Metro Mining Appendix E2 - Surface Water Technical Report ... · D O U G H B OY R I V E R K R D U I E R I V E R J A C K S O N I V R d WEIPA MAPOON 550000 550000 600000 600000 650000

Metro MiningBauxite Hills Project

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro MiningChapter 21 - References

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro MiningAppendix E2 - Surface Water Technical Report

Bauxite Hills Project Surface Water Technical Report

Bauxite Hills Project Surface Water Technical Report

5 April 2016

CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd ABN 88 152 082 936 Level 4, 51 Alfred Street Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 Tel: +61 7 3828 6900 Fax: +61 7 3828 6999

iii

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Report Structure .................................................................................................................................... 1-4

Section 2 Relevant Legislation, Plans and Guidelines ............................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Environmental Protection Act 1994 ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 ............................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Water Act 2000 ................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.1 Water Resources (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006 ........................................................ 2-2 2.1.2 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009 .................................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.3 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 (ANZECC and ARMCANZ) ................................................................................................................... 2-3

Section 3 Surface Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Comparison between Data Sources......................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Catchment Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Water Balance Modelling of Catchment Hydrology ......................................................... 3-5 3.3 Mine Impact on Catchment Hydrology ........................................................................................ 3-6

3.3.1 Mine Impact on Estuarine Wetland Hydrology .................................................................. 3-9 3.3.2 Mine Impact on Palustrine Wetland Hydrology ............................................................. 3-10

3.4 Water Management Network ........................................................................................................ 3-12 Section 4 Mine Site Drainage .............................................................................................................................. 4-0

4.1 Stormwater Management .................................................................................................................. 4-0 4.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Haul Road Cross-Drainage ................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.3.1 Rational Method Calculations .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.2 Culvert Sizing .................................................................................................................................... 4-4

Section 5 Flood Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Hydrologic assessment ....................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Hydrologic Model Build ................................................................................................................ 5-2 5.1.2 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis ........................................................................................ 5-5 5.1.3 Hydrologic Model Calibration .................................................................................................... 5-9 5.1.4 Treatment of Extreme Rainfall Events ................................................................................ 5-10 5.1.5 Hydrologic Model Results ......................................................................................................... 5-10

5.2 Hydraulic Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.2.1 Modelling Software ...................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.2.2 Survey Data ..................................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.2.3 Model Setup .................................................................................................................................... 5-12 5.2.4 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 5-12 5.2.5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.6 Results and Discussion............................................................................................................... 5-13 5.2.7 Impact of Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 5-16

Section 6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Surrounding Mining Activities ......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Existing Mines ................................................................................................................................... 6-1

Bauxite Hills Project – Surface Water Technical Report • Metro Mining Limited

iv

6.1.2 Former Mine ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.3 Proposed Mines ................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Qualitative Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.2.1 Flooding ............................................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.2.2 Catchment Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 6-3

Section 7 References .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Bauxite Hills Mine Location............................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2 Proposed Mining Sequence ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 3-1 Graph of Average Monthly Rainfall and Evaporation for Data Drill ................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2 Comparison of SILO Data to Gauge Data ........................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-3 Ducie Basin Catchment Map ........................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-4 Skardon River and Namaleta Creek Wetland Classification............................................................ 3-8 Figure 3-5 Bauxite Hills Proposed Water Management Network .................................................................. 3-12 Figure 5-1 RORB Runoff Routing Model ........................................................................................................... 5-1 Figure 5-2 RORB Sub-catchment Delineation .................................................................................................. 5-4 Figure 5-3 Watson River (923001A) FFA output – LPIII Distribution ................................................................ 5-6 Figure 5-4 Dulhunty TM (926002A) FFA output – LPIII Distribution ................................................................ 5-6 Figure 5-5 Moreton TM (925001A) FFA output – LPIII Distribution ................................................................. 5-7 Figure 5-6 Monument TM (927001B) FFA output – LPIII Distribution ............................................................. 5-7 Figure 5-7 100 year ARI Regional Regression Fit to FFA Results ...................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-8 Skardon River Catchment Outlet Hydrographs ............................................................................. 5-11 Figure 6-1 Surrounding Projects ...................................................................................................................... 6-2

List of Tables

Table 3-1 Data Drill Average Monthly Rainfall and Evaporation ..................................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2 Gauge information ........................................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-3 AWBM Calibration Parameters ........................................................................................................ 3-5 Table 3-4 Water Balance Model Partitioning of Annual Rainfall ..................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-5 AWBM Land Use Parameters ........................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-6 AWBM Land Use Water Budget Results ........................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-7 AWBM Land Use Partial Areas – Skardon River ............................................................................. 3-10 Table 3-8 Potential Impact on Water Budget – Skardon River ...................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-9 AWBM Land Use Partial Areas – Namaleta Creek .......................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-10 Potential Impact on Water Budget – Namaleta Creek ................................................................. 3-10 Table 3-11 AWBM Land Use Partial Areas – Big Footprint Swamp ................................................................ 3-11 Table 3-12 Potential Impact on Water Budget – Big Footprint Swamp ......................................................... 3-11 Table 3-13 Mine Water Demands .................................................................................................................. 3-13 Table 4-1 Local Catchment Areas ..................................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2 Coefficients of Runoff ...................................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Rational Method Peak Flow ............................................................................................................. 4-3 Table 4-4 Culvert Sizing .................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 5-1 CRC-FORGE Design Point Rainfall Intensities (mm/h) ...................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2 Uncalibrated RORB Peak Outlet Flow; Kc = 41.18, m = 0.8 .............................................................. 5-3


v

Table 5-3 FFA Stream Gauge Details ................................................................................................................ 5-5 Table 5-4 FFA Flow Comparison to Uncalibrated RORB Output (m3/s) ........................................................... 5-8 Table 5-5 RORB Calibration to Regional Regression Equation Results ............................................................ 5-9 Table 5-6 MIKE21 Model Dimensions ............................................................................................................ 5-12 Table 5-7 Tailwater Components – Storm Tide Condition ............................................................................. 5-13 Table 5-8 Peak Flood Depths at Locations of Interest ................................................................................... 5-14 Table 5-9 Peak Water Surface Elevations at Locations of Interest ................................................................ 5-14 Table 5-10 Peak Velocities at Locations of Interest ....................................................................................... 5-14 Table 5-11 Tidal Levels at Locations of Interest ............................................................................................. 5-15

Appendices

Appendix A - Disclaimer and Limitations Appendix B – Flood Mapping Results Appendix C – Mine Drainage Plans


vi

Document History and Status

Revision Date Issued Reviewed By Approved By Date Approved Revision Type

A 25 February 2016

MVW MI 01 March 2016 DRAFT

0 05 April 2016 CLIENT MI 05 April 2016 FINAL

Distribution of Copies

Version Date Issued Quantity Electronic Issued To A 01 March 2016 1 MS WORD Metro Mining Limited 0 05 April 2015 1 PDF Metro Mining Limited

Printed: 5 April 2016

Last Saved: 5 April 2016 11:03 AM

File Name: Surface Water Technical Report_160405.docx

Authors: Tim McConnell

Project Manager: Dr Craig Streatfield

Client: Metro Mining Limited

Document Title: Bauxite Hills – Surface Water Impact Assessment

Document Version: FINAL

Project Number: BES150189.05

1-1

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Description Metro Mining Limited is proposing to develop the Bauxite Hills Project on Western Cape York, Queensland (Figure 1-1). The Project is located approximately 95 kilometres (km) north of the township of Weipa, within the bauxite plateau between Ducie River and Skardon River, and approximately five kilometres southeast of an existing port at Skardon River.

Bauxite will be mined by the open cut mining method using front-end loaders. Drilling and blasting is not required although clearing of vegetation and some ripping by dozers will likely to take place. Mining and rehabilitation will occur progressively, with low volumes of overburden temporarily stored in waste dumping areas outside of the pit during mining followed by the backfilling of the pit/cell with dry overburden material as soon as sufficient room is created and mining progresses to the next cell. Due to thickness of the bauxite seam and to the bulking factor of the lesser compacted overburden material, the rehabilitated surface is expected to be an average only 1.5 to 2 m lower than the pre-mining surface, creating permanent depressions in the post-mining landscape.

The current mining schedule indicates a total production of Run-of-Mine (ROM) bauxite of 48.2 million tonnes per annum (Mpta). Mining is scheduled to commence in 2017 in BH6, with initial production of 2 Mtpa of bauxite, increasing to around 5 Mtpa for a life of mine of about 12 years. During the first year of mining, 7 km of haul road will be constructed to enable mining at BH6, with an additional 7 km and 3 km of haul road constructed in 2017 and 2018 respectively to provide access to all mining areas1. In a given year, mining activities will likely take place from April to the end of November (dry season) and all mining activities will be put on-hold from December to March during the wettest months. Figure 1-2 presents the proposed mining sequence and location of haul roads.

1.2 Purpose This technical report specifically addresses section ‘8.5 Water Resources’ and section ‘8.6 Flooding and Regulated Dams’ of the Draft terms of reference for the Bauxite Hills Project Environmental Impact Statement2.

The purpose of this report is to characterise the baseline surface water resources at the Project location and determine potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The report also aims to describe the mine water management infrastructure and processes, define the flood immunity of mine infrastructure and detail a mine site drainage concept.

1 MEC Mining (2016). Metro Mining – Bauxite Hills 4Mtpa Pre-feasibility Study. Metro Mining Limited, January 2016.

2Statewide Environmental Assessment Unit, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2015). Draft Terms of Reference for the Bauxite Hills Project – Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed by Aldoga Minerals Pty Ltd on behalf of Metro Mining Limited. DEHP, November 2015.

TELEGR

APH

RO

AD

PEN

INSU

LA D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

RO

AD

WENLO

CK RIV ER

JARDINE RIVERELIOT CRE

EK

DUCIE RIVER

COCKATOO CREEK

DULH UNTY RIVER

MCHENRYRIVER

MYA LL CREEK

NOR TH ALICE

CREEK

MISSION RIVER

EMBLEYRIVER

PALM CREEK

SKARDON R IVER

JACK

EY JACKEY CREEK

DOUGHBOY RIVER

CHOLMONDELEY CREEK

JACK

SON

RIVE

R

DUCIERIV

ER

J A CKSON RIVER

Peninsula Dev Road

WEIPA

MAPOON

550000

550000

600000

600000

650000

650000

700000

700000

8600

000

8600

000

8650

000

8650

000

8700

000

8700

000

8750

000

8750

000

8800

000

8800

000

-

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 Zone 54

/0 5 102.5

Kilometres

Regional ContextDESIGNED

Details

MD

©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITHThis drawing is confidential and shall only be

used for the purpose of this project.

Legend

Town

Watercourse

Road

Haul Road

Barge Loading Area

Mine Lease Boundary

Cook Shire LGA

WA

NT

QLD

SANSW

VIC

TAS

ACT

DATA SOURCEMEC Mining 2015;

QLD Government Open Data Source;Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology.

CLIENTDate

1:600,000Scale @ A3 -22/02/16

CHECKED

DRAWN CHECKED

APPROVED DATE

-

-

MD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 Details 23/02/15

-

Notes:

R

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\BES150115-001-R2_REGLOC.mxd

Figure 1 - 1

DRG Ref: BES150115-001-R2_REGLOC

DESIGNER

SKARDON RIVER

DU CIE RIVER

DUCIE

RIV

ER

0 5 102.5

Kilometers

Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

COOK SHIRE LGA

COOK SHIRE LGA

Bigfoot Swamp

Lunette Swamp

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALE

TA CREE K

DULHUNTY RI

8679

900

8684

900

8684

900

8689

900

8689

900

8694

900

8694

900

DATE



within this map.

GCS GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

/0 2,000 4,0001,000

Metres

8679900

Figure 1-

Proposed mining sequence

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

for the purpose of this project.

