The responsible disposal of biosolids mitigates impacts on natural ecosystems and waterbodies.

The UoC should develop and implement a biosolids management plan which procedures relating to the responsible disposal of biosolids.

Documents outlining the process and location of biosolids disposal.

The documents should demonstrate biosolids are disposed of responsibly. An example may be a biosolids management plan.

The management plan may include a flow diagram that outlines key steps for the disposal of biosolids.

If biosolids are transferred to a third party, evidence should be available to confirm that the third party has disposed of biosolids responsibly.

Documents, for example a biosolids management plan, have been presented which demonstrate the responsible disposal of biosolids.

If biosolids are transferred to a third-party, evidence has been presented to confirm that the third-party has responsibly disposed of biosolids.

The following outlines examples of the purposes for uncontaminated biosolids re-use:

Documents demonstrating the appropriate treatment and re-use of biosolids.

An example may be a biosolids management plan.

The management plan may include a flow diagram that outlines key steps for the treatment of biosolids prior to re-use to ensure they are uncontaminated.

Documents, for example a biosolids management plan, have been presented which demonstrate only uncontaminated biosolids are re-used.

This requirement will mitigate impacts on water quality and the risk of salinisation, therefore supporting the implementation of Criterion 2.6 and 2.7 respectively.

Records which demonstrate:

Records have been presented which demonstrate biosolids are not disposed of and/or released into receiving waterbodies, natural wetlands or other ecosystems.

There is no evidence of the discharge and/or release of biosolids into receiving waterbodies, natural wetlands or other ecosystems during the audit.

The UoC should develop and implement a biosolids management plan, which includes procedures relating to the containment of biosolids.

The appropriate containment of biosolids should consider the risk of runoff during anticipated and/or recurring extreme weather events, such as tropical storms or flooding.

Documents demonstrating the appropriate containment of biosolids. An example may be a biosolids management plan.

The management plan may include a flow diagram that outlines key steps for the containment of biosolids.

Documents, for example a biosolids management plan, have been presented which demonstrate the appropriate containment of biosolids.

Conformance should be confirmed through a visual inspection of the site.

Freshwater wells with a conductivity or chloride concentration above the thresholds in Indicator 2.7.4 will demonstrate that salinisation has taken place.

Specific conductance or chloride concentration should be monitored at a frequency adapted to fluctuations due to natural factors, such as seasonal rains.

Records of specific conductance of freshwater wells on, or in proximity to the site (within 1km radius).

Regulatory records obtained where applicable, to demonstrate well-monitoring is not permitted by law.

Monitoring records are available for freshwater wells in proximity to the site, which demonstrate either conductivity or chloride concentration is below the relevant threshold specified in Indicator 2.7.4.

Monitoring has taken place at least every six months and considered natural factors, such as seasonal rains.

Regulatory records are available for instances where well-monitoring is not permitted by law.

The records demonstrate conductivity testing has taken place.

Hand-held refractometers can be used to measure salinity. These devices are appropriate for salinities of approximately 2 or 3 ppt, but they are not sensitive enough to determine if sites are causing the salinisation of freshwater bodies.

The quickest and easiest method to evaluate salinity of water is to measure specific conductance with a conductivity meter. An alternative method is a chloride test kit, which is typically cheaper.

Salinity levels are: Freshwater (limnetic; <0.5 ppt), slightly saline (oligohaline; 0.5-4.9 ppt), moderate saline (mesohaline; 5-17.9 ppt), highly saline (polyhaline; 18-29.9 ppt) and seawater (euhaline; 30-34.9 ppt).

River estuaries are an example of a waterbody that have periodic varying salinity levels. These can also be referred to as poikilohaline waterbodies.

Salinity testing of effluent water in the receiving waterbody or natural wetlands should be conducted.

Salinity levels in the receiving waterbody or natural wetlands may be obtained from credible sources, e.g. results of government monitoring.

To comply with the exception in the indicator, salinity testing in the waterbody or natural wetland should take place. Alternatively, test results can be obtained from credible sources, e.g. scientific or government body.

Results of salinity testing for effluent water and in the receiving waterbody or natural wetlands.

If applicable, reports or measurements determining whether waterbodies and natural wetlands have naturally varying salinity levels.

Salinity test results have been presented which determine one of the following:

The location and/or route of the discharge of brackish or saltwater effluent to demonstrate discharge does not take place over land.

Examples of evidence may include maps/plans of the discharge locations/routes.

Evidence has been presented, such as maps/plans, to demonstrate brackish or saltwater effluent is not discharged over land.

Brackish water has a salinity of 0.5-29.9 ppt, while seawater has a salinity of > 29.9 ppt.

Low permeable liners include liners made from:

Records demonstrating the installation and maintenance of low permeable liners in ponds.

Low permeable liners have been installed and maintained in ponds.

For UoCs located in tidal systems, timing of measurements should correspond with high and low tides, to reflect variations related to the tidal regime.

The UoC can conduct DO monitoring immediately downstream of the last site in a waterbody whilst still following the sampling method in Appendix 8 (8.11).

This may reduce sampling costs when there are multiple sites discharging point source effluent releases to a Type B waterbody near each other.

The methods outlined in Appendix (8.11.2 and 8.11.3) shall be used to record DO concentrations used to determine daily diurnal DO (DDDO).

Any missed samples or deviations in sampling time should be accompanied by a written justification.

Records that DO measurements correspond to high and low tides in tidal systems.

The location of the sampling point, demonstrating that measurements have taken place downstream from the outflow point.

Results of daily DO monitoring and DDDO fluctuation calculations.

DO measurements have taken place at high and low tides in tidal systems.

DO measurements have taken place downstream from the outflow point.

The UoC has presented results of the DDDO calculations based on DO measurements collected in accordance with the methods outlined in Appendix 8.11.1 and 8.11.2.

Confirm the fluctuation level based on the DDDO calculation is ≤65% saturation level.

Written justifications were provided if there were any missed samples or deviations in the sampling time.

For both diffuse-source and point-source effluent releases, the UoC should monitor and record percent saturation of DO.

All measurements should be taken using a calibrated oxygen meter or equivalent method.

The percent saturations should then be calculated based on the monitoring data.

The analytical methods for DO sampling can be found in Appendix 8 (8.12).

Any missed samples or deviations in sampling time should be accompanied by a written justification.

The UoC can measure DO concentration and saturation immediately downstream of the last site in a waterbody whilst still following the sampling method in Appendix 8 (8.11).

This may reduce sampling costs when there are multiple sites discharging point source effluent releases to a Type B waterbody near each other.

The oxygen meter has been calibrated according to the technical specifications.

Records of measurement locations, demonstrating monitoring took place immediately downstream from the outflow point, or in the receiving waterbody downstream from the site for diffuse source releases.

Records of daily monitoring of DO concentration and saturation, which result in weekly averages of daily DO saturation.

≤5% of the weekly averages of daily DO concentrations are 2mg/l.

Written justifications are maintained for any missed samples or deviations in sampling times.

The UoC has calibrated the oxygen meter according to the technical specifications.

Measurement locations were immediately downstream from the outflow point, or in the receiving waterbody downstream from the site for diffuse source releases.

Weekly averages of daily DO saturation are presented by the UoC and that the averages are ≥65% for freshwater and ≥70% for seawater.

The UoC has presented evidence that ≤5% of weekly samples fall under 2 mg/L DO.

Written justifications are provided for any missed samples or deviations in sampling times.