embley projectfor south of environmental impact statement · site 11 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130...
TRANSCRIPT
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
APPENDIX 8A
FISH AND MACRO CRUSTACEA SITE SURVEY EFFORT
Appendix 8A Fish and Macro Crustacea Survey Effort
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
Catchment Subcatchmelli
ILIrNettingI
Large FykeNet
Survey / Sampl
Electrofishing Bait Trapping Crab Trapping argete.Angling
isualbservations
Norman CreekFreshwater
Eastern Branch 1A 120m2x m47hrs -17 hrs "lhr -35 hrs NA -2hrs ''11hrs
5A 120m2 x -17hrs -17 hrs -1hr -85 hrs NA "2hrs -11hrs
7A NA -47 hrs "lhr -85 hrs NA NA -11hrs
Northern Branch
2A 120m2x "17hrs ^47 hrs -,1hr -85 hrs NA NA - 1 lh rs
3 NA 0 "1hr -85 hrs NA NA -4hrs
4 60m2 x "17hrs -17 hrs "1hr -85 hrs NA NA "9hrs
North eastTributary 11
NA -17 hrs "1hr -85 hrs NA NA "11hrs
Norman CreekEstuarine
Northern Branch 10A 120m2 x "4hrs NA NA 0 0 "4hrs -6hrs
Total Catchment 12 120m2 x "10hrs NA NA -50 hrs -50 hrs "4hrs "10hrs
Ward RiverFreshwater
Coconut Ck 14 120m2 x -17hrs -17 hrs "1hr -85 hrs NA NA "9hrs
Upper Ward 22 NA NA "lhr -435 hrs NA NA "9hrs
25A 120m2 x -17hrs -17 hrs "1hr -85 hrs NA "2hrs -11hrs
20 120m2 x "10hrs -17 hrs "1hr -85 hrs NA "4hrs "7hrs
Local Tree Swamp 32 90m2 x -17hr -17 hrs "lhr -435 hrs NA NA "9hrs
Appendix 8A Fish and Macro Crustacea Survey Effort
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
Ward RiverEstuarine
Upper Ward 28 120m2 x ,v1Ohrs NA NA 50 hrs 50 hrs 4hrs "'9hrs
29 120m2 x "'lOhrs NA NA 50 hrs 50 hrs "'4hrs "9hrs
Total Catchment 30 120m2 x 10hrs NA NA 50 hrs 50 hrs 4hrs 9hrs
Winda WindaCreek Freshwater
NorthernTributary 19
120m2 x m,17hr 17 hrs 1hr 85 hrs NA NA "'7hrs
Winda Winda 9A 120m2 x "l7hr 17 hrs 3hr 85 hrs NA "'2hrs "9hrs
Winda WindaCreek Estuarine
Total Catchment 21 120m2 x 10hrs NA NA 0 0 4hrs 10hrs
Hey Point TreeswampFreshwater
Local Tree Swamp 27 60m2 x ''17hrs 17 hrs 1hr 85 hrs NA NA "'9hrs
Pera HeadLagoonFreshwater
Local Tree Swamp 16A 90m2 x ,q17hr ,,17 hrs 1hr 85 hrs NA NA "'9hrs
Ina CreekFreshwater
Ina Creek 26 60m2 x m,17hr "'17 hrs "lhr 85 hrs NA NA "9hrs
36 0 0 0 0 NA "'2hrs "'4hrs
Ina CreekEstuarine
37 0 NA NA 0 0 "'6hrs "'6hrs
Appendix 8A Fish and Macro Crustacea Survey Effort
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
APPENDIX 8B
BIOTA TISSUE METAL RESPONSE
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
35
30
25
20
E 15
10
(b)
120
Site 19Site 14Site 9Site 11
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Length (mm)
100
80
20
0-
I1
1'4 1'6 2 4 11
Site
27
8-
2 6-E
E 4-
2
3.104 :11
Site 9Site 14Site 1ASite 2Site 5Site 4
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Length (mm)
(c)
Figure 8B-1 Aluminium concentrations by site in (a) Melanotaenia splendida fleshsamples; (b) Neosilurus hyrtlii gill samples; and (c) whole Dytiscid samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-1
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
(a) (b)
5-
2-
Site 140 Site 1A
Site 5
0 Site 7A
O
20 25 30
Caripace Length (mm)
40 45
6
5-
4
a)lo
E 3
C.)
