sonae novobord white river biomonitoring winter 2015novobordecf.co.za/05 water monitoring...

Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring – Winter 2015

Report Prepared for

Sonae Novobord

Report Number 489988/06/15

Report Prepared by

June 2015

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page i

VARS/WODA 489988_Sonae Novobord_Biomonitoring Report_June 2015_Final.docx June 2015

Sonae Novobord White River Biomonitoring – Winter 2015

Sonae Novobord Heidelberg Road Rocky’s Drift White River 1240

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

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

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

SRK Project Number 489988

June 2015

Compiled by: Reviewed by:

Suzanne van Rooy Senior Environmental Scientist

Dr Andrew Wood Partner

Email: [email protected]

Authors:

Suzanne van Rooy

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

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page ii


Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... iv

1 Introduction and Scope of Report ............................................................................... 5

1.1 Introduction and background .............................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Project team ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2 Background to Sonae Novobord’s operation ............................................................ 5

3 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Water Management Area .................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Ecoregions .......................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Biomonitoring Methodology ........................................................................................ 9

4.1 Background to Biomonitoring .............................................................................................................. 9

4.2 Biomonitoring Sample Sites ................................................................................................................ 9

4.1 Biomonitoring Methodology .............................................................................................................. 11

4.1.1 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Toxicity Testing ..................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.3 Invertebrate Habitat Assessment .......................................................................................... 12

4.1.4 Aquatic Macro Invertebrates ................................................................................................. 12

5 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................. 15

5.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 15

5.1.1 Toxicity Testing ..................................................................................................................... 18

5.1.2 Invertebrate Habitat Assessment .......................................................................................... 18

5.1.3 Aquatic Macro Invertebrates ................................................................................................. 19

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 20

7 References .................................................................................................................. 23

Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A: Water Quality Results ............................................................................. 25

Appendix B: Toxicity Results ....................................................................................... 26

Appendix C: IHAS Score Card ...................................................................................... 27

Appendix D: SASS5 Score Card ................................................................................... 28

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page iii


List of Tables Table 1-1: Project team for Sonae Novobord biomonitoring .............................................................................. 5

Table 4-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring site description and coordinates .................................................... 9

Table 4-2: Toxicity classification for screening tests (undiluted samples) ........................................................ 12

Table 4-3: Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (Version 2) .................................................................... 12

Table 4-4: Modelled reference condition for the North Eastern Highlands Upper zone ................................... 13

Table 5-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring water quality results – June 2015 ................................................ 15

Table 5-2: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring toxicity test results – June 2015 ................................................... 18

Table 5-3: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical Invertebrate Habitat Assessment results for monitoring point C ........................................................................................................................................ 18

Table 5-4: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C .......................... 19

List of Figures Figure 3-1: Regional Location of Sonae Novobord ............................................................................................ 7

Figure 3-2: Level 1 Ecoregions of South Africa (Kleynhans et al, 2005) ............................................................ 8

Figure 4-1 Sonae Novobord monitoring sites June 2015 ................................................................................. 10

Figure 4-2 Monitoring point A – upstream of outflow ........................................................................................ 11

Figure 4-3 Monitoring point B - outflow ............................................................................................................. 11

Figure 4-4 Monitoring point C – downstream of outflow ................................................................................... 11

Figure 4-5: Guidelines used to delineate the Present Ecological State (PES) categories in term of SASS5 biomonitoring results .................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 5-1: Sonae Novobord Water Quality Results: March 2010 – June 2015 .............................................. 17

Figure 5-2: Sonae Novobord historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C (downstream of stormwater outflow) ....................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 5-3: Simulidae (Black Flies) ................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 5-4: Ancylidae (Freshwater Limpets)..................................................................................................... 20

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page iv


List of Abbreviations

ASPT Average Score Per Taxa

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

DWA Department of Water Affairs

DWS Department of Water and Sanitation

EC Electrical Conductivity

IHAS Integrated Habitat Assessment System

NWA National Water Act

PES Present Ecological State

SANS South African National Standards

SASS5 South African Scoring System Version 5

SGM Sand Gravel Mud

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

WUL Water Use Licence

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Page 5


1 Introduction and Scope of Report

1.1 Introduction and background

SRK was requested by Mr. Peter Viljoen of Sonae Novobord to undertake the bi-annual

biomonitoring for its operation near White River, Mpumalanga Province. Sonae Novobord White

River (Sonae Novobord) is a wood based panel producer and forms part of the Sonae Industria

Group, one of the largest wood based panel groups in the world. The company manufactures

particle-board, medium density fibreboard, melamine faced board, veneer faced board and

distributes high pressure laminates and laminated flooring.

Sonae Novobord has been granted a Water Use Licence (WUL) by the Department of Water Affairs

(DWA) (now the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS).This WUL was issued on 17 July 2009

(licence nr 24000091) in terms of the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA).

Section 7.2 of the WUL states that the licensee must sample aquatic macro invertebrates by using

the latest South African Scoring System method, as well as assess the habitat integrity by using the

rapid method as described by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (now known as DWS).

