metro mining bauxite hills project metro mining

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro Miningii - Executive Summary

Section 9Water Quality

Metro MiningAppendix K - Environmental Management Plan

Metro Mining Bauxite Hills Project

Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement

9-1

9 Water Quality

9.1 Introduction

Since the EIS was submitted, three subsequent surface and groundwater monitoring events (May,

June and July 2016) have been completed. This additional information has enabled the calculation

of interim site specific trigger values based on reference data for most parameters of interest, as per

the preferred method for the protection of HEV systems as outlined by the QWQG. This represents

a shift away from relying on AWQG default triggers to applying the QWQG based framework to

assess change in the environment from reference conditions. This evolution in available data has

also allowed the regulatory and environmental impact assessment framework to be revised both in

the selection of sites and analytical suite.

This supplementary submission aims to describe the key changes in the proposed framework for

environmental protection and to address the key concerns raised by EHP commentary. The

following elements of the proposed monitoring framework are discussed:

Summary of changes;

Water type classification;

Release and impact monitoring points; and

Generation of interim water quality objectives.

Appendix A includes the full details of all submissions received for the Project.

9.2 Summary of Changes

The key changes in the monitoring framework presented for surface and groundwater as amended

since the EIS submission are summarised in Table 9-1. The basis for these changes are further

explained in the sub-sections below.

The EIS contained a dataset comprising Project derived site specific data in addition to regional

water quality data associated with other Projects. This dataset formed the basis for the water quality

analysis in the EIS. Since the release of the EIS three further sampling events were undertaken. A

review of the revised water quality dataset, which incorporated the three additional rounds of data,

against descriptions of natural conditions was undertaken. Although there was shift in some

statistical means it was assessed that the additional data has not materially changed the assessment

of background conditions as described in Chapter 9 of the EIS.

The revised assessment is considered more reflective of site specific conditions.

Table 9-1 Summary of changes in monitoring framework

Element EIS Framework Supplementary Report Framework

Relocation of Project infrastructure

Assumed standalone project with no

share infrastructure components with

the SRBP

Assumes use of the SRBP MIA, BLF,

RoRo, main haul road and

accommodation facilities, in addition

to the relocation of the BH1 haul road

to avoid HES wetlands.

Surface Water Monitoring Basis of assessment criteria

predominantly AWQG

Basis of assessment criteria

predominantly reference conditions

Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement

9-2

Element EIS Framework Supplementary Report Framework

Extensive monitoring suite Monitoring suite relevant to risk

Defined surface water monitoring points for (REMP): Freshwater; Marine water; and Estuarine.

Defined surface water environmental monitoring points (REMP): Freshwater; Upper Estuary; and Lower Estuary.

Not nominated within the EIS.

Defined surface water release and reference monitoring points: Barge Loading Area sediment

ponds; and Upper Estuary impact and reference

monitoring points.

Groundwater Monitoring


predominantly AWQG


predominantly reference conditions

with additional risk-relevant

parameters

Extensive monitoring suite

Impact and reference sites established

for treated effluent irrigation and port

loading bay areas

Defined surface water monitoring

points for (REMP)

REMP reference criteria developed

and monitoring suite rationalised

based on risk

9.3 Cooperative Surface Water Monitoring System

The decision to utilize the approved SRBP MIA, BLF, RoRo main haul road and accommodation

facilities provides the opportunity for the design and implementation of a cooperative surface water

monitoring program. The following sections have been written on the basis that a cooperative

arrangement to undertake surface water monitoring addressing the requirements of both project

approvals and EA conditions will ultimately be established.

9.4 Water Type Classification

Four water types have been classified for the purposes of the revised monitoring framework; upper

estuary, lower estuary, freshwater and groundwater. The separation of estuary sites between upper

and lower estuary was determined by assessment of salinity and geomorphic location (i.e. stream

width and location to main river channel). Freshwater reference sites were selected based on

salinity range. Statistical analysis of variance between the grouped freshwater sites indicates the

differences are not significant and are suitable for the grouped assessment applied. Further

refinement of water types may be undertaken following additional sampling to include water

quality criteria specific to freshwater wetlands (such as nutrients and EC).

Post EIS approval surface water and groundwater monitoring programs are discussed in Sections

9.7.5 and 9.7.6 of the Supplementary Report, respectively.


9-3

9.5 Characterisation of Background Water Quality

9.5.1 Freshwater and Marine Water

A broad characterisation of regional water quality using a range of Project site specific data in

addition to data collected from combined regional operations and sites is at Section 9.5.6 of the EIS.

The Project site specific data includes data obtained for the Project, in addition to data obtained for

the SRBP. Regional data includes water quality data obtained from the Pisolite Hills Project, Amrun

EIS and DNRM Dulhunty gauge station. With the additional site specific data now available and

reclassification of water types, this characterisation of background condition can be refined. A

comparison of the changes for key parameters, in addition to the EIS framework data and additional

recent sampling events data is presented in Table 9-2.

Site specific conditions for freshwater were for the most part similar to regional conditions although

EC and turbidity were an order of magnitude higher. The regional freshwater dataset was

dominated by sites within Namaleta Creek which is a larger freshwater system than sites

represented in the site specific freshwater dataset and accounts for the variability in EC and

turbidity. Conditions for estuarine environments were more variable with turbidity and EC reported

at lower levels for the revised site specific dataset in comparison to the regionally derived dataset

whilst nutrients (particularly phosphorus) are higher. It is likely that a degree of variation between

site characterisation can be attributed to the increase in dataset used in the site specific

characterisation (for example site specific dataset refers to 33 data points for EC whilst the regional

dataset refers to 16).

