Appendix J: Routine Biomonitoring Network for Eskom 2015/16

ZITHOLELE CONSULTING

ESKOM

RESEARCH, TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH REPORT

Confidential

REPORT TITLE : Routine Biomonitoring Network for Eskom: 2015/16

REPORT REF NO : RES/RR/15/1776865 ITEM NO : N.RA12008 ITEM NAME ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AUTHOR(S) : Bheki Maliba DEPARTMENT : Sustainability

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Routine Biomonitoring Network for Eskom: 2015/16

OVERVIEW

The need for a surface water quality monitoring network is imperative for effective water quality and impact management at Eskom. This study further refines the surface water quality monitoring network for Eskom. The surface water quality monitoring network includes the use of biological indicators, in addition and complementary to traditional chemical and physical water quality monitoring techniques. Biomonitoring is utilised as an important tool in assessing the condition of aquatic ecosystems over time. The biomonitoring protocols applied in this project should give a good reflection of the possible impacts on Eskom’s surrounding water resources.

BACKGROUND

This study is based on two surveys as conducted in June and November 2015. Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) in the toxicity and SASS5 data were determined. The scope of work included the biomonitoring assessments (macro-invertebrate, fish and toxicity assessments) of water resources monitoring sites around the Arnot, Camden, Duvha, Grootvlei, Hendrina, Kendal, Komati, Kriel, Kusile, Lethabo, Majuba, Matimba, Matla, Medupi and Tutuka power stations.

OBJECTIVES

The major aim of this project was to undertake biomonitoring assessments at the selected biomonitoring sites, which encompassed the following objectives:

 Detect or identify any deterioration in ecological integrity by conducting specialist assessments on the aquatic ecosystems.  To build a strong reliable database that can be used for trend analysis and other analysis  Maintain, review and/or refine the integrated biomonitoring program (protocols) for different power stations.

APPROACH

The following activities were conducted:

 In-situ water quality assessments (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and electrical conductivity) at all sites where South African Scoring System Version 5 (SASS5) and/or fish assessment integrity index (FAII) were performed.  Collection of water samples for chemical analyses.  SASS5 analyses and Integrated Habitat Assessments System (IHAS) at all appropriate sites.  Fish assessments at all appropriate sites.  Toxicity assessments at selected sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:2

RESULTS

A colour coded summary Table 4.1 in the body of the report shows the spatial and temporal impact identification, on receiving water bodies, in relation to Eskom power stations and/or other water users. Based on the June and November 2015 surveys (spatial comparisons), the Tutuka, Majuba, Lethabo and Kendal power stations and/or other water users within their catchments appear to have a negative impact on the biotic integrity of the recieving surface water bodies.

In terms of temporal variations from April 2012 to November 2015, at this early stage it seems that the biotic intergrity is not improving at the downstream sites of the Kendal, Lethabo and Matla power stations and/or other water users within their catchtments. In Hendrina power station and/or other water users, based on toxicity hazard, in general it seems that the downstream site is deterioting more than the the upstream site.

CONCLUSIONS

The current biomonitoring programme satisfies the requirements of the WULs of the surface water monitoring of some Eskom power stations. The findings of this study should be seen as a prompt to further investigate any potential hazards that might be associated with the power stations. The assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate after each year of monitoring and that trend could be determined with a large database. The network should be dynamic and continually be refined with expansion of the biomonitoring database.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommended protocols are listed throughout this report and summarised for easy reference in Table 5.1. It is recommended that the integrated biomonitoring network (macro- invertebrate; habitat; FAII and toxicity) be continued and reviewed annually.

INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

Assessing Eskom’s operation influence on the aquatic ecosystems around power stations will enable Eskom to comply with legislation and water use license requirements, and take a proactive step towards water quality management by identifying water quality trends of Eskom surrounding water resources.

KEYWORDS

Biomonitoring, water quality, power stations, SASS5, fish assessments, toxicity.

FUTURE REVIEW

Temporal variations, in terms of biological monitoring surrounding our sites, are important to understand the condition of the available surface water resources. The assessment of temporal variation will become clear after more years of monitoring and will continue to provide more insight as the network progresses over time.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:3

ACTIVITY DETAILS

Initiative : Ecosystem management Report Number : RES/RR/15/1776864 Item Number : N.RA12008 Item Leader : MICHAEL MICHAEL Contact Number : 011 629 5729 Customer : Eskom Generation; Research,Testing and Development.

RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The design and review of the biomonitoring network laid the foundation for the functional routine biomonitoring network at Eskom. The implementation of this biomonitoring network will allow for effective monitoring and management of surrounding water resources and compliance with existing water use license requirements. Routine and efficient monitoring is essential for early identification of impacts to the aquatic environment, which will allow for planning of mitigation actions, thereby preventing costly remediation measures. Focused independent studies for individual power stations could form part of mitigation actions.

If undertaken on a routine, consistent and well-coordinated manner, it will result in:

 Assurance that the power stations comply with required biomonitoring in their permits;  In-house skills will be used and developed;  A single database will house all chemical and biomonitoring data of Eskom’s surrounding water resources i.e., Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS);  Eskom will be the owner and authority of all data;  The data can be used to identify and manage point and diffuse inputs on Eskom source waters, and examine trends over time;  The information obtained would assist Eskom management in making decisions regarding water quality management;  In-house technical reports, as well as research reports on trends in specific areas, can be issued when required;  Contribute to the science and knowledge-base relating to water management;  Enable partnerships with all others in the hydrological sphere e.g., Catchment Management Agencies, Research institutions, Department of Water and Sanitation (formerly Department of Water Affairs), mines and industries;  Enhance Eskom’s reputation and allow the company to be acknowledged as having a corporate social and environmental accountability and responsibility.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:4

1. INTRODUCTION

An aquatic ecosystem can be defined as any unit including all of its organisms in a given area, interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity and material cycles within the system (Odum, 1971). It thus includes all the physical and chemical (abiotic) components in addition to the biological components. The ecological integrity of an ecosystem can be defined as the ability of the system to support and maintain a balanced, integrated composition of physical-chemical and habitat characteristics, as well as biotic components, on temporal and spatial scales, that are comparable to the natural or unimpacted state of that ecosystem. It therefore refers to the structure and functioning of an ecosystem under natural conditions or a state unimpaired by anthropogenic stresses (Roux, 1999). Routine biomonitoring assessments around power stations are required by majority of Eskom’s Power Station Water Use Licences (WUL) as per the National Water Act No 36 of 1998.

The Routine Water Quality Monitoring Network for Eskom (Durgapersad, 2012), was proposed in 2012, taking into consideration various factors as per Eskom’s specific requirements. The report was reviewed and assessed by aquatic specialists in 2012 (Niehaus et al., 2013). The April/May and November 2012 surveys were the next step in the design and implemementation of a focused biomonitoring program for fourteen Eskom power stations (Niehaus et al., 2013). The scope of work included the biological assessments of monitoring sites around the Arnot, Camden, Duvha, Grootvlei, Hendrina, Kendal, Komati, Kriel, Kusile, Lethabo, Majuba, Matimba, Matla, Medupi and Tutuka power stations.

The results of the surveys for June 2013 and January 2014 have been reported in Eskom research reports as well as for June and November 2014 (Durgapersad and Maliba, 2014, Maliba et al., 2015). This report is based on biomonitoring results of the in-situ, chemistry, macro-invertebrate (SASS5), fish (FAII) and toxicity testing assessments, undertaken during the June and November 2015 surveys. In addition, long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) in the toxicity and SASS5 data were determined. Table 2.1 under Study Areas and Site Selection, shows the summarised biomonitoring programme protocols. For example, the FAII is conducted once per annum. The activities are done in the following order:

1. In-situ water quality assessments (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and electrical conductivity) at all sites where South African Scoring System (SASS5) and/or fish analyses were performed. 2. Collection of water samples for chemical analysis at the Analytical Chemistry Section at Eskom Research, Testing and Develoment (R,T and D). 3. SASS5 analyses and Integrated Habitat Assessments System (IHAS) at all appropriate sites. 4. Fish assessment at all appropriate sites. 5. Toxicity assessments at selected sites.

The objectives of this study were to:

 Detect or identify any deterioration in ecological integrity by conducting the specialist assessments on the aquatic ecosystems.  To build a strong reliable database that can be used for trend analysis and other analysis.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:5

 Maintain, review and/or refine the integrated biomonitoring program (protocols) for different power stations.

2. STUDY AREAS AND SITE SELECTION

The Biomonitoring sites were selected to be accessible, representative of as many habitats and to be as closely comparable as possible. These sites were selected by Eskom research as part of a study titled, Routine Water Quality Monitoring Network for Eskom (Durgapersad, 2012), taking into consideration various factors as per Eskom’s specific requirements. During the study, sites were chosen with source and impact upon Eskom taken into consideration. Land-use and a desktop study of 1:50000 topographical maps were consulted in determining the sample points. The following played a role in choosing the impact sampling points:

 catchments,  position of power stations and  wind direction.

The final position of the sites were confirmed by site visits.

During the biomonitoring study (Niehaus et al., 2013), it was strived to have at least an upstream and a downstream site in the main receiving water body at each power station. The positioning of the sites were also selected in such a way as to exclude as many non-Eskom potential impacts as possible. Due to the fact that many of the catchments are highly developed with the presence of numerous other users (especially collieries), this objective was not fully attainable, and cognisance was therefore taken of other non-Eskom users throughout the discussion and interpretation of results. Figure 2.1 depicts the biomonitoring network sites, (Excluding the Matimba and Medupi power stations sites).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:6

Figure 2.1: Map of Biomonitoring network sites, (not including the Matimba and Medupi power stations sites).

The biomonitoring protocols to be applied at the selected sites (Table 2.1) was designed considering the following factors:

 The South African Scoring System, version 5 (SASS5) macro-invertebrates index was designed for application to perennial streams and rivers and the application to non-perennial systems should therefore be viewed with circumspection. In some cases, SASS5 was nevertheless earmarked as a potential monitoring “tool”, even when it was apparent that the receiving streams were non-perennial. Results of such assessments were discussed in light of the limitations but nevertheless served as a valuable monitoring tool. SASS5 was not applied at any streams without flow.  Toxicity testing serves as a valuable tool in non-perennial streams (sites) and especially those with standing pools but without flow. Toxicity analyses performed at upstream and downstream sites therefore might provide insight into the state of the ecological integrity, even when SASS5 was not applicable.  Fish community monitoring (and the application of the FAII index) was also only applied at relevant streams/sites. Similar criteria (as for SASS5 application) existed, taking into consideration that fish require adequate habitat cover for colonisation and sufficient time for recolonisation after periods of no flow.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:7

Table 2.1: Monitoring site and recommended protocols for the different power stations. Associated Biomonitoring protocols GPS coordinates Monitoring River/Stream Power Description Frequency per Latitude Longitude site Protocol station annum (South) (East) SASS5 Tw ice Rietkuilspruit upstream from Arnot Power AR-RK-US Fish Once -25.9615 29.8557 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Rietkuilspruit Arnot SASS5 Tw ice Rietkuilspruit downstream from Arnot AR-RK-DS Fish Once -25.9588 29.7751 Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice Witpuntspruit upstream from Camden CM-WP-US Fish Once -26.5933 30.0963 Power Station. Toxicity testing None Witpuntspruit Camden SASS5 Tw ice Witpuntspruit downstream from Camden CM-WP-DS Fish Once -26.6340 30.1338 Power Station. Toxicity testing None

SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing Unnamed tributary, downstream site to the DV-trib-US Fish Once -25.9247 29.3460 Unnamed north of the powerstation Toxicity testing Tw ice Northern Duvha SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing tributary Unnamed tributary, downstream site to the DV-trib-DS Fish Once -25.9233 29.3446 north of the powerstation Toxicity testing Tw ice SASS5 Once, if flow ing Fish None Molspruit, upstream from Grootvlei Power GV-MS-US -26.7594 28.5653 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

Molspruit Grootvlei SASS5 Once, if flow ing Fish None Molspruit, downstream from Grootvlei GV-MS-DS -26.8293 28.5240 Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Once, w et season Woestalleenspruit (eastern tributary), HD-WE-US Fish None -26.0834 29.6074 upstream from Hendrina Power Station. Woestalleenspui Toxicity testing Tw ice t Eastern SASS5 Once, w et season tributary Woestalleenspruit (eastern tributary), HD-WE-DS Fish None -26.0070 29.6204 Hendrina downstream from Hendrina Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None Woestalleenspui Woestalleenspruit (western tributary), HD-WW-DS t Western Fish None -25.9964 29.5796 downstream from Hendrina Power Station. tributary Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing

Leeufonteinspruit, upstream from Kendal KD-LF-US Fish None -26.1233 28.9504 Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Leeufonteinspruit SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing

Leeufonteinspruit, downstream from KD-LF-DS Fish None -26.0847 28.9208 Kendal Kendal Power Station.

Toxicity testing Tw ice

Unnamed SASS5 None tributary draining Unnamed tributary draining from power Fish None KD-trib from power -26.0935 28.9540 station to Leeufonteinspruit station to Leeufonteinspruit Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice

Koringspruit upstream from Komati Power KM-K-US Fish Once -26.0949 29.4828 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Koringspruit Komati SASS5 Tw ice

Koringspruit downstream from Komati KM-K-DS Fish Once -26.0860 29.4157 Power Station.

Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing Rietspruit upstream from Kriel Power KR-RT-US Fish None -26.2800 29.0916 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Rietspruit Kriel SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing Rietspruit downstream from Kriel Power KR-RT-DS Fish None -26.1920 29.1824 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:8

Table 2.1: Monitoring site and recommended protocols for the different power stations (continued). Associated Biomonitoring protocols GPS coordinates Monitoring River/Stream Power Description Frequency per Latitude Longitude site Protocol station annum (South) (East) SASS5 Tw ice Wilgespruit, upstream from Kusile Power KS-W-US Fish Once -25.9022 28.8514 Station. Toxicity testing None Wilgespruit SASS5 Tw ice Wilgespruit, downstream from Kusile KS-W-DS Fish Once -25.8642 28.8688 Power Station. Toxicity testing None Kusile SASS5 None Unnamed Unnamed southern tribatary 1, on southern KS-trib1 Fish None -25.9477 28.9279 tributary side draining towards the power station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None Unnamed southern tribatary 1b, on Unnamed KS-trib1b southern side draining towards the power Fish None -25.9557 28.9073 tributary station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice Vaal River upstream from Lethabo Power LT-VR-US Fish Once 26.7379 27.9955 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Vaal River Lethabo SASS5 Tw ice

Vaal River downstream from Lethabo LT-VR-DS Fish Once 26.6738 27.9788 Power Station.

Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None Geelklipspruit upstream from Majuba MJ-GK-US Fish None 27.1176 29.7866 Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Geelklipspruit Geelklipspruit downstream from Majuba SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing MJ-GK-DS Majuba Power Station and Majuba tributary (MJ- Fish Once, if flow ing 27.0435 29.8011 Trib). Toxicity testing Tw ice SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing Unnamed tributary downstream from MJ-Trib Majuba tributary Fish Once, if flow ing 27.0596 29.7860 Majuba Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None

Sandloopspruit, upstream from Medupi ME-SL-US Sandloopspruit Medupi Fish None -23.7492 27.5330 Power Station

Toxicity testing Tw ice

ME-Sl-DS/ SASS5 None MA-SL-US Sandloopspruit, downstream from Medupi Medupi/ Renamed ME- Sandloopspruit Power Station/Sandloopspruit, upstream Fish None -23.6944 27.6475 Matimba MA-SL from Matimba Power Station Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None

Sandloopspruit, downstream from Matimba MA-SL-DS Sandloopspruit Matimba Fish None -23.6470 27.6579 Power Station

Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice

Trichardspruit, upstream from Matla Power ML-TR-US Fish Once -26.3510 29.2173 Station.

Toxicity testing None Trichardspruit SASS5 Tw ice Trichardspruit, downstream from Matla ML-TR-DS Matla Fish Once -26.2779 29.2363 Power Station. Toxicity testing None

Dwars-in-die-wegspruit, a flowing tributary SASS5 None Dwars-in-die- joining the Trichardspruit between the ML-DW-trib -26.3445 29.2123 wegspruit upstream and downstream Trichardspruit Fish None sites. Toxicity testing Tw ice

Leeuspruit upstream from Tutuka Power SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing TA-LS-US Station and upstream from northern and Fish None 26.7585 29.2776 southern tributaries. Toxicity testing Tw ice Leeuspruit Leeuspruit downstream from Tutuka Power SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing TA-LS-DS Station and downstream from northern and Fish None 26.8174 29.2888 southern tributaries. Toxicity testing Tw ice SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing Tutuka Northern Tutuka Northern triburay, draining from TA-NT Fish None 26.7596 29.3117 tributary Tutuka power station towards Leeuspruit Toxicity testing Tw ice SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing Tutuka Southern Tutuka Southern triburay, draining from TA-ST Fish None 26.7979 29.3199 tributary power station towards Leeuspruit Toxicity testing Tw ice Unnamed tributary, downstream from SASS5 None Unnamed Tutuka Ash dams, draining towards TA-AD-DS tributary from Fish None 26.8182 29.3876 Leeuspruit with confluence downstream Tutuka Ashdams from TA-LS-DS Toxicity testing Tw ice

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:9

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 WATER QUALITY 3.1.1 In situ Water Quality Conductivity, pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen and oxygen saturation variables were measured on site during the June and November 2015 surveys, using the YSI 556 Multi-Parameter System (MPS). The YSI 556 Multi-Parameter is calibrated to ensure accuracy of the results.

3.1.2 Chemistry Analyses Water samples were taken from all the biomonitoring sites to be analysed in the laboratory. Two one litre plastic bottles were rinsed and filled with water at the site. The one sample was preserved with nitric acid (HNO3) for heavy metals analyses. All samples were placed in a cooler box and kept cold until delivery to the laboratory. The samples were analysed for a number of water quality variables, including, total + alkalinity (as CaCO3), aluminium (Al), ammonia (NH4 ), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), calcium (Ca2+), chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride (Cl), cyanide (CN), cobalt (Co), total chromium (Cr), electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), iron (Fe), fluoride (F), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg2+), - manganese (Mn), mercury (Hg), sodium (Na), nickel (Ni), nitrate (NO3 ), lead (Pb), 2- pH, ortho-phosphate (PO4), strontium (Sr), sulphate (SO4 ), total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), Ca hardness (CaCO3), Mg hardness (CaCO3), total hardness (CaCO3), total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity (NTU), Vanadium (V) and Zinc (Zn). All samples were analysed by the Eskom Analytical chemistry laboratory accredited by the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS).

3.2 AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT: SOUTH AFRICAN SCORING SYSTEM, VERSION 5

Benthic macro-invertebrate communities of the selected sites were investigated according to the South African Scoring System, version 5 (SASS5) approach (Dickens and Graham, 2001). This method is based on the British Biological Monitoring Working Party method and has been adapted for South African conditions by Dr. F.M. Chutter (Thirion et al., 1995). The SASS method is a rapid, simple and cost effective method, which has progressed through four different upgrades or versions. The current upgrade, Version 5, is specifically designed to comply with international accreditation protocols.

3.2.1 Sample Collection An invertebrate net (30x30cm square with 1mm mesh netting) was used for the collection of the organisms. The available biotopes at each site were identified on arrival. Each of the biotopes was sampled by different methods described below. The biotopes were combined into three different groups, which were sampled and assessed separately.

Note that samples should not be collected when the river is in flood.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:10

 Stone (S) Biotopes Stones in current (SIC) or any solid object: Movable stones of at least cobble size (3cm diameter) to approximately 20cm in diameter, within the fast and slow flowing sections of the river. Kick-sampling is used to collect organisms in this biotope. This is done by putting the net on the bottom of the river, just downstream of the stones to be kicked, in a position where the current will carry the dislodged organisms into the net. The stones are then kicked over and against each other (kick-sampling) to dislodge the invertebrates for ± 2 minutes. Stones out of current (SOOC): Where the river is still, such as behind a sandbank or ridge of stones or in backwaters. Collection is again done by the method of kick-sampling, but in this case the net is swept across the area sampled to catch the dislodged biota. Approximately 1m2 is sampled in this way. Bedrock or other solid substrate: Bedrock includes stones greater than 30cm, which are generally immovable, including large sheets of rock, waterfalls and chutes. The surfaces are scraped with a boot or hand and the dislodged organisms collected. Sampling effort is included under SIC and SOOC above.

 Vegetation (Veg) Biotopes Marginal vegetation (MVeg): This is the overhanging grasses, bushes, twigs and reeds growing on the edge of the stream, often emergent, both in current (MvegIC) and out of current (MvegOOC). Sampling is done by holding the net perpendicular to the vegetation (half in and half out of the water) and sweeping back and forth in the vegetation (± 2m of vegetation). Aquatic vegetation: This vegetation is totally submerged and includes filamentous algae and the roots of floating aquatics such as water hyacinth. It is sampled by pushing the net (under the water) against and amongst the vegetation, in an area of approximately one square meter.

 Gravel, Sand and Mud (GSM) Biotopes Sand: This includes sandbanks within the river, small patches of sand in hollows at the side of the river or sand between the stones at the side of the river. This biotope is sampled by stirring the substrate by shuffling or scraping of the feet, which is done for half a minute, whilst the net is continuously swept over the disturbed area. Gravel: Gravel typically consists of smaller stones (from 2-3mm up to 3cm). The sampling process is similar to that of sand. Mud: It consists of very fine particles, usually as dark-coloured sediment. Mud usually settles to the bottom in still or slow flowing areas of the river. The sampling process is similar to that of sand.

 Hand Picking and Visual Observation Before and after disturbing the site, approximately 1 minute of “hand-picking” for specimens that may have been missed by the sampling procedures, is carried out.

3.2.2 Sample Preparation (Trays) The organisms sampled in each biotope group were identified and their relative abundance also noted on the SASS5 datasheet.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:11

3.2.3 Calculation of Results There are three main indices calculated for the SASS5: Number of Taxa, SASS5 Score and Average Score per Taxon (ASPT). The calculation of results is done by ticking any families seen in any of the biotopes in the Total column of the score sheet. Quality scores for each taxon noted in the Total column are summed to provide the SASS5 Score. The SASS5 Score divided by the number of taxa found provides the ASPT.

3.2.4 Habitat Assessment An evaluation of Integrated Habitat Assessment (IHAS) is important to any assessment of ecological integrity and should be conducted at each site at the time of sampling. On site habitat assessments were conducted by using existing habitat evaluation indices (McMillan, 1998). IHAS can be utilised in the interpretation of data. Evaluation of the habitat availability and suitability scores of the biotopes at the sites are recorded directly on the SASS5 score sheet. These are the scores for Stones, Vegetation and GSM biotopes that range from 0 to 5, where 0 is absent and 5 represents full availability and suitability.

3.3 FISH ASSESSMENT

Power stations that have perennial streams or rivers in the vicinity, with indigenous fish populations can be selected for Fish assessments (i.e. Fish Assemblage Integrity Index (FAII) and Habitat Assessments). An upstream and downstream site is selected, based on the abundance of suitable fish habitat. These sites should be situated as near as possible to the applicable power station or impact zone. Once a particular stretch of river has been identified, encompassing a wide variety of habitat, the FAII practitioner begins sampling, which should be for approximately 20 minutes and cover as much habitat as possible. A Samus electrofisher are used to, temporarily stun the fish, which are then netted and placed in a bucket of water by wading into the river. Where the river is too deep or dangerous to enter, netting takes place from the bank, and on large rivers, from a boat.

The fish are then identified, counted and returned to the stream. It is important that the fish are released back into the water body from which they originated in a humane manner. Notes are taken on the species identities, number of specimens, presence of abnormalities (disease or injuries) and sampling time, as well as the habitat conditions, as described below.

In some cases, particularly where identity is uncertain, photographs are taken so that the fish can be further studied for a correct identification. Fin ray formulae, scale counts, presence and length of barbels, presence of tubercles and other anatomical features are commonly used in freshwater fish keys for identification (Skelton, 2001). Where species taxonomy is uncertain, expert opinion and genetic as well as anatomical analysis can be applied.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:12

3.3.1 Fish Habitat Assessments  Fish Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) The Fish Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) was developed to assess habitats according to different attributes that are surmised to satisfy the habitat requirements of various fish species (Kleynhans, 1997).

At each site, the following depth-flow classes are identified and recorded during sampling:

• Slow (<0.3m/s), shallow (<0.5m) - Shallow pools and backwaters • Slow, deep (>0.5m) - Deep pools and backwaters • Fast (>0.3m/s), shallow - Riffles, rapids and runs • Fast, deep - Usually rapids and runs.

The relative contribution of each of the above mentioned classes is then estimated and scored as:

• 0 = Absent • 1 = Rare (<5%) • 2 = Sparse (5-25%) • 3 = Moderate (25-75%) • 4 = Extensive (>75%).

Further to this, for each depth-flow class, the following cover features, considered to provide fish with the necessary cover to utilise a particular flow and depth class are investigated:

• Overhanging vegetation • Undercut banks and root wads • Stream substrate • Aquatic macrophytes.