Biomonitoring as part of the fulfilment of the WUL conditions has been undertaken bi-annually since

March 2010. This report aims to address the requirements as stipulated in section 7.2 of the WUL

that was issued to Sonae Novobord.

The report contains the results of the biomonitoring undertaken of the unnamed tributary of the Sand

River during the low flow season in June 2015 by Ms Suzanne Venter, a registered natural scientist,

and Ms Selma Nel, an accredited SASS5 practitioner of SRK Consulting SA (Pty) Ltd.

1.2 Project team

The project team for the biomonitoring is shown in

Table 1-1: Project team for Sonae Novobord biomonitoring

Team member Role Qualifications

Dr Andrew Wood Project partner, technical reviewer

PhD, Pollution Control,

Suzanne van Rooy Project manager, field work, reporting

MPhil Environmental Management, Pr.Sci.Nat

Selma Nel Field work MA Environmental Management, SASS5 practitioner

2 Background to Sonae Novobord’s operation Stormwater arising on the Sonae Novobord operational areas is drained to a stormwater detention

dam and wetland system (with four detention ponds) that was established within the Sonae

Novobord site to assist in the balancing of peak stormwater flows and quality discharging to the

environment, specifically into an unnamed tributary of the Sand River. The detention dam and

wetland system provides some quality management provided by the biological, physical and

chemical activity within the pond and wetland components.



3 Setting

3.1 Regional Setting

Sonae Novobord White River is located approximately 12 km north of Nelspruit on the R40 in the

Mpumalanga Province. Refer to Figure 3-1 for an indication of the regional location.

3.2 Water Management Area

Sonae Novobord’s White River plant is situated adjacent to an unnamed tributary of the Sand River.

The site is situated in the X22F quaternary catchment area that falls within the Inkomati Water

Management Area. The Sand River is a tributary to the Sabie River, which is one of the ecologically

most important rivers in South Africa (Basson, Rossouw, 2003).

3.3 Ecoregions

Ecoregions refer to modelled physiographic areas that are selected on pre-defined regional

characteristics, including rainfall, topography and vegetation. An ecoregion is therefore an area with

similar physical characteristics, and is expected to support a unique combination of flora and fauna

(Kleynhans et al, 2005). Refer to Figure 3-2 for an indication of the various ecoregions of South

Africa. Sonae Novobord’s White River plant area falls within Ecoregion 4 (North Eastern Highlands).

North Eastern Highlands: This ecoregion is a mountainous area characterised by closed hills and

mountains with moderate to high relief and vegetation comprising North-eastern Highveld Grassland

and Lowveld Bushveld types. Patches with Afromontane Forest are scattered throughout the region.

Generally this ecoregion can be regarded as transitional between the Lowveld and the Northern

Escarpment. This region is characterised by moderate to high mean annual precipitation and stream

frequency of low/medium to medium high. Refer to Figure 3-2 for an indication of the location of the

North Eastern Highlands ecoregion (Ecoregion 4).

!.

SONAE NOVOBORD PLANT

31°10'0"E

31°10'0"E

31°5'0"E

31°5'0"E

31°0'0"E

31°0'0"E

30°55'0"E

30°55'0"E

30°50'0"E

30°50'0"E

25°1

5'0"S

25°1

5'0"S

25°2

0'0"S

25°2

0'0"S

25°2

5'0"S

25°2

5'0"S

25°3

0'0"S

25°3

0'0"S

SONAE NOVOBORDREGIONAL LOCALITY MAP 489988Project No. Fig No.

Date:

3-1

Compiled by:

Scale

05/08/2015 LOUA

Datum:Projection:HH94Central Meridian/Zone:

1:200,000

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

Data Source:

Revision: A Date: 00 00 2011

¯

Mo z

a mb i

q ue

Mo z

a mb i

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

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

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

FreeState

LesothoNorthernCape

Western Cape

Gauteng

MpumalangaNorthWest

Limpopo

KwaZulu-Natal

EasternCape

NGI, Municipal DemarcationBoard, SANPARKS

0 5 102.5 Kilometres



Figure 3-2: Level 1 Ecoregions of South Africa (Kleynhans et al, 2005)



4 Biomonitoring Methodology

4.1 Background to Biomonitoring

Bio-monitoring is conducted by measuring and evaluating the change in biological response of

aquatic macro invertebrates to the environment. Aquatic macro-invertebrate communities are

affected by the following factors:

Geomorphology (stream bank stability, bed material, biotopes such as stones in and out of

current, vegetation and stones, gravel and mud);

Hydrology (water depth, flow velocity); and

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

Two biological indices are used in order to ascertain the biological health of the river in terms of the

macro invertebrates namely the Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS) and the South

African Scoring System Version 5 (SASS5).

The site conditions are measured against the Ecoregion as described in Section 2.3.

4.2 Biomonitoring Sample Sites

During the biomonitoring study in June 2015, the three monitoring sites (A to C) were assessed that

have been monitored since March 2010. These monitoring points have been chosen previously to

assess the impact of Sonae Novobord White River plant’s stormwater detention pond and wetland

system release overflow into the unnamed tributary of the Sand River.

