informe tÉcnico · 2019-03-25 · 1 informe tÉcnico respuesta a sic 14 – ecosistemas acuÁticos...
Post on 06-Aug-2020
11 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
INFORME TÉCNICO
RESPUESTA A SIC 14 – ECOSISTEMAS ACUÁTICOS II
CUECAR S.A. Y BLANVIRA S.A.
Exp. 2018/14000/011210
El presente informe tiene como objetivo dar respuesta a la Solicitud de Información Complementaria 14 (en adelante SIC) realizada por la DINAMA con fecha 4 de feberero del 2019 por informe de la División Emprendimientos de Alta Complejidad respecto a los documentos presentados con la Solicitud de Autorización Ambiental Previa (en adelante SAAP), presentadas por las firmas Cuecar S.A. y Blanvira S.A. para la instalación de una Zona Franca y una Planta de Producción de Celulosa a instalarse en la zona Norte del departamento de Durazno a orillas del río Negro. Dicha SIC es una segunda solicitud referente a la información de Ecosistemas Acuáticos presentada en el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. A continuación se presenta la respuesta a esta SIC.
Muestreos de peces e invertebrados bentónicos
Solicitud:
“(...)””se evidencia la necesidad de acordar entre el titular y DINAMA un diseño de muestreo, el conjunto de variables a medir y los indicadores ambientales para establecer la línea de base de biota acuática previo a seguir realizando actividades de muestreo, so pena de que el esfuerzo que la actividad conlleva no produzca información de utilidad para el objetivo de esta línea de base.”
Respuesta:
En el “Anexo I – Fish community Field Program” se adjunta un documento como adelanto de la respuesta a este punto, documento que ya fue presentado por Ecometrix oralmente ante técnicos de DINAMA en reuniones mantenidas en marzo de 2019. Más adelante se ampliará información para completar esta respuesta.
2
Identificación de zonas de relevancia para la biota
Solicitud:
“La identificación de estas áreas, solicitada mediante la SIC 05 de fecha 20 de noviembre de 2018, es de importancia para la valoración de los impactos de la planta industrial sobre los ecosistemas acuáticos. Asimismo es un insumo fundamental para el diseño de medidas de mitigación, en caso de ser necesario, y para el diseño metodológico del monitoreo de la línea de base de biota acuática y de los monitoreos en la fase de operación.
Para identificar las áreas de relevancia para la biota es necesario contar con un mapa de ambientes acuáticos del medio receptor que permita, al menos, definir potenciales áreas de reproducción, cría y alimentación de especies amenazadas de peces (anexo III en Loureiro et al., 2013) y/o de interés comercial (pesquería).
Para la elaboración del mapa de ambientes acuáticos se entiende necesario que en él se integren, al menos, los siguientes componentes:
1. Profundidad
2. Morfología del margen (ej. playa arenosa, playa pedregosa, barranca)
3. Sustrato/tipo de fondo
4. Velocidad del agua.
5. Vegetación en el margen del curso de agua (con las categorías por ejemplo: plantas emergentes, sumergidas, flotantes, monte ripario, vegetación herbácea, pajonales, juncales, totorales).
En cuanto a la extensión geográfica del mapa de ambientes es necesario que este se extienda, al menos, 5 km aguas abajo y 4 km aguas arriba del punto previsto para la descarga de efluentes. De este modo se pretende relevar las singularidades de todos los sitios a ser utilizados para el monitoreo de línea de base y posterior seguimiento, así como de todos aquellos lugares potencialmente más afectados por tal descarga.
Se deberá presentar a DINAMA una memoria descriptiva de los sitios de relevancia identificados que ameriten alguna actividad específica en cuanto a monitoreo de línea de base y posterior seguimiento, incluyendo su justificación. Asimismo, se deberá incluir una memoria descriptiva del mapa de ambientes acuáticos de todo el tramo de 9 km de extensión antedicho y que comprenda los componentes antes mencionados (1 al 5).
La información cartográfica será presentada también en formato kml, kmz y/o shape incluyendo archivos con las distintas capas de información (profundidad, morfología del margen, sustrato/tipo de fondo, velocidad del agua, vegetación en el margen).
Adicionalmente, y como fuera solicitado en la SIC 05, en base al mapa de zonas de relevancia para la biota se deberá valorar los potenciales efectos de la planta industrial sobre las áreas identificadas, considerando las distintas condiciones hidrológicas posibles del río Negro.”
Respuesta:
En el “Anexo II - Fish Habitat Assessment” se presenta la respuesta a esta solicitud. La traducción de este documento al idioma español será presentada más adelante.
3
Disruptores endócrinos
Solicitud:
“El abordaje realizado por el titular para la evaluación de la potencial afectación del ecosistema acuático por efecto de los efluentes de la planta de celulosa actuando como disruptor endócrino (ED), se centró sobre los efectos en la reproducción de peces.
Por una parte ese análisis concluye que es de esperar un muy bajo riesgo de potenciales efectos reproductivos en peces, en base a una serie de argumentos presentados como “hallazgos clave” que dan contexto y que sustentan en gran parte el análisis realizado, pero sin embargo no se incluyen ni las citas ni las referencias bibliográficas para la mayoría de tales argumentos, lo que dificulta la valoración de la evidencia expuesta. Por lo expuesto se solicita que se incluyan las citas y las referencias bibliográficas que sustentan el análisis de riesgo por contaminación por EDs que ha sido hasta ahora realizado.
Sin perjuicio de la solicitud precedente, corresponde anotar que los EDs actúan también alterando otras funciones en peces, como el desarrollo, funciones tiroideas y alteraciones morfológicas (Pait & Nelson, 2002, Parrott et al., 2004, Mills & Chichester, 2005), y también sobre otros grupos taxonómicos (Matthiessen et al., 2018), cuestiones que no han quedado cubiertas con el análisis hasta ahora presentado. Por ello se deberá ampliar el análisis sobre potenciales interferencias de los EDs a funciones distintas a la reproducción en peces, y se deberá considerar también la potencial afectación sobre otro tipo de organismos.
Por otra parte, para el análisis de riesgo se entiende necesario incluir una descripción de la situación actual del medio receptor en cuanto a la contaminación por EDs, identificando potenciales fuentes de contaminación y vacíos de información existentes. Asimismo se deberá identificar los compuestos presentes en el efluente de la planta con potencial de actuación como EDs, así como las concentraciones esperadas de ellos en la descarga.”
Respuesta:
En el “Anexo III - Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents” y en el “Anexo IV - Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA” se presenta la respuesta a esta solicitud. La traducción de estos documentos al idioma español será presentada más adelante.
Ing. Civil H/S Carlos Amorín Por Estudio Ingeniería Ambiental
»ANEXO I
SIC 14 - ECOSISTEMAS ACUÁTICOS II
Fish Community Field Program
1
Environmental IntelligenceUPM Pulp Mill 18th March 2019
Fish Community Field Program
(2019)
2
Environmental IntelligenceAgenda
• Area Overview
• Field Methods
• Preliminary Results
• Questions and Discussion
3
Environmental IntelligenceSampling Area of the Baygorria Reservoir
Zone 1
(NF)
Zone 2
(FF)
Zone 3
(Ref)
Study area is located in
the upstream area of
the reservoir, as such, it
behaves as a river.
4
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Sampling
• Three primary habitat types were fished in each
zone; main channel, island channel, and lagoons.
• In zone one the main channel was sampled in the
area of the proposed location for the intake and
discharge pipe locations.
• All areas were sampled in triplicate during the day.
Additionally, night sampling was conducted within
the lagoon areas of each zone.
• Each net set included a NORDIC Net and a larger
mesh gillnet.
• Due to a change in weather, the fishing program
was stopped. It will be completed in March.
5
Environmental IntelligenceFish Sampling Areas
Zone AreaID Day/Night Habitat Other Net Type# of Net
Sets
# of Netsets
Completed
NORDIC 3 2
Large Mesh 3 2
NORDIC 3 3
Large Mesh 3 2
NORDIC 3 3
Large Mesh 3 2
NORDIC 3 2
Large Mesh 3 3
NORDIC 3 3
Large Mesh 3 3
NORDIC 3 3
Large Mesh 3 3
NORDIC 3 3
Large Mesh 3 3
NORDIC 3 3
Large Mesh 3 3
NORDIC 3 3
Large Mesh 3 3
NORDIC 3 0
Large Mesh 3 0
NORDIC 3 0
Large Mesh 3 0
NORDIC 3 0
Large Mesh 3 0
NORDIC 3 0
Large Mesh 3 0
NORDIC 3 0
Large Mesh 3 0
Main Channel
Lagoon
Island Channel
-
-
Intake
Dischage
-
-
Island Channel
Lagoon
Main Channel
Lagoon
Main Channel
Island Channel
K
N
D
D
N
D
D
N
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
3
1
2
D
A
B
C
D
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
AB
C
D
E
FG
Fish sampling to be conducted in March identified by grey highlight.
6
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community (Preliminary Results)
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
AB
C
D
E
FG
• Main Channel – Areas C (Ref Zone 3), F (NF Zone
1, intake), and G (NF Zone 1, discharge).
• Lagoon – Areas B (Ref Zone 3), D (NF Zone 1, US
intake), and E (NF Zone 1, DS intake).
• Island Channel – Area A (Ref Zone 3)
For each of the three comparisons the
following endpoints were calculated and
graphed; CPUE, BPUE, and Richness.
Species lists are also presented.
7
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Main Channel (Preliminary Results)
NORDIC LargeMesh
NORDIC LargeMesh
NORDIC LargeMesh
Ref Intake Discharge
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CP
UE
(#/h
ou
r)
* *
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
C
FG
(C) (F) (G)
* Identifies when symbols overlap.
8
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Main Channel (Preliminary Results)
NORDIC LargeMesh
NORDIC LargeMesh
NORDIC LargeMesh
Ref Intake Discharge
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
BP
UE
(g
/ho
ur)
*
*
*
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
C
FG
(C) (F) (G)
* Identifies when symbols overlap.
9
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Main Channel (Preliminary Results)
NORDIC LargeMesh
NORDIC LargeMesh
NORDIC LargeMesh
Ref Intake Discharge
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Ric
hn
ess
* * *
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
C
FG
(C) (F) (G)
* Identifies when symbols overlap.
10
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Main Channel (Preliminary Results)
Area
# of Net Sets 2 3 3 3 3 3
Net Type NORDIC Large Mesh NORDIC Large Mesh NORDIC Large Mesh
Apareiodon affinis x x x
Astyanax rutilus x x x
Astyanax sp. x
Bryconamericus iheringii x x x
Characidium aff. Zebra x x
Characidium sp. x
Characidium sp. / Apareiodon affinis x
Crenicichla minuano x x
Crenicichla sp. x x
Cyanocharax alburnus x x x
Cyphocharax voga x x
Diapoma terofali x x x
F. Cichlidae x
Gymnogeophagus sp. x x
Gymnogeophagus tiraparae x
Hoplias lacerdae x
Hypostomus aspilogaster x x
Hypostomus commersoni x x x
Mojarra x
Mojarra tipo 1 x
Mojarra tipo 2 x
Mojarra tipo 3 x
Mojarra tipo 4 x
Odontesthes humensis x x x
Oligosarcus jenynsii x
Oligosarcus oligolepis x x x
Platanichthys platana x x x
Vieja del agua (no ID) x
- Identifes priority speies for conservation
Ref Intake Discharge
bold - identifies a species that is threatened in Uraguay
11
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Lagoons (Preliminary Results)
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
Ref Day Ref Night US Day DS Day DS Night
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CP
UE
(#/h
ou
r)
*
* *
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
B
D
E
(B) (B) (D) (E) (E)
* Identifies when symbols overlap.
12
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Lagoons (Preliminary Results)
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
Ref Day Ref Night US Day DS Day DS Night
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
BP
UE
(g
/ho
ur)
*
*
*
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
B
D
E
(B) (B) (D) (E) (E)
* Identifies when symbols overlap.
13
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Lagoons (Preliminary Results)
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
NO
RD
IC
La
rge M
esh
Ref Day Ref Night US Day DS Day DS Night
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Ric
hn
ess
**
**
**
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
B
D
E
(B) (B) (D) (E) (E)
* Identifies when symbols overlap.
14
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Lagoons (Preliminary Results)
Area
Day/Night
# of Net Sets 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Net Type NORDIC Large Mesh NORDIC Large Mesh NORDIC Large Mesh NORDIC Large Mesh NORDIC Large Mesh
Apareiodon affinis x x x x x
Astyanax rutilus x x x x
Astyanax sp. x
Bryconamericus iheringii x x x x x
Characidium aff. Zebra x x
Charax stenopterus x
Corydoras paleatus x
Crenicichla minuano x
Crenicichla sp. x
Cyanocharax alburnus x x x x
Cyphocharax voga x x x x
Diapoma terofali x x x
Eigenmannia virescens x
Gymnogeophagus gymnogenys x
Gymnogeophagus sp. x x
Hoplias lacerdae x
Hoplias malabaricus x x
Hypostomus commersoni x
Iheringichthys labrosus x x x x x x
Loricariichthys anus x
Mojarra (no ID) x
Odontesthes humensis x x x x
Oligosarcus jenynsii x x x x x
Oligosarcus oligolepis x x x x x
Pachyurus bonariensis x x x
Parapimelodus valenciennis x
Pimelodus maculatus x x
Platanichthys platana x x
Rhamdia quelen x
Rhinelepis strigosa x x x x x x
Trachelyopterus lucenai x
Trachelyopterus teaguei x x
Vieja (no ID) x
- Identifes species with conservation status.
bold - identifies a species that is threatened in Uraguay
Ref US of Intake DS of Intake
Day Night Day Day Night
15
Environmental IntelligenceFish Community Island Channels (Preliminary Results)
NORDIC Large Mesh
Ref
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
CP
UE
(#/h
ou
r)
*
NORDIC Large Mesh
Ref
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
BP
UE
(g
/ho
ur)
*
NORDIC Large Mesh
Ref
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14R
ich
ness
*
Zone
1
Zone
3
A
Area
# of Net Sets 2 2
Net Type NORDIC Large Mesh
Apareiodon affinis x
Astyanax rutilus x
Bryconamericus iheringii x
Cyanocharax alburnus x
Cyphocharax voga x
Iheringichthys labrosus x
Mojarra (no ID) x
Odontesthes humensis x
Oligosarcus jenynsii x
Oligosarcus oligolepis x
Pachyurus bonariensis x
Platanichthys platana x
- Identifes species with conservation status.
