Section B
Section B
Section B
June 2012
Report No. GHA1044
May 2012
Executive Summary
Bea Mountain Mining Corporation (BMMC), a company registered in Liberia, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Aureus Mining Incorporated (AM). BMMC hold a Class A mining license issued by the Liberian Ministry of
Land, Mines and Energy on 29 July 2009 to mine the New Liberty Gold Mine (NLGM) deposit for a period of
25 years, with the right to extend this term for additional terms of 25 years. BMMC proposes to develop an
open pit gold mine, referred to as the NLGM Project (the ‘Project’), which is one of a series of gold
2
exploration deposits located within BMMC’s 457 km mining license area.
According to Section 37 of the Environment Protection Agency Act of Liberia, BMMC is required to undertake
an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the proposed project. Based on the findings of the EIA, the
Liberian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make a decision on whether the project may go ahead
or not. The EIA has been undertaken to meet Liberian legislative requirements. (Reference has also been
made to applicable international standards/limits).
BMMC appointed an independent consulting company, Golder Associates (Ghana) Ltd, based in Accra,
Ghana, to undertake the EIA and associated specialist studies, with assistance provided by the local Liberian
consulting company, EarthCons, as per requirements of the Environmental Protection and Management Law
(2006).
This report presents the Surface Water Hydrology specialist assessment, as part of the EIA for the proposed
Project. This report has been prepared by Golder Associates (Golder) on behalf of BMMC as per
requirements of the Liberian Environmental Protection and Management Law (2006).
• Determination of sizes and produce conceptual level drawings of the water management infrastructure
including diversion berms and storage dams;
• Identification of contact and non-contact areas to manage the stormwater from the proposed
development; and
• Development of a high level site-wide water balance that provides the hydrology baseline, impact and
mitigation input needed for the EIA. This includes the quantification of the impact of the mining activities
on the local water resources.
• Average monthly runoff coefficient of 0.55 for the Wet Season (May-October), 0.14 for the Dry Season
(December – March) and 0.27 for the transition between both seasons (April and November);
• Annual precipitation for wet and dry years given in Table 22;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• 24h rainfall depths for the project area is given in Table 28;
• Recommended IDF curves are given in Table 33 and plotted in Figure 12 and Figure 13;
• Flood peak calculated for Marvoe Creek Diversion is given in Table 34; and
• The results of the water quality analysis show that the water is of good quality meets the WHO water
requirements.
Mitigation/management measures
Monitoring Plan
Conclusion
• The proposed mine is located in a rainfall positive area, where rainfall exceeds evaporation by
approximately 2.5m;
• The design of the proposed stormwater system has been carried out at a conceptual level. A detailed
design process should be followed which involves further hydraulic analysis, geotechnical work,
identification of infrastructure such as pipes and cables that could be impacted on by the proposed
system, specification and tender documents developed to allow for the construction tender process.
Confinement of any unpolluted water to a clean water system away from possible contamination;
• The available water at the site exceeds the process plant recycling requirement in the event of a 100yr
dry hydrological condition;
• Up to the 100yr dry, water withdrawals from RAW Water Dam are only required for portable water
3 3
supply (3m /h) and mill raw water requirements (minimum raw water required for the PP is 30m /hr);
• Water withdrawals from the silt trap for dust control during the dry season (November-March) have
3
been estimated as 43.5m /s;
• The water balance model should be updated to reflect the changes made once in operation; and
• Water balance modelling is an on-going process. Calibration will be refined as the knowledge of the
system during the operational phase is improved. This should improve the overall water balance
accuracy. The excess water cannot be stored for evaporation.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
WQ Water Quality
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table of Contents
5.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT ............................. 12
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 i
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
8.7 Annual precipitation for dry and wet years for NLGM area .......................................................................... 31
8.8 Mean discharge and runoff coefficients for NLGM area .............................................................................. 31
10.2 Assumptions................................................................................................................................................ 56
10.6 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 61
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 ii
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
11.3.2 Impact of road river crossings on river banks and bed .......................................................................... 63
11.4.1 Impact of excess mine water discharge on receiving stream water quality ........................................... 64
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 iii
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
TABLES
Table 1: NLGM TSF Design Specifications (Golder, May 2012) .......................................................................................... 7
Table 10: Meteorological data for Robertsfield (i.e. International Airport) .......................................................................... 23
Table 12: Average annual and monthly evaporation recorded at Liberia and other sites (mm) ......................................... 25
Table 15: Runoff coefficients estimated for river catchments in Liberia as published in UNDTCD (1987) ......................... 28
Table 18: Maximum recorded 24-hr rainfall (Hayward and Oguntontoyinbo, 1987) ........................................................... 29
Table 20: Average monthly rainfall estimated for NLGM site ............................................................................................. 30
Table 22: Annual precipitation for wet and dry years ......................................................................................................... 31
Table 24: Runoff coefficients estimations from local data for M1 monitoring site .............................................................. 32
Table 25: Runoff coefficients estimations from local data for M2 monitoring site .............................................................. 33
Table 27: Estimated TRMM monthly rainfall for period of 1998 to 2011 ............................................................................ 35
Table 31: IDF curves developed using the Bell’s relationships .......................................................................................... 38
Table 32: Differences in rainfall intensities between Adamson and Bell (Adamson-Bell) .................................................. 38
Table 35: In-stream water quality data for the Marvoe Creek at WQ Site 1 monitoring point ............................................ 42
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 iv
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 36: In-stream water quality data for the Marvoe Creek at WQ Site 2 monitoring point ............................................ 44
Table 37: In-stream water quality data for the Marvoe Creek at WQ Site 3 monitoring point ............................................ 45
Table 38: Catchment parameters used in the modelling of the overall stormwater management plan .............................. 54
Table 39: Dimensions of the clean and dirty water runoff diversion channels for the 1:50 year return period ................... 55
Table 43: Annual precipitation for wet and dry years ......................................................................................................... 60
3
Table 44: Annual average flows in m /hr for wet years ...................................................................................................... 60
3
Table 45: Annual average flows in m /hr for dry years ...................................................................................................... 61
Table 46: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project – Construction Phase ................... 63
Table 47: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project – Operational Phase ..................... 64
Table 48: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project –Decommissioning and
Closure Phase .................................................................................................................................................. 65
Table 49: Environmental Management Programme – Construction Phase (NLGM Project) ............................................. 68
Table 50: Environmental Management Programme – Operational Phase (NLGM Project ................................................ 70
Table 51: Environmental Management Programme – Decommissioning & Closure Phase (NLGM Project)..................... 71
Table 52: Cost estimate for implementing the surface water related mitigation measures ................................................ 72
Table B2: World Bank and WHO water quality standard (all values in mg/l except where indicated) ................................ 80
Table D1: Monitoring data collected at surface water monitoring site M1 .......................................................................... 88
Table D2: Monitoring data collected at surface water monitoring site M2 .......................................................................... 88
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location and Surrounding Communities................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4: The Lake Piso RAMSAR Wetland area in relation to the Project area ............................................................... 10
Figure 9: Estimated average runoff coefficients for the Western Africa (1971–1995) (J Schuol and et al, 2008) .............. 27
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 v
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Figure 11: Average monthly recorded rainfall totals at stations in Liberia and estimated using TRMM ............................. 35
Figure 12: Recommended IDF curves for the 2, 10 and 20-year recurrence intervals storm............................................. 39
Figure 13: Recommended IDF curves for the 50, 100 and 200-year recurrence intervals storm....................................... 40
nd
Figure 15: 24h Rainfall distribution 2 quartile – TRMM 3 hourly data .............................................................................. 41
Figure 16: 24h Cumulative rainfall distribution for the site ................................................................................................. 41
Figure 17: The general layout of the proposed Mine area. ................................................................................................ 49
Figure 18: The Location and extent of the clean and dirty water sub-catchments ............................................................. 52
Figure C4: Water level data logger installed at monitoring site M1 .................................................................................... 85
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Document Limitations
APPENDIX B
Water Quality Standards
APPENDIX C
Monitoring Sites Photographs
APPENDIX D
Flow Monitoring Data
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 vi
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bea Mountain Mining Corporation (BMMC), a company registered in Liberia, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Aureus Mining Incorporated (AM). BMMC hold a Class A mining license issued by the Liberian Ministry of
Land, Mines and Energy on 29 July 2009 to mine the New Liberty Gold Mine (NLGM) deposit for a period of
25 years, with the right to extend this term for additional terms of 25 years. BMMC proposes to develop an
open pit gold mine, referred to as the NLGM Project (the Project), which is one of a series of gold exploration
deposits located within BMMC’s 457 km2 mining license area.