Refer to Figure 4-1 for an indication of the positions of the monitoring points in relation to Sonae

Novobord White River’s plant, and Table 4-1 for a description of the monitoring sites. Table 4-1 also

provides coordinates of each monitoring site, and the type of monitoring undertaken at each site.

Note that monitoring point AA is used in some instances, should monitoring point A be overgrown

with reeds and the sampler is unable to take a sample at point A.

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

Site Coordinates

Site Description Monitoring undertaken South East

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

detention pond and wetland system outflow.

None

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

detention pond and wetland system outflow

Water Quality

Toxicity

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

and wetland system outflow Water Quality

Toxicity

C

25°22’27.18’’ S 30°59’17.19’’ E Downstream of stormwater detention pond and wetland system outflow

Water Quality

Toxicity

IHAS

SASS5

Photographs of the monitoring sites were taken at the time of the assessment and are shown in

Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-4.

SONAE NOVOBORD PLANT

Tributary to Sand River

R40

To White River

To Nelspruit

30°59'45"E

30°59'45"E

30°59'30"E

30°59'30"E

30°59'15"E

30°59'15"E

30°59'0"E

30°59'0"E

30°58'45"E

30°58'45"E

25°2

2'15"S

25°2

2'15"S

25°2

2'30"S

25°2

2'30"S

25°2

2'45"S

25°2

2'45"S

Legend!? Bio-Monitoring Points

River

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

Date:

4-1

Compiled by:

Scale

05/08/2015 LOUA

Datum:Projection:HH94

Google Earth imagery

Central Meridian/Zone:

1:10,000

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

Data Source:

Revision: A Date: 00 00 2011

¯

0 250 500125 Metres



Figure 4-2 Monitoring point A – upstream of outflow

Figure 4-3 Monitoring point B - outflow

Figure 4-4 Monitoring point C – downstream of outflow

4.1 Biomonitoring Methodology

The following sections details the methodology undertaken during the biomonitoring programme.

The field work was undertaken on 10 June 2015 by Ms Suzanne van Rooy and Ms Selma Nel of

SRK Consulting.



4.1.1 Water Quality

Water quality has a direct impact on the aquatic biota in river systems and is therefore important to

include as part of a biomonitoring assessment.

Water samples were taken at site A, B and C. The samples were taken to Aquatico Scientific (Pty)

Ltd for chemical analysis. A range of elements were analysed for and concentrations compared

against the South African National Standards (SANS) 241-1:2011 for Drinking Water, Class I

(recommended operational limit) and the South African Water Quality Guidelines for Aquatic

Systems (DWAF, 1996).

4.1.2 Toxicity Testing

Water samples were also undertaken at site A, B and C and taken to Clean Stream Biological

Services (cc) for toxicity screening tests. These tests included bacteria (Vibrio fischeri), micro-algae

(Selenastrum capricornutum), crustaceans (Daphnia magna) and fish (Poecilia reticulata).

Toxicity testing is undertaken in order to possibly predict potential effects of the resident water

quality on the environment. The toxicity testing is applied by exposing biota to water sources in order

to determine the potential risk of such water to the biota/biological integrity of the receiving water

bodies. Table 4-2 indicates the classification for screening tests.

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

Class Description

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.3 Invertebrate Habitat Assessment

The Invertebrate Habitat Assessment System (IHAS, version 2) was applied at each of the sampling

sites in order to assess the availability of habitat biotopes for macro invertebrates. The IHAS was

developed specifically for use with the SASS5 protocol in South Africa (McMillan, 1998). Table 4-3

describes the IHAS scores and classifications.

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

IHAS Score Description

> 65% Good

55-65% Adequate/Fair

< 55% Poor

4.1.4 Aquatic Macro Invertebrates

Aquatic macro invertebrates were collected using the qualitative kick sampling method called the

South African Scoring System Version 5 (SASS5) (Dickens & Graham, 2002). The SASS5 protocol

is a biotic index of the condition of a river or stream, based on the resident macro invertebrate

community, whereby each taxon is allocated a score according to its level of tolerance to river health

degradation. Three scores are obtained namely number of taxa, SASS score and Average Score Per

Taxa (ASPT). The Number of taxa indicates the number of different taxa found at a specific site, the



SASS score is the combined sensitivity score for all taxa found/identified at a specific site and ASPT

is the SASS score divided by the number of taxa.

A standard SASS net were utilised and invertebrates were identified to at least family level. Available

biotopes sampled included, stones-in and –out of current, marginal vegetation-in and out-of-current

and sediments (sand, gravel and mud).

Results for each biotope were kept separate to enable comparison of results from similar habitats.

The SASS5 results were classified into one of six categories, ranging from Natural (Category A) to

very Critically Modified (Category F), as summarised in Table 4-4.

The Present Ecological State (PES) classes were obtained from the South African Scoring System

data interpretation guidelines (Dallas, 2007) for the North Eastern Highlands Upper Zone and are

presented in Figure 4-5.