Ref
bold - identifies a species that is threatened in Uraguay(A)
(A) (A)
* Identifies when symbols overlap.
16
Environmental IntelligenceSummary of Fish Sampling Program (Preliminary Results)
• Main Channel – CPUE, BPUE, Richness and Species similar between areas.
• Lagoons - CPUE, BPUE, Richness and Species was similar between lagoons D and E.
Lagoon B has similar richness and species composition to D and E but has lower CPUE
and BPUE than D and E – this may be due to variability or size (I.e. lagoon B is 1/4 the
size of lagoon D and 1/8 the size of lagoon E.
• Island Channel – yet to be determined.
• Fish sampling program to be completed in March.
• Once the fish sampling program has been completed a full report will be issued.
17
Environmental IntelligenceFurther Discussion
Gracias!
ANEXO II »SIC 14 - ECOSISTEMAS ACUÁTICOS II
Fish Habitat Assessment
UPM Pulp Mill Fish Habitat Assessment for a Proposed Pulp Mill along the Río Negro at Paso de los Toros, Durazno Department, Uruguay
Report prepared for: Blanvira S.A. Avenida Italia 7519, Piso 2 Montevideo, Uruguay Report prepared by: ECOMETRIX INCORPORATED www.ecometrix.ca Mississauga, ON Ref. 18-2534 1 March 2019
UPM Pulp Mill Fish Habitat Assessment for a Proposed Pulp Mill along the Río Negro at Paso de los Toros, Durazno Department, Uruguay Michael White, Ph.D Project Manager
______________________________________ Nicholas Edmunds, M.Sc. Biologist and GIS Analyst Brian Fraser, M.Sc. Project Principal and Reviewer
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
UPM retained EcoMetrix Incorporated (EcoMetrix) in partnership with Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay (LATU) to characterize aquatic habitats in an area of the Rio Negro near Paso de los Toros, Durazno Department, Uruguay. The characterization was completed to support efforts related to the environmental approvals processes for the proposed UPM pulp mill development.
Field surveys were undertaken in February 2019 within a study area comprising an approximate 10 km reach of the Rio Negro downstream of Paso de los Toros. The study area was divided into three zones; Zone 1 - in the immediate vicinity of the proposed mill effluent outfall and water intake; Zone 2 - downstream of Zone 1 to the maximum extent of the hydrodynamic mixing zone as determined by predictive modeling; and, Zone 3 - upstream of the proposed mill site. Shoreline and vegetation features, bottom substrate types and river bathymetry were mapped to better understand the spatial distribution of fish habitat and potential fish habitat use within the study area.
Within the study area no uncommon features were identified pertaining to fish habitat. While variability in habitat exists, the river provides similar fish habitat among each of the study zones.
The following features were identified as potentially important areas of fish habitat:
• Lagoons – Lagoons are backwater areas that occur outside the margins of the main river channel. These areas provide macrophyte complexity and are lentic or quiescent zones that provide refuge from the high velocity flows often seen in the main river channel. The lagoons provide nursery and rearing habitat for young-of-the-year, juvenile and other small fish.
• Island channels – Island channels occur between the river shoreline and islands that occur in the main river channel. These areas provide similar macrophyte habitat complexity as that found in lagoons with some overbank cover. The gentler flows and cover provided in the island channels provide nursery and rearing habitat for young-of-the-year, juvenile and other small fish.
• River Margins (Riparian and Littoral Zones) – River margins of the main channel are vegetated and also provide areas of refuge for young-of-the-year, juvenile and other small fish in particular. In general, the riparian and littoral zones of the main channel were limited in spatial extent due to local land uses and relatively steep banks compared to lagoon and island channel habitats.
The area occupied by the effluent mixing zone is not expected to have an effect on fish habitat as this substrate type is common throughout the main channel of the study area.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Table of Contents
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.1
1.1 Terms of Reference ...............................................................................................1.2
1.2 Objectives ..............................................................................................................1.2
1.3 Report Format .......................................................................................................1.3
2.0 WORK SCOPE ......................................................................................................2.1
2.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................2.1
2.2 Characterization of Shoreline Habitats and Vegetation ..........................................2.3
2.2.1 Field Procedure ........................................................................................2.3
2.2.2 ArcGIS .....................................................................................................2.3
2.3 Characterization of Bottom Substrates ...................................................................2.3
2.3.1 Field Procedure ........................................................................................2.3
2.3.2 Arc GIS.....................................................................................................2.4
2.4 Characterization of Bathymetry ..............................................................................2.4
3.0 SHORELINE HABITAT AND VEGETATION .........................................................3.1
4.0 BOTTOM SUBSTRATES ......................................................................................4.1
5.0 Bathymetry ...........................................................................................................5.1
6.0 KEY RESULTS .....................................................................................................6.1
Appendix A Terms of Reference ............................................................................... A.1
Appendix B Shoreline Habitat Field Sheets ............................................................. B.2
Appendix C Petite Ponar Sampling Field Sheets ..................................................... C.3
Appendix D Photo Documentation ........................................................................... D.4
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Table of Contents
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 iii
LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Percent length of shoreline coverage for each aquatic vegetation type within the study area located on the Rio Negro. ................................................................................3.2 Table 3-2: Percent area coverage for each aquatic vegetation type within the study area located on the Rio Negro...................................................................................................3.2 Table 4-1: Percent area coverage for each substrate type within the study area located on the Rio Negro. ...................................................................................................................4.2
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Site Location – Proposed UPM Mill Site .......................................................1.2 Figure 2-1: Location Map of Study Area located on the Rio Negro. ...................................2.2 Figure 3-1: Vegetation types found within the study area of the Rio Negro. ......................3.3 Figure 3-2: Aquatic vegetation map of the full study area located on the Rio Negro. .........3.4 Figure 3-3: Aquatic vegetation map of Zone 1 located on the Rio Negro. ..........................3.5 Figure 3-4: Aquatic vegetation map of Zone 2 located on the Rio Negro. ..........................3.6 Figure 3-5: Aquatic vegetation map of Zone 3 located on the Rio Negro. ..........................3.7 Figure 4-1: Substrate types found within the study area of the Rio Negro. ........................4.3 Figure 4-2: Substrate map of the full study area located on the Rio Negro. .......................4.4 Figure 4-3: Substrate map of Zone 1 located on the Rio Negro. ........................................4.5 Figure 4-4: Substrate map of Zone 2 located on the Rio Negro. ........................................4.6 Figure 4-5: Substrate map of Zone 3 located on the Rio Negro. ........................................4.7 Figure 5-1 Bathymetry of the full study area located on the Rio Negro. .............................5.2
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Introduction
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 1.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION UPM is considering alternatives for long-term development in Uruguay. This involves the construction of a state-of-the-art pulp mill near Paso de los Toros, Durazno Department, Uruguay, as shown in Figure 1-1. The mill will have a production capacity of 2,100,000 air dry tonnes per year (ADt/yr).
UPM set a design criteria for the project to include compliance with current Uruguayan legislation, as well as compliance with international standards and recommendations for modern mills as stated in the EU Best Available Techniques (BAT).
To move forward the project requires an environmental authorization (Autorización Ambiental Previa, or AAP). To obtain the AAP, the project has to be communicated to the Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente (MVOTMA) through a Project Communication, an Environmental Location Viability (VAL) has to be obtained and, following project classification by MVOTMA, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will be completed.
UPM retained EcoMetrix Incorporated (EcoMetrix) in partnership with Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay (LATU) to characterize aquatic habitats in an area of the Rio Negro near the proposed mill site. The characterization was completed to support efforts related to the environmental approvals processes for the mill.
This report presents the findings of the field survey described in the Terms of Reference (ToR) as it relates to fish habitat. In particular, shoreline habitat and bottom substrates were mapped to better understand the spatial distribution of fish habitat within the relevant section of the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Introduction
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 1.2
Figure 1-1: Site Location – Proposed UPM Mill Site
1.1 Terms of Reference
A Terms of Reference (ToR) for an aquatic habitat survey was developed by EcoMetrix in partnership with LATU (see Appendix A). The ToR was submitted to and reviewed by DINAMA and recommendations were provided.
The revised aquatic habitat survey work scope that is described in detail in Section 2.0 was executed in February 2019. Briefly, aquatic habitats were characterized within a study area comprising an approximate 9 km reach of the Rio Negro downstream of Paso de los Toros. The study area was divided into three zones --- Zone 1 – in the immediate vicinity of the proposed mill effluent outfall and water intake; Zone 2 – downstream of Zone 1 to the maximum extent of the hydrodynamic mixing zone as determined by predictive modeling; and, Zone 3 – upstream of the proposed mill site. Shoreline and vegetation features and bottom substrate types were mapped in each zone.
Minor deviations from the planned sampling program were made due to conditions encountered in the field. These deviations are highlighted in Appendix A. The deviations did not negatively affect the habitat characterization program, nor the interpretation of the habitat information collected during the program.
1.2 Objectives
The primary objective of this assessment was to characterize aquatic habitats to develop a
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Introduction
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 1.3
greater understanding of the spatial distribution of fish habitat and potential fish habitat use within the study area. The results of this assessment support the ongoing assessment of the potential effects (if any) that may be associated with the development and operations of the proposed pulp mill.
1.3 Report Format
Following this introductory section, the remainder of this report is organized as follows:
• Section 2.0 describes the work scope and detailed methodologies that were employed to execute the habitat characterization program;
• Section 3.0 describes the results of program with regards to shoreline habitats;
• Section 4.0 describes the results of program with regards to bottom substrates;
• Section 5.0 describes the results of program with regards to bathymetry; and,
• Section 6.0 provides and overall summary and interpretation of the habitat characterization survey program.
Raw data and photographic records collected during the field sampling program are provided in Appendix B, Appendix C and Appendix D.
.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Work Scope
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 2.1
2.0 WORK SCOPE The work scope is described below in terms of the three main components, shoreline habitats and vegetation, bottom substrates and bathymetry. The field survey for this study was conducted between the 4th and 9th of February, 2019.
2.1 Study Area
The study area is inclusive of a length of the river that extends from approximately 4 km upstream of the proposed water intake and effluent outfall location to 5 km downstream, covering a total river length of approximately 9 km. This area has been sectioned into three survey zones, Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 (Figure 2-1).
Zone 1 is the area in the vicinity of the proposed water intake and effluent outfall structures. Zone 1 encompasses a length of river extending from approximately 1 km upstream of the proposed water intake and effluent outfall structures to approximately 2 km downstream and includes the main river channel, as well as backwater areas (lagoons and island side channels). Survey efforts were most intense in this zone relative to the other zones, as potential direct project-related effects, such as those related to construction of the water intake and effluent outfall and entrainment of aquatic biota during operations, could be manifested. The approximate location and area of the 2% effluent mixing zone1 is depicted in this zone (Figure 2-1).
Zone 2 extends along the river beyond Zone 1, encompassing a length of river of approximately 3 km. The aquatic survey program was completed in the main river channel, as well as backwater areas (lagoons and island side channels). Survey components undertaken in Zone 2 included three ponar samples per transect as oppose to five in Zone 1, but were otherwise identical.
Zone 3 is the area upstream of Zone 1 and is therefore upstream of the location of the proposed pulp mill. Under the current proposed mill configuration, this area would have no direct or indirect interaction will the mill and can serve as a reference area. Zone 3 encompasses a 3 km stretch of river immediately upstream of Zone 1. The aquatic survey program was completed in the main river channel, as well as backwater areas (lagoons and island side channels). Survey components undertaken in Zone 3 were the same as those in Zone 2 in terms of both scope and effort.
1 Response to the 28th December 2018 letter from MVOTMA, mixing zone - UPDATED, 7th March 2019.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Work Scope
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 2.2
Figure 2-1: Location Map of Study Area located on the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Work Scope
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 2.3
2.2 Characterization of Shoreline Habitats and Vegetation
To identify areas that may be important as fish habitat shoreline vegetation and habitat features were mapped.
2.2.1 Field Procedure
Habitat mapping consisted of the boat operator slowly driving the shoreline while an observer recorded habitat features on waterproof field sheets that were preprinted with the outline of the shoreline. Each lagoon had its own outline map (8.5 by 11 inch) and the main channel was comprised of multiple outline maps, each defining a separate portion of the main channel.
Mapped shoreline habitat included the following:
• Shoreline vegetation type and location;
• Macrophyte type and location;
• General habitat features (boulders, logs, other); and,
• Photo documentation of different habitat types.
2.2.2 ArcGIS
All information was input into Arc GIS and tables for each zone were generated for percent vegetation type (length and area) within the main channel (including island side channels) and lagoon habitats.
2.3 Characterization of Bottom Substrates
Petite ponar grabs of the substrate were taken at transects spaced at 200 meter intervals in all zones. In Zone 1, five petite ponars were taken along each transect and in Zones 2 and 3, three petite ponars were taken in each transect. Island channels were identified as a prominent feature, and single ponar grab were taken in the center of each island channel at 200 meter intervals in each zone. Petite ponar sampling was also conducted in lagoons. In large and small lagoons, 10 and 5 petite ponar grabs were taken, respectively.
2.3.1 Field Procedure
At each location the following was conducted:
• Boat was anchored;
• Technician 1 lowered petite ponar, retrieved sample, and placed sample in bin;
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Work Scope
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 2.4
• Technician 1 then deployed a velocity meter at 1 meter depth;
• On a custom field sheet (Appendix B), Technician 2 recorded water velocity, recorded GPS coordinates, recorded sample depth, took photo(s) of the substrate, recorded photo numbers, recorded sediment character, and recorded any vegetation if present.