APPROVED

DRAWN

17/02/16

CHECKED

Legend

Watercourses

Mine Infrastructure Area

Haul Road

Mine lease

Mining SequenceYear 2017

Year 2018

Year 2019

Year 2020

Year 2021

Year 2022

Year 2023

Year 2024

Year 2025

Year 2026

Year 2027

QLD

NT

SA

NSW

DATA SOURCEQLD Government Open Source Data

DRG Ref: Fig_1-3_Mining_Seq

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:80,000Scale @ A3 -

RGDESIGNED

CHECKED RG

AR

AR

RG

R Details Date

17/02/161

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-B:\BES150115_bauxite\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\Groundwater\Fig_1-3_Mining_Seq.mxd

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


1-4

1.3 Report Structure The report structure and contents is as follows:

Section 1 Introduction

Section 2 Relevant Legislation, Plans and Guidelines

- Describes the legislative framework that relates to surface water resources associated with the Project.

Section 3 Surface Water Resources

- Defines the Project climate and baseline catchment hydrology;

- Describes the likely mine operation impacts to catchment hydrology; and

- Describes the mine water management network.

Section 4 Mine Site Drainage

- Describes stormwater management practices to be employed;

- Determines the treatment of haul road crossing of watercourses; and

- Describes the approach to erosion and sediment control.

Section 5 Flood Assessment

- Described the hydrologic modelling approach and hydrograph results;

- Describes the hydraulic modelling approach and result; and

- Discusses flood behaviour and potential impacts of mine processes on flooding.

Section 6 Cumulative Impacts

- Discusses the cumulative impact of Bauxite Hills Project with existing, former and known proposed mining in the region.

Section 7 References

- Provides a reference list of all references shown in footnotes throughout this document.

2-1

Section 2 Relevant Legislation, Plans and Guidelines A number of legislation, policies and plans are considered of relevance to the Project. Those that specifically relate to surface water resources associated with the Project include the following:

Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act);

Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (EPP Water);

Water Act 2000 (Water Act);

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009 (QWQG);

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resources Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 (herein referred to as ANZECC Guidelines); and

Water Resources (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006 (GAB Plan).

2.1.1 Environmental Protection Act 1994

The EP Act provides the key legislative framework for environmental management and protection in Queensland. The object of the EP Act is to: “Protect Queensland’s environment while allowing for development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains ecological processes on which life depends” (s3).

The EP Act has a range of subordinate legislation which assists in achieving the object including the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 (EP Regulation) and EPP Water. Among certain aspects, the EP Regulation controls activities with potential to release contaminants into the environment [Environmentally Relevant Activities (ERAs)], contains referrable wetland requirements, prescribes water contaminants (Schedule 9) and sets Environmental Values (EVs) for wetlands (s81A). The EP Act and EP Regulation regulate mining and associated ERAs through Environmental Authority (EA) conditions. These conditions provide a means to regulate surface water management for the Project.

2.1.2 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009

The EPP (Water) seeks to achieve the objectives set forth within the EP Act in relation to Queensland waterways. That is, it seeks to: “Protect Queensland’s waters while allowing for development that is ecologically sustainable” (s3 EP Act).

This purpose of this policy is achieved by:

Identifying EVs and management goals for Queensland waters;

Stating water quality guidelines and water quality objectives to enhance or protect the EVs;

Providing a framework for making consistent, equitable and informed decisions about Queensland waters; and


2-2

Monitoring and reporting on the condition of Queensland waters.

Schedule 1 of the EPP (Water) defines EVs for waters within Queensland. EVs and water quality objectives (WQOs) are prepared for basins (at the sub-basin level); however, the setting of values and objectives is at different stages of development throughout Queensland. These EVs and WQOs are set under the EP Act, and its subordinate legislation, while basin resource plans are set under the Water Act. The Project is not covered by any basin with prescribed WQOs or EVs as defined under Schedule 1 of the EPP (Water).

2.1.3 Water Act 2000

The Water Act provides a structured system for the planning, protection, allocation and use of Queensland’s surface waters and groundwater. Under section 808 of the Water Act, a person must not take, supply or interfere with water unless authorised. Authorisation under the Water Act for the taking of water from overland flow, a watercourse, lake or spring comes via a water entitlement.

The Water Act provides for the protection of natural ecosystems and security of supply to water users through the development of water resource plans (WRPs), and other activities. Each managed catchment in Queensland has a separate WRP and associated Resource Operations Plan (ROP) to provide a framework to apply (under the Water Act, chapter 2 part 6) and regulate water extractions to ensure that they are maintained as a sustainable resource. The Project is not covered by any ROP and the only applicable WRP is the GAB Plan.

2.1.4 Water Resources (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006

A water licence approval will be sought under the Water Act 2000 to supply groundwater to the Project. The Project resides within the ‘Cape’ management area of the GAB Plan. Under the Plan, water is to be allocated in such a way that balances the following outcomes:

To protect the flow of water to springs and baseflow to watercourses that support significant cultural and environmental values;

To provide for the continued use of all water entitlements and other authorisations to take or interfere with water;

To reserve water in storage in aquifers for future generations;

To ensure a reliable supply of water from the plan area; and

To make water available for new users.

Under the Plan, the Cape management area provides a volumetric limit of 9,800 ML for licenses granted from the State reserve for a project of State or regional significance and for town water supply to a local government.

2.1.5 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009

The QWQG sets tailored guideline values for Queensland water types and regions. The QWQG also provides a framework for deriving and applying specific guidelines that are local to the waterways in Queensland. The WQOs for a water that is not in Schedule 1 of the EPP (Water), as is the case for this Project, are the set of water quality guidelines (e.g. the QWQG and ANZECC Guidelines) for all indicators that will protect all EVs for the water.


2-3

2.1.6 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 (ANZECC and ARMCANZ)

The ANZECC/ARMCANZ fresh and marine water quality guidelines provide a baseline for monitoring and measuring surface water quality for different ecosystems within Australia and New Zealand. The ANZECC/ARMCANZ guidelines provide threshold values that identify water quality levels based on multiple chemical and physical parameters.

3-1

Section 3 Surface Water Resources

3.1 Climate Long term rainfall and evaporation data were collected from the SILO Climate Data website3 at the following coordinate location:

Latitude: 11.80 degrees South; and

Longitude: 142.10 degrees East

These coordinates are the location of Mine Pit 1.

SILO represents a gridded dataset based on records provided by the Bureau of Meteorology. The data is then processed to fill gaps in data and produce a spatially complete dataset. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 summarise monthly averages of the SILO long term data.

Table 3-1 Data Drill Average Monthly Rainfall and Evaporation

Month Rainfall (mm)

Evaporation (mm)

January 434.0 154.3 February 459.3 126.4 March 370.4 143.9 April 114.7 155.9 May 23.3 159.5 June 8.5 151.9 July 4.3 169.2 August 3.0 193.2 September 1.7 216.8 October 13.9 239.9 November 66.1 219.2 December 208.9 189.0 Annual Average Total 1708.1 2119.2

3 SILO data accessed from the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts via https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo on 26/02/2015.

https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo


3-2

Figure 3-1 Graph of Average Monthly Rainfall and Evaporation for Data Drill

Some general trends can be observed from the SILO data such as:

A distinct wet season between the months December to March with between 200mm to more than 450mm monthly average rainfall;

A distinct dry season between the months April to November with less than 25mm mean monthly rainfall between the months May through October; and

High evaporation rates showing an inverse trend to rainfall, reaching a trough in February and peaking in October.

3.1.1 Comparison between Data Sources

Due to the gridded and somewhat synthetic nature of the long term SILO data, a comparison with raw gauged data from sites within 100 km was prepared to assess:

The validity of long term SILO climatic data; and

Spatial variability of rainfall near the Project.

The gauging sites selected for comparison with the data acquired from SILO are shown below in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Gauge information Gauge Record Period Location Distance from Mine Gauge Owner

Dulhunty River 25 years Inland 35 km east DNRM Skardon River 5 years Coastal 5 km north, 9km east BOM Bramwell 12 years Inland 30 km south, 60km west BOM Weipa Eastern Ave 100 years Coastal 100km south BOM

A comparison of mean monthly rainfall values between the gauges listed in above and the SILO data, is presented in Figure 3-2. The graph indicates little spatial variability of rainfall and good agreement between gauge records and data acquired through SILO. The only gauge that produces a

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Rai

nfal

l and

Eva

pora

tion

(mm

)Average Monthly Rainfall


3-3

significantly different data trend is the Skardon River gauge during the month of January. This variance is most likely due to the relatively small period of record (5 years) compared to other gauges such as Weipa Eastern Ave (100 years).

Figure 3-2 Comparison of SILO Data to Gauge Data

3.2 Catchment Hydrology The majority of the Project area is located within the Skardon River catchment, which forms approximately 350 km2 of the Ducie drainage basin and is bounded by the Ducie River Catchment to the South and the McDonald River catchment to the north (refer Figure 3-3). The Skardon River is tidally influenced and discharges to the Gulf of Carpentaria. A network of smaller ephemeral streams drain the upper reaches of the catchment. There are a series of swamps within the catchment; most notable with respect to the Project is Big Footprint Swamp, which is situated approximately 1.5 km west of the main haul road leading to the barge loading facilities.

The Project proposed pit locations are situated either side of the Skardon River on elevated Bauxite plateaus. Partial pit areas (BH6) and the camp facilities are proposed within the adjoining Namaleta Creek catchment to the south. The barge facilities are proposed on the bank of the southern Skardon River branch.

A rainfall-runoff relationship was established for the Ducie Basin through the calibration of Boughton’s Australian Water Balance Model (AWBM) parameters via the Rainfall Runoff Library platform (CRC for Catchment Hydrology). The AWBM aims to determine daily runoff from rainfall and potential evapotranspiration data by conceptualising surface and baseflow stores and calculating the excess from the stores released as runoff.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Rai

nfal

l (m

m)

SILO data

Dulhunty Gauge

Skardon Gauge

Bramwell Gauge

Weipa Eastern Ave

Ducie River

McDonald River

Skardon River

Ducie

DUCIE RIVER

ELIOTCREEK

JARDI NE RIVER

COCKATOO CREEK

DULH

UNTYRI

VER

MCHENRY RIVER

NORTH ALIC

ECR

EEK

WENLOCK RIVER

PALM CREEK

SKARDON RIV ER

DOUGHBOY RIVER

CHOLMONDELEY CREEK

JACK

SO

NRI

VER

WEN

LOC

K R

IVER

DUCIE

RIVE

R

JACK

SON RIVER

600100

600100

620100

620100

640100

640100

660100

660100

680100

680100

8649

970

8649

970

8699

970

8699

970

8749

970

8749

970

-



within this map.


/0 4,000 8,0002,000

Metres

Figure -3Ducie Basin Catchment MapDESIGNED

Details

MD



LegendWatercourse

Mine Lease Area

Ducie Drainage Basin

Sub-Catchment Area

WA

NT

QLD

SA

NSW

VIC

TAS

ACT

DATA SOURCEQLD Government Open Data Source

Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology

CLIENTDate

1:350,000Scale @ A3 -22/02/16

CHECKED

DRAWN CHECKED

APPROVED DATE

-

-

MD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 Details 22/01/15

-

Notes:

R

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\Surface Water\BES150115-001-DUCI_BAS.mxd

DRG Ref: BES150115-001-DUCI_BAS

DESIGNER


3-5

Calibration of the catchment specific AWBM parameters was achieved at the Dulhunty TM gauging station4, which is the only gauging station available in the Ducie Basin. It is situated approximately 35 km east of the Project site. The calibration was achieved by providing the best fit between observed and calculated runoff over the calibration and verification periods.

The results of the AWBM parameter calibration are summarised below in Table 3-3, where:

BFI is the baseflow index or ratio of baseflow to total flow;

KBase is the baseflow recession constant where (1-KBase) multiplied by the baseflow store is the rate of depletion from the store contributing to total runoff;

KSurf is the surface recession constant where (1-KSurf) multiplied by the surface store is the rate of depletion from the store contributing to total runoff;

C1-C3 represent surface storage capacities; and

A1-A3 represent partial areas of the C1-C3 storage capacities.