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

Class Description SASS

Score ASPT

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

> 211 > 6.8

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

177 - 210 6.5 - 67

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

151 - 176 6.1 – 6.4

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

115 -150 5.2 - 6

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

< 115 < 5.2



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



5 Results and Discussion

5.1 Water Quality

The water quality results are provided in Table 5-1 below, and historical trends are illustrated in

Figure 5-1. The results were compared with SANS 241:2006 Class I drinking water standards as well

as the guidelines provided by DWA for aquatic systems (South African Water Quality Guidelines for

Aquatic Ecosystems – DWAF, 1996). The water quality results are available in Appendix A.

Water quality results were mainly within the SANS Class I drinking water standards, with exception

of ammonium which was elevated at the effluent outflow monitoring point (SN B). The ammonium

quality returned to lower levels and within SANS Class I drinking water standards at the downstream

sampling point. In almost instances the water quality levels were elevated at the effluent outflow

monitoring point (SN B) when compared to the upstream monitoring point (SN A), but returned to

lower levels at the downstream monitoring point (SN C).

Table 5-1: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring water quality results – June 2015

Locality SN A SN B SN C SANS

241:2006 Class I

DWAF 1996

pH 7.69 7.68 7.84 5 – 9.7 5 – 9.5

EC 32.9 125 53.7 170 -

TDS - cal 196 689 270 1200 -

Alk 139 226 128 - -

Cl 34.4 284 76.6 300 N/A

SO4 2.73 10.7 9.23 500 N/A

NO3 0.283 -0.118 0.699 11 -

NH4 0.99 8.79 0.929 1.5 -

PO4 -0.002 0.008 -0.002 - -

F -0.213 0.648 0.323 1.5 0.75

Ca 35.7 42.6 31.4 - N/A

Mg 10.4 15.4 11 - N/A

Na 23 174 55.4 200 N/A

K 1.81 12.7 3.83 - -

Al -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 300 0.005

Fe -0.004 1.64 0.263 300 N/A

Mn 0.106 0.36 0.024 100 0.18

Cr -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 50 -

Cu -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 2000 0.0003

Ni -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 70 N/A



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

pH

SNA

SNB

SNC

SANS

SANS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Electrical Conductivity

SNA

SNB

SNC

SANS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Total Dissolved Solids

SNA

SNB

SNC

SANS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Sulfate

SNA

SNB

SNC

SANS



Figure 5-1: Sonae Novobord Water Quality Results: March 2010 – June 2015

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nitrate

SNA

SNB

SNC

SANS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Ammonium

SNA

SNB

SNC

SANS



5.1.1 Toxicity Testing

Table 5-2 below summarises the results of the toxicity tests undertaken at the various monitoring

sites. The full report is available in Appendix B.

Table 5-2: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring toxicity test results – June 2015

Test Results

SN A SN B SN C

Bacteria

(Vibrio fischeri)

no short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard

Micro-algae

(Selenastrum capricornutum)

no short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

S.D.O.T.H

(Some degree of acute/chronic toxic hazard)

no acute hazard S.D.O.T.H

(Some degree of acute/chronic toxic hazard)

Guppy

(Poecilia reticulata)

no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard

Overall classification

Class II - Slight

acute/chronic hazard

Class I - No


Class II - Slight


Results from the toxicity testing show that the up and down stream monitoring points (SN A and SN

C) showed slight acute/chronic hazard, but the effluent outflow (SN B) shows no acute/chronic

hazard.

5.1.2 Invertebrate Habitat Assessment

The quality of the instream and riparian habitat has a direct influence on the aquatic community.

Evaluating the structure and functioning of an aquatic ecosystem must therefore take into account

the physical habitat to assess the site’s ecological integrity.

The Invertebrate Habitat Assessment (IHAS) was developed by McMillan (1998) for use in

conjunction with the SASS5 protocol.

Note that in terms of conducting IHAS and SASS5 monitoring methods, only monitoring site C was

assessed, as vegetation cover restricted the application of the kick/swipe sampling method (SASS5

sampling method) at site SN A and at site SN B is an effluent outflow only.

The results of the IHAS assessment are provided in Table 5-3. The IHAS score card for June 2015 is

available in Appendix C.

Table 5-3: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical Invertebrate Habitat Assessment results for monitoring point C

Date IHAS Score

March 2010 53

August 2010 58

June 2011 64

June 2012 54

February 2013 54



Date IHAS Score

October 2013 53

September 2014 54

December 2014 61

June 2015 57

IHAS considers three biotypes, namely stones (in and out of current, bedrock), vegetation (riparian

vegetation in and out of current, aquatic) and sand, gravel and mud (SGM).

Stones were completely absent from Site C and in addition, the stream is narrow and shallow, which

resulted in the low scores.

5.1.3 Aquatic Macro Invertebrates

The result for the SASS5 analysis at site SN C is shown in Table 5-4 below. The SASS5 scorecard

for June 2015 is available in Appendix D.

Table 5-4: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring Historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C

Date SASS5 Score No. of taxa ASPT

March 2010 57 13 4.4

August 2010 46 11 4.2

June 2011 59 12 4.9

June 2012 35 8 4.4

June 2013 49 11 4.5

October 2013 52 11 4.7

September 2014 48 10 4.8

December 2014 60 13 4.6

June 2015 42 9 4.7

Figure 5-2 provides a graphical representation of the SASS5 results over the last four years.