The abundance of these cover-features in each depth flow class is estimated and scored as:

• 0 = Absent • 1 = Rare/very poor (<5%) • 2 = Sparse/poor (5-25%) • 3 = Moderate/good (25-75%) • 4 = Extensive/excellent (>75%).

 Site Habitat Integrity (SHI) The Site Habitat Integrity (SHI) assessment is based on the physical habitat disturbance and is directed towards the indirect qualitative evaluation of fish habitat integrity, compared to the expected natural condition (Kleynhans, 1997). The following impacts (cause for fish habitat integrity degradation) are recorded, namely:

Water abstraction, flow modification, bed modification, channel modification, inundation, exotic macrophytes, solid waste disposal, indigenous vegetation removal, exotic vegetation encroachment and bank erosion. Estimation of the impact of each of these modifications on the fish habitat integrity is scored as:

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:13

• No Impact = 0 • Small impact = 1 • Moderate Impact = 3 • Large impact = 5.

 Fish Assemblage Integrity Index (FAII) For each site, a list of expected (exp.) indigenous fish species is compiled based on historical data on species distribution and habitat preferences under pre-disturbed conditions. In many instances expert opinion is required, particularly when there is a lack of historical data and where species habitat preferences are not fully understood. Other indigenous species can also be included in the expected list, provided they were previously observed and there is ample evidence to suggest that their presence was not a result of translocation.

The expected list of each site thus consists of fish that are indigenous or endemic to the catchment. If species that are indigenous to one catchment are found in another catchment they are not known to historically inhabit, they are recorded as alien species. If any species found at any of the sites, are not indigenous to the Southern African region, they are recorded as exotic species. Alien and exotic species can result in the ecological disruption of ecosystems. Usually, these species will invade new ecosystems and can adversely impact on the indigenous fish species present.

Species intolerance (IT) rating is used in the calculation of the FAII score, which is taken from Kleynhans (2002). This encompasses habitat preferences and specialisation, food preference and specialisation, requirements for flowing water during different life-stages and water quality requirements, which are then used in estimating the intolerance of the relevant fish species. These are rated as follows:

• Low requirement/specialisation (rating=1), • Moderate requirement/ specialisation (rating=3) • High requirement/specialisation (rating=5).

 Health rating (H) is also used to score this metric and is the percentage of fish with externally evident disease or other anomalies. Individual fish that were observed with abnormalities are expressed as a percentage of the total population for each species, and scored as:

• Frequency of affected fish >5% = 1 • Frequency of affected fish 2-5% = 3 • Frequency of affected fish <2% = 5 • The expected health for a species living under unperturbed conditions is assumed to be unimpaired and would score 5.

 Score Calculations Field notes and scores are collated and used by the practitioner to score the following matrices:

The HCR is based on the contribution of each depth-flow class at the site (df/df) as well as the cover features (cf) (cf) and is calculated as follows:

HCR = df/dfxcf.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:14

The SHI is calculated by summing individual scores for the different impacts of disturbance (id), expressing it as a percentage of the maximum total (50) and subtracting it from 100:

SHI = 100 - ((id/50)x100).

HCR and SHI scores are later used in the interpretation of the FAII score. The FAII is first calculated as follows:

The expected index score [FAII (exp.)] per segment is calculated as:

FAII (exp.) = (ITxH).

The observed index score [FAII (obs)] is then calculated on a similar basis to the expected index score, but is based on the information collected during the survey: FAII (obs) = (ITxH).

Finally, the observed fish assemblage index score for a segment is expressed as a percentage of the expected total FAII score to arrive at a relative FAII rating: FAII (obs)/FAII (exp.)x100.

3.4 TOXICITY TESTING

3.4.1 Rationale and Hazard Classification

Toxicity testing (as conducted in this biomonitoring network) is applied by exposing biota under laboratory conditions to water sources in order to determine the potential risk of such waters to the biota of the receiving water bodies. Consequently, four trophic levels of biota i.e., vertebrates (Poecilia reticulata), invertebrates (Daphnia magna), bacteria (Vibrio fischeri) and primary producers (Selenastrum capricornutum) are exposed to the samples according to standard procedures under laboratory conditions. Thereafter a risk/hazard category is determined by application of the latest Direct Estimation of Ecological Effect Potential (DEEEP). 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 (DWAF, 2003). The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) recommended protocols and hazard classification as per the DEEEP protocol. This risk category equates to the level of acute/chronic risk posed by the selected potential pollution sources on the receiving rivers/streams. In addition to the primary objective of risk (hazard) determination (as explained above), the secondary objective of determining safe dilution factors for selected potential future pollution sources is achieved by using the 10% or 20% effective concentrations for this source. It is generally considered that a concentration (dilution) causing less than 20% inhibition (in the case of bacteria and algae tests) and less than 10% mortalities (in the case of guppies and daphnia), is a safe concentration that should not have any level of toxicity effect on the receiving environment (based on the selection of test organisms).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:15

Selected samples (natural environment) are tested on a screening level, while other samples (control facilities and/or potential effluents) are tested on a definitive level (not yet performed in this study). Toxicity testing is normally only performed twice per annum. The frequency of testing is determined by the level of toxicity. If toxicity levels increase, it may become necessary to increase the frequency of testing. The frequency and type of toxicity testing (screening vs. definitive) may have to be revised annually if necessary. This will be based on the outcome of the specific year’s assessment.

Screening: A screening toxicity test refers to an undiluted (100% concentration) of the sample. This is usually performed on a sample from the biomonitoring sites in the receiving water bodies (river/streams) to determine if any toxicity is present. This is performed both upstream and downstream of the potential impacts to enable the determination of downstream increases or decreases in toxicity.

Definitive: A definitive toxicity test refers to the exposure of test organisms to both the 100% concentration as well as a range of dilutions, generally used to determine the risk of a pollution source that may have a toxic effect on the receiving water body (such as effluents and PCD’s). The range of dilutions are therefore useful in the event that the 100% sample concentration presents toxicity, and allows for the determination of a safe dilution factor, to negate toxicity effects on the receiving water bodies.

Acute: Acute refers to an exposure over a relatively short period of the lifespan of biota. Acute toxicity testing is always a relevant starting point (within a toxicity monitoring network) to determine the level of toxicity. If no acute toxicity prevails for a period of time, it becomes relevant to also perform chronic toxicity testing in an attempt to determine if long-term exposure to the pollution source may have a negative impact on the biota of the receiving water bodies.

Chronic: Chronic refers to prolonged exposures over an extended period of the lifespan of test organisms. Chronic toxicity testing becomes relevant in the event that no acute toxicity is observed over a period of time within a toxicity monitoring programme. It requires different testing protocols, test biota and duration of exposure (as compared to acute protocols).

3.4.1.1 Hazard classification for screening tests (undiluted sample) After the determination of the percentage effect (EP), obtained with each of the toxicity screening tests performed, the sample is ranked into one of the five classes shown in Table 3.1, taking into consideration the full battery of tests, generally using at least 3 test organism groups, inclusive of acute and chronic tests.

EP: is an effect measured either as a mortality rate or inhibition rate (depending on the type of test). A 10% effect is regarded as a slight hazard for daphnia and guppies, while a 20% effect is regarded as slight hazard toxicity for algae and bacteria (vibrio). A 50% effect is regarded as an acute/chronic toxicity (depending on test organisms displaying the 50% EP) for all of the tests (daphnia, guppies, algae and bacteria).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:16

Table 3.1: Toxicity Classes for Determination of Percentage Effect (EP)

Class I No acute/chronic hazard - none of the tests shows a toxic effect Slight acute/chronic hazard - a statistically significant percentage effect Class II 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 Class III in at least one test, but the effect level is below 100% High acute/chronic hazard - the 100% percentage effect is reached in at Class IV least one test Very high acute/chronic hazard - the 100% percentage effect is reached Class V in all the tests Note: 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

3.4.1.2 Hazard classification system for definitive tests (undiluted sample plus range of dilutions) The samples are classified into one of the following five classes on the basis of the highest toxicity unit (TUa) found in the battery of toxicity definitive tests performed. The toxicity unit is a function of the Lethal/Effective concentration L(E)C50, where TUa = 100/L(E)C50. The 50% LC50 or LE50 is the linear calculated (derived) concentration at which a 50% mortality or inhibition rate can be expected. Hence, the lower this value is, the higher the acute toxicity level. Conversely, the higher the TUa is, the higher the acute toxicity level is. The conversion of L(E)C50 values to TUa values are therefore merely done to achieve a classification scale of increasing values related to increasing toxicity risks (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2: Toxicity Classes for Determination of Lethal/Effective concentration (LC50 or LE50).

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 Class II 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 Class III 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 Class IV 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 Class V 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:17

3.4.1.3 Weighing Each sample is 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. A weight of 0% however confirms that none of the battery of tests presented any toxicity, and could in principle also be reflected as a weight of 100%. If none of the tests groups indicated toxicity testing, a weight of 0% is assigned for the purpose on this study.

3.4.2 Test Conditions

All tests were conducted in an environmentally controlled laboratory using the following internationally standardised methods:

3.4.2.1 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: 3 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: Correction factor (validity of test): (valid if between 0,6 & 1,8)

3.4.2.2 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 Algae batch number: Number of replicates: 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)

3.4.2.3 Daphnia magna acute toxicity test Standard method: US EPA, 1993 Deviation from standard method: None Test species: Daphnia magna Test species age: Less than 24h old Exposure period: 24 and 48h Test sample volume: 25 ml Number of test organisms per well: 5 Replicate number of wells per sample: 4

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:18

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 - 120412; ISO control medium - 270212 Control mortality/immobility rate (validity of test): 0% (valid if below 10%)

3.4.2.4 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: 6 Replicate number beakers per sample: 2 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 - 270212 Test validation: 0% control mortalities (valid if below 10%)

3.4.3 Quality Assurance

The following quality assurance information can be made available on request:

 In-house reference toxicant test data and control charts  Additional lot and batch numbers  Raw test data  Inter laboratory proficiency schemes (PTS) (NLA, Rand Water and Golder)

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:19

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The in-situ water quality measurements, macro-invertebrate (SASS5), fish (FAII) and toxicity testing results as conducted in June and November 2015 surveys are presented in this section. SASS5, FAII and toxicity data were only discussed for scenarios where spatial comparisons were relevant, i.e. when upstream and downstream comparisons could be made.

SASS5 was designed for application to perennial streams and rivers. Very low flow conditions resulted in lower applicability of the SASS5 at some sites during both surveys. In cases where there was very low flow, SASS5 was performed to serve as a monitoring tool and the data was used for trend analysis. Therefore, results of such assessments are discussed in light of the limitations. Toxicity testing and hazard classification served as a valuable tool in streams that were affected by flow conditions. Toxicity analyses carried out at the upstream and downstream sites provided insight into increased/decreased hazards to the ecological integrity, even when SASS5 was not applicable. The same protocol was applied in FAII taking into consideration that fish require adequate habitat cover for colonisation and sufficient time for recolonisation after periods of no flow.

Temporal variations are important in understanding the condition/health of the aquatic ecosystems around Eskom’s power stations. Long term temporal trends (April 2012 to November 2015) in the toxicity and SASS5 data were determined, in order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing biotic integrity. The SASS5 results for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the total SASS5 scores at each site. In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. Thereafter, linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site. It is important to note that these trends were not based on the actual mortalities/inhibition or lethal concentrations, but on the derived risk class for each survey and is merely included to gain a general idea of increased/decreased risk over time. In the current programme, a fish assessment is conducted once per annum, therefore temporal trends will be determined when sufficient data is collected.

Chemistry analyses were completed for each site (Appendices A1 to A4). These results will serve as a baseline for the biomonitoring sites and must be analysed together with routine biomonitoring data to identify incidents, problematic variables and establish trends over time. The chemistry data is not interpreted in this report but recorded for future temporal comparison, when it is deemed that a suitable water quality monitoring programme is in place for each power station.

Table 4.1 shows a colour coded summary of the spatial/temporal impact identification on receiving water bodies, in relation to Eskom power stations. These results should be seen as a prompt to further investigate the potential hazards associated with the power stations. The individual results for each power station site are presented separately in the following sections.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:20

Table 4.1: Colour coded summary of spatial impact identification, on receiving water bodies, in relation to Eskom power stations from biomonitoring analyses carried out in 2014.

Power Sampling Potential spatial impacts Potential temporal Station Date SASS5 Fish Toxicity impacts Jun-15 No spatial deterioration observed No toxicity hazard (Class I) Arnot No temporal variation observed Nov-15 No spatial deterioration observed No spatial deterioration observed No toxicity hazard (Class I) Jun-15 No spatial deterioration observed No spatial deterioration observed. No Biotic condition reduced on a spatial Camden No temporal variation observed Nov-15 flow at the upstream site. SASS5 scale. No fish present at the upstream. served as a monitoring tool Habitat differences necessitates further Jun-15 No spatial deterioration observed verification of results No toxicity hazard (Class I) Improvement at the upstream. No Biotic condition reduced on a spatial No spatial deterioration observed changes at the dow nstream site Duvha scale. How ever, large habitat No spatial increase in terms of toxicity in terms of SASS5. Nov-15 differences necessitates further hazard (Class II) verification of results Upstream dry. SASS5 not performed at Upstream dry. No toxicity hazard at the Based on toxicity the Jun-15 the dow nstream site due to very low dow nstream site. dow nstream site is not Grootvlei No flow at bothflow sites. SASS not No spatial increase in terms of toxicity deteriorating more than the Nov-15 upstream site performed hazard (Class II) SASS5 not performed at the upstream Spatial increase in terms of toxicity site due to very low flow . Dow nstream Jun-15 hazard. Toxicity hazard (Class II) on the site unsuitable for SASS and FAII. w estern tributary. Based on toxicity hazard the Spatial comparison not possible Hendrina dow nstream site is deteriorating No flow at the upstream site. Spatial No spatial increase in terms of toxicity more than the upstream site comparison not possible. Dow nstream Nov-15 hazard (Class II). Slight toxicity hazard site unsuitable for SASS and FAII. on the w estern tributary (Class II) Spatial comparison not possible Biotic condition slightly reduced on a Spatial increase in terms of toxicity Jun-15 hazard. Tributary site show ed a slight Kendal spatial scale hazard (Class II). Biotic condition slightly reduced Upstream site dry. Spatial comparison No spatial increase i.t.o toxicity hazard Nov-15 not possible. (Class II) Jun-15 No spatial deterioration observed Biotic condition slight reduced on a No temporal deterioration Komati spatial scale. How ever, large habitat Nov-15 differences at upstream sites No spatial deterioration observed observed necessitates further verification of results Biotic condition slight reduced on a spatial scale. How ever, large habitat No spatial increase in terms of toxicity Jun-15 differences at upstream sites No temporal deterioration Kriel hazard necessitates further verification of observed results Nov-15 No spatial deterioration observed No toxicity hazard (Class I) Grey shading = not a requirement in the current biomonitoring programme Yellow shading = spatial impact is currently unknown Key: Green shading = currently no spatial/temporal impact Red shading = possibly currently a spatial/temporal impact to receiving waters

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:21

Table 4.1: Colour coded summary of spatial impact identification, on receiving water bodies, in relation to Eskom power stations from biomonitoring analyses carried out in 2014 (continued).

Power Sampling Potential spatial impacts Potential Temporal Station Date SASS5 Fish Toxicity impacts No spatial deterioration observed The tributaries show ed toxicity slight Jun-15 hazard (Class II) No temporal deterioration Kusile No spatial deterioration observed Biotic condition slight reduced on a observed Nov-15 No toxicity hazard (Class I) spatial scale. Biotic condition slightly reduced on a Jun-15 spatial scale Lethabo Biotic condition slightly reduced Biotic condition slightly reduced on a No spatial deterioration observed Nov-15 spatial scale Upstream site not suitable for Spatial increase in terms of toxicity Jun-15 macroinvertebrate assesment. Spatial hazard. SASS5 improved. How ever, comparison not possible. toxicity hazard increased over Majuba Upstream site not suitable for Upstream site not suitable for fish time from upstream to assesment. Spatial comparison not Spatial increase in terms of toxicity Nov-15 macroinvertebrate assesment. Spatial dow nstream site possible. FAII w ill serve as a monitoring hazard. comparison not possible. tool Jun-15 Matimba Sandloopspruit not suitable for SASS5 or FAII Dry Nov-15 Lack of data for trend analysis Jun-15 Medupi Sandloopspruit not suitable for SASS5 or FAII Dry Nov-15 No spatial deterioration observed No toxicity hazard associated w ith the Jun-15 Dw ars-in-die-berg tributary (Class I) Biotic condition slight reduced on a Biotic condition slightly reduced Matla spatial scale. How ever, large habitat No toxicity hazard associated w ith the at the dow nstream site Nov-15 No spatial deterioration observed differences necessitates further Dw ars-in-die-berg tributary (Class I) verification of results Upstream site dry. Spatial comparison Toxicity hazard w as reduced from not currently possible Class II (US) to Class I (DS). Tributary Jun-15 (TA-AD-DS) dow nstream from the Tutuka ash dams indicated no hazard. No temporal deterioration Tutuka No spatial deterioration observed Spatial increase in terms of toxicity observed hazard. Tributary (TA-AD-DS) Nov-15 dow nstream from the Tutuka ash dams show ed slight hazard (Class II). Jun-15 No spatial deterioration observed Lack of data for temporal UCG Nov-15 No spatial deterioration observed No spatial deterioration observed analysis

Grey shading = not a requirement in the current biomonitoring programme Yellow shading = spatial impact is currently unknown Key: Green shading = currently no spatial/temporal impact Red shading = possibly currently a spatial/temporal impact to receiving waters

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:22

4.1 ARNOT POWER STATION

Arnot Power Station is in the Rietkuilspruit catchment and all the selected monitoring sites fall within the Olifants River (B) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach B12B-01213. The Arnot Power Station study area, indicating the streams and selected biomonitoring sites is shown in Figure 4.1.1. Table 4.1.1 shows the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.1.1- 4.1.4 shows the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.1.1: Map of Arnot Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.1.1: Arnot biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station (South) (East) reach code Rietkuilspruit B: upstream from AR-RK-US -25.9615 29.8557 Olifants B12B-01213 Arnot power River Rietkuil- Station. Arnot spruit Rietkuilspruit B: downstream AR-RK-DS -25.9588 29.7751 Olifants B12B-01213 from Arnot River power Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:23

Plate 4.1.1: View of site AR-RK-US (Upstream) in June 2015

Plate 4.1.2: View of site AR-RK-DS (Downstream) in June 2015

Plate 4.1.3: View of site AR-RK-US (Upstream) in November 2015

Plate 4.1.4: View of site AR-RK-DS (Downstream) in November 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:24

4.1.1 In-situ Water Quality

The conductivity (EC) levels in the Rietkuilspruit slightly increased from the upstream to the downstream site during both surveys (Table 4.1.2). The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The pH value increased from the upstream to the downstream site during the June 2015 survey; this does not suggest that the water quality changed. The pH values were within the stipulated guideline (Table 4.1.2).

Table 4.1.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Arnot biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Dissolved Water Monitoring Conductivity (EC) Survey pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 AR-RK-US 0.60 7.72 9.76 6.82 Jun-15 AR-RK-DS 0.77 8.14 8.2 4.8 Nov-15 AR-RK-US 0.18 8.27 4.25 19.74 Nov-15 AR-RK-DS 0.69 8.32 11.13 20.85

The target pH for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this pH range (DWAF, 1996). Dissolved oxygen of less than 5mg/l was recorded at the upstream site of Rietkuilspruit during the summer survey. Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at both sites during the June 2014 survey.

4.1.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Arnot Power Station sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (12 taxa), very low requirement (10 taxa) and a moderate requirement (5 taxa) for unmodified water quality. One taxon with a high requirement for unmodified water quality was found during the summer survey at the downstream site (November 2015) (Table 4.1.3).

The ASPT scores were similar for June and November 2015 surveys. This suggests that the cumulative impacts between the upstream (AR-RK-US) and downstream (AR-RK-DS) site did not lead to a decrease in biotic integrity. The total SASS5 score slight increase from the upstream to the downstream site during the winter survey. In contrast, during the summer survey the total SASS5 score was slightly reduced at the downstream site (Table 4.1.4), even though, SASS-vegetation biotope comparison scores showed a better habit at the downstream site (Table 4.1.4).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:25

Table 4.1.3: Aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa sampled at the Arnot biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta - A A A - - A A - - A A - - - - Leeches - - - - - A A A ------A A Amphipoda ------A A HYDRACARINA A A - A - - - - - A - A - - - - Baetidae A - A B - A A A - - - - - A A A Caenidae B - B B - A A A - - B B - - - - Coenagrionidae - A - A - A A A - A - A - A A B Aeshnidae - - - - - A - A - A - A - A - A Libelludae A - A A - - A A - - A A - A - A Belostomatidae* - A - A - A - A ------Corixidae* A A A B - A A B A - B B - A B B Gerridae* A A - B - - - - - A - A - - - - Naucoridae* ------A - - A - - - - Nepidae* ------A - A - A - A Notonectidae* - A A B - A - A A A - A - A A A Pleidae* - A - A - A - A A - - A - - - - Veliidae* - - - - - A - A ------Hydroptilidae - - - - - A - A ------Dytiscidae (adults*) - A - A - A - A ------Gyrinidae (adults*) - A - A - - - - B - - B - - - - Hydrophilidae (adults*) A - - A ------A A A Ceratopogonidae A A - A - - A A - A A A - - A A Chironomidae B B C C - B B B B - - B - A A A Culicidae* - A - A ------Simuliidae - - - - - B - B ------Physidae* - - - - - A B B - - - - - A A A Sphaeridae ------A A - - - - - A A A Total SASS5 score 44 49 23 70 0 64 38 77 24 36 19 68 0 44 48 65 No. of families 9 13 7 17 0 15 11 19 6 7 5 15 0 11 11 14 ASPT 4.89 3.77 3.29 4.12 #DIV/0! 4.27 3.45 4.05 4.00 5.14 3.80 4.53 #DIV/0! 4.00 4.36 4.64 Total IHAS 55 49 40 51 IHAS - Habs sampled 29 23 19 23 IHAS - Stream condition 26 26 21 28 Suitability score 4 5 8 17 0 8 9 17 0 5 7 12 0 9 6 15 High requirement for unmodified water quality

Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:26

Table 4.1.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for the Arnot biomonitoring downstream site (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined AR-RK-US 70.0 4.1 44.0 49.0 23.0 4.0 5.0 8.0 17.0 Jun-15 AR-RK-DS 77.0 4.1 0.0 64.0 38.0 0.0 8.0 9.0 17.0 AR-RK-US 68.0 4.5 24.0 36.0 19.0 0.0 5.0 7.0 12.0 Nov-15 AR-RK-DS 65.0 4.6 0.0 44.0 48.0 0.0 9.0 6.0 15.0

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 100

6 80

5 60

4 40 ASPT ASPT Scores

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.1.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Arnot biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.1.2.1 Long term trends of the SASS5 data (April 2012 to November 2015) In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity, the total SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 results at each site. It appears that the biotic integrity is generally higher at the downstream site as shown by the linear trend (Figure 4.1.3). The trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued monitoring as the database becomes more populated.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:27

Figure 4.1.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:28

4.1.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-deep, slow-shallow and some fast-shallow habitats with overhanging vegetation, undercut banks and root-wads and substrate as cover (Table 4.1.5). Based on available information, six fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Vaal River section of concern. These include Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead barb), Barbus neefi (Sidespot Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish), Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder) and Tilapia sparmanni (Banded Tilapia) (Table 4.1.6). Three of these expected species were sampled at the Rietkuilspruit sites during the current study, namely B. anoplus, B. paludinosus and P. philander (Table 4.1.6). The FAII scores increased, on a spatial scale, from the upstream site to the downstream site (Table 4.1.7).

Table 4.1.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Arnot sites (November 2015).

Arnot November 2015 Habitat types AR-KR-US AR-KR-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 3 Overhanging vegetation 2 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 2 1 Substrate 2 1 Macrophytes 0 3 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 3 4 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 2 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 2 1 Substrate 1 1 Macrophytes 0 3 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 2.5 2.66 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 1 Overhanging vegetation 0 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 1 Substrate 0 1 Macrophytes 0 3 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 1.33 TOTAL HCR SCORE 5.5 8

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:29

Table 4.1.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Arnot biomonitoring sites in November 2015.

Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13 EXPECTED Barbus neefi 3.4 3.4 5 5 17 17 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9 Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 58 58 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 1 5 2.6 13

OBSERVED Barbus neefi 0 0 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 5 9 0 Clarias gariepinus 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 5 0 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 0 0 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 11.6 19.5 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 20 33.62

4.1.4 Toxicity testing

Toxicity testing and hazard classification was performed at both the Rietkuilspruit biomonitoring sites during the June and November 2015 surveys (Tables 4.1.7 and 4.1.8). The toxicity hazard observed was within Class I (No hazard) after inclusion of all potential impacts at the upstream and downstream sites during both surveys, which indicates that there was no acute/chronic hazard in the Rietkuilspruit.