Table 9-2 Water quality characteristics for freshwater and marine water presented for regional (EIS) and site-specific (sup) databases

Water Type Parameter Unit Regional Site Specific Comments

Mean 80th Mean 80th

Freshwater Electrical

Conductivity

µS/cm

53.1 51.9 267.7 715

Site Specific

conditions

elevated to

regional sites

pH Unit 5.3 5.9 6.0 6.5 -

Turbidity NTU

4.3 5.4 32.6 60.4

Site Specific

conditions

elevated to

regional sites

Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 -

Total Nitrogen mg/L 0.34 0.39 0.36 0.38 -

Aluminium µg/L 91.4 130.0 70.8 140.0 -

Zinc µg/L 5.8 6.0 7.1 8.0 -

Copper µg/L 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.0 -

Estuarine

(combined

upper and lower

sites)

Electrical

Conductivity

µS/cm

52,358 62,360 40,583 52,620

Lower EC

reported for

site specific

environments

pH Unit 7.7 8.3 7.7 8.0 -

Turbidity NTU

11.0 28.6 9.0 16.0

Lower turbidity

reported for

site specific

environments

Total Phosphorus mg/L

0.05 0.06 0.68 0.49

A substantially

higher range

reported for


9-4

Water Type Parameter Unit Regional Site Specific Comments

Mean 80th Mean 80th

site specific

environments

Total Nitrogen mg/L

0.55 0.60 0.55 1.00

Slightly

elevated

values

reported for

site specific

environments

Aluminium µg/L

107.9 60.0 44.2 50.0

Lower values

reported for

site specific

environments

Zinc µg/L 15.9 25.0 20.6 25.0 -

Copper µg/L

5.4 14.2 5.1 5.0

Slightly lower

values

reported for

site specific

environments

9.5.2 Groundwater

The concentrations of total dissolved solids in groundwater samples collected since February 2016

were within the range of values detected in the previous sampling rounds. Major ion concentrations

were generally within the range of values previously detected except for bicarbonate alkalinity (121

mg/L detected in BH6-MB2-S in May 2016, compared to the previous maximum of 50 mg/L).

The concentrations of dissolved chromium and manganese were found to be marginally higher than

the maximum concentrations previously detected (0.004 and 0.57 mg/L respectively, compared to

the previous maximum of 0.003 and 0.29 mg/L respectively). Additional metals have been analysed

including barium, beryllium, boron, cobalt and vanadium with minimum concentrations below

laboratory detection limits and maximum concentrations of 0.019 mg/L, 0.001 mg/L, 0.3 mg/L,

0.005 mg/L and 0.01 mg/L, respectively.

An elevated concentration of total nitrogen (121 mg/L) was detected in BH6-MB2-S in May 2016,

above the previously detected maximum of 15.3 mg/L, noting this is the same bore where an

anomalously high concentration of bicarbonate alkalinity was detected. As BH6-MB2-S has only

contained sufficient water to be sampled on two occasions (March 2015 and May 2016), it is not

clear if the result is an anomaly. However, it is noted that the ionic balance of the sample is outside

of the acceptable range and the laboratory was unable to identify the cause of this (refer to the

laboratory certificate EB1612196 presented in Appendix G).

The total phosphorus concentrations are within the range of values previously detected.

9.6 Release and Impact Monitoring Points

The Bauxite Hills Project will utilize the approved SRBP MIA and BLF for the stockpiling and barge

loading operations. The original proposed MIA for the standalone project is no longer required and

consequently the two sediment ponds originally proposed at the MIA and associated release points

are no longer relevant. The SRBP EA conditions for release and impact monitoring will be utilized

for the Bauxite Hills Project.


9-5

Similarly, groundwater impact monitoring sites that were nominated upstream and downstream of

the MIA are no longer required. Monitoring sites for the irrigation of treated effluent site are also

now not required given a separate accommodation camp for the Bauxite Hills project is no longer

required as the approved SRBP accommodation facilities will be used for the Bauxite Hills Project.

9.7 Generation of Interim Water Quality Objectives

9.7.1 Water Type Classification

Three water classifications have been defined for the amalgamation of similar water data sites to

generate the trigger values. These water classifications are; freshwater, upper estuary and lower

estuary.

The classifications are based on the physical nature of the sample-site water bodies, which affects

processes such as flushing and residence times as well as key chemical characteristics including

electrical conductivity.

The average electrical conductivity for twelve surface water sampling sites that form the surface

water database for the site are shown at Figure 9-1.

Sites SW01, SW03 and SW04 were grouped and defined as “freshwater” based on their clearly

distinguished low electrical conductivity (<752 µS/cm) and locations being ephemeral surface

water streams.

Site SW05 was not included in the groupings due to its location high in the Skardon River estuary

where it is considered a transitional location between upstream freshwater inputs (average

electrical conductivity of 24,482 µS/cm) and the tidal environment.

Sites W6, W1, W2, W7, W3 and SW02 were grouped together and defined as “upper estuary” based

on their electrical conductivity (range of 32,343-45,274 µS/cm) and location within the Skardon

River estuary (i.e. branch off the main channel) which, due to tidal, flushing and catchment inputs

contributes to similar water quality characteristics.