Figure 5-2: Sonae Novobord historical SASS5 results for monitoring point C (downstream of stormwater outflow)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SASS5 Score Card

SASS5 Score

No. of Taxa

ASPT



Although the Table 5-4 show low ASPT, this can be attributed to the fact that the habitat available for

macro invertebrate communities to flourish in is not ideal, mainly due to the absence of the stones

biotope. The results have remained similar over the last five years, and have not shown major

variations, indicating that the impact of the stormwater outflow does not exacerbate the water quality

of the tributary.

As the water quality is considered adequate to support aquatic biota, it can be assumed that the lack

of habitat is the major contributor to the low SASS and ASPT scores, and not due to the influence of

the Sonae Novobord White River plant’s stormwater outflow.

Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 relatively sensitive organisms capture during the sampling procedure.

Figure 5-3: Simulidae (Black Flies)

Figure 5-4: Ancylidae (Freshwater Limpets)

6 Conclusions and Recommendations The following conclusions remain regarding the on-going biomonitoring survey undertaken in the

tributary of the Sand River during June 2015, as well as the historical biomonitoring undertaken

since March 2010:



Sonae Novobord White River plant’s stormwater detention pond and wetland discharge

improves the appearance of the downstream tributary of the Sand River by increasing the flow of

the unnamed tributary and creating additional habitat for fauna community;

The numerous bird life and plentiful insects within the various stormwater detention ponds and

wetland system indicates that the system supports a diversity of animal life also shows that the

water quality in these systems are suitable to support aquatic and terrestrial animal life and flora

species;

The water quality results indicate that the stormwater outflow has the highest concentration

values, however, in almost all of the parameters, the values return to the upstream quality at the

downstream monitoring point;

Toxicity screen results indicate that the effluent discharged into the unnamed tributary of the

Sand River presents no acute or chronic hazard to the tributary. The toxicity screen results did

indicate that the upstream and downstream monitoring points show slight acute/chronic hazard.

Definitive testing is not required at this stage, however, toxicity testing should be continued to

monitor the levels of toxicity;

The IHAS data collected indicates that the habitat to accommodate aquatic macro-invertebrates

is not adequate, due to the absence of the stones biotope in the tributary. This is the major

limiting factor and reason for the low SASS5 results; and

Based on the SASS5 results, biotic integrity in the unnamed tributary is poor due to inadequate

availability and diversity of habitat for macro invertebrates communities to establish themselves.

The following recommendations are suggested:

Continue with biomonitoring of the unnamed tributary of the Sand River to establish trend lines

and monitor the impact of the stormwater detention pond and wetland outflow associated with

the Sonae Novobord White River’s plant;

Undertake toxicity testing on a quarterly basis to monitoring toxicity levels in the effluent outflow

as well as downstream of the effluent outflow, as per the WUL requirements; and

Consider sampling the up and downstream of the outflow located slightly east of Sonae

Novobord’s plant (also on the tributary to the Sand River) to establish if the outflow is impacting

on the river’s water quality.

Prepared by

Suzanne van Rooy Pr.Sci.Nat

Senior Environmental Scientist



Reviewed by

Dr Andrew Wood

Partner

All data used as source material plus the text, tables, figures, and attachments of this document

have been reviewed and prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering

and environmental practices.



7 References Basson, M.S. & J.D. Rossouw, 2003. Inkomati Water Management Area – Overview of Water

Resources Availability and Utilisation. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, DWAF Report

No. P WMA 05/000/00/0203

Dallas, H.F. 2007. River Health Programme: South African Scoring System (SASS) data

interpretation guidelines. Report prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group and the

Freshwater Research Unit, University of Cape Town. South African Department of Water Affairs and

Forestry: Pietermaritzburg.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines.

Volume 7: Aquatic Ecosystems. CSIR Environmental Services.

Dickens, C.W.S. and Graham P.M. 2002. The South African Scoring System (SASS5) Version 5

Rapid bioassessment method for rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science 27(1): 1-10.

Kleynhans, C.J., Thirion, C. and Moolman, J. 2005. A Level I River Ecoregion classification

System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource

Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Pretoria: South Africa.

McMillan, P.H. 1998. An Integrated Habitat Assessment System (IHAS v2) for the Rapid

Biological Assessment of Rivers and Streams. A CSIR research project, number ENV-P-I 98132

for the Water Resources Management Programme. CSIR. ii + 44pp.



Appendices

SRK Consulting: 489988: Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring


Appendix A: Water Quality Results

Test Report Page 1 of 1

Client:

Address:

Report no:

Project:

SRK Consulting - Johannesburg

SRK House, 265 Oxford Road, Illovo, Johannesburg

24926

SRK Consulting

Date of certificate:

Date accepted:

Date completed:

Revision:

17 June 2015

10 June 2015

17 June 2015

0

Lab no:

Date sampled:

Sample type:

Locality description:

Analyses Unit Method

The results relates only to the test item tested.

Results reported against the limit of detection.