According to Section 37 of the Environment Protection Agency Act of Liberia, BMMC is required to undertake
an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the proposed project. Based on the findings of the EIA, the
Liberian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make a decision on whether the project may go ahead
or not. The EIA has been undertaken to meet Liberian legislative requirements. (Reference has also been
made to applicable international standards/limits).
BMMC appointed an independent consulting company, Golder Associates (Ghana) Ltd, based in Accra,
Ghana, to undertake the EIA and associated specialist studies, with assistance provided by the local Liberian
consulting company, EarthCons, as per requirements of the Environmental Protection and Management Law
(2006).
This report presents the Surface Water Hydrology specialist assessment, as part of the EIA for the proposed
Project. This report has been prepared by Golder Associates (Golder) on behalf of BMMC as per
requirements of the Liberian Environmental Protection and Management Law (2006).
The key aims and objectives of this study included:
• Determination of sizes and produce conceptual level drawings of the water management infrastructure
including diversion berms and storage dams;
• Identification of contact and non-contact areas to manage the stormwater from the proposed
development; and
• Development of a high level site-wide water balance that provides the hydrology baseline, impact and
mitigation input needed for the EIA. This includes the quantification of the impact of the mining activities
on the local water resources.
This specialist study report includes the following sections:
• Project summary;
• Project motivation;
• Project feasibility;
• Project alternatives;
• Stormwater management;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 1
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Residual impacts;
The New Liberty Gold Mine Project forms part of a Minerals Development Agreement (MDA) between
BMMC and the Liberian Government, (which was signed on the 14 of March 2002). The Liberian
Government retains a 10% ownership in the Project and a 3% Net Smelter Return. The terms of the MDA
are for 25 years, which can be further extended for another 25-year period and falls under the auspices of
the new Mining Code of 2000.
BMMC has been exploring the Project area since 1997. Between 1997 and 2009, exploration and resource
drilling was carried out on the Project site by various BMMC employees and drilling companies, as follows:
• The exploration programme commenced in 1997 with preliminary geochemical sampling across the
artisanal workings in areas where primary rock was exposed. A programme of trenching over the target
area was undertaken to estimate continuity between the proposed Larjor and Kinjor pits; 24 trench
excavations were initially completed in June and July 1998;
• In February 1999 a programme of diamond drilling was undertaken by contractors Drillsure Limited. The
programme comprised 19 holes and intersected mineralisation at depths ranging from 20 to 30 metres
below surface;
• In early 2000, a second campaign of drilling was undertaken with the aim of testing the mineralisation at
greater depth under the Kinjor and Larjor zones and to investigate the mineralisation in the Marvoe
Zone;
• The third diamond drilling campaign started in January 2005 and was aimed at closing on-strike inter-
hole distances and at the same time certain selected holes were drilled in order to intersect the ore
body at greater depth; and
• In 2009, when AM bought BMMC, the exploration drilling programme was again extended. To date
approximately 400 holes have been drilled within the NLGM Project area in order to assess the
resource potential. Currently, the average depth is 180m and the deepest holes were approximately
520m below surface.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The Project includes all activities and physical works associated with the construction, operation,
modification and decommissioning of the Project, including, but not limited to, the following key activities and
components:
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 3
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Support facilities and infrastructure at the mine site, including water and waste infrastructure and
storage facilities;
• Ancillary facilities and buildings, such as administrative offices, service buildings, laboratory,
hydrocarbon storage, explosives storage; and
The key Project infrastructures are outlined in the following sections with a map of the envisaged NLGM site
infrastructure layout shown in Figure 2.
The waste rock will be placed on the waste rock dump for the first four (4) years of production. After this time,
the Larjor pit will be exhausted and waste rock mined after this time will either be taken to the ex-pit waste
dump or be used to backfill the Larjor pit.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 4
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• A CIL leaching and adsorption circuit, in which cyanide leaches the gold from the crushed ore and
carbon recovers the gold from the leachate slurry by adsorption;
• An acid wash followed by an elution circuit to strip gold from carbon; and
• Electro-winning of the gold from the elutriate solution and smelting of the loaded electrodes to produce
gold bullion.
A tailings storage facility (TSF) is a structure used for storing and managing the tailings. In the TSF the solid
material and water separate. The solid material forms the bulk of the dam and the water collects in a pool.
The water is re-used by the mine process.
The Golder engineering team is currently designing the TSF for the NLGM Project. The mining process is
expected generate a total of approximately 8.73Mt of tailings over the life of mine. Specific gravity, settling
and consolidation tests are currently underway to determine the dry density of the deposited tailings. For the
purpose of this study, the dry density of the deposited tailings is assumed to be 1.45 t/m3. Based on this
assumed density, the TSF will be designed to store a total of 6.02 M-m3 of tailings.
The TSF will be developed in stages. The start-up TSF will be required to provide storage for 2 years of
tailings production.
The ultimate TSF occupies a total footprint area of 84 ha. The key components of the facility are:
² Basin liner;
² Underdrain;
² Emergency spillway.
The NLGM TSF design specifications are summarised in the table below.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 6
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
River Diversion
The Marvoe Creek passes through the proposed open pits and will be diverted prior to mining. The diversion
route of the Marvoe Creek is shown in Figure 2. Water from the dewatering of the opencast pits will be
pumped into the Marvoe Creek if the water quality meets the World Health Organisation drinking water
standards.
Processing Plant
The runoff from the process plant and ROM pad area will drain into the raw water dam via a channel. The
channel will be constructed with culverts to divert water under the roads.
Water Use
The proposed water usage associated with the Project is as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: NLGM Project estimated water usage
Project infrastructure Water volume
3
Process Plant return and make-up water >107 m /hr
Plant, stores and workshop potable requirement 5 m3/hr
3
Accommodation camp potable requirement 3 m /hr
The design of the process water supply assumes that 30 percent of the operational water will be obtained
from the TSF return water. Potable water for both operational and human consumption will be supplied from
boreholes or the Marvoe Creek via a water treatment plant fed from a raw water dam.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 7
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
A scrap yard will be fenced for storage of used spare tires, scrap material, redundant neutralized products to
be re-used and recyclable materials. Other scrap items not to be re-used or recycled will be disposed of in
the waste rock dump and buried immediately with waste rock material.
Storage of Materials
Diesel will be stored in tanks, above ground, in a bunded area according to International Standards for
Cyanide Storage and other potentially hazardous substances will be stored in as per Material Supplier Data
Sheets.
Sewerage
A sewerage system will service the accommodation camp. The plant will comprise of an underground tank,
aerobic treatment unit and sludge disposal. The treated effluent will discharge to the Marvoe Creek.
Contained/Produced Au Oz
160.00 100%
90%
140.00
80%
120.00
70%
100.00
60%
Contained Gold (Au oz)
Gold Produced (Au oz)
80.00 50%
Recovery (%)
40%
60.00
30%
40.00
20%
20.00
10%
0.00 0%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 8
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
There are thus no protected areas that are close to the NLGM Project site; the closest is approximately 30
km to the southwest, downstream of the site.