It is important to note that toxicity testing and hazard classification, although a good surrogate to other protocols always has the limitation of being a snap-shot at the time of sampling. Fish and SASS5 can reflect a pollution incident for weeks, months and years, whereas toxicity will always just be a snap-shot, albeit very useful and sometimes the only biomonitoring tool available.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:30

Table 4.1.7: Test results and risk classification for Arnot Power Station during June 2015.

Results AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS

pH 7,8 8 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 62 47 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8,7 8,9

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-07-01 15-07-01 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 11 8 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** EC/LC50 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) V. fischeri no short- no short- Toxicity unit (TU) / Description chronic hazard chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 9 -8 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) ** no short- no short-

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

S. capricornutum chronic hazard chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ** EC/LC50 (48hours) ** D. magna (waterflea) no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-29 15-06-29 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) ** (guppy)

P. reticulata no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class I - No Class I - No Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard Weight (%) 0 0

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = EC/LC values not determined, definitive testing required if a hazard was observed and persists over subsequent sampling runs *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:31

Table 4.1.8: Test results and risk classification for Arnot Power Station during November 2015.

Results AR-RK-US AR-RK-DS

pH 8 8,1 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 28,5 24,4 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,8 7,8

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-25 15-11-25 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 31 19 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) **

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-12-07 15-12-07 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 11 -4 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) **

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 2015-11--30 2015-11--30 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) **

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-26 15-11-26 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No acute/chronic Class I - No acute/chronic Overall classification - Hazard class*** hazard hazard

Weight (%) 0 0

4.1.4.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.1.4). The trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey. The upstream site indicated increased toxicity over time when compared to the downstream site (Figure 4.1.4). In general the risk does not increase downstream of the power station (Figure 4.1.4).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:32

Figure 4.1.4: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.1.5 Conclusions

The biomonitoring assessment (SASS5 and fish) results for the Arnot Power Station indicate that the biotic integrity of the Rietkuilspruit improved, on a spatial scale, from the upstream to the downstream site. This was further confirmed by the absence of toxicity hazard at both sites during the June and November 2015 surveys. There was no flow at the upstream site during both surveys. The spatial improvement is related to flow and not necessarily water quality improvement. It is noted that this deduction is of low confidence taking in consideration the limitations of flow conditions at the upstream. However, temporal trends were determined to gain a general indication of an increase/decrease in biotic integrity.

Based on the long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) in the toxicity and SASS5 scores, it appears that the biotic integrity was not affected by the potential cumulative impacts, including the power station. Temporal trends will become more accurate with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes me populated.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:33

It is recommended to continue with the SASS5 monitoring and toxicity testing twice per annum and with the fish monitoring once per annum, at the selected upstream and downstream sites.

4.2 CAMDEN POWER STATION

The Camden Power Station is in the Witpuntspruit catchment and all of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Olifants River (B) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach B12B-1233. A map of Camden Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring site are shown in Figure 4.2.1. Table 4.2.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 show the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.2.1: Map of Camden Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring site.

Table 4.2.1: Camden biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ Associated Description WMA quaternary site Stream power station Latitude Longitude (South) (East) reach code Witpuntspruit C: upstream from CM-WP-US -26.5933 30.0963 Vaal C11B-01641 Camden power River Witpunt- Station. Camden spruit Witpuntspruit C: downstream CM-WP-DS -26.6340 30.1338 Vaal C11B-01641 from Camden River power Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:34

Plate 4.2.1: View of site CM-WP-US in June 2015

Plate 4.2.2: View of site CM-WP-DS in June 2015

4.2.1 In-situ water quality

The EC levels in the Witpuntspruit indicated a slight increase from the upstream to the downstream site during the June 2015 survey, however in the November 2015 survey the EC was reduced. The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The pH values were below the stipulated target range for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health at the upstream site (CM-WP-US) during both surveys. This result was supported by the chemistry analysis, which indicated pH below the stipulated range (Appendix A). The target pH for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996). This target was met at the downstream site (CM-WP-DS) as shown in Table 4.2.2. This indicates that the water quality improved from the upstream site to the downstream site. Dissolved oxygen >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) was not met at the upstream site in November 2015 survey.

Table 4.2.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Camden biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Water Monitoring Survey (EC) pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 CM-WP-US 1.55 3.58 8.61 10.66 Jun-15 CM-WP-DS 1.82 8.04 5.71 11.13 Nov-15 CM-WP-US 3.14 3.70 4.15 15.31 Nov-15 CM-WP-DS 2.08 8.61 5.95 17.74

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:35

4.2.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Camden sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (8 taxa), moderate requirement (7 taxa) and very low requirement (5) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.2.3). No taxon with a high requirement for unmodified water quality was found during both surveys (Table 4.2.3).

Table 4.2.3: Aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa sampled at the Camden biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015). Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta - - - - - A - A - A - A - - - - Atyidae - - - - A A - A ------HYDRACARINA - - - - B A - B - - - - A B A B Baetidae - - - - A A B B - - - - A B A B Caenidae - - - - A A A B - - - - - A - A Coenagrionidae A - A A A - A B - - - - - A - A Lestidae ------A - - A Aeshnidae - A - A - - A A - - A A - - - - Corduliidae ------A - A Libelludae A - - A ------A - A A Corixidae* A A - A B A B C - - - - B B B B Gerridae* A - - A A B - B ------Notonectidae* - - - - - B A B - - - - A B - B Pleidae* - B A B A A A B - - A A - A - A Veliidae* - A - A - A - A - - A A - A - A Dytiscidae (adults*) A A B B - A A A A A A A A - - A Hydrophilidae (adults*) ------A - A - A - A Ceratopogonidae - - - - - B - B - - - - - A - A Chironomidae A A A B - - A A A B A B B A A B Culicidae* - - - - B A - B - A - A A A A A Total SASS5 score 23 27 15 40 43 58 39 72 7 14 24 31 38 58 22 75 No. of families 6 6 4 9 9 13 9 16 2 5 5 8 9 13 6 16 4.5 4.4 2.8 ASPT 3.83 0 3.75 4.44 4.78 6 4.33 4.50 3.50 0 4.80 3.88 4.22 4.46 3.67 4.69 Total IHAS 54 59 42 59 IHAS - Habs sampled 28 32 19 32 IHAS - Stream condition 26 27 23 27 Suitability score 3 5 7 15 5 5 6 16 2 2 4 8 3 3 6 12 Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:36

The total SASS5 and ASPT scores improved on a spatial scale from the upstream site (CM-WP-US) to the downstream site (CM-WP-DS) during both surveys (Table 4.2.4). Comparison between the SASS-vegetation scores confirmed a downstream spatial improvement. This suggest that the biotic integrity was not reduced in this section of the Witpuntspruit after the inclusion of potential Camden Power Station impacts (Table 4.2.4)

Table 4.2.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for Camden biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined CM-WP-US 40 4.44 23 27 15 3 5 7 15 Jun-15 CM-WP-DS 72 4.50 43 58 39 5 5 6 16 CM-WP-US 31 3.88 7 14 24 2 2 4 8 Nov-15 CM-WP-DS 75 4.69 38 58 22 3 3 6 12

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 100

6 80

5 60

4 40 ASPT ASPT Scores

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.2.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Camden biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.2.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data The SASS5 results for each site were plotted for each survey to determine the temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity. Then, the linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. The total SASS5 scores decreased at the downstream site when compared to the upstream site (Figure 4.2.3). However, this is a general indication; the trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:37

Figure 4.2.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.2.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-deep and slow-shallow types with overhanging vegetation, undercut banks and root-wads as well as substrate as cover (Table 4.2.5).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:38

Table 4.2.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Camden sites (November 2015).

Camden November 2015 Habitat types CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 3 3 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 3 1 Substrate 2 3 Macrophytes 4 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 6 4.2 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 3 2 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 3 1 Substrate 2 4 Macrophytes 3 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 5.5 2.8 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 TOTAL HCR SCORE 11.5 7

Based on available information (Niehaus et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2006), seven fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Vaal River section of concern (Table 4.2.6). These include Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Barbus pallidus (Goldie Barb) Labeobarbus aeneus (Smallmouth Yellowfish), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish) and Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder). Only Pseudocrenilabrus philander was sampled during the November 2015 survey (Table 4.2.6).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:39

Table 4.2.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Camden biomonitoring sites in November 2015.

Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS CM-WP-US CM-WP-DS Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13

EXPECTED Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9 Barbus pallidus 3.1 3.1 5 5 15.5 15.5 Labeobarbus aeneus 2.5 2.5 5 5 12.5 12.5 Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia Sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 69 69 Barbus anoplus 0 0

OBSERVED Barbus paludinosus 0 0 Barbus pallidus 0 0 Labeobarbus aeneus 0 0 Clarias gariepinus 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 5 0 6.5 Tilapia Sparmanii 0 0 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 0 6.5 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 0 9.42

The FAII score increased from the upstream site to the downstream during the November 2015 survey (Table 4.2.6).

4.2.4 Conclusions

The macro-invertebrate (SASS5) results for the Camden Power Station improved on a spatial scale, from the upstream to the downstream site. These results suggest that the biotic integrity was not reduced in this section of the Witpuntspruit after inclusion of potential Camden Power Station impacts. The water quality at the upstream site was probably reduced due to potential cumulative impacts. This was indicated in the absence of fish at the upstream site and the low pH levels during both surveys.

The FAII score increased from the upstream to the downstream site. It is noted that fish deduction is not valid in this scenario since the habitat was better at the upstream site yet the FAII score was less.

Based on the temporal trends of the total SASS5 scores it appears that the biotic integrity is improving at the downstream site. Linear trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes populated.

It is recommended to continue with SASS5 and fish assessments monitoring at the two Witpuntspruit biomonitoring sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:40

4.3 DUVHA POWER STATION

The Duvha Power Station is in the Olifants River catchment and all of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Olifants River (B) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach B11J-1155. A map of Duvha Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites are shown in Figure 4.3.1. Table 4.3.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 show the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.3.1: Map of Duvha Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.3.1: Duvha biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

GPS coordinates Associated Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station reach code (South) (East) Unnamed tributary, B: downstream site Tributary of DV-TRIB-US -25.9247 29.3460 Olifants to the north of B11J-1155 River the power Unnamed station. Northern Duvha Unnamed tributary tributary, B: downstream site Tributary of DV-TRIB-DS -25.9233 29.3446 Olifants to the north of B11J-1155 River the power station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:41

Plate 4.3.1: View of site DV-TRIB-US in June and November 2015

Plate 4.3.2: View of site DV-TRIB-DS in June and November 2015

4.3.1 In-situ Water Quality

The EC levels in the tributary increased from the upstream site (DV-TRIB-US) to the downstream site (DV-TRIB-DS) during both surveys (Table 4.3.2). The pH fell within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health at both sites during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.3.2). The target pH for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996). Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at both sites during both surveys (Table 4.3.2).

Table 4.3.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Duvha biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Water Survey Monitoring Site (EC) pH oxygen Temperature (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 DV-TRIB-US 0.99 7.52 8.43 8.47 Jun-15 DV-TRIB-DS 1.09 7.48 6.53 13.09 Nov-15 DV-TRIB-US 0.42 7.71 6.2 21.7 Nov-15 DV-TRIB-DS 1.11 7.81 9.77 21.42

4.3.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Duvha Power Station sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (14 taxa) and very low requirement (11 taxa) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.3.3). Eight taxa (8 taxa) with a moderate requirement for unmodified water quality were also present.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:42

Table 4.3.3: Aquatic macro invertebrate taxa sampled at the Duvha biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta - - A A - - A A - - - - A A - A Leeches - - - - B - - B ------Potamonautidae* - - - - A - - A ------Atyidae - - A A - - A A - - A A A - - A HYDRACARINA ------A - A - - - - Baetidae - B B C B B A B - - - - A A - A Caenidae - B A B A - A A - - - - A A A A Coenagrionidae - B - B A A - A - A A A - A - A Lestidae - A - A - - - - - A A A - - - - Aeshnidae - A - A - A - A - A A A - A - A Gomphidae ------A - A A Libelludae - A - A - - - - - A - A - - - - Belostomatidae* - A - A - - - - - A - A A A - A Corixidae* - - A A B B B B - B A B B B B B Naucoridae* - A - A A A - A ------Notonectidae* - A - A A - - A - A - A - A - A Pleidae* - B - B - A - A - A A A - - - - Veliidae* - - - - - A - A - B A B - A - A Corydalidae ------A A A - - - - Hydropsychidae - - - - A - - A ------Dytiscidae (adults*) - B A B - A A A - A - A - - - - Elmidae / Dryopidae* - - - - - B B B ------Hydraenidae (adults*) - - A A A A - A ------Hydrophilidae (adults*) ------A - A - - - - Ceratopogonidae - A A A A A - A - B A B - - - - Chironomidae - B A B - A A B - A A A - - - - Culicidae* - A - A ------Simuliidae - - - - A A - A ------Tabanidae - - - - - A - A ------Ancylidae ------A - A - - - - Lymnaeidae* - A - A - B - B - B A B - - - - Physidae* - A - A A - A A - B B B - - - - Planorbinae* - A - A ------Total SASS5 score 0 73 42 93 66 76 40 115 0 87 61 95 31 37 15 51 No. of families 0 17 9 21 13 15 9 23 0 18 12 19 7 9 3 11 ASPT #DIV/0! 4.29 4.67 4.43 5.08 5.07 4.44 5.00 #DIV/0! 4.83 5.08 5.00 4.43 4.11 5.00 4.64 Total IHAS 48 61 42 58 IHAS - Habs sampled 22 33 21 32 IHAS - Stream condition 26 28 21 26 Suitability score 0 7 8 15 5 10 9 24 0 3 6 9 5 5 3 13 Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:43

The total SASS5 and ASPT scores improved on a spatial scale from the upstream site (DV-TRIB-US) to the downstream site (DV-TRIB-DS) during the winter survey. Comparison of the SASS-vegetation and SASS-gsm scores confirmed that the biotic integrity improved during the winter survey. Based on the June 2015 survey the biotic integrity was not reduced in this section of the tributary after the inclusion of potential Duvha Power Station impacts (Table 4.3.4 and Figure 4.3.2). However, in November 2015 survey the biotic integrity was slightly reduced.

Table 4.3.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for Duvha biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

DV-TRIB-US 93 4.43 0 73 42 0 7 8 15 Jun-15 DV-TRIB-DS 115 5.00 66 76 40 5 10 9 24 DV-TRIB-US 95 5.00 0 87 61 0 3 6 9 Nov-15 DV-TRIB-DS 51 4.64 31 37 15 5 5 3 13

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 120

100 6

80 5

4 ASPT ASPT Scores 40

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.3.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Duvha biomonitoring sites (June and November 2014).

4.3.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity. The total SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. The SASS5 results appeared to improve over time at the upstream site (Figure 4.3.3). The downstream site showed a straight-line pattern over time, which indicates a stable condition (Figure 4.3.3).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:44

Figure 4.3.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.3.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-deep, slow shallow and some fast-shallow habitats with overhanging vegetation, undercut banks and root-wads, substrate and macrophytes as cover (Table 4.3.5). Based on available information, five fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Vaal River section of concern. These include Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead barb), Barbus neefi (Sidespot Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder) and Tilapia sparmanni (Banded Tilapia) (Table 4.3.5). Three of these expected species were sampled at the Duvha sites during the current study, namely B. anoplus, Pseudocrenilabrus philander and Tilapia sparrmanii (Table 4.3.5). The FAII scores remain the same at both sites (Table 4.3.6).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:45

Table 4.3.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Duvha biomonitoring sites for November 2015. Duvha November 2015 Habitat types DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 4 2 Overhanging vegetation 3 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 2 0 Substrate 1 2 Macrophytes 3 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 7.2 1.66 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 1 3 Overhanging vegetation 3 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 2 0 Substrate 1 2 Macrophytes 3 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 1.8 2.5 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 1 Overhanging vegetation 0 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 3 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 1 TOTAL HCR SCORE 9 5.16

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:46

Table 4.3.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Duvha biomonitoring sites in November 2015.

Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE

SPECIES DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS DV-TRIB-US DV-TRIB-DS Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13

EXPECTED Barbus neefi 3.4 3.4 5 5 17 17 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 52 52 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13

OBSERVED Barbus neefi 0 0 Barbus paludinosus 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 26 26

RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 50 50

4.3.4 Toxicity testing

Toxicity results for June and November 2015 are presented in Tables 4.3.7 and 4.3.8. Toxicity hazard classification during the June 2015 survey revealed that there was no hazard (Class I) at either of the sites. Both sites showed a slight acute/chronic hazard (Class II) in November 2015 survey. Toxicity testing and classification has the limitation of being a snap-shot at the time of sampling. The best way to combat the ‘snap-shot’ limitation is to perform regular definitive toxicity testing.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:47

Table 4.3.7: Test results and risk classification for Duvha Power Station during June 2015.

Results DV-Trib-US DV-Trib-DS

pH 7,8 7,7 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 71,6 72,5 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 9 8,8

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-07-01 15-07-01 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -1 3 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** EC/LC50 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) V. fischeri no short-chronic no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 6 -7 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) ** no short-chronic no short-chronic

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

S. capricornutum hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-29 15-06-29 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ** EC/LC50 (48hours) ** D. magna (waterflea) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-29 15-06-29 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) ** (guppy)

P. reticulata Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class I - No Class I - No Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard Weight (%) 0 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:48

Table 4.3.8: Test results and risk classification for Duvha Power Station during November 2015.

Results DV-trib-US DV-trib-DS

pH 8 7,8 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 12 39,7 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,9 8

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-27 15-11-27 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -15 -21 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no short-chronic hazard S.D.O.T.H. V. fischeri

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-30 15-11-30 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -35 -35 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) **

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H.

Test started on yy/mm/dd 2015-11--30 2015-11--30 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) **

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-26 15-11-26 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic hazard acute/chronic hazard

Weight (%) 25 50

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

4.3.4.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data The risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels (Figure 4.3.4). The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.3.4). The trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey. Both sites showed a slight increase in toxicity hazard over time. The risk appears not to increase towards the downstream site relative to the upstream site.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:49

Figure 4.3.4: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.3.5 Conclusions

Based on the macro-invertebrate results, it can be concluded that the biotic integrity, improved on a spatial scale, from the upstream site to the downstream site during the winter season. However, during the summer season the potential impact of Duvha Power Station, in combination with other non-Eskom users led to a slight reduction in the biotic integrity of the receiving streams. This result was supported by the toxicity testing and hazard classification results, which indicated a slight toxicity in November 2015. Fish assessments undertaken indicated no spatial deterioration in November 2015 survey.

Temporal trends of SASS appeared to improve at the upstream site. The downstream site showed a straight-line pattern over time, which suggests a stable condition. Temporal trends in terms of toxicity hazard in general appear that the risk does increase downstream of the power station. Trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

It is recommended to continue with macro-invertebrate monitoring and toxicity testing at the two tributary sites. It is also recommended to continue with fish assessment once per annum at the selected sites to allow for analyses of seasonal variation and in order to confirm the absence of deteriorating biotic integrity.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:50

4.4 GROOTVLEI POWER STATION

The Grootvlei Power Station is in the Molspruit catchment and all of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Vaal River (C) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach C12K-01749. A map of Grootvlei Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring site are represented in Figure 4.4.1. Table 4.4.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 depict the visual representation of the sampling sites.

Figure 4.4.1: Map of Grootvlei Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.4.1: Grootvlei biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station (South) (East) reach code Molspruit, upstream from C: Vaal GV-MS-US -26.7594 28.5653 C12K-01749 Grootvlei River power Station. Molspruit Grootvlei Molspruit, downstream C: Vaal GV-MS-DS -26.8293 28.5240 C12K-01849 from Grootvlei River power Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:51

Plate 4.4.1: View of site GV-MS-US in November 2015

Plate 4.4.2: View of site GV-MS-DS in November 2015

4.4.1 Toxicity Testing

Macro-invertebrates and fish assessments were not performed during the June 2015 survey, due to dried-up conditions at the upstream site. Deep pools remained at the downstream site which allowed for toxicity testing. No toxicity hazard was found in water from the downstream (GV-MS-DS) site during June 2015 (Table 4.4.2). In the November 2015 survey, SASS5 and fish assessments could not be performed due very low flow at both sites in the Molspruit. However, deep pools remained which permitted for toxicity testing and hazard classification for the quality of water at both sites. Toxicity hazard revealed a slight hazard (Class II) at both sites (Table 4.4.3). This slight hazard (Class II) could be attributed to no flow, evaporation and possible concentration of contaminants.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:52

Table 4.4.2: Test results and risk classification for Grootvlei Power Station during June 2015.

Results GV-MS-DS

pH 7,9 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 40,9 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8,4

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -20 EC/LC20 (30 mins) * EC/LC50 (30 mins) * (bacteria) V. fischeri Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-10 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 13 EC/LC20 (72hours) * S. EC/LC50 (72hours) *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

capricornutum no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) * EC/LC50 (48hours) * D. magna (waterflea) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) *

(guppy) EC/LC50 (96hours) *

P. reticulata Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No acute/chronic Overall classification - Hazard class*** hazard Weight (%) 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:53

Table 4.4.3: Test results and risk classification for Grootvlei Power Station during November 2015.

Results GV-MS-US GV-MS-DS

pH 9,2 8,2 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 1,9 2,8 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 6,9 5,6

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-25 15-11-25 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -15,69(F) -2 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) **

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-24 15-11-24 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 3 -1 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) **

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-23 15-11-23 %48hour mortality rate (-%) -20 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) **

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) **

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-20 15-11-20 %96hour mortality rate (-%) -20 -30

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic hazard acute/chronic hazard

Weight (%) 50 25

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:54

4.4.1.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) in the toxicity data Temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels were determined; the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.4.2). The trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey. Both sites indicated an increased toxicity hazard over time, which may be related to no flow. (Figure 4.4.2). It appears that the risk does not increase downstream of the power station. The deterioration appears less at the downstream site and the source of reduced water quality is probably upstream from the power station.

Figure 4.4.2: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.4.2 Conclusions

In conclusion, macro-invertebrate assessments could not be conducted at the sites during both surveys due to very low flow conditions. The upstream site (GV-MS-US) was dry in June 2015 survey. In terms of spatial comparison of the toxicity hazards at both sites, a slight acute/chronic hazard was observed (Class II) in November 2015 and the hazard did not increase downstream of the power station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:55

In terms of temporal trends in toxicity risk it appears that the risk does not increase downstream of the power station. Trend analyses will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

Macro-invertebrate assessments should be conducted at least once per annum, if possible and twice if flows allows. It is recommend to continue with toxicity testing and hazard classification at both sites at a frequency of twice per annum.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:56

4.5 HENDRINA POWER STATION

The Hendrina Power Station is on the banks of the Woestalleenspruit and all of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Olifants River (B) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach B12B-1233. The map of Hendrina Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites are presented in Figure 4.5.1. Table 4.5.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.5.1, 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 depict the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.5.1: Map of Hendrina Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.5.1: Hendrina biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ Associated Description WMA quaternary site Stream power Station Latitude Longitude (South) (East) reach code Woestalleenspruit (eastern tributary), B: Olifants HD-WE-US upstream from -26.0834 29.6074 B12B-1233 River Woestal- Hendrina power leenspruit Station. Eastern Woestalleenspruit tributary (eastern tributary), B: Olifants HD-WE-DS Hendrina downstream from -26.0070 29.6204 B12B-1233 River Hendrina power Station. Woestalleenspruit Woestal- (western tributary), leenspruit B: Olifants Tributary of HD-WW-DS downstream from -25.9964 29.5796 Western River B12B-1223 Hendrina power tributary Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:57

Plate 4.5.1: View of site HD-WE-US in November 2015

Plate 4.5.2: View of site HD-WE-DS in June and November2015

Plate 4.5.3: View of site HD-WW-DS in June and November 2015

4.5.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data

In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity. the SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. It appears that the biotic integrity is generally higher at the upstream site as shown in Figure 4.5.2.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:58

Figure 4.5.2: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.5.2 Toxicity Assessments

Spatial comparison of the upstream and downstream sites in the Woestalleen eastern tributary showed that the toxicity hazard increased from the upstream (HD-WE-US) to the downstream (HD-WE-DS ) site during both surveys, from no acute/chronic hazard (Class I) to slight acute/chronic (Class II) in June 2015 survey (Table 4.5.2). Toxicity hazard revealed no acute/chronic hazard in the water collected at the HD-WW-DS site (Table 4.5.2). Toxicity hazard classification in the November 2015 survey revealed that there was a slight acute/chronic hazard (Class II) at the Hendrina biomonitoring sites (Table 4.5.3).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:59

Table 4.5.2: Test results and risk classification for Hendrina Power Station during June 2015.

Results HD-WE-US HD-WE-DS HD-WW-DS

pH 7,9 7,8 7,8 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 28 33,5 34,6 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8,6 8,9 9,5

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-07-01 15-07-01 15-07-01 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 8 4 2 EC/LC20 (30 mins) *** EC/LC50 (30 mins) *** (bacteria) V. fischeri no short- no short-chronic no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description chronic hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 4 35 6 EC/LC20 (72hours) *** EC/LC50 (72hours) *** no short- no short-chronic no short-chronic

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

S. capricornutum chronic hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 -13 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) *** EC/LC50 (48hours) *** D. magna (waterflea) no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. no acute hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-29 15-06-29 15-06-29 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) *** EC/LC50 (96hours) *** (guppy)

P. reticulata no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No Class II - Slight Class I - No Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard hazard Weight (%) 0 25 0

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:60

Table 4.5.3: Test results and risk classification for Hendrina Power Station during November 2015.