(c) (d)
6
5
2 4E
0 3
2
1
20
Site 9Site 26Site 16Site 11
a
25 30 35
Caripace Length (mm)
40 45
2-
0
80
10
so I.
Site 9Site 2Site 5Site 7ASite 14Site 1A
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Length (mm)
8-
6-
E
C.5 4
2-
16 2 4 11 27 19
Site
Figure 8B-2 Copper concentrations by site in (a) Cherax quadricarinatustail samples;(b) Neosilurus hyrtlii hind samples; (c) Cherax sp..1 tail samples; and (d) whole Dytiscidsamples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-2
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
1.0
0.9
0.8
E
07 0.7
E71.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
Site 25ASite 21Site 10A
100 200 300 400
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
Length (mm)
0.97
0.8
0.7
0.6
Site 25ASite 21Site 10A
500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500
(a) (b)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Site 25ASite 21Site 10A
00 200 300 400 500 600 700
Length (mm)
Length (mm)
600 700
(c)
Figure 8B-3 Selenium concentrations by site in (a) Lates calcarifer flesh samples; and(b) Lates calcarifergill samples; and (c) Lates calcariferliver samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-3
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
A Al0.6
0.5
0-4
6fn 0.3E
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.2
1.0
'01
fr.E
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
OLL
0.0
0040'
41,0
CO0.20
2
0.15
t_N2' 0.10
E 'IP
?0.05
0000°.sze
0
Sb0.12
0.10
3.0
2.5--11111.-^11111- 4111-
0.08 2.0
to 0.00 t5E
0.04E" to
0.02 0.5
0.00 0.0
.01P. of' ie.
Cu
II
Se
S
64.
S' 5°
As
4E 3
2
Hg
0.20
0.15
0.10
Cd0.6
Cr
0.5
0.4
0.3
E0.2
0.050.1
0.00.00
ork
4.'"" aw ,9
,4.1
Ni0.6
Pb0.20
0.50.15
0.4
±Z' 0.10 0.3
E 0.20.05
0.1Ili 41
0.00.00
15
E5
Zn
Iek9
c,,7 _016
-3"
Lates calcarifer- flesh
Blue line detection limits, dottedPurple line - proposed CODEX standards,Dashed pink line USFDA Guidence Levels,Pink line - ANZFA Food Standards, 9D% GEL's,
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-4
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.3
02
0.0
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15E
0,10
0.05
0.00
fe4. qf 0;1' er44"
Ni0.20
0.15
3.10
0.05
0.004ze
..,Zn
50
40 -
75: 30
E 20
10 -
; I i
12
10
a
6E
4
2
0
Al0.8
06
04
0.2
no$ $
E
e000
4.,
1.4
12
E 0.90.4
0.20.0
Cr
9
0.1
1.00
9.75
X0.50E
0.25
9.004-r 4e O
crk`
As0.5
OA
0.3
E 0.2
0.1
0.0
Cd
1
,,,OF
.04?