Table 3-3 AWBM Calibration Parameters AWBM

Parameter Value

BFI 0.65 KBase 0.99 KSurf 0.68 C1 (mm) 17.3 C2 (mm) 177.1 C3 (mm) 354.2 A1 0.134 A2 0.433 A3 0.433

3.2.1 Water Balance Modelling of Catchment Hydrology

An AWBM was constructed within the GoldSim modelling environment with the objective of determining the likely partitioning of annual rainfall into evaporation, baseflow and surface runoff components. Historical daily rainfall and evaporation time series data (refer Section 3.1 for information on climate data used for the Project) were applied to the model and 125 simulations were run, each a single calendar year in length, covering the period 1889 to 2014. The results were analysed to create a probability distribution, the mean (50th percentile probability) results of which are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Water Balance Model Partitioning of Annual Rainfall

Water Budget Component Mean Rainfall Segregation (% of total rainfall)

Evapotranspiration 53.3 Surface Runoff 20.3 Baseflow 26.4

4 Data accessed from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines via https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/water/water-monitoring-and-data/portal on 26/02/2015.

https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/water/water-monitoring-and-data/portal


3-6

3.3 Mine Impact on Catchment Hydrology There are no major stream diversions, regulated dams or regulated structures5 associated with the Project. For this reason the surface water flow patterns remain largely unaltered, with the exception of local catchment runoff diversions around some active pit areas (refer to the mine site drainage figure in Appendix C). Furthermore, the Skardon River and Namaleta Creek are tidal in the vicinity of the Project area and as such it is less likely that a change to surface water runoff patterns will cause alterations to channel morphology or riparian vegetation.

The main impact on the hydrological system as a result of mine construction and operation is the change to the partitioning of rainfall into baseflow and runoff through clearing of vegetation and the creation of mine pit voids and hardstand areas. There is potential for impact on estuarine and palustrine wetland areas as a result of reduced surface water runoff as catchments pits are mined, which is quantified in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. The estuarine and palustrine wetlands within and surrounding the Project is shown in Figure 3-4.

The mine impact on catchment hydrology was assessed via the AWBM method using the assessment of the “natural” catchment described under Section 3.1 as a baseline by which to measure impacts against. AWBM parameters were varied from the baseline to represent likely catchment characteristics exhibited by different land use types; namely, hardstand, open pit mining and rehabilitated areas. The hardstand areas include compacted surfaces such as haul roads and the MIA; the open pit areas include the operating pits being mined, prior to rehabilitation; and the rehabilitated area relates to open pit areas that have been backfilled and revegetated with established regrowth of five years or more.

The natural AWBM catchment parameters were calibrated to recorded stream gauge and rainfall records as described in Section 3.1. AWBM parameters for hardstand, open pit mining and rehabilitation areas were applied based on industry-accepted values for these land types. In the absence of any recorded data against which to calibrate, conservatism was applied to the model parameters to ensure the full impact of mining was realised on the partitioning of rainfall into evaporative losses, surface runoff and base flow.

The AWBM parameters adopted for the various land use types are summarised in Table 3-5. The following trends, with respect to the natural catchment parameters, have been applied in deriving AWBM values for mine impacted areas:

Hardstand – Haul roads, mine camp and mine industrial areas:

- Increase in surface runoff and decrease in baseflow due to compaction of the groundsurface and / or construction of impermeable surfaces; and

- Decrease in surface storage capacity.

Open Pit Mining – Active mine areas excluding haul roads:

- Increase in baseflow due to storage of direct rainfall within open mine pits andinfiltration into the bauxite layer; and

- Increased evaporative losses due to absence of vegetation and ponding of water inopen mine pits.

Rehabilitation – rehabilitated mine areas:

5 Regulated structures are limited to those specified in the DEHP Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures, November 2013.


3-7

- Slight increase in baseflow due to the final void reducing surface runoff; and

- Slight increase in surface storage capacity due to less consolidation of in filled void material.

Airport Strip

BH1 MLA boundary(ML 20676)

BH6 West MLA boundary

(ML 20689)

BH6 East MLA boundary

(ML 20688)

SKARDON RIVER

NAM

ALETA CRE E K

NAMALETACREE

K

600000

600000

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

6300008685

000

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,250 2,500625

Metres

FIGURE Skardon River and Namaleta Creek Wetland Classification



APPROVED

DRAWN

29/03/16

CHECKED

LegendBarge Loading Area

Watercourse

Clean Water Diversion Direction

Pit Extents

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

Metro Mining Mine Lease Area

Skardon River Wetland Categorisation

Artificial/ highly modified wetlands (dams, ring tanks, irrigation channel

Coastal/ Sub-Coastal non-floodplain tree swamps (Melaleuca and Eucalypt)

Coastal/ Sub-coastal floodplain grass, sedge and herb swamps

Coastal/ Sub-coastal floodplain tree swamps (Melaleuca and Eucalypt)

Coastal/ Sub-coastal non-floodplain grass, sedge and herb swamps

Estuarine - Mangroves and related tree communities

Estuarine - salt flats and saltmarshes

Estuarine - water

Marine

Riverine

DATA SOURCEMEC Mining;

QLD Government Open Source Data;Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric

(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-005-R1_extended_WETL

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:80,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

DS

DS

-

R Details Date

15/07/151

Notes:

2

-

-

-

-

-P:\BNE\Projects - Environmental Services\BES150189.01 - Bauxite Hills EIS Preparation - EIS production\Supporting Information\GIS mpk\BES150115-005-R1_extended_WETL.mxd

For Information Purposes

Updated Pit Extents

-

-

-

-

-

Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Camp Site

Haul Road

29/03/16

Big Footprint Swamp

Camp AccessRoad


3-9

Table 3-5 AWBM Land Use Parameters

AWBM Parameter Natural Hardstand Open Pit Mining Rehabilitation

BFI 0.65 0.05 0.90 0.70 KBase 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 KSurf 0.68 0.10 0.10 0.68 C1 (mm) 17 5 5 20 C2 (mm) 177 10 10 200 C3 (mm) 354 40 500 400 A1 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134 A2 0.433 0.433 0.433 0.433

The partitioning of annual rainfall for the various land uses is shown in Table 3-6. The table shows that open mine areas exhibit approximately a 30% increase in annual baseflow volume compared to natural catchments; correspondingly, there is a significant decrease in predicted surface runoff. Hardstand areas exhibit minimal baseflow and a more than two-fold increase in surface runoff compared to natural catchments. The rehabilitation land use shows an increase in baseflow and decrease in surface runoff when compared to natural catchments due to the lowered topography associated with the final rehabilitated landform. This is a conservative estimation for the purpose of the impact assessment and one that can be reduced through effective re-contouring of the final void to be freely draining.

Table 3-6 AWBM Land Use Water Budget Results

Water Budget Component Natural Open Pit Mining Hardstand Rehabilitation

Evapotranspiration (%) 53.3 58.6 46.1 55.3 Surface Runoff (%) 20.3 4.2 51.3 13.4 Baseflow (%) 26.4 37.2 2.6 31.3

3.3.1 Mine Impact on Estuarine Wetland Hydrology

The Project includes mining in proximity to the estuarine section of the Skardon River and, to a lesser extent, upstream of the Namaleta Creek coastal and estuarine wetlands. The partial areas of land use types at various stages of the mine life are summarised in Table 3-7and Table 3-9 for the Skardon River and for Namaleta Creek, respectively. These were calculated based on the total local catchment area that drains to the mine affected areas. By applying the partial areas to the partitioning of annual rainfall for the various land uses shown in Table 3-6, an overall impact on the water budget due to mining activities could be estimated. The results of this assessment for the two drainage basins are shown in Table 3-8 and Table 3-10. The overall impact on the water budget is shown to be minor due to the small scale of the mine affected areas (i.e. hardstand, open pit and rehabilitation) relative to the local catchments in which they reside. Open pit mining, which is shown in Table 3-6 to have the greatest impact on the hydrological regime, only contributes 4% and 2% of the total local Skardon River and Namaleta Creek catchments, respectively.

It is important to note that although the overall mine impact on the water budget is negligible on the local catchment scale; localised impacts during mining operations may be more pronounced. However, it is also likely that the partitioning of rainfall into runoff and baseflow will be recombined as total runoff re-entering the Skardon River / Namaleta Creek, thus reducing the total impact of varying recharge rates as a result of mining operations on the estuarine environment and supported ecosystems. In simplified terms, the reduction of surface water runoff to the Skardon River/Namaleta Creek is likely to be made up (in whole or part) by an increase in groundwater baseflow from the mining pits.


3-10

Table 3-7 AWBM Land Use Partial Areas – Skardon River

Land Use Land Use Areas (km2)

Pre-Mining 5-year mine plan 10-year mine plan Post Mine Closure

Natural 103.9 98.5 94.2 94.2 Open Mining - 4.6 4.2 - Hardstand - 0.8 0.9 0.9* Rehabilitation - - 4.6 8.8 Total 103.9 103.9 103.9 103.9

*hardstand area relates to non-rehabilitated road pavements

Table 3-8 Potential Impact on Water Budget – Skardon River Water Budget

Component Pre-Mining 5-year mine

plan 10-year mine plan Post Mine

Closure Evapotranspiration (%) 53.3 53.5 53.5 53.4 Surface Runoff (%) 20.3 19.8 19.6 20.0 Baseflow (%) 26.4 26.7 26.9 26.6 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3-9 AWBM Land Use Partial Areas – Namaleta Creek


Pre-Mining 5-year mine plan

10-year mine plan

Post Mine Closure

Natural 47.2 47.2 46.1 46.1 Open Mining - - 1.0 0.0 Hardstand - - 0.1 0.1* Rehabilitation - - - 1.0 Total 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2


Table 3-10 Potential Impact on Water Budget – Namaleta Creek Water Budget

Component Pre-Mining 5-year mine

plan 10-year mine

plan Post Mine

Closure Evapotranspiration (%) 53.3 53.3 53.4 53.3 Surface Runoff (%) 20.3 20.3 20.0 20.2 Baseflow (%) 26.4 26.4 26.6 26.5 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3.3.2 Mine Impact on Palustrine Wetland Hydrology

The mine impact assessment on palustrine wetland hydrology followed the same methods described in Section 3.3.1. Big Footprint Swamp is a palustrine wetland located west of the BH6 West proposed mine pits and is considered the most significant wetland potentially impacted by the Project. The construction of mine pits within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment (26% of total catchment), combined with local catchment diversions (15% of total catchment) around mine pits (Refer Appendix C, Figure C-2), will reduce surface runoff entering the swamp. Furthermore, the proportion of catchment development for Big Footprint Swamp (42% of total catchment) is significantly greater than that of the Skardon River (9% of total catchment) and Namaleta Creek (2% of total catchment), and hence the impacts more pronounced.

The period of mining within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment is restricted to 3-years (2025, 2026 and 2027), after which time the pits will be rehabilitated and the catchment diversions removed to restore the existing flow paths as far as is practicable. It is important to note that during year 2025, the diverted catchment can still discharge to Big Footprint Swamp. As mining progresses through year 2026 and 2027 however, the feasibility of discharging the diversions to Big Footprint Swamp is restricted by topographical and mine lease boundary constraints.


3-11

The partial land use areas for the Big Footprint Swamp at various stages of the mine life are shown in Table 3-11. The results on the change to the water budget for the Big Footprint Swamp catchment is shown in Table 3-12.