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

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

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

www.aquatico.co.za 89 Regency Drive, R21 Corporate Park, Centurion, South Africa Tel: +27 12 348 2813/4 Fax: +27 12 348 85

216667

10-Jun-15

Water

SN A

216668

10-Jun-15

Water

SN B

216669

10-Jun-15

Water

SN C

A pH @ 25°C pH ALM 20 7.69 7.68 7.84

A Electrical conductivity (EC) @ 25°C mS/m ALM 20 32.9 125 53.7

A Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/l ALM 26 196 689 270

A Total alkalinity mg CaCO₃/l ALM 01 139 226 128

A Chloride (Cl) mg/l ALM 02 34.4 284 76.6

A Sulphate (SO₄) mg/l ALM 03 2.73 10.7 9.23

A Nitrate (NO₃) as N mg/l ALM 06 0.283 <0.118 0.699

A Ammonium (NH₄) as N mg/l ALM 05 0.990 8.79 0.929

A Orthophosphate (PO₄) as P mg/l ALM 04 <0.002 0.008 <0.002

A Fluoride (F) mg/l ALM 08 <0.213 0.648 0.323

A Calcium (Ca) mg/l ALM 30 35.7 42.6 31.4

A Magnesium (Mg) mg/l ALM 30 10.4 15.4 11.0

A Sodium (Na) mg/l ALM 30 23.0 174 55.4

A Potassium (K) mg/l ALM 30 1.81 12.7 3.83

A Aluminium (Al) mg/l ALM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

A Iron (Fe) mg/l ALM 31 <0.004 1.64 0.263

A Manganese (Mn) mg/l ALM 31 0.106 0.360 0.024

A Total chromium (Cr) mg/l ALM 31 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

A Copper (Cu) mg/l ALM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

A Nickel (Ni) mg/l ALM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

A Total hardness mg CaCO₃/l ALM 26 132 170 124



Appendix B: Toxicity Results

TOXICITY TEST REPORT

For: SRK Consulting – Sonae Novobord

Survey: 2015-06

Report reference:

SRK-A-2015

Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC

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

Brenton Niehaus (Managing Director)

of 8

Toxicity test report – 2015-07-06 – SRK (Sonae Novobord) – Samples: SNA, SNB, SNC

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 2015-06 survey .................................................................................................................................................... 7

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

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

List of Tables

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

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

Table 2: Test results and risk classification during June 2015. ............................................................................. 7

of 8



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

2. Methodology

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

2.2 Bio-toxicity assessments

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

Da

ph

nia

ma

gn

a

Po

eci

lia

reti

cula

ta

Vib

rio

fis

che

ri

Se

len

ast

rum

cap

rico

rnu

tum

Ph

yto

se

ed

s

Ost

raco

d

SNA 2015-06-10 SRK 2015-06-10 CSBS None x x x x x

SNB 2015-06-10 SRK 2015-06-10 CSBS None x x x x x

SNC 2015-06-10 SRK 2015-06-10 CSBS None x x x x x

Key:

Screening = 100% (undiluted) sample tested only

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

CSBS = Clean Stream Biological Services

Sa

mp

le n

am

e

De

liv

ere

d b

y

Sa

mp

led

by

De

liv

ery

da

te

Sediment

Scr

ee

nin

g

De

fin

itiv

e

Tests requested - Marked with X

Sa

mp

lin

g d

ate Water

Additional comments (sample

description or deviations)

of 8



All tests were conducted in environmental controlled rooms using the following internationally standardized methods: 2.2.1 Vibrio fischeri bioluminescent test Standard method: EN ISO 11348-3, 1998 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Vibrio fischeri (NRRL B-11177) Exposure period: 15 and 30 minutes Test sample volume: 500 µl Number of replicates: 2 Measurement equipment: Luminoscan TL, Hygiena Monitoring System Test endpoint: Screening test - % growth inhibition or stimulation relative to control; Definitive test - EC20 and EC50 -values Statistical method used: Manual plotting – Normalized regression of relevant data points Batch numbers/expiry dates: VF 1014 / 2016-03; RD 1014 / 2016-03; SD 1014 / 2016-03 Correction factor (validity of test): 0,685 (valid if between 0,6 & 1,8) 2.2.2 Selenastrum capricornutum growth inhibition test Standard method: OECD Guideline 201, 1984 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Selenastrum capricornutum, Printz (CCAP 278/4 Cambridge, UK) Exposure period: 72h Test sample volume: 25 ml Test chamber type: 10 cm long cell Number of replicates: 3 Algae batch number: SC050315

Test temperature: 21 - 25°C Measurement equipment: Jenway 6300 spectrophotometer Test endpoint: Screening test - % growth inhibition or stimulation relative to control. Definitive test - EC20 and EC50 values Statistical method used: EXCEL spread sheet formulated by supplier (MicroBioTests Inc., Belgium) 2.2.3 Daphnia magna acute toxicity test Standard method: US EPA, 1993 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Daphnia magna Test species age: Less than 24h old Exposure period: 24 and 48h Test sample volume: 25 ml Number of test organisms per well: 5 Replicate number of wells per sample: 3