.0c ote44' ske pc"
,e`,`
Cu
I
Pb 0.5
. ass
Lates caicarifer gills
Blue line detection limits
ors
'7, 0.4
E 0.2
.1
Sb
e 4'co, a` 040
-a%
0.100
0.075
.6 0.050E
0.025
0.000
Hg
.3') kiP _4e""of
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Se
I i
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-5
20
15
10
5
20
15-
1' 10
5-
Al21
1207
As
cv
0.4
0.3
0.2
al
D
Cd
. I,,oP
4'FteA.06
45'
'0-
,1P
Cu
$ g
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0,3
0.2
0.1
0.0
A g
r 3
creee 49>
ifs" 4
0.25
0.20
1. a 15
E 0.10
0.05
0.00
Co
S
As,
$6
0.12
0.10
0.08
7090.06
0.02
0.1.10
ba
,7 4
2
Se
le,oge-
i41,4' eb
e e
Hg0.20
0.15
I.10
0.05
0.00
Ni
,se
0.6
0.5
p.4
L:0 3E
0.2
OA
0.0
Cr
4,11°
Ph
-0 .0f .09 se/ /
4035 -30 -
- 7 25
20 -
E 15 -so -
5-0
I I
Lates calcarifer- liver
Blue line - detection limits, dottedPurple line - proposed CODEX standards,Dashed pink line - USFDA Guidence Levels,Pink line - AN1ZFA Food Standards, 90% GEL's,
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-6
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.20
0.15
0.10E
0.05
0.00
Ag
..001
Co020
0.15
0.10
nos
0.00
Sb
-
0.12
0.10
0.00
60.0e
0.04
0.02
0.00
cf,de 4e,deel el' ,el'
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
E 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
2.0
1.5
10
0.5
0.0
4
0
Al
la qt:
80
60
40
20
ctg
de
020
0.15
'Tnn0.10
0.05
o aj
Cd0.20
0.15
t 0.10
0.05
Goo
AFO'
Cr
0040
01" te646 46 Ofr
Cu1.0
0.8
0.8
E 0.4
02
0 . 0
"co'
Hg0.20
0.15
0.05
0.00
Ni0.6
0.5
0.4
iso 3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Pb
a s -111-411-4111-1111--
4/cee Ae,de
Se
sees
250
MO
150
F ion
50
0
Zn
00$41-, 406
Neoarius graeffei- fleshBlue line - detection limits, dottedPurple line - proposed CODEX standards,Dashed pink line - USFDA Guidence Levels,Pink line - ANZFA Food Standards, 90% GEL'S,
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-7
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
a3
0.2
0.,
0.0
0
0.3
t 0.2
0.1
0.0
d#
CO
0.20
0.15
1.10
0.05
0.00
oe ,oe
Zn450400 -350
250t 200E
15010050 I
80
60
73,, 40
20
0
Al
I I,de
Cr1.2
to0.8
0.2
0.0
,/ soo ,04Pb0.8 -
a&
0.2
0.0
Aike
Neoarius graeffei - gills
As
S
el el404
1 .00
0.75
oF
0.2$
Blue line - detection limits
0.00
0.6
0.4
1,0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Sh
411
de4' 0,
soe'
Cd
pe:14s ,,e64
0.100H9
0C7S
7 0.050E
0.025
a000
t41.2to0.80.60.4Q20.0
Se
e de d="
."
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response
25
20
15
g 10
0
40
30 -
20
10
Al
20
15
Tei1.; 10
5
Cu
1.o
0.5
DO :4`.cf,
4 of Fo,se4
Zn1400
1200 -
1000 -
WO -
60D
400
200
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0,3
02
OA
0.0
CO
Ag
III
1.4
1.2
1.0
kos0.6
c.).4
0.2
0.0
0.12
010
0.05
0.06
004
0.02
0.00
Sb
,ey
S
,F
Se
a
6
E 4
2 1 *
AV FO .e` ,1?'
ctgstkiy ,1.4°
Hg
E
I
14
13
12
Cd0.20
0.15
Cr
0.10E 4 E
0.05
0.00 le/AFF ,11°`'
0.20
0.15
41.10
0.05
Ni0.6
0.5
0.4
110.35
0.2
OA
0.00 0.0Feed,/ 0- se ,ce
4, e4
Neoarius graeffei liver
Pb
g
Blue line - detection limits, dottedPurple line proposed CODEX standards,Dashed pink line - USFDA Guidence Levels,Pink line - ANZFA Food Standards, 90% GEL'S,
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-9
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.20
0.15
to
iS 0 -10
0.05
0.00
*i0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.12
01.101
0.08