Results HD-WE-US HD-WE-DS HD-WW-DS

pH 7,9 8,1 8 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 45,7 18,4 16,7 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8 8 7,9

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-25 15-11-25 15-11-25 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 17 18 15 EC/LC20 (30 mins) *** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) ***

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-30 15-11-30 15-11-30 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -26 -37 -29 EC/LC20 (72hours) *** EC/LC50 (72hours) ***

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H.

Test started on yy/mm/dd 2015-11--30 2015-11--30 2015-11--30 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 -7 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ***

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) ***

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-26 15-11-26 15-11-26 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) *** EC/LC50 (96hours) ***

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic hazard acute/chronic hazard acute/chronic hazard

Weight (%) 25 25 25

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:61

Toxicity testing and hazard classification has the limitation of being a snap-shot at the time of sampling. The best way to combat the ‘snap-shot’ limitation is to perform regular definitive toxicity testing. SASS5 can reflect a pollution incident for weeks, months and years, whereas toxicity will always just be a snap-shot, albeit very useful and sometimes the only biomonitoring tool available.

4.5.1.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. Linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.5.3). These trends were not based on the actual mortalities/inhibition or lethal concentrations, but on the derived risk class for each survey. It appears in general that the risk increased at the downstream site of the power station as indicated in Figure 4.5.3.

Figure 4.5.3: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:62

4.5.3 Conclusions

In conclusion, macro-invertebrates assessments could not be carried out at the upstream site (HD-WE-US) due to very low flow during both surveys. This tributary has low flow and is not perennial, as a result a strong emphasis should be placed on the toxicity testing and hazard classification.

Spatial comparison cannot be determined due to absence of suitable downstream site for SASS5 analysis. Therefore, temporal variation of SASS5 results was determined to gain a general idea of increased/decreased biotic integrity. At this stage of the biomonitoring programme, it appears that the biotic integrity is generally increasing at the upstream site. In terms of toxicity it appeared in general that the risk increase downstream of the power station. Temporal trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

SASS5 monitoring should be undertaken at least twice per annum, during the winter and summer seasons when flow permits.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:63

4.6 KENDAL POWER STSTION

The main aquatic ecosystem associated with the Kendal Power Station is the Olifants River System and its tributaries. The Olifants River and its tributaries within the study area fall within the Olifants River Catchment water management area (WMA4) and quaternary catchment B20E-1301 (Figure 4.6.1). Table 4.6.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 show the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.6.1: Map of Kendal Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.6.1: Kendal biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

GPS coordinates Associated Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude Station reach code (South) (East)

Leeufontein- spruit, upstream B: Olifants KD-LF-US -26.1233 28.9504 B20E-1301 from Kendal River power Station. Leeufon- teinspruit Leeufontein- spruit, B: Olifants KD-LF-DS downstream -26.0847 28.9208 B20E-1301 River Kendal from Kendal power Station. Unnamed Unnamed tributary tributary draining draining from from power B: Olifants KD-trib power -26.0935 28.9540 B20E-1301 stationto River stationto Leeufontein- Leeufon- spruit teinspruit

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:64

Plate 4.6.1: View of site KD-LF-US and KD-TRIB in June 2015

Plate 4.6.2: View of site KD-LF-DS in June and November 2015

4.6.1 In-situ water quality

The EC levels in the Leeufonteinspruit decreased from the upstream towards the downstream site during the June 2015 survey (Table 4.6.2). The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The pH level was within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health in both the June and November 2015 surveys for both sites (Table 4.6.2). The pH target for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0, as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996). Dissolved oxygen (DO) guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at both sites during the winter survey. At the downstream site DO level was below the stipulated guideline.

Table 4.6.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Kendal biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Water Monitoring Survey (EC) pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 KD-LF-US 2.78 7.25 8.9 9.26 Jun-15 KD-LF-DS 1.18 7.22 11.35 4.2 Nov-15 KD-LF-US Nov-15 KD-LF-DS 1.01 7.62 3.6 18.64

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:65

4.6.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Leeufonteinspruit sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (10 taxa). Some taxa with a moderate requirement (6 taxa) and very low requirement (6 taxa) for unmodified water quality were also sampled (Table 4.6.3).

Table 4.6.3: Aquatic macro invertebrate taxa sampled at the Kendal biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon KD-LF-US KD-LF-DS KD-LF-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta ------A A HYDRACARINA ------A - A Baetidae A A A B B B A B A B A B Caenidae ------A A A A Coenagrionidae - A - A - - - - - A A B Aeshnidae ------A - A Corixidae* A A B B A A A B A A A B Notonectidae* - A A A ------Pleidae* - - - - A - - A - A A A Veliidae* - A - A - - - - - A - A Hydropsychidae ------A - A Dytiscidae (adults*) - A - A - - A A - A - A Elmidae / Dryopidae* ------Gyrinidae (adults*) - - - - B A A B - B A B Hydraenidae (adults*) A A - A ------Hydrophilidae (adults*) - - - - A - - A - - - - Ceratopogonidae - - A A - - A A - - - - Chironomidae A A A B A - B B - - A A Culicidae* - A A B ------Dixidae* - A - A - A - A - - - - Simuliidae - - A A A A A B - - - - Physidae* ------A - A Total SASS5 score 17 45 23 55 30 29 31 50 13 59 31 64 No. of families 4 10 7 12 7 5 7 10 3 12 8 14 ASPT 4.25 4.50 3.29 4.58 4.29 5.80 4.43 5.00 4.33 4.92 3.88 4.57 Total IHAS 55 59 55 IHAS - Habs sampled 29 29 29 IHAS - Stream condition 26 30 26 Suitability score 7 3 4 14 2 5 5 12 3 2 5 10 Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:66

Table 4.6.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for Kendal biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

KD-LF-US 55 4.58 17 45 23 7 3 4 14 Jun-15 KD-LF-DS 50 5.00 30 29 31 2 5 5 12 Nov-15 KD-LF-DS 64 4.57 13 59 31 3 2 5 10

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 100

6 80

5 60

4 40 ASPT ASPT Scores

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 KD-LF-US KD-LF-DS KD-LF-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availibity and suitability

Figure 4.6.1: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Kendal biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

The ASPT score improved from the upstream site (KD-LF-US) to the downstream site (KD-LF-DS) during the June 2015 survey; however, the SASS5 score was reduced. The SASS vegetation scores consequently revealed a reduction in biotic integrity. This winter survey results suggest that the biotic integrity was reduced in this section of the Leeufonteinspruit after inclusion of potential Kendal Power Station impacts. In November 2015, the SASS5 and ASPT scores of 64 and 5.5 were attained at the downstream site respectively. No spatial comparison could be determined for November 2015 due to very low flow at the upstream site.

4.6.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing biotic integrity, the total SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. Thereafter, the linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. It appears that the biotic integrity is improving at the upstream site while the downstream site is deteriorating (Figure 4.6.3).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:67

Figure 4.6.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.6.3 Toxicity testing

The toxicity results for June 2015 and November 2015 are presented in Tables 4.6.5 and 4.6.6. Toxicity hazard classification during June 2015 survey revealed that there was no acute toxicity risk (Class I) at the upstream site (Table 4.6.5). The downstream site and the tributary showed a slight acute/chronic (Class II) hazard during the June 2015 survey (Table 4.6.5). It seems the source of poor water quality is the tributary, as a slight acute/chronic (Class II) hazard was observed. All the Kendal biomonitoring sites remained slightly toxic (Class II) during the November 2015 surveys (Table 4.6.5).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:68

Table 4.6.5: Test results and risk classification for Kendal Power Station during June 2015.

Results KD-LF-US KD-LF-DS KD-Trib

pH 7,4 7,9 9,4 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 206,9 98,7 157,3 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8,8 9,1 7,2

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-07-01 15-05-01 15-07-01 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 6 2 -10 EC/LC20 (30 mins) *** EC/LC50 (30 mins) *** (bacteria) V. fischeri no short- no short- no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description chronic hazard chronic hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 21 -3 26 EC/LC20 (72hours) *** EC/LC50 (72hours) *** no short- no short- no short-chronic

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

S. capricornutum chronic hazard chronic hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) -7 -20 -27 EC/LC10 (48hours) *** EC/LC50 (48hours) *** D. magna (waterflea) no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-29 15-06-29 15-06-29 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) *** EC/LC50 (96hours) *** (guppy)

P. reticulata no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard hazard hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard hazard Weight (%) 0 25 25

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:69

Table 4.6.6: Test results and risk classification for Kendal Power Station during November 2015.

Results KD-LF-US KD-LF-DS KD-trib

pH 7,8 7,8 7,9 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 36,6 39,5 88,8 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,7 7,7 7,7

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-27 15-11-27 15-11-27 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -25 -8 -13 EC/LC20 (30 mins) *** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) ***

no short-chronic no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. hazard hazard V. fischeri

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-30 15-11-30 15-11-30 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -33 -25 -36 EC/LC20 (72hours) *** EC/LC50 (72hours) ***

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H.

Test started on yy/mm/dd 2015-11--30 2015-11--30 2015-11--30 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ***

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) ***

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-30 15-11-30 15-11-30 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) *** EC/LC50 (96hours) ***

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard hazard Weight (%) 50 25 25

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:70

4.6.3.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. Thereafter, the linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.6.4). The temporal trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey. It appears in general that the risk increased at the downstream site and is directly related to the tributary. (Figure 4.6.4).

Figure 4.6.4: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.6.4 Conclusions

In conclusion, based on the macro-invertebrates results, the biotic integrity was reduced on a spatial scale. The toxicity hazard classification during both surveys showed that there was slight hazard (Class II) at the Kendal biomonitoring sites.

In terms of temporal trends, at this stage of the biomonitoring programme, it appears that the biotic integrity has been reduced at the downstream site.

It is recommended that twice per annum SASS5 monitoring be continued at the selected upstream and downstream Leeufonteinspruit sites. It is strongly recommended that the SASS5 results be supplemented with the continuation of the toxicity hazard testing.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:71

4.7 KOMATI POWER STATION

The Komati Power Station is in the Koringspruit catchment and both of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Olifants River (B) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach B11B-1294. The Komati Power Station study area, indicating the streams and selected biomonitoring sites are shown in Figure 4.7.1. Table 4.7.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 show visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.7.1: Map of Komati Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.7.1: Komati biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ Associated Description WMA quaternary site Stream power station Latitude Longitude (South) (East) reach code Koringspruit upstream from B: Olifants KM-K-US -26.0949 29.4828 B11B-1294 Komati power River Station. Koringspruit Komati Koringspruit downstream from B: Olifants KM-K-DS -26.0860 29.4157 B11B-1294 Komati power River Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:72

Plate 4.7.1: View of site KM-K-US and KM-K-DS in June 2015

Plate 4.7.2: View of site KM-K-US and KM-K-DS in November 2015

4.7.1 In-situ water quality

The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The levels increased from the upstream site to the downstream site during both surveys. The pH level was within the target range at the upstream and downstream sites, during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.7.2). The pH target for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0, as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996). Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at both sites during the June 2015. However, during the November 2015 survey the dissolved oxygen levels were lower than the 5 mg/l limit. The low levels of dissolved oxygen suggest that the water quality was reduced because of potential combined cumulative inputs.

Table 4.7.1: In-situ water quality variables at the Komati sites (June and November 2015). Conductivity Dissolved Water Monitoring Survey (EC) pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 KM-K-US 0.27 7.74 7.64 7.07 Jun-15 KM-K-DS 1.12 7.42 8.78 5.43 Nov-15 KM-K-US 0.31 7.98 4.46 20.24 Nov-15 KM-K-DS 1.01 7.72 2.87 18.45

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:73

4.7.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Koringspruit sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with very low requirement (11) for unmodified water quality, followed by taxa with low requirement (7) and moderate requirement (6 taxa) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.7.3).

The SASS5 and ASPT scores improved from the upstream site (KM-K-US) to the downstream site (KM-K-DS) during the June 2015 survey (Table 4.7.4 and Figure 4.7.2). This shows that there was downstream improvement in biotic integrity in winter. However, during the November 2015 survey the SASS5 and ASPT scores were slightly reduced. ASPT scores and comparable individual SASS biotope scores are more suitable in gauging the potential effect of reduced water quality on the biotic integrity (Maliba et al., 2015). The ASPT scores showed a probable spatial reduction in biotic integrity in November 2015 survey. Furthermore, SASS-vegetation and SASS-gsm scores indicate a probable spatial reduction in biotic integrity.

Table 4.7.3: Aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa sampled at the Komati sites (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon KM-K-US KM-K-DS KM-K-US KM-K-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta - - A A A A B B - - A A A - A A Leeches - - - - - A - A - - - - A A A A Potamonautidae* ------A A - - - - HYDRACARINA - - - - - A - A - A A A - A - A Baetidae - A A B A A A B - A A A A A - B Chlorolestidae ------A A A - - - - Coenagrionidae - A - A - A - A - - - - A A A A Aeshnidae ------A - A - A - A Belostomatidae* ------A - A A A - A Corixidae* - - B B B B B C - B B B B B B B Gerridae* - - - - - A A A ------Nepidae* ------A - A - - - - Notonectidae* - B A B - - A A - A A B - - - - Pleidae* - A - A - A - A - B A B - B - B Veliidae* ------A - A - A - A Dytiscidae (adults*) - - - - - A - A - A - A A A A A Hydrophilidae (adults*) - - A A - A - A ------Ceratopogonidae ------A A - - A A Chironomidae - A B B A A A B - A A A A B B B Culicidae* ------A A A A Dixidae* - - - - - B - B ------Muscidae ------A - - A Simuliidae - - - - A B - B - - - - A A A A Lymnaeidae* ------A A ------Total SASS5 score 0 19 18 28 17 59 21 67 0 58 41 67 32 55 29 62 No. of families 0 5 6 8 5 13 7 15 0 12 10 15 11 13 9 16 ASPT #DIV/0! 3.80 3.00 3.50 3.40 4.54 3.00 4.47 #DIV/0! 4.83 4.10 4.47 2.91 4.23 3.22 3.88 Total IHAS 48 61 43 59 IHAS - Habs sampled 22 33 22 33 IHAS - Stream condition 26 28 21 26 Suitability score 0 5 6 11 5 9 7 21 0 5 4 9 0 9 9 18 Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:74

Table 4.7.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for the Komati biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015). SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

KM-K-US 28 3.50 0 19 18 0 5 6 11 Jun-15 KM-K-DS 67 4.47 17 59 21 5 9 7 21 KM-K-US 67 4.47 0 58 41 0 5 4 9 Nov-15 KM-K-DS 62 3.88 32 55 29 0 9 9 18

Spatial variation of SASS results 6 100

80 5

ASPT ASPT Scores 40

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 KM-K-US KM-K-DS KM-K-US KM-K-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.7.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Komati biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.7.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing biotic integrity, the SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. It appears that the biotic integrity is generally higher at the downstream site, as shown by the linear trend (Figure 4.7.3).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:75

Figure 4.7.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.7.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-deep, slow-shallow and fast shallow habitats with overhanging vegetation and substrate as cover. Based on available information, six fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Vaal River section of concern (Table 4.7.5). These include Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead barb), Barbus neefi (Sidespot Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish), Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder) and Tilapia sparmanni (Banded Tilapia) (Table 4.7.6). Two of these expected species were sampled at the Komati sites during the current study, namely B. anoplus and P. philander (Appendix B).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:76

Table 4.7.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Komati sites (November 2015).

Komati November 2015 Habitat types KM-K-US KM-K-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 4 3 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 1 Substrate 1 2 Macrophytes 2 3 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 4 4 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 1 Substrate 1 2 Macrophytes 2 3 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 2 4 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 1 1 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 2 Substrate 1 3 Macrophytes 2 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 1 1.33 TOTAL HCR SCORE 7 9.33

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:77

Table 4.7.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Komati biomonitoring sites in November 2015.

Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES KM-K-US KM-K-DS KM-K-US KM-K-DS KM-K-US KM-K-DS Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13

EXPECTED Barbus neefi 3.4 3.4 5 5 17 17 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9 Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 58 58 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13

OBSERVED Barbus neefi 0 0 Barbus paludinosus 0 0 Clarias gariepinus 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 0 0 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 19.5 19.5 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 33.62 33.62

The FAII scores remain the same from the upstream site (KM-K-US) to the downstream site (KM-K-DS) in November 2015 survey. A relative FAII score of 33.62% were calculated for both sites (Table 4.7.6).

4.7.4 Conclusions

In conclusion, based on the macro-invertebrate results of the June 2015 survey, the biotic integrity improved on a spatial scale, however, the biotic condition of the Koringspruit was slightly reduced on a spatial scale in November 2015. No spatial deterioration was observed for fish during the November 2015 survey.

In terms of temporal trends it appears that the biotic integrity is higher at the downstream site. This suggests that the cumulative potential impacts arising between the two Koringspruit biomonitoring sites did not lead to a reduction in biotic integrity. Trends will become more accurate with continued monitoring as the database becomes more populated

It is recommended to continue with twice per annum SASS5 monitoring and with once per annum fish monitoring at the selected upstream and downstream sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:78

4.8 KRIEL POWER STATION

The main aquatic ecosystem associated with the Kriel Power Station is the Olifants River System and its tributaries. The Olifants River and its tributaries within the study area fall within the Olifants River Catchment (water management area WMA4) and quaternary catchment B11E-1399. The Kriel Power Station study area, indicating the streams and selected biomonitoring sites are shown in Figure 4.8.1. Table 4.8.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 show the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.8.1: Map of Kriel and Matla power stations study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.8.1: Kriel biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

GPS coordinates Associated Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station reach code (South) (East) Rietspruit upstream B: KR-RT-US from Kriel -26.2800 29.0916 Olifants B11E-1399 Power River Station. Rietspruit Kriel Rietspruit downstream B: KR-RT-DS from Kriel -26.1920 29.1824 Olifants B11E-1353 Power River Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:79

Plate 4.8.1: View of site KR-RT-US and KR-RT-DS in June 2015

Plate 4.8.2: View of site KR-RT-US and KR-RT-DS in November 2015

4.8.1 In-situ water quality

The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The EC levels in the Rietspruit remained from the upstream to the downstream site during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.8.2). The pH level was within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health in both the June and November 2015 surveys for both sites (Table 4.8.2). The pH target for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0, as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996). Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at both sites during the winter and summer surveys.

Table 4.8.1: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Kriel biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Water Monitoring Survey (EC) pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 KR-RT-US 0.63 8.39 10.4 12.09 Jun-15 KR-RT-DS 0.61 7.67 9.16 12.23 Nov-15 KR-RT-US 0.22 7.82 6.39 17.25 Nov-15 KR-RT-DS 0.20 8.29 8.28 19.52

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:80

4.8.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Rietspruit sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (11 taxa), followed by taxa with a very low requirement (10) and moderate requirement (6 taxa) for modified water quality. No taxa with a high requirement for unmodified water quality (Table 4.8.3). The SASS5 and ASPT scores were reduced on spatial scale from the upstream site (KR-RT-US) to the downstream site (KR-RT-DS) during the winter survey (Table 4.8.4 and Figure 4.8.2). This suggests a reduction in biotic integrity of the Rietspruit section of concern. Comparison of the SASSgsm and SASSvegetation biotopes revealed a reduction in biotic integrity (Table 4.8.4). However, during the summer survey, the SASS5 and ASPT scores improved suggesting downstream improvement. Comparison of the SASSvegetation scores for the two sites confirms improvement in biotic integrity during the November 2015 survey.

Table 4.8.2: Aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa sampled at the Kriel biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon KR-RT-US KR-RT-DS KR-RT-US KR-RT-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta - - - - - A A A - - - - - A A A Leeches - A - A ------Potamonautidae* ------A - - A Atyidae - - - - - A - A - - - - A A - A HYDRACARINA - A A A - - - - - B B B - B - B Baetidae - A A B B - A B - A - A B - - B Caenidae - A - A ------A A Coenagrionidae - B A B - A - A - A - A - A - A Lestidae ------A - A Aeshnidae ------A - A - - - - Libelludae - A - A ------A - A Belostomatidae* - - - - - A - A - - - - - A - A Corixidae* - A B B B - - B - A B B B B A B Gerridae* - - - - - A - A - - - - - A - A Naucoridae* - - A A ------Nepidae* - - - - - A - A ------Notonectidae* - - - - - A - A - A - A - B - B Pleidae* - B - B - - - - - A - A - A - A Veliidae* - B - B ------A - A Hydropsychidae ------A - - A Dytiscidae (adults*) - B A B - - - - - B A B - A A A Gyrinidae (adults*) - - - - - A - A ------Ceratopogonidae ------A - A Chironomidae - A B B A A A A - B A B B - A B Simuliidae ------A - - A Physidae* - A - A ------Planorbinae* - A - A - - - - - B - B - - - - Total SASS5 score 0 56 35 63 11 34 7 43 0 44 18 44 31 66 17 92 No. of families 0 13 7 14 3 9 3 11 0 10 4 10 7 14 5 20 ASPT #DIV/0! 4.31 5.00 4.50 3.67 3.78 2.33 3.91 #DIV/0! 4.40 4.50 4.40 4.43 4.71 3.40 4.60 Total IHAS 46 62 49 64 IHAS - Habs sampled 20 33 22 34 IHAS - Stream condition 26 29 27 30 Suitability score 0 7 5 12 11 5 6 22 0 5 6 11 8 5 6 19 Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:81

Table 4.8.3: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for the Kriel biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

KR-RT-US 63 4.50 0 56 35 0 7 5 12 Jun-15 KR-RT-DS 43 3.91 11 34 7 11 5 6 22 KR-RT-US 44 4.40 0 44 18 0 5 6 11 Nov-15 KR-RT-DS 92 4.60 31 66 17 8 5 6 19

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 120

100 6

80 5 60 4 ASPT ASPT Scores 40

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 KR-RT-US KR-RT-DS KR-RT-US KR-RT-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.8.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Kriel biomonitoring sites (January and November 2014).

4.8.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity, the SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. It appears that the biotic integrity is generally increasing at both sites as indicated in Figure 4.8.3.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:82

Figure 4.8.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015

4.8.3 Toxicity testing

The toxicity results for June 2015 and November 2015 are presented in Tables 4.8.5 and 4.8.6. Toxicity hazard classification during the June 2015 survey revealed that the toxicity hazard was reduced from slight hazard (Class II) to no hazard (Class I) (Table 4.8.5). No toxicity hazard was identified at the upstream and downstream sites of the Rietspruit during the November 2015 survey (Table 4.8.6). This suggests that the potential impact from the power station and other sources did not lead to an increased toxicity risk, on a spatial scale.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:83

Table 4.8.4: Test results and risk classification for Kriel Power Station during June 2015.

Results KR-RT-US KR-RT-DS

pH 8,3 8,4 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 31,9 40,5 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 9,3 9,1

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 15-06-24 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 4 0 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** EC/LC50 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) V. fischeri no short-chronic no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-10 15-06-10 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -7 -2 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) ** no short-chronic no short-chronic

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

S. capricornutum hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) -13 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ** EC/LC50 (48hours) ** D. magna (waterflea) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. no acute hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) ** (guppy)

P. reticulata Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class II - Slight Class I - No Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard Weight (%) 25 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:84

Table 4.8.5: Test results and risk classification for Kriel Power Station during November 2015.

Results KR-RT-US KR-RT-DS

pH 8,4 8,6 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 9,2 3,7 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,8 7,8

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 15-11-19 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 19 4 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) **

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-24 15-11-24 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -8 -2 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) **

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-20 15-11-20 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) **

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 15-11-19 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No acute/chronic Class I - No acute/chronic Overall classification - Hazard class*** hazard hazard

Weight (%) 0 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:85

4.8.3.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.8.4). It appears that the risk does not increase downstream of the power station as shown in Figure 4.8.4.

Figure 4.8.4: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.8.4 Conclusions

In conclusion, based on the macro-invertebrates the biotic integrity was slightly reduced on a spatial scale in June 2015 survey. However, the biotic condition of the Rietspruit improved during the summer survey. Spatial comparison of the toxicity hazards at both sites indicated that the toxicity hazard was reduced from the upstream site (KR-RT-US) to the downstream site (KR-RT-DS) in June 2015 survey.

It appears that the biotic integrity is generally increasing at both sites as indicated by temporal trends analysis. Temporal trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued monitoring as the database becomes more populated.

It is recommended to continue with macro-invertebrates monitoring and toxicity testing at the two biomonitoring sites in order to confirm the absence of deteriorating biotic integrity.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:86

4.9 KUSILE POWER STATION

The main aquatic ecosystem associated with the Kusile Power Station is the Olifants River System and its tributaries. The Olifants River and its tributaries within the study area fall within the Olifants River Catchment (water management area WMA4) and quaternary catchment B20-1150 (Figure 4.9.1). The Kusile Power Station is situated in the Wilge River catchment. Table 4.9.1 depicts the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code.

