1993) protocol was performed

for the Daphnia magna acute toxicity test and the US EPA (1996) protocol was performed for

the Poecilia reticulata acute toxicity test (Table 3-6). Details on the sample preparation and

methodologies for these protocols are summarised in the sections to follow.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 23

3.7.1 Sample Preparation

The sample diluents used in the Vibrio fischeri bioluminescent test consisted of 20% m/v NaCl

stock solution. The diluent was used for sample preparation, dilution and control medium.

The Vibrio fischeri bioluminescent screening test was performed with 100% of the sample and

the definitive test consisted of a minimum of five sample concentrations selected to

approximate a geometric series, i.e.: 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% and 6.25% by using a dilution

factor of 0.5.

Algal culturing medium used for the control and sample dilution was prepared with deionised

water according to the OECD formula (OECD, 1984). The Selenastrum capricornutum growth

inhibition screening test was performed with 100% of the sample and for the definitive test

a 1:1 serial dilution was prepared with culturing medium.

Standard synthetic hard water (US EPA, 1993) was used as control and dilution medium for

the Daphnia magna and Poecilia reticulata acute toxicity tests to establish their inherent

toxicity (Slabbert, 2004). The Daphnia magna and Poecilia reticulata acute toxicity screening

tests were performed with 100% of the sample and the definitive tests consisted of a minimum

of five sample concentrations selected to approximate a geometric series. These test

dilutions were prepared by serial dilution using a measuring cylinder.

3.7.2 Detailed Methodologies

3.7.2.1 Vibrio fischeri Bioluminescent Test (EN ISO, 1998)

Lyophilised Vibrio fischeri was reconstituted, left to stabilise at 150C for at least 1 hr, and

then added to salinity-adjusted sample dilutions. The intensity of the luminescence of each

sample was measured at T0, T15min and T30min. Bioluminescent inhibition was determined

against control values (Table 3-5). Test validity was determined by a correction factor value

between 0.6 and 1.8; replicate values that do not differ by more than 3%; and an appropriate

inhibition value for the reference toxicant (20%-80% inhibition with 18.7mg/l Cr6+).


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 24

3.7.2.2 Selenastrum capricornutum Algal Growth Inhibition Test (OECD, 1984)

Algal cultures in the exponential growth phase were used to provide an initial inoculum of

10 000 cells per long cell cuvette. Three 25ml replicates of each sample concentration were

maintained at 250C with continuous lateral lighting (10 000lux). The optical density (at

670nm) of the algae sample was recorded on a daily basis, and growth inhibition was

determined relative to growth in the control (Table 3-5). Control growth needs to exceed a

factor of 67 after 72h in order for the test to be valid. Algal culturing medium used for the

controls and samples were prepared with deionised water according to the OECD formula

(OECD, 1984). The Selenastrum capricornutum growth inhibition definitive test is performed

with a 1:1 serial dilution series (e.g.100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% and 6.25%).

3.7.2.3 Daphnia magna Acute Toxicity Test (USEPA, 1993)

Daphnia magna test organisms were cultured in the laboratory under specified conditions.

Adult females were maintained in 200ml standard synthetic hard water (USEPA, 1993).

Neonates (<24h old) were removed from adult female cultures, transferred to an

intermediate holding container and then placed in test vessels containing control water or

sample/dilutions. Twenty neonates (5 in each of 4 containers), were used per sample

concentration. Mortality is recorded at 24h and 48h (Table 3-6). The test is valid if control

mortality is ≤10%. Daphnia magna acute toxicity test results were expressed in terms of

percentage mortality for screening tests and as LC10 values and LC50 values for definitive

tests performed.

3.7.2.4 Poecilia reticulata Acute Toxicity Test (USEPA, 1996)

Poecilia reticulata test organisms were cultured in the laboratory under standardised

conditions. Test organisms less than 21 days old were transferred to the sample / sample

dilutions and control (US EPA, 1996). The fish were exposed to the test sample for a period

of 96h during which survival was monitored (Table 3-6). Mortality equal to or exceeding 10%

in the screening tests indicated toxicity of the sample, provided mortality recorded in the

control was equal or less than 10%. Results were expressed in terms of percentage mortality

for screening tests and as LC10 values and LC50 values for definitive tests.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 25

Table 3-5: Summary of the Test Conditions and Test Acceptability Criteria for the Vibrio

fischeri and Selenastrum capricornutum Acute Toxicity Screening Tests.

Aspect Vibrio fischeri Bioluminescence Test

(EN ISO 11348-3, 1998)

Selenastrum capricornutum Growth Inhibition Test

(OECD Guideline 201, 1984)

Standard Method EN ISO 11348-3, 1998 OECD Guideline 201, 1984 Deviation None None

Test Species NRRL B-11177 Printz (CCAP 278/4 Cambridge, UK)

Test Chamber N/A 10 cm long cell

Exposure Period 15 and 30 minutes 72hr

Test sample volume

500 μl 25ml

Number of replicates

2 3

Measurement Equipment

Luminoscan TL, Hygiena Monitoring System

Jenway 6300 spectrophotometer

Test Endpoint Screening test - % growth

inhibition or stimulation relative to control; Definitive test - EC20

and EC50 -values

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

EXCEL spread sheet formulated by supplier (MicroBioTests Inc.,

Belgium)

Batch numbers/expiry

dates

VF 3415 / 2017-08; RD 3415 / 2017-08; SD 3415 / 2017-08

Algae batch number: SC2400316

Matrix dissolving batch number: MD040416

Bead batch number: A-SC190116; B-SC201015; C-

SC201015; D-SC201105

Table 3-6: Summary of the Test Conditions and Test Acceptability Criteria for the Daphnia

magna and Poecilia reticulata Acute Toxicity Screening Tests.