Sites W4 and W5 were grouped together and defined as “lower estuary” based on their electrical

conductivity (range of 48,599-49,137 µS/cm) and location within the Skardon River estuary (i.e.

within the main channel) that would likewise result in characteristics different to those within the

more tidally constrained upstream branches.


9-6

Figure 9-1 Average electrical conductivity at the surface water sampling sites

9.7.2 Number of Sites and Sample Used to Establish Reference Conditions

The use of environmental reference sites to derive percentile based site specific trigger values for

compliance monitoring and guidelines to monitor changes from background conditions (rather than

generic guidelines defined under ANZECC/ARMCANZ) introduces a number of variables that need

to be considered and managed. The QWQG discuss the need to manage natural variability over time

and between sites. To manage this the QWQG provide some guidance regarding the number of sites

and the number of samples used to assess reference condition. The Guidelines state that “errors in

percentile estimates will reduce with increasing sample size” and recommend “that at least two (and

preferably more) reference sites are used to derive guidelines for each water type”. Where an

extensive data set is not available (typical for background monitoring programs such as this one),

the percentile estimates based on site specific data would give rise to more stringent compliance

criteria and environmental guidelines for monitoring change. The Guideline further states

“percentile estimates based on eight or more samples could be used to derive interim guidelines on

the understanding that further data would be collected and guideline values updated accordingly.”

The database used to characterise the two release-receiving water types (i.e. upper estuary and

groundwater) is currently sufficient (i.e. greater than two sites used and eight reference points) to

establish interim reference criteria for the 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles for the majority of

parameters of interest. A summary of the number of sites and number of samples available for the

assessment of reference conditions for each of the defined water types is presented at Table 9-3. All

sampling locations are shown in Figure 9-2 for surface waters and Figure 9-3 for groundwater.

The surface water locations listed under site names reflect the location identifiers used in the water

quality assessments to date. The identifiers shown in brackets reflect the identifiers that will be used

by Metro Mining as part of the ongoing surface water quality monitoring for the Project. The

monitoring program has been rationalised resulting in some of the sites no longer proposed for

monitoring as part of the surface water quality monitoring for the Project.


9-7

Table 9-3 Summary of database criteria available to characterise the environment

Water Type

Site Identifier

(Supplementary Report

Identifier)

Number of Sites Average Number of Samples1

Upper Estuary

SW02 (W6)

8 14

SW05

W1

W2

W3 (W3)

Lower Estuary W4 (W4)

2 6 W5 (W5)

Freshwater

SW01 (W2)

3 8 SW03 (W7)

SW04 (W1)

Groundwater

BH1_MB1_D (MB-1)

8 26

BH1_MB2_D (MB -2)

BH1_MB3_D (MB-3)

BH6_MB01_D (MB-5)

BH6_MB01_S (MB-5)

BH6_MB02_D (MB-6)

BH6_MB02_S (MB-6)

BH6_MB03_D (MB-4)

S1

S9

S6

W5

W4

W3

W2

W1

S10

AQ01

AQ02

AQ03

SW03

SW02

SP01

SW01

SKARDON RIVER

NA

MALETA CREE K

NAMALETA CREEK

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

DATE

DISCLAIMERCDM Smith has endeavoured to ensure accuracy

and completeness of the data. CDM Smith assumes no legal liability or responsibility for any decisions or actions resulting from the information contained

within this map.

GCS GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Figure 9-2

urface water sampling locations

©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITHThis drawing is confidential and shall only be used

for the purpose of this project.

APPROVED

DRAWN

19/12/16

CHECKED

Legend

Surface Water Sampling Location

Major watercourse

Minor watercourse

Bauxite Hills Project Infrastructure

Skardon River Bauxite Project Infrastructure

DATA SOURCEMEC Mining;

QLD Government Open Source Data;Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric

(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES160276-011 R2_surface water sampling

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:72,657Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

21/10/15

1

Notes:

2

-

-

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES160276_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\SEIS Low Impact Stand Alone Scenario\BES160276-011 R2_surface water sampling.mxd

For Information Purposes

Updated Pit Extents

-

-

-

-

15/07/15

18/10/163 Updated Haul Roads & Infrastructure

Skardon RiverBauxite Project

Airport Strip

Bauxite Hills Project Haul Road Easement

BH6 West MLA boundary

(ML 20689)


AccommodationCamp

BH6 EastMLA boundary

(ML 20688)

BH1 MLA boundary(ML 20676)

Skardon River Bauxite Project Haul Road

Bauxite Hills ProjectHaul Road BH6 to BH1

Bauxite Hills ProjectFixed Tide Gauge

Bauxite Hills ProjectCyclone Moorings


Mine Infrastructure Area,Port and Barge

Loading Facility

4 14/10/16

GMB6

GMB5

GMB4

GMB3

GMB2

GMB1

AKP01

AKM26

BH6-MB3SBH6-MB3D

BH6-MB2SBH6-MB2D

BH6-MB1SBH6-MB1D

BH1-MB3SBH1-MB3D BH1-MB2S

BH1-MB2D

BH1-MB1SBH1-MB1D

SKARDONRIVE

R

NA

MALETA CREEK

SKARDON R IVE R

NAMALETACREEK

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

62500086

85

00

0

86

85

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

DATE



within this map.