Table 3-11 AWBM Land Use Partial Areas – Big Footprint Swamp


Pre-Mining 5-year mine plan

10-year mine plan

Post Mine Closure

Natural 7.4 7.4 4.2 5.4 Open Mining - - 1.9 0.0 Hardstand - - 0.1 0.1* Rehabilitation - - - 1.9 Diverted Catchment - - 1.1 0.0 Total 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4


Table 3-12 Potential Impact on Water Budget – Big Footprint Swamp

Water Budget Component Pre-Mining 5-year mine plan 10-year mine plan Post Mine Closure

Evapotranspiration (%) 53.3 53.3 54.6 53.7 Surface Runoff (%) 20.3 20.3 13.4 18.9 Baseflow (%) 26.4 26.4 28.9 27.4 Diverted Catchment Runoff (%) - - 3.1 0.0 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

The results presented in Table 3-12 show that:

There is no impact to the Big Footprint Swamp within the first 8 years of mining operations as there is no planned mining in the Big Footprint Swamp local catchment;

Surface runoff to Big Footprint Swamp is reduced by approximately 33% by year 10 of mine operations when compared to existing conditions;

The diverted catchment runoff accounts for 3.1% of total rainfall for the Big Footprint Swamp Catchment;

Baseflow is increased by 9% by year 10 of mine operations when compared to existing conditions; and

The impact on Big Footprint Swamp post mine closure (i.e. post rehabilitation of mine pits and removal of catchment diversions) is minimal with results indicating a 4% increase in baseflow and a 7% decrease in surface runoff.

- This occurs because of the final void that develops (i.e. surface runoff is reduced and a surface pool forms) and because the reinstated overburden is less dense (i.e. infiltration increases).

The mine pit areas within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment will be progressively rehabilitated as soon as is practicable in order to mitigate the reduction in surface runoff entering the swamp. It is expected that baseflow and surface runoff will continue to approach pre-mining conditions as rehabilitation matures and the soil consolidates. Consideration could be given to not diverting clean water runoff around mine pit areas within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment. This would not increase the surface runoff entering the swamp, but could increase the baseflow seeping through the pit walls, potentially recharging Big Footprint Swamp and sustaining dependent ecosystems.


3-12

3.4 Water Management Network A schematic of the proposed water management network for the Project is shown in Figure 3-5 The proposed water supply is via shallow and/or deep aquifer bores to meet a total annual demand of 400 ML. Assuming 275 days of operation per year and 20 hours of daily pumping time, a total yield of approximately 20 L/s is required from the combined bores. Polyethylene storage tanks are proposed to buffer between supply from the bores and operational demand. The polyethylene tanks will include a peaking factor to accommodate temporary increases in water demand and to protect against irregularities in supply from the bores. A peaking factor of between 1 day and 1 week would equate to polyethylene tanks with a total storage of between 2 ML and 10 ML. The number of tanks required will be based on balancing the need to locate water storage near the water use versus trucking water to where it is used.

Figure 3-5 Bauxite Hills Proposed Water Management Network


3-13

The potential breakdown of mine water demands which must be satisfied by the water supply system, is summarised in Table 3-13. The majority of water use (300 ML/yr) is raw water for dust suppression of the dump station, haul roads and stockpiles, as well as for washdown of the crusher plant and conveyor system.

Table 3-13 Mine Water Demands

Description Annual Demand (ML)

Water Type

Operations (crusher; truck fill for dust suppression) 300 Raw Mine Camp (160 person camp) 20 Potable Fire Fighting (poly tank spare capacity) 10 Raw Mine Industrial Area (Workshop / Washdown) 70 Raw / Potable* Total 400 -

*2 ML/yr potable supply to the Mine Industrial Area assuming 40 L/person/day

A potable water supply to the camp and mine industrial area of approximately 22 ML/yr is required and must meet the quality standard outlined in the Australian Drinking Water Standard Guidelines (NHMRC, 2004). Field investigations and laboratory testing conducted by CDM Smith in November 2014 and March 2015 indicate that the shallow aquifer water quality is suitable for potable use. Chemical dosing may be required to control pH levels and provide disinfection. Two potable use water tanks will be required; one at the mine camp and the other at the mine industrial area. The main potable use tank will be located near the mine camp, as this is the main source of potable demand. A potable water pipeline or truck transport will be required to transport potable water to the storage tank located at the mine industrial area.

A sewage treatment plant is proposed to be located near the mine camp. Wastewater produced from the mine industrial area will be stored and periodically trucked and transported to the sewage treatment plant. Effluent and sludge waste streams will be appropriately treated and discharged to surface or used as mulching media, respectively.

The water management network allows for potential reuse of water collected in sumps, ponds and slots. Allowance for reuse of water has not been incorporated into the demand analysis, however such an allowance would reduce the amount of water extracted from bores. The main function of the sumps, ponds and slots is to capture sediment laden runoff for sediment removal prior to release to the existing environment. Oil/water separators are proposed for vehicle wash and workshop areas prior to release or reuse of water.

Fire water supply will be provided through storage in polyethylene tanks at suitable locations around the mine lease. A total of 5 ML has provisionally been included for the purpose of this water resources assessment. It is anticipated that these stores be replenished post use and that the total volume is available for firefighting activities during operations.

4-0

Section 4 Mine Site Drainage There are no regulated dams or regulated structures associated with the Project. The following sections detail the approach to managing stormwater, as well as erosion and sediment control on site.

4.1 Stormwater Management All stormwater runoff capturing devices, namely sediment ponds and drainage sumps, will be sized based on the 10 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI), 24 hour rainfall event in accordance with The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Stormwater Guideline (2014)6. The final design and layout of sediment controls will be determined by the final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). A conceptual ESCP has been prepared by a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC) for the Project and is included in Appendix A3

The sediment ponds function to capture runoff generated from the stockpile/ore dump station area. Further provision has been provided for sediment capture via a wharf/conveyor drainage sump, which pumps return water to the sediment pond for treatment and possible reuse. The sump captures sediment-laden runoff from the conveyor system, as a sediment pond cannot practically be located between the sediment producing source and the Skardon River receiving environment. Note that operations are not proposed during the wet season, so the significance of these controls may be more applicable to periodic wash-down and maintenance of the conveyor system during the dry season or pre-shutdown before the wet season. A mine industrial area drainage slot is proposed to capture runoff from truck wash and workshop areas after oil has been separated. Bauxite is considered a non-hazardous material and thus water captured by the slot can either be reused within the mine industrial area or released to the environment under EA conditions.

Runoff from the network of haul roads will be captured in table drains and turned out to vegetated areas via spoon drains at regular intervals. Due to the generally flat topography it is not anticipated that the spoon and table drains will carry significant sediment load. In areas of steeper grade, sediment transport can be effectively managed by turning out the table drains more regularly before excessive velocities develop.

Where haul roads cross watercourses either a culvert or causeway arrangement will be provided. Sediment removal devices will be incorporated in the watercourse crossing design, where appropriate, to reduce sediment loads entering the system. This will be developed as part of the final ESCP.

Mine pit areas are generally located on plateaus and thus are naturally inward draining. Due to the depth of the mine pits and fast infiltration rates through the bauxite layer, the mine pit areas act as a self-draining sediment trap for runoff from disturbed mine areas. This occurs at the existing Rio Tinto Weipa mine, was approved for the South of Embley (now Amrun) Project and is considered the best management option both to minimise the mining footprint, and maintain baseflow to surrounding wetland areas. In the unlikely circumstance that pits are not capable of containing the 10 year ARI, 24 hour duration rainfall volume (as stipulated for sediment pond design) clean water

6 EHP. 2014. Stormwater Guideline: Environmentally Relevant Activities. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Government.


4-1

diversion will first be considered; followed by provision of an appropriately sized sediment basin in accordance with the ESCP.

The two mine pits west of the Skardon River (BH6) accept contributing clean water runoff from natural (i.e. non-developed) catchments. To separate clean and dirty water runoff, clean water diversion drains and bunds will be constructed to the extents shown in Appendix C. The diversion drains will be constructed a flat gradients to minimise potential scour and sediment transportation. Check dams, or similar suitable management measure in accordance with the ESCP, will be installed should scour velocities develop.

4.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control is critical to the successful management of surface waters. It’s considered most effective if incorporated into initial project planning, reviewed at project commencement, and monitored during construction and mining activities.

A conceptual ESCP has been prepared by a CPESC for the Project and is included in Appendix A3. A detailed ESCP – based on standards and methods detailed in the conceptual ESCP - will be developed for the construction and operation phases of the Project, once final design and construct plans are available. The ESCP will consider and address the aforementioned variables in a seasonal context to measure (using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) and manage the risk of soil erosion from all activities associated with the mine. Soil conservation and site rehabilitation measures will also be integrated into the detailed ESCP.

The site’s erosion hazards and risks are considered important in determining the appropriate erosion and sediment controls (ESC) to be implemented as part of the mine construction and operation phases.

This plan will include preparation for the wet season during which time the site will not be actively manned or operated. The wet season preparations may include cleaning of drainage structures and sediment ponds of contained sediment, bunding and grading of stripped or disturbed areas, and assessment of the integrity of self-operating sediment removal devices such as sediment ponds. Monitoring data should also be collected during the wet season and provisions made to monitor the site water quality remotely.

Land disturbance caused by mining activities, including those proposed to be undertaken at Metro Mining, increases the potential for erosion and subsequent sediment transport. Higher erosion rates during construction work trigger the need to implement erosion and sediment control measures so as to meet locally accepted guidelines and, state and Commonwealth legislation, including the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and the International Erosion Control Association (IECA). Increased erosion could be expected onsite during the wet season due to increased rainfall and associated runoff, however the mine itself is proposed to be operational only during the dry season. As the majority of the disturbed areas will be the mine pits that are internally draining, and infrastructure areas will be constructed to minimise erosion, as well as incorporating appropriate erosion and sediment control structures, there will be limited uncontrolled areas open to erosion during the wet season. The erosion and sediment control devices, such as sediment ponds will be designed to freely flow under gravity and will be monitored by the wet season site caretakers.

Numerous activities that will be undertaken give way to greater rates of erosion than those which are naturally occurring, including, but not limited to; land clearing, soil stripping, mine excavation, and haul road construction. Elevated sediment concentrations could also be expected to occur in stormwater runoff from stockpile areas, and such runoff would be directed to appropriate sediment control structures.


4-2

Sediment laden runoff from the barge loading facilities has the potential to cause higher levels of turbidity in the Skardon River. Specifically, conveyor wash or minor spills associated with conveying bauxite from stockpiles to the barges will be collected via a sump located at the shore and pumped back to the stockpile sediment dam for sediment removal.

Vegetation corridors will further assist in minimising sediment transport from disturbed areas to adjacent watercourses by slowing flow velocities and stabilising deposited sediment. Riparian buffers are proposed along all recognised waterways, the only exception being where hauls roads cross or run adjacent to the waterways, and for the MIA. Buffer distances will be finalised as part of the final mine and infrastructure design, but are anticipated to be greater than 100 m in all cases. Vegetation corridors and clearing set-back distances from watercourses will be in compliance with the relevant Queensland Government’s Regional Vegetation Management Codes.

Stripped topsoil will be maintained in accordance with IECA best practice guidelines, for use in the rehabilitation effort. Areas disturbed by mining activities will be progressively rehabilitated and at the end of mine life, mining related infrastructure will be decommissioned and rehabilitated back to an appropriate final land form, as agreed with the Traditional Owners and the land owners.

4.3 Haul Road Cross-Drainage The proposed haul road crosses a number of creeks and gullies, and therefore cross-drainage infrastructure, (such as culverts, floodways, or bridges) will be required to convey runoff beneath the haul road at such locations. In this section of the report the local catchments reporting to the haul road are examined, likely peak runoff values are calculated using the Rational Method, and concept culvert sizes are provided (refer 4.3.2 and Appendix C). For the purpose of this assessment the two year ARI event was considered a sufficient culvert sizing design event to adopt considering that the operations are proposed for during the dry season. It is recommended that the road crossings be designed as a low flow culvert and floodway arrangement to efficiently pass flows greater than the two year ARI and reduce environmental impacts of filling within creek crossings.

4.3.1 Rational Method Calculations

The probabilistic Rational Method provides an estimate of peak discharge for a given design storm frequency, and is represented as follows:

𝑄𝑄𝑦𝑦 = (𝐶𝐶𝑦𝑦 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝑦𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝐴)/360 Where:

Qy = Peak discharge (m3/s);

C = Coefficient of Runoff;

I = Design Rainfall Intensity (mm/h);

A = Catchment Area (ha); and,

The subscript ‘y’ denotes the particular ARI under consideration.