2.3.2 Arc GIS
Substrate information was input into Arc GIS and the natural neighbor interpolation function was used to create a substrate map of the study area. Tables for each zone were generated for percent substrate type (area) within the main channel (including island side channels) and lagoon habitats.
2.4 Characterization of Bathymetry
The depth data that was acquired at each petite ponar sampling station (Section 2.3) was used to generate a general bathymetric map of the study area. The depth data was input into Arc GIS and the natural neighbor interpolation function was used to create depth contours of the river bathymetry.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Shoreline Habitat
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 3.1
3.0 SHORELINE HABITAT AND VEGETATION A total of seven aquatic vegetation types were identified in the study area: flooded shrub (FS); emergent grass (EG); emergent macrophyte (EM); floating macrophyte (FM); emergent reed (ER); submergent macrophyte low (SL); and, submergent macrophyte high (SH) (Figure 3-1).
The seven aquatic vegetation types would often occur in various combinations as can be seen in the vegetation maps (Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-5). The vegetation maps presented in this report are representative of the length of shoreline covered (Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-5) and not actual area coverage. However, macrophyte area was recorded and the results are presented in tabular format.
Within the main channel, submergent low macrophytes and submerged grass covered more than 80% of the shoreline in all zones (Table 3-1). Similarly, with the exception of 57% emergent grass cover in Zone 1 lagoons, submergent low macrophytes and emergent grass also covered more than 80% of the shoreline within lagoons.
Flooded shrub (Figure 3-1,a) was found at slightly lower coverage (~70%) but was also similar between zones, as well as, main channel and lagoon habitats (Table 3-1).
Emergent macrophytes covered 55% of Zone 1 lagoon shorelines and 30% of Zone 2 main channel and lagoon shorelines, in all other areas they covered 5% or less of the shoreline (Table 3-1).
The highest percentage of floating macrophyte was found in Zone 2 lagoons (45%) with all other areas covering 6% or less of the shoreline.
Emergent reed covered 29% of the lagoon shorelines in Zone 2, and 9% and 11% of Zone 1 lagoon and main channel shorelines, respectively.
Submergent high macrophyte (Figure 3-1,g) was rarely encountered in the study area (Table 3-1). Tabulation of percent macrophyte surface area coverage (Table 3-2) presents analogous findings to that of percent linear coverage.
While the submergent low and emergent grass provides marginal habitat for fish, as they are sparsely distributed, the other vegetation types provide excellent habitat for forage fish as they provide structural complexity within the water column and occur with sufficient density to provide refuge from predators.
In areas where only emergent grass and submergent low macrophyte exist, it is apparent that the lack of other aquatic vegetation is largely due to cattle having access to the shoreline.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Shoreline Habitat
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 3.2
Due to the small area of the mixing zone within the central portion of the main channel (Figure 3-3), the proposed pulp mill is not expected to have an effect on the shoreline vegetation or the fish habitat it provides.
Table 3-1: Percent length of shoreline coverage for each aquatic vegetation type within the study area located on the Rio Negro.
Table 3-2: Percent area coverage for each aquatic vegetation type within the study area located on the Rio Negro.
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3EM 24% 31% 5% 5% 31% 5% 55% 29% 0%EG 70% 90% 96% 78% 87% 95% 57% 100% 100%FM 3% 16% 0% 5% 6% 0% 0% 45% 0%FS 60% 70% 63% 78% 66% 63% 30% 81% 64%SH 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%SL 95% 98% 99% 92% 97% 99% 100% 100% 100%ER 3% 15% 0% 0% 11% 0% 9% 29% 0%
Total Main Channel LagoonHabitat
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3EM 0.12% 1.23% 0.09% 0.01% 1.02% 0.10% 3.47% 2.60% 0.00%EG 0.29% 3.20% 2.90% 0.16% 2.39% 2.61% 4.43% 8.46% 8.64%FM 0.03% 0.60% 0.00% 0.03% 0.21% 0.00% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00%FS 0.25% 2.86% 1.94% 0.10% 2.26% 1.72% 4.62% 6.79% 6.32%SH 0.05% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.44% 0.46% 0.00%SL 0.36% 3.76% 2.94% 0.17% 3.04% 2.66% 6.14% 8.46% 8.64%ER 0.05% 2.02% 0.32% 0.00% 1.10% 0.33% 1.47% 7.98% 0.00%
Total Main Channel LagoonHabitat
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Shoreline Habitat
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 3.3
Figure 3-1: Vegetation types found within the study area of the Rio Negro.
Panel a) flooded shrub (FS), b) emergent grass (EG), c) emergent macrophyte (EM), d) floating macrophyte (FM), e) emergent reed (ER), f) submergent macrophyte low (SL), and g) submergent macrophyte high (SH).
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Shoreline Habitat
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 3.4
Figure 3-2: Aquatic vegetation map of the full study area located on the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Shoreline Habitat
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 3.5
Figure 3-3: Aquatic vegetation map of Zone 1 located on the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Shoreline Habitat
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 3.6
Figure 3-4: Aquatic vegetation map of Zone 2 located on the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Shoreline Habitat
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 3.7
Figure 3-5: Aquatic vegetation map of Zone 3 located on the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 4.1
4.0 BOTTOM SUBSTRATES A total of six substrate types were identified in the study area: clay; silt/mud; sand; gravel; cobble; and, bedrock (Figure 4-1). Across the whole study area, substrate was sampled using a petite ponar at 251 sampling locations (Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-5, blue circles depict ponar sampling locations). No aquatic vegetation was found in any of the substrate samples.
Main Channel Substrate (including side channels)
All six substrate types were found in the main channel section of each zone (Table 4-1). However, clay and silt/mud substrate were uncommon and covered approximately 2% and 7% of the river bottom, respectively. Zone 1 and Zone 2 had very similar percent composition of substrates with Zone 1 being dominated by gravel (40%) followed by sand (35%) and Zone 2 being dominated by sand (50%) followed by gravel (23%)(Table 4-1). Zone 3 had similar proportions of sand, gravel, cobble and bedrock of approximately 20% each.
It is noted that a commercial sand dredging barge was seen operating along the west shore of the island chain located in Zone 2.
Lagoon Substrate
Clay and bedrock substrate types were not present in any lagoons (Table 4-1). Lagoons in Zones 2 and 3 were dominated by sand with values of 81% and 91%, respectively; whereas, lagoons in Zone 1 were dominated by silt/mud (50%) followed by sand (44%). The greater percentage of silt/mud in Zone 1 lagoons may be attributed to their larger size which may allow tributary sediments to settle in the lagoon before entering the main channel.
Water velocity
Although water velocity is largely regulated by hydroelectric dam activity, it is noted that flow was not present in the central portions of the lagoons. The flow through the island channels was approximately 75% less than that of the midsection of the main channel. Water velocity at each ponar station is presented in Appendix B.
The lentic and shallow nature of the lagoons provides nursery habitat for young of year fish, while the island channel section provides forage habitat for fish before they are able to adequately navigate the stronger flows of the main channel section.
The proposed location of the effluent diffuser and associated area of the mixing zone lies over a small area of gravel substrate (Figure 4-3). This substrate is plentiful throughout the study area of the Rio Negro (Figure 4-2), as such, the proposed pulp mill is not expected to effect fish habitat within the study area of the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 4.2
Table 4-1: Percent area coverage for each substrate type within the study area located on the Rio Negro.
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3Clay 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0%Silt/mud 19% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 50% 16% 4%Sand 37% 53% 25% 35% 50% 22% 44% 81% 91%Gravel 31% 21% 25% 40% 23% 26% 7% 3% 5%Cobble 9% 12% 20% 12% 14% 20% 0% 0% 0%Bedrock 3% 5% 21% 4% 5% 21% 0% 0% 0%
Habitat Total Main Channel Lagoon
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 4.3
Figure 4-1: Substrate types found within the study area of the Rio Negro.
Panel a) clay, b) silt/mud, c) sand, d) gravel, e) cobble, and f) bedrock.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 4.4
Figure 4-2: Substrate map of the full study area located on the Rio Negro.
Blue circles identify ponar sampling locations.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 4.5
Figure 4-3: Substrate map of Zone 1 located on the Rio Negro.
Blue circles identify ponar sampling locations.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 4.6
Figure 4-4: Substrate map of Zone 2 located on the Rio Negro.
Blue circles identify ponar sampling locations.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 4.7
Figure 4-5: Substrate map of Zone 3 located on the Rio Negro.
Blue circles identify ponar sampling locations.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 5.1
5.0 Bathymetry A general bathymetric map was also created using the depth data from each ponar sampling station (Figure 4-6). This map indicates that the mid channel depth of Zone 3 is relatively deeper than that of Zones 1 and 2 each having average depths of approximately 10, 8 and 7 meters, respectively. Similarly, the slope of the submerged bank of the main channel is steeper in Zone 3 compared to the other two zones. The bathymetric map also indicates that lagoons are roughly 2 to 3 meters deep and that the narrow island channels are approximately 3 to 4 meters deep.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Bottom Substrate
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 5.2
Figure 5-1 Bathymetry of the full study area located on the Rio Negro.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT References
Ref. 18-25 1 March 2019 6.1
6.0 KEY RESULTS Within the study area no uncommon features were identified pertaining to fish habitat. While variability in habitat exists, the river provides similar fish habitat among each of the study zones.
Lagoons are important areas of fish habitat. Lagoons are backwater areas that occur outside the margins of the main river channel. These areas provide macrophyte complexity and are lentic or quiescent zones that provide refuge from the high velocity flows often seen in the main river channel. The lagoons provide nursery and rearing habitat for young-of-the-year, juvenile and other small fish.
Island channels occur between the river shoreline and islands that occur in the main river channel. These areas provide similar macrophyte habitat complexity as that found in lagoons with some overbank cover. The gentler flows and cover provided in the island channels provide nursery and rearing habitat for young-of-the-year, juvenile and other small fish.
Areas along the river margins of the main channel are vegetated and also provide areas of refuge for young-of-the-year, juvenile and other small fish in particular. In general, the riparian and littoral zones of the main channel were limited in spatial extent due to local land uses and relatively steep banks compared to lagoon and island channel habitats.
The area occupied by the effluent mixing zone is not expected to have an effect on fish habitat as this substrate type is common throughout the main channel of the study area.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Appendix A
Appendix A Terms of Reference
6800 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 794-2325 Fax: (905) 794-2338 Toll-Free: 1-800-361-2325 www.ecometrix.ca
MEMO
To: Gervasio Gonzalez
From: Brian Fraser, Michael
White, Rob Eakins, Nicholas Edmunds, Paul Patrick, Bruce Rodgers
Ref: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Date: 28 January 2019
The following provides a Terms of Reference (ToR) for the implementation of an aquatic field survey to support efforts related to environmental impacts assessment and licensing processes for the proposed UPM pulp mill development on the Rio Negro near Paso de les Toros, Duranzo Department, Uruguay. The overall objective of the field survey is to collect detailed fish and aquatic habitat information within an area that encompasses the proposed water intake and effluent outfall structures and extends downstream to capture the full extent of the effluent mixing zone, as defined by predictive modelling completed by Dr. Piedra-Cueva. This ToR has been developed in consideration of discussions between UPM and DINAMA regarding recommendations for additional information that will aid in DINAMA’s decision-making process to advance the proposed project to the next phase. Study Area The proposed study area is shown in Figure 1. The study area is inclusive of a length of the river that extends from approximately 1 km upstream of the proposed water intake and effluent outfall location to the edge of the effluent mixing zone, a total river length of approximately 6.5 km. For the purpose of the study two sampling zones have been defined – Zone 1 and Zone 2. Zone 1 is the area in the vicinity of the proposed water intake and effluent outfall structures. Zone 1 encompasses a length of river extending from about 1 km upstream of the proposed water intake and effluent outfall structures to approximately 2 km downstream and includes the main river channel, as well as backwater areas (lagoons). Survey efforts will be relatively intensive in this area, as potential direct project-related effects, such as those related to construction of the water intake and effluent outfall and entrainment of aquatic biota during operations, could be manifested. In addition, effluent concentrations in this initial, near-field area of the mixing zone will be relatively high and therefore represent the upper-bound condition for effluent exposure of aquatic biota.
25 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 2 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Zone 2 extends along the river beyond Zone 1 to the full extent of the mixing zone, encompassing a length of river of approximately 3.5 km. The aquatic survey program will be completed in the main river channel, as well as backwater areas (lagoons), as appropriate. Survey components undertaken in Zone 2 will be the same as in Zone 1, though sampling will less intensive. The primary interaction between the project and aquatic biota in this area in via the effluent exposure pathway, with Zone 2 representing an area where lower effluent concentrations (on a % v/v in river water basis) will be found as effluent continues to be diluted through hydrodynamic mixing process.
Figure 1. Aquatic Assessment Study Area
25 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 3 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Schedule and Level of Effort The field work is scheduled to begin on-site on February 4th, 2019. It is expected that the work scope described below can be accomplished over a five- to seven-day period assuming that three field crews (two to three people each) can be mobilized to the site with sufficient resources (e.g., boats, gill nets, depth sounders, etc.). It is envisioned that two field crews would complete the fish community assessment (one crew in Zone 1 and one crew in Zone 2) and one field crew would be responsible for the habitat aquatic mapping over the entirety of the study area. Aquatic Habitat Characterization Aquatic habitat will be surveyed to allow a detailed habitat map to be produced. Aquatic habitat characterization consists of two parts, one involves petite Ponar sampling to confirm bottom substrate type and the other involves shoreline habitat mapping to document shoreline features, in particular those that may provide unique or preferred aquatic habitat for resident aquatic species. Bottom Substrates In Zones 1 and 2, petite ponar grabs of the substrate will be taken at transects that will be spaced at 100 meter intervals. In Zone 1, five petite ponars will be taken along each transect and in Zone 2, three ponars will be taken in each transect (Figure 2). Island channels have also been identified as a prominent feature, and single ponar grab will be taken in the center of each island channel at 100 meter intervals. Ponar sampling will also occur in lagoons. Dependent upon the size of the lagoon, 5 to 10 petite ponar grabs will be taken in each lagoon. It is estimated that all ponar sampling will take 4 days (assuming a 10-hour work day); 2 day for main channel zone one, 1 day for main channel zone two, and 1 day for lagoons. An additional day will be needed to conduct the visual shoreline habitat assessment. Therefore, it is anticipated the field program to conduct the aquatic habitat characterization component will require 5 (10-hour) work days. The following sampling routine for petite Ponar sampling is proposed:
• Have GPS coordinates preloaded into GPS unit, identifying sample transects and sampling locations.