0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Figure 9-3

Baseline groundwater monitoring bores



APPROVED

DRAWN

19/12/16

CHECKED

Legend

Skardon River Bauxite Project baseline monitoring bore

Bauxite Hills baseline monitoring bore



Watercourse

Wetland Class

Estuarine

Palustrine

Riverine

DATA SOURCEMEC Mining 2016;


(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES160276-012 R1_groundwater monitoring bores

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:70,000Scale @ A3 -

MIDESIGNED

CHECKED MI

MD

MD

27/07/16

R Details Date

15/07/151

Notes:

2

3

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES160276_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\SEIS Low Impact Stand Alone Scenario\BES160276-012 R1_groundwater monitoring bores.mxd

For Approval

Updated Pit Extents

Final

-

-

21/10/15

27/07/16

Updated Haul Roads and Port Area

5 Updated Haul Roads and Infrastructure 7/12/16


Airport Strip



(ML 20689)


AccommodationCamp

BH6 EastMLA boundary

(ML 20688)




Bauxite Hills ProjectFixed Tide Gauge




Loading Facility

BigFootprintSwamp

Lynette Swamp


9-10

9.7.3 Interim Guideline Values

Based on the data available, interim guideline values that allow assessment of change in receiving

waters for the majority of parameters of interest have been calculated for groundwater that has

potential to receive water via irrigation of treated effluent. Values to assess change in receiving

water from the MIA will be in accordance with those proposed and approval for the SRBP.

Note that for the statistical analysis to generate the percentile values where a data point was

reported as less than (<) the Limit of Reporting (LOR), the LOR figure was used. There is no standard

way to apply results that are below LOR, but in order to utilise all available data sets, this approach

was taken. It is noted that this approach has the potential to bias the analysis towards slightly higher

numbers than are actually the case.

The Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP) reference criteria for freshwater, upper

estuary and lower estuary are presented in Table 9-4, Table 9-5 and Table 9-6 respectively. Where

sufficient data is available (i.e. minimum of 8 data points), based on the 20th, 50th and 80th percentile

of the existing database. Where sufficient data points are not available, the default criteria for

tropical waters presented in the ANZECC ARMCANZ 2000 or other appropriate Guidelines have

been applied. The reference data will be updated progressively as data is added to the database.

The criteria for groundwater discharge from effluent irrigation are outlined in the Supplementary

Report Appendix I, Table 9-8. The analysis suite for discharge compliance is relevant to the risks

associated with treated effluent water.

The REMP suite is based on the existing database as outlined in Table 9-2. TPH would only be

monitored as part of investigations into hydrocarbon spills with their criteria mandated by EHP.

Parameters with reference criteria will be progressively updated as data is added.

9.7.4 Assessment of Change

The criteria outlined for monitoring receiving water are based on site specific data where sufficient

data exists to derive site specific criteria and guidelines. Where insufficient site specific data is

available default criteria and guidelines have been applied as outlined in Section 9.7.3. The

application of site specific criteria and guidelines and default criteria and guideline where required

is consistent with the environmental conditions applied by EHP for the adjacent Gulf Alumina

operations as the receiving environment and nature of operations are essentially the same.

The site specific criteria to assess release quality and impacts or change in the environment, based

on the 20th, 50th and 80th percentile from reference data or other nominated criteria, are shown at

Table 9-4 to Table 9-7.

Where assessment of impact is reported the assessment of change will be aligned with the method

as outlined in the QWQG Section D.2.1.1 ‘A statistical protocol for assessing medium to long term

compliance in HEV waters’.

Table 9-4 Freshwater reference criteria and REMP suite

Combined Reference Sites (SW01, SW03, SW04)

Parameters Units n Mean Median 20th % 50th % 80th %

pH pH 11 6.0 6.0 5.2 6.0 6.5

Redox (ORP) mV 8 128.1 132.7 111.6 132.7 158.0

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) % 10 50.0 50.2 33.2 50.2 75.6

Electrical Conductivity

(EC) µs/cm 11 268 58 28 58 715


9-11

Combined Reference Sites (SW01, SW03, SW04)

Turbidity NTU 8 32.6 16.5 7.5 16.5 60.4

Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L 2 30

(Due to insufficient data default to model mining conditions)

Total Dissolved Solids

(Calc.) mg/L 9 196 35 15 35 495

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 12 4.3 4.5 3.2 4.5 5.0

Ammonia as N µg/L 9 12 10 10 10 10

Nitrite as N µg/L 9 10 10 10 10 10

Nitrate as N µg/L 9 18 10 10 10 10

Nitrite + Nitrate as N µg/L 12 18 10 10 10 10

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as

N µg/L 12 350 100 100 100 380

Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 12 358 100 100 100 380

Reactive Phosphorus as P µg/L 9 10 10 10 10 10

Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 12 26 10 10 10 10

Metals (Dissolved)

Aluminium µg/L 12 71 40 20 40 140

Copper µg/L 12 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

Zinc µg/L 11 7.1 7.0 5.0 7.0 8.0

Table 9-5 Upper estuary reference criteria and REMP suite

Combined Reference Sites (SW02, SW05, W1, W2, W3, W4, W6, W7)



Redox (ORP) mV 20 80.0 86.4 52.8 86.4 95.0

pH pH 27 7.3 7.4 7.1 7.4 7.7

Electrical Conductivity (EC) µs/cm 27 38,082 42,618 26,639 42,618 45,100

Turbidity NTU 15 9.7 8.0 5.0 8.0 16.0

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 20 4,837

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Ammonia as N µg/L 20 102.5 70 36 70 144

Nitrite as N µg/L 20 10 10 10 10 10

Nitrate as N µg/L 20 17 10 10 10 20

Nitrite + Nitrate as N µg/L 25 17.6 10 10 10 20

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N µg/L 25 564 500 180 500 1,000

Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 25 564 500 180 500 1,000

Reactive Phosphorus as P µg/L 20 10 10 10 10 10


Metals (Dissolved)

Aluminium µg/L 25 50 50 50 50 50

Copper µg/L 13 5 5 3 5 5

Zinc µg/L 18 20 25 9.4 25 25


9-12

Table 9-6 Lower estuary reference criteria and REMP suite

Combined Reference Sites (W4, W5)


Dissolved Oxygen (DO) % 90 –120*

6 75.3 75.5 70.2 75.5 80.8

Redox (ORP) mV 8 96.0 91.0 75.3 91.0 119.1

pH pH 8 7.8 8.0 7.7 8.0 8.1

Electrical Conductivity (EC) µs/cm 8 47,840 47,401 45,871 47,401 49,459

Turbidity NTU 4 1 – 20*

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 4 2*

Ammonia as N µg/L 6 900*

Nitrite + Nitrate as N µg/L 8 10 10 10 10 10

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N µg/L 8 525 500 260 500 800

Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 8 525 500 260 500 800

Reactive Phosphorus as P µg/L 6 5*


Metals (Dissolved)

Aluminium µg/L 8 50 50 50 50 50

Copper µg/L 4 1.0#

Zinc µg/L 4 2.4#

* For tropical estuaries based on AWQG – tropical estuaries is nominated due to insufficient reference data # AWQG for marine 99% trigger is nominated due to insufficient reference data

Table 9-7 Groundwater reference criteria and REMP suite

Combined Reference Sites (BH1_MB1_D, BH1_MB2_D, BH1_MB3_D, BH6_MB01_D, BH6_MB02_D, BH6_MB02_S,

BH6_MB03_D)



Electrical Conductivity (EC) µs/cm 68 283.4 163.6 66.4 163.6 494.4

Redox (ORP) mV 70 158.7 141.8 99.2 141.8 192.6

Temperature 0C 74 29.8 29.5 29.1 29.5 30.4

Turbidity NTU 27 256 82 41 82 746

Field Parameters (Laboratory)

pH pH 67 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.9 5.5

Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L 45 5733 603 58 603 2196

Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 19 136.8 47.0 25.2 47.0 177.4

Alkalinity

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 56 14.5 8.5 3.0 8.5 23.0

Miscellaneous

Sulfate as SO4 mg/L 59 45.5 16.0 1.6 16.0 84.0

Chloride mg/L 59 36.7 16.0 8.2 16.0 57.8

Dissolved Major Cations

Calcium mg/L 59 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0

Magnesium mg/L 59 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.3

Potassium mg/L 59 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.9

Sodium mg/L 59 37.9 20.0 8.0 20.0 46.8

Ionic Balance

Ionic Balance % 13 7.6 4.5 1.3 4.5 11.8

Total Anions meq/L 58 2.3 1.3 0.5 1.3 3.3


9-13

Combined Reference Sites (BH1_MB1_D, BH1_MB2_D, BH1_MB3_D, BH6_MB01_D, BH6_MB02_D, BH6_MB02_S,

BH6_MB03_D)

Total Cations meq/L 58 2.1 1.1 0.5 1.1 4.0

Metals (Dissolved)

Aluminium µg/L 57 58 53.7 20.0 10.0 20.0

Arsenic µg/L 52 53 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Cadmium µg/L 55 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Chromium µg/L 53 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Copper µg/L 57 159.5 19.0 5.4 19.0 144.2

Iron µg/L 57 582.8 50.0 50.0 50.0 466.0

Lead µg/L 55 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Manganese µg/L 59 85.7 16.0 7.0 16.0 208.4

Nickel µg/L 53 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.6

Vanadium µg/L 19 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

Zinc µg/L 59 175.4 42.0 19.2 42.0 150.6

Mercury µg/L 53 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

9.7.5 Surface Water Release Points and Monitoring Locations

Surface water release points were originally nominated for the two sediment ponds proposed for

the MIA; however, with the utilisation of the approved SRBP MIA, BLF and RoRo, there are now no

surface water release points proposed for the Bauxite Hills Project. The release points that were

proposed and approved for the SRBP MIA are detailed in Table 9-8.

Table 9-8 - Contaminated water release points, sources and receiving waters as per SRBP draft EA

Release point

(RP)

Easting MGA94,

zone54

Northing MGA94,

zone 54

Contaminated

water source and

location

Monitoring

point

Receiving waters

locations

MIA sediment ponds

S13 616718 8699703 Port sediment pond

1 At release

point Skardon River

S14 616520 8700246 Port sediment 2

The quality of the receiving waters will be monitored by the operator of the combined Projects at

the compliance monitoring locations (see Table 9-9) and in accordance with the compliance

monitoring requirements specified in the SRBP draft EA (see Table 9-10). The actual locations of

these monitoring sites will be confirmed with EHP in accordance with the SRBP EA. Surface water

monitoring points are included in Figure 9-4.

Table 9-9 - Receiving water reference sites and release-influenced monitoring points as per SRBP draft EA

Monitoring points

Easting MGA94, zone 54

Northing MGA94, zone 54

Receiving waters location description

Upstream Reference Monitoring Points

S15 TBA TBA TBA m upstream of the S13 RP

S16 TBA TBA TBA m upstream of the S14 RP

Downstream Reference Monitoring Points

TBA TBA TBA TBA m upstream of the S14 RP

TBA TBA TBA TBA m upstream of the S14 RP

Big Footprint

Swamp

W8 (SW05)

W5

W4

W3

W7 (SW03)

W6 (SW02)

W1 (SW04) W2 (SW01)

S14

S13

SKARDON RIVER

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

DATE



within this map.