In terms of wetlands of international importance, the wetland area of Lake Piso (near Robertsport), located
approximately 30 km south of the Project area, downstream, has been identified as a RAMSAR Wetland.
Figure 4 shows the Lake Piso RAMSAR wetland area in relation to the NLGM Project site.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 9
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• The Project will be the first gold mine in Liberia and will initiate Liberia’s entry into the gold mining
industry raising the countries profile as a player in the West African gold mining industry;
• The training of Liberian personnel in engineering and management skills associated with a mining
operation;
• Increased economic activity in the NLGM area, Grand Cape Mount County, Monrovia and within Liberia
in general;
• Direct and indirect job creation and employment (with the associated multiplier effect) during operations
approximately 300 personnel will be employed within the mining operations;
• Contribution to the social, economic and institutional development of the communities within the
concession area; and
• Improvement and development of skills whilst enriching the communities affected by BMMC’s
operations in the future.
Exploration has confirmed the persistence of gold mineralisation within defined zones extending from known
surface occurrences to drill intersections more than 500 m below surface. The extensive 2011 infill drill
campaign largely confirmed and raised the level of confidence in the interpretation of the mineralisation as
well as the tonnage and grade estimates for the upper, potentially open pit portion of the resource. On the
basis of this evaluation the Project is viable at the average gold price of $1,350 used for the evaluation.
In 2011 a major, mostly infill, drilling campaign added over 200 diamond core drill holes to the existing
171 holes, and almost all the additional holes were suitably located for inclusion in the resource estimate
update conducted by Australian Mining Consultant (AMC). The revised resource constituted input into a pit
optimisation, pit design and scheduling study, undertaken by AMC, leading to the definition of ore reserves.
In July 2009 BMMC, was granted a Class A Mining License for the entire concession area. Under the terms
of the BMMC Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) the Republic of Liberia is entitled to receive, free of
charge, an equity interest on BMMC’s operations equal to 10 % of its authorised and outstanding share
capital without dilution (i.e. a 10% “carried interest”). There is also a 3 % royalty, calculated on a production
basis, payable to the Republic of Liberia in the BMMC-MDA areas.
BMMC has a 100% interest in the BMMC-MDA, which was originally signed with the Liberian Government in
November 2001. To the extent known, the area has only limited surface artisanal workings and no historical
environmental issues.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 11
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Estimated tonnages and grades have been classified with consideration of the following criteria:
• Knowledge of grade continuities gained from observations and geostatistical analyses; and
• The likelihood of defined material meeting economic mining constraints over a range of reasonable
future scenarios, and expectations of relatively low selectivity of mining.
All material has been reported at a 1.0 g/t Au cut-off (Table 3), as this value corresponds to a likely open pit
cut-off ranges.
Table 3: NLGM Mineral Reserve Estimate
RESERVE CATEGORY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 12
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
y Section 11 describes the scoping process that is required in the seeking of approval for the EIA /
EIS;
y Section 13 (1) outlines that an environmental impact study shall be prepared in accordance with the
Terms of Reference developed by the applicant or project proponent based on the results of the
scoping activities and in consultation with the Agency and Line Ministry; and
y Section 37 describes the EIA process and requirements which the NLGM Project schedule
complies to.
• The Environmental Protection and Management Act of Liberia (2003) Part 3 deals with Environmental
Impact Assessment, auditing and monitoring. According to Part 3, Section 6 and Annexure 1 of this law,
the project requires an EIA because it involves mining (i.e. an extractive industry).
• The Minerals and Mining Act (March 2006), Act 703 Section 18 outlines the necessary permits required
prior to mining.
Policies and Frameworks
The following policies and frameworks will be followed during the EIA process:
• The National Forestry Reform Law (2006) and the National Forestry Policy and Implementation
Strategy (2006).
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 13
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
In 2007 it was published (MLME, 2007) that the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water standards
should be used in Liberia until such time as a country-specific standard is developed. This will be produced
according to Section 35 of the Environmental Protection and Management Law of the Republic of Liberia.
Due consideration shall be given to specific local conditions and water use habits which may dictate a local
relaxation of these standards. The WHO standards are attached in Appendix B.
In South Africa, Water Quality Guidelines were developed based on the international literature to judge the
fitness of water for use and for other water quality management purposes (DWAF, 1996). The Water Quality
Standards for South Africa (SANS241, 2005) are listed in Appendix B.
The design of the processing plant was being based on a number of key considerations and alternatives, the
objective being that the plant is efficient and will meet international construction and environmental
standards. The key design and location considerations were as follows:
• Ease of maintenance;
• Cost-effective technology;
BMMC is completing a feasibility study and detailed design to determine the ultimate capacity of the
processing plant. Currently, BMMC envisages the process capacity of the plant to be approximately
1,100,000 ore tonnes per annum (i.e. 91,700 tonnes per month) with an average of 17 million tonnes per
annum of total rock to be mined.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 14
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
environmental and social impacts. Currently, the most promising alternative aims at diverting the creek
around the mining area to the west before re-joining its original course.
• Greater development and associated socio-economic development of the NLGM area, Grand Cape
Mount County and Liberia as a whole.
If the Project were not to proceed, the additional economic activity, skills development and availability of jobs
would not be created. In addition, the gold reserves would remain unutilised and there would be little or no
economic growth developing in the region and country. If the Project were not to go ahead there would be no
royalties/revenues paid to the Government of Liberia.
• Comprehensive Assessment of the Agriculture Sector in Liberia (CAAS-Lib), Volume 2.2 - Sub-Sector
Reports, Liberia, 2007;
• Environment Protection and Management Law of Liberia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Monrovia, Liberia ,
2003;
• Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, General EHS Guidelines: Introduction,
International Finance Coorporation, April 2007;
• Hayward, D. and Oguntontoyinbo, J. (1987). Climatology of West Africa. Barnes & Noble Books,
Totowa, New Jersey. 1987;
• Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Bolvin DT, Gu G, Nelkin EJ, Bowman KP, Hong Y, Stocker EF, Wolff DB (2007)
The TRMM Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis: Quasi-global, multi-year, combinedsensor precipitation
estimates at fine scale. J. Hydrometeor;
• International Financial Corporation (IFC), (2007). Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for
Mining. December 10, 2007;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 15
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Ju¨rgen Schuol, Karim C. Abbaspour, Raghavan Srinivasan, and Hong Yang, Estimation of freshwater
availability in the West African sub-continent using the SWAT hydrologic model, Journal of Hydrology
(2008);
• McSweeney, C., New, M., and Lizcano, G, UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles, Liberia,
http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk;
• New Liberty Gold Mine (NGLM). Project Environmental and Social Impact Assesment (ESIA), Grand
Cape Mount County, Liberia – Draft Scoping Report. Report number, Golder Associates Ghana Ltd.
(2011). GHA1044;
• New Liberty Gold Mine: Tailings Storage Facility And Marvoe Creek Diversion Channel Feasibility
Design. Feasibility Report submitted to Mono River Resources Inc. Golder (2006), Report No:
8606/8553/1/S;
• UNDP (2006). First State of the Environment Report for Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia; and
The site is located within a tropical rain forest environment. Natural vegetation consists of dense forest
(approximately 45% of the project area) with a continuous tree canopy of approximately 30m-40m in height.
The brush consists mainly of shrubs and clinging vines. Limited growth of grass occurs. In disturbed areas
(which make up 35% of the project site), grasses, ferns and ladder brakes dominate the vegetative cover.
Most of the growth in the jungle is secondary growth, as the primary growth has been cleared by logging
activities. The forest surrounding the proposed mining area is a source of subsistence and cultural identity
for the local rural people. Many of the tree species have important medicinal uses, which are a crucial aspect
of the native people’s lives (Golder 2011).