Catchment analysis was undertaken in ArcGIS to delineate the various local catchments reporting to the haul road. Nine concentrated flowpaths were identified as crossing the haul road, and nine corresponding contributing catchments were mapped. Catchment sizes are shown below in Table 4-1.


4-3

Table 4-1 Local Catchment Areas Catchment Name Area (ha)

L1 61 L2 83 L3 48 L4 122 L5 419 L6 3,419 L7 348 L8 140 L9 4,908

The Coefficient of Runoff ‘C’ and rainfall intensity ‘I’ were calculated following the guidance provided in the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual 7 (QUDM). The Coefficient of Runoff is a dimensionless factor designed to account for the various natural processes that intercept or otherwise prevent precipitation from turning into runoff. It takes into account the degree of pervious surfaces in the catchment, the type of ground cover, and an estimate of the soil porosity. It varies in accordance with storm frequency (i.e. ARI) as per the equation below:

(𝐶𝐶𝑦𝑦 = 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 ∗ 𝐶𝐶10)

Where:

C = Coefficient of Runoff;

F = Frequency Adjustment Factor;

C10 = Coefficient of Runoff, 10 yr ARI design rainfall event; and,

The subscript ‘y’ denotes the particular ARI under consideration.

Coefficients of Runoff adopted for this analysis are presented below in Table 4-2. The resultant Rational Method predicted peak flows for each catchment over a range of standard ARI events is presented in Table 4-3.

Table 4-2 Coefficients of Runoff

ARI Fy C10 Cy

1 year 0.80 0.35 0.28 2 year 0.85 0.35 0.30 5 year 0.95 0.35 0.33 10 year 1.00 0.35 0.35 20 year 1.05 0.35 0.37 50 year 1.15 0.35 0.40 100 year 1.20 0.35 0.42

Table 4-3 Rational Method Peak Flow

ARI Peak Flow at Catchment Outlet (m3/s)

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9

1 year 3.2 4.5 2.5 5.7 13.1 59.4 9.7 5.3 74.9 2 year 4.3 6.0 3.4 7.7 17.6 80.3 13.0 7.1 101.3 5 year 5.8 8.1 4.5 10.2 23.7 108.5 17.6 9.5 137.2 10 year 6.7 9.3 5.3 11.9 27.5 126.6 20.4 11.0 160.2

7 Department of Energy and Water Supply. 2013. Queensland Urban Drainage Manual. Third edition, 2013.


4-4

ARI Peak Flow at Catchment Outlet (m3/s)

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9

20 year 7.9 11.1 6.3 14.1 32.7 151.5 24.3 13.0 191.8 50 year 10.1 14.0 7.9 17.8 41.6 193.4 31.0 16.6 245.3 100 year 11.6 16.2 9.2 20.7 48.2 201.8 35.8 19.2 256.0

4.3.2 Culvert Sizing

The culvert analysis program “HY-8” was utilised to calculate concept cross-drainage configurations. The analysis was conducted using the two year ARI peak flows presented in Section 4.3.1 and under an assumed tailwater level of 1.25 m (representing mean high spring tide). Appendix C illustrates the culvert locations with respect to the mine plan. As shown in Appendix C and in Table 4-4, there are two locations where a bridge structure could be required, because:

The magnitude of the peak flow is such that an excessively large bank of culverts would be required; and

The length of the crossing would require significant in-filling of the watercourse should a culvert and floodway arrangement be employed.

The final crossing designs will be determined during the detailed mine and infrastructure design. However the final design will follow the principles described herein, namely incorporating a low flood immunity for drainage structures and allowing larger flows to overtop the road. While a bridge structure has been identified as a potential requirement, this is only relevant if usage would be required during the proposed design event. As the Project is proposing to allow the crossing structures to overflow in such events, and not be utilised for access at these times, bridge structures are not currently being proposed.

Table 4-4 Culvert Sizing

Crossing Approx. Coordinates (m East, m North)

Peak Flow (m3/s)

Barrels/Cells Size (mm) Type

1 616950, 8697650 4.3 3 900 RCP 2 616570, 8696780 6.0 4 900 RCP 3 616370, 8696340 3.4 2 900 RCP 4 615972, 8695470 7.7 5 900 RCP 5 616035, 8692305 17.6 6 1200 x 1200 RCB 6 616800, 8692600 80.3 Bridge structure anticipated 7 618565, 8693300 13.0 5 1200 x 1200 RCB 8 619945, 8693850 7.1 5 900 RCP 9 620200, 8694060 101.3 Bridge structure anticipated

Note: RCP = reinforced concrete pipe culvert, size in mm diameter. RCB = reinforced concrete box culvert, size in mm width x height. Coordinates for Map Grid of Australia Zone 54.

5-1

Section 5 Flood Assessment This chapter details the flood assessment conducted for the Skardon River and tributaries with the aim of:

Demonstrating flood immunity of critical mine infrastructure and haul roads; and

Assessing impacts on flood behaviour as a result of mine construction.

5.1 Hydrologic assessment Flood hydrographs produced from the hydrologic assessment are used as input to hydraulic model simulations (refer Section 5.2) to predict flood characteristics such as inundation depth and extent and flow velocities.

A rainfall-runoff model was constructed using RORB software, which is a streamflow routing program used to calculate flood hydrographs from rainfall and other catchment inputs such as catchment storage and rainfall losses. The program is areally distributed, nonlinear and makes allowance for temporal distribution of rainfall.

The schematic in Figure 5-1 illustrates the RORB routing model structure.

Figure 5-1 RORB Runoff Routing Model


5-2

5.1.1 Hydrologic Model Build

The following input data was generated for running hydrologic simulations:

Sub-catchment areas;

Sub-catchment reach lengths;

Design event rainfall depths; and

Temporal pattern distribution of rainfall.

The sub-catchment delineation and river reach network for the Skardon River catchment is shown in Figure 5-2. In RORB, a rainfall excess is calculated at the centroid of each sub-catchment by subtracting rainfall losses. The sub-area rainfall excess (runoff) is then added to existing flow in the channel and routed through the downstream reach based on the storage function S=kQm.

Design rainfall events were derived from the CRC-FORGE application as shown in Table 5-1. CRC-FORGE enables the extrapolation of design rainfall estimates to extreme events up to and including the 2,000 year ARI and as such has benefits over the Bureau of Meteorology Intensity-Frequency-Duration method. Temporal pattern distribution of rainfall was achieved using Zone 4, Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR87) patterns as is standard industry practice. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) rainfall depth estimates (refer Table 5-1) were estimated using the Generalised Short Duration Method (GSDM) and Generalised Tropical Storm Method (GSTMR) as detailed by the Bureau of Meteorology.

Table 5-1 CRC-FORGE Design Point Rainfall Intensities (mm/h) Event Duration (h)

5 year ARI 10 year ARI 20 year ARI 50 year ARI 100 year ARI

1,000 year ARI PMP

1 75.3 82.8 93.7 108.5 123.8 186.6 - 3 32.8 36.4 41.5 48.4 55.2 83.2 158.3 6 19.2 21.4 24.5 28.8 32.8 49.5 102.5

12 11.3 12.7 14.6 17.2 19.6 29.5 70.0 18 8.8 9.9 11.5 13.7 15.6 23.5 54.4 24 7.4 8.4 9.7 11.6 13.3 20.0 47.1 48 4.9 5.6 6.5 7.8 8.9 14.2 32.9 72 3.8 4.3 5.0 6.0 7.0 11.9 27.2

Initial simulations were run for standard ARI events (5 year to 100 year) and durations (1 hour to 72 hour) with results presented in Table 5-2. The default Kc value of 41.18 was initially applied for the uncalibrated simulations in the absence of catchment specific rainfall and streamflow data in which to calibrate the catchment parameters. The Kc value was later altered (refer Section 5.1.3) to attempt calibration to regional regression equation predicted peak discharges. As recommended by the RORB user manual the non-linearity exponent, m, was set to its default value of 0.8 in the absence of catchment specific calibration data. No initial or continual loss was applied to the uncalibrated model as these values are determined during calibration.

The 1,000 year ARI and PMP rainfall events were not included in the pre-calibration simulation as these extreme events are beyond the credible limit of extrapolation of available calibration data (refer Section 5.1.4 for further information).


5-3

Table 5-2 Uncalibrated RORB Peak Outlet Flow; Kc = 41.18, m = 0.8

ARI (yr) Critical Storm Duration (h)

Peak Outlet Flow (m3/s)

5 6 543 10 6 621 20 6 735 50 6 892

100 6 1,049

B1

A1

B3

A2

B2

A3

D2

D1

A4

C1

B4

A7

B5

A6

A5

A8

C2

B6C3

610100

610100

615100

615100

620100

620100

625100

625100

630100

630100

635100

635100

8679

970

8679

970

8684

970

8684

970

8689

970

8689

970

8694

970

8694

970

8699

970

8699

970

8704

970

8704

970

8709

970

8709

970

-



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Figure -2RORB Sub-Catchment Delineation

DESIGNED

Details

MD



LegendRiver Reaches

Catchment

Pit Limit

Mine Lease Area

DATA SOURCEQLD Government Open Data Source

Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology

CLIENTDate

1:100,000Scale @ A3 -22/02/16

CHECKED

DRAWN CHECKED

APPROVED DATE

-

-

MD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 Details 09/06/15

-

Notes:

R

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\Surface Water\BES150115-001-R3-SUB_CATCH.mxd

DRG Ref: BES150115-001-R3-SUB_CATCH

DESIGNER


5-5

5.1.2 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis

There is no steam gauge record for the Skardon River catchment against which to calibrate the RORB predicted hydrographs. Therefore, a regional flood frequency analysis (FFA) was conducted to attempt calibration.

Four stream gauges were selected for the regional FFA as detailed in Table 5-3. The table shows that all of the gauges have a significant period of record (>35 years) and all except the Moreton gauge are within 50 km from the coast. With the exception of the Dulhunty gauge, all remaining sites have significantly greater contributing catchment areas (by an order of magnitude larger) than the Skardon River catchment making area based regional analysis less representative.

Notwithstanding this, FFA of the gauges was performed using the software program FLIKE, fitted to an LPIII distribution, as shown in Figure 5-3 to Figure 5-6. The LPIII distribution is widely accepted for use in FFA and in this instance produced a better fit to observed data than the Generalised Extreme Value method. Censoring of low annual maximum flow values was performed to improve the LPIII distribution fit to data.

The result of the LPIII fit and the FFA is the assignment of an ARI to each annual maximum of recorded stream gauge data as well as the provision of predictive extrapolation to more extreme ARI events. The (90%) confidence limits defined by the LPIII fit to data are also produced and indicate the accuracy and reliability of the FFA.

Table 5-3 FFA Stream Gauge Details

Station Name / Number Period of Record

Censored Annual Maxima (year)

Catchment Area

Distance to Project Site

Distance to coast

Watson River 923001A 40 years 1991; 1994; 2011 1,001 km2 152 km 40 km Dulhunty TM 96002A 43 years 1970 332 km2 35 km 46 km Moreton TM 925001A 56 years 1958; 1989; 1991; 1992; 1993 3,265 km2 98 km 90 km Monument TM 927001B 35 years 1978 2,421 km2 72 km 23 km


5-6

Figure 5-3 Watson River (923001A) FFA output – LPIII Distribution

Figure 5-4 Dulhunty TM (926002A) FFA output – LPIII Distribution


5-7

Figure 5-5 Moreton TM (925001A) FFA output – LPIII Distribution

Figure 5-6 Monument TM (927001B) FFA output – LPIII Distribution


5-8

A summary of the flows predicted by the FFA in comparison to the uncalibrated RORB outputs is presented in Table 5-4. The Dulhunty Gauge, which is very similar in both catchment area and location to the Skardon River Catchment, produces FFA results much lower than the uncalibrated RORB results for the Skardon Catchment. This strongly indicates a conservatively high peak flow estimated by the uncalibrated RORB model, most likely due to:

The omission of rainfall loss in the uncalibrated model; and

The generic RORB Kc value not being representative of local catchment characteristics.