• Follow coordinates to the first transect. • Sample each transect from one shoreline to the opposite shoreline • Once at sample location boat captain will hold boat in location (depending on
current and wind condition boat may need to be anchored). • Technician 1 lowers petite ponar, retrieves sample, and places sample in bin. • If a successful sample is taken, technician 1 then lowers a velocity meter.
25 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 4 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
• If a successful sample is taken, technician 2 records water velocity, records GPS coordinates (if different than those provided), records sample depth, takes 2 photos (1 of minimally disturbed ponar the other after the sediment has been stirred with a spoon), records photo numbers, records sediment character, and records any vegetation that is present.
• After technician 1 has recorded GPS, water velocity, and depth the boat captain can proceed to the next sample station while technician 1 records the remaining information descripted in the previous bullet.
• In lagoons, habitat mapping should occur with ponar sampling, in the main channel habitat mapping should occur on a separate day. The rational for this is to increase efficiency of the overall field program.
A field sampling form is attached for reference. Shoreline Habitat Habitat mapping consists of the boat operator slowing driving the shoreline while an observer records habitat on waterproof field sheets that have been preprinted with the outline of the shoreline. Each lagoon will have its own outline map (8.5 by 11 inch) and the main channel will be comprised of multiple outline maps, each defining a separate portion of the main channel. At a minimum the following will be mapped:
• North arrow; • Shoreline vegetation type and location; • Macrophyte type and location; • Habitat features (boulders, logs, other); and, • Noticeable current location.
An example of a habitat map that has been marked up in the field during surveying (Figure 3) and a final report-ready map (Figure 4) are provided for reference.
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 5 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Figure 2: Hypothetical river cross section with ponar sampling locations.
- Facing upstream ponars are sampled from left to right.- Shoreline ponars are sampled between 1.0 and 1.5 meters depth- A centre ponar is taken in the middle of the channel- For zone one, ponars 3 and 4 are to be taken midway between the centre and
shoreline ponars.
T1P1Depth (m)
1
2
3
4
0
T1P2 T1P3 T1P4 T1P5
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 6 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Figure 3: Sample field survey map
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 7 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Figure 4: Sample report ready habitat map.
Depth (m)
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Habitat Legend N
Description Typical Shoreline* Shallow Sand Beach Boulders Along Shore Logs Bog (shrubs directly over water) Submergent / Emergent Macrophytes Submerged Sand Bar
Inlet / Outlet Profile Location
100m
*Rocky shore with overhanging shrubs, quickly transitioning to sandy bottom, and shallow sandy beaches with patchy emergent vegetation
Key Features
Survey Date: 16-17 September 2016
Surface Area: 137.94 ha
Volume: 6,411,000 m3
Mean Depth: 4.6 m
Maximum Depth: 11.2 m
Lake Elevation: 514.25 m
Secchi Depth: 1.5 m
0 5 10 15 20 0
2
(m)
4
Dep
th
6
8
10
12
Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Field pH (units)
Conductivity (µS/cm)
Fish Species Observed Northern Pike White Sucker Lake Whitefish Spottail Shiner Ninespine Stickleback Walleye Yellow Perch
Aquatic Plants Observed Burreed Pondweeds Sedges Muskgrass Water Lobelia Yellow Pond Lily
Wheeler River Project
Lake LA-9 Bathymetry and Aquatic Habitat Map
EcoMetrix Figure 3-7 I N C O R P O R A T E D
6800 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 794-2325 Fax: (905) 794-2338 Toll-Free: 1-800-361-2325 www.ecometrix.ca
Fish Community Assessment Sampling of the resident fish community of the Rio Negro should be undertaken within Zones 1 and 2, in littoral and mid-channel habitats (Figure 5). Littoral habitats include nearshore areas with depths < 2 m, whereas mid-channel habitats are characterized by deeper water (>2 m). In Zone 1, nets should be set in the immediate vicinity of the proposed intake and outfall (mid channel). Fishing should also take place within the lagoons and inlets that occur upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of the proposed intake location, along the south shore (littoral and mid channel), as well as within the side channels along the north shore (littoral). In addition, nets should be set within a similar habitats upstream of Zone 1, and within Zone 2. Fishing within each location should consist of both daytime and nighttime sets, if possible. Exact replicates are not required, but a minimum of three nets per area/habitat is preferred, especially within Zone 1. Fishing methods should include Nordic nets standardized according to EESTI Standard for fish sampling (EESTI, 2015), that were used previously in the Bonete and Baygorria sampling areas. Nets were 30m long, by 1.5m wide and were composed of 12, 2.5m panels of varying mesh sizes as follows 5, 6.25, 8, 10, 12.5, 15.5, 19.5, 24, 29, 35, 43 and 55 mm. In addition, larger mesh experimental gillnets, 23m long by 1.8m high with mesh sizes of 76, 101 and 127 mm should also be employed. All net set and fish collection information will be recorded on Fish Collection Forms (see attached). Recorded information should include waterbody, station no., location, coordinates, datum, gear type, net size, mesh size(s), set date/time, set lift date/time, depth of set, substrate and habitat characteristics. All fish collected should be identified to species, enumerated, measured (length/weight) and released if alive. Representative photographs of each species should be taken of live/fresh specimens. Vouchers should be collected if specimens need to be retained to confirm species identity.
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 9 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Figure 5: Fish community assessment netting locations.
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 10 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
Equipment, Materials and Supplies Based on the survey components described above, the following list of equipment, materials and supplies that we believe will be needed to complete the field program is provided for consideration. EcoMetrix can potentially provide any of the items in the instance that LATU does not have (nor cannot acquire given the limited lead time) the full complement of equipment, materials and supplies that has been suggested.
• Aquatic Habitat Assessment Equipment List • 1 petite Ponar; • 3 plastic tubs, to put contents of petite ponar in for photo documentation and
substrate characterization; • 1 stainless steel spoon; • 1 digital camera; • 1 GPS; • 1 depth sounder; • 1 velocity meter; • river maps; and, • field forms.
• Fish Community
• Large-mesh experimental gill nets (minimum 6); • Nordic nets (minimum 6); • Net tubs, floats, anchors, ropes; • Depth sounder; • GPS; • Camera; • 25L pails (for fish); • Fish collection forms; • Fish measuring board(s); and, • Weigh scales.
Information Management At the end of each field day any records (field forms, written documentation, maps, field notes, etc…) should be backed up (e.g., scanned or photocopied). Photographs should be downloaded from cameras (or phones) onto a computer or onto a secure file storage server. GPS coordinates that have not been documented on field forms should be downloaded onto a computer or onto a secure file storage server.
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 11 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
All project-related information and documents provided by UPM and generated on behalf of UPM during the execution of the field survey and associated reporting will be treated as confidential and will not be shared with third-parties without prior approval from UPM.
All project-related documents will be handled in keeping with the requirements of the EcoMetrix Quality Management Program as detailed in Section 4.2 of the Quality Management Plan, and associated SOPs. Reporting EcoMetrix will initiate preparation of the aquatic survey report immediately once the in-field sampling has been completed and data have been provided. The report will include the following information:
• A clear, concise statement of the study objective, including the intended use of the data;
• A summary of site- and/or project-related information that is relevant to establish the context for the study;
• A detailed description of the methods by which the field sampling program was implemented, by which the samples generated by the field sampling were analyzed and by which the data generated by the field sampling program and sample analyses were summarized and analyzed;
• A robust presentation of the results and analyses of the study, including graphs, figures, tables and photographs, as appropriate;
• A complete and scientifically defensible interpretation of the results and analysis of the study, supported by existing scientific literature, as appropriate; and,
• A summary of the key findings and conclusions of the study, pertaining to the overall study objectives, as well as recommendations as appropriate.
Survey-component specific aspects of the report are provided as follows:
• Aquatic Habitat – Aquatic habitat information will be summarized, for reporting purposes, pictorially using maps in combination with the photographs. The mapping will cover the entire study area and will document the habitat features described above, and will in particular identify and demarcate “sensitive” habitat areas as can be deduced from the survey data.
• Fish Community - All fish that are collected will be identified, enumerated, weighed and measured and assigned to an age class (young-of-the-year, juvenile, adult). Fish collection data will be summarized by gear type to provide estimates of number of fish collected per unit effort (e.g., per hour of netting). Fish species numbers will be reported by age classes present. The length and weight data can be used to determine “condition”, an index that provides a measure of overall fish health. If
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 12 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
sufficient numbers of fish are collected age class, length and weight distributions will be determined. Fish data will be used to assess the spatial distribution of fish within the study area and to identify any patterns that may be noted with respect to distribution given habitat conditions.
• Fish Species with Conservation Status – Special attention will be afforded to consideration of fish species that have conservation status in terms of presence, numbers, distribution and habitat availability.
All references cited in the report will be listed in full. Raw data, field sheets, photographic records and statistical analysis results will be provided as appendix material. As required by the EcoMetrix Quality Management Program the report will be reviewed by internally by senior staff prior to submission to UPM. Briefly, at a minimum, the review will consider report completeness (outputs compared to the stated project objectives/ requirements), technical content (transparency, citation of sources, reasonable results, appropriate methods and conclusions) and clarity of message. Any issues identified in the report will be corrected prior to its issue. In addition, some or all calculations may be verified, which involves a comprehensive check of input data against cited sources, and output results against independent calculations using the cited methodology. The draft report will be provided to UPM for review prior to finalization. EcoMetrix will provide dispositions to any review comments received from UPM, as appropriate, and in sufficient detail to allow UPM to fully understand the disposition and achieve resolution. Following acceptance of the dispositions, a revised report will be provided to UPM. The final report will be provided in electronic format. All information will be provided in a format acceptable to UPM. Health and Safety EcoMetrix will work with LATU to develop and Project Safety Plan (PSP), or alternatively work under the LATU safety plan, as may be appropriate. The intent of the PSP is to establish safe work procedures for project personnel to follow, thereby reducing the risk of exposure to hazards associated with project-related work activities. The details of the PSP, or other equivalent health and safety procedures can be worked out with LATU prior to initiating the field work. Quality Management EcoMetrix was certified to the ISO 9001:2015 standard by NSF International in 2018. We ensure the integrity of our by following our corporate Quality Management Plan (QMP) and the associated quality documentation, including SOPs. Standard operating procedures
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 13 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
for field sampling and report preparation ensure that each phase of the project runs smoothly and according to established principles of quality. Our quality management documentation ensures that specific QA/QC measures are incorporated into every our work. Examples of some general QA/QC measures that are relevant to this current work scope include:
• Field Sampling o all personnel involved in the field sampling will have appropriate training,
experience with field equipment and objectives and will execute activities according to SOPs;
o all safety measures will be identified, understood and adhered to; o contamination during chemical sampling will be checked with trip blanks; o detailed field notes will be maintained in a bound notebook or custom field
sheets; and o chain-of-custody forms and appropriate shipping and storage procedures will
be used.
• Analysis and Reporting o conduct screening exercises data reviews to identify transcription errors,
outliers and other suspicious data points; o provide raw data in an electronic database format and appendices to reports
which summarize the data; o document the methods (specific statistical tests) and software (as
appropriate) used for analysis; o check for editorial, grammatical and spelling errors and data entry errors; o check for consistency of format and the completeness of each section; o check for data handling and reporting (entry checks, missing values,
methods, QC); o ensure that pertinent information has been reported in detail (including field
notes, accurate site locations); o ensure that any changes in protocol, study design, or other components of
the study have been reported; and o ensure that all QA/QC documentation is complete and included in the report.
We will work with LATU on issues related to quality management and quality program documentation prior to initiating the field work. Closure We trust this ToR suits your needs at this time. We are available to discuss any aspect of the ToR with you and the team at LATU at your convenience and move forward with planning and logistics.
28 January 2019 Gervasio Gonzalez Page 14 of 14
Reference: Terms of Reference – Rio Negro Aquatic Survey (February 2019)
References EESTI. 2015. Water quality – Sampling of fish with multi-mesh gillnets (EVS-EN
14757:2015). https://www.evs.ee/products/evs-en-14757-2015
Study Area:Weather:Investigators:
Transect#
Ponar#
UTMZone UTM North UTM East Depth
(m)Velocity
(m/s)
DominantSubstrate
Type1
SecondSubstrate
Type1
VegetationType(s)2 Vegetation Name(s)
OrganicDebris3
PhotoNumbers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5Notes:
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5Notes:
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5Notes:
1 Substrate Types - 1 Clay, 2 Silt/Mud, 3 Sand, 4 Gravel, 5 Cobble, 6 Bedrock, 7 None2 Vegetation Types - 1 None, 2 Floating, 3 Emergent, 4 Subsuface low, 5 Subsurface high3 Organic Debirs - 1 None, 2 Some, 3 Lots
Client:Project No.:Date & Time:
Ponar Habitat Sampling(Petite Ponar)
6800 Campobello RoadMississauga, Ontario
www.ecometrix.ca(905) 794-2325
Signature: ________________________ .
Client: __________________________ ___ of ___ Project No. ______________________ Investigators: ____________________
ECOMETRIX INCORPORATED FISH COLLECTION FORM
Waterbody: ______________________ Station No.: __________ Location: ___________________ Coordinates: __________________ N ____________________ W Datum: _______________ Gear Type: Gillnet ( ) Trapnet ( ) Other ( ): _______________ Net Size: (l x w x h): ____________________ Mesh Size (inch): _____________ Net Set Date: _________________________ Time: ______________ Net Removed Date: _________________________ Time: ______________ Total Fishing Time: _______________ (hrs) Depth of Set: _______________ (m) Substrate Characteristics: __________________________________________________________
Fish Species
Length (cm)
Weight
(g)
Notes (sex, stomach contents, parasites, etc.)