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 16
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Set up of the flow monitoring stations by putting in place benchmarks (BM) and gauge plates (GP) and
surveying the cross section;
• Provision of training to local Aureus employees on downloading data from the data logger.
During the site visit two sites identified for surface water monitoring were selected, based on:
• The shallow water depths in relation to the river upstream and downstream of the site.
Suitable locations for installation of GPs and cross-sections for flow measurements were selected. The
monitoring equipment installed at the surface water monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 17
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Photographs of the monitoring sites M1 and M2 are shown in Appendix C. Permanent BMs were installed at
the monitoring sites M1 and M2. The water level data logger was installed at monitoring site M1 and is
shown in Appendix C.
The rainfall gauge (RG) was installed at the camp. Location for installation of RG was discussed with
Jonathan Samba, (Senior Geologist) at Aureus mine and selected based on scientific knowledge, experience
and ease of access, safety and distance from the monitoring stations. A photograph of RG is shown in
Appendix C.
The cross-sectional profiles of the surface water monitoring sites M1 and M2 were surveyed using a dumpy
level instrument. The top of the installed GPs were surveyed and linked to the cross-sectional profile. The
surveyed cross-sections together with RGs for monitoring M1 and M2 sites are presented in Figure 6 and
Figure 7 respectively.
The slope of the surface water at the monitoring sites was surveyed and is listed in Table 6.
Table 6: Surface water slope
River name Site number Surface water slope (m/m)
Marvoe Creek M1 0.00038
Marvoe Creek M2 0.00012
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 19
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Discharge was measured at each monitoring site using Swoffer 2100 current meter. The measured
discharges and GP water level readings are listed in Table 7. Photographs showing the flow being measured
at monitoring sites M1 and M2 are presented in Appendix C.
Table 7: Measured discharge and gauge plate level
River name Site number GP (m) Measured discharge, Q (m3/s)
Marvoe Creek M1 0.39 7.56
Marvoe Creek M2 -0.05 (below bottom) 5.62
Initiation of monitoring at the selected surface water monitoring sites requires commencement of data
collection, with a view to obtaining of hydrology data prior to the initiation of the impact assessment phase of
the ESIA for these sites.
• Monitoring data collection included discharge measurement, downloading of water level and rainfall
data recorded; and
• During site visits, general observations on the site condition must be made and recorded. All changes
since the previous site visit resulting from catchment development and/or locals’ activities have to be
recorded;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 20
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Flow measurement has to be performed consistently in the same way, according to the GAA flow
measurement procedure;
• When the data logger is downloaded at M1, the GP reading should be taken as well. Also record the
time and date when the level logger is removed from the river and when it is replaced; and
• It is crucial that measured monitoring data is processed and checked on the same day, so that any
errors can be identified to prevent loss of monitoring data.
Monitoring data collected at flow monitoring sites M1 and M2 are presented in Appendix D.
A field trip was undertaken to set up the surface water quality monitoring programme for the NLGM project in
September 2011. The site visit was conducted at the end of the wet season.
• Training of NLGM staff in the use of the hand held water quality multi-parameter meter; and
Three sites were selected for water quality monitoring at the NLGM site. The co-ordinates and locations of
the water quality (WQ) monitoring sites are listed in Table 8 and shown in Figure 5.
• Physicochemical parameters: pH, Conductivity Electrometric (EC), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),
Alkalinity, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Phenols; and
• Nutrients: Free and saline ammonia, Nitrate (NO3), Nitrite (NO2), Phosphate (PO4).
• Sampling equipment and handling – Gloves to be worn at all times during sample collection. Sample
bottles to be provided by the contracted analytical laboratory. Samples to be stored in a cooler with ice
packs and maintained in a cool state until shipped to the laboratories within the required holding times;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 21
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Documentation – Field staff to label samples with unique sample numbers, document field observations
and to take photographs of the monitoring sites.
• Limited daily rainfall data at the proposed project site. Historical monthly data was available at sites
remote from the project area. Furthermore the available monthly data ended in the 1980s;
• No evaporation data was available for the study area. Regional information was collated and monthly
average evaporation depths recommend for the project;
• The 24 hour rainfall storm event depths were estimated using the TRMM satellite data available for the
period of 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2011;
• The limited rainfall data prevented the extent to which a water balance for the site could be developed.
The site wide water balance could only be developed a t a monthly time step. This limits the accuracy of
sizing of pollution control facilities and pump rates;
• The topography provided was at 5 m contour intervals which is not appropriate for a feasibility level
study to place infrastructure such as river diversions;
• The work on developing the stormwater management system was completed before the latest mine
infrastructure layout (17 May 2012) became available;
• The design of the proposed stormwater system has been carried out at a conceptual level. A detailed
design process should be followed which involves further hydraulic analysis, geotechnical work,
identification of infrastructure such as pipes and cables that could be impacted on by the proposed
system, specification and tender documents developed to allow for the construction tender process; and
• The design criteria for stormwater management system was based on the EHS guidelines of the
International Finance Corporation for mining where stormwater management systems must be sized to
convey at least the 25 year 24 hour storm flood peak for temporary structures and the100 year flood
peak for permanent structures. The South African Regulation 704 requires that stormwater
management system conveys the 50 year flood peak. For the NLGM project, the temporary stormwater
system on site will be sized for the 50 year flood peak which meets the IFC and South African
requirements. The Marvoe Creek river diversion is a permanent structure and is therefore sized for the
100 year recurrence interval flood peak.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 22
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
meteorological statistics, particularly rainfall, for any single station in the country (Ministry of Agriculture,
2007).
The temperature throughout the country ranges from 27°-32°C during the day and from 21°-24°C at night and
has little monthly variation. The highest temperature occurs between January and March and the lowest is
between August and September. The low temperatures are mainly caused by the amount of cloud cover
(UNDP, 2006).
Relative humidity is generally high throughout the country. Along the coastal belt it does not drop below 80
per cent and on average is above 90 per cent. A relative air humidity of 90-100 per cent is common during
the rainy season (UNDP, 2006).
Dominant wind directions in West Africa are the NE and SW Monsoons as well as the Harmattan, which is a
dust laden wind from the Sahara Desert. Total wind speed is greatest in the rainy season and lowest in the
dry season. Along the coast, the average annual wind speed was 30 km/h.The greatest wind speed is
between July and September and the lowest is in December and July. The highest wind speed recorded in
Liberia is 72 km/hr recorded in Buchanan (on the coast) in April and May 1988 (UNDP, 2006).
The available published meteorological summary data for Firestone Harbel and Robertsfield stations for the
period 1977 to 1982 are presented in Table 9 and Table 10.
Table 9: Meteorological data for Firestone Harbel
Annual average temp Annual average relative Annual average sunshine duration
Year
(°C) humidity (%) (hours)
1977 26.2 83 4.0
1978 26.0 84 3.7
1979 26.3 83 4.1
1980 26.2 83 4.0
1981 26.2 80 4.3
1982 26.2 81 4.1
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 23
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The available rainfall data for Liberia identified during this study are listed in Table 11. The average annual
rainfall ranges from about 1 687 mm in Suakoko in the north to about 4 614 mm in Robertsport in the south
(Ministry of Agriculture, 2007).