Table 5-4 FFA Flow Comparison to Uncalibrated RORB Output (m3/s)

ARI Dulhunty Watson Monument Moreton RORB uncalibrated

(332 km2) (1,001 km2) (2,421 km2) (3,265 km2) (350 km2) 5 year 132 545 458 866 543

10 year 188 683 556 1,074 621 20 year 256 855 656 1,272 735 50 year 374 1,015 793 1,527 892

100 year 490 1,216 902 1,715 1,049

From Table 5-4 a regional trend between catchment area and flow can be established by fitting a regression trend line to the four gauge FFA results. Figure 5-7 shows the best fit regression to the 100 year ARI FFA estimates. The following regional regression equations were developed for predicting peak catchment discharge from the catchment area regression parameter.

Q5 = 2.67 A0.71

Q10 = 5.39 A0.64

Q20 = 10.59 A0.58

Q50 = 23.84 A0.50

Q100 = 46.04 A0.43 ; where QARI is the discharge at the indicated ARI and A is the catchment area in square kilometres.


5-9

Figure 5-7 100 year ARI Regional Regression Fit to FFA Results

5.1.3 Hydrologic Model Calibration

A comparison of the RORB peak discharge calibration results against the values predicted by the regional regression equations presented in Section 5.1.2 is shown below in Table 5-5. A good fit to the regional analysis was achieved and is considered more representative of actual catchment characteristics than the uncalibrated model.

Based on these findings, calibration of the RORB model was achieved via:

Increasing the Kc parameter from the default value of 41.18 to 48.5;

Applying probability neutral initial loss values across the ARI events i.e. applying an initial loss that allows a specific ARI rainfall event to produce the same resultant ARI flood event; and

Applying a continual loss of 10 mm/h across all ARI events.

Table 5-5 RORB Calibration to Regional Regression Equation Results

ARI (yr) RRE Discharge Skardon Catchment (m3/s)

RORB Peak Outlet Discharge (m3/s)

RORB Calibration Parameters

Kc Initial Loss (mm)

Continual Loss (mm/h)

5 166 178 48.5 20 10 10 230 241 48.5 15 10 20 311 321 48.5 10 10 50 435 426 48.5 5 10

100 564 563 48.5 0 10

100

1000

10000

100 1000 10000

Peak

Disc

harg

e (m

3 /s)

Catchment Area (km2)


5-10

By increasing the Kc parameter from the default value, which is the main calibration parameter within RORB and affects the treatment of flow attenuation in reaches, peak discharges were lowered to more closely match the RRE predicted results. As a result the time to peak increased.

The continual loss was set to 10 mm/h in order to calibrate the 100 year ARI event. This is a relatively high continual loss value compared to the default 2.5 mm/h value recommended in ARR (ARR87), however it is considered appropriate given the high permeability of the bauxite layer at the surface as evidenced by the regional Australian Water Balance Model calibration detailed in Section 3.1. Furthermore, by increasing the continual loss, peak discharges could be lowered to match RRE predictions without further delaying the hydrograph time to peak beyond what is reasonable, thus producing a more acceptable hydrograph shape.

Initial loss values were lastly applied to calibrate the 5 year, 10 year, 20 year and 50 year ARI events. Higher initial loss values were applied to more frequent events in keeping with a probability neutral approach between design rainfall and design flood. No initial loss was applied to the 100 year ARI event on the assumption that the antecedent conditions have saturated the catchment.

5.1.4 Treatment of Extreme Rainfall Events

The 1000 year ARI event was not included in the RORB calibration because the confidence limits obtained by the FFA for the 1000 year event show the predicted results to be less reliable. Furthermore, by adjusting calibration parameters to include extreme events the calibration of more frequent flood events necessarily become less accurate. In the interest of keeping a single set of calibration parameters across all ARI events only the 5 year to 100 year ARI events were included in calibration of RORB parameters.

For the abovementioned reasons, both the 1000 year ARI and PMP rainfall events were simulated using the calibrated Kc value achieved for the 5 to 100 year ARI event FFA predicted discharges as detailed in Section 5.1.3. No initial loss was applied to the 1000 year ARI or PMP rainfall event on the assumption that the antecedent conditions have saturated the catchment. A continual loss of 10 mm/h was applied to extreme rainfall events.

5.1.5 Hydrologic Model Results

RORB hydrographs produced by the calibration described in Section 5.1.3 and summarised in Table 5-5 were adopted as input to hydraulic model simulations. The resultant hydrographs produced at the Skardon River catchment outlet for the 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, and 1000 year ARI, and PMP critical duration storm events are shown in Figure 5-8.

The hydrographs show an increase in peak discharge with increase in ARI. The hydrographs exhibit an early peak arising from local catchment runoff and tributaries closer to the outlet, followed by a larger peak as the main Skardon River flood wave reaches the outlet. A time to peak discharge at the outlet of approximately 13 to 16 hours can be observed for the 100 year through the 5 year ARI events.

The PMP predicted peak discharge is an order of magnitude greater than the 100 year event and has a likely ARI of approximately 1 in 3,000,000 years, plus or minus an order of magnitude, according to methods developed by Laurenson and Kuczera (1999)8.

8 Laurenson, E.M. and Kuczera, G.A (1999): Annual exceedance probability of probable maximum precipitation, Aus. J. Water Resour., 3(2), 167-176.


5-11

Figure 5-8 Skardon River Catchment Outlet Hydrographs

5.2 Hydraulic Assessment The aim of the hydraulic assessment is to characterise the Skardon River system in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Specifically, it involves investigating the effects of rainfall runoff on flood levels and velocities so that any impacts upon infrastructure and the environment can be quantified. Hydrodynamic modelling is used to create maps showing flood extents, water depths and velocities, across a range of ARIs.

5.2.1 Modelling Software

MIKE 21 is a professional engineering software package containing a comprehensive modelling system for 2D free-surface flows. The numerical solution is based on the two-dimensional implementation of the St. Venant equations and can handle both sub-critical and super-critical flows. MIKE 21 is particularly useful in floodplain applications where the out of bank flow paths are poorly defined and where a traditional 1D model would fail to capture the complex flowpaths and transverse distribution of water levels and velocities that occurs on the floodplain.

5.2.2 Survey Data

The basis for the 2D flood model topographic grid is Airborne Laser Survey (ALS) data captured by surveyors Cameron Cottrell and Steen (CCS) on behalf of Metro Mining. The data were ratified by Metro Mining as appropriate to use for the purposes of this study, and were provided to CDM Smith in the form of a series of 1 m ascii grids. A standard complication with this kind of survey is the treatment of water bodies. The laser cannot ‘see’ below the water, and observations are instead reflected back from the water surface. In the case of a large dataset which takes some time to capture, the water level is likely to vary during this time, particularly if multiple flights are carried out across a range of tidal conditions.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Disc

harg

e (m

3 /s)

Time (hrs)

5yr,6hr 10yr,6hr 20yr,6hr 50yr,6hr

100yr,6hr 1000yr,18hr PMP,12hr


5-12

To overcome this inconsistency water areas are typically removed from the data and a false bottom elevation is applied. In this case, CCS modified the terrain data to give water bodies a uniform surface elevation of 0.4 m Australian Height Datum (AHD). This level is appropriately low considering the tidal condition used when mapping the maximum flood extents, as explained in Section 5.2.4.

5.2.3 Model Setup

The choice of grid cell size is a matter that requires careful thought. Too large, and important topographic detail can be missed; too small, and model run times can become unmanageable. Although it would seem logical that a smaller grid cell size is automatically superior to a large one, care must be taken to avoid the “water column’ effect, where the vertical length scale approaches or exceeds the horizontal length scale. Such a situation can lead to errors in the viscous shear stress and bed friction calculations and ultimately result in unrealistic estimates of velocity and water level distributions in the model. As a rule of thumb, the grid cell size should be no smaller than the expected maximum water depth.

For the aforementioned reasons, a twenty metre grid cell size was chosen. The 20 m grid size is larger than the maximum water depth for scenarios modelled and provides appropriate definition of the major topographic features (e.g. river channel definition) without resulting in overly long model run times. Details of the topographic grid are listed in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6 MIKE21 Model Dimensions

Item Description

Grid Cell Size 20 m Grid Orientation/Rotation North up (i.e. zero degrees rotation) Model extent (width x height) 1265 cells x 1150 cells Model extent (km x km) 25.3 km x 22.8 km Model Origin (Lower Left Corner) 604,310 m East; 8,683,210 m North Map Projection MGA, Zone 54

5.2.4 Boundary Conditions

In an estuarine river system such as that of the Project area, flood depths and velocities can be greatly influenced by the tidal level (i.e. the tailwater level). For this reason, two sets of tidal conditions were implemented in the model – a high tailwater condition to assess the likely maximum extents and depths of inundation, and a low tailwater condition to investigate maximum expected velocities.

The weather system that is most likely to create large scale flooding in the catchment is a tropical cyclone. In addition to the precipitation produced by a cyclone, the high wind speeds and large fetch lengths can create a significant increase in water level – referred to as a storm surge – in addition to the prevailing tidal condition. The high tailwater condition is therefore based on a large tide occurring coincidentally with a storm surge, and applied as a fixed level to the ocean boundary. The nearest available tidal plane data is from Weipa, which records a value of 2.15 m AHD for the highest astronomical tide (HAT).

With regards to the storm surge component, CDM Smith has adopted the same value (0.55 m) as WorleyParsons in their flood study of the adjacent Ducie River catchment, carried out for Metro Mining as part of the Pisolite Hills Project. Given that this data is derived from values recorded at Weipa, and that no other nearby records of storm surge are available, it is considered appropriate to adopt the same value for this study. The resulting components of storm tide are outlined in Table 5-7.


5-13

Table 5-7 Tailwater Components – Storm Tide Condition Tailwater Components Level Highest Astronomical Tide 1.60 m AHD Storm Surge 0.55 m Storm Tide 2.15 m AHD

For the low tailwater condition, the model is constrained by the fixed bottom elevation of 0.4 m AHD applied to water areas in the ALS grid (as explained in Section 5.2.2), as any tailwater condition should be higher than the assumed bottom of the channel to prevent numerical instabilities occurring in the solving engine. The next highest tide above the 0.4 m AHD level is that of “Mean Lower High Water”, with an elevation of 0.448 m AHD, and this was adopted as the low tailwater condition in the model.

5.2.5 Methodology

The aim of the hydraulic model simulation is to demonstrate the riverine flooding likely to occur in the Skardon River under various design flood event conditions.

To achieve this objective the following methodology was utilised:

Extract the RORB hydrographs for design storm events ranging from the 5 year ARI to the 1000 year ARI, plus the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event. Fifteen locations were identified inside the MIKE21 grid at which to apply the hydrographs as point inflows;

Set the boundary conditions. For each storm event, two simulations were created, one with the high tailwater condition, and the other with the low tailwater condition;

Run each of the models for a sufficient time period to ensure that the flood peak had occurred and that water levels were receding at every point in the model domain;

Extract from the model results files the maximum values for water depth (from the high tailwater simulation) and velocity (from the low tailwater simulation). It is important to note that the peak values do not occur simultaneously throughout the model domain, and that peak depth/velocity maps represent the highest values recorded across the entire simulation period. Similarly, the recorded values for peak depth and peak velocity at any particular model location do not necessarily occur simultaneously in time; and

Convert the peak velocity and depth results in an ascii grid format for mapping and presentation.

5.2.6 Results and Discussion

The MIKE21 models were observed to be stable at a ten second time step. Each model was run for a 30 hour simulation time, which captured the bulk of the flood wave and peak water levels and velocities throughout the model domain. Results were processed to create maps showing depth and velocity maxima; these maps are found in Appendix B.