Client: __________________________ ___ of ___ Project No. ______________________ Investigators: ____________________
ECOMETRIX INCORPORATED FISH COLLECTION FORM
Waterbody: ______________________ Station No.: __________ Location: ___________________ Coordinates: __________________ N ____________________ W Datum: _______________ Gear Type: Gillnet ( ) Trapnet ( ) Other ( ): _______________ Net Size: (l x w x h): ____________________ Mesh Size (inch): _____________ Net Set Date: _________________________ Time: ______________ Net Removed Date: _________________________ Time: ______________ Total Fishing Time: _______________ (hrs) Depth of Set: _______________ (m) Substrate Characteristics: __________________________________________________________
Fish Species
Length (cm)
Weight
(g)
Notes (sex, stomach contents, parasites, etc.)
Fish Habitat Study Deviations from the Terms of Reference
The following is a list of study components that were changed from that which is stated in the Terms of Reference. Rational for the change is also provided.
1. Transect spacing of ponar sampling was changed from 100 meters between transects to 200 meters between transects. Upon completion of the first four transects it became evident that the spatial distribution of substrate could be adequately mapped using a greater distance between transects.
2. Water velocity measurements were taken at 1 meter below the water surface. Water velocity measurement at 60% depth was not possible as the rod holding the probe would break due to the strong current. Therefore, a choice was made to take velocity measurements at a consistent depth of 1 m below the surface of the water.
These were the only two changes that were made concerning the sampling plan defined in the Terms of Reference.
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Appendix B
Appendix B Shoreline Habitat Field Sheets
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Appendix C
Appendix C Petite Ponar Sampling Field Sheets
FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Appendix D
Appendix D Photo Documentation
(Photo numbers are referenced in Appendix C)
Photo numbers range from 1 to 307; however, some photos numbers are not present as they were either bedrock samples or not taken.
Note, photo numbers 72 to 84 were used twice in error. Therefore, the zone to which they
pertain to is identified in this appendix.
a
a
a
b
b
bNote: a – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 lagoon 2, and b – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 main channel.
a
a
a
b
b
b
a b
Note: a – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 lagoon 2, and b – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 main channel.
a
a
a
b
b
b
a b
Note: a – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 lagoon 2, and b – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 main channel.
a
a
b
b
a b
Note: a – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 lagoon 2, and b – denotes pictures taken from Zone 3 main channel.
ANEXO III »SIC 14 - ECOSISTEMAS ACUÁTICOS II
Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
6800 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 794-2325 Fax: (905) 794-2338 Toll-Free: 1-800-361-2325 www.ecometrix.ca
MEMO
To: Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
From: Don Hart, Ph.D.; Brian Fraser,
M.Sc.
Ref: Potential for EDC Effects in
Modern Mill Effluents
Date: 19 March, 2019
Copies to: Bruce Rodgers, EcoMetrix
This memo addresses the potential for effects from endocrine disrupting compounds
(EDCs) in association with modern pulp mill effluents. A presentation on this subject was
given to staff with the Ministerio de Vivienda Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente
(MVOTMA) on February 21st, 2019, including the information provided herein.
The presentation and this memo were prepared in response to concerns raised by
MVOTMA related to potential for EDC effects from the proposed UPM mill on the Rio
Negro. The concerns have been fueled in part by a thesis (Miguez-Carames, 2013) that
suggested EDC effects related to the Fray Bentos mill on the Rio Uruguay. Our critique of
that work has been presented in a separate memo (EcoMetrix, 2019). In short, the thesis
does not present credible evidence for EDC effects from the Fray Bentos mill. The
concerns were based also on a published paper about EDC effects observed in zebra fish
exposed to effluent from a Brazilian pulp mill (Castro et al., 2018). Our critique (EcoMetrix,
2019) explains that the Brazilian mill is not a modern mill using best available technology
(BAT) and is thus not in any way comparable to the Fray Bentos mill or the proposed UPM
mill on the Rio Negro.
This memo presents an overview of EDC sources, effect endpoints and organisms
potentially affected by EDC exposure. It also describes work that has been undertaken in
Canada toward prediction and mitigation of EDC effects in pulp mill effluents, and explains
that modern mills using BAT are not expected to produce EDC effects.
EDC Sources and Chemicals
There are many sources of EDC chemicals released to aquatic environments, and a wide
variety of chemicals with endocrine effects (Environment Canada, 2000). In municipal
effluents EDC chemicals include natural hormones from human waste, synthetic steroids
from contraceptives, and alkyl phenols. In agricultural runoff many pesticides are EDCs. In
industrial effluents, EDC chemicals include alkyl phenols and phthalates. In pulp mill
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 2 of 8
Reference: Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
effluents, EDC chemicals include phytosterols, phenolics, resin acids and metabolites, and
in mills using free chlorine, chlorophenols and polychlorinated dioxins/furans (Hewitt et al.,
2008; Cotrim et al., 2016). In addition, most harbours contain organotin compounds which
are EDCs, used as antifouling agents on the hulls of vessels.
Hewitt et al. (2008) note that the elimination of free chlorine use at pulp mills, and the
biotreatment of mill effluent, largely eliminate EDC effects from pulp mill effluents. Studies
show that mills with these mitigations typically show no significant effects, or effects only
with exposure to 100% effluent. Modern BAT mills, including the Fray Bentos mill and the
proposed UPM mill, employ these mitigations.
EDC Effect Endpoints
Substances that produce endocrine effects either mimic or antagonize animal hormones. In
so doing, EDCs can disrupt the normal developmental processes that are controlled by the
natural hormones. Typical responses to EDC exposure include disruption of gonadal
development, resulting in masculinization of females, feminization of males, altered sex
ratios in the population, delayed sexual maturation, reduced (or increased) egg production
and/or reduced egg viability. Egg production has been shown to be a sensitive endpoint as
compared to other reproductive endpoints in fish bioassays (Parrott, 2005).
Reproductive effects, particularly those involving reduced production or viability of eggs, are
considered to be of primary importance to population success, and are therefore the most
studied endpoints of EDC effect. However, other biological systems can be affected also.
For example, stress responses, mediated by adrenocorticotropic hormone, and growth
responses, mediated by thyroid hormones, can also be affected (Matthiessen et al., 2015).
Effect endpoints should not be confused with exposure endpoints. For example, levels of a
precursor egg protein (vitellogenin) may be measured as an indication of response to
estrogenic substances, and gene transcription activity associated with production of egg
protein may also be measured. However, such endpoints have little ecological relevance
because they are not predictive of effects on spawning or egg production or egg viability.
By themselves, they only indicate EDC exposure.
Organisms Affected by EDCs
Aquatic organisms are of primary concern for EDCs found in liquid effluents, because these
organisms are most exposed to an aquatic release. Fish are the most studied aquatic
organisms, because they are vertebrates with well understood endocrine systems, and
because standardized test systems exist for evaluating reproductive effects. Fish are a
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 3 of 8
Reference: Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
good surrogate for other aquatic organisms, such as amphibians, since all vertebrates have
similar hormonal systems.
The fish test system has been widely used in developing our current understanding of EDC
effects from exposure to mill effluents in Canada (Parrott, 2005; Martel et al., 2012, 2017).
Prediction/Mitigation of EDC Effects in Mill Effluents
Many chemicals in mill effluent have potential to cause reproductive effect at some
concentration. Not all are known, nor are all concentration-response relatinships known.
Nevertheless, we have effluent indicators of EDC activity, based on reproductive effect
studies over a wide range of mills. As noted by Hewitt et al. (2008), after free chlorine has
been eliminated, wood extractives are the main causative agents. Collectively, these are
reflected in the organic content of the effluent. Biological oxygen demand (BOD5) is a
good indicator of organic content.
Investigation of Cause studies were undertaken in Canada as part of the Environmental
Effects Monitoring (EEM) program (Martel et al., 2012, 2017). The objective was to find
chemical indicators in mill effluent that correlate with reproductive effect in fishes, and to
devise mitigation strategies to remove such effects. A standard egg production bioassay
with fathead minnows was used to measure effluent effect. The egg production endpoint in
this short-term test correlates well with the same endpoint in a full lifecycle test; it is a
sensitive and ecologically meaningfull indicator of reproductive effect (Parrott, 2005).
The Canadian studies involved 81 effluents from 20 mills, under normal and upset
conditions. The Canadian mills are older mills. While there have been process upgrades
since the 1990’s in many cases, they are not BAT mills. The study involved 8 bleached
kraft mills, 6 mechanical pulp mills, 4 ecycled fibre mills and 2 sulphite mills. Results for the
bleached kraft mills are shown below (Figure 1).
All the bleached kraft effluents with BOD5 greater than 25 mg/L produced significant
impairment of egg production. Only 3 effluents with BOD5 less that 25 mg/L produced
significant impairment of egg production. In two of them, from mill K3, the effect was
attributed to a polymer flocculant in the treatment plant. When this additive was changed,
the reproductive effect went away.
The study concluded that, for most mills, reducing the loading of organics in final effluent is
the best strategy for mitigating effluent effects on reproduction of fishes. Suggestions to
accomplish this were use of BAT to reduce organic losses from the mill, and optimization of
biotreatment.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 4 of 8
Reference: Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
Figure 1: Egg Production (% of Control) vs BOD5 (mg/L) for Bleached Kraft Mills
Since the Fray Bentos mill is a BAT mill with average BOD5 of 9 mg/L (2012-2016), and 95th
percentile 17.7 mg/L, we would expect no reproductive effect from exposure to its effluent.
Effluent Concentration for EDC Effects
The concentration of effluent needed to cause reproductive effects depends entirely on the
effluent quality, and especially on the organic content. For modern mills using BAT, under
normal operation, we expect no effect, even at 100% effluent (Hewitt et al., 2008).
Munkittrick et al. (1998) noted that there is potential for effect at effluent concentrations as
low as 1%. The authors cited work by Kovacs et al. (1995) on a problem mill. Kovacs
found an effect threshold concentration (IC25) of 1.7% effluent for fathead minnow
spawning and egg production. The mill had only 45% ClO2 substitution, its foul condensate
was not steam stripped, and it ran town sewage through its aerated lagoon. The final
effluent contained chlorinated phenolics at 110 ug/L (51 to 218 ug/L) and AOX at 14 mg/L
(10 to 16 mg/L).
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 5 of 8
Reference: Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
After mill upgrade, Kovacs et al. (1996) reported that there was no reproductive effect at the
highest effluent concentration tested (20%). The final effluent contained chlorinated
phenolics at 5.6 ug/L (2 to 10 ug/L) and AOX at 2.8 mg/L (1.6 to 3.7 mg/L).
In comparison, the Fray Bentos mill effluent (2012-2016) had chlorinated phenolics at 0.49
ug/L and AOX at 1.6 mg/L. Given its better quality, we would expect no reproductive effect
from fish exposure at 20% effluent or higher concentrations.
Martel et al. (2011) studied another bleached kraft mill before and after implementation of
biotreatment. Before biotreatment, with BOD5 at 53 mg/L, fathead minnow egg production
was significantly reduced at an effluent concentration of 65% (Figure 2). After biotreatment,
with BOD5 at 19 mg/L, fathead minnow egg production was not significantly reduced, even
at 100% effluent concentration (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Egg Production Before Biotreatment (BOD5 53 mg/L) (Martel et al., 2011)
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 6 of 8
Reference: Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
Figure 3: Egg Production After Biotreatment (BOD5 19 mg/L) (Martel et al., 2011)
As discussed above, for the Fray Bentos mill, with average BOD5 of 9 mg/L (2012-2016),
and 95th percentile 17.7 mg/L, we would expect no reproductive effect from exposure to the
mill effluent.
History of EDC Concern at Mills in Canada and Europe
Studies of EDC effects in fish began at older mills in Sweden, and then in Canada, in
1988/89 (Munkittrick et al., 1998). Pulp and paper effluent regulations, established in
Canada in 1992, required environmental effects monitoring to look for reproductive and
other effects in fish in the receiving environment near the mills. Throughout the 1990’s
there was a push to reduce/eliminate use of free chlorine in mills, and to start/improve
biotreatment. In Europe, BAT standards were implemented, and new mills are expected to
meet that standard. As a result, fish reproductive effects from mills have been greatly
reduced or eliminated. Investigation of Cause studies in Canada point to mitigation of such
effects by reducing organic losses from the mill, consistent with BAT, and by optimizing
biotreatment (Martel et al. 2012, 2017).
The Fray Bentos mill, and the proposed UPM mill, are modern BAT mills, and as such, they
have good effluent quality and are not expected to produce fish reproductive effects.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 7 of 8
Reference: Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
Overall Characterization of Risks from EDCs from the Proposed Pulp Mill Project at
Paso de los Toros
Based on consideration of our current understanding of EDCs that is based on design
information for the proposed mill and operating experience at modern BAT mills, published
research, literature and professional experience no significant effects as the result of EDCs
are expected as the result of the project.
References Cited
Cotrim, G., C.S. Fanning, G.O. da Roacha, and V. Hatje. 2016. Endocrine disruptors: strategies for determination and occurance in marine environments. J. Integrated Coastal Zone Management 16(3): 299-326.
EcoMetrix Incorporated (EcoMetrix). 2019. Memo to Gervasio Gonzalez - Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA. Dated 19 March 2019.
Environment Canada. 2000. Endocrine Disrupting Substances in the Environment. Cited in: C. Labelle, 2000, Endocrine Disruptors Update, PRB-00-01E. Science and Technology Division.
Hewitt, L.M., T.G. Kovacs, M.G. Dube, D.L. MacLatchy, P.H. Martel, M.E. McMaster, M.G. Paice, J.L. Parrott, M.R. van den Heuvel and G.J. Van Der Kraak. 2008. Altered reproduction in fish exposed to pulp and paper mill effluents: Roles of individual compounds and mill operating conditions. Environ. Toxicol. And Chem. 27(3): 682-697.