Test type Daphnia magna Acute Toxicity Test

(US EPA 600/4-90/027F, 1993)

Poecilia reticulata Acute Toxicity Test

(US EPA 712-C-96-118, 1996)

Standard Method US EPA, 1993 US EPA, 1996

Deviation None None

Test Species Daphnia magna Poecilia reticulata (In-house breeding)

Test species age Less than 24h old Less than 21 days Exposure Period 24 and 48h 96hr


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 26

Test type Daphnia magna Acute Toxicity Test

(US EPA 600/4-90/027F, 1993)

Poecilia reticulata Acute Toxicity Test

(US EPA 712-C-96-118, 1996)

Test sample volume 25 ml 200ml

Number of test organisms per beaker

5 6

Number of replicates 4 2

Test Temperature 21±2˚C 21±2˚C

Test Endpoint Screening: % mortality Definitive: LC10 and LC50 values Definitive test – LC10 and LC50 values

Screening: % mortality Definitive: LC10 and LC50 values Definitive test – LC10 and LC50 values

Statistical method used Graphical interpolation calculated by linear regression of relevant data points, EXCEL spread sheet

Graphical interpolation calculated by linear regression of relevant data points, EXCEL spread sheet

Batch numbers/expiry dates

Ephippia - 020616; ISO control medium – 300516

Control medium - 300516

Test validation 5% (valid if ≤10%) 0% control mortalities (valid if ≤10%)

For the Daphnia magna and Poecilia reticulata screening tests, a risk/hazard category was

determined by application of a hazard classification according to the Direct Estimation of

Ecological Effect Potential (DEEEP) method (Slabbert et al., 1998). This risk category equates

to the level of acute/chronic risk posed by the receiving aquatic resource to these two trophic

levels. These categories are indicated in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7. Hazard Classification System for Daphnia magna and Poecilia reticulata

Screening Tests

Percentage Mortality Class Description

None of the tests indicate a toxic effect. I No Acute Hazard

A statistically significant Percentage Effect (EP) is reached in at least one test, but the effect level is below 50%. II Slight Acute Hazard

The 50% EP (EP50) is reached or exceeded in at least one test, but the effect level is below 100%. III Acute Hazard

The 100% EP (EP100) is reached or exceeded in at least one test. IV High Acute Hazard

The 100% EP (EP100) is reached or exceeded in all tests. V Very High Acute Hazard


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 27

3.7.3 Toxicity Units

As toxicity involves an inverse relationship to effect concentrations (the lower the effect

concentration, the higher the toxicity of an effluent), it may be presented more clearly if

concentration-based acute toxicity measurements are translated into toxicity units (TUa). The

major advantage of using toxicity units to express toxicity test results is that toxic units

increase linearly as the toxicity of a sample increases. Toxic units also make it easy to specify

water quality criteria based on toxicity.

The toxicity unit (TUa) for each test performed was calculated as 100% (sample) divided by

the EC50 (e.g. 30 min Vibrio fischeri bioluminescent test and/or 72h Selenastrum

capricornutum growth inhibition test) or LC50 (e.g. 48h Daphnia magna and/or 96h Poecilia

reticulata acute toxicity test) values. Toxicity units are grouped as indicated in Table 3-8

(Tonkes and Baltus, 1997; DWAF, 2003).

Table 3-8: Grouping of Toxicity Units.

Toxicity unit Classification

<1 Limited to no acute toxicity

1-2 Negligible acute toxicity

2-10 Mildly acute toxicity

10-100 Acute toxicity

>100 Highly acute toxicity


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 28

4. RESULTS & DISSCUSION

The following results were derived from the aquatic biomonitoring assessment conducted

during April 2017. A discussion of the results is also included within this section.

4.1 Desktop Survey

4.1.1 Environmental Context of the Project Area

4.1.1.1 Location

The Project Area is located approximately 20 km southwest of Lilongwe in Malawi. Other

towns in close proximity to the Project Area include:

• Matsimbe - 3.3 km south of the Project Area;

• Sinyala – 5 km south west of the Project Area; and

• Kaunda – 5 km north east of the Project Area.

4.1.1.2 Climate

The Project Area is characterised by seasonal summer rainfall. The area has a temperate

climate with hot wet summers and dry winters (Peel et al., 2007; TAHMO, 2017). The majority

of the rainfall occurs from the months of November to April. A Mean Annual Precipitation

(MAP) of 860 millimetres (mm) occurs in the area (TAHMO, 2017). According to the closest

weather station at Sinyala, approximately 5 km from Malingunde, the MAP was approximately

914.6 mm, therefore receiving more rainfall. The rainfall variability within the region is a

result of topographic irregularities that have an influence on the micro-spatial rainfall

distribution (Reid, 2012).

4.1.1.3 Topography, Relief & Land Use of the Environment

Lilongwe is located on a plateau in Central Malawi and forms part of the East African Rift

Valley (Ebinger, 2005). The area is topographically irregular and is situated at an altitude of

1050 m above sea level. Land use in the area mainly includes crop cultivation, urban and

rural settlements, subsistence livestock farming and fishing.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 29

4.1.1.4 Water Resource Areas (WRAs) and Water Resource Units (WRUs)

Malawi’s drainage system is divided into 17 Water Resources Areas (WRAs), which are

subdivided into 78 Water Resources Units (WRUs) (UN-DTCV, 1986a). The project area falls

within the Linthipe Catchment WRA 4 and WRU 4D (Figure 4-1). The Lilongwe River

subcatchment falls within the Linthipe River catchment area and is the largest of the

subcatchments. The Lilongwe River flows from the Dzalanyama Mountain Range to the

Linthipe River. The Kamuzu Reservoirs I and II regulate the flow in the Lilongwe River. Water

flows from the Kamuzu Reservoir I to the Kamuzu Reservoir II after which it releases into the

Lilongwe River as and when required. The Lilongwe River flows to a raw water intake weir at

the waste water treatment plant in the city of Lilongwe, about 20 km downstream of the

Kamuzu Reservoir II. This treated water is then abstracted to supply water to the community.

However, 8% of the volume is discharged back into the Lilongwe River system in order to

meet the Environmental Water Requirements (EWR) (Nemus, 2015).