Table 11: Annual rainfall recorded in Liberia
Northing Easting Distance from Site Annual Rainfall
Location Period
(m) (m) (km) (mm)
Robertsport 238363 746778 38 1952-1973 4,614
Monrovia 301256 696886 87 1945-1973 4,590
Greenville 495650 554258 320 1952-1973 4,229
LAMCO Buchanan 384468 650356 174 1959-1980 3,945
Robertsfield 349680 689120 122 1949-1980 3,740
Goodrich 282736 742985 37 1956-1980 3,388
Bomi Hills 297885 762487 36 1952-1976 3,161
Firestone Harbel 252797 691951 84 1936-1980 3,133
National Iron Ore
265229 809454 34 1960-1980 3,061
Company
LAC 416992 676385 182 1961-1980 2,790
Pyne Town 629650 629676 6035395 1952-1973 2,696
Bong Mines 350436 752050 90 1962-1980 2,543
Firestone Cavalla 656196 482015 490 1928-1980 2,492
Salala Rubber
378116 746238 118 1961-1980 2,475
Corporation
Voinjama 417641 930577 219 1953-1973 2,426
Sanniquellie 531685 813734 270 1952-1980 2,356
Ganta 502051 800008 240 1927-1973 2,201
Ziah Town 62561 636006 245 1952-1961 2,136
Cocopa 511658 784942 248 1950-1979 2,047
Zwedru 595285 670276 348 1952-1973 1,933
Tappita 515464 717621 258 1952-1973 1,931
Suakoko 435825 772683 171 1952-1972 1,687
Notes: UTM Grid: 29N 166021mE 0mN
Limited available annual and monthly evaporation data are listed in Table 12. Bumbuna (Sierra Leone), Fria
(Guinea) and Boké (Guinea) locations have been included in the analysis.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 24
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 12: Average annual and monthly evaporation recorded at Liberia and other sites (mm)
Station
Location
(1) Potential Evapotranspiration from United Nation Department of Technical Cooperation, 1987
(2) Potential Evapotranspiration from Mamdouh Shahin, 2002
(3) Lake Evaporation from Nippon Koei UK, 2005
(4) Pan Evaporation from Golder internal data base
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 25
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 26
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
3
Table 14: Mean discharge in m /s of the major rivers in Liberia
River Location Period Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mano Mano Mine 1959-1979 221 55 35 30 45 100 165 260 460 620 490 275 120
Lofa Duogamay 1973-1976 50 10 5 5 10 15 35 45 125 170 110 50 20
St Paul Walkerbridge 1959-1977 261 85 60 60 65 125 200 285 445 775 550 320 165
St Paul Mt. Coffee 1958-1966 618 165 105 110 150 340 656 850 1,105 1,615 1,220 750 345
St John Baila 1959-1976 88 40 30 60 40 60 110 140 130 110 120 150 70
St John Fallo 1959-1968 467 95 30 50 65 215 265 510 905 1,645 1,250 380 190
Cestos Sawolo 1963-1976 60 25 20 15 25 35 65 80 90 135 115 70 40
Cavallo Nyaake 1960-1961 409 165 110 195 205 205 250 205 475 990 935 860 315
Figure 9: Estimated average runoff coefficients for the Western Africa (1971–1995) (J Schuol and et al, 2008)
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 27
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
More specific information regarding the runoff coefficients for Liberia was found in the report entitled
“Comprehensive Assessment of the Agriculture Sector in Liberia report” by the Ministry of Agriculture (2007).
The report indicates that the United Nation Department of Technical Cooperation and Development
2 2
(UNDTCD) (1987) estimated for catchment areas smaller than 10km , low flows could be as low as 2-4 l/m /s
2
and high flows could be as high as 2,000-4,000 l/m /s.
Results of three case studies regarding the runoff estimation are available in UNDTCD (1987).These results
are presented in Table 15. From Table 15 it can be seen the estimated average annual runoff coefficients for
three catchments are in a range of 0.42 to 0.67.
Table 15: Runoff coefficients estimated for river catchments in Liberia as published in UNDTCD
(1987)
Catchment area Annual rainfall Annual runoff Estimated runoff
River 2
(km ) (mm) (mm) coefficient
Du 326 2,742 1,150 0.42
Weakpor 0.7 2,860 1,320 0.46
Cassava 2.5 3,115 2,090 0.67
Highest
Various
Recorded 24 hr
Stations
Rainfall
Table 18
Banjul,
28 328498 1487759 920 km NW PMP
Gambia
Table 18
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 28
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 18: Maximum recorded 24-hr rainfall (Hayward and Oguntontoyinbo, 1987)
(1)
Northing Easting Distance Length of Rainfall PMP
Location Zone
(m) (m) from Site Record (yrs) (mm) (mm)
Freetown,
28 694998 938269 270km NW 13 269.0 -
Sierra Leone*
Conakry,
28 645046 1054503 390 km NW 10 358.1 -
Guinea
Bolama,
28 447122 1280003 690 km NW 31 279.4 -
Guinea-Bissau
Banjul,
28 329230 1487785 920 km NW 9 304.8 813
Gambia
Dakar,
28 248799 1631978 1,100 km NW 10 213.4 -
Senegal
Abidjan, Cote
30 386123 589936 800 km E 10 274.3 -
d’Ivoire
Axim, Ghana 30 584305 538029 1,000 km E 64 429.3 -
Warri, Nigeria 30 191631 616737 1,900 km E 131.8 630
* Closet station to site
(1) PMP (Probable Maximum Precipitation)
In 2010, a rain gauge was installed on site by Golder. Daily rainfall was collected from November 2010 –
September 2011. A meteorological station was installed on site by Aureus in 2011, recording rainfall,
temperature, wind speed and direction, pressure and relative humidity. Hourly data for all mentioned
parameters is available from May 2011 – March 2012. Table 19 shows that, for the overlapping rainfall
record, monthly rainfall depths differed by as much as 427 mm. Given the short period covered by the site
records and the high discrepancies between their monthly rainfall depths, it is recommended to base site
monthly data on regional estimates.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 29
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The annual average rainfall for the site was estimated at 3,500 mm based on distance from regional stations
through Liberia (Table 11).
The average monthly rainfall depths distribution determined from the data recorded at Goodrich (the closest
station to the site at 35 km to the east) is considered to be representative of the average monthly rainfall
distribution for the site. The average monthly rainfall depths are given in Table 20. It can be seen in the table
that the highest monthly rainfall occurs in August (701 mm) while the lowest monthly rainfall (24 mm) occurs
in January. The average annual rainfall along with the monthly distribution estimated for the NLGM site is
listed in Table 21.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 30
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
8.7 Annual precipitation for dry and wet years for NLGM area
There was no locally available annual rainfall data to determine the annual precipitation depths for wet and
dry years for different recurrence intervals. The two Liberian stations with multi-annual rainfall records were
used to estimate site values: Monrovia (1944 – 1964) and Port Buchanan (1959-1980). Using assumed site
mean rainfall (3,500 as per Table 20) and the average standard deviation of the Monrovian and Port
Buchanan records, site values were estimated using the Gumbel distribution which provided the best fit for
Port Buchanan and one of the best for Monrovia with little variation compared to Log Pearson III distribution
which was the best fit probability distribution for Monrovia. The values are shown in Table 22.
Table 22: Annual precipitation for wet and dry years
5 4,050 2,872
10 4,498 2,658
25 5,064 2,459
50 5,483 2,342
100 5,900 2,245
200 6,314 2,161
Both stations have Gauge Plates (GP) and along with it station M1 has a water level data logger which
records water level every five minutes. Flow measurements at station M1 and M2 have been performed at
monthly basis as average; data have been collected at intervals as short as 1 week and as long as 8
months. Data collecting and flow measurements have been performed by local Aureus employees trained by
Golder. Table 23 shows the location and drainage area associated with those stream flow stations.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 31
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 24 and Table 25 show the monthly mean discharge recorded at Station M1 between December 2010
and February 2012. Preliminary monthly runoff coefficients were estimated as the ratio of monthly mean
direct runoff at stations M1 and M2 and monthly total rainfall at the site (Table 19). Baseflow was assumed
equal to the minimum flow recorded (April 2011). This was subtracted from the monthly mean discharge to
obtain monthly mean direct runoff.