Kovacs, T.G., J.S. Gibbons, L.A. Tremblay, B.I. O’Connor, P.H. Martel and R.H. Voss. 1995. The effects of a secondary treated bleached kraft mill effluent on aquatic organisms as assessed by short-term and long-term laboratory tests. Ecotoxicol. and Environ. Safety 31: 7-22.
Kovacs, T.G., J.S. Gibbons, P.H. Martel, and R.H. Voss. 1996. Improved effluent quality at a bleached kraft mill as determined by laboratory biotests. J. Toxicol. and Environ. Health Part A 49(5): 533-561.
Martel, P.H., T.G. Kovacs, B.L. O’Connor, S. Semeniuk, L.M. Hewitt, D.L. MacLatchy, M.E. McMaster, J.L. Parrott, M.R. van den Heuvel and G.J. Van Der Kraak. 2011. Effluent monitoring at a bleached kraft mill: Directions for best management practices for eliminating effects on fish reproduction. J. Environ. Science and Health Part A 46: 833-843.
Martel, P., T. Kovacs, B. O’Connor, M. Hewitt, M. McMaster, J. Parrott, D. MacLatchy, G. Van Der Kraak and M. van den Heuvel. 2012. Towards Cost Effective Solutions for
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 8 of 8
Reference: Potential for EDC Effects in Modern Mill Effluents
Elimination of Reproductive Effects in Fish Exposed to Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents. Cycle 6 Investigation of Cause Project. Environment Canada.
Martel, P.H., B.I. O’Connor, T.G. Kovacs, M.R. van den Heuvel, J.L. Parrott, M.E. McMaster, D.L. MacLatchy, G.J. Van Der Kraak and L.M. Hewitt. 2017. The relationship between organic loading and effects on fish reproduction for pulp mill effluents across Canada. Environ. Science and Technol. 51: 3499-3507.
Matthiessesn, P., J.R. Wheeler and L. Weltje. 2018. A review of evidence for endocrine disrupting effects of current-use chemicals on wildlife populations. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 48(3):195-216.
Munkittrick, K.R., M.E. McMaster, L.H. McCarthy, M.R. Servos, and G.J. VanDer Kraak. 1998. Overview of recent studies on the potential of pulp mill effluents to alter reproductive parameters in fish. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B, 1:347-371.
ANEXO IV »SIC 14 - ECOSISTEMAS ACUÁTICOS II
Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
6800 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 794-2325 Fax: (905) 794-2338 Toll-Free: 1-800-361-2325 www.ecometrix.ca
MEMO
To: Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
From: Don Hart, Ph.D.; Brian Fraser,
M.Sc.
Ref: Review of EDC References
Provided by DINAMA
Date: 19 March, 2019
Copies to: Bruce Rodgers, EcoMetrix
In support of UPM’s ongoing consideration of construction of a state-of-the-art, best
available technology (BAT) pulp mill near Paso de los Toros, Uruguay, EcoMetrix
incorporated (EcoMetrix) has undertaken various tasks, including assessing potential water
quality related effects that may be associated with mill operations on the Rio Negro. The
assessment has considered the potential effects of nutrients (in terms of both enrichment
and toxicity), dissolved oxygen, pH, resins acids, dioxins and furans and endocrine
disrupting compounds (EDCs). A presentation was given to staff with the Ministerio de
Vivienda Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente (MVOTMA) on February 21st, 2019,
that summarized this assessment. The presentation included review of EDCs (history of
concern, sources, mode of action, assessment endpoints) and EcoMetrix’ experience with
EDCs as gained through our long-term involvement with the pulp and paper industry, and
more specifically the Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program, in Canada on which
much of the important early EDC research was completed .
It is our understanding that MVOTMA staff have requested a review of specific publications
regarding endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and their implications as to potential for
EDC effects in the Rio Negro in the vicinity of the proposed mill site. Specifically, it has
been requested that the following documents should be reviewed:
Miguez-Carames, D. (2013). Integrated risk assessment of endocrine disruptors
in the Uruguay River. Ph.D. Thesis. Cranfield University. Cranfield Water
Science Institute.
Castro, A.J.G., et al. (2018). Exposure to a Brazilian pulp mill effluent impacts
the testis and liver in the zebrafish. Comp. Biochem. and Physiol., Part C (206-
207):41-47.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 2 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Carnikian-Fernandes, A. (undated). Evaluacion de los efectos de efluentes
industriales y urbanos sobre aspectos de la reproduccion en el pez Pimephales
promelas. M.Sc. Tesis. Universidad de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay.
Keel-Morgan, K. (2012). Disruptores Endocrinos. Efectos en peces Pimephales
promelas. M.Sc. Tesis. Instituto Pasteur Montevideo. Facultad de Ciencias.
This memo has been prepared in response to the above-referenced information request. A
review of each document is provided below. A summary that considers these documents in
light of other literature on EDC effects as the result of pulp mill effluent exposure is also
provided for reference.
It is noted that we were familiar with two of the four documents directly - Miguez-Carmes,
2013; Castro et al., 2018 - as well as the other two indirectly as they were referenced in the
Miguez-Carmes PhD thesis, but did not include them in our EDC review. In the former
document, our interpretation of the results differed than those presented by the author;
whereas, in the latter document the results were not relevant as the mill in question was not
based on BAT.
Review of Miguez-Carames (2013)
This thesis is presented as an assessment of risk from endocrine disruptors in the Rio
Uruguay. It includes a review of literature, a screening assessment of EDC hazards in the
river, an Exposure Assessment (based on monitoring of both EDCs and biological effects in
the river), a Risk Estimation (calculation of hazard quotients) and a Risk Characterization
(interpretation of risks related to particular industrial/municipal sources).
Our review is focused on evidence and interpretations relevant to potential for EDC effects
from the pulp mill at Fray Bentos, in consideration of the both the in-field and laboratory
data that are presented. In this context, our overall opinion of the thesis is that it is
speculative in nature and that it greatly overstates the potential risks from EDCs on aquatic
biota that may be mill related. The evidence linking the mill discharge to effects does not
hold up to scrutiny.
The review below focuses on two main aspects of the thesis. First, the review considers
the information or evidence provided in the thesis concerning effluent mixing the likelihood
of effluent-exposure for aquatic biota. Secondly, the review considers the analysis of the
reproductive endpoints derived from field surveys and laboratory testing.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 3 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
1.0 Effluent Dilution and Effluent Exposure
Upstream Reference Stations
Table 4-1, page 63, of the thesis summarizes the monitoring stations. The only station
identified as reference is R1 located approximately 30 km upstream near Nuevo Berlin. Two
other stations should also be listed as reference stations, R2 and R4.
Station R2 is located approximately 1.5 km upstream near the international bridge. It is not
identified as a reference station even though it is located upstream from the discharge.
Station R2 is identified as a station to “evaluate reverse flow”.
The flow in the river can be influenced by wind driven seiche within the Atlantic Ocean and
Río de la Plata. Such seiche events can cause the flow within the Río Uruguay to
temporarily increase or decrease. Under rare occasions (a few times per year or less), the
flow can even reverse direction and travel upstream for a few hours. These flow reversals
have been observed during extreme low flow conditions, but are not expected to occur
when the flow at the Salto Grande Dam is greater than 1,000 m3/s (EcoMetrix, 2006).
The thesis did not present all of the data used for the assessment, so we cannot determine
which data were recorded during a flow reversal event or not. But given the short duration
and extreme nature of such events, it is unlikely that the data recorded at station R2
occurred during a flow reversal. As such, station R2 is most likely a reference station and
not an exposure station.
The thesis concludes that the “probability of finding contamination from the water route is
negligible for Yaguareté Bay (R4)”. The dilutions reported at Yaguareté Bay range from
3,000,000:1 at an extreme low flow of 500 m3/s to 28,000:1 at average flows of 6,000 m3/s.
Environment Canada defines areas that exceed 1,000:1 dilution as reference areas and
considers them representative of reference conditions unaffected by the wastewater
discharge. As such, the monitoring stations within Yaguareté Bay (R4, S4 and F4) can all
be considered reference stations.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 4 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Predicted Dilution
Figure 4-4 of the thesis shows the calculated dilutions from the thesis at Yaguareté Bay
(R4), Ubici Beach (R5), the drinking water intake (R6) and Las Cañas (R8). For each
station, the predicted dilutions are 3,000,000:1, 890:1, 400:1 and 600:1, respectively, at 500
m3/s, and 28,000:1, 2,400:1, 7,500:1 and 11,000:1, respectively, at 6,000 m3/s.
A flow of 500 m3/s is expected to occur in the Río Uruguay at Fray Bentos once every 5 to
20 years based on a 7Q1 of 950 m3/s; 7Q5 of 640 m3/s; and 7Q20 of 400 m3/s (EcoMetrix,
2006). The average flow in the Río Uruguay at the Salto Grande dam is approx. 6,230
m33/s.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 5 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Figure 7-12 shows identical results to those shown in Figure 4-4, except Figure 7-12 is as
% effluent and Figure 4-4 is as dilution.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 6 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Misrepresentation of the Effluent Plume
Figure 7-3 presents the iso-concentration maps at 500 m3/s and 1,000 m3/s at Yaguareté
Bay (R4), Ubici Beach (R5), and further downstream. The scale on this figure is illegible
given the poor clarity of the figure. Regardless of the scale, the figure provides a gross
misrepresentation of the plume delineation from the mill discharge.
The colours depicted at Yaguareté Bay (R4) and Ubici Beach (R5) are bright orange and
yellow, which usually implies a high concentration of effluent at levels that may cause harm
to the environment.
Figure 4-4 and Figure 7-12 declare that at Yaguareté Bay (R4) the effluent is diluted
3,000,000:1 (0.00003% effluent) under the two flow conditions (500 and 1,000 m3/s). This
implies no exposure to effluent; hence the colour at Yaguareté Bay (R4) should be blue
similar to the reference station at the international bridge (R2).
At Ubici Beach (R5), the effluent is diluted 890:1 and 610:1 (0.11% and 0.16%) under the
two flow conditions. Such high dilutions would not be expected to harm the environment.
Given the high dilutions predicted in Figure 4-4 (and percent effluent predicted in Figure 7-
12), the iso-concentration map shown in Figure 7-3 should more accurately be represented
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 7 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
by slight differences in blue with green limited to the mixing zone limited to the immediate
vicinity of the discharge.
Figure 1 presents the delineation of the effluent plume for the mill discharge based on field
measurements conducted during low, typical and high flow conditions (EcoMetrix, 2009).
The plume delineation shown in Figure 1 based on field measurements differs significantly
from that presented in Figure 7-3.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 8 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Figure 1: Delineation of effluent plume under low (742 m3/s), typical (3,784 m
3/s) and high
(8,192 m3/s) flow conditions from field measurements (EcoMetrix, 2009)
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 9 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Conductivity Along the Río Uruguay
Figure 7-5 shows the measured conductivity along the river from Nuevo Berlin (R1) to Las
Cañas (R8) for periods pre- and post- start-up of the mill.
It is apparent that the conductivity within the Río Uruguay has decreased post- mill start-up
as compared to the period pre- mill start-up. This decrease extends along the entire length
of the river, including the reference stations at Nuevo Berlin (R1) and international bridge
(R2).
Furthermore, for the period post- mill start-up, the conductivity increases along the length of
the river from approx. 58 µS/cm at Nuevo Berlin (R1), to approx. 60 µS/cm at the
international bridge (R2), to approx. 62 µS/cm at Fray Bentos (R3), to approx. 64 µS/cm at
Las Cañas (R8). Generally, an increasing spatial trend indicates a non-point source rather
than a point source. A non-point source implies a continuous input of waters with elevated
conductivity along the entire length of the river, such as from agricultural runoff. A point-
source input generally shows as an abrupt increase in conductivity at the point of inflow
followed by a gradual decrease in conductivity with distance downstream due to dispersion.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 10 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Wind and Currents
On page 140, the thesis reads “Readings of wind direction and wind velocity related to the
sampling moment were used to evaluate if there could be influence of Yaguareté stream
(C1) on R4 conductivity as it drained into the bay”. Wind speed and direction affect wave
generation not necessarily currents. Waves may have been observed on the surface of the
water during sampling but these surface waves in no way affect the advective transport of
waters from Yaguareté stream within the bay.
Table 7-2 presents four surveys within Yaguareté Bay (R4) with specific reference to wind.
On these four dates, the flows at the Grande Salto Dam were 7,089 m3/s, 2,270 m3/s, 5,755
m3/s and 9,349 m3/s. Under such high flows, the currents within Yaguareté Bay are most
likely dominated by the flow within the Río Uruguay and less so by local winds.
It is unclear whether or not data were discarded due to wind speed and direction.
Measured Conductivity, Phenols and AOX Data Presented in Thesis
Table 7-2, Table 7-3, Table 7-4, Figure 7-15 and 7-16 present the measured data used to
support the thesis. A few other summary tables and figures were provided but not a detailed
account of all available data. The sections below reference the data presented in these
tables and figures.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 11 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 12 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 13 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 14 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Yaguareté Bay (R4)
As previously stated, the thesis correctly concludes that the “probability of finding
contamination from the water route is negligible for Yaguareté Bay (R4)”. This conclusion is
based on the predicted dilutions reported at Yaguareté Bay ranging from 3,000,000:1 at an
extreme low flow of 500 m3/s to 28,000:1 at average flows of 6,000 m3/s. As such, the
monitoring stations within Yaguareté Bay (R4, S4 and F4) can all be considered reference
stations.
From Table 7-2, the conductivity within Yaguareté Bay (R4) ranges from 71 to 96 µS/cm
base on four surveys. In comparison, the reference conductivity at the international bridge
(R2) ranges from 72 to 99 µS/cm based on three surveys. The conductivity in Yaguareté
Bay (R4) exceeds the reference conductivity by 5 and 19 µS/cm based on two surveys, and
is lower than the reference conductivity by 22 µS/cm for one survey.