Plates 4.9.1 - 4.9.4 show the visual representation of the sites. In addition, three toxicity assessment sites (KS-trib1, KS-trib1a and KS-trib1b) were selected on three unnamed tributaries, on the southern side of the power station draining towards the power station. Toxicity analyses and hazard classification of these tributaries will give a good indication of the potential impact of non-Eskom impacts, which could affect the biotic integrity of the downstream Wilge River site.

Figure 4.9.1: Map of Kusile Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:87

Table 4.9.1: Kusile biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station (South) (East) reach code Wilgespruit, B: KS-W-US upstream from Kusile -25.9022 28.8514 Olifants B20-1150 power Station. River Wilgespruit Wilgespruit, B: KS-W-DS downstream from -25.8642 28.8688 Olifants B20-1150 Kusile power Station. River Unnamed southern tributary 1, on B: Unnamed Tributary of KS-trib1 southern side -25.9477 28.9279 Olifants tributary B20-1150 Kusile draining towards the River power station. Unnamed southern tributary 1a, on B: Unnamed Tributary of KS-trib1a southern side -25.9427 28.9400 Olifants tributary B20-1150 draining towards the River power station. Unnamed southern tributary 1b, on B: Unnamed Tributary of KS-trib1b southern side -25.9557 28.9073 Olifants tributary B20-1150 draining towards the River power station.

Plate 4.9.1: View of site KS-W-US (Upstream) in June 2015

Plate 4.9.2: View of site KS-W-DS (Downstream) in June 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:88

Plate 4.9.3: View of site KS-W-US in November 2015

Plate 4.9.4: View of site KS-W-DS in November 2015

4.9.1 In-situ water quality

The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The EC levels in the Wilgespruit slightly increased from the upstream site to the downstream site during the June 2015 survey (Table 4.9.2). The pH was within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health during the June and November 2015 surveys. The target for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this pH range (DWAF, 1996). Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at the downstream site during both surveys (Table 4.9.2). At the upstream site dissolved oxygen levels were below 5mg/l during both surveys.

Table 4.9.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Kusile biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015). Conductivity Dissolved Water Monitoring Survey (EC) pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 KS-W-US 0.39 7.30 4.33 11.98 Jun-15 KS-W-DS 0.42 7.57 8.00 11.54 Nov-15 KS-W-US 0.42 7.87 3.63 20.02 Nov-15 KS-W-DS 0.45 7.32 5.15 19.14

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:89

4.9.2 Macro-invertebrates

The Wilgespruit sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (11 taxa) and a very low requirement (10 taxa) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.9.3). Some taxa with a moderate requirement (5 taxa) for unmodified water quality were found during both surveys. Taxon with a high requirement (Heptagenidae) for unmodified water quality was also present during these surveys.

Table 4.9.3: Aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa sampled at the Kusile sites (June and November 2015). Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon KS-W-US KS-W-DS KS-W-US KS-W-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total TURBELLARIA B A A B B A A B A - - A A - - A Oligochaeta A B A B - A A A A - B B - - - - Leeches - - A A ------HYDRACARINA ------B B - - - - - A - A Baetidae A A A A B A B B ------Caenidae A - A A B B B B A - - A A - A A Heptageniidae - - - - B - - B ------Leptophlebiidae - - - - B - A B ------Chlorocyphidae - - - - A - - A ------Coenagrionidae - A - A A A - A - A - A - A - A Libelludae ------A A ------Belostomatidae* - A - A ------Corixidae* - B B C - B B B B B B C B B B B Gerridae* ------A A A - - - - Notonectidae* - - - - - A - A A A - A - - - - Hydropsychidae A - A A A - - A ------Dytiscidae (adults*) - - - - A A A B - A A A A A - A Elmidae / Dryopidae* ------A A A A Gyrinidae (adults*) A - A B A A - A B B - B - B - B Hydrophilidae (adults*) - - - - A B - B - - - - A A - A Ceratopogonidae - - B B A A A A A - A A A - A A Chironomidae - A C C - B A B A A B B - - - - Culicidae* ------A A - A - - - - Simuliidae B - - B A A - A - - - - A - - A Ancylidae - - A A - - - - A A - A - - A A Physidae* ------A B - B - - - - Planorbinae* ------A A Corbiculidae - - - - B - A B B - - B B A B B Sphaeridae B B B B B - A B B A A B - - - - Total SASS5 score 31 23 45 57 96 53 60 117 46 40 24 60 45 43 36 71 No. of families 8 8 12 15 16 13 13 22 13 11 7 16 9 8 7 14 ASPT 3.88 2.88 3.75 3.80 6.00 4.08 4.62 5.32 3.54 3.64 3.43 3.75 5.00 5.38 5.14 5.07 Total IHAS 68 69 46 62 IHAS - Habs sampled 36 35 22 31 IHAS - Stream condition 32 34 24 31 Suitability score 9 4 7 20 5 5 8 18 3 7 5 15 5 5 6 16 High requirement for unmodified water quality

Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:90

Table 4.9.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for the Kusile biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

KS-W-US 57 3.80 31 23 45 9 4 7 20 Jun-15 KS-W-DS 117 5.32 96 53 60 5 5 8 18 KS-W-US 60 3.75 46 40 24 3 7 5 15 Nov-15 KS-W-DS 71 5.07 45 43 36 5 5 6 16

The SASS5 and ASPT scores increased on a spatial scale from the upstream site (KS-W-US) to the downstream site (KS-W-DS) during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.9.4 and Figure 4.9.2). Comparison of the SASS-vegetation scores revealed better habitat at the downstream site, which resulted in a better SASS5 score.

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 140

120 6 100

5 80

60 4 ASPT ASPT Scores

40 3

20 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 KS-W-US KS-W-DS KS-W-US KS-W-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.9.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Kusile biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.9.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity, the SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. Although, temporal variation results showed a decrease in biotic integrity at both sites, the downstream site indicated better SASS5 scores over time when compared to the upstream site (Figure 4.9.3).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:91

Figure 4.9.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:92

4.9.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-deep and slow-shallow habitats with overhanging vegetation, undercut banks and root-wads and substrate as cover (Table 4.9.5). Based on available information, eleven fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the river section of concern. These include Amphilius uranoscopus (Stargazer Mountain Catfish), Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead barb), Barbus neefi (Sidespot Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Barbus trimaculatus (Threespot Barb), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish), Chiloglanis pretoriae (Shortspine Suckermouth), Labeobarbus marequensis (Largescale Yellowfish), Labeobarbus polylepis (Smallscale Yellowfish), Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder) and Tilapia sparmanii (Banded Tilapia) (Table 4.9.6). Six of these expected species were sampled during the current study, namely Barbus anoplus, Barbus paludinosus, Chiloglanis pretoriae, Labeobarbus marequensis, and Pseudocrenilabrus philander.

Table 4.9.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Kusile sites (November 2015).

Kusile November 2015 Habitat types KS-W-US KS-W-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s)

Abundance 3 1 Overhanging vegetation 3 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 3 2 Substrate 3 4 Macrophytes 4 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 7.8 2 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 3 2 Substrate 3 4 Macrophytes 4 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 5.2 3.6 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 2 Overhanging vegetation 0 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 2 Substrate 0 4 Macrophytes 0 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 3.6 TOTAL HCR SCORE 13 9.2

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:93

Table 4.9.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Kusile biomonitoring sites in November 2015.

Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES KS-WS-US KS-WS-DS KS-WS-US KS-WS-DS KS-WS-US KS-WS-DS Amphilius uranoscopus 4.8 4.8 5 5 24 24 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13 Barbus neefi 3.4 3.4 5 5 17 17

EXPECTED Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9 Barbus trimaculatus 2.2 2.2 5 5 11 11 Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Chiloglanis pretoriae 4.6 4.6 5 5 23 23 Labeobarbus marequensis 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13 Labeobarbus polylepis 3.1 3.1 5 5 15.5 15.5 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 144.5 144.5 Amphilius uranoscopus 0 0 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 3 1 7.8 2.6 Barbus neefi 0 0

OBSERVED Barbus paludinosus 1.8 5 9 0 Barbus trimaculatus 0 0 Clarias gariepinus 0 6 Chiloglanis pretoriae 4.6 5 0 23 Labeobarbus marequensis 2.6 1 2.6 0 Labeobarbus polylepis 3.1 5 15.5 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 1 1 1.3 1.3 Tilapia sparmanii 0 0 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 36.2 26.9 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 25.05 18.62

The relative FAII score decreased, on spatial scale from the upstream (KS-WS-US) to the downstream (KS-WS-DS) sites (Table 4.9.6). The scores were 25.05% and 18.62% for the upstream and downstream sites, respectively.

4.9.4 Toxicity testing

The toxicity results for June 2015 and November 2015 surveys are presented in Tables 4.9.7 and 4.9.8. Toxicity results indicated a slight acute/chronic hazard (Class II) for both sites (KS-trib1 and KS-trib1B) in June 2015 survey. However, during the November 2015 survey, no toxicity hazards were identified from the KS-trib1 and KS-trib1B tributaries draining towards the Wilge River between the upstream and the downstream sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:94

Table 4.9.7: Test results and risk classification for Kusile Power Station during June 2015.

Results KS-Trib KS-Trib-1B

pH 7,9 8,4 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 42,6 5 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 9,1 9

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 15-06-24 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -16 -28 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** EC/LC50 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) V. fischeri no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-10 15-06-10 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 1 -2 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) ** no short-chronic no short-chronic

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

S. capricornutum hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) -13 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ** EC/LC50 (48hours) ** D. magna (waterflea) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. no acute hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) ** (guppy)

P. reticulata Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard Weight (%) 25 25

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:95

Table 4.9.8: Test results and risk classification for Kusile Power Station during November 2015.

Results KS-TRIB 1 KS-TRIB 1 B

pH 7,9 8,2 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 36,6 8,7 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,5 7,2

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-25 15-11-25 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 11 -10 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) **

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-24 15-11-24 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -4 -7 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) **

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-20 15-11-20 %48hour mortality rate (-%) -5 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) **

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 15-11-19 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No acute/chronic Class I - No acute/chronic Overall classification - Hazard class*** hazard hazard

Weight (%) 0 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:96

4.9.4.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.9.4). The trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey. It appears that the risk increases at the KS- TRIB1 and KS-TRIBIB sites (Figure 4.9.4).

Figure 4.9.4: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.9.5 Conclusions

The macro-invertebrate assessments from both surveys indicated an improvement on a spatial scale in terms of biotic conditions. Fish results showed a slight decrease in biotic integrity from the upstream site to the downstream site. This reduction could be attributed to the impediment or obstruction of the river flow at the upstream site of the monitoring site (KS-W-US). Toxicity testing and hazard classification showed a slight hazard (Class II) in water from sites, KS-trib1 and KS-Trib1B in June 2015 survey. However, toxicity testing carried out on the unnamed tributaries draining towards the Wilge River (KS-trib1 and KS-trib1b) during the summer season indicated that these tributaries did not affect the biotic integrity of the Wilge River.

In terms of temporal trends, it appears that the biotic integrity is generally higher at the downstream site. Trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:97

It is recommended that twice per annum SASS5 monitoring and once per annum fish monitoring are continued at the selected upstream and downstream Wilge River sites. Toxicity testing should be maintained on a twice per annum schedule, at the two unnamed tributaries, in order to quantify the hazard derived from potential non-Eskom impact sources.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:98

4.10 LETHABO POWER STATION

The Lethabo Power Station is on the banks of the Vaal River and all of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Vaal River (C) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach C21G-01692. The Lethabo Power Station study area, indicating the streams and selected biomonitoring sites are shown in Figure 4.10.1. Table 4.10.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 shows the upstream and downstream view of the Lethabo biomonitoring sites.

Figure 4.10.1: Map of Lethabo Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.10.1: Lethabo biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station reach code (South) (East) Vaal River upstream C: from LT-VR-US 26.73793 27.99548 Vaal C21G-01692 Lethabo River Power Station. Vaal River Lethabo Vaal River downstream C: from LT-VR-DS 26.67377 27.97877 Vaal C21G-01692 Lethabo River Power Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:99

Plate 4.10.1: View of site LT-VR-US and LT-VR-DS in June 2015

Plate 4.10.2: View of site LT-VR-US and LT-VR-DS in November 2015

4.10.1 In-situ water quality

The EC levels in the Vaal River increased slightly from the upstream site to the downstream site for both surveys (Table 4.10.2). The pH fell within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health at both sites in June and November 2015 survey (Table 4.10.2). The pH target for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996).

Table 4.10.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Lethabo biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Monitoring Water Temperature Survey (EC) pH oxygen Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 LT-VR-US 0.19 7.38 8.04 12.62 Jun-15 LT-VR-DS 0.28 7.89 7.59 14.06 Nov-15 LT-VR-US 0.18 9.04 12.16 25.08 Nov-15 LT-VR-DS 0.27 7.76 8.06 25.07

Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at the upstream and downstream sites during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.10.2).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:100

4.10.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Vaal River sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a very low requirement (7 taxa) for unmodified water quality, followed by taxa with low requirement (6) and moderate requirement (5) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.10.3). Taxon with a high requirement (Heptagenidae) for unmodified water quality was also present.

Table 4.10.3: Aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa sampled at the Vaal River sites (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta - - - - - A A A - - A A - - - - Potamonautidae* ------A A ------Atyidae - A B B - A B B - B A B - A A A Baetidae - - A A - - - - - A - A - - - - Caenidae - A - A ------Heptageniidae ------A A A - - - - Polymitarcyidae - A - A - A - A ------Coenagrionidae - A - A - A B B - A - A - - - - Corduliidae ------A A - - - - Libelludae - - A A ------Belostomatidae* - A A A - - - - - A - A - - - - Corixidae* - B A B - A B B - A - A - A - A Gerridae* - A - A - A A A ------Nepidae* - - A A ------Notonectidae* - - A A - A B B - - - - - A A B Pleidae* - B - B - - - - - A - A - - - - Veliidae* - A - A - A - A - A - A - - - - Ceratopogonidae ------A A - - - - Chironomidae - B B B - A B B - A A A - - - - No. of families 0 10 8 14 0 9 8 10 0 9 6 12 0 3 2 3 ASPT #DIV/0! 5.00 3.75 4.57 #DIV/0! 4.56 3.63 4.40 #DIV/0! 5.11 6.17 5.00 #DIV/0! 4.67 5.50 4.67 Total IHAS 38 44 40 20 IHAS - Habs sampled 22 23 20 20 IHAS - Stream condition 16 21 20 0 Suitability score 0 3 4 7 0 4 4 8 0 3 2 5 0 3 2 5 High requirement for unmodified water quality

Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:101

Table 4.10.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for Lethabo biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) Monitoring SASS5 Survey ASPT site score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

LT-VR-US 64 4.57 0 50 30 0 3 4 7 Jun-15 LT-VR-DS 44 4.40 0 41 29 0 4 4 8 LT-VR-US 60 5.00 0 46 37 0 3 2 5 Nov-15 LT-VR-DS 14 4.67 0 14 11 0 3 2 5

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 100

6 80

5 60

4 40 ASPT ASPT Scores

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.10.1: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Lethabo biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

The SASS5 and ASPT scores decreased on spatial scale from the upstream site (LT-VR-US) to the downstream site (LT-VR-DS) during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.10.4 and Figure 4.10.2). Comparison of the SASSvegetation and SASSgsm scores revealed a probable spatial reduction in biotic integrity.

4.10.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity, the SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. The total SASS5 scores of the upstream site increased over time (Figure 4.10.3).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:102

Figure 4.10.3: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Lethabo biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.10.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-deep and slow-shallow with overhanging vegetation as cover. Some cover was also available in the form of undercut banks and root-wads, substrate and macrophytes (Table 4.10.5). Based on available information, eleven fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Vaal River section of concern. These include Austroglanis sclateri (Rock catfish), Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead barb), Barbus pallidus (Goldie Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish), Labeo capensis (Orange River Labeo), Labeo umbratus (Moggel), Labeobarbus aeneus (Smallmouth Yellowfish), Labeobarbus kimberleyensis (Largemouth Yellowfish), Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder), and Tilapia sparmanii (Banded Tilapia) (Table 4.10.6).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:103

Four of these expected species were sampled during the current study, namely C. gariepinus, L. capensis, P. philander and T. sparmannii.

Table 4.10.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Lethabo sites (November 2015).

Lethabo November 2015 Habitat types LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 3 3 Overhanging vegetation 3 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 3 3 Substrate 1 1 Macrophytes 1 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 4.8 4.2 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 3 3 Undercut banks and Root-wads 3 3 Substrate 1 1 Macrophytes 1 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 3.2 2.8 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 TOTAL HCR SCORE 8 7

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:104

Table 4.10.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Lethabo biomonitoring sites in November 2015. Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS Austroglanis sclateri 2.7 2.7 5 5 13.5 13.5 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13 Barbus pallidus 3.1 3.1 5 5 15.5 15.5 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9

EXPECTED Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Labeo capensis 3.2 3.2 5 5 16 16 Labeo umbratus 2.3 2.3 5 5 11.5 11.5 Labeobarbus aeneus 2.5 2.5 5 5 12.5 12.5 Labeobarbus kimberleyensis 3.6 3.6 5 5 18 18 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 128 128 Austroglanis sclateri 0 0 Barbus anoplus 0 0 Barbus pallidus 0 0

OBSERVED Barbus paludinosus 0 0 Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Labeo capensis 3.2 3.2 5 5 16 16 Labeo umbratus 0 0 Labeobarbus aeneus 0 0 Labeobarbus kimberleyensis 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 1 5 1.3 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 29.8 35 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 23.28 27.34

The relative FAII score were 23.28% and 27.34% for the upstream and downstream sites respectively (Table 4.10.6). The FAII score increased from the upstream site to the downstream site in November 2015 survey (Table 4.10.6).

4.10.4 Toxicity testing

The toxicity results for June and November 2015 surveys are presented in Tables 4.10.7 and 4.10.8. Toxicity hazard classification during June and November 2015 surveys revealed that there was no acute hazard (Class I) at the upstream and downstream sites. This is an indication that the potential impact from the power station and other sources did not lead to an increased toxicity risk, on a spatial scale.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:105

Table 4.10.7: Test results and risk classification for Lethabo Power Station during June 2015

Results LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS

pH 8 7,9 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 11,6 18,1 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8,8 8,2

Test started on yy/mm/dd %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) Test not Test not EC/LC20 (30 mins) requested requested EC/LC50 (30 mins) (bacteria) V. fischeri Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

Test started on yy/mm/dd %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) Test not Test not S. EC/LC20 (72hours) requested requested EC/LC50 (72hours)

capricornut Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 -7 EC/LC10 (48hours) ** EC/LC50 (48hours) ** D. magna (waterflea) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-29 15-06-29 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) ** (guppy)

P. reticulata Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class I - No Class I - No Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard Weight (%) 0 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:106

Table 4.10.8: Test results and risk classification for Lethabo Power Station during November 2015.

Results LT-VR-US LT-VR-DS

pH 8,5 8,3 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 6 8,8 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,9 7,9

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-25 15-11-25 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 38 30 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) **

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-30 15-11-30 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -20 -8 EC/LC20 (72hours) ** EC/LC50 (72hours) **

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum no short-chronic hazard no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 2015-11--30 2015-11--30 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) **

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-26 15-11-26 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) ** EC/LC50 (96hours) **

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No acute/chronic Class I - No acute/chronic Overall classification - Hazard class*** hazard hazard

Weight (%) 0 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:107

4.10.5 Conclusions

In conclusion, based on the macro-invertebrate assessments the biotic integrity was slightly reduced during both surveys. However, fish assessments results indicated improvement in biotic condition from the upstream site to the downstream site. Toxicity testing and hazard classification revealed no toxicity hazard at either of the sites during both surveys.

In terms of temporal trends, the biotic integrity at the upstream site improved relative to the downstream site. Temporal trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

SASS5 and fish monitoring should be continued at the selected upstream and downstream sites. Fish monitoring should be conducted once per annum (summer season). Toxicity testing should be maintained on a twice per annum schedule.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:108

4.11 MAJUBA POWER STATION

The Majuba Power Station is situated in the Geelklipspruit catchment and all of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Vaal River (C) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach C11J-01968. The Majuba Power Station study area, indicating the streams and selected biomonitoring sites are shown in Figure 4.11.1. Table 4.11.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.11.1 to 4.11.6 depict the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.11.1: Map of Majuba Power Station study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.11.1: Majuba biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station (South) (East) reach code Geelklipspruit C: upstream from MJ-GK-US 27.1176 29.7866 Vaal C11J-01968 Majuba Power River Station. Geelklip Geelklipspruit spruit downstream from C: MJ-GK-DS Majuba Majuba Power 27.0435 29.8011 Vaal C11J-01968 stationand Majuba River tributary (MJ-Trib). Unnamed tributary C: Majuba downstream from MJ-TRIB 27.0596 29.7860 Vaal C11J-01968 tributary Majuba Power River Station.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:109

Plate 4.11.1: View of site MJ-GK-US in June 2015

Plate 4.11.2: View of site MJ-GK-DS in June 2015

Plate 4.11.3: View of site MJ-TRIB in June 2015

Plate 4.11.4: View of site MJ-GK-US in November 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:110

Plate 4.11.5: View of site MJ-GK-DS in November 2015

Plate 4.11.6: View of site MJ-TRIB in November 2015

4.11.1 In-situ water quality

The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The EC levels increased from 0.35mS/cm to 0.30mS/cm from June to November 2015 at the MJ-GK-DS (Table 4.11.2). The EC was 0.45mS/cm during the summer season (November 2015 survey). The pH was within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health at the MJ-GK-DS and MJ-TRIB sites during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.11.2). The pH target for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996).

Table 4.11.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Majuba biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Monitoring Water Temperature Survey (EC) pH oxygen Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 MJ-GK-DS 0.35 8.45 12.77 13.81 Jun-15 MJ-TRIB 0.84 7.93 9.38 10.46 Nov-15 MJ-GK-DS 0.30 8.53 7.04 15.39 Nov-15 MJ-TRIB 0.45 8.46 8.97 13.54

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:111

4.11.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Majuba sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (14 taxa) for unmodified water quality, followed by taxa with a very low requirement (9 taxa) (Table 4.11.3).

Table 4.11.3: Aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa sampled at each site (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon MJ-GK-DS MJ-GK-TRIB MJ-GK-DS MJ-GK-TRIB Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total TURBELLARIA A - A A A - - A A - - A A - - A Oligochaeta - - A A ------Potamonautidae* - - A A - - A A - - - - A - - A HYDRACARINA ------B B B A B B - A - A Baetidae B B B C B B - B B B B C A A - A Caenidae B A B B A - - A A - A A - - - - Leptophlebiidae A A - B - - - - A - - A - - - - Coenagrionidae - A - A - A - A - A - A - A - A Lestidae ------A - A - - - - Libelludae ------A - A A - - A Belostomatidae* - - A A - A - A - - - - - A - A Corixidae* B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Gerridae* A B - B - A - A - - - - - A - A Naucoridae* - - A A ------Notonectidae* - A - A - A - A - A A A A A - A Pleidae* - - B B B B B B ------Veliidae* - A - A - - - - - A - A - A - A Hydropsychidae A - - A ------Hydroptilidae ------A - A Dytiscidae (adults*) A A B B - A - A A A A A A A - A Gyrinidae (adults*) - A - A ------A - A Hydrophilidae (adults*) - A - A - A - A ------Ceratopogonidae - - A A - - - - A - A A - - - - Chironomidae - - B B B - B B A A A A A - A A Culicidae* ------A - A A - - A Simuliidae B - - B - - - - A - - A - - - - Ancylidae A - A A ------Sphaeridae - - A A ------Total SASS5 score 52 54 57 102 24 38 20 60 52 49 38 77 28 51 5 64 No. of families 10 11 14 23 6 9 5 14 10 11 8 16 9 11 2 16 ASPT 5.20 4.91 4.07 4.43 4.00 4.22 4.00 4.29 5.20 4.45 4.75 4.81 3.11 4.64 2.50 4.00 Total IHAS 66 57 63 42 IHAS - Habs sampled 34 31 34 21 IHAS - Stream condition 32 26 29 21 Suitability score 9 5 8 22 4 5 6 15 8 5 6 19 2 3 5 10 Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:112

Some taxa with moderate requirement (5 taxa) for unmodified water quality were also present at the sites. No taxa with high requirement for unmodified water quality were sampled during these surveys.

The upstream site in the Geelklipspruit is not suitable for macro-invertebrate assessments hence no spatial trends could be determined. Table 4.11.4 and Figure 4.11.2 indicates the SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability scores for MJ-GK-DS and MJ-GK-TRIB for both surveys.