0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Figure -

urface water monitoring points



APPROVED

DRAWN

15/12/16

CHECKED

Legend

Major Watercourse

Minor Watercourse

Big Footprint Swamp



Surface Water Monitoring Locations

Freshwater monitoring point

Lower estuary monitoring point

Upper estuary monitoring point

Collaborative monitoring points



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES160276-004 R1_surface water monitoring

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:65,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/15

1

Notes:

2

3

-

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES160276_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\SEIS Low Impact Stand Alone Scenario\BES160276-004 R1_surface water monitoring.mxd


Updated Pit Extents

Updated reference sites

-

-

-

15/07/15

22/07/16

4 Updated Haul Roads and Infrastructure 18/10/16


Airport Strip



(ML 20689)


AccommodationCamp BH6 East

MLA boundary(ML 20688)







Loading Facility


9-15

Table 9-10 - Receiving water contaminant limits as per SRBP draft EA

Quality characteristic Unit Limit Monitoring frequency

Skardon River

Turbidity NTU 20 or 80th percentile of reference, whichever is higher.

Daily during release event (the first sample must be taken within two hours of commencement of release)

pH pH Units 20th percentile of reference or 5.0 (minimum) whichever is lower. 80th percentile of reference of 8.5 (maximum), whichever is higher.

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 50 mg/L or 80th percentile of reference, whichever is higher.

Aluminium µg/L 21 µg/L or 80th percentile of reference, whichever is higher.

Surface slicks, visible evidence of oil and grease

No visible film.

In addition to the monitoring program associated with the receiving water release points shown at

Table 9-9, the monitoring points outlined at Table 9-11 and shown at Figure 9-4 will be monitoring

as part of the ongoing water quality monitoring program specific to the Bauxite Hills Project. These

points will be established taking into consideration freshwater, lower estuary and upper estuary

conditions.

Table 9-11 –Surface water monitoring points

Monitoring points

Easting MGA94, zone 54

Northing MGA94, zone 54

Monitoring location description

Freshwater Monitoring Points

W1 (existing site) 620194 8694108 TBA m upstream of the SRBP MIA


W7 (existing site) 613193 8695468 Big Footprint Swamp

Lower Estuary Monitoring Points

W4 (existing site) 614284 8701663 TBA m downstream of the SRBP MIA


Upper Estuary Monitoring Points



W8 (new site) 616414 8692916 TBA m downstream of the SRBP MIA

9.7.6 Groundwater Monitoring Locations

The groundwater monitoring locations and monitoring frequencies are provided in Table 9-12 for

Bauxite Hills specific monitoring activities. The monitoring program associated with the SRBP MIA

and BLF areas are shown at Table 9-13. The monitoring point locations are shown Figure 9-5.

Quality characteristics that will be monitored for under the Project specific and collaborative

monitoring programs are presented in Table 9-14 and Table 9-15.

11 m

AH

D

10 m

AH

D

9 m

AH

D

8 m

AH

D

7 m

AH

D

6 m

AH

D

5 m

AH

D

6 mAHD

5 mAHD

4 mAHD

3 m

AH

D

7 m

AHD

B-MB3

B-MB2

B-MB1

MB-3RMB-2R

MB-1R

MB-4

MB-6

MB-5

MB-3

MB-2

MB-1

MB-9

MB-8

MB-7

MB-6R

MB-4R

SKARDON RIVER

NAM

ALETA CREEK

NAMALETA CREEK

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

DATE



within this map.


0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Figure -

roundwater monitoring network



APPROVED

DRAWN

12/09/16

CHECKED

Legend

Reference Groundwater Monitoring Bore

Groundwater Monitoring Bore

Collaborative Monitoring Points

Groundwater Contour (Wet season)

Groundwater Contour (Inferred)

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Watercourse



Groundwater Dependence

High potential for GW interaction

Moderate potential for GW interaction

Low potential for GW interaction



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES160276-003 R1_groundwater monitoring network

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:70,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

16/07/151

Notes:

2

-

-

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES160276_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\SEIS Low Impact Stand Alone Scenario\BES160276-003 R1_groundwater monitoring network.mxd


Updated Pit Extents

-

-

-

-

12/09/16

3 Updated Haul Road & Infrastructure 19/10/16

G28

G26

G24

G23

G25

G27

G22

CombinedInfrastructureArea


Airport Strip



(ML 20689)


AccommodationCamp BH6 East

MLA boundary(ML 20688)




Bauxite Hill ProjectFixed Tide Gauge




Loading Facility


9-17

There is a naming discrepancy identified by external parties as to whether the siltstone underlying

the kaolinite clay layer represents the top of the Rolling Downs Formation or a transitional zone

from the Bulimba Formation to the Rolling Downs Formation i.e. weathered zone. For naming

consistency, Metro Mining is referring that all bores will be screened in the Bulimba Formation.

It should be noted that the groundwater monitoring bores shown in Figure 9-5 will not all be

operational simultaneously. Groundwater monitoring bores within the mining pits have been paired

so that as the bores currently located in the pit areas are destroyed due to mining, the paired bore

will be used as the new monitoring location. The paired groundwater bores that will be

incrementally developed over the life of the mine are denoted with an “R” following the bore

identifier (i.e. MB-1 existing bore and MB-1R replacement bore).