-10.013
0.04
0.02
000
Ag
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
E 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Al
54
As Cd0.20
0.15
t 0.10E
0.05
0.00
0.6
Cr0.20
cos
_w 0.10
0.05
Co
e 41)
ce4.0
-.1kr
Cu Hg
0.00
0.20
0.15
41. 10
0.05
0.00
cso'
Ni Pb2.0
1.5
7ca
1.0
0.8
re 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
41'
0.5
-
1
0.4
tfa 1E
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
e0-
Sb4
Se
eoto
Zn
0.0 eje,t1" 4,- A'
Neoarius midgleyi flesh
line detection limits, dottedline - proposed CODEX standards,
pink line - USFDA Guidence Levels,line - ANZFA Food Standards, 90% GEL's,
e
3
62
20
15
o,10
sBluePurpleDashedPink
-,E
5
0
.4%
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-10
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
03
7 0.2
E01
0.0
An 10
a
6E
2
0
Al
S
0.8
10.4
0.2
0.0
As0.E
0.4
0.8
E 0.2
Cd
409
0.4
0.3
g 0.2
CO Cr Cu
E
arso
0075
0050
0.025
0.060
1.4
1.2
to0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Hg1.2
1.0
0.8
Ta' 0.8
04
0.2 9
1.00
0.75
F 0.50
0.25
I0.000.0
0.20
0.75
0.05
0.00
800700 -6D0 -
o, 500 -fe 400 -
300200 --100,
0
Ni
0.0
0.5
0,4
E 0.2
0.1
0.0
Blue
ke'W4 Pb
0.4
In. 0.3
E0.2
0.0
,10
Sb 4'Se
e06.06
ZnNeoarius midgleyi gills
line detect on 10-nits-
46
.e6
40
4,e7
2009 Samples
Ce
-06
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0,3
0.2fn
0.1
Ag
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
gasa 4
0.2
0.0
Co
U
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
5b
160
140
120
100
aoE
40
20
454035302250
15
105
0
4
2
Al21.0
13:0/0.8
DI
0.4
0.2
0.0
2.0
1.5
t° 1.0
As0.5
0.4
0.3
AE 0.2
al
1:10
0.20
0.15
1.10
005
0.00
Cd Cr0.20
0.15
t 0.10E
0.05
0.00
0.6
0.5
0.4
t0.30.2
.1Co
*46
- liver
dottedstandards,
GuidenceStandards,
eHg
4')
440Ni
eceolPb
I*
0.5
0.0
900800700600500
F 400300200100
N11°
41'6'
Zn
Feoff
Neoarius midgleyi
Blue line - detection limits,Purple line proposed CODEXDashed pink line LISFDAPink line ANZFA Food
ve4
Levels,90% GEL's,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,e
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-12
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.20
0.15
cn-6 0.10
0 05
0.00
6",,,,;"0"
0.20
0 15
0 10
Ag
1.4
1.2
1.0
,[7, 0.8
E 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
4.0
Al
3
2
Co
0464
ce go 01'6* 4, 0,.1'4.44, .- alOV
Cu1.0
0.8
..-! 0.8
2.0
1.5
-b)-1:1, 1.0
0.5
00
10
I I I0.05
E 0.4
0.2
0.00
4,4e
012
0.10
0.04
-60.06
054
0 -02
0.00
44
,p9`) de,F
,e6
Sb
0.0
4,6 4,46 446?Se
25
2.0
7;," 1.5
E to0.5
0.0
oti
15
1181-6 10
5
4e0,4,0'4"clpF44 '/e60,nip
40.6
As
4
oeq,
Zn
..111Ot" btree.4.,,10
Ak.r
0.15
Cd0.20
0.15
Cr
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05 -
111
0.00 0.00 It 0
Ni Pb0.6
0.50.15
0.4.
t.1002
0050.1
0.00 0.0
4 ,/ ',46,06 ..ote `1e460
Toxotes chartareus - fleshBlue line detection limits, dottedPurple line - proposed CODEX standards,Dashed pink line - USFDA Guidence Levels,Pink line - ANZFA Food Standards, 90% GEL's,
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-13
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.3
0.2
E0.1
0.0
OA
D.3
r 0.2
0.0
,pe se ,pe
ec.o
4- ...# S,4-. ,d" .L..0 du'''
44
Ni0.20
0.15
0.10E
0.06
0.00
I *
o.te 49 4, de
zn,60
60
r40
20
0
I I I
54,60/se,s
20
15
10E
5
Al
I
0 Ie#S4P de
e6 ts"4'4%,s,
12
to0.8
oe
E 0.4
02
0.0
Cr
4a# ,tierPb
0.5
., OA