Table 4.11.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for Majuba biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) SASS5 Survey Monitoring site ASPT score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

MJ-GK-DS 102 4.43 52 54 57 9 5 8 22 Jun-15 MJ-GK-TRIB 60 4.29 24 38 20 4 5 6 15 MJ-GK-DS 77 4.81 52 49 38 8 5 6 19 Nov-15 MJ-GK-TRIB 64 4.00 28 51 5 2 3 5 10

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 120

100 6

80 5

ASPT ASPT Scores 4 40

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 MJ-GK-DS MJ-GK-TRIB MJ-GK-DS MJ-GK-TRIB Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.11.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Majuba biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.11.3.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing in biotic integrity, the SASS5 scores for each site were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. The downstream site

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:113

(MJ-GK-DS) and tributary (MJ-TRIB) sites indicated a slight increase in total SASS5 scores over time (Figure 4.11.3).

Figure 4.11.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.11.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-shallow with substrate as cover. Some cover was also available in the form of undercut banks and root-wads, macrophytes and overhanging vegetation (Table 4.11.5). Based on available information (Niehaus et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2006) and field results, seven fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Vaal River section of concern. These include Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Labeobarbus aeneus (Smallmouth Yellowfish), Labeo capensis (Orange River Mudfish), Labeo umbratus (Mudfish), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish) and Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder). Two of these expected species were sampled at

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:114

the Majuba sites during the current study, namely B. anoplus and Labeobarbus aeneus (Table 4.11.6).

Table 4.11.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Majuba sites (November 2015). Majuba November 2015 Habitat types MJ-GK-DS MJ-TRIB SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 2 1 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 1 Substrate 3 1 Macrophytes 3 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 3 1.33 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 1 1 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 1 Substrate 4 2 Macrophytes 2 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 2.33 1.66 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 1 1 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 1 Substrate 4 2 Macrophytes 2 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 2.66 1.66 TOTAL HCR SCORE 7.99 4.65

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:115

Table 4.11.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Majuba biomonitoring sites in November 2015. Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES MJ-GK-DS MJ-TRIB MJ-GK-DS MJ-TRIB MJ-GK-DS MJ-TRIB Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9

EXPECTED Labeobarbus aeneus 2.5 2.5 5 5 12.5 12.5 Labeo capensis 3.2 3.2 5 5 16 16 Labeo umbratus 2.3 2.3 5 5 11.5 11.5 Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 74.5 74.5 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 3 1 7.8 2.6 Barbus paludinosus 0 0

OBSERVED Labeobarbus aeneus 2.5 5 12.5 0 Labeo capensis 0 0 Labeo umbratus 0 0 Clarias gariepinus 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 0 0 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 20.3 2.6 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 27.25 3.49

The relative FAII score was 27.25% and 3.49% for the tributary site (M-TRIB) and downstream site (MJ-GK-DS) respectively (Table 4.11.6). The upstream site is not suitable for fish and macro-invertebrate assessments; as a result spatial comparison could not be determined. However, these results will be invaluable for later trend analysis.

4.11.4 Toxicity testing

Toxicity testing and hazard classification for June and November 2015 surveys are presented in Tables 4.11.7 and 4.11.8. Spatial comparison of the toxicity hazards at both sites showed that the toxicity hazard increased from the upstream site (MJ-GK-US) to the downstream site (MJ-GK-DS) during the June and November 2015 surveys. In addition, toxicity testing was performed at the tributary (MJ-trib) site, a slight acute/chronic hazard was found at this tributary in June 2015 survey. No acute/chronic hazard was found in the November 2015 survey (Table 4.11.8).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:116

Table 4.11.7: Test results and risk classification for Majuba Power Station during June 2015.

Results MJ-GK-US MJ-GK-DS MJ-Trib

pH 7,9 8 7,9 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 37,7 23,5 32,1 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 9,4 9,2 9,2

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 15-06-24 15-06-24 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -5 -8 3 EC/LC20 (30 mins) *** EC/LC50 (30 mins) *** (bacteria) V. fischeri no short-chronic no short-chronic no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-10 15-06-10 15-06-10 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -1 2 0 EC/LC20 (72hours) *** S. EC/LC50 (72hours) *** no short-chronic no short-chronic no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description capricornutum hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 -13 -13 EC/LC10 (48hours) *** EC/LC50 (48hours) *** D. magna (waterflea) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H.

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) ***

(guppy) EC/LC50 (96hours) ***

P. reticulata Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard no acute hazard no acute hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class I - No Class II - Slight Class II - Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic hazard acute/chronic hazard acute/chronic hazard Weight (%) 0 25 25

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:117

Table 4.11.8: Test results and risk classification for Majuba Power Station during November 2015.

Results MJ-GK-DS MJ-JK-TRIB MJ-GK-US

pH 8,5 8,2 8,3 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 12,9 23,1 20,4 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8,2 8 8,5

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 28 22 22 EC/LC20 (30 mins) *** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) *** no short- no short- no short- Toxicity unit (TU) / Description chronic chronic chronic

V. fischeri hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-24 15-11-24 15-11-24 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -20 -4 -1 EC/LC20 (72hours) *** EC/LC50 (72hours) *** no short- no short- (micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum S.D.O.T.H. chronic chronic hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-20 15-11-20 15-11-20 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ***

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) ***

no acute no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) *** EC/LC50 (96hours) ***

no acute no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class II - Class I - No Class I - No Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard hazard Weight (%) 25 0 0

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:118

4.11.4.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.11.4). The trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey. It appears in general that the risk does increase at the downstream (MJ-GK-DS) and tributary site (MJ-TRIB) as shown in Figure 4.11.4).

Figure 4.11.4: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Majuba biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.11.5 Conclusion

The upstream site (MJ-GK-US) is not suitable for macro-invertebrate and fish assessments. Toxicity testing and hazard classification revealed a spatial increase in toxicity hazard during both surveys at both sites. In terms of long term trends at this early stage it appears that the biotic integrity is generally higher at the downstream site and toxicity risk increases at the downstream (MJ-GK-DS) and tributary site (MJ-TRIB). Temporal trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

SASS5 should be performed at the downstream (MJ-GK-DS) and tributary (MJ-TRIB) sites twice per annum in winter and summer season. Fish assessments should continue at the MJ-GK-DS and MJ-TRIB sites once per annum (summer season).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:119

4.12 MATIMBA AND MEDUPI POWER STATIONS

The main aquatic ecosystem associated with the Medupi and Matimba power stations is the Mokolo River System and its tributaries. The Mokolo River and its tributaries within the study area fall within the Limpopo River Catchment (water management area WMA 1) and quaternary catchment A42J-182. The Matimba and Medupi power stations study areas, indicating the stream and selected biomonitoring sites are depicted in Figure 4.12.1. Table 4.12.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling sites as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code.

Three monitoring sites were selected in the Sandloopspruit (A42J-182) to be upstream and downstream of both power stations. Plate 4.12.1 shows the visual representation of the of ME-SL-US and MA-SL-DS sites. Due to the close proximity of the two power stations, the middle site functioned as an upstream site for the one power station while also being a downstream site for the other power station. The Sandloopspruit seldom flows and therefore SASS5 and FAII protocols cannot be applied. Toxicity testing is therefore the only biomonitoring tool to be applied at the stream sites. It would be of utmost importance to conduct regular toxicity testing with potential effluents of both power stations.

Figure 4.12.1: Map of Matimba and Medupi power stations biomonitoring sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:120

Table 4.12.1: Medupi and Matimba biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

GPS coordinates Associated Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station reach code (South) (East) Sandloop-spruit, A: ME-SL-US Medupi upstream from Medupi -23.7492 27.5330 Limpopo A42J-182 Power Station River Sandloop-spruit, downstream from ME-Sl-DS/ Medupi Power Station/ A: MA-SL-US Sand- Medupi/ Sandloop-spruit, -23.6944 27.6475 Limpopo A42J-183 Renamed loop- Matimba upstream from River ME-MA-SL spruit Matimba Power Station Sandloop-spruit, A: downstream from MA-SL-DS Matimba -23.6470 27.6579 Limpopo A42J-183 Matimba Power River Station

4.12.1 Biomonitoring

The Sandloopspruit seldom flows and therefore SASS5 and FAII protocols cannot be applied.

4.12.2 Toxicity testing

Since macro-invertebrate and fish assessments cannot be carried out at these sites due to very low flow or dried-up streams, the only remaining biomonitoring tool is toxicity testing and hazard classification. However, toxicity testing could also not be performed due to completely dried-up streams. Therefore, no spatial comparison in terms of toxicity, or long term trends could be determined, due to lack of data.

4.12.3 Conclusions

In conclusion, since macro-invertebrate and fish assessments cannot be carried out at these sites due to very low flow conditions, toxicity testing must be performed twice per annum. Toxicity testing will probably remain the only applicable biomonitoring tool in the Sandloopspruit, but only if pools of water are available for toxicity testing and hazard classification.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:121

4.13 MATLA POWER STATION

The main aquatic ecosystem associated with the Matla Power Station is the Olifants River System and its tributaries. Figure 4.13.1 shows map of Matla and Kriel power stations study area, indicating the streams and selecting monitoring sites. The Olifants River and its tributaries within the study area fall within the Olifants River Catchment (water management area WMA4) and quaternary catchment B11D-1481 (Figure 4.13.1). The Matla Power Station is situated in the Trichardspruit catchment. Table 4.13.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 depict the upstream and downstream view of the sampling sites.

Figure 4.13.1: Map of Kriel and Matla power stations study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

It was not possible to select upstream and downstream sites on the Trichardspruit to exclude all potential non-Matla impacts. The tributary Dwars-in-die-wegspruit, joins the Trichardspruit between the upstream and downstream sites. In order to gain insight of potential non-Eskom hazards (impacts) affecting the downstream site, toxicity analyses should be performed on this tributary at site MT-DW-trib, on a twice per annum frequency (ML-TR-trib) (Plates 4.13.3 - 4.13.6).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:122

Table 4.13.1: Matla biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude Station (South) (East) reach code Trichardspruit, B: upstream from ML-TR-US -26.3510 29.2173 Olifants B11D-1481 Matla power River Trichards Station. pruit Trichardspruit, B: downstream ML-TR-DS -26.2779 29.2363 Olifants B11D-1424 from Matla River power Station. Matla Dwars-in-die- wegspruit, a flowing tributary joining the Dwars-in- B: Trichardspruit ML-DW-trib die- -26.3445 29.2123 Olifants B11D-1467 between the wegspruit River upstream and downstream Trichardspruit sites.

Plate 4.13.1: View of site ML-TR-US in June 2015

Plate 4.13.2: View of site ML-TR-DS in June 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:123

Plate 4.13.3: View of site ML-DW-TRIB in June 2015

Plate 4.13.4: View of site ML-TR-US in November 2015

Plate 4.13.5: View of site ML-TR-DS in November 2015

Plate 4.13.6: View of site ML-TR-trib in November 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:124

4.13.1 In-situ water quality

The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The EC levels in the Trichardspruit decreased from the upstream to the downstream site during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.13.2) . The pH was within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health at the upstream and downstream sites of Trichardspruit during both surveys. The pH range for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996). Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at all the Matla Power Station biomonitoring sites during both surveys with the exception of the downstream site in November 2015 (Table 4.13.2). The decreased levels of the dissolved oxygen at the downstream site suggest that the water quality was probably reduced due to combined potential inputs.

Table 4.13.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Matla biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Water Monitoring Survey (EC) pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 MT-TR-US 0.35 7.42 7.28 11.61 Jun-15 MT-TR-DS 0.26 6.7 8.56 10.86 Nov-15 MT-TR-US 0.31 8.75 7.38 17.26 Nov-15 MT-TR-DS 0.27 8.26 3.87 17.16

4.13.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Trichardspruit sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (12 taxa) for unmodified water quality, followed by taxa with very low requirement (7 taxa) and moderate requirement (5 taxa) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.13.3).

The SASS5 and ASPT scores improved, on a spatial scale, from the upstream site (ML-TR-US) to the downstream site (ML-TR-DS) during the winter survey (Table 4.13.4 and Figure 4.13.2). During the summer survey, the ASPT score was slight reduced on a spatial scale from the upstream site to the downstream site. However, comparison of the SASSvegetation scores of the two sites during the summer survey indicates a better habitat at the downstream site (Table 4.13.4).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:125

Table 4.13.3: Aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa sampled at each site (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Leeches ------A - B B - - - - Atyidae A A - B A - A A A A - A A A A A HYDRACARINA ------A A A B - A - A Baetidae A A B B A B A B A A A A - A - A Caenidae - A B B A - B B A - A A A A A A Coenagrionidae A A - A - A - A A A - A - A - A Aeshnidae ------A - A - - - - Gomphidae ------A - - A - - - - Libelludae ------A - A A - - - - Belostomatidae* - A - A ------Corixidae* - - - - A A B B B B A C B B B B Notonectidae* - A A A - - - - A A A A A A A B Pleidae* - - - - A A B B - - A A - A - A Veliidae* ------A - A Hydropsychidae ------A A ------Dytiscidae (adults*) - - A A - - - - A - - A - A - A Elmidae / Dryopidae* ------Gyrinidae (adults*) - - - - - A A A A - - A - - - - Ceratopogonidae ------A - A - A - A Chironomidae A - B B - - A A B B B B A A A B Culicidae* - A - A ------A - A Simuliidae - - - - A B A B ------Ancylidae ------A - A A - - A A Planorbinae* ------A - A - - - - Total SASS5 score 18 32 22 39 30 27 41 47 67 50 43 89 22 58 28 64 No. of families 4 8 5 10 6 6 9 10 14 10 10 18 5 13 6 14 ASPT 4.50 4.00 4.40 3.90 5.00 4.50 4.56 4.70 4.79 5.00 4.30 4.94 4.40 4.46 4.67 4.57 Total IHAS 58 65 56 60 IHAS - Habs sampled 31 33 29 31 IHAS - Stream condition 27 32 27 29 Suitability score 3 0 8 11 5 7 9 21 5 5 6 16 3 5 5 13 Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

Table 4.13.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for the Matla biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) SASS5 Survey Monitoring site ASPT score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

ML-TR-US 39 3.90 18 32 22 3 3 8 14 Jul-15 ML-TR-DS 47 4.70 30 27 41 5 7 9 21 ML-TR-US 89 4.94 67 50 43 5 5 6 16 Nov-15 ML-TR-DS 64 4.57 22 58 28 3 5 5 13

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:126

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 120

100 6

80 5 60 4 ASPT ASPT Scores 40

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.13.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Matla biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.13.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing biotic integrity, the SASS5 scores for sites were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 scores at each site. The total SASS5 scores of the upstream site increased over time whereas the downstream site showed a reduction in SASS5 scores (Figure 4.13.3).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:127

Figure 4.13.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:128

4.13.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-deep, slow-shallow and fast-shallow types with overhanging vegetation, substrate and undercut banks and root-wads and macrophytes (Table 4.13.5). Based on available information seven fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Olifants River section of concern (Table 4.13.6). These include Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead Barb), Barbus neefi (Sidespot Barb Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Labeobarbus polylepis (Smallscale Yellowfish), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish), Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder) and Tilapia sparmanii (Banded Tilapia). Four of these expected species were sampled at the sites during the November 2015 survey, namely B. anoplus, B. paludinosus, P. philander and T. sparmanii.

The relative FAII score improved on a spatial scale from the upstream site to the downstream site. The relative FAII score was 21.22% and 26.39% for the upstream site and downstream site, respectively (Table 4.13.6).

Table 4.13.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the Matla biomonitoring sites (November 2015). Matla November 2015 Habitat types ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 2 1 Substrate 3 2 Macrophytes 2 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 3.33 2.4 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 3 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 2 1 Substrate 3 3 Macrophytes 2 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 3.33 2.8 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 2 1 Overhanging vegetation 2 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 2 1 Substrate 4 1 Macrophytes 2 1 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 3.33 1 TOTAL HCR SCORE 10 6.2

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:129

Table 4.13.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the Matla biomonitoring sites in November 2015.

Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS ML-TR-US ML-TR-DS Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13

EXPECTED Barbus neefi 3.4 3.4 5 5 17 17 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9 Clarias gariepinus 1.2 1.2 5 5 6 6 Labeobarbus polylepis 3.1 3.1 5 5 15.5 15.5 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5 Expected FAII Score 73.5 73.5 Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 1 1 2.6 2.6

OBSERVED Barbus neefi 0 0 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 5 0 9 Clarias gariepinus 0 0 Labeobarbus polylepis 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 1.3 1.3 5 1 6.5 1.3 Tilapia sparmanii 1.3 1.3 5 5 6.5 6.5

OBSERVED FAII SCORE 15.6 19.4 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 21.22 26.39

4.13.4 Toxicity testing

Toxicity testing results are shown in Tables 4.13.7 and 4.13.8. Toxicity and hazard classification of the tributary (Dwars-in-die-wegspruit) draining towards the Trichardspruit revealed no acute/chronic hazard (Class I) during both surveys. This suggests that the tributary (Dwars-in-die-wegspruit) site is not responsible for the reduced biotic integrity.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:130

Table 4.13.7: Test results and risk classification for Matla Power Station during June 2015.

Results ML-DW-trib

pH 8 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 46,4 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 9,1

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -10 EC/LC20 (30 mins) * EC/LC50 (30 mins) * (bacteria) V. fischeri no short-chronic Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-10 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 3 EC/LC20 (72hours) * EC/LC50 (72hours) * no short-chronic

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description

S. capricornutum hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) -7 EC/LC10 (48hours) * EC/LC50 (48hours) * D. magna (waterflea) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) * EC/LC50 (96hours) * (guppy)

P. reticulata Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic hazard Weight (%) 0

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna % = 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 * = EC/LC values not determined, definitive testing required if a hazard was observed and persists over subsequent sampling runs *** = 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 site/sample name shaded in purple = screening test site/sample name shaded in orange = definitive test

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:131

Table 4.13.8: Test results and risk classification for Matla Power Station during November 2015.

Results ML-DW-TRIB

pH 8,5 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 16,7 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 7,6

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 12 EC/LC20 (30 mins) * (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) *

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-24 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 1 EC/LC20 (72hours) * EC/LC50 (72hours) *

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum no short-chronic hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-20 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) *

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard D. magna

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) * EC/LC50 (96hours) *

Toxicity unit (TU) / Description no acute hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only]

Class I - No acute/chronic Overall classification - Hazard class*** hazard

Weight (%) 0

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:132

4.13.4.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for each sample was plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.13.4). The trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey. Temporal variation of toxicity results of the tributary (ML-DW-TRIB) draining into the Trichardspruit showed a slight increase in toxicity hazard over time (Figure 4.13.4).

Figure 4.13.4: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.13.5 Conclusions

Spatial comparison in terms of macro-invertebrate and fish assessment results indicate that the potential impact of the Matla Power Station, in combination with other non-Eskom users, has not lead to a reduction in the biotic integrity of the Trichardspruit.

Toxicity analyses of the tributary (Dwars-in-die-wegspruit) draining into the Trichardspruit revealed that there was a slight hazard (Class II) to this tributary, during the June 2014 survey. However, recent results (November 2015 survey) indicated that no hazard could be ascribed to this tributary.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:133

Based on the long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of total SASS5, the biotic integrity of the downstream site is deteriorating. Temporal trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

It is recommended that twice per annum SASS5 monitoring and once per annum fish monitoring is continued at the selected upstream and downstream Trichardspruit sites. Toxicity testing should be maintained on a twice per annum schedule at the Dwars-in-die-wegspruit, in order to quantify the hazard derived from this potential non-Eskom impact source.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:134

4.14 TUTUKA POWER STATION

The Tutuka Power Station is situated in the Leeuspruit catchment, falling within the Vaal River (C) water management area and various reaches of quaternary catchments C11K and C11L. The Tutuka Power Station study area, indicating the streams and selected biomonitoring sites is shown in Figure 4.14.1. Table 4.14.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.14.1 to 4.14.5 depict the visual representation of the sites.

The Leeuspruit appears to be non-perennial and therefore toxicity analyses will also be required on the mainstream sites. Two unnamed tributaries, draininig towards the Leeuspruit should also be included for twice per annum toxicity analyses at sites TA-NT and TA-ST. Another site (TA-AD-DS) was selected in a third tributary. This tributary is downstream from the Tutuka Power Station Ash Dams and also drains towards the Leeuspruit. Due to a series of dams the flow is intermittent and only toxicity analyses should therefore be performed on a twice per annum frequency. There was not sufficient flow for macro invertebrate assessments at the upstream site (TA-LS-UP) of the Leeuspruit during the June 2014 survey.

Figure 4.14.1: Map of Tutuka study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:135

Table 4.14.1: Tutuka biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude Station reach code (South) (East) Leeuspruit upstream from C: Tutuka Power Station and C11K and TA-LS-US 26.7585 29.2776 Vaal upstream from northern and C11L River southern tributaries. Leeuspruit Leeuspruit downstream from C: Tutuka Power Station and C11K and TA-LS-DS 26.8174 29.2888 Vaal downstream from northern C11L River and southern tributaries.

Tutuka Tutuka Northern triburay, C: C11K and TA-NT Northern draining from power station 26.7596 29.3117 Vaal C11L tributary Tutuka towards Leeuspruit River

Tutuka C: Tutuka Southern triburay, C11K and TA-ST Southern 26.7979 29.3199 Vaal draining towards Leeuspruit C11L tributary River

Unnamed Unnamed tributary, tributary downstream from Tutuka C: C11K and TA-AD-DS from Ash dams, draining towards 26.8182 29.3876 Vaal C11L Tutuka Leeuspruit with confluence River Ashdams downstream from TA-LS-DS

Plate 4.14.1: View of site TA-LS-US and TA-LS-DS in June 2015

Plate 4.14.2: View of site TA-LS-US in November 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:136

Plate 4.14.3: View of site TA-LS-DS in November 2015

Plate 4.14.4: View of site TA-NT in November 2015

Plate 4.14.5: View of site TA-ST in November 2015

Plate 4.14.6: View of site TA-AD-DS in June and November 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:137

4.14.1 In-situ water quality

The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The EC levels in the Leeuspruit increased slightly from the upstream (0.40mS/cm) to the downstream (0.62mS/cm) site during the November 2015 survey (Table 4.14.2).

The pH fell within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health at all sites during the June 2015 survey (Table 4.14.2). In the November 2015 survey, the pH increased slightly from the upstream to the downstream site; as a result, it fell slightly out of the target of water quality ranges. The pH target for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996).

Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at all sites during the June and November 2015 surveys (Table 4.14.2).

Table 4.14.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the Tutuka biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Water Monitoring Survey (EC) pH oxygen Temperature Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 TA-LS-DS 0.514 7.82 8.25 11.47 Jun-15 TA-NT 0.549 7.99 7.42 10.52 Jun-15 TA-ST 0.866 8.26 8.16 7.87 Nov-15 TA-LS-US 0.40 8.64 8.06 23.0 Nov-15 TA-LS-DS 0.62 9.25 8.75 20.8 Nov-15 TA-NT 0.87 8.55 8.03 19.87 Nov-15 TA-ST 1.00 8.65 8.94 18.68

4.14.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The Tutuka Power Station sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (13 taxa) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.14.3). Taxa with a moderate requirement (9 taxa) and very low requirement (8) for unmodified water quality were also sampled during these surveys (Table 4.14.3).

There was low flow at the upstream site hence no spatial comparisons could be determined for June 2015 survey. The SASS5 and the ASPT scores improved on a spatial scale from the upstream site (TA-LS-US) to the downstream site (TA-LS-DS) during the November 2015 survey (Table 4.14.4 and Figure 4.14.2). Comparison of SASS-vegetation scores of the sites confirmed spatial improvement.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:138

Table 4.14.3: Aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa sampled at the Tutuka sites (June and November 2015).

Jun-15 Nov-15 Taxon TA-LS-DS TA-NT TA-LS-US TA-LS-DS TA-NT TA-ST Stones Veg GSM Total Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Oligochaeta A - A A ------A A A - - - A - A B Potamonautidae* ------A A Atyidae - A A B A - A - - - - A B A B - A A A - - A Palaemonidae ------HYDRACARINA - - B B B B B - A - A A A A B - B B - - - - Baetidae B A A B B - B A A A B A A - A A B B B A A B Caenidae A - A A A A A - - - - A - A A A - A B A A B Coenagrionidae - B B B A A A - A - A - A - A - A A A A - A Lestidae - A - A A - A ------A - A Aeshnidae ------A - A ------Libelludae - - - - - A A - - A A A - A A A - A - - - - Pyralidae ------A A A - - - - Belostomatidae* - A - A A - A - A - A - A A A ------Corixidae* B A B B B B B B - B B B - A B B - B B A B B Gerridae* - - - - A - A ------A A A A - A Nepidae* - - - - A - A - A - A - A - A - - - - A - A Notonectidae* - B - B - - - A B A B A B A B A A B A B A B Pleidae* - B - B B B B ------Veliidae* - - - - B - B - - - - A B - B - A A - A - A Ecnomidae ------A - A ------Hydropsychidae A - A A ------A A Dytiscidae (adults*) A B A B A - A - A A A A - - A A A B A - - A Elmidae / Dryopidae* ------Gyrinidae (adults*) A A - A ------A A Hydrophilidae (adults*) - A - A ------A - A A A B - - - - Ceratopogonidae - A - A - A A ------A A - - - - Chironomidae A A B B - A A A - A A A A A A - A A A A B B Culicidae* ------A - - A ------Empididae - - - - A - A ------Simuliidae B - - B ------Ancylidae - A - A A - A - - - - - A A A - A A - A - A Total SASS5 score 37 65 53 97 78 36 89 21 38 29 48 48 70 44 88 42 72 85 41 49 31 75 No. of families 9 14 10 19 15 8 18 5 7 6 11 10 14 10 18 8 13 16 10 11 9 17 ASPT 4.11 4.64 5.30 5.11 5.20 4.50 4.94 4.20 5.43 4.83 4.36 4.80 5.00 4.40 4.89 5.25 5.54 5.31 4.10 4.45 3.44 4.41 Total IHAS 63 22 56 40 42 42 IHAS - Habs sampled 34 22 30 19 21 21 IHAS - Stream condition 29 0 26 21 21 21 Suitability score 5 5 6 16 6 7 13 8 5 7 20 0 3 4 7 3 6 9 3 2 5 10 High requirement for unmodified water quality

Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

Table 4.14.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for the Tutuka biomonitoring sites.