Test temperature: 21 ± 2°C Test endpoint: Screening test - % mortality. Definitive test – LC10 and LC50 values Statistical method used: Graphical interpolation calculated by linear regression of relevant data points, EXCEL spread sheet Batch numbers: Ephippia - 290115; ISO control medium - 070115 Control mortality/immobility rate (validity of test): 0% (valid if below 10%)

of 8



2.2.4 Poecilia reticulata acute toxicity test Standard method: US EPA, 1996 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Poecilia reticulata (In-house breeding) Test species age: Less than 21 days Exposure period: 96h Test sample volume: 200 ml Number of test organisms per beaker: 5 Replicate number beakers per sample: 1

Test temperature: 21±2°C Test endpoint: Screening test - %mortality; Definitive test – LC10 and LC50 values Statistical method used: Graphical interpolation calculated by linear regression of relevant data points, EXCEL spread sheet Batch numbers: Control medium - 070115 Test validation: 0% control mortalities (valid if below 10%) Quality assurance The following quality assurance information would be made available on request:

• In-house reference toxicant test data and control charts.

• Additional lot, batch numbers and raw test data.

• Participation in proficiency testing scheme (SABS, Rand Water & Golder Associates)

of 8



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

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

Hazard classification system for screening tests

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

Slight acute/chronic hazard - a statistically significant percentage effect

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

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

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

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

least one test

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

in all the tests

Note:

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Class V

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

tests performed, the sample is ranked into one of the five above classes Hazard classification system for definitive tests

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

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

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

below 50% (TU is <1)

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

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

(TU is between 1 and 10)

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

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

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

for at least one test (TU is >100)

Note:

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

found in the battery of toxicity definitive tests performed

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Class V

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

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

1 DEEEP = Direct Estimation of Ecological Effect Potential. This is a battery of tests that can measure toxicity of complex

mixtures based on a set of parameters stemming from the results of effects, even if all constituents are not known. Consequently a

hazard class is determined based on the resulting parameters of the battery of tests

2 EP (Percentage effect) = an effect measured either as a mortality rate or inhibition rate (depending on the type of test). A 10%

effect is regarded as slight acute/chronic toxicity for daphnia and guppies, while a 20% effect is regarded as slight acute/chronic

toxicity for algae, plant seed root growth and bacteria (vibrio). A 50% effect is regarded as an acute/chronic toxicity for all of the

tests (daphnia, guppies, algae, bacteria and plant seed growth)

of 8



3. Results and discussion 3.1 2015-06 survey Refer to table 2 below for individual test results and overall hazard classification of the different samples.

Table 2: Test results and risk classification during June 2015.

Results SNA SNB SNC

pH 8,6 8,3 8,3

EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 22,3 80,4 31,9

Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,7 7 7,7

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 15-06-24 15-06-24

%30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 29 21 26

EC/LC20 (30 mins) * * *

EC/LC50 (30 mins) * * *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Descriptionno short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard


%72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -3 8 36

EC/LC20 (72hours) * * *

EC/LC50 (72hours) * * *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Descriptionno short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard

no short-chronic

hazard


%48hour mortality rate (-%) -40 -7 -20

EC/LC10 (48hours) * * *

EC/LC50 (48hours) * * *

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


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

EC/LC10 (96hours) * * *

EC/LC50 (96hours) * * *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard

Class II - Slight


Class I - No


Class II - Slight


25 0 25

Key:

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

the overall hazard classification is expressed as acute/chronic level of toxicity, due to the fact that the S. capricornutum (micro-

algae) and the V. fischeri tests are regarded as short-chronic levels of toxicity tests and the overall classification therefore

contains a degree of chronic toxicity assessment.

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

a specific class

site/sample name shaded in purple = screening test

site/sample name shaded in orange = definitive test

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

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

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

which takes into account the full battery of test organisms.

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

summary table. The dilution series results are considered for EC/LC values and Toxicity unit determinations

WQ

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Weight (%)

Overall classification - Hazard class***

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing

only]

V. fi

sch

eri

(b

ac

teri

a)

S.

ca

pri

co

rnu

tum

(mic

ro-a

lga

e)

D.

ma

gn

a (

wa

terf

lea

)P

. re

tic

ula

ta (

gu

pp

y)

of 8



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END OF REPORT



Appendix C: IHAS Score Card

Project Name Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring

Date 10 June 2010

Site code SN C

Sampler S Nel, S van Rooy

River Tributary to the Sand River

Ecoregion North Eatern Highlands

Quaternary Catchment X22F

Grid Reference S 25°22’27.18’’ S

E 30°59’17.19’’ E

Altitude

Datum WGS84

SAMPLING HABITAT

Stones in Current (SIC) 0 1 2 3 4 5

Total length of white water (riffle/rapid) (in

metres) none 0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-5 >5

Total length of submerged stones in current

(run) (in metres) none 0-2 >2-5 >5-10 >10

Number of separate SIC area's kicked (not

individual stones) 0 1 2-3 4-5 6+

Average stone size's kicked (cm’s) (<2 or

>20 is ‘<2<20’) (gravel is <2; bedrock is

>20)