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 30

Figure 4-1: Water Resource and Major Catchment Areas of the Project Area


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 31

4.1.1.5 Conservation Value of the Project Area with Regards to Freshwater

Ecosystems

Aquatic ecosystems of ecological importance and sensitivity within or in close proximity to

the project area were assessed using the available literature. This information is summarised

in the following points:

x Protected wetlands under the RAMSAR and UN biodiversity conventions include the

major wetlands of Lake Malawi and Lake Chilwa, which are located 95 km to the east

and 235 km south east of the project area, respectively (Nemus, 2015).;

x The wetlands in the vicinity of the Project Area (Figure 4-2) are an important resource

to the local communities as these ecosystems guarantee food security, good grazing

and hunting sites as well as water availability (Frenken and Mharapara, 2002);

x Important ecological services provided by the wetlands include flood assimilation,

carbon storage, water temperature regulation and biodiversity maintenance (Nemus,

2015);

x Fauna such as Natriciteres olivacea (Olive Marsh Snake), Cisticola njombe (Churring

Cisticola), Bugeranus carunculatus (Wattled Crane), Aonyx capensis (African Clawless

Otter), Hydrictis maculicollis (Spotted-necked Otter) and Laephotis botswanae

(Botswanan Long-eared Bat) have been documented to frequent the wetlands in the

vicinity of the project area (Hughes and Hughes, 1992); and

x Aonyx capensis and Hydrictis maculicollis are regarded as Near Threatened and

Bugeranus carunculatus is regarded as Vulnerable (IUCN Red List, 2016-3).


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 32

Figure 4-2: Major Wetlands and Reserves in the vicinity of the Project Area.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 33

4.2 Visual Survey

A visual survey of the six sites was carried out during the high flow assessment in April 2017.

This was done in order to describe the state of the sites at the time of each assessment.

Table 4-1 provides descriptions of each site, along with photographs depicting the up-and

downstream features of the sites.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 34

Table 4-1: Summary of Descriptions and Photographs of Each Site for the High Flow Survey in April 2017

Site Description Photo Upstream Photo Downstream MML1 The system at this site is very

wide (>10m) and deep. The site is characterised by muddy substrate, marginal vegetation and aquatic macrophytes, with limited flow diversity and depth variation as the system was in flood at the time of assessment. The riparian zone was dominated by grass with a good diversity of instream macrophyes. Water was clear and some algal growth was evident. Sufficient cover was observed on both banks resulting in a very low potential for erosion. Livestock farming is prevalent in the area. The site is also impacted on by agricultural practices to the east of the site. The Dzalanyama Forest Reserve occurs to the west.

Figure 4-3: Upstream view in a southerly direction indicating the abundant marginal and aquatic vegetation available at this point.

Figure 4-4: Downstream view in a northerly direction indicating the muddy substrate and limited flow diversity of the system.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 35

MML2 Very fast-flowing water occurred at this site with limited variation in flow and depth as the system was in flood, which is likely a result of controlled releases from the upstream Kamuzu Reservoir. Excellent rocky substrate was present and some overhanging marginal vegetation was available, however, this is limited by bank incision likely resulting fast flows scouring the banks over time. The riparian zone consists of a mix of grasses and shrubs however only reed stems were available for sampling. This site is impacted upon by a road bridge and runoff from agricultural practices and rural settlements.

Figure 4-5: Upstream view in a southerly direction indicating the fast flow of the system during the assessment.

Figure 4-6: Downstream view in a northerly direction indicating the deep, silty pools observed at this site.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 36

MML3 Excellent stones and GSM biotopes at this site with limited overhanging marginal vegetation in the form of reed stems occurred at this site. The system was in flood, which is likely a result of controlled releases from the upstream Kamuzu Reservoir. Good diversity of flow and depth was however observed as a result of flow interception by the road bridge. Algal growth was observed on stones and water clarity was good. Excellent cover occurred on both banks reducing the risk of erosion. The channel is impacted on by a road bridge upstream of this point and runoff from surrounding agricultural practices and rural settlements.

Figure 4-7: Upstream view in a south-westerly direction indicating the presence of the road bridge pillars and the deep pools at this point.

Figure 4-8: Downstream view in a north-easterly direction indicating excellent bank cover at this site.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 37

MMDR A very narrow drainage line occurs at this site. No stones or vegetation biotopes were available at this point due to the shallow nature of the stream. Muddy substrate was prevalent. Channel modification, diversion and a road bridge impact on the flow of the system. Bank erosion is evident as a result of the removal of indigenous vegetation. Alien invasive species were also noted. Water quality is impacted on by surrounding agricultural practices. The water is discoloured with an oily residue on the surface. The system is heavily impacted on by runoff from agricultural activities and rural settlements.

Figure 4-9: Upstream view in a northerly direction indicating the narrow drainage line with agricultural land on either side of the small stream.

Figure 4-10: Downstream view in a southerly direction indicating the discoloured water within the stream with oily residue visible on the surface.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 38

MMD1 KAN

The Kankoma Dambo consists of a deep, stagnant pool with excellent overhanging marginal and aquatic vegetation. No stones biotope was available at this point and muddy substrate was abundant. Isolated clumps of algal growth was observed and the water was silty. The site is impacted on by runoff from rural settlements and agricultural practices.

Figure 4-11: North-easterly view of the Kankoma Dambo indicating the abundant marginal and aquatic vegetation occurring at this site.

MMD2 KO

The Kovuma Dambo comprises a stagnant, shallow, silty pool with algal proliferation evident. No stones biotope was available, however, both GSM and marginal vegetation were present. Alien encroachment was observed at this site. Some variation in flow and depth was evident further downstream. Impacts include flow modification as a result of a small road bridge, runoff from rural settlements and agricultural practices.