0.2
0.0
S soil
1.2
1.0
aa
0.4
az
0.0
As
I
1.00
0.75
2 0.50
a0.25
0.00
II
0.6
13.0.4
E0.2
04 e de .9 .se.0,/,'Fa,
Nt' .04
sb
Toxotes chartareus gills
Blue line - detection limitsBlue dot- sample specific detection limit
Cd
0.0c'
414s 4, 4Hg
0.100
0.075
0025
0400
0.2
de" Fe/
Se
i I
<#°Fes' oft
0.`Ar,
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.3
0.2
E0.1
0 0 Ady,,c1".04 .00
Ag
Ill
1.4
1.2
1.0
130.8g
0.4
0.2
0.0
Co
0.12
0.10
0.08
hto.osE
0.04
0.02
0.120
,Zde FA"44' 4e,,, 00
25
20
1,o 15
g 10
5
0
5
4
Al
s I 92Ado;.,,S,55e
Cu
3
Ea 2
1
0
8
? 4
2
0
s i 9
o',,e e0.°
4,4s*
Se
ce le- de
.4%
21.020.0),19.0
0.8
As
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0..00,4) .4
41'
Hg3n
2.5
20
1.5E
1.0
0.5
0.0
ueo,"6010"..0
.tko .efs
Zn40
35 -30
25 --t 20 -E 15-
10 -
5 -
Ad:Ff de"
sill
to 0.80.6
0.4S
0.2 I0.0P" ctz(e'f`
Ni
Cd
0.20
0.15
11.10
005
0.00
Cr0.20
0.15 -
0.10
0.05 -
0.00
,50 ,50
PI)0.6
0.5
0.4
El 3
g2
0.1
0.o
oF4i'4V,de.4F Fo,15 At"
Toxotes chartareus - liver
Blue line detection limits, dottedPurple line proposed CODEX standards,Dashed pink line USFDA Guidence Levels,Pink line ANIZFA Food Standards, 90% GEL's,
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-15
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
020
0.16
S 0.10E
0 05
0.00
0.20
0.15
1'0.10
0.05
0.00
Ag
F
Co
0.12
0.10
aClel
1;n0.0e
mos
0.00
Sb
16'
4
2
0.8
E 0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Al
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4%e
Se4
Cu
I I
3
E
-
-ln 54
0.8
7c4 0.6
a2
0.0
As
414
Hg
16
10
6
0
Cd0.20
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.10 t 0.10E
0.05 0.05
0.n0 F 0.00FNi
0.60.20
0.150.5
0.4
.k1.10 0.3
E
0.050.2
0.1
0.00.00
0
V,*
Cr
100.
e
Pb
S
Liza subviridis - fleshBlue line detection limits, dottedPurple line proposed CODEX standards,Dashed pink line - USFDA Guidence Levels,Pink line - ANZFA Food Standards, 90% GEL's,
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-16
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.3
0.2
01
0.0
Ag
te se 0'
!IA
9.3
-F. 9.2
0.1
0.0
A, Ave.
CO
,de ti46) oteiotr
#14'NI
olo
als
o.io
OAS
0.00
20
15 -
g0
5 -
cos.-
...06
Zn
0
".
so
so
E" 4°
20
0
Al
F
Cr
0 "Pb
Liza subviridis - gills
0.8
0.6
04
0.2
0.0
1.00
0.75
T.' 0.5a
u_25
0.00
131
Blue line detection limitsBlue dot- sample specific detection limit
As
i
.os
Cu
Cd
E° 0.4-
0.2
0.0
0.100
0.05%
1'0.050
E
0.000
A'44Ng
"ac"
4#6 deS b 4.5
0.4
0.3
E 0.2
0.1
0.00 0
43"
4
Se
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-17
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
020
0.15
0.10E
0.05
0.09
0.20
Ag Al1.00
0.75
-1" 0.50
G.25
0.00
As0.030
0.025
0.020
1: 0015
E 0.010
0.005
[PAW
0150.15
0.14
0.12
.2, 0.10
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.02
ADO
Cd
4
3
E 2
1
aFCo
0.4
E 02
al
0.0
.4*6
Cr Cu4'
,00'
H g
0.15
it 0.10
2.9
1.5
;10.5
0.05
0.00 0.0 F
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.90
raw0.04
0.02
aao
4im's
Hi
4
3
E2
Pb0.8
0.6
y ow
0.2
OA
S b Se2.0
1.5
7d 1.0
0.5
Zn
Feao
..c4e50 -
40
g 30
20
10 -
Meianotaenia spiendida - hindbodyBlue line detection limits
ASS
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
020
.15
$' 0.10E
0.05
OD
0.20
0.15
47 0.10
0.D5
0.012
0.16
0.14
0.12
alp0.0k9
E0.060.04
0.02
0.on
50
40
Ag
Co
el,
Ni
16
14
12
108
E
4
2
0
0.5
0.4
0.3
E0.2
0.1
0.0
Al
FCr
Pb4
3
t2.