As shown in Table 24 and Table 25, runoff coefficients do not look reasonable in some cases (red font),
showing extremely high values during low flow periods (December, January and February). Besides, no flow
measurements were performed during the high flow season (from August to October) therefore it was not
possible to estimate values for that period.
Table 24: Runoff coefficients estimations from local data for M1 monitoring site
Runoff coeff Runoff coeff (Met
Year Month Q (m3/s) RG (mm) Met Station (mm)
(RG) Station)
11 54
2010
12 4.06 114 0.93
1 1.58 58 0.69
2 0.40 65 0.14
3 0.55 140 0.09
4 0.06 81 0.00
5 0.67 245 181.4 0.07 0.09
6 495 559.3
2011
7 5.11 458 343.1 0.29 0.39
8 937 509.8
9 546 650.3
10 261.9
11 3.82 148.8 0.67
12 1.25 0
1 0.66 4.8 3.31
2012 2 0.12 0.3 5.13
3 28.7
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 32
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 25: Runoff coefficients estimations from local data for M2 monitoring site
3 Runoff coeff Runoff coeff (Met
Year Month Q (m /s) RG (mm) Met Station (mm)
(RG) Station)
2010 11 54
12 3.47 114 0.65
2011 1 1.80 58 0.65
2 0.46 65 0.13
3 140
4 81
5 245 181
6 495 559
7 458 343
8 937 510
9 546 650
10 262
11 2.75 149 0.39
12 1.12 0
2012 1 0.65 5 2.65
2 0.16 0
3 29
Based on the runoff coefficients listed in the tables above, regional annual runoff coefficients discussed in
Section 8.4 and professional judgement the suggested runoff coefficients are listed below:
Potential
Evaporation 100 89 107 97 84 74 66 65 65 76 82 95 1,000
(mm)
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 33
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monrovia (95 km) 10.1 8.3 9.8 9.2 8.2 7.1 6.9 7.2 6.9 8.0 8.4 9.9
Bumbuna (230 km) 10.0 10.4 12.8 10.7 9.1 8.0 5.8 4.9 5.5 6.6 7.6 8.7
Boke (550 km) 11.8 10.6 16.3 14.0 11.6 6.4 3.9 3.3 3.6 4.3 5.6 8.7
Firestone Harbel (84 km) 8.1 7.2 7.4 6.5 9.1 8.3 7.9
Site 10.0 8.9 10.7 9.7 8.4 7.3 6.6 6.5 6.5 7.6 8.2 9.5
Note: Distance from site shown between parentheses
The TRMM was used to estimate 3-hourly rainfall for Liberia for the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2011.
Estimated monthly rainfall totals are listed in Table 27. The average annual rainfall was calculated using the
TRMM data for the period of 1998 to 2010 to be 2,619 mm. This is lower than the mean annual rainfall of
3500 mm determined for the NLGM site, Table 20, using the available historical data. It also has to be noted
that according to UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles (McSweeney et al, http://country-
profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk) “Mean annual rainfall over Liberia has decreased since 1960, but it is difficult to
determine whether this is part of a long term trend because of the variable nature of rainfall in this region.
The rainfall record is punctuated by wetter and drier periods; the 60s and late 70s were particularly wet,
whilst the early 70s and 80s were very dry”.
A comparison of the average monthly recorded rainfall totals at rainfall stations in Liberia and estimated by
the TRMM is shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that TRMM compares favourably with the recorded data.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 34
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 27: Estimated TRMM monthly rainfall for period of 1998 to 2011
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1998 11 50 129 279 509 687 430 204 523 406 211 173 3,611
1999 67 79 67 221 315 705 425 107 358 313 221 148 3,025
2000 218 73 20 117 272 495 167 152 355 240 130 59 2,298
2001 98 0 110 153 240 505 346 166 129 185 197 78 2,207
2002 82 46 31 46 170 373 199 190 155 234 190 25 1,743
2003 33 24 39 130 259 340 139 58 292 213 137 66 1,731
2004 68 26 36 188 501 395 125 233 321 133 186 53 2,266
2005 125 51 69 119 215 213 389 99 262 153 103 240 2,037
2006 31 114 38 113 254 230 495 149 306 457 133 66 2,385
2007 26 103 175 107 410 648 491 494 224 267 188 100 3,232
2008 16 42 85 146 328 417 439 255 313 268 86 114 2,510
2009 132 114 14 69 309 816 177 170 155 444 316 67 2,781
2010 68 57 235 247 330 748 356 304 335 333 229 390 3,632
2011 146 40 135 129 481 888
Annual
11 0 14 46 170 213 125 58 129 133 86 25
minimum
Average 80 58 84 147 328 533 321 198 287 280 179 121 2,619
Annual
218 114 235 279 509 888 495 494 523 457 316 390
maximum
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Liberia 32 63 118 175 278 427 393 393 506 364 186 77
TRMM 80 58 84 147 328 533 321 198 287 280 179 121
Figure 11: Average monthly recorded rainfall totals at stations in Liberia and estimated using TRMM
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 35
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
In order to determine the likely magnitude of storm events, a statistical approach (Reg Flood programme,
Version 4.0.2, June 2003) was applied to the daily rainfall depths calculated using the 3 hourly TRMM data.
The biggest 24 hr storm for each year was analysed. This method statistically analyses the maximum daily
rainfall depths for each year to determine the different recurrence interval daily rainfall depths. The rainfall
depths computed for the different recurrence intervals are summarized in Table 28.
Table 28: 24h storm rainfall depths
Return period (years) Rainfall (mm)
1:2 104
1:10 177
1:20 209
1:50 255
1:100 292
1:200 332
1:500 389
1:1,000 436
1:10,000 621
The average annual rainfall recommended (Table 20) for NLGM site is 3,500 mm/year, which is about 33.6%
higher than that estimated (2,620 mm/year) for Liberia by TRMM. It is therefore recommended that the 24-h
rainfall depths (Table 28) should be increased by 35%. The recommended 24h rainfall depths are presented
in Table 29.
Table 29: Recommended 24h rainfall depths
Return period (years) Rainfall (mm)
1:2 140
1:10 240
1:20 282
1:50 344
1:100 394
1:200 448
1:500 525
1:1,000 590
1:10,000 838
Due to the limited available rainfall information, the PMP for a 24 hr duration has been estimated as the
1:10,000 return period 24 hr storm event shown in Table 29, i.e. 838 mm.
Adamson (1981) developed relationships between the 24-hour rainfall depths and shorter duration rainfall in
Southern AfricaThese relationships were used to develop the IDF curves which are presented in Table 30.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 36
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Bell (1969) developed IDF curve relationships based on storm data from United States, Australia, South
Africa and other countries. The following equations were used to calculate precipitation depths:
.
= (0.21 + 0.52)(0.54 0.50)
Where is the rainfall depth over time in minutes which is exceeded with a T-year recurrence interval; and
is the one-hour precipitation for a 10-year recurrence interval.
.
= 0.27 for 0<M<50 and
. .
= 0.97 for 50<M<115
Where P is the 1-hour, 10-year rainfall in mm, M is the mean of the maximum annual observed daily
precipitation in mm, and N is the mean annual number of rainfall days.
These were used to develop the IDF curves which are presented in Table 31.
Table 32 shows the differences between rainfall intensities estimated using the Adamson and Bell
approaches. Rainfall intensities estimated by Adamson’s approach are lower than those estimated by Bell for
the 1:2 year, 1:10 year and 1:20 year storm events, while rainfall intensities for 1:50 year, 1:100 year and
1:200 year are higher than those estimated using Bell’s method.