Figure 4-12: North-easterly view of the Kankoma Dambo indicating the stagnant pool on site.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 39

4.3 In Situ Water Quality Results

The in situ field measurements recorded during the aquatic biomonitoring investigation for

the current wet (high flow) survey are presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: In situ Water Quality for the Wet (High Flow) Season in April 2017

Parameter Guideline MML1 MML2 MML3 MMDR MMD1 KAN

MMD2 KO

pH

6.5 to 8.5 (MBS, 2005; WHO, 2011)

7.27 7.21 7.8 7.57 9.83 7.53

Temp (oC) 5 to 30 (DWAF, 1996)

25.6 23.4 23.5 23.5 26.4 23.5

EC (mS/m)

<140 (MBS, 2005; WHO, 2011)

4 18 5 31 11 35

TDS (mg/l)

<1000 (MBS, 2005; WHO, 2011)

26 117 32.5 201.5 71.5 227.5

DO (mg/l)

>5 mg/l (Kempster

et al., 1980)

8.2 8.1 8 8.2 7 7.2

The water quality at Site MMD1 KAN within the Kankoma Dambo, and Sites MML1, MML2 and

MML3 on the Lilongwe River, may be considered to be fair, with an elevated pH occurring at

Site MMD1 KAN indicating alkaline conditions (Table 4-2). This increased pH level is likely to

have been caused by increased biological activity as a result of eutrophication of the system.

This is likely to be a result of runoff containing fertilizer from agricultural lands and possibly

from the domestic use of the water within the dambo for washing, releasing phosphates into

the system (DWAF, 1996), and likely to limit the colonisation of the aquatic biota at this time.

The water quality at Sites MMD2 KO within the Kovuma Dambo, and MMDR within the drainage

line have slightly elevated EC values in relation to the other sites, which is likely a result of

runoff from agricultural practices and the villages within which they are situated.

Temperature values fall within the guideline and values are normal for the time of day and

season during which sampling occurred. DO levels are also above the median guideline of more

than 5 mg/l for the protection of aquatic biota according to Kempster et al., 1980). The

temperature and DO levels at these sites is therefore unlikely to limit the aquatic integrity at

these points.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 40

Spatially, the EC level increased by 77.7% between Sites MML1 and MML2, and decreased by

72.2% between Sites MML2 and MML3 (Figure 4-13) which exceeds the guideline stipulating

that the EC level along a watercourse should not vary by more than 15%. This variation is likely

to affect the aquatic communities in the form of osmotic stress (DWAF, 1996). Similarly, the

pH level increased by 7.5% between Sites MML2 and MML3, which exceeds the guideline

stipulating that the pH level along a watercourse should not vary by more than 5%. The

variation in EC and pH level between these sites is likely to be a result of cumulative impacts

occurring within the catchment associated with agriculture and domestic use and should

therefore be closely monitored in future.

Figure 4-13: Spatial Variation in Water Quality between the Monitoring Points on the

Aquatic Resources in the vicinity of the Project Area in April 2017.

4.4 Habitat Integrity

4.4.1 General Habitat Integrity

The results in Table 4-3 indicate that the general habitat integrity may be regarded as being

moderately modified (Class C) at Sites MML1 and MML2, largely natural with few modifications

(Class B) at Site MML3, critically modified at Site MMDR (Class F), unmodified and natural at

Site MMD1 KAN (Class A) and largely modified at Site MMD2 KO (Class D).

MML1 MML2 MML3 MMDR MMD1 KAN MMD2 KOpH 7.27 7.21 7.8 7.57 9.83 7.53DO (mg/l) 8.2 8.1 8 8.2 7 7.2EC (mS/m) 4 18 5 31 11 35

Temp (°C) 25.6 23.4 23.5 23.5 26.4 23.5

0

20

40

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

ElC

(mS/

m)

pH a

nd D

O (m

g/l)

SITE


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 41

Table 4-3: IHIA Results for the Wet (High Flow) Season in April 2017

IHIA Scores MML1 MML2 MML3 MMDR MMD1 KAN

MMD2 KO

Instream Score (%) 79.0 79.0 81.3 18.5 96.8 51.2 Riparian Score (%) 80.7 80.1 79.6 5.07 97.6 34.1 Overall Score 79.9 79.6 80.5 11.8 97.2 42.7

Class C C B F A D

Instream impacts on all Sites MML1, MML2 and MML3 included small impacts on water quality,

moderate impacts on flow at Site MML1, moderate impacts resulting from inundation at all

three sites and exotic macrophytes at Sites MML2 and MML3. Moderate impacts resulting from

flow modifications at Site MMDR was evident, as well as large impacts as a result of water

abstraction, bed and channel modifications, water quality modifications and exotic

macrophyte encroachment.

At Site MMD1 KAN, a small instream impact has occurred as a result of water quality

modifications. Moderate impacts resulting from water abstraction, bed and channel

modifications, water quality modifications, inundation, and exotic macrophyte encroachment

have occurred at Site MMD2 KO.

With regards to riparian zone impacts, a large impact has occurred at Site MML1 as a result of

inundation. A moderate impact as a result of inundation has also occurred at Site MML2 and

moderate impacts have resulted from indigenous vegetation removal and exotic vegetation

encroachment at Site MML3. Site MMDR has been largely impacted on by indigenous vegetation

removal, exotic vegetation encroachment, bank erosion, water abstraction, channel

modifications and water quality modifications. Site MMD1 KAN has experienced a small impact

with regards to water quality modifications and Site MMD2 KO has been largely impacted on

by indigenous vegetation removal, exotic vegetation encroachment and flow modifications.

4.4.2 Habitat Suitability

The integrity of the instream and riparian habitat has a direct influence on the structure of

the aquatic community. The IHAS index was used to determine the suitability of the habitat,

specifically for the requirements of the macro-invertebrate community.

The contribution of each biotope, namely Stones In Current (SIC), Vegetation (VEG) and

Gravel, Sand and Mud (GSM), as well as the physical condition of the stream are calculated in

order to work out the final IHAS score which reflects the overall habitat integrity of the site.

This allows for the identification of each biotope from most to least prevalent. The results of

the IHAS assessment conducted at the biomonitoring sites during the current wet (high flow)

season survey in April 2017 are presented in Table 4-4.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 42

.