1.00
0 75
0.50
0.25
0.00
E
02
9.0
As
FSb
Melanctaenia splendida - wholebody
Blue line detection limits
0.030
0.025
0020
17 a015E
Cd
FHg
0.100.16
0.14
0.12
0.11);0.08
0.050.04
0.02,"0.00
4%44e
2.0
1.5
E
0.5
0.0
Se
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
coo
Co
1818
14
12
2 1
0.20
0.15
.6, 0.10
0.05
0.00
2°
0.2
0.0
F
8
4
20
0.20
0.15
0.05
woo,
Al
Cr
.5"
1.00
0.75
0.50E
D.25
0.00
100
0.75
Irt 0.50E
025
Ono
As
,e^
Cu
11.030
11025
0.020Tn.1,, 0.015
C
0.005
6.000
020
-14 0.10
E
0.05
atu
Ni Pb Sb08 2.0
0.6 0.6 1.5
-? 0.4 piaE E0.2 02 vs
0.0 0.0 0.0
Zn
30-
2O-
10 -;
0
F,
Giossamia aprion - hindbodyBlue line detection limits
Cd
I
.o°Se
.0"
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
010
0.15
71? 0.10
E
0.05
0.00
02
E
0.0
Ni
,tp 00'
F
0o
50
t10
0
Al
0.20
0.15
0.10E
0.05
0.00
0.5
0.4
1.0.3
E 0.2
0.1
0.0
I
Cr
at
.ePb
/F
40
30
'-'7 20E
10-
0
Zn
Scylla serrate - claw
Blue line - detection limits
I1
a76
- 5k
32
1
0
16
As0.030
Cd
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
CU
0.000
0.10
0.1:8
or
0.02
0.00
2.0
1.5
1' 1.0is
Hg
14
12
10
t8e G
4
20
0.5
03
E 0.2
4%f
Sb 5e
0.1
0.0..649
OP'
0.5
0.0 e
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-21
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
a20
ats0.10
0.05
000
0.30
D.25
osn
015E
005
0.00
0.20
.!).10E
0.05
aca
Co
Al1.00
0-26
0.50
6
0.25
0-00
50
As Cd1614
1,20
ga4
2
2.5
3.0 -
1S -
10
0.5 -
0
6F
Cr Cu
0.0
0.20
0.15
g 0.10
0.06
0.D3
2.0
1.5
7,2 1.0
0.5
0.0
Hg0.20
0.15
A:
40-
0.10E
0.05
2rJ
10 -
00.00
0.5
0.4
;a a3-6E 0.2
0.1
0.0
"644' 440,"
Pb 0.5Sb
/ 4.e/Se
-
-
0.4
7 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
60
50
Zn4e-
Scylla serrata- hepatopancreas30
E 20 Blue line - detection limits10 Blue dot- sample specific detection limit
0 / 2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-22
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
020
0.15
x 0.10E
0.05
0.00
iA
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.30,
E0.2
0.1
00
Ag
Sb
sF
100
80
2 60
e 40
20
0
E
8-
4
2
n
Al
Cu
Se
S
I
F
9.5
9.4
0.3
As
0.10
0.08
- 0.98
E 0.04-
0.02
0.00
40
30
F
D.Cd Cr
0.29
0.9250.15
0.030
0.015 .6 0.10
0.0100.05
0.005
0.000 0.00Foer.
Hg0.20
Ni930
Pb
0.25015
020
410E
0.15
0.10
I 6.050.05
0.09
Zn
20E
10
0
Dytiscidae wholeDue line detection limits
2009 Samples
Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response Page 8B-23
Rio Tinto AlcanEnvironmental Impact StatementSouth of Embley Project
APPENDIX 8C
RESPONSE TO DSEWPAC COMMENTS ON THREATENED ELASMOBRANCH SPECIES
Appendix 8C Response to DESEWPaC comments on threatened elasmobranch species
econcernenvironmental consultancy'local to global catchment to coastal'
Econcern56 McPhails RoadHuonbrook NSW 2482Phone: (02) 66840330Mobile: 0418982426Email: [email protected]. 99 607 411 256
To: Fiona Talbot, Technology and Innovation Principal Advisor Environment Rio Tinto
From: Jim Tait Senior Environmental Scientist Econcern
Subject: Response to DESEWPaC Comments on South of Embley EIS concerningthreatened elasmobranch species
Date: 1St April 2011
Based on a brief assessment of the comments of DESEWPaC reviewers of the SOE Project EIS,there would appear to be several generic issues of concern regarding threatened elasmobranchspecies in the project area. These issues are addressed in turn under four collective headingsbelow;