The higher estimated rainfall intensities are recommended to use in the project. Recommended IDF curves
are given in Table 33 and plotted in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 37
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 32: Differences in rainfall intensities between Adamson and Bell (Adamson-Bell)
Rainfall intensities (mm/hr)
Duration (hr)
1:2 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200
0.1 -76.4 -23.6 -2.3 34.8 67.3 105.3
0.25 -48.8 -13.7 0.5 25.1 46.6 71.8
0.5 -30.9 -5.5 4.7 22.4 37.8 55.7
1 -21.7 -6.1 0.2 11.2 20.8 32.0
2 -13.7 -3.5 0.7 7.8 14.1 21.4
3 -10.9 -3.3 -0.3 5.0 9.7 15.1
4 -8.6 -2.1 0.5 5.0 9.0 13.6
5 -7.7 -2.3 -0.2 3.6 6.9 10.8
6 -6.9 -2.2 -0.3 3.0 5.9 9.3
8 -5.8 -2.1 -0.6 2.0 4.3 7.0
10 -5.2 -2.2 -1.0 1.1 3.0 5.2
12 -4.7 -2.1 -1.1 0.7 2.4 4.3
18 -3.9 -2.2 -1.6 -0.3 0.8 2.1
24 -3.5 -2.3 -1.8 -0.9 -0.1 0.9
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 38
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
70
60
50
40
2 year rainf all
30 10 year rainf all
20 year rainf all
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Duration (hrs)
Figure 12: Recommended IDF curves for the 2, 10 and 20-year recurrence intervals storm
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 39
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
70
60
50
40
50 year rainfall
30 100 year rainf all
200 year rainf all
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Duration (hrs)
Figure 13: Recommended IDF curves for the 50, 100 and 200-year recurrence intervals storm
The peak design flow was calculated using the Hydrologic Engineering Center hydrologic modeling system
software (HEC-HMS) (USACE, 2010a). The following inputs were used in the model:
2
• Drainage area: 109 km
• Curve Number (CN): 70. The Soil Conservation Services (SCS) loss method requires a CN to
determine losses from the system. A curve number (CN) of 70 was selected based on the
recommended CN for a wooded area with greater than 75% ground cover and group C soils ((US SCS,
1986).
• Lag Time: 610 min. The SCS unit hydrograph method requires a lag time which is 60% of the time of
concentration. Time of concentration was calculated using the SCS Lag Method:
.
1000 9
.
=
4407
Where
= time of concentration (hrs)
= longest flow length (m)
= runoff curve number
= average watershed gradient (m/m)
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 40
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Rainfall Event: 394 mm. The 100yr, 24 hour event was selected as the design storm (Table 28). The
distribution was derived from the TRMM 3 hourly data from 1998 to 2011 (Section 8.10). The biggest 24
hr storm for each year was analysed. Two frequency distributions were identified, one with the rainfall
nd th
peak at the 2 quartile and other with the rainfall peak at the 4 quartile. The most critical one
nd
corresponds to the distribution with the peak at the 2 quartile as shown in Figure 14. The selected
distribution was estimated as the average of those storms and then the two biggest intensities (at 9hr
and 12 hr) weighted by 80% to match the average ratio between the 6 hrs rainfall and the 24 hrs rainfall
determined from the IDF analysis; the rest was weighted by the remaining 20%. The cumulative rainfall
distribution selected is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 14: 24h Rainfall distribution 2nd quartile – TRMM 3 hourly data
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Distribution 0 1 3 4 5 6 8 26 44 62 71 80 90 91 93 94 95 95 96 97 97 98 98 99 100
Time (hrs)
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 41
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 34 summarizes the inputs used for the rainfall runoff model and the peak flow outputs.
Table 34: Marvoe Creek diversion - Hydrology Model Inputs and Results
Parameter Marvoe Creek diversion
100-year, 24-hour event depth (mm) 394
2
Catchment area (km ) 109
SCS curve number (CN) 70
Length (m) 16,850
Slope (m/m) 0.01
Time of concentration (min) 1,017
T lag (min) 610
3
Peak Flow (m /s) 515
Five water quality sampling runs have been completed. Water quality data for monitoring sites WQ Site1,
WQ Site 2 and WQ Site 3 are listed together with the available Liberian, WHO and South African water
quality standards in Table 35, Table 36 and Table 37.
Table 35: In-stream water quality data for the Marvoe Creek at WQ Site 1 monitoring point
Liberian
SA WQ
Variable Units Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 WQ WHO
Standard
Standard
Alkalinity
mgCaCO3/l 5 5 6 - 18
(total)
Aluminium mg/l 0.25 0.18 0.09 0.15 0.074 0.2 0.5
Ammonia
mg/l - <0.02 0.01 - 0.3 1.0 2
Nitrogen
As (total) mg/l <0.002 0.004 0.002 <0.002 0.01
Barium mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.038 0.3
Cadmium mg/l <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.0001 0.003
Calcium mg/l 1 1 1 2 4.3 80
Chemical
Oxygen mg/l <25 <25 <25 - 49.2
Demand
Chloride mg/l 1 0.9 0.7 - 1.1 250 250 200
Chromium mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.012 0.05
Cobalt mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.0035
Copper mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.0076 0.01 2 1.3
Cyanide
mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 0.07
(free)
Cyanide
mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 1.2 0.07
(total)
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 42
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Liberian
SA WQ
Variable Units Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 WQ WHO
Standard
Standard
Conductivity mS/m 1.6 1.7 2.5 - 3.5 150
Fluoride mg/l <0.02 0.08 0.05 - <0.05 1.5 0.01
Hexavalent
mg/l <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.012
Chromium
Iron mg/l 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.9 2.6 1.0 0.3 1
Lead mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0014 0.1 0.01 0.05
Magnesium mg/l <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.8 1.3 100
Manganese mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0.31 0.1 0.5 0.4
Mercury mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.001 0.005
Molybdenum mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.001 0.07
Nickel mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.0017 1.0 0.02
Nitrate NO3 mg/l <0.06 0.27 1.32 - 40.0 3 10
Nitrate NO2 mg/l <0.05 <0.05 0.06 - 0.1 3
pH mg/l 6.1 5 4.8 - 6.7 6.5-8.0 4.5-10
Phenol mg/l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 0.001 0.01
Phosphate mg/l <0.02 0.03 <0.02 - 0.01
Phosphorus
mg/l 0.04 -
(total)
Potassium mg/l 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.3 50
Sb (total) mg/l 0.004 0.006 <0.003 <0.003
Se (total) mg/l <0.003 0.004 <0.003 <0.003
Silicon mg/l 2.89 3.08 3.66 3.28
Silver mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.008 0.01
Sodium mg/l 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 2 200 200
Strontium mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
Sulphate mg/l <1 <1 <1 - <0.5 150 250
Total
Dissolved
mg/l - 12 17 - 64 1000
Solids Dried
at 180C
Vanadium mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.0007 1.0 1
Weak Acid
Dissociable mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01
Cyanide
Zinc mg/l 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.11 <0.05 1.0 3 5
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 43
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 36: In-stream water quality data for the Marvoe Creek at WQ Site 2 monitoring point
Liberian
SA WQ
Variable Units Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 WQ WHO
Standard
Standard
Alkalinity
mgCaCO3/l 4 6 6 3 20
(total)
Aluminium mg/l 0.27 0.23 0.08 <0.03 0.29 0.2 0.5
Ammonia
mg/l - <0.02 0.08 0.11 <0.05 1.0 2
Nitrogen
As (total) mg/l <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0.002 0.01
Barium mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.038 0.3
Cadmium mg/l <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.0001 0.003
Calcium mg/l 1 1 <1 1 3.8 80
Chemical
Oxyden mg/l <25 <25 37 <25 38.3
Demand
Chloride mg/l 1.1 0.9 0.5 1.2 1.6 250 250 200
Chromium mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.05
Cobalt mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.0044
Copper mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.0079 0.01 2 1.3
Cyanide
mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.07
(free)
Cyanide
mg/l <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.15 0.07
(total)
Conductivity mS/m 1.2 1.6 2.4 2 3.8 150
Fluoride mg/l <0.02 0.06 0.08 <0.02 <0.05 1.5 0.01
Hexavalent
mg/l <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.03
Chromium
Iron mg/l 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.9 3.4 1.0 0.3 1
Lead mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0022 0.1 0.01 0.05
Magnesium mg/l <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 100
Manganese mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0.47 0.1 0.5 0.4
Mercury mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.001 0.005
Molybdenum mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.001 0.07