Table 4-4: IHAS Results for the High Flow Season in April 2017

IHAS Biotopes Assessed MML1 MML2 MML3 MMDR MMD1 KAN

MMD2 KO

Stones In Current (SIC) 0 18 14 0 0 0 Vegetation (VEG) 13 9 11 0 10 11 Gravel, Sand & Mud (GSM) 7 8 15 2 10 9 Physical Stream Condition 27 19 29 28 21 21 Total Habitat Score 7 35 14 14 42 10

Total IHAS 47 54 69 30 41 41

The IHAS results indicated that Site MML3 on the Lilongwe River obtained the highest score

with regards to habitat suitability required for the colonisation of the macro-invertebrate

community (Table 4-4). The habitat integrity at Sites MML1, MML2 and MMDR was found to be

inadequate in supporting a diverse macro-invertebrate community. This is likely to be

attributed to the flood conditions observed at Sites MML1 and MML2, and due to channel

modification and diversion at Site MMDR. Flood conditions were also observed at Site MML3,

however, as the site was downstream of a road bridge, the flow was intercepted by the bridge

pillar occurring instream beside the left bank which allowed for slower, more diverse flow,

and therefore, more suitable habitat for the community. The habitat integrity at Sites MMD1

KAN and MMD2 KO was also found to be inadequate in supporting a diverse macro-invertebrate

community, however, as these systems do not contain flowing water with lack the stones

biotope, results from the application of the IHAS at these points are not a true reflection of

the state of the habitat. Application of the IHIA is therefore likely to give a more accurate

indication of the general habitat integrity at these sites.

4.5 Aquatic Macro-Invertebrate Integrity Assessment

The results of the macro-invertebrate integrity assessment conducted using the SASS5 index

during the wet (high flow) season are presented in Table 4-5.

With regards to the SASS5 assessment, the macro-invertebrate integrity is regarded as being

in moderately modified (Class C) condition at Site MML3, which is the highest class obtained

for all sites. Site MML3 obtained the highest SASS5 and ASPT score of 74 and 6.7, respectively,

indicating a high macro-invertebrate diversity and sensitivity (Table 4-5). This is mainly

attributed to the slower, more diverse flow and habitat compared to the upstream Site MML2

as a result of the presence of the instream road bridge pillar as mentioned previously.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 43

Table 4-5: SASS5 Results for the Wet (High Flow) Season in April 2017

Aspect MML1 MML2 MML3 MMDR MMD1 KAN

MMD2 KO

SASS5 Score 49 44 74 15 71 54 Number of Taxa 12 9 11 3 15 12 ASPT Score 4.1 4.9 6.7 5.0 4.7 4.5 PES Class E/F E/F C E/F D D

Site MMDR, which is considered to have a macro-invertebrate community integrity that is

currently in a severely to critically modified (Class E/F) state, achieved the lowest SASS5 score

indicating that the diversity of the community was found to be poor at this site. The ASPT

score was found to be higher at this point compared to Sites MML1 and MML2, which were both

also found to be in a severely to critically modified (Class E/F) condition. However, as only

three taxa were present at Site MMDR, this score is not likely to be a true reflection of the

ecological sensitivity of the site in terms of water quality. In addition, as the Lilongwe River

was in flood during the time of assessment, the interpretation of the SASS5 results for Sites

MML1, MML2 and MML3 in terms of water quality is limited. An assessment during the normal

high flow regime, when the river is not in flood, is therefore required for a more accurate

interpretation of the state of the macro-invertebrate community structure at these sites.

The integrity of the macro-invertebrate community at both Sites MMD1 KAN and MMD2 KO

were found to be in a largely modified (Class D) state. This is likely a result of the limited

habitat diversity as a result of the lack of flowing water and the absence of the stones habitat.

The elevated pH level at Site MMD1 KAN and the slightly elevated EC level at Site MMD2 KO

are also likely to contribute to this state. Site MMD1 KAN obtained a higher SASS5 and ASPT

score in relation to Site MMD2 KO which is likely a result of better habitat availability and

water quality at Site MMD1 KAN. A good diversity of macro-invertebrates occur at Site MMD1

KAN, and the sensitivity of the macro-invertebrate community is slightly higher at Site MMD1

KAN in relation to the community present at Site MMD2 KO. The lower sensitivity at Site MMD2

KO is likely a result of the slightly elevated EC level measured at this point. This may be mainly

attributed to runoff from the villages and the agricultural fields in the surrounding areas.

Spatial variation on the Lilongwe River indicates a 33.7% increase in the SASS5 score between

Sites MML1 and MML3 (Figure 4-14), which is indicative of increased macro-invertebrate

diversity at Site MML3. This is likely a result of better habitat availability at Site MML3. The

ASPT score also increased in a downstream direction by 38.8% between Sites MML1 and MML3,

which is also likely a result of better habitat availability at Site MML3.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 44

Figure 4-14: Spatial Variation in SASS5, IHAS and ASPT scores between the Monitoring

Points on the Aquatic Resources in the vicinity of the Project Area in April 2017.

4.6 Diatom Analysis

Site MMD1 KAN primarily indicated a salt tolerant community (Craticula halophila and

Nitzschia archibaldii), with nutrient tolerant species also dominant (Nitzschia palea). A lower

abundance of small naviculoid cells were present indicating an impact related to organic

pollution (Sellaphora pupula and Sellaphora seminulum). The community at this site indicated

bad ecological water quality (Table 4-6) and definite organic pollution (Van Dam, 1994) (Table

4-7) (Walsh, 2017).

Table 4-6: Limit and Class Values used for Diatom Indices in the Evaluation of Water Quality

[adapted from Eloranta and Soininen, (2002)]

Index Score Class

>17 High quality

13 to 17 Good quality

9 to 13 Moderate quality

5 to 9 Poor quality

<5 Bad quality

Sample MMD2 KO contained insufficient cells for counting and thus clear ecological inferences

could not be ascertained from the presence data collected from the site. However, from the

species present a nutrient impact is likely, and salt impacts appear to have been persistent in

the system. Low cell abundance could indicate that the system has only recently been

MML1 MML2 MML3 MMDR MMD1KAN MMD2 KO

SASS5 49 44 74 15 71 54IHAS 47 54 69 30 41 41ASPT 4.1 4.9 6.7 5 4.7 4.5

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0102030405060708090

100

ASPT

SASS

& IH

AS


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 45

inundated with water, or in rare circumstances that the system has suffered from toxicity

which has sterilised primary producers. Amphora montana is an indicator of increased

alkalinity.