The maps show that the proposed pit locations are not at risk from riverine flooding, even under the PMF event. This is largely because the pits are generally situated on the bauxite plateaus with buffer distances between the pit shell and watercourse boundaries. Construction of the pits is not likely to interfere with the current floodplain processes, and will therefore cause no significant hydraulic impacts to the river in terms of changes to flows, water levels, or velocities.


5-14

The main impact of riverine flooding is to the haul road connecting the barge loading facilities. Peak water depths, surface elevations, and velocities were extracted from the results at seven locations along the haul road; these are summarised below in Table 5-8, Table 5-9 and Table 5-10, respectively.

Table 5-8 Peak Flood Depths at Locations of Interest

Haul Road Location Coordinates (m East, m North)

Depth (m)*

5 yr ARI

10 yr ARI

20 yr ARI

50 yr ARI

100 yr ARI

1000 yr ARI PMF

Crossing Point A 620190, 8964050 1.75 1.79 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.38 3.58 Crossing Point B 618530, 8693330 1.67 1.72 1.78 1.88 1.98 2.31 3.50 Low Spot – BH6 616570, 8692530 1.33 1.37 1.43 1.53 1.62 1.94 3.11 Low Spot 1 – BH6 East to Port 616030, 8695570 1.81 1.85 1.90 1.99 2.08 2.38 3.51 Low Spot 2 – BH6 East to Port 616590, 8696810 1.41 1.44 1.49 1.57 1.65 1.93 3.04 Low Spot 3 – BH6 East to Port 617000, 8697750 1.08 1.11 1.00 1.23 1.31 1.58 2.67 Jetty (north-east corner) 617370, 8698490 1.39 1.42 1.46 1.54 1.61 1.61 2.97

*Depth is measured from datum 0.4 m AHD which represents the water surface elevation from processed survey data.

Table 5-9 Peak Water Surface Elevations at Locations of Interest


Water Surface Elevation (m AHD)

5 yr ARI

10 yr ARI

20 yr ARI

50 yr ARI

100 yr ARI

1000 yr ARI PMF

Crossing Point A 620190, 8964050 2.24 2.29 2.35 2.45 2.49 2.88 4.07

Crossing Point B 618530, 8693330 2.24 2.29 2.35 2.45 2.49 2.88 4.07

Low Spot – BH6 616570, 8692530 2.24 2.29 2.34 2.44 2.48 2.86 4.02

Low Spot 1 – BH6 East to Port 616030, 8695570 2.23 2.27 2.32 2.41 2.47 2.80 3.93



Jetty (north-east corner) 617370, 8698490 2.22 2.25 2.29 2.37 2.44 2.72 3.80

Table 5-10 Peak Velocities at Locations of Interest


Velocity (m/s)

5 yr ARI

10 yr ARI

20 yr ARI

50 yr ARI

100 yr ARI

1k yr ARI PMF

Crossing Point A 620190, 8964050 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.27 0.31 0.40 0.53 Crossing Point B 618530, 8693330 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.14 Low Spot – BH6 616570, 8692530 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.28 0.17 0.24 0.17 Low Spot 1 – BH6 East to Port 616030, 8695570 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.21 Low Spot 2 – BH6 East to Port 616590, 8696810 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.28 Low Spot 3 – BH6 East to Port 617000, 8697750 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.27 Jetty (north-east corner) 617370, 8698490 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.22

For each ARI listed in Table 5-8, the peak water depth can be taken as analogous to the fill height required to construct the haul road with the corresponding level of flood immunity. For example, at Crossing A, to construct the haul road with a 50 year ARI flood immunity would require the placement of almost 2 m of fill, bringing the finished road surface to a level above 2.45 m AHD. For a five year flood immunity the required fill height would be 1.75 m, and the finished surface elevation 2.24 m AHD. However, in the absence of detailed bathymetric data, the depths shown in Table 5-8 are measured from the water surface elevation datum applied to the topographical survey (refer Section 5.2.2) and thus may underestimate the total amount of fill required.


5-15

In all cases the peak velocities are quite low, as would be expected from an estuarine system with low stream energy. It is unlikely that river velocities will cause excessive scouring and sediment transport due to inundation of road surfaces or drainage infrastructure.

Noting that mining operations are scheduled to be carried only during the dry season, and that significant flooding is almost exclusively confined to the summer monsoonal period, constructing to high levels of flood immunity may not be warranted. However the regular tidal influence should still be taken into account when designing site infrastructure. At the same seven locations, Table 5-11 shows the expected conditions in the absence of riverine flooding, for both HAT and the representative storm surge.

Table 5-11 Tidal Levels at Locations of Interest


Depth (m) Elevation (m AHD)

HAT Storm Tide HAT Storm Tide

Crossing Point A 620190, 8964050 1.14 1.66 1.63 2.15 Crossing Point B 618530, 8693330 1.06 1.58 1.63 2.15 Low Spot – BH6 616570, 8692530 0.72 1.24 1.63 2.15 Low Spot 1 – BH6 East to Port 616030, 8695570 1.21 1.73 1.63 2.15 Low Spot 2 – BH6 East to Port 616590, 8696810 0.82 1.34 1.63 2.15 Low Spot 3 – BH6 East to Port 617000, 8697750 0.49 1.01 1.63 2.15 Jetty (north-east corner) 617370, 8698490 0.80 1.32 1.63 2.15

As the table shows, the tidal influence is fairly significant at the majority of locations. Ideally road infrastructure should be built no lower than the HAT, as tides near this level could be expected to occur at any time of year. Note that although HAT technically only occurs once every eighteen years, the calculated values for HAT are based on gravitational phenomena only and make no allowance for wind or wave setup, and thus these additional components of water level may cause a regular but large tide to impact on operations. Refer to Appendix B for a graphical representation of the HAT extents relative to project infrastructure.


5-16

5.2.7 Impact of Climate Change

There are a number of factors that impact flooding as a result of climate change. Due to the Skardon River being tidally influenced at the Project location, it is likely that the predominant impact will be through increased tidal levels including both lunar tides and storm surges. Given the already conservative combination of HAT, storm surge and peak flood wave simulated in the hydraulic model, the impact of rising sea levels over the short mine life (12 years) was not quantitatively assessed in the hydraulic model. Qualitatively speaking, rises in sea level is not expected to create any significant Project related flood impact above what is already documented herein.

The Australian Natural Resources Management (NRM) projections project enables analysis of the change in rainfall intensities as a result of climate change in combination with the use of the CSIRO Climate Futures Tool9. Broadly speaking, it is recommended that a 5% increase to design rainfall intensities be applied per degree Celsius rise in global warming. Given that the Project infrastructure is shown not to impact flooding for events up to and including the PMF, this climate change scenario was not quantitatively assessed. The qualitative assessment under this section concludes that the Project is not likely to significantly impact flooding under climate change conditions, nor is the Project likely to be impacted by any change in flood levels or frequency caused by climate change.

9 Refer to the Australian Climate Futures website for more information on the : http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/climate-futures-tool/introduction-climate-futures/

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/climate-futures-tool/introduction-climate-futures/

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/climate-futures-tool/introduction-climate-futures/

6-1

Section 6 Cumulative Impacts

6.1 Surrounding Mining Activities Refer to Figure 6-1 for a location map of the following described projects.

6.1.1 Existing Mines

Rio Tinto Alcan’s (RTA) Weipa and Andoom mining operations are located around 95 km south of the Bauxite Hills Project. The RTA operations consist of two continuous mining operations at East Weipa and Andoom, two beneficiation plants, 19 km of railway to transport mined bauxite to the port area, and two ship loaders. Rio Tinto holds the sole rights to abstraction of groundwater from the GAB aquifer on Cape York, using around 6 to 7 GL/year (around 16 to 19 ML/day) of the 9 GL/year GAB allocation10.

6.1.2 Former Mine

Gulf Alumina’s historical Skardon River Kaolin mine is located immediately to the south of BH6, however the barge loading facility and associated infrastructure are to the north of BH6 on the Skardon River. The mine ceased operations in 2011 and some of the mine’s infrastructure is currently being decommissioned.

6.1.3 Proposed Mines

The nearest proposed bauxite mining project is Gulf Alumina’s Skardon River Bauxite Project, with leases immediately to the east and south of BH6. The life of this proposed project is around 10 years, commencing April 2017.

Rio Tinto’s Amrun (formerly South of Embley) Project is located approximately 120 km south of the Bauxite Hills Project. An EIS for the project was submitted in 2013 and the project has been approved.

10 CSIRO (2009). Water in the Western Cape region, pp 417-479 in CSIRO (2009) Water in the Gulf of Carpentaria Drainage Division. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia

!(

!(

!(

!(

_̂Port Musgrave

AR

CH

ERR

IVER

WENLOCK RIVER

CO

XCREEK

WATS

ON

RIVE

R

DUCIE RIVER

MYA

LLC

REEK

CO CKATOO CREEK

DULHUNTY R IVER

PICCANINNY CREEK

NORTH ALIC

ECREEK

MISSION RIVER

EMBLEY

RIVER

MERKUNGA CREEK

PALM CREEK

SKARDON RIVER

COEN RIVER

BLACKGIN CREEK

HE

SKET CREEK

KURRACOO

CREEK

LAGOON CREEK

SCRUBBY CREEK

CHOLMONDELEY CREEK

RUNNING CREEK

MAPOON

AURUKUN

WEIPANAPRANUM

Peninsula Dev Road

142°30'0"E

142°0'0"E

142°0'0"E

141°30'0"E

141°30'0"E12

°0'0

"S

12°0

'0"S

12°3

0'0"

S

12°3

0'0"

S

13°0

'0"S

13°0

'0"S

13°3

0'0"

S

13°3

0'0"

S

-



within this map.

GCS GDA 1994

/0 10 205

Kilometres

142°30'0"E

Figure 6-1

Surrounding ProjectsDESIGNED

Details

MD



Legend!( Town

_̂ Port Musgrave

Road

Watercourse

Surrounding ProjectsMetro Mining Bauxite Hills Project

Gulf Alumina Skardon River Bauxite Project

Rio Tinto Alcan Weipa Bauxite Project

Rio Tinto Alcan Amrun Bauxite Project

Glencore Aurukun Bauxite Project

Hey Point Bauxite Project

CLIENTDate

1:660,000Scale @ A3 -29/03/16

CHECKED

DRAWN CHECKED

APPROVED DATE

TK

TK

MD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 Details 28/01/16

-

Notes:

R

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\SOCIAL\003-R1_SURROUND_PROJ.mxd

DRG Ref: 003-R1_SURROUND_PROJ

DESIGNER

DATA SOURCEMEC Mining 2015;

QLD Government Open Data Source;Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology.


6-3

6.2 Qualitative Assessment The following qualitative assessments determine the likely cumulative impacts associated with the development of the Bauxite Hills Project and Gulf Alumina’s Skardon River Bauxite Project (refer Section 6.1.3). Other projects listed in Section 6.1 are not considered in this cumulative impact assessment due to:

The distance and therefore disconnect from the hydrologic system present at the Bauxite Hills Project location such is the case with the RTA Projects; and

The project being decommissioned as is the case with the Skardon River Kaolin Mine.

6.2.1 Flooding

The Skardon River Bauxite Project (SRBP) includes port infrastructure located on the Skardon River as well as mine pit areas within the Skardon River catchment. This infrastructure is elevated above the inundation extent of even the PMP flood, with the exception of the infrastructure that resides within the estuary such as the wharf. Similarly, the Bauxite Hills Project infrastructure will all be located above the PMP flood level. There is therefore no likely cumulative impact on flooding within the Skardon River as a result of the developments.

No flood modelling of the Namaleta Creek was performed as part of the Bauxite Hills Project because there is no development proposed within the floodplain area. The proposed camp and a small area of mine pit excavations are within the elevated areas of the Namaleta Creek catchment and near the divide with the Skardon River catchment. Gulf Alumina’s SRBP includes a crossing of the Namaleta creek as well as mine pits within the Namaleta Creek catchment, with only minor impacts to flood behaviour predicted11. The Bauxite Hills Project does not change this impact in any way, so there is no increased cumulative impact on flooding predicted for the Namaleta Creek as a result of both developments.