1. ADEQUACY OF EXISTING SURVEYS.
Survey efforts for fishes in the project area were subject to a number of constraints associatedwith sampling efficiency, access and safety. Within the estuary proper, large populations ofestuarine crocodiles limited night work due to safety concerns for samplers associated withpotential crocodile attack and with the removal of enmeshed crocodiles from gill nets (whichstill occurred albeit at a manageable level during daylight hours). For this reason gill nets wereset for standard 4 hr periods either in the early post morning or late afternoon pre dusk periodwhen many fish species are known to be active.In the highly seasonal freshwater reaches of tributary stems flowing to the estuary overnightnet sets were employed at a range of sites upstream of the proposed impoundment and inadjoining tributary systems. Sampling was conducted in the post wet season run off period(May) as this presented the optimal site conditions for sampling. During the wet season streamreaches could not be sampled due to the inaccessibility of sites due to wet season inundation ofthe landscape and due to the debris laden high flows that prevent the safe and effectivedeployment of sampling gear. During the dry season, freshwater habitats upstream of theimpoundment area were reduced to small residual pools that were too small to deploy gill netsand lacked flow for effective use of fyke nets.In addition to gill netting other survey methods employed were backpack electrofishing, baittrapping, fyke netting, targeted angling and visual observation (highly effective in the ultra clearfreshwater habitats of the project area. This represents as comprehensive a suite of methods ascould possibly be employed within the available freshwater habitats.
2. SUITABILITY OF HABITAT FOR EPBC LISTED ELESMOBRANCH SPECIES
Freshwater streams of the project area have ultra low conductivity as a consequence ofdraining highly weathered bauxite landscapes which do not contribute salts. To put it intocontext, it should be recognised that recorded conductivity values approach those of distilledwater. As discussed in the EIS, a hypothesis of the fish biologist involved in these surveys is thatthese ultra low conductivity values present an osmoregulation constraint on the freshwater fishcommunity that occur in these systems evidenced by the complete absence of records for
J. Tait Response to DESEWPaC Comments on SoE EIS 1
otherwise ubiquitous families, genera and species of freshwater fishes found throughouttropical Australia including in adjoining river systems of the region. Examples include acomplete lack of gobies, theraponids, gerrids and mullets. The only catadromous (estuarinebreeding) freshwater species found in the project area were Tarpon, Barramundi and MangroveJack the latter two only in tidally influenced freshwater reaches downstream of the proposedimpoundment site and in the lowermost freshwater reaches of adjoining tributary systems. Itshould be noted that all regional freshwater/inland records for Freshwater sawfish Pristismicrodon come from larger perennial river systems (as opposed to small seasonal creeks NB:Norman creek has a channel width of approximately 4m and a maximum depth ofapproximately 1.5m at the proposed impoundment site) which have conductivities typically ofseveral hundred microsiemens and which are typically co inhabited by a full complement of thecatadromous, amphidromous and estuarine vagrant species noticeably absent from thefreshwater reaches of Norman Creek. It is suggested that the ultra low conductivities of theproject areas freshwaters would present an equal or greater osmoregulation constraint onelasmobanch fishes which poss a more primitive osmorregulation capacity than modern rayfinned fishes.Based on EIS survey results, know records for Pristis spp. and Glyphis spp. and anecdotalinformation obtained from Traditional Owner informants it is firmly believed that while theestuarine and possibly lower tidally influence freshwater reaches of the Norman Creek systemdo provide potentially suitable habitat for Pristis spp. and Glyphis spp the seasonal freshwaterreaches upstream of the proposed impoundment site do not. This assessment does not onlyrest on the described water quality constraints but also on the small size and seasonality of thesystems concerned.