Table 9-12 - Groundwater monitoring locations and frequency – Metro Mining specific activities

Monitoring

Point

Location

Description

Easting MGA94 – (Zone 54)

Northing MGA94 – Zone 54)

Aquifer

screened

(mbgl)

Minimum

Monitoring

Frequency

Mining Areas

Reference Bores

B-MB1 To the north between MLA 20689 and the Skardon River

613584 8698541

Bulimba

Formation

(TBA)

Monthly

B-MB2 To the south of MLA 20676 and Irish Creek

620348 8692974

B-MB3 To the east of Lunette Swamp in MLA 20689

612555 8688799

Compliance Bores MB-1 (existing site)

In the eastern section of MLA 20676

622560 8696018

Bulimba

Formation

(TBA)

Monthly

MB-1R (new site)

In the eastern section of MLA 20676

622103 8696234

MB-2 (existing site)

On the southern boundary and outside the mining area in MLA 20676

620413 8694794

MB-2R (new site)

On the southern boundary and outside the mining area in MLA 20676 near Irish Creek

620516 8694638


In the western section of MLA 20676

618477 8694972

BM-3R (new site)

On the western boundary and outside the mining area in MLA 20676

617762 8694554


Within the northern section of MLA 20688

615201 8692648

MB-4R (new site)

On the eastern boundary and the mining area in MLA 20688 adjacent to a

615483 8691650


9-18

Monitoring

Point

Location

Description

Easting MGA94 – (Zone 54)


Aquifer

screened

(mbgl)

Minimum

Monitoring

Frequency

tributary of Irish Creek


Within the southern section MLA 20689 and outside the mining area

612634 8690544


Within the northern section of MLA 20689 near Big Footprint Swamp

613939 8695668

MB-6R (new site)

On the western boundary and outside the mining area in the northern section of MLA 20689 near Big Footprint Swamp

613635 8695487

MB-7 (new site)

Outside the mining area, near the southern boundary of Big Footprint Swamp

618299 8696109

MB-8 (new site)

Outside the mining area, near the western boundary of Big Footprint Swamp

613738 8694284

MB-9 (new site)

Outside the mining area on the northern boundary of MLA 20676

612355 8694736

Table 9-13 - Groundwater monitoring locations and frequency –monitoring at the SRBP MIA as per the SRBP draft EA

Monitoring

Point

Location Description Easting MGA94 – (Zone 54)


Aquifer

screened

(mbgl)

Minimum

Monitoring

Frequency

Port Infrastructure Area

Reference Bores

G28 Up gradient of all port infrastructure

616543 8699875 TBA Monthly

Compliance Bores G27 Down gradient of

hydrocarbon storage tanks and port infrastructure

616665 8700108 TBA Monthly

Landfill and bioremediation pad

Reference Bores

G22 Up gradient of existing and proposed landfills port infrastructure

616130 8699666 TBA

Monthly

G25 Up gradient of bioremediation pad

616247 8699833 TBA

Compliance Bores

G23 Down gradient of existing landfill; up

616069 8699674 TBA Monthly


9-19

Monitoring

Point

Location Description Easting MGA94 – (Zone 54)


Aquifer

screened

(mbgl)

Minimum

Monitoring

Frequency

gradient of proposed landfill

G24 Down gradient of existing and proposed landfills

616007 8699683 TBA

G26 Down gradient of bioremediation pad and proposed landfill

616066 8699867 TBA

Table 9-14 - Groundwater contaminant limits proposed by Metro Mining

Quality Characteristic Unit Limit5 Limit Type Minimum Monitoring Frequency

Aluminium2 µg/L 80th percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th

percentile

Three consecutive samples

Monthly

Arsenic1,2 µg/L 80th percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th percentile

Cadmium1,2 µg/L 80th percentile of test site

<= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th percentile

Chromium1,2 µg/L 80th percentile of test site

<= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th percentile

Copper1,2 µg/L 80th percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th

percentile

Iron1,2 µg/L 80th percentile of test site

<= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th

percentile

Lead1,2 µg/L 80th percentile of test site

<= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th

percentile

Manganese1,2 mg/L 80th percentile of test site <=

upper 75% confidence limit

of background 80th

percentile

Mercury1,2 mg/L 80th percentile of test site <=


of background 80th

percentile


9-20


Nickel1,2 mg/L 80th percentile of test site <=


of background 80th

percentile

Vanadium1,3 mg/L 80th percentile of test site <=


of background 80th

percentile

Zinc1,3 µg/L 80th

percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th

percentile

Dissolved oxygen Mg/L 80th

percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th percentile

pH Max 80th percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th

percentile

Min 20th percentile of test site <=

upper 75% confidence limit of background 20th

percentile

Total dissolved solids mg/L 80th percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th percentile

Total Nitrogen4 µg/L 80th percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th

percentile

Total Phosphorous4 µg/L 80th


percentile

Nitrate4 µg/L 80th

percentile of test site <= upper 75% confidence limit of background 80th percentile

Escherichia coli4 Cfy/100 ml 80th


percentile

Total petroleum hydrocarbons C6 – C91

µg/L 25 µg/L Maximum

Total petroleum hydrocarbons C10 – C361

µg/L 100 µg/L Maximum

Calcium mg/L Monitor for interpretation purposes Monthly


9-21


Carbonate/Bicarbonate (CO3/HCO3)

mg/L

Chloride mg/L

Magnesium mg/L

Potassium mg/L

Redox potential mV

Sodium mg/L

Sulphate mg/L

Suspended solids mg/L

Specific conductance µS/cm

1. Routine monitoring of the quality characteristic only applies to the MIA and biosolid pads groundwater monitoring bores specified Table 9-12.