6.2.2 Catchment Hydrology

Cumulative impact assessments on wetlands were conducted as part of Gulf Alumina’s SRBP and documented in Appendix 4 of the SRBP EIS12. Potential cumulative impacts were qualitatively assessed in this report for the Bauxite Hills Project and SRBP, namely for:

Big Footprint Swamp and Lunette Swamp;

Skardon River southern tributary; and

Drainages and water ways to the west of mining leases.

The report states that the water supply impact on Big Footprint Swamp will largely be as a result of mining proposed under the Bauxite Hills Project as it accounts for the majority of the mine pit area (193 ha) within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment (923 ha). The impact assessment contained within this report (refer Section 3.3.2) assumes that catchments to the east of the SRBP haul road (i.e. within the SRBP ML) (112 ha) will be diverted as clean water runoff around BH6 West mining

11 Gulf Alumina Limited (2015). Skardon River Bauxite Project – Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 14 - Flooding. Gulf Alumina Limited, October 2015. 12 Ewan Wilson Consulting Pty Ltd (2015). Skardon River Bauxite Project – Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix 4 – Water Management. Gulf Alumina Limited, October 2015.


6-4

pit (i.e. around Big Footprint Swamp), thus preventing runoff generated within this catchment from entering the Big Footprint Swamp. The diverted clean water catchment is however proposed to consist of mine pits under the SRBP development. As such, the impact assessment contained herein (refer Table 3-12) already accounts for cumulative impacts on the Big Footprint Swamp by assuming that any runoff generated within the SRBP mine pit area does not reach Big Footprint Swamp. The cumulative impact therefore is estimated to be a 33% reduction in surface water runoff to Big Footprint Swamp during mining operations. The predicted 9% increase in baseflow as a result of the Project may increase further due to construction of open pits associated with the SRBP open pits.

The Bauxite Hills Project is not expected to impact on the Lunette Swamp as the pits are downstream or downgradient of the surface and groundwater hydrologic processes, respectively. The SRBP has several small pits within the Lunette Swamp catchment that may impact on surface and groundwater. Appendix 4 of the SRBP EIS8 concludes that there is little potential for a cumulative impact on the hydrology of Lunette Swamp.

There is a potential for localised cumulative impacts on small drainage gullies to the west of the Bauxite Hills Project (BH 6) due to the joint Bauxite Hills and SRBP mining activities. The SRBP and Bauxite Hills Project mine pits areas area approximately equal in this region and as such it is logical that the cumulative impact be approximately twofold the impact predicted in Section 3.3 and include a reduction in surface runoff and an increase in baseflow.

Similar to the Bauxite Hills Project, Gulf Alumina Limited proposes management measures to minimise contaminant laden runoff from entering the receiving environment as part of the SRBP. Furthermore, surface and groundwater monitoring programmes are proposed for both developments with an agreement in place to share recorded data between the proponents. Through the application of ongoing surface and groundwater monitoring programmes, the cumulative impacts of the developments will be monitored and the management measures proposed assessed for their efficacy.

7-1

Section 7 References ANZECC/ARMCANZ. (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, 2000.

CDM Smith. (2015). Bauxite Hills – Surface Water Assessment. Report prepared for Metro Mining Limited.

CSIRO (2009). Water in the Western Cape region, pp 417-479 in CSIRO (2009) Water in the Gulf of Carpentaria Drainage Division. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia

DEWS (2013). Queensland Urban Drainage Manual. Department of Energy and Water Supply, Third edition, 2013.

DNRM. (2005). Hydrogeological framework report for the Great Artesian Basin resource plan area. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. -ref taken from CSIRO, 2009 report.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines - stream gauge and rainfall data accessed via https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/water/water-monitoring-and-data/portal on 26/02/2015.

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts - SILO data accessed from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo on 26/02/2015.

EHP (2013). Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Government.

EHP (2014). Stormwater Guideline: Environmentally Relevant Activities. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Government.

EHP (2015). Draft Terms of Reference for the Bauxite Hills Project – Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed by Aldoga Minerals Pty Ltd on behalf of Metro Mining Limited. Statewide Environmental Assessment Unit, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, November 2015.

Ewan Wilson Consulting Pty Ltd (2015). Skardon River Bauxite Project – Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix 4 – Water Management. Gulf Alumina Limited, October 2015.

Gulf Alumina Limited (2015). Skardon River Bauxite Project – Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 14 - Flooding. Gulf Alumina Limited, October 2015.

Laurenson, E.M. and Kuczera, G.A (1999): Annual exceedance probability of probable maximum precipitation, Aus. J. Water Resources., 3(2), 167-176.

MEC Mining (2016). Metro Mining – Bauxite Hills 4Mtpa Pre-feasibility Study. Metro Mining Limited, January 2016.

Rio Tinto Alcan (2013). Environmental Impact Statement South of Embley project. http://www.riotintoalcan.com/ENG/ourproducts/1818_environmental_impact_statement.asp

SRK. (2014b). Skardon river mining project site water management plan. Report prepared for Gulf Alumina Limited.

https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/water/water-monitoring-and-data/portal

https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo

1

Appendix A - Disclaimer and Limitations This report has been prepared by CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd (CDM Smith) for the sole benefit of Metro Mining Limited for the sole purpose of informing the Surface Water component of the environmental assessments being carried out as part of the Metro Mining project.

This report should not be used or relied upon for any other purpose without CDM Smith’s prior written consent. CDM Smith, nor any officer or employee of CDM Smith, accepts no responsibility or liability in any way whatsoever for the use or reliance of this report for any purpose other than that for which it has been prepared.

Except with CDM Smith’s prior written consent, this report may not be:

(a) released to any other party, whether in whole or in part (other than to Metro Mining Limited officers, employees and advisers);

(b) used or relied upon by any other party; or

(c) filed with any Governmental agency or other person or quoted or referred to in any public document.

CDM Smith, nor any officer or employee of CDM Smith, accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use or reliance upon this report by any third party.

The information on which this report is based has been provided by Metro Mining Limited and third parties. CDM Smith (including its officer and employee):

(a) has relied upon and presumed the accuracy of this information;

(b) has not verified the accuracy or reliability of this information (other than as expressly stated in this report);

(c) has not made any independent investigations or enquiries in respect of those matters of which it has no actual knowledge at the time of giving this report to Metro Mining Limited; and

(d) makes no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or reliability of this information.

In recognition of the limited use to be made by Metro Mining Limited of this report, Metro Mining Limited agrees that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, CDM Smith (including its officer and employee) shall not be liable for any losses, claims, costs, expenses, damages (whether in statute, in contract or tort for negligence or otherwise) suffered or incurred by Metro Mining Limited or any third party as a result of or in connection with the information, findings, opinions, estimates, recommendations and conclusions provided in the course of this report.

If further information becomes available, or additional assumptions need to be made, CDM Smith reserves its right to amend this report.

1

Appendix B – Flood Mapping Results

!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-1

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED

LegendFlood Depth (m)

0

0.00- 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.00

1.00 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 1.75

1.75 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.25

2.25 - 2.50

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-Flood Mapping Depth and Velocity V2

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-D:\Work\BES150189.05 Bauxite Mine Hydrology\MXD\BES150115-Flood Mapping Depth and Velocity V2.mxd

Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bauxite Hills - Peak Depth5 Year Flood Depth Map

!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-2

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


0

0.00- 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.00

1.00 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 1.75

1.75 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.25

2.25 - 2.50

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-3

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


0

0.00- 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.00

1.00 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 1.75

1.75 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.25

2.25 - 2.50

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-4

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


0

0.00- 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.00

1.00 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 1.75

1.75 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.25

2.25 - 2.50

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-5

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


0

0.00- 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.00

1.00 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 1.75

1.75 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.25

2.25 - 2.50

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-6

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


0

0.00- 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.00

1.00 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 1.75

1.75 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.25

2.25 - 2.50

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-7

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


0

0.00- 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.00

1.00 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 1.75

1.75 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.25

2.25 - 2.50

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bauxite Hills - Peak DepthPMF Flood Depth Map

!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-8

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED

LegendVelocity (m/s)

< 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

0.5 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.7

0.7 - 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1

1 <

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bauxite Hills - Peak Velocity5 Year Flood Velocity Map

!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-9

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


< 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

0.5 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.7

0.7 - 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1

1 <

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-10

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


< 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

0.5 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.7

0.7 - 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1

1 <

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-11

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


< 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

0.5 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.7

0.7 - 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1

1 <

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-12

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED

LegendVeloctiy (m/s)

< 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

0.5 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.7

0.7 - 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1

1 <

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-13

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


< 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

0.5 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.7

0.7 - 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1

1 <

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-


!

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

SK

ARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure B-14

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres



APPROVED

DRAWN

24/03/16

CHECKED


< 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

0.5 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.7

0.7 - 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1

1 <

MIA

Watercourse

Haul_roads

MLA Boundary

Pit Limit

Flood Hotspot




DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED EOB

EOB

MD

-

R Details Date

24/03/16-

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-


Draft

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bauxite Hills - Peak VelocityPMF Flood Velocity Map

1

Appendix C – Mine Drainage Plans

&M

&M

&M

&M

&M&M

&M

&M&M

Airport Strip

BH1 MLA boundary



Crossing 85/ 900 dia RCP (2 year ARI Peak Flow = 7.1 m3/s)

Crossing 56/ 1200 x 1200 RCBC (2 Year ARI Peak Flow = 17.6 m3/s)

Crossing 75/ 1200 x 1200 RCBC (2 Year ARI Peak Flow = 13.0 m3/s)

Crossing 45/ 900 RCP Barrels (2 Year ARI Peak Flow = 7.7 m3/s)

Crossing 32/ 900 dia. RCP (2 Year ARI Peak Flow = 3.4 m3/s)



Crossing 9Bridge structure (2 Year ARI Peak Flow =101.3 m3/s)

Crossing 6Bridge structure (2 Year ARI Peak Flow = 80.3 m3/s)

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETA C REEK

NAMALETA CREEK

SKARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure C-1

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Mine Site Drainage



APPROVED

DRAWN

22/02/16

CHECKED

Legend&M Proposed Culvert Location

Mine Infrastructure Area

Watercourse

Pit Limit

Mine Lease Area

Proposed Haul Road

Skardon River to Telegraph

Haul Road to BH6

Haul Road BH6 East to Port

Haul Road BH6 to BH1



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-001-R4_MINE_DRN

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:65,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

10/06/151

Notes:

2

-

-

-

-

-F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\Mine Drainage\BES150115-001-R4_MINE_DRN.mxd

For Information

Updated Mine Infrastructure

-

-

-

-

-

Barge Loading

Area

Proposed Haul Road

MineInfrastructure

Area

13/01/16

LogisticsBarge

Facility

Airport Strip

BH1 MLA boundary



SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETA C REEK

NAMALETA CREEK

SKARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure C-2

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Clean Water Diversion



APPROVED

DRAWN

22/02/16

CHECKED

LegendMine Infrastructure Area

Clean Water Diversion Direction

Watercourse

Contour

Pit Limit

Mine Lease Area

Proposed Haul Road

Skardon River to Telegraph

Haul Road to BH6

Haul Road BH6 East to Port

Haul Road BH6 to BH1



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-001-R5_WATER_DIV

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:65,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

22/02/161

Notes:

-

-

-

-

-

-F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\Mine Drainage\BES150115-001-R5_WATER_DIV.mxd

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

BargeLoading

Area

Proposed Haul Road

Mine Infrastructure

Area LogisticsBarge

Facility

Documents

Metro Mining Appendix E2 - Surface Water Technical Report ... · D O U G H B OY R I V E R K R D U I E R I V E R J A C K S O N I V R d WEIPA MAPOON 550000 550000 600000 600000 650000