According to Figure 4-4, the dilution of mill effluent at Yaguareté Bay (R4) ranged from
600,000:1 to 28,000:1 (0.00017% to 0.0036%). Given this level of dilution, the potential
change in conductivity in Yaguareté Bay (R4) attributed to the mill discharge would be less
than 0.1 µS/cm, far less than the differences measured. The mill discharge cannot be
attributed to the observed increase in conductivity on the two survey dates.
The conductivity in Yaguareté stream (C1) ranged from 195 to 594 µS/cm based on three
surveys. These values translate into dilutions ranging from 6:1 and 79:1. It is far more likely
that the water quality within Yaguareté stream (C1) influences water quality in Yaguareté
Bay (R4) than mill effluent.
From Figure 7-15, the average concentration of phenols in Yaguareté Bay (R4) is approx.
2.1 µg/L compared with a reference concentration at Nuevo Berlin (R1) and the
international bridge (R2) of approx. 0.6 µg/L. The difference of 1.5 µg/L cannot be attributed
to the mill discharge given the reported dilution, but it can be attributed to the discharge
from Yaguareté stream (C1) since the concentrations compare.
From Figure 7-16, the concentration of AOX in Yaguareté Bay (R4) was non-detectable
based on what seems to be one measurement. In comparison, the reference concentration
at Nuevo Berlin (R1) and the international bridge (R2) was approx. 2.5 µg/L. The data do
not support an interpretation of potential sources. The mill discharge is not expected to
affect the concentration of AOX in Yaguareté Bay (R4) given the reported dilution.
Yaguareté stream (C1) is expected to affect the concentration of AOX in Yaguareté Bay
(R4) given the elevated concentration of AOX of approx. 12.5 µg/L and the limited dilution
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 15 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
of the Yaguareté stream (C1) discharge within Yaguareté Bay (R4) estimated from
measured phenols and conductivity.
The limited data provided in the thesis for conductivity, phenols and AOX implicates
Yaguareté stream (C1) as the most likely cause of water quality effects within Yaguareté
Bay (R4). The reported dilution of the mill effluent within Yaguareté Bay (R4) identifies it as
the least likely cause of water quality effects within Yaguareté Bay (R4), as concluded by
the thesis. This also implies all effects to sediment quality and biota to be attributed to
Yaguareté stream (C1) and not the mill discharge.
Ubici Beach (R5)
From Table 7-2, the measured conductivities at Ubici beach (R5) ranged from 76 to 130
µS/cm based on four surveys. In comparison, the reference conductivities at the
international bridge (R2) ranged from 72 to 99 µS/cm based on three surveys. The
conductivity in Yaguareté Bay (R4) exceeds the reference conductivity by 5 to 31 µS/cm.
According to Figure 4-4, the dilution of mill effluent at Ubici beach (R5) ranged from 640:1
to 2,400:1 (0.16% to 0.04%). Given this level of dilution, the potential change in conductivity
at Ubici beach (R5) attributed to the mill discharge would range from 1 to 5 µS/cm,
insufficient to account for the observed increase in conductivity at Ubici beach (R5).
The discharge from Yaguareté stream (C1) could account for the observed increase in
conductivity at Ubici beach (R5). The measured conductivity in Yaguareté stream (C1)
ranged from 195 to 594 µS/cm based on three surveys, resulting in dilutions at Ubici beach
(R5) ranging from 16:1 to 39:1. These are realistic dilutions to expect for a shoreline
discharge from a creek into a river.
From Figure 7-15, the average concentration of phenols at Ubici beach (R5) was approx.
4.5 µg/L compared with a reference concentration at Nuevo Berlin (R1) and the
international bridge (R2) of approx. 0.6 µg/L. The difference of 3.9 µg/L cannot be attributed
to the mill discharge given the reported dilution. The mill discharge would only account for a
0.01 µg/L change in phenols at Ubici beach (R5), not the observed 3.9 µg/L change. The
difference can also not be attributed to the discharge from Yaguareté stream (C1) since the
concentration in the stream is approx. 1.8 µg/L, lower than the reported concentration at
Ubici beach (R5). Another source of phenols is required to explain the reported
concentration of phenols at Ubici beach (R5).
Figure 2 shows Google Earth images of the Ubici Beach, Yaguareté Bay, and the adjacent
watershed. The images reveal three potential sources.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 16 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
1. The municipal landfill for the city of Fray Bentos is located south of Ubici Beach
(towards the lower portion of Figure 2). The municipal landfill was apparently
constructed without impervious barriers, so all leachate generated within the landfill
reports to the local watershed. This leachate would then presumably enter
Yaguareté Bay via Yaguareté stream or the smaller creek towards the west. The
quality of the leachate has not been reported.
2. Sewage from urban areas within the city of Fray Bentos do not have collection or
treatment systems. The sewage from these areas reports to the local watershed,
which presumably enters Yaguareté Bay via Yaguareté stream or the smaller creek
to towards the west. The quality of the leachate has not been reported.
3. Two factories, meat packing and juice packaging, are located towards the south
east of Ubici Beach. The Google Earth image shows a wastewater treatment
system, which presumably collects and treats the wastewaters from these two
factors. The treated wastewaters are discharged to Yaguareté Bay via the small
creek within approximately 700 m from Ubici Beach. The quality of the discharge
has not been reported.
From Figure 7-16, the concentration of AOX at Ubici beach (R5) was non-detectable based
on what seems to be one measurement. In comparison, the reference concentration at
Nuevo Berlin (R1) and the international bridge (R2) was approx. 2.5 µg/L. The limited AOX
data do not support an interpretation of potential sources.
The limited data provided in the thesis for conductivity, phenols and AOX does not provide
conclusive evidence of the source of water quality effects at Ubici beach (R5). The mill
discharge cannot be attributed to the observed effects given the significant level of dilution.
Yaguareté stream (C1) as the most likely cause of water quality effects within Yaguareté
Bay (R4). The reported dilution of the mill effluent within Yaguareté Bay (R4) identifies it as
the least likely cause of water quality effects within Yaguareté Bay (R4), as concluded by
the thesis. This also implies all effects to sediment quality and biota to be attributed to
Yaguareté stream (C1) and not the mill discharge.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 17 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Figure 2: Google Earth images of Ubici Beach, Yaguareté Bay, and the adjacent watershed
showing potential sources to the waterfront
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 18 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Las Cañas (R8)
The conductivity at Las Cañas (R8) was 74.2 µS/cm as a median from Table 7-3 and 69.6
µS/cm as a mean from Table 7-4. In comparison, the reference conductivity at the
international bridge (R2) was 67 µS/cm as a median from Table 7-3 and 64.0 µS/cm as a
mean from Table 7-4. The conductivity at Las Cañas (R8) exceeds the reference
conductivity by 7.2 and 5.6 µS/cm based on the two pairs of values reported in the
respective tables.
According to Figure 4-4, the dilution of mill effluent at Las Cañas (R8) ranged from 4,100:1
to 11,000:1 (0.02% to 0.01%). Given this level of dilution, the potential change in
conductivity at Las Cañas (R8) attributed to the mill discharge would range from 0.3 to 0.8
µS/cm, insufficient to account for the observed increase in conductivity at Las Cañas (R8).
From Figure 7-15, the average concentration of phenols at Las Cañas (R8) was approx. 0.8
µg/L compared with a reference concentration at Nuevo Berlin (R1) and the international
bridge (R2) of approx. 0.6 µg/L. The difference of 0.2 µg/L cannot be attributed to the mill
discharge given the reported dilution. The mill discharge would only account for a 0.001
µg/L change in phenols at Las Cañas (R8). Another source of phenols is required to explain
the reported concentration of phenols at Las Cañas (R8). Possible sources include urban
runoff from Fray Bentos
From Figure 7-16, the concentration of AOX at Las Cañas (R8) appears to be similar, if not
less than, the reference concentration at Nuevo Berlin (R1) and the international bridge
(R2). There is no indication from the measured data that the mill effluent affects the
concentration of AOX at Las Cañas (R8).
The limited data provided in the thesis for conductivity, phenols and AOX does not provide
conclusive evidence of the source of water quality effects at Las Cañas (R8). The mill
discharge cannot be attributed to the observed effects given the significant level of dilution.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 19 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
2.0 Reproductive Endpoints Derived from Field Surveys and Laboratory Testing
Effluent Testing for Biological Effects
Most relevant to the question of pulp mill effects, the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas) was exposed to 100% pulp mill effluent. In the 21-day egg production test, it was
noted that egg production was reduced (Table B-4, shown below). From the information
provided, it is not clear that a statistically significant reduction in egg production occurred.
Note: C2 stream receives municipal wastewater; E2 is -oestradiol (positive control)
The test protocol requires a minimum of 4 replicate exposures per treatment, and statistical analysis of the data according to specifications (US EPA, 2002a). The thesis does not identify the number of replicate exposures, nor present any statistical analysis of the data. It is stated that there were 2 males 4 females per tank, and that “n=36” (pp B-401-402). We infer from this that there may have been 36 fish and 6 tanks per sample tested, but it is unclear how they were allocated between the treatments and the controls. In the absence of statistical analysis, it is not clear that an effluent effect on egg production has been demonstrated. Statistical methods were described by Keel-Morgan (2012) and are reviewed below. They did not follow the test protocol, and seem to be inappropriate.
What is clear is that total egg production can differ by a factor of two among the various
controls, similar to the magnitude of difference between the control and the effluent
exposed treatment. Effluent exposed fish produced eggs in numbers similar to most of the
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 20 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
control groups. The control associated with the effluent test had unusually high egg
production, while the fish exposed to mill effluent were similar to the other controls.
In the 14-day reproduction test with fathead minnows, effluent exposed fish were examined for effects on gonadal development (gonadosomatic index, GSI), development of secondary sexual characteristics (nuptial tubercles), condition factor, and induction of egg protein (vitellogenin). In all these cases, no significant effect of pulp mill effluent was observed (Tables B-5, B-6; see un-numbered table from thesis). In addition, histological examination of gonads revealed no effect of pulp mill effluent.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 21 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Un-numbered Table from Thesis: VTG concentrations in liver homogenate of exposed and
control P. promelas
*Significant differences (concentration units were not stated)
Field Testing for Biological Effects
In field studies of fish health, it was noted that the gonadosomatic index (GSI) for Stage 2 testes of the banded tetra (Astyanax fasciatus) was reduced in August 2010 in fish collected at Ubici Beach (F3) as compared to fish from Yaguarate Bay (F2) (Figure 7-38, Figure 7-42). This was interpreted as a pulp mill effect. However, since neither location is appreciably exposed to mill effluent, the interpretation is not defensible. For low to average flow (2,000 m3/s to 6,000 m3/s) the dilution of mill effluent is 640:1 to 2,400:1 at Ubici Beach (R5) and 28,000:1 to 600,000:1 at Yaguarate Bay (R4) (Figure 4-4, presented above) (mill effluent of 0.16% to 0.04% at R5; 0.0036% to 0.00017% at R4). A more likely cause of the observed GSI response at Ubici Beach (F3) would be exposure to agricultural runoff from Stream C1, or exposure to industrial wastewater effluents, both of which discharge upstream of F3.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 22 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Moreover, since fish exposed experimentally to 100% mill effluent did not show a GSI response, it seems unlikely that mill effluent is the cause of the GSI response at F3.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 23 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Figure 7-42 Fish sampling locations for GSI of male A. fasciatus
In testing of river sediment elutriate toxicity to fathead minnows, the embryo-larval stage was exposed to elutriate over a 7-day period. It was noted that elutriate from the S2 river transect, downstream of the Fray Bentos mill, produced 3.3% spinal cord malformations. No malformations were observed at Nuevo Berlin (S1), upstream of the mill, or at Las Canas (S3), downstream. This was suggested as evidence of endocrine effect from the mill.
However, the embryo-larval mortality was 21.5% at Nuevo Berlin, 7.5% at Fray Bentos, and 0% at Las Canas, indicating greater reproductive effect upstream of the mill.
The test protocol (US EPA, 2002b) calls for five effluent concentrations and a control, each with four replicates. The test acceptability is defined in terms of control results. No control results were presented in the thesis, so the validity of the test cannot be determined. Nor could we find any indication of test replication. The protocol requires statistical analysis of the concentration-response curve to estimate ECx, NOEC and LOEC concentrations. No such analysis was presented. In the absence of these required elements, it cannot be determined whether there was any statistically significant effect on embryo-larval development or survival, at S2 or any other location. The 3.3% frequency of malformations is small, and unlikely to be significant, either statistically or ecologically.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 24 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
The concentration-response curve shown for the Fray Bentos elutriate exposure is very unusual, due to high mortality at the lowest elutriate concentration (Figure 7-27). This suggests some problem with the experimental technique in the study.
Figure 7-27 Concentration-response curve for fish embryo-larval lethality and developmental effects with exposure to sediment elutriate (S2)
Conclusions Regarding Endocrine Effect from the Fray Bentos Mill
Based on the monitoring results presented in the thesis, there is very little evidence to support the suggestion of endocrine effect due to Fray Bentos mill effluent. While gene transcription biomarkers of exposure to EDCs were found in fish exposed to mill effluent,
and certain EDCs (-sitosterol, endosulfan, alkylphenols) were measured in fish throughout the river, biomarkers of exposure should not be construed as an effect, and the similarity of EDC levels in fish throughout the river argues against a significant mill contribution.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 25 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Overall, based on our review the evidence cited, the evidence for actual reproductive or developmental effects in the river due to mill effluent is weak.
Exposure Assessment and Risk Estimation
The thesis presents calculated hazard quotients (HQ) for selected EDCs based on estimated exposures and doses, compared to reference doses (RfD) for people, and to toxicity reference values (TRV) for selected ecological receptors. In general, the calculations as presented are not transparent, or reproducible. The HQ presentation seldom points to the exposure concentrations used in the calculation, or to the human exposure factors used (e.g. body weights, inhalation rates, dermal contact rates). No example calculations are provided.
The thesis concludes that there is a low risk of endocrine disruption in humans through fish and water ingestion, and a low to moderate risk to freshwater biota. However, we find that the risk estimations are poorly explained, with obscure linkage to the underlying data.