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) SASS5 Survey Monitoring site ASPT score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

TA-LS-DS 97 5.11 37 65 53 5 5 6 16 Jul-15 TA-NT 89 4.94 0 78 36 0 6 7 13 TA-LS-US 48 4.36 21 38 29 8 5 7 20 TA-LS-DS 88 4.89 48 70 44 0 3 4 7 Nov-15 TA-NT 85 5.31 0 42 72 0 3 6 9 TA-ST 75 4.41 41 49 31 3 2 5 10

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:139

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 120

100 6

80 5

4 ASPT ASPT Scores 40

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 TA-LS-DS TA-LS-US TA-LS-DS Jun-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.14.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the Tutuka biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

4.14.2.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the SASS5 data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing biotic integrity, the SASS5 scores for sites were plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the SASS5 results at each site.

It appears that the biotic integrity is generally higher at the downstream site compared to the upstream site (Figure 4.14.3). The biotic integrity of the northern tributary (TA-NT) and southern tributary (TA-ST) improved over time (Figure 4.14.4).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:140

Figure 4.14.3: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:141

Figure 4.14.4: Temporal variation of SASS5 results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.14.3 Toxicity Testing

Toxicity test and hazard classification for June and November 2015 results are presented in Tables 4.14.5 and 4.14.6. Spatial comparison at both Leeuspruit sites showed that the toxicity hazard was reduced from the upstream site (TA-LS-US) to the downstream site (TA-LS-DS) during the June 2015 survey. However, toxicity testing revealed a slight acute/chronic hazard at the downstream site during November 2015.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:142

Toxicity testing and hazard classification was performed at the TA-NT and TA-ST tributaries draining from the power station and also at the tributary downstream (TA-AD-DS) from the Tutuka ash dams, in order to gain insight regarding the potential hazards that may originate from the Tutuka Power Station, on all three of these tributaries. The toxicity test and hazard classification showed a slight/chronic hazard (Class II) at both sites (TA-NT and TA-ST) during the June and November 2015 surveys (Tables 4.14.5 and 4.14.6). The tributary (TA-AD-DS) downstream from the Tutuka ash dams indicated no acute/chronic hazard during the June 2015 survey. However, the toxicity testing in November 2015 survey indicated a slight/chronic hazard.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:143

Table 4.14.5: Test results and risk classification for Tutuka Power Station during June 2015.

Results TA-NT TA-ST TA-LS-US TA-LS-DS TA-AD-DS

pH 8,3 7,8 8,2 8,1 8 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 38,7 66,6 22,8 26,4 35,8 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 9,1 9 9,3 9 9,1

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-24 15-06-24 15-06-24 15-06-24 15-06-24 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -19 -21 -28 24 15 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ***** EC/LC50 (30 mins) ***** no short- no short- no short- (bacteria) V. fischeri Toxicity unit (TU) / Description chronic S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. chronic chronic hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-10 15-06-10 15-06-10 15-06-10 15-06-10 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 1 -2 3 5 3 EC/LC20 (72hours) ***** EC/LC50 (72hours) ***** no short- no short- no short- no short- no short-

(micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description chronic chronic chronic chronic chronic S. capricornutum hazard hazard hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-15 15-06-15 15-06-15 15-06-15 15-06-15 %48hour mortality rate (-%) -20 0 -7 0 0 EC/LC10 (48hours) ***** EC/LC50 (48hours) ***** D. magna (waterflea) no acute no acute no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S.D.O.T.H. hazard hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17 15-06-17 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 0 0 EC/LC10 (96hours) ***** EC/LC50 (96hours) ***** (guppy)

P. reticulata no acute no acute no acute no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard hazard hazard hazard

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class II - Class II - Class II - Class I - No Class I - No Slight Slight Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard hazard hazard hazard Weight (%) 25 25 25 0 0

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:144

Table 4.14.6: Test results and risk classification for Tutuka Power Station during November 2015.

Results TA-ST TA-NT TA-LS-US TA-LS-DS TA-AD-DS

pH 8,3 8,3 8,3 8,4 8,4 EC (Electrical conductivity) (mS/m) 41,1 34,5 15,3 24,4 33,4 Water quality WQ Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 8 8 8 8,3 7,7

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 %30min inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) 20 24 23 16 19 EC/LC20 (30 mins) ***** (bacteria) EC/LC50 (30 mins) ***** no short- no short- no short- no short- no short- Toxicity unit (TU) / Description chronic chronic chronic chronic chronic

V. fischeri hazard hazard hazard hazard hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-24 15-11-24 15-11-24 15-11-24 15-11-24 %72hour inhibition (-) / stimulation (+) (%) -37 -20 -18 -25 -24 EC/LC20 (72hours) ***** EC/LC50 (72hours) ***** no short- (micro-algae) Toxicity unit (TU) / Description S. capricornutum S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. chronic S.D.O.T.H. S.D.O.T.H. hazard

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-20 15-11-20 15-11-20 15-11-20 15-11-20 %48hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 -40 -5 EC/LC10 (48hours) *****

(waterflea) EC/LC50 (48hours) *****

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

Test started on yy/mm/dd 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 15-11-19 %96hour mortality rate (-%) 0 0 0 0 0

(guppy) EC/LC10 (96hours) ***** EC/LC50 (96hours) *****

no acute no acute no acute no acute no acute Toxicity unit (TU) / Description hazard hazard hazard hazard hazard P. reticulata

Estimated safe dilution factor (%) [for definitive testing only] Class II - Class II - Class II - Class II - Class I - No Slight Slight Slight Slight Overall classification - Hazard class*** acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic acute/chronic hazard hazard hazard hazard hazard Weight (%) 25 25 0 50 25

Key: WQ = Water quality at the time of starting the Daphnia magna testing. % = 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 * = 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. *** = 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

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:145

4.14.3.1 Long term trends (April 2012 to November 2015) of the Toxicity data In order to determine temporal trends of increasing/decreasing toxicity levels, the risk class for samples was plotted for each survey. The linear trends over time were determined for the risk class at each site (Figure 4.14.5). The trends were based on the derived risk class for each survey.

In appears that in general the risk does increase over time at the upstream and downstream sites (Figure 4.14.5). In addition, it appears that the toxicity risk increase over time at the tributaries (TA-NT and TA-ST) draining from the power station and the tributary downstream (TA-AD-DS) from the Tutuka ash dams (Figure 4.14.6).

Figure 4.14.5: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:146

Figure 4.14.6: Temporal variation of toxicity results from April 2012 to November 2015.

4.14.4 Conclusions

In conclusion, SASS5 could not be performed at the upstream site (TA-LS-US) due to very low flow. As a result no spatial comparisons could be determined for June 2015 survey. No spatial deterioration was observed between the upstream and downstream sites during the November 2015 survey.

Spatial comparison at both Leeuspruit sites showed that the toxicity hazard was reduced from the upstream site to the downstream site (TA-LS-DS) during the June 2015 survey. However, the toxicity test revealed a slight acute/chronic hazard at the downstream site during the November 2015 survey.

In terms of the long term trends at this early stage it appears that the toxicity risk increased at both sites. However, based on temporal trends of SASS5 it appears that the biotic integrity is improving. Temporal trends will become more accurate and reliable with continued biomonitoring as the database becomes more populated.

It is recommended that twice per annum SASS5 monitoring is continued at the selected upstream and downstream Leeuspruit sites. Toxicity testing should be maintained on a twice per annum schedule at all the Tutuka Power Station biomonitoring sites.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:147

4.15 UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION

The Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) plant is situated in the Geelklipspruit catchment and all of the selected monitoring sites fall within the Vaal River (C) water management area (WMA) and sub-quaternary reach C11J-01968. The UCG study area, indicating the streams and selected biomonitoring sites are shown in Figure 4.15.1. Table 4.15.1 shows the GPS coordinates of the sampling points as well as the WMA and Sub-quaternary reach code. Plates 4.15.1 - 4.15.3 depict the visual representation of the sites.

Figure 4.15.1: Map of UCG study area, indicating streams and selected monitoring sites.

Table 4.15.1: UCG biomonitoring sampling points and GPS coordinates.

Associated GPS coordinates Sub- Monitoring River/ power Description WMA quaternary site Stream Latitude Longitude station (South) (East) reach code C: Geelklipspruit UCG-US Vaal C11J-01968 upstream from UCG. River Geelklip UCG spruit Geelklipspruit C: UCG-DS downstream from 27.0435 29.8011 Vaal C11J-01968 UCG River

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:148

Plate 4.15.1: View of site UCG-US in June 2015

Plate 4.15.2: View of site UCG-DS in June 2015

Plate 4.15.3: View of site UCG-US in November 2015

Plate 4.15.4: View of site UCG-DS in November 2015

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:149

4.15.1 In-situ water quality

The criteria for EC and temperature depend on local conditions and the life of species present (Kempster et al., 1982). The EC levels in the Geelklipspruit slight increased (0.14mS/cm to 0.30mS/cm) from the upstream to the downstream site during the November 2015 surveys (Table 4.15.2). The EC was 0.35mS/cm at the downstream during June 2015 survey.

The pH was within the target water quality ranges for fish health, irrigation, aesthetics and human health at both sites in November 2015 (Table 4.15.2). However, the pH was below the stipulated range at the upstream site during the June 2015 survey. The pH range for fish health is between 6.5 and 9.0 as it is expected that most aquatic species will tolerate and reproduce successfully within this range (DWAF, 1996).

Dissolved oxygen guideline values of >5mg/l (Kempster et al., 1982) were met at all the biomonitoring sites associated with UCG for both the surveys (Table 4.15.2).

Table 4.15.2: In-situ water quality variables measured at the time of sampling at the UCG biomonitoring sites (June and November 2015).

Conductivity Dissolved Monitoring Water Temperature Survey (EC) pH oxygen Site (mS/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Jun-15 UCG-US 5.82 6.3 10.12 Jun-15 UCG-DS 0.35 8.45 12.77 13.81 Nov-15 UCG-US 0.14 8.20 7.67 15.71 Nov-15 UCG-DS 0.30 8.53 7.04 15.39

4.15.2 Macro-invertebrates (SASS5)

The UCG sites were dominated by aquatic macro-invertebrate taxa with a low requirement (13 taxa) for unmodified water quality (Table 4.15.3). Some taxa with a very low requirement (7) and moderate requirement (7 taxa) for unmodified water quality were also present at the sites.

The SASS and ASPT scores increased on a spatial scale from the upstream site (UCG-US) to the downstream site (UCG-DS) during both surveys (Figure 4.15.2; Table 4.15.4). Comparison of the SASS-vegetation score for the sites indicates a slight increase in biotic integrity of the Geelklipspruit section of concern.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:150

Table 4.15.3: Aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa sampled at each UCG site (July and November 2015).

Jul-15 Nov-15 Taxon UCG-US UCG-DS UCG-US UCG-DS Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total Stones Veg GSM Total TURBELLARIA - - - - A - A A - - - - A - - A Oligochaeta ------A A - A - A - - - - Leeches - A - A ------Potamonautidae* A - - A - - A A ------HYDRACARINA ------B A B B Baetidae B B B C B B B C A A A A B B B C Caenidae A B B B B A B B - A - A A - A A Leptophlebiidae - - - - A A - B - - - - A - - A Coenagrionidae - A A A - A - A - - - - - A - A Lestidae ------A - A Aeshnidae ------A A A - - - - Libelludae A A A B - - - - A A A A - A - A Belostomatidae* ------A A ------Corixidae* B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Gerridae* - - - - A B - B ------Naucoridae* ------A A ------Notonectidae* - A - A - A - A A A A A - A A A Pleidae* - B A B - - B B ------Veliidae* - - - - - A - A - - - - - A - A Hydropsychidae - - - - A - - A ------Dytiscidae (adults*) - A A B A A B B - A - A A A A A Gyrinidae (adults*) - - - - - A - A ------Hydrophilidae (adults*) - - - - - A - A ------Ceratopogonidae - A A A - - A A - - A A A - A A Chironomidae A B B B - - B B A A A A A A A A Culicidae* - A - A ------A - A Simuliidae - - - - B - - B - - - - A - - A Ancylidae - - - - A - A A ------Physidae* ------A - A - - - - Sphaeridae ------A A ------Total SASS5 score 24 46 39 49 52 54 57 102 16 39 29 44 52 49 38 77 No. of families 6 12 9 13 10 11 14 23 5 10 7 11 10 11 8 16 ASPT 4.00 3.83 4.33 3.77 5.20 4.91 4.07 4.43 3.20 3.90 4.14 4.00 5.20 4.45 4.75 4.81 Total IHAS 40 66 40 63 IHAS - Habs sampled 19 34 19 34 IHAS - Stream condition 21 32 21 29 Suitability score 2 2 6 10 9 5 8 22 3 3 4 10 8 5 6 19 High requirement for unmodified water quality

Moderate requirement for unmodified water quality

Low requirement for unmodified water quality

Very low requirement for unmodified water quality

A = 1-10 individuals; B = 11-100 individuals; C = 101-1000 individuals; ASPT = Average score per taxon.

Table 4.15.4: SASS5, ASPT and biotope availability and suitability index scores for UCG biomonitoring sites (July and November 2015).

SASS5-score per biotope Biotope availability and suitability (Scores) SASS5 Survey Monitoring site ASPT score SASSStones SASSVegetation SASSGSM Stones Vegetation GSM Combined

UCG-US 49 3.77 24 46 39 2 2 6 10 July 2015 UCG-DS 102 4.43 52 54 57 9 5 8 22 November UCG-US 44 4.00 16 39 29 3 3 4 10 2015 UCG-DS 77 4.81 52 49 38 8 5 6 19

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:151

Spatial variation of SASS results 7 120

100 6

80 5

4 ASPT ASPT Scores 40

3 20 SASS5 SASS5 Habitat and suitability Scores

2 0 UCG-US UCG-DS UCG-US UCG-DS Jul-15 Nov-15 ASPT SASS5 score Habitat availability and suitability

Figure 4.15.2: ASPT, SASS5 and total biotope suitability scores at the UCG biomonitoring sites (July and November 2015).

4.15.3 Fish

The dominant habitats available to fish at the sites consisted of slow-shallow with substrate as cover. Some cover was also available in the form of undercut banks and root-wads, macrophytes and overhanging vegetation (Table 4.15.5). Based on available information (Niehaus et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2006) and field results, seven fish species can be expected under pre-disturbance conditions in the Vaal River section of concern. These include Barbus anoplus (Chubbyhead Barb), Barbus paludinosus (Straightfin Barb), Labeobarbus aeneus (Smallmouth Yellowfish), Labeo capensis (Orange River Mudfish), Labeo umbratus (Mudfish), Clarias gariepinus (Sharptooth Catfish) and Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Southern Mouthbrooder). Two of these expected species were sampled at the UCG sites during the current study, namely B. anoplus and Labeobarbus aeneus (Table 4.15.6).

The relative FAII score were 3.49% and 27.25% for the upstream and downstream sites respectively (Table 4.15.6). The relative FAII score decreased on a spatial scale, from the upstream to the downstream site .

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:152

Table 4.15.5: Habitat cover rating for fish at the UCG biomonitoring sites (November 2015).

UCG November 2015 Habitat types UCG-US UCG-DS SLOW-DEEP (>0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 2 2 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 1 Substrate 3 3 Macrophytes 2 3 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 3 3 SLOW-SHALLOW (<0.5m; <0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 1 1 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 0 Substrate 3 4 Macrophytes 2 2 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 2.33 2.33 FAST-DEEP (>0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 0 0 Overhanging vegetation 0 0 Undercut banks and Root-wads 0 0 Substrate 0 0 Macrophytes 0 0 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 0 0 FAST-SHALLOW (<0.3m; >0.3m/s) Abundance 2 2 Overhanging vegetation 2 1 Undercut banks and Root-wads 1 1 Substrate 3 4 Macrophytes 1 2 Habitat Cover Rating (HCR) 2.33 2.66 TOTAL HCR SCORE 7.66 7.99

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:153

Table 4.15.6: Expected and observed fish species and FAII scores for the UCG biomonitoring sites in November 2015.

Nov-2015 Intolerance rating Health rating SCORE SPECIES UCG-US UCG-DS UCG-US UCG-DS UCG-US UCG-DS Barbus anoplus 2.6 2.6 5 5 13 13 Barbus paludinosus 1.8 1.8 5 5 9 9

OBSERVED Labeobarbus aeneus 5 0 12.5 Labeo capensis 0 0 Labeo umbratus 0 0 Clarias gariepinus 0 0 Pseudocrenilabrus philander 0 0 OBSERVED FAII SCORE 2.6 20.3 RELATIVE FAII SCORE (%) 3.49 27.25

4.15.4 Conclusions

Based on the macro-invertebrate and fish assessments, the biotic integrity improved on a spatial scale from the upstream site to the downstream site. This suggests that the biotic integrity was not affected by the potential cumulative impacts, including the UCG. It is recommended to continue with the twice per annum SASS5 monitoring and with the once per annum fish monitoring at the selected upstream and downstream sites. Temporal variation will be determined after three years of monitoring.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:154

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The current biomonitoring programme satisfies the requirements of the water use license requirements of the surface water monitoring of some Eskom’s power stations. All the biomonitoring tools applied in this programme serve as early warning systems; therefore, the findings of this study should be seen as a prompt to further investigate any potential hazards that might be associated with the power stations. The assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate after each year of monitoring and trends could be better determined with a larger database.

Based on the June and November 2015 surveys (spatial comparisons), the Tutuka, Majuba, Lethabo and Kendal power stations and/or other water users within their catchments appear to have a negative impact on the biotic integrity of the recieving surface water bodies. In terms of temporal variations from April 2012 to November 2015, it seems that the biotic intergrity is not improving at the downstream sites of the Kendal, Lethabo and Matla power stations and/or other water users within their catchtments. At Hendrina Power Station, and/or other water users within their catchments, based on toxicity hazard, it seems in general that the downstream site is deterioting more than the upstream site.

Chemistry analyses were completed for each site. This forms baseline data for the biomonitoring sites and must be carried out together with routine biomonitoring data to identify incidents, problematic variables and long-term trends over time. It is recommended that twice per annum chemistry analysis is continued with at the selected upstream and downstream sites for the following water quality variables: + total alkalinity (as CaCO3), aluminium (Al), ammonia (NH4 ), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), calcium (Ca2+), chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride (Cl), cyanide (CN), cobalt (Co), total chromium (Cr), electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), iron (Fe), fluoride (F), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg2+), manganese (Mn), mercury (Hg), sodium (Na), - nickel (Ni), nitrate (NO3 ), lead (Pb), pH, ortho-phosphate (PO4), strontium (Sr), 2- sulphate (SO4 ), total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), Ca hardness (CaCO3), Mg hardness (CaCO3), total hardness (CaCO3), total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity (NTU), Vanadium (V) and Zinc (Zn).

The revised integrated biomonitoring network programme (macro-invertebrate; habitat; fish and toxicity) (Table 5.1) is recommended for the next biomonitoring assessments. It is further recommended that the integrated biomonitoring network (macro-invertebrate; habitat; FAII and toxicity) be continued and reviewed annually.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:155

Table 5.1: Revised and recommended routine biomonitoring network.

Associated Biomonitoring protocols GPS coordinates Monitoring River/Stream Power Description Frequency per Latitude Longitude site Protocol station annum (South) (East) SASS5 Tw ice Rietkuilspruit upstream from Arnot Power AR-RK-US Fish Once -25.9615 29.8557 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Rietkuilspruit Arnot SASS5 Tw ice Rietkuilspruit downstream from Arnot AR-RK-DS Fish Once -25.9588 29.7751 Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

Molspruit Grootvlei SASS5 Once, if flow ing Fish None Molspruit, downstream from Grootvlei GV-MS-DS -26.8293 28.5240 Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None Woestalleenspui Woestalleenspruit (western tributary), HD-WW-DS t Western Fish None -25.9964 29.5796 downstream from Hendrina Power Station. tributary Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing

Leeufonteinspruit, upstream from Kendal KD-LF-US Fish None -26.1233 28.9504 Power Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Leeufonteinspruit SASS5 Tw ice, if flow ing

Leeufonteinspruit, downstream from KD-LF-DS Fish None -26.0847 28.9208 Kendal Kendal Power Station.

Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice

Koringspruit upstream from Komati Power KM-K-US Fish Once -26.0949 29.4828 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Koringspruit Komati SASS5 Tw ice

Koringspruit downstream from Komati KM-K-DS Fish Once -26.0860 29.4157 Power Station.

Toxicity testing Tw ice

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:156

Table 5.1: Revised and recommended routine biomonitoring network (continued).

Associated Biomonitoring protocols GPS coordinates Monitoring River/Stream Power Description Frequency per Latitude Longitude site Protocol station annum (South) (East) SASS5 Tw ice Wilgespruit, upstream from Kusile Power KS-W-US Fish Once -25.9022 28.8514 Station. Toxicity testing None Wilgespruit SASS5 Tw ice Wilgespruit, downstream from Kusile KS-W-DS Fish Once -25.8642 28.8688 Power Station. Toxicity testing None Kusile SASS5 None Unnamed Unnamed southern tribatary 1, on southern KS-trib1 Fish None -25.9477 28.9279 tributary side draining towards the power station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None Unnamed southern tribatary 1b, on Unnamed KS-trib1b southern side draining towards the power Fish None -25.9557 28.9073 tributary station. Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice Vaal River upstream from Lethabo Power LT-VR-US Fish Once 26.7379 27.9955 Station. Toxicity testing Tw ice Vaal River Lethabo SASS5 Tw ice

Vaal River downstream from Lethabo LT-VR-DS Fish Once 26.6738 27.9788 Power Station.

Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None

Sandloopspruit, upstream from Medupi ME-SL-US Sandloopspruit Medupi Fish None -23.7492 27.5330 Power Station

Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 None

Sandloopspruit, downstream from Matimba MA-SL-DS Sandloopspruit Matimba Fish None -23.6470 27.6579 Power Station

Toxicity testing Tw ice

SASS5 Tw ice

Trichardspruit, upstream from Matla Power ML-TR-US Fish Once -26.3510 29.2173 Station.

Toxicity testing None Trichardspruit SASS5 Tw ice Trichardspruit, downstream from Matla ML-TR-DS Matla Fish Once -26.2779 29.2363 Power Station. Toxicity testing None

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:157

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Fish sampling and analyses completed by Nick McClurg. Andre Strydom, Hendrik Roets, and Ntobeko Mkhonza assisted with sampling. Special thanks to Brenton Niehaus for his technical input on temporal trends.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:158

7. REFERENCES

 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY (DWAF). 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines (second edition). Volume 6: Agricultural water use: Aquaculture.  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.  DICKENS, C AND GRAHAM, M. 2001. South African Scoring System (SASS) Version 5 Rapid Bioassessment Method for Rivers. River Health Programme Web Page.  DURGAPERSAD, K AND MALIBA, B. 2014. Routine biomonitoring Network for Eskom:2013/14. Report number RES/RR/13/35611. Eskom: Research, Testing and Development.  DURGAPERSAD, K. 2012. Routine Water Quality Monitoring Network for Eskom, July 2012. Report number: RES/RR/11/34009. Eskom: Research, Testing and Development.  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.  KEMPSTER, P.L., HATTINGH, W.H.J AND VAN VLIET, H.R. 1982. Summarised water quality criteria. Technical report NR. Tr. 108. Department of Environmental Affairs.  KLEYNHANS, C.J. 1997. An exploratory investigation of the Instream Biological Integrity of the Crocodile River, Mpumalanga, as based on the Assessment of Fish Communities. Draft Report, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Institute for Water Quality Studies. 61 pp.  KLEYNHANS, C.J. 2002. Fish Intolerance ratings. Personal electronic communication of proceedings resulting from the national fish workshop held at the WRC during 2001.  KLEYNHANS, C.J., 2007. Module D: Fish Response Assessment Index in River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report.  MALIBA, B., McClurg N AND MKHONZA, N. 2015. Routine Biomonitoring Network for Eskom: 2014/15. Report number: RES/RR/15/1776864. Eskom: Research, Testing and Development.  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 + 44 pp.  NIEHAUS, B., KOTZE, P., STRYDOM, A. AND SMITH, W. 2013. Review and Assessment of Eskom’s Biomonitoring Programme. Report number: RES/RR/13/35085. Eskom: Research, Testing and Development.  ODUM E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third Edition. W. B. Saunders Co. London.  ORGANISATION FOR THE ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD), 1984. Guideline for testing chemicals: Alga, growth inhibition test, document 201. Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:159

 ROUX, D.J. 1999. Incorporating technologies for the monitoring and assessment of biological indicators into a holistic resource-based water quality management approach- conceptual models and some case studies. Ph.D. RAU, JHB, SA.  SCOTT, L.E.P., SKELTON, P.H., BOOTH, A.J., VERHEUST, L., HARRIS, R. AND DOOLEY, J. 2006. Atlas of Southern African Freshwater Fishes, SAIAB, 301 pp.  SKELTON P.H., 2001. A complete guide to freshwater fishes of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd., Cape Town, South Africa. 395pp.  THIRION, C., MOCKE, A. AND WOEST, R. 1995. Biological Monitoring of Streams and Rivers using SASS4: A User Manual. Final Report, No. N 000/00/REQ/1195. Institute of Water Quality Studies, DWAF.  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.  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.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:160

8. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR JUNE AND NOVEMBER 2015.