2. To be sampled and measured as dissolved and total. 3. To be sampled as dissolved. 4. Routine monitoring of this quality characteristic only applied to effluent irrigation area and biosolid pads

specified in Table 9-12. 5. The contaminant limits specified in the Table apply to all groundwater.

Table 9-15 - Groundwater trigger values proposed by Metro Mining

Quality Characteristic Unit Groundwater trigger values

Minimum monitoring frequency

20th percentile 50th percentile 80th percentile

Aluminium3 µg/L 10 20 60

Monthly

Arsenic2,3 µg/L 1 1 1

Cadmium2,3 µg/L 0.1 0.1 0. 1

Chromium2,3 µg/L 1 1 1

Copper2,3 µg/L 5.4 19.0 144.2

Iron2,3 µg/L 50 50 466

Lead2,3 µg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0

Manganese2,3 µg/L 7.0 16.0 208.4

Mercury2,3 µg/L 0.1 0.1 0.1

Nickel2,3 µg/L 1.0 1.0 2.6

Vanadium2,4 µg/L 10.0 10.0 10.0

Zinc2,4 µg/L 19.2 42.0 150.6

Dissolved oxygen mg/L 1.2 1.9 2.9

pH Max TBA1 TBA1 TBA1


9-22

Quality Characteristic Unit Groundwater trigger values

Minimum monitoring frequency

20th percentile 50th percentile 80th percentile

Min TBA1 TBA1 TBA1

Suspended solids mg/L 58.4 603.0 2,196.0

Total dissolved solids mg/L 25.2 47.0 177.4

Turbidity NTU 41 82 746

Total Nitrogen5 µg/L 100 385 900

Total Phosphorous5 µg/L 44.0 300.0 832.0

Nitrate5 µg/L 10.0 10.0 30.0

Escherichia coli5 Cfu/100 ml

TBA1 TBA1 TBA1

Calcium mg/L 1.0 1.0 6.0

Monthly

Carbonate/Bicarbonate (CO3/HCO3)

mg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0

Chloride mg/L 8.2 16.0 57.8

Magnesium mg/L 1.0 1.0 4.3

Potassium mg/L 1.0 1.0 3.9

Redox potential mV 99.2 141.8 192.6

Sodium mg/L 8.0 20.0 46.8

Sulphate mg/L 1.6 16.0 84.0

Specific conductance µS/cm 66.4 163.6 494.4

1. To be developed in conjunction with EHP. 2. Routine monitoring of this quality characteristic only applies to the MIA and biosolid pads groundwater

monitoring bores specified in Table 9-12. 3. To be sampled and measured as dissolved and total. 4. To be sampled as dissolved. 5. Routine monitoring of this quality characteristic only applied to the effluent irrigation area and biosolid

pads specified in Table 9-12.

9.8 Cumulative Impacts

Since the release of the EIS Metro Mining has acquired Gulf Alumina which allows the utilisation of

the SRBP MIA and BLF rather than developing similar standalone infrastructure. Additionally, since

the EIS Metro Mining has undertaken further assessment of the originally proposed haul roads and

undertaken extensive consultation with Rio Tinto Alcan in relation to locating the haul road between

BH1 and BH6 east on to Rio Tinto Alcan’s adjoining tenement. Consequently, the haul road between

BH 6 east and the originally proposed MIA is no longer required as the main SRBP haul road will be

used for the Bauxite Hills Project. The decision to utilise the SRBP infrastructure will see a reduction

in disturbance of approximately 7 ha of riverside area, the majority of which would have been

estuarine sediments under mangroves and thereby PASS, that will no longer be disturbed.

The relocation of the BH1 haul road away from HES wetland areas also contributes to a reduction

in potential impacts to water quality. The BH1 haul road now avoids the tidally influenced areas of


9-23

the upper Skardon River and therefore reduces the potential for sediments to mobilise and

contributing to a reduction in water quality. Moreover, the relocation of the haul road reduces the

potential for ASS to be disturbed during construction.

In relation to cumulative impacts associated with water, the use of the SRBP infrastructure will

result in a reduction in the following potential cumulative impacts:

The cumulative erosion and sediment mobilisation has been reduced as a result of the utilisation

of the SRBP MIA and BLF. By having a single disturbance area for the MIA and BLF, and the

relocation of the haul roads away from the areas adjoining the Skardon River, the potential for

the mobilisation of sediments potentially impacting upon water quality has significantly been

reduced;

The cumulative risk of ASS disturbance processes have been eliminated outside of the already

approved SRBP site; and

The cumulative risk of harmful spills (e.g. hydrocarbons, detergents, degreasers etc.) during

construction and operations storage of chemicals at the MIA (e.g. hydrocarbons, detergents,

degreasers, etc.) has been reduced as a result of the utilisation of the MIA, BLF and RoRo to the

SRBP MIA and BLF area.

The utilisation of the SRBP MIA and BLF infrastructure enables the alignment of water management

and water monitoring methods and thereby reduce potential impacts to the Skardon River and

associated HES wetlands, and in particular to establish larger buffer zone areas in the vicinity of the

HES wetland areas associated with the Skardon River.

metro mining bauxite hills project metro mining

Documents