Nevertheless, we have been able to reproduce a few of the HQ calculations. Table 7-24 presents EDC concentrations in edible fish tissues (Pimelodus maculatus, from the Fray Bentos market) and the resulting human doses from fish consumption. Table 8-1 presents the associated HQ values (HQ = dose / RfD). Based on comparison of the two tables, three of the seven HQ values in Table 8-1 appear to be incorrect.
We have verified the doses shown in Table 7-24. Using the RfDs in Table 8-1, we calculate HQs for 4 Nonylphenol (1.3x10-5), Endosulfan sulfate (3.7x10-3) and PCBs (4.4x10-3). These all differ from the HQs shown in Table 8-1.
In the case of 4-Nonylphenol, we can reproduce the value shown in Table 8-1 by adding the HQ from drinking water (predicted concentration at R6 (0.36 ug/L), dose 7.7x10-6 mg/kg/d, HQ 1.5x10-3) and then rounding. In the other two cases we cannot explain the discrepancy.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 26 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 27 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Notwithstanding the errors, from the risk estimates we have been able to review, we would agree that risks to people from EDCs in the Rio Uruguay are low.
Risk estimates were presented in Section 8.3.2 for benthic invertebrates based on maximum measured glyphosate in sediments of Yaguarete Stream (S5), and in Section 8.3.3 for fish (A. fasciatus), based on maximum measurements of endosulfan in fish collected at F1, F2, F3, and F4. The HQ for benthic invertebrates was 0.002 based on glyphosate in sediment at S5. The HQs for A. fasciatus were 0.6, 0.9, 0.2 and 1.9 at F1, F2, F3, and F4, respectively, suggesting endosulfan residues of concern throughout the river, and above the TRV for fish lethality at Las Canas (F4).
Based on these ecological risk estimates, we would agree with a finding of low to moderate risk to freshwater biota in the river, but the HQ values point to an agricultural runoff issue rather than a pulp mill effluent issue.
Conclusions Regarding Risk to People and Freshwater Biota
The risk estimations in the thesis are poorly explained, and difficult to check based on the information provided. The exposure data and assumptions used in the risk calculations are generally unclear. Where we have been able to check, there seem to be errors in the HQ calculations. None of the HQ calculations suggest significant risks to people or freshwater biota that are attributable to pulp mill effluent. The results do support low to moderate risk to freshwater biota, related to agricultural runoff.
Review of Castro et al. (2018)
This paper describes a study of male zebrafish exposure to a pulp and paper mill effluent in Brazil. The mill uses a pine feedstock, and a Kraft bleaching process with the sequence O, C1, E1, D1, E2. The mill has secondary treatment in an aerated lagoon with a 7-day retention time.
The mill is using free chlorine, and is therefore not a BAT mill. It should not be considered representative of a modern mill in Uruguay, using a Eucalyptus feedstock. The mill effluent that was tested had high levels of total phenols (3,800 ug/L) and resin acids (9,300 ug/L). Although not specifically reported, due to the use of free chlorine, we also expect high levels of chlorophenols.
The male zebrafish were exposed to 4% mill effluent over a 14-day period, which included the period of gonadal maturation. The gross morphology and histology of the developing testis was studied to detect any effects of effluent exposure. The GSI was not affected; however, histological differences were observed between control and exposed fish. The number of cysts containing spermatids was reduced by effluent exposure, although the
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 28 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
number of spermatozoa produced was not affected. There were also histological effects in liver cells.
Biochemical effects were noted in the testes, including reduced levels of lactate and reduced activity of lactate dehydrogenase. This may have been related to the histological changes, since lactate is involved in normal development of germ cells.
Conclusions Regarding Effects of Effluent from the Proposed Mill
We can draw no conclusions from this study about potential effects of effluent from the proposed pulp mill on the Rio Negro. The proposed mill is a modern mill which meets BAT standards. The mill studied in this paper was not in any way similar.
Review of Carnikian-Fernandes (undated)
This thesis presents information on the bioassay testing with fathead minnows that contributed to the Ph.D. thesis of Miguez-Carames (2013), reviewed above. It presents additional detail that was not stated in the Ph.D. thesis, and thus facilitates our review.
Our review of this thesis is focused on evidence and interpretations relevant to potential for EDC effects from the pulp mill at Fray Bentos, and particularly on aspects of that work that we can understand better by review of this thesis.
An important line of evidence in the thesis by Miguez-Carames (2013) was the bioassay testing of effluent from the Fray Bentos pulp mill. That testing is also presented by Carnikian-Fernandes (undated), but with more methodological detail. Specifically, in the 21-day egg production bioassay, Carnikian-Fernandes clarifies that there were 3 control tanks and 3 effluent exposure tanks. Thus, n=3 for each treatment (control, effluent). This is below the minimum of 4 replicates required by the test protocol (US EPA. 2002a).
No statistical analysis is presented to support the claim that the lower egg production in the effluent treatment as compared to the control is statistically significant. As noted above, it is not clear that an effluent effect on egg production has been demonstrated. Statistical methods were described by Keel-Morgan (2012) and are reviewed below. They did not follow the test protocol, and seem to be inappropriate; thus, we do not believe that a mill effluent effect on fish egg production was demonstrated.
Carnikian-Fernandes (undated) indicates that histological examination of the gonads of exposed fathead minnows did not show any statistically significant changes as compared to controls, either for males or females. It is difficult to believe that egg production has been impaired when ovarian histology is normal.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 29 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Review of Keel-Morgan (2012)
This thesis presents information on the bioassay testing with fathead minnows that contributed to the Ph.D. thesis of Miguez-Carames (2013) and the M.Sc. thesis of Carnikian (undated), both reviewed above. This thesis presents detail on the bioassay testing that was not stated in the other two theses, and thus facilitates our review of the work.
Our review of this thesis is focused on evidence and interpretations relevant to potential for EDC effects from the pulp mill at Fray Bentos, and particularly on aspects of that work that we can understand better by review of this thesis.
An important line of evidence in the thesis by Miguez-Carames (2013) was the bioassay testing of effluent from the Fray Bentos pulp mill. That testing is also presented by Keel-Morgan (2012), but with more methodological detail. Specifically, in the 21-day egg production bioassay, the experimental design and statistical analysis are better described by Keel-Morgan (2012).
The experimental design for the egg production bioassay is clarified. For each effluent sample there were 3 control tanks and 3 effluent exposure tanks, each containing 2 males and 4 females (36 fish in total). Thus, n=3 for each treatment (control, effluent). This is below the minimum of 4 replicates required by the test protocol (US EPA. 2002a).
The statistical analysis of the egg production data consisted of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test for equality of two probability distributions. The plot of total egg production against day, for each treatment, was considered as a cumulative probability distribution, and the distributions were compared between control and effluent exposed fish. This approach is referenced to Thorpe et al. (2007); however, it does not follow Thorpe et al. (2007). Thorpe et al. (2007) used the K-S test to compare the temporal pattern of egg production in pre-exposure vs exposure periods, for the same group of fish.
The K-S approach is not in accordance with the statistical analysis section of the test protocol (US EPA. 2002a). In particular, it does not consider the variability among replicates, and does not test whether the difference in egg production between treatments is greater than expected based on the variability within treatments (between replicates). This is particularly important because individual fish are variable, and differences can arise by chance, simply due to the selection of fish for control and treatment groups. A number of appropriate statistical approaches for evaluating treatment effects on egg production are described in the test protocol. The K-S test is not one of them.
Based on the departure from test protocol, and the inappropriate statistical analysis, we do not believe that an effect of pulp mill effluent exposure on fathead minnow egg production was demonstrated.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 30 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Keel-Morgan (2012) indicates that gene transcription biomarkers of exposure to EDCs were found in the fish exposed to mill effluent. This is hardly surprising, given the detection of EDCs in fish throughout the Rio Uruguay (Miguez-Carames, 2013). Biomarkers of exposure do not constitute evidence of endocrine effect.
Summary - Consideration of Other Literature on EDC Effects in Mill Effluent
The author interpretation of results in the three theses mentioned above, i.e. that evidence is provided for EDC effects from a BAT mill on the Rio Uruguay, is in marked contrast to other literature on prediction/mitigation of such effects. Much of the literature on EDC effects from mill effluent has involved studies of Canadian mills. The Canadian mills are not modern mills. Mill effluent effects on fish reproduction have been demonstrated at some of these older mills. Systematic investigations have been undertaken to identify mill effluent characteristics that correlate with these effects, and mitigative measures that are likely to eliminate these effects (Martel et al., 2012; Kovacs et al., 2013; Martel et al. 2017).
The fathead minnow egg production bioassay test has been used as a standard test in these investigations. Martel et al. (2012, 2017) tested 81 effluents, from 20 mills, including 8 bleached kraft mills, 6 mechanical mills, 4 recycled fibre mills and 2 sulphite mills. For the bleached kraft mills (Figure 3), they found that effluents with more than ~25 mg/L BOD5 caused significantly reduced egg production, while those with less than 25 mg/L BOD5 did not, with a few exceptions that were attributed to additives. Investigation of two exceptions showed that a polymer flocculant in the treatment plant was likely the causative agent. Apart from this, the BOD5 correlation implicates organic losses, likely wood extractives, as causative agents when effects occur.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 31 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
Figure 3: Egg Production vs BOD5 in Fathead Minnows Exposed to Bleached Kraft Mill Effluent (Martel et al., 2012).
Common wood extractives include resin acids, plant sterols, phenolics, and in mills using free chlorine, chlorophenolics (Hewitt et al., 2008). The strongest reproductive effects that have been reported for mill effluents are in mills that still use free chlorine (e.g. Kovacs et al., 1995; Castro et al., 2018). Kovacs et al. (1996) reported elimination of reproductive effects at one such mill following mill upgrade, which included elimination of free chlorine. As most mills move away from free chlorine, and adopt secondary treatment, mitigation is focused on control of organic losses and optimization of biotreatment. Martel et al. (2011) report elimination of reproductive effects at a mill following implementation of biotreatment. Hewitt et al. (2008) note that, while biotreatment may not eliminate all causative agents, continuous exposure to 100% effluent is typically required to maintain effects, if any.
In consideration of the body of literature on fish reproductive effects from bleached kraft mill effluent, it is clear that such effects are not expected from effluent exposure at a BAT mill with BOD5 below 25 mg/L. Given this fact, and the questions raised in our review of the three theses mentioned above, we believe that the theses have not demonstrated reproductive effect from the BAT mill effluent that they studied. At most, they provide biomarker evidence that fish exposed to mill effluent were also exposed to EDC compounds. This is not evidence of reproductive effect.
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 32 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
References Cited
EcoMetrix, 2006. Cumulative Impact Study, Uruguay Pulp Mills. Annex D: Water Quality. A report prepared for the International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group. September 2006.
EcoMetrix, 2009. Orion Pulp Mill, Uruguay. Independent Performance Monitoring as required by the International Finance Corporation. Phase 3: Environmental Performance Review, 2008 Monitoring Year. A report prepared for Botnia S.A. for the International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group. March 2009.
Hewitt, L.M., T.G. Kovacs, M.G. Dube, D.L. MacLatchy, P.H. Martel, M.E. McMaster, M.G. Paice, J.L. Parrott, M.R. van den Heuvel and G.J. Van Der Kraak. 2008. Altered reproduction in fish exposed to pulp and paper mill effluents: Roles of individual compounds and mill operating conditions. Environ. Toxicol. And Chem. 27(3): 682-697.
Kovacs, T.G., J.S. Gibbons, L.A. Tremblay, B.I. O’Connor, P.H. Martel and R.H. Voss. 1995. The effects of a secondary treated bleached kraft mill effluent on aquatic organisms as assessed by short-term and long-term laboratory tests. Ecotoxicol. and Environ. Safety 31: 7-22.
Kovacs, T.G., J.S. Gibbons, P.H. Martel, and R.H. Voss. 1996. Improved effluent quality at a bleached kraft mill as determined by laboratory biotests. J. Toxicol. and Environ. Health Part A 49(5): 533-561.
Kovacs, T.G., P.H. Martel, B.I. O’Connor, L.M. Hewitt, J.L. Parrott, M.E. McMaster, D.L. MacLatchy, G.J. Van Der Kraak and M.R, van den Heuvel. 2013. A survey of Canadian mechanical pulp and paper mill effluents: Insights concerning the potential to affect fish reproduction. J. Environ. Science and Health Part A. 48: 1178-1189.
Martel, P.H., T.G. Kovacs, B.L. O’Connor, S. Semeniuk, L.M. Hewitt, D.L. MacLatchy, M.E. McMaster, J.L. Parrott, M.R. van den Heuvel and G.J. Van Der Kraak. 2011. Effluent monitoring at a bleached kraft mill: Directions for best management practices for eliminating effects on fish reproduction. J. Environ. Science and Health Part A 46: 833-843.
Martel, P., T. Kovacs, B. O’Connor, M. Hewitt, M. McMaster, J. Parrott, D. MacLatchy, G. Van Der Kraak and M. van den Heuvel. 2012. Towards Cost Effective Solutions for Elimination of Reproductive Effects in Fish Exposed to Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents. Cycle 6 Investigation of Cause Project. Environment Canada.
Martel, P.H., B.I. O’Connor, T.G. Kovacs, M.R. van den Heuvel, J.L. Parrott, M.E. McMaster, D.L. MacLatchy, G.J. Van Der Kraak and L.M. Hewitt. 2017. The relationship
19 March, 2019
Gervasio Gonzalez, UPM
Page 33 of 33
Reference: Review of EDC References Provided by DINAMA
between organic loading and effects on fish reproduction for pulp mill effluents across Canada. Environ. Science and Technol. 51: 3499-3507.
Thorpe, K.L., R. Benstead, T., T. H. Hutchinson and C.R. Tyler. 2007. Associations between altered vitellogenin concentrations and adverse health effects in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Aquatic Toxicology 85: 176-183.
US EPA. 2002a. A Short-term Test Method for Assessing the Reproductive Toxicity of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Using the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas). EPA/600/R-01/067. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
US EPA. 2002b. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Ed. EPA-821-R-02-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
top related