3. MITIGATION MEASURESThe principle mitigation measure proposed to address concerns surrounding potential breaks inaquatic habitat connectivity associated with the proposed impoundment wall is a low gradientfishway of a 'rock ramp' style, to be incorporated in the spillway overflow of the proposedimpoundment. It is believed that this measure will facilitate passage of all upstream migratingspecies that access freshwater habitats of Norman Creek upstream of the proposedimpoundment wall. This belief is underpinned by several factors including:
The proven success of rock ramp style fishways for facilitating the passage of the targetedcatadromous species in other regions of Queensland i.e. lower Fitzroy coastal catchments.The successful upstream passage of at least one of the targeted catadromous species(Tarpon) up the flow dissipating spillway bypass (not specifically designed for fish passage)of an impoundment (Ely Dam) constructed in an equivalent environment north of Weipa inthe Pine River catchment.The presence of high gradient riffle run sequences downstream of the proposedimpoundment wall that present hydraulic environments that will be at least matched interms of fish passage ability by the low gradient fishway planned to be incorporated at theproposed impoundment wall.
As noted in the preceding discussion point (above) it is firmly believed that Freshwater sawfishPristis microdon do not currently utilise the small seasonal stream reaches upstream of theproposed impoundment wall. However, the proposed impoundment will create a permanentlacustrine freshwater habitat suitable for most if not all freshwater species that currentlyinhabit the impoundment reach. The size and perenniality of this habitat may also presentopportunities for species not commonly encountered in the impoundment reach (possibleincluding Freshwater sawfish Pristis microdon) to occur there post impoundment construction.To that end it is argued that the level of connectivity to the impoundment that will be availableto migratory species will be at least equivalent to that presented by the higher gradient streamreaches downstream of the impoundment wall site.
J. Tait Response to DESEWPaC Comments on SoE EIS 2
4. SCALE OF IMPACT
Issues raised concerning the loss of mangrove habitat and channel dredging associated with thebarge and ferry infrastructure need to be placed in the broader context of the extensiveestuarine habitat mosaic present in the Embley River estuary. Intertidal areas devoid ofmangrove cover and deeper channel areas form part of the broader habitat mosaic of thissystem and it is suggested that the modified habitat that result from these activities i.e.dredged deeper channels and cleared mangrove areas fall within the range of natural habitatvariability of the system, and will remain productive habitats that can be utilised or at leasttraversed by threatened Pristis spp. and Glyphis spp. When the area of habitat disturbanceassociated with dredging or mangrove clearing is put into the context of the area of mangroveand shallow estuarine channel available within the broader Embley River estuarine habitatcomplex, the claim that these disturbances do not represent a significant loss of habitat forthese is readily substantiated.
Norman Creek at the site of the proposedimpoundment wall May 2009.
High gradient bedrock reach of Norman Creekdownstream of the proposed impoundment wall.
Upper estuarine/freshwater gill net samplinghighlighting very real safety contraints to nighttime sampling.
J. Tait Response to DESEWPaC Comments on SoE EIS
Spillway bypass at Ely Dam north of Weipahighlighting potential for incorporation ofdedicated low gradient 'rock ramp' fishways in
3
Weipa Region impoundments.
Potentially suitable Pristis spp. and Glyphis spp.habitat downstream of proposed impoundmentsite though habitat suitability still likely to belimited by low water conductivity.
Potentially suitable Pristis spp. and Glyphis spp.habitat on tributary stem north of proposedimpoundment catchment, though habitatsuitability still likely to be limited by low waterconductivity.
Lower Norman Creek freshwater reach perennialfreshwater habitat upstream of impoundment siteduring early dry season August 2007.
Lower Norman Creek freshwater reachperennial freshwater habitat upstream ofimpoundment site during early dry seasonAugust 2007.
J. Tait Response to DESEWPaC Comments on SoE EIS 4
appro
I EIEE E ZC11 1.1.poiNnbm 510 hICW. L. NM, GEEICID
AAEEE
ler pp,ras len u....p03.4
CoosleE. el 363E6 A
Location of proposed impoundment wall in relation to broader Norman Creek wetland habitatcomplex illustrating small seasonal channel nature of proposed impoundment site.
Overview image of Embley River estuarine habitat complex to provide scale context to proposedmangrove removal and channel dredging habitat impacts.
J. Tait Response to DESEWPaC Comments on SoE EIS 5