Table 4-7: Interpretation of the % PTV scores (adapted from Kelly, 1998)

% PTV Interpretation

<20 Site free from organic pollution.

21 to 40 There is some evidence of organic pollution.

41 to 60 Organic pollution likely to contribute significantly to eutrophication.

>61 Site is heavily contaminated with organic pollution.

Site MML1 indicated impacts related to decreased pH (Nitzschia acidoclinata), with the % PTV

score showing significant organic pollution (Eolimna minima). The dominant species are

indicative of an environment that is highly polluted.

The dominant combination of Amphora montana, Navicula recens and Surirella angusta

indicate that Site MML2 is impacted by increased pH (Alkalinity) and nutrients, organics and

heavy metals (Taylor et al., 2007). Nitzschia archibaldii is a cosmopolitan species found in

circumneutral, polluted waters with moderate electrolyte content and is reported to be

tolerant of Pb and Zn (Taylor et al., 2007). The indices indicate bad prevailing water quality

conditions with light organic pollution and a eutrophic state.

Site MML3 indicates species with a tolerance for salts and nutrients and a bad water quality.

The % PTV score shows no organic pollution, and ecological descriptors (Van Dam et al., 1994)

indicate eutrophication. The site was dominated by Fragilaria capucina var. vaucheriae. This

benthic cosmopolitan taxon is found in circumneutral mesotrophic waters with moderate to

high electrolyte content (Taylor et al., 2007).

Site MMDR indicated an impact related primarily to salinity (Nitzschia archibaldii, Nitzschia

nana and Gomphonema parvulum) and nutrients (Nitzschia palea). The site fell into a bad

class and ecological descriptors indicate that the site is eutrophic and comprised of nitrogen

heterotrophic tolerant species needing periodically elevated concentrations of organically

bound nitrogen (Taylor et al., 2007). The % PTV value indicates definite organic pollution

(Table 4-7).


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 46

4.7 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing

During the high flow aquatic assessment, toxicological testing was conducted on samples

obtained from all six biomonitoring points during the high flow assessment in April 2017. The

results are presented and discussed in the section to follow. Refer to Appendix A for the full

analytical reports.

The toxicological testing results of the water at each monitoring point obtained during the

wet (high flow) season survey are summarised in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8: Summary of the Results obtained for Toxicological Testing in April 2017.

Results of the screening tests conducted on the water samples from each site indicate that

the water at Sites MMD1 KAN, MMD2 KO and MML1 pose a slight acute hazard to the aquatic

communities at these points. Furthermore, the water poses an acute hazard to the aquatic

communities at Sites MML2 and MML3, and a high acute hazard at Site MMDR (Biotox, 2017).

The data indicates low levels of bacterial growth inhibition at all sites except at Site MML2,

which displayed growth stimulation. Low levels of algal inhibition was evident at all sites with

the exception of Site MMD2 KO, where no inhibition or stimulation occurred. The highest

inhibition values for both bacterial and algal growth occurred at Site MMDR.

Sampling Point

Vibrio fischeri (% inhibition/ stimulation)

Selenastrum capricornutum

(% inhibition/stimulation)

Daphnia Magna

(% mortality)

Poecilia reticulata

(% mortality) Hazard Class

MML1 -11 -1 25 0 Class II MML2 3 -3 90 0 Class III MML3 -12 -10 95 0 Class III MMDR -35 -34.58 100 0 Class IV MMD1 KAN -21 -9.29 10 0 Class II

MMD2 KO -9 0 25 0 Class II


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 47

5. CONCLUSION

During the April 2017 wet (high flow) season survey, the in situ water quality results indicated

that the water quality at Site MMD1 KAN within the Kankoma Dambo, and Sites MML1, MML2

and MML3 on the Lilongwe River, may be considered to be fair, with an elevated pH occurring

at Site MMD1 KAN indicating alkaline conditions. The water quality at Sites MMD2 KO within

the Kovuma Dambo, and MMDR within the drainage line, have elevated EC values in relation

to the other sites.

The results of the general habitat integrity assessment indicate that the habitat integrity may

be regarded as being moderately modified (Class C) at Sites MML1 and MML2, largely natural

with few modifications (Class B) at Site MML3, critically modified at Site MMDR (Class F),

unmodified (natural) at Site MMD1 KAN (Class A) and largely modified at Site MMD2 KO (Class

D).

The IHAS results indicated that Site MML3 on the Lilongwe River obtained the highest score

with regards to habitat suitability required for the colonisation of the macro-invertebrate

community. The habitat integrity at the remaining sites was found to be inadequate in

supporting a diverse macro-invertebrate community. This is likely a result of the flood

conditions observed at Sites MML1 and MML2, channel modification and diversion at Site MMDR,

and the absence of flowing water and the stones biotope at Sites MMD1 KAN and MMD2 KO.

Flood conditions were also observed at Site MML3, however, as the site was downstream of a

road bridge, the flow was intercepted by the bridge pillar beside the left bank which allowed

for slower, more diverse flow, and therefore, more suitable habitat for the community.

With regards to the SASS5 assessment, the macro-invertebrate integrity is regarded as being

in moderately modified (Class C) condition at Site MML3, which is the highest class obtained

for all sites. This is mainly attributed to the slower, more diverse flow and habitat compared

to Site MML2 as a result of the presence of the instream road bridge pillar intercepting fast

flow. Sites MML1 and MML2 were both found to be in a severely to critically modified (Class

E/F) condition. However, as the Lilongwe River was found to be in flood during the time of

assessment, the interpretation of the SASS5 results for Sites MML1, MML2 and MML3 in terms

of water quality is limited. An assessment during the normal flow regime when the river is not

in flood is therefore required for a more accurate interpretation of the state of the macro-

invertebrate community structure at these sites. Site MMDR is considered to be in a severely

to critically modified (Class E/F) state indicating that the diversity of the community was

found to be poor at this site. This likely due to the poor water quality and habitat integrity

occurring at this site. The integrity of the macro-invertebrate community at both Sites MMD1

KAN and MMD2 KO were found to be in a largely modified (Class D) state. This is likely a result

of the limited habitat diversity as a result of the lack of flowing water and the absence of the

stones habitat.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 48

The elevated pH level at Site MMD1 KAN and the slightly elevated EC level at Site MMD2 KO

are also likely to contribute to this state.