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

Amount of stone surface clear (of algae,

sediment etc) (in %)* n/a 0-25 26-50 51-75 >75

Protocol: time spent actually kicking SIC's

(in minutes), (gravel/bedrock = 0 min) 0 <1 >1-2 2 >2-3 >3

SIC Score (Max 20)

*NOTE up to 25% of stone is usually

embedded in the stream bottom

0

Vegetation 0 1 2 3 4 5

Length of marginal vegetation sampled (river

banks) (m) none 0-½ >½-1 >1-2 2 >2

Amount of aquatic vegetation/algae sampled

(underwater) (m2) none 0-½ >½-1 >1

Marginal vegetation sampled in or out of

current none In current

Out of

current both

Type of vegetation (percent leafy vegetation

as opposed to stems/shoots) (aquatic

vegetation only = 49%) (e.g. Mostly leafy =

>75%; mostly stems/shoots = 1-25%)

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

Vegetation Score (Max 15) 10

Other Habitat/General 0 1 2 3 4 5

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

Sand sampled (in minutes) ('under' = present but only

under stones) none under 0-½ >½-1 1 >1

Mud sampled (in minutes) ('under' = present, but only

under stones none under 0-½ ½ >½

Gravel samples (in minutes) (if all gravel, SIC stone

size = <2) none 0-½ ½ >½**

Bedrock samples ('all' = no SIC, sand or gravel, then

SIC stone size >20 none some all**

Algal presence ('1-2m2 = algal bed, 'rocks' = on rocks,

isol = 'isolated' clumps) >2m2 rocks 1-2m2 <1m2 isol none

Tray identification (protocol - using time, 'corr' =

corrected time under corr over

Other Habitat Score (Max 20) 15

Habitat Total (Max 55) 25

STREAM CONDITION 0 1 2 3 4 5

Physical

River make up: (pool = pool/still/dam only; ‘run’

only; ‘rapid’ only; ‘2mix’ = 2 types etc) pool run rapid 2 mix 3 mix

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

Average depth of stream (metres) > 1 1 > ½ - 1 ½ < ½ - ¼ < ¼

Approximate velocity of stream: (‘slow’ < ½ m/s;

‘fast’ = >1m/s; (use twig etc. to test) still slow fast med. mix

Water colour: (‘disc’ = discoloured with visible

colour but still transparent) silty opaque disc clear

Recent disturbances due to: (‘constr.’ = construction;

fl/dr = flood or drought) fl/dr fire constr. other none

Bank/riparian vegetation is: (grass = includes reeds;

shrubs = includes trees) none grass shrubs mix

Surrounding impacts: (erosion = erosion/shear bank;

farm = farmlands/settlement) erosn. farm trees other open

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

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

Stream condition total (Max 45) 32

TOTAL IHAS SCORE % 57



Appendix D: SASS5 Score Card

SASS Version 5 Score Sheet Version date: Sep 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lepidostomatidae 10 SASS Score 42Calopterygidae ST,T (Demoiselles) 10 Leptoceridae 6 No. of Taxa 9Chlorocyphidae (Jewels) 10 Petrothrincidae SWC 11 ASPT 4.7 Synlestidae (Chlorolestidae)(Sylphs) 8 Pisuliidae 10 Other biota:Coenagrionidae (Sprites and blues) 4 A A Sericostomatidae SWC 13Lestidae (Emerald Damselflies/Spreadwings) 8 COLEOPTERA (Beetles)Platycnemidae (Stream Damselflies) 10 Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving beetles) 5 1 1Protoneuridae (Threadwings) 8 Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles) 8Aeshnidae (Hawkers & Emperors) 8 Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles) 5 Corduliidae (Cruisers) 8 Haliplidae* (Crawling water beetles) 5Gomphidae (Clubtails) 6 Helodidae (Marsh beetles) 12Libellulidae (Darters/Skimmers) 4 Hydraenidae* (Minute moss beetles) 8

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

Psephenidae (Water Pennies) 10

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

4: NORTH EASTERN HIGHLANDSX22F

LowClearV lowTransparent

10-Jun-15SNCS. Nel, S. van Rooy

25.37419d

30.98808d

25 22 27.1830 59 17.19

ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies)

LEPIDOPTERA (Aquatic Caterpillars/Moths)

Tributary to Sand River

Sonae Novobord Biomonitoring

Many tadpoles. A lot of debris at SGM site due to low flow.

Comments/Observations:



SRK Report Distribution Record

Report No. 489988/06/15

Copy No.

Name/Title Company Copy Date Authorised by

Peter Viljoen Sonae Novobord 1 02/08/2015 Dr A. Wood

SRK Library SRK Consulting 2 02/08/2015 Dr A. Wood

Suzanne van Rooy SRK Consulting 3 02/08/2015 Dr A. Wood

Approval Signature:

This report is protected by copyright vested in SRK (SA) (Pty) Ltd. It may not be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever to any person without the written permission of

the copyright holder, SRK.

sonae novobord white river biomonitoring winter 2015novobordecf.co.za/05 water monitoring...

Documents