APPENDIX B: FISH SPECIES FOUND AROUND ESKOM POWER STATIONS.

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:161

Appendix A1: Chemistry results (June 2015). Power Sample Alkalinity Aluminium Ammonia Calcium as Chloride Chemical Conductivity High Level DOC Iron as Fe Flouride as Potassium TSS mg/l Turbidity station name Total mg/l as Al as N (mg/l) Ca (mg/l) as Cl Oxygen μS/cm Elementar(mg/l) (mg/l) F (mg/l) as K (mg/l) (NTU) CaCO3 (mg/l) (mg/l) Demand mg/l AR-RK-DS 114 0.082 <0.1 51 37 <10 80.8 5.9 0.33 0.25 13 <3 2.6 ARNOT AR-RK-US 372 0.073 <0.1 62 28 <10 104 15 0.093 0.27 1.7 <3 2.1 CM-WP-DS <5 0.035 <0.1 42 68 148 1319 21 0.026 3.1 6.1 <3 3 CAMDEN CM-WP-US <5 16 <0.1 152 18 <10 179 0.86 1.5 0.71 9.8 <3 <0.2 DV-TRIB-DS 48 0.057 <0.1 104 79 <10 120 3.7 0.17 0.39 18 <3 <0.2 DUVHA DV-TRIB-US 30 0.069 <0.1 96 85 <10 121 3.3 0.32 0.41 19 <3 2.3 GROOTVLEI GV-MS-DS 273 1 <0.1 48 39 97 70.8 38 1.8 0.66 16 168 88 HD-WE-DS 99 0.34 <0.1 30 25 <10 51.8 13 0.64 0.57 8.8 <3 5.1 HEDRINA HD-WE-US 83 0.11 <0.1 27 21 29 47.9 12 0.2 0.57 8 26 7.1 HD-WW-DS 95 0.031 <0.1 32 30 13 59.3 11 0.34 0.53 9.9 <3 1.9 KD-LF-DS 108 0.052 <0.1 83 23 <10 163 7.2 0.19 0.5 5.8 <3 2 KENDAL KD-LF-US 82 0.1 <0.1 537 22 <10 338 7.6 0.75 0.4 21 14 5.7 KD-TRIB 106 17 9.5 157 31 90 260 7.2 11 0.48 9.3 606 372 KM-K-DS 107 0.071 <0.1 117 34 <10 151 7.4 0.11 0.22 9.9 <3 2.1 KOMATI KM-K-US 100 0.049 <0.1 28 19 <10 37.4 6.9 0.15 0.28 5.1 <3 1.9 KR-RT-DS 85 0.54 <0.1 16 14 <10 70 3.2 0.52 0.37 2.1 46 20 KRIEL KR-RT-US 182 0.28 <0.1 25 44 116 54.8 29 0.94 1.4 17 54 13 KS-TRIB 1 25 0.034 <0.1 114 <5 <10 72.6 35 0.44 0.24 2.9 <3 1.5 KS-TRIB 1B <5 0.22 <0.1 4.6 <5 <10 8.68 2.5 2.6 0.23 <1 14 16 KUSILE KS-W-DS 79 0.12 <0.1 56 8.5 <10 48.7 3 5 0.37 0.26 2.8 <3 2.2 KS-W-US 113 0.031 <0.1 27 11 <10 44.5 7.1 0.22 0.28 2.5 <3 <0.2 LT-VR-DS 91 0.86 0.11 23 15 11 30.7 7.8 0.91 0.22 4.5 25 31 LETHABO LT-VR-US 71 0.68 <0.1 16 5.7 <10 19.3 5.8 0.62 <0.2 3 <3 21 MJ-GK-DS 155 0.29 <0.1 29 15 <10 39.4 9.6 0.3 <0.2 2 <3 4.1 MAJUBA MJ-GK-US 204 0.099 0.39 63 11 <10 63.3 10 0.12 0.2 1.5 10 2.9 MJ-TRIB 236 0.15 <0.1 52 16 <10 54.5 11 0.29 <0.2 1.4 <3 3.9 ML-DW-TRIB 305 0.92 <0.1 61 43 17 78.8 16 1.2 0.45 5.5 40 16 MATLA ML-TR-DS 104 0.69 <0.1 22 12 20 30.9 8.1 0.98 0.3 4.2 38 26 ML-TR-US 94 0.5 <0.1 21 12 30 29.1 8.3 0.71 0.28 4.1 8 20 TA-AD-DS 282 0.18 <0.1 33 6.6 29 60.5 19 0.12 0.5 3.8 <3 <0.2 TA-LS-DS 134 0.27 <0.1 27 24 14 44.4 9.9 0.19 0.31 5.4 <3 8.6 TUTUKA TA-LS-US 112 0.21 <0.1 24 14 <10 34.5 9 0.2 0.3 4.5 <3 3.6 TA-NT 141 0.24 <0.1 30 52 25 65.7 11 0.2 0.39 6.9 2334 4.8 TA-ST 460 0.096 <0.1 62 43 <10 110 17 0.085 0.32 4.5 <3 <0.2

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:162

Appendix A2: Chemistry results (June 2015). Power Sample name Potassium Magnesium Manganese Sodium Nickel as Nitrate pH @ 25 Ortho Sulphate Strontium TDS TOC Ca Mg Total station as K as Mg as Mn as Na Ni (mg/l) as N °C Phosphate (mg/l) as Sr mg/l (mg/l) HIGH Hardness Hardness Hardness (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) as PO4 LEVELS as CaCO3 as CaCO3 as CaCO3 mg/l (mg/l) mg/l mg/l mg/l AR-RK-DS 13 18 0.14 86 <0.005 1.2 7.66 0.55 181 0.86 454 9.1 127 74 201 ARNOT AR-RK-US 1.7 60 0.044 84 <0.005 <0.2 8.39 1.1 149 0.33 604 24 155 247 402 CM-WP-DS 6.1 21 <0.005 345 <0.005 0.82 1.37 <0.2 239 1.1 1794 32 105 86 191 CAMDEN CM-WP-US 9.8 89 12 78 0.23 0.38 3.09 0.37 815 1.2 1366 1 380 366 746 DV-TRIB-DS 18 17 0.18 115 <0.005 0.32 6.78 0.29 378 1.2 700 3.9 260 70 330 DUVHA DV-TRIB-US 19 7.9 0.1 109 <0.005 0.32 6.88 0.21 383 1.4 758 4.1 240 33 272 GROOTVLEI GV-MS-DS 16 27 2.1 58 0.024 0.22 7.83 0.21 29 0.29 412 52 120 111 231 HD-WE-DS 8.8 25 0.44 38 <0.005 3.2 7.5 0.21 99 0.31 290 13 75 103 178 HEDRINA HD-WE-US 8 22 0.08 28 <0.005 0.33 7.51 0.41 92 0.28 274 12 67 91 158 HD-WW-DS 9.9 24 0.045 39 <0.005 0.8 7.81 <0.2 114 0.36 322 12 80 99 179 KD-LF-DS 5.8 20 0.17 238 <0.005 3.7 7.9 <0.2 234 0.43 1080 7.7 207 82 290 KENDAL KD-LF-US 21 328 0.35 91 <0.005 0.92 7.56 <0.2 1992 1 3356 8.9 1341 1350 2691 KD-TRIB 9.3 11 1.3 522 0.018 6.1 9.36 1.2 963 0.9 1722 7.6 392 45 437 KM-K-DS 9.9 86 0.12 113 <0.005 0.3 7.72 0.34 256 0.5 1070 7.5 292 354 646 KOMATI KM-K-US 5.1 16 0.11 23 <0.005 0.24 7.67 0.43 60 0.16 200 7.1 70 66 130 KR-RT-DS 2.1 9 0.062 123 <0.005 0.53 7.92 <0.2 184 0.18 428 4 40 37 77 KRIEL KR-RT-US 17 19 0.22 54 0.005 1.9 7.87 34 16 0.16 314 37 62 78 141 KS-TRIB 1 2.9 18 0.067 7.6 <0.005 1.6 6.8 0.29 295 0.57 464 2.6 285 74 359 KS-TRIB 1B <1 2.5 0.03 6.3 <0.005 3.1 6.06 0.31 13 0.032 <6 3.6 11 10 22 KUSILE KS-W-DS 2.8 18 0.058 22 <0.005 0.55 7.65 <0.2 118 0.24 286 5.4 140 74 214 KS-W-US 2.5 20 0.14 32 <0.005 3.8 7.53 <0.2 71 0.14 196 8 67 82 150 LT-VR-DS 4.5 11 0.12 23 0.007 0.54 7.78 0.44 32 0.096 154 8.8 57 45 103 LETHABO LT-VR-US 3 8.4 0.03 11 <0.005 0.3 7.65 0.26 14 0.084 146 6.7 40 35 75 MJ-GK-DS 2 23 0.065 17 <0.005 0.59 8.31 0.34 28 0.11 266 9.7 72 95 167 MAJUBA MJ-GK-US 1.5 38 0.033 28 <0.005 7.7 7.89 <0.2 97 0.27 392 11 157 156 314 MJ-TRIB 1.4 42 0.15 21 <0.005 1.8 8.18 <0.2 37 0.11 260 12 130 173 303 ML-DW-TRIB 5.5 47 0.5 65 0.01 0.21 8.14 <0.2 49 0.25 374 20 152 193 346 MATLA ML-TR-DS 4.2 15 0.32 20 0.006 0.3 7.79 <0.2 34 0.12 122 8.6 55 62 117 ML-TR-US 4.1 14 0.14 18 <0.005 0.39 7.69 <0.2 35 0.11 128 9.5 52 58 110 TA-AD-DS 3.8 41 0.046 54 0.008 2.2 8.44 0.36 44 0.25 314 23 82 169 251 TA-LS-DS 5.4 21 0.14 33 0.009 0.3 7.91 <0.2 56 0.14 308 11 67 86 154 TUTUKA TA-LS-US 4.5 18 0.13 19 0.007 0.42 7.82 0.36 40 0.12 230 9.2 60 74 134 TA-NT 6.9 18 0.036 78 0.005 1.7 7.99 0.52 76 0.19 594 12 75 74 149 TA-ST 4.5 115 0.064 56 0.009 0.41 8.48 <0.2 98 0.24 602 23 155 473 628

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:163

Appendix A3: Chemistry results (November 2015). Power Sample name Alkalinity Aluminium Ammonia Calcium as Chloride as Chemical Conducti High Level DOC Iron as Fe Flouride as Potassium Magnesium station Total mg/l as Al (mg/l) as N (mg/l) Ca (mg/l) Cl (mg/l) Oxygen vity Elementar(mg/l) (mg/l) F (mg/l) as K (mg/l) as Mg CaCO3 Demand mg/l μS/cm (mg/l) AR-RK-DS 116 0.3 <0.005 49 36.64 13 749 6 0.55 0.18 14 19 ARNOT AR-RK-US 363 0.4 <0.005 54 35.74 7 862 7.11 2.6 0.18 2.8 55 CM-WP-DS 1117 0.43 0.1 28 80.61 16 2429 19.3 0.22 2.64 7 18 CAMDEN CM-WP-US <0.343 <0.005 <0.005 467 30.06 8 3934 2.99 11.8 <0.030 21 220 DV-TRIB-DS 86.5 0.06 <0.005 120 72.23 5 1178 2.97 0.13 0.24 17 26 DUVHA DV-TRIB-US <0.343 0.06 0.1 34 23 13 19260 6.33 3.4 <0.030 3.8 17 GV-MS-DS 6.72 3.49 0.3 17 0.47 7 50 2.33 5.8 <0.030 4.9 7.6 GROOTVLEI GV-MS-US 31.2 2.31 0.2 10 2.74 16 85 6.59 1.9 0.05 2 2.4 HD-WE-DS 105 0.04 <0.005 42 21.97 25 538 11.1 0.26 0.44 8.2 30 HEDRINA HD-WE-US 50.7 0.33 <0.005 120 110 58 1330 30 1.9 0.41 19 58 HD-WW-DS 158 0.08 <0.005 40 19.4 24 497 12.8 0.43 0.49 6.3 28 KD-LF-DS 142 0.19 <0.005 120 10.7 4 1161 4.08 0.54 0.11 2.3 44 KENDAL KD-LF-US 12.1 0.26 <0.005 110 10.77 11 1052 3.88 0.32 0.11 12 77 KD-TRIB 92.8 1.93 <0.005 100 18.96 6 1736 4.11 1.9 0.04 6.3 18 KM-K-DS 148 0.59 <0.005 81 41.83 22 1152 8.76 1.2 0.08 9.8 56 KOMATI KM-K-US 123 0.4 <0.005 32 15.37 14 343 7.55 0.71 0.22 4.8 18 KR-RT-DS 31 1.5 0.1 13 10.77 12 111 2.97 2.4 0.04 1.4 3.1 KRIEL KR-RT-US 79.5 0.28 0.7 26 11.67 31 268 12.7 2.4 0.51 7 12 KS-TRIB 1 67 0.12 <0.005 180 3.93 7 981 4.24 1.8 0.13 4.7 31 KS-TRIB 1B 20 1.82 0.7 26 3.04 15 243 7.48 1 0.15 5.2 12 KUSILE KS-W-DS 36.7 1 0.1 67 7.46 15 511 5.66 1 0.09 7.1 19 KS-W-US 178 0.08 0.2 37 15.34 9 465 7.33 0.2 0.15 3.9 25 LT-VR-DS 88.5 1.8 <0.005 30 13.52 14 270 6.52 1.8 <0.030 4.1 12 LETHABO LT-VR-US 71.7 0.98 <0.005 27 5.6 11 184 5.48 1.3 <0.030 2.9 9.6 MJ-GK-DS 157 0.65 0.1 36 12.85 11 365 6.22 1.1 <0.030 2.3 23 MAJUBA MJ-GK-US 231 0.17 0.2 60 8.1 8 584 6.06 0.17 0.04 1.4 35 MJ-TRIB 266 0.19 0.1 55 21.12 15 593 6.33 0.24 0.08 2.3 42 ML-DW-TRIB 59.4 5.7 0.5 45 9.52 24 468 4.43 6.9 0.27 2.1 26 MATLA ML-TR-DS 125 3.6 0.2 31 11.84 8 316 7.78 2 0.16 4.3 18 ML-TR-US 138 0.26 0.1 31 13.43 16 372 9.92 0.43 0.14 4 21 TA-AD-DS 435 1.4 0.1 50 15.94 32 924 18.6 1.1 0.61 4.7 52 TA-LS-DS 206 0.4 0.3 41 74.56 33 685 13.5 0.46 0.27 8.4 32 TUTUKA TA-LS-US 155 0.87 0.2 40 19.06 23 434 11.7 1.1 0.27 6.2 27 TA-NT 207 0.28 0.2 51 95.26 37 949 18.6 0.26 0.27 14 32 TA-ST 484 0.18 0.2 48 56.06 10 1155 8.66 0.22 <0.030 2.5 130

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:164

Appendix A4: Chemistry results (November 2015). Power Sample Manganese Sodium Nickel as Nitrate as pH @ 25 Ortho Sulphate Strontium TDS TOC Ca Mg Total TSS mg/l Turbidity station name as Mn as Na Ni (mg/l) N (mg/l) °C Phosphate (mg/l) as Sr mg/l (mg/l) HIGH Hardness Hardness Hardness (NTU) (mg/l) (mg/l) as PO4 LEVELS as CaCO3 as CaCO3 as CaCO3 mg/l (mg/l) mg/l mg/l mg/l AR-RK-DS 0.64 81.2 <0.005 0.16 7.4 <0.090 190 0.86 473.8 6.3 122.38 78.19 200.57 32.59 10.6 ARNOT AR-RK-US 0.65 65 <0.005 0.21 8.14 <0.090 90.66 0.3 516.8 7.41 134.87 226.34 361.21 95 50.3 CM-WP-DS 0.11 540 <0.005 <0.02 8.49 <0.090 200 1.37 1560.1 18.7 69.93 74.07 144 58.18 7.04 CAMDEN CM-WP-US 40.2 180 0.87 <0.02 3.15 <0.090 2630 4.12 3964.5 4.28 1166.33 905.35 2071.68 65.63 4.47 DV-TRIB-DS 0.21 90 <0.005 <0.02 7.88 <0.090 410 0.6 824.8 3.08 299.7 107 406.7 18.4 2.03 DUVHA DV-TRIB-US 0.08 27 <0.005 707.38 1.44 <0.090 76.65 0.24 500.6 7.12 84.92 69.96 154.88 89.12 27.4 GV-MS-DS 0.19 5.6 <0.005 1.78 6.14 0.1 4.75 0.06 295.2 4.13 42.46 31.28 73.74 446.34 508 GROOTVLEI GV-MS-US 0.43 3.3 <0.005 0.81 6.88 0.4 4.92 0.03 138.8 7.27 24.98 9.88 34.86 199.95 152 HD-WE-DS 0.03 32 <0.005 0.19 7.31 <0.090 130 0.37 334.7 12 104.9 123.46 228.36 10.43 2.19 HEDRINA HD-WE-US 7.5 76 <0.005 1.44 6.62 <0.090 460 0.58 976.5 32.8 299.7 238.68 538.38 43.42 8.89 HD-WW-DS <0.005 33 <0.005 0.57 7.56 <0.090 83.13 0.39 303.9 13 99.9 115.23 215.13 11.57 2.14 KD-LF-DS 1.2 89 <0.005 1.09 7.98 <0.090 490 0.37 911.1 4.32 299.7 181.07 480.77 89.89 36.7 KENDAL KD-LF-US 1 23 <0.005 0.41 6.28 <0.090 520 0.51 865.4 4.28 274.73 316.87 591.6 44.59 19.1 KD-TRIB 0.48 250 <0.005 0.24 7.44 <0.090 730 0.84 1261 4.11 249.75 74.07 323.6 33.6 10.8 KM-K-DS 1.6 83 <0.005 0.23 7.41 1 440 0.45 811.7 8.84 202.3 230.45 432.75 54.1 11.9 KOMATI KM-K-US 0.35 20 <0.005 2.28 7.72 <0.090 38.21 0.2 211.6 7.55 79.92 74.07 153.99 26.4 10.4 KR-RT-DS 0.18 17 <0.005 <0.02 6.67 <0.090 10.1 0.06 130.6 3.89 32.47 12.76 45.23 150.42 75.1 KRIEL KR-RT-US 0.15 16 <0.005 0.1 7.22 <0.090 31.47 0.14 161.5 13.9 64.94 49.38 114.32 39.11 13.9 KS-TRIB 1 0.32 10 <0.005 <0.02 7.16 <0.090 450 0.15 791.2 4.65 449.55 127.57 577.12 22.47 3.27 KS-TRIB 1B 0.29 8.8 <0.005 0.82 6.34 <0.090 78.9 0.11 193.8 7.83 64.94 49.38 114.32 153 112 KUSILE KS-W-DS 0.23 12 <0.005 0.65 6.81 <0.090 200 0.32 368.7 6.18 167.33 78.19 245.52 137.22 116 KS-W-US 0.12 32 <0.005 <0.02 7.47 <0.090 50.49 0.2 272 7.36 92.41 102.88 195.29 11.54 4.73 LT-VR-DS 0.06 17 <0.005 0.45 7.2 0.1 25.31 0.13 178.4 6.55 74.93 49.38 124.31 92.14 61.9 LETHABO LT-VR-US 0.01 9.9 <0.005 0.21 7.44 0.1 11.93 0.12 5.48 67.43 39.51 106.94 49.5 MJ-GK-DS 0.2 14 <0.005 0.03 7.78 <0.090 21.62 0.13 234.3 9.39 89.91 94.65 184.56 62.5 30.1 MAJUBA MJ-GK-US <0.005 26 <0.005 0.9 7.86 <0.090 81.78 0.28 392.8 6.56 149.58 144.03 293.88 31.01 7.54 MJ-TRIB 0.42 22 <0.005 <0.02 7.81 <0.090 41.31 0.17 353.8 8.69 137.36 172.84 310.2 21.97 10.5 ML-DW-TRIB 0.32 16 <0.005 0.96 6.92 <0.090 160 0.14 366.2 4.98 112.39 107 219.39 303.62 183 MATLA ML-TR-DS 0.43 17 <0.005 <0.02 7.11 <0.090 23.73 0.16 184 9.77 77.42 74.07 151.49 108.67 48.9 ML-TR-US 0.06 22 <0.005 <0.02 7.41 <0.090 38.4 0.16 213.9 11 77.42 86.42 163.84 20.14 11 TA-AD-DS 0.13 99 <0.005 <0.02 7.89 <0.090 32.35 0.4 583.9 19 124.88 213.99 388.87 53.88 18.1 TA-LS-DS 0.44 63 <0.005 <0.02 7.44 <0.090 45.72 0.22 412.3 14.1 102.4 131.69 234.09 31.53 17 TUTUKA TA-LS-US 0.42 24 <0.005 <0.02 7.26 <0.090 47.53 0.18 265.6 12.8 99.9 111.11 211.01 93.41 40.9 TA-NT 0.14 110 <0.005 <0.02 7.61 <0.090 140 0.35 598.6 19.2 127.37 131.69 259.06 25.98 10.2 TA-ST 0.08 42 <0.005 1.6 8.18 <0.090 130 0.13 707.7 11.9 119.88 534.98 654.86 28.46 6.68

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:165

Appendix B: Expected fish species (November 2015).

Indigenous Fish Species to Mpumalanga power stations (Incl. Alien Indigenous Species)

Barbus anoplus (Skelton pg. 132)

Barbus neefi (Skelton pg. 140) Barbus pallidus (Skelton pg. 140)

Barbus unitaeniatus (Skelton pg. 141) Barbus trimaculatus (Skelton pg. 150)

Barbus paludinosus (Skelton pg. 160) Labeobarbus kimberleyensis (Skelton pg. 167)

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:166

Labeobarbus aeneus (Skelton pg. 168) Labeobarbus marequensis (Skelton pg. 172)

Labeobarbus polylepis (Skelton pg. 170) Labeo capensis (Skelton pg. 178)

Labeo umbratus (Skelton pg. 177) Amphilius uranoscopus (Skelton pg. 223)

Clarias gariepinus (Skelton pg. 229) Chiloglanis pretoriae (Skelton pg. 246)

Pseudocrenilabrus philander (Skelton pg. 296) Tilapia sparrmanii (Skelton pg. 320) Note: no pictures available for Austroglanis sclateri (Skelton pg. 217).

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:167

Exotic Fish Species Found at Power stations

Cyprinus carpio (Skelton pg. 188) Gambusia affinis (Skelton pg. 278)

Micropterus salmoides (Skelton pg. 286)

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:168

9. DISTRIBUTION LIST

Tebatso Mogale PROJECT MANAGER Sustainability, Departmental Manager

Deidre Herbst CUSTOMER Environmental Steering Committee Chair, Senior Manager, Environmental Management

Gillian Crawford (1 Bound / 1 Unbound) INFORMATION CENTRE HYPERWAVE

ADDITIONAL COPIES Barry Maccoll Investment Committee Chair, General Manager, Research Testing & Development Vanessa Ndlovu Investment Committee Secretariat, Senior Statistician, Energy Analytics Belinda Roos Environmental Steering Committee Secretariat, Advisor, Environmental Management Warren Funston Manager, Centre of Excellence, Biodiversity Kishaylin Chetty Advisor, Centre of Excellence, Biodiversity Gabi Mkhatshwa Manager, Air Quality, Climate Change & Ecosystem Management Jeany Lekganyane Senior Manager Legal, Eskom Corporate Services Division Felicia Sono Senior Advisor, Centre of Excellence, Water Kammy Young Manager, Business Improvement Mohil Singh Manager, Group Capital Environmental Management Dave Lucas Corporate Specialist, Environmental Management Mpetjane Kgole Manager, Centre of Excellence, Water Siven Naidoo Chief Advisor, Research & Operations

REPORT NO : RES/RR/16/1776865 Confidential Page No:169