Results from the diatom analysis indicated that significant organic pollution is occurring at

Site MML1. The indices indicate bad prevailing water quality conditions are occurring at Site

MML2, with light organic pollution and a eutrophic state. Site MML3 indicates species with a

tolerance for salts and nutrients and a bad water quality. The % PTV score indicates no organic

pollution but eutrophication is occurring. A bad water quality condition and definite organic

pollution is occurring at Site MMDR. Site MMD1 KAN indicated bad ecological water quality and

definite organic pollution. A nutrient and salt impact is likely at Site MMD2 KO.

Results of the screening tests conducted on the water samples from each site indicate that

the water at Sites MMD1 KAN, MMD2 KO and MML1 pose a slight acute hazard (Class II) to the

aquatic communities at these points. Furthermore, the water poses an acute hazard (Class III)

to the aquatic communities at Sites MML2 and MML3, and a high acute hazard (Class IV) at Site

MMDR.

Analysis of results from the wet (high flow) survey indicates that cumulative impacts are

occurring on the Lilongwe system and associated dambos which are likely to be attributed to

runoff from surrounding villages, agricultural fields containing fertilisers and livestock

farming. The use of the aquatic resources for washing of clothes and bathing was also

frequently observed in the area. The release of phosphates into these systems has likely

resulted from these activities giving rise to eutrophication (DWAF, 1996), which is likely to

limit the colonisation of the aquatic biota over time.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 49

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is recommended after the current wet (high flow) aquatic biomonitoring

assessment:

x As the Lilongwe River was found to be in flood during the time of the survey, an

assessment during the normal high flow regime, when the river is not in flood, is

therefore required for a more accurate interpretation of the state of the macro-

invertebrate community structure at these sites. An assessment prior to a flood event

would be ideal;

x It is recommended that a bi-annual biomonitoring program be implemented going

forward in order to closely monitor any impacts resulting from the proposed mining

activities over time. This will enable the implementation of effective control measures

in order to manage and control any impacts that may compound upon the existing

impacts already occurring on the water resources in the vicinity of the project area;

x With regards to water quality, the monitoring of spatial and temporal variations in

salt loads and pH should be carried out, and heavy metal testing should also be

conducted. The monitoring of an additional site within the site boundary to the north

of Site MMDR should be considered in order to provide a more comprehensive

indication of possible impacts on the water resources within the project area; and

x Definitive toxicological tests of the process water associated with the proposed

Malingunde Flake Graphite Project should be carried out on an annual basis in order

to determine the rate at which discharges should take place without severely

negatively affecting the receiving aquatic environment.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 50

7. REFERENCES

Aboatox Oy. (2012). BO1243-500 BioToxTM Kit. Instructions for use. Savikuja 2. FIN-21250,

Masku Finland. www.aboatox.com

Alabaster, J.S. and Lloyd, R. (1982). Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Fish, 2nd Edition.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B. (1999). Rapid Bioassement

Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Bentic

Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington D.C.

Biotox Laboratory Services (Pty) Ltd. (2017). Toxicity Test Report for the Malingunde Project

in Malawi.

CEMAGREF. (1982). Etude des méthodes biologiques quantitatives d'appréciation de la qualité

des eaux. Rapport Division Qualité des Eaux Lyon - Agence Financiére de Bassin Rhône-

Méditerranée- Corse. Pierre-Benite.

Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN). (2004). Water quality – Guidance standard for the

identification and enumeration of benthic diatom samples from rivers, and their

interpretation. European Standard. EN 14407:2004.

Davies, B.R. and Day, J.A. (1998). Vanishing Waters. University of Cape Town Press.

Dickens, C.W.S. and Graham, P.M. (2002). The South African Scoring System (SASS) Version 5

Rapid Bioassessment Method for Rivers. African Journal of Science. 27; 1-10.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry 1996: South African water quality guidelines vol. 7,

Aquatic ecosystems.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). (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.

Ebinger, C.J. (2005). "Continental break-up: the East African perspective. Astron. Geophys.

46: 216–21.

Eloranta, P. and Soininen, J. (2002). Ecological status of Finnish rivers evaluated using benthic

diatom communities. Journal of Applied Phycology, 14: 1-7.

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.

Frenken, K. and Mharapara, I. (2002). Wetland Development and Management in SADC

Countries. Proceedings of a Sub-Regional Workshop, 19-23 November 2001, Harare,


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 51

Zimbabwe. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Harare, Zimbabwe.

190pp.

Hasle, G.R. (1978). Some specific preparations: diatoms. In: Sournia, A. (ed.) Phytoplankton

Manual. UNESCO, Paris.

Hellawell, J.M. (1977). Biological Surveillance and Water Quality Monitoring.

Hughes, R.H. and Hughes, J.S. (1992). A Directory of African Wetlands. IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya/WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 820pp.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. (Version

2016-3): http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 2017-06-23.

Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W. (2000). Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia. Vol. 422/423 pp 1 –

14.

Kelly, M.G. & Whitton, B.A. (1995). The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoring

eutrophication in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology, 7: 433-444.

Kemper, N. (1999). Intermediate Habitat Integrity assessment for use in rapid and

intermediate assessments. RDM Manual version 1.0. Department of Water Affairs and

Forestry (DWAF), Pretoria.

Kempster, P.L., Hattingh, W.A.J. and Van Vliet, H.R. (1980). Summarized Water Quality

Criteria. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Technical Report TR 108,

1980, 45.

Kleynhans, C.J. (1996). A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity

status of the Luvuvhu River. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 5: 41-54.

