Embley Projectfor South of Environmental Impact Statement · Site 11 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130...

Environ

men

tal Impact Statem

ent

for South

ofE

mbley Project

Section 8Appendix

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


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



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 8B

BIOTA TISSUE METAL RESPONSE

Appendix 8B Biota Tissue Metal Response


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


(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 B-2


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


500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500

(a) (b)

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8


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



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,



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


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


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 calcariferliver

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



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



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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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 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.


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.


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.


This page has been left intentionally blank

Embley Projectfor South of Environmental Impact Statement · Site 11 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130...

Documents

Transcript of Embley Projectfor South of Environmental Impact Statement · Site 11 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130...