Koekemoer, S. & Taylor, J.C. (2012). Rapid Diatom Riverine Assessment Method for Level 3

Ecological Water Resource Monitoring.

Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1986). Bacillariophyceae.1. Teil: Naviculaceae. In:,

Suβwasserflora von Mittleuropa, Band 2/1. Edited by Ettl, H., Gerloff, J., Heynig, H. &

Mollenhauer, D. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin.

Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1988). Bacillariophyceae. 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae,

Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. In: Suβwasserflora von Mittleuropa, Band 2/2. Edited by

Ettl, H., Gerloff, J., Heynig, H. & Mollenhauer, D. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag,

Heidelberg, Berlin.

Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991a). Bacillariophyceae. 3. Teil: Centrales,

Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. In:, Suβwasserflora von Mittleuropa, Band 2/3. Edited by

Ettl, H., Gerloff, J., Heynig, H. & Mollenhauer, D. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag,

Heidelberg, Berlin.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 52

Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991b). Bacillariophyceae. 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae,

Kritische Erg¨anzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae und Gomphonema). In:, Suβwasserflora

von Mittleuropa, Band 2/2. Edited by Ettl, H., Gerloff, J., Heynig, H. & Mollenhauer,

D. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin.

Lecointe, C., Coste, M. & Prygiel, J. (1993). “Omnidia”: Software for taxonomy, calculation

of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269/270: 509-513.

Lenoir, A. & Coste, M. (1996). Development of a practical diatom index of overall water

quality applicable to the French National Water Board network. In Use of Algae for

Monitoring Rivers II: Edited by Whitton, B.A. & Rott, E. Institut für Botanik, Universität

Innsbruck. pp. 29-43.

Malawi Bureau of Standards. (2005). MBS Guidelines on constituents of health significance,

MBS, Malawi (2000).

Mangold, S. (2001). National Aquatic Ecosystem Biomonitoring Programme: An Implementation

Manual for the River Health Programme - a hitch hiker’s guide to putting the RHP into

action. NAEBP Report Series No 15. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water

Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

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, Pretoria, South Africa.

Microbiotest Inc. (2012). DAPHTOXKIT FTM MAGNA. Crustacean Toxicity Screening Test for

freshwater. Standard Operational Procedure. Kleimoer 15, 9030 Mariakerke (Gent),

Belgium. www.microbiotest.be.

Nemus. (2015). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Rehabilitation and Raising of

Kamuzu Dam I. Rpt_t10439/01. Lilongwe Water Board. Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation

and Water Development.

Palmer, C.G., Muller W.J. and Hughes D.A. (2004). Chapter 6: Water quality in the ecological

Reserve. IN: SPATSIM, an integrating framework for ecological Reserve and

implementation: incorporating water quality and quantity components for rivers.

Hughes DA (Ed.) WRC Report No. 1160/1/04, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

Peel et al. (2007). Updated world map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology

and Earth System Sciences, 1633–1644.

Persoone, G., Marsalek, B., Blinova, I., Törökne, A., Zarina,. D., Manusadzianas, L., Nalecz-

Jawecki, G., Tofan, L., Stepanova, N., Tothova, L. and Kolar, B. (2003) A practical and

user-friendly toxicity classification system with microbiotests for natural waters and

wastewaters. Environ. Toxicol. 18 395–402.


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 53

Prygiel, J., Carpentier, P., Almeida, S., Coste, M., Druart, J.C., Ector, L., Guillard, D., Honeré,

M.A., Iserentant, R., Ledeganck, P., Lalanne-Cassou, C., Lesniak, C., Mercier, I.,

Moncaut, P., Nazart, M., Nouchet, N., Peres, F., Peeters, V., Rimet, F., Rumeau, A.,

Sabater, S., Straub, F., Torrisi, M., Tudesque, L., van der Vijver, B., Vidal, H., Vizinet,

J. & Zydek, N. (2002). Determination of the biological diatom index (IBD NF T 90-354):

Results of an intercomparison exercise. Journal of Applied Phycology, 14: 27-39.

Reid. (2012). The Influence of Slope Aspect on Precipitation Receipt. Weather Journal, 490–

494.

Rosenburg, D.M. & Resh, V.H. (1993). Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic

macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York, U.S.A.

TAHMO. (2017, May 15/05/2017). tahmo. Retrieved from Trans-African HydroMeteorological

Observatory: http://tahmo.org/

Tambala, C. Mumba, P. Moyo, B.H.Z. (2016). Aquatic biota as indicators of water pollution.

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Toxic. Res. Vol. 4(3):76-80.

Taylor, J.C., Harding, W.R. & Archibald, C.G.M. (2007). An illustrated guide to some common

diatom species from South Africa. WRC Report No. TT 282/07. Water Research

Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

Van Dam, H., Mertens, A. and Sinkeldam, J. (1994). A coded checklist and ecological indicator

values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic

Ecology, 28: 133-177.

Van der Merwe, C. (2003). The assessment of the influence of the treated underground mine

water on the benthic fauna in a portion of the Blesbokspruit RAMSAR site. Rand Afrikaans

University. Mini Dissertation.

Warren, C.E. (1971). Biology and water pollution control. W.B. Saunders CO., Philadelphia.

Walsh, G. (2017). Malingude, Malawi Diatom Analysis Report.

UN-DTCV. (1986a). National Water Resources Master Plan. Report and Appendices. United

Nations Department of Technical Cooperation for Development.

United States Environmental 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.

United States Environmental 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.

World Health Organization, (2011). Guidelines for drinking water quality. (WHO).

http://tahmo.org/


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 54

APPENDIX A: TOXICOLOGICAL REPORT (APRIL 2017)


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 55


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 56


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 57


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 58


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 59


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 60


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 61


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 62


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 63

APPENDIX B: DIATOM ANALYSIS REPORT


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 64


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 65


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 66


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 67


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 68


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 69


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 70


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 71


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 72


17-0303 07 July 2017 Page 73

appendix g wet season (2017) baseline biomonitoring...

Documents