Nickel mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.0022 1.0 0.02
Nitrate NO3 mg/l <0.06 0.18 0.85 0.31 40.0 3 10
Nitrate NO2 mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 3
pH mg/l 6.2 5 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.5-8.0 4.5-10
Phenol mg/l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.001 0.01
Phosphate mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0.01
Phosphorus
mg/l 0.04 -
(total)
Potassium mg/l 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 50
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 44
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Liberian
SA WQ
Variable Units Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 WQ WHO
Standard
Standard
Sb (total) mg/l <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Se (total) mg/l <0.003 0.012 <0.003 <0.003
Silicon mg/l 2.71 2.95 3.92 3.17
Silver mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.008 0.01
Sodium mg/l 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.8 4.5 200
Strontium mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
Sulphate mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 150 250
Total
Dissolved
mg/l - 9 20 4 56 1000
Solids Dried
at 180C
Vanadium mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.0013 1.0 1
Weak Acid
Dissociable mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Cyanide
Zinc mg/l 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.0 3 5
Table 37: In-stream water quality data for the Marvoe Creek at WQ Site 3 monitoring point
Liberian
SA WQ
Variable Units Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 WQ WHO
Standard
Standard
Alkalinity
mgCaCO3/l 3 5 6 2 23
(total)
Aluminium mg/l 0.68 0.41 0.57 2.73 0.26 0.2 0.5
Ammonia
mg/l - <0.02 0.03 0.09 0.12 1.0 2
Nitrogen
As (total) mg/l 0.01 0.01 0.014 0.03 0.01
Barium mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0.018
Cadmium mg/l <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.0001 0.003
Calcium mg/l 1 1 2 1 3 80
Chemical
Oxyden mg/l <25 <25 27 <25 19.2
Demand
Chloride mg/l 1.1 0.9 1 0.8 1.2 250 250 200
Chromium mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.033 0.05
Cobalt mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.012
Copper mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.0009 0.01 2 1.3
Cyanide
mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.07
(free)
Cyanide
mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.07 0.07
(total)
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 45
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Liberian
SA WQ
Variable Units Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 WQ WHO
Standard
Standard
Conductivity mS/m 1.3 1.7 2.1 1.8 3.4 150
Fluoride mg/l <0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 <0.05 1.5 0.01
Hexavalent
mg/l <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.033
Chromium
Iron mg/l 0.9 0.6 1.4 3.5 1.7 1.0 0.3 1
Lead mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00067 0.1 0.01 0.05
Magnesium mg/l <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.8 1.4 100
Manganese mg/l <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.09 0.33 0.1 0.5 0.4
Mercury mg/l <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.001 0.005
Molybdenum mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.001 0.07
Nickel mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.0099 1.0 0.02
Nitrate NO3 mg/l <0.06 0.07 2.56 0.29 40.0 3 10
Nitrate NO2 mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 3
pH mg/l 6.3 5.2 5.2 5 6.7 6.5-8.0 4.5-10
Phenol mg/l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.001 0.01
Phosphate mg/l <0.02 0.02 <0.02 0.15 0.01
Phosphorus
mg/l 0.04 -
(total)
Potassium mg/l 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.3 50
Sb (total) mg/l <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Se (total) mg/l <0.003 0.018 <0.003 <0.003
Silicon mg/l 2.87 3.02 3.92 4.52
Silver mg/l <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.008 0.01
Sodium mg/l 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.8 2.3 200 200
Strontium mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
Sulphate mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 150 250
Total
Dissolved
mg/l - 10 15 18 52 1000
Solids Dried
at 180C
Vanadium mg/l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.0019 1.0 1
Weak Acid
Dissociable mg/l <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Cyanide
Zinc mg/l 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 0.07 <0.05 1.0 3 5
The results of the water quality analysis (Table 35, Table 36and Table 37) show that the water is of good
quality. However, there are some concentrations, particularly aluminium and iron, which are exceeding the
Liberian, WHO and South African drinking water requirements.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 46
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Average monthly runoff coefficient of 0.55 for the Wet Season (May-October), 0.14 for the Dry Season
(December – March) and 0.27 for the transition between both seasons (April and November);
• Annual precipitation for wet and dry years given in Table 22;
• 24h rainfall depths for the project area is given in Table 28;
• Recommended IDF curves are given in Table 33 and plotted in Figure 12 and Figure 13;
• Flood peak calculated for Marvoe Creek Diversion is given in Table 34; and
• The results of the water quality analysis show that the water is of good quality meets the WHO water
requirements.
• The IFC’s General Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (IFC, 2007b);
• The IFC’s Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines for Mining (IFC, 2007c); and
• Guidance and water quality standards for drinking have been taken from the WHO standards (WHO,
2004).
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 47
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Compile a Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed New Liberty Gold Mine area;
• The report proposes a conceptual stormwater system to meet the above objectives.
The results presented are not at a detailed design level. Further hydraulic and geotechnical work will be
required to attain the development of specifications to achieve a detailed design.
The Regulation 704 states that every person in control of a mine or activity must:
• Confine any unpolluted water to a clean water system, away from any dirty area;
• Design, construct, maintain and operate any clean water system at the mine or activity so that it is not
likely to spill into any dirty water system more than once in 50 years;
• Collect the water arising within any dirty area, including water seeping from mining operations, outcrops
or any other activity, into a dirty water system;
• Design, construct, maintain and operate any dirty water system at the mine or activity so that it is not
likely to spill into any clean water system more than once in 50 years; and
• Design, construct and maintain all water systems in such a manner as to guarantee the serviceability of
such conveyances for flows up to and including those arising as a result of the maximum flood with an
average period of recurrence of once in 50 years.
The 24 hour storm rainfall depths for the 1 in 2, 1 in 5, 1 in 10, 1 in 20 and 1 in 50 year recurrence intervals
are presented in Table 28. A conservative design rainfall intensity distribution was used to disaggregate daily
rainfall totals into shorter time intervals, therefore allowing for a storm intensity hyetograph to be generated.
The general layout of the proposed New Liberty Gold Mine site is shown in Figure 16.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 48
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Area S1 – Upslope of the eastern portion of the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF);
• Area S5 - Area located between the Waste Rock Dump (WRD) and Open Pit (OP);
• The dirty run-off generated from the active pit areas; and
The clean run-off being generated from the upslope clean run-off catchments will be diverted away from the
area producing dirty run-off as shown in Figure 18.
• The clean run-off generated upslope of the WRD from S10 area will be diverted by a cut-off trench (C8)
west to the Marvoe Creek (outfall point OF1) ;
• The clean water runoff generated upslope of the eastern portion of the WRD from S16 area will be
diverted by means of a cut-off trench (C7) around the WRD and routed to discharge into a storage
pond, where it will be pumped to the north into the adjacent sub-catchment S17 which ultimately drains
towards the Marvoe Creek diversion channel via an excavated channel (C5). This option will require a
storage pond and a pump at the outfall point OF2 located in S16 area;
• The clean run-off originating upslope of the eastern open pit boundary from S17 area will be collected
in an excavated channel (C5) and diverted towards the Marvoe Creek diversion at the outfall point OF3;
• The clean run-off generated upslope of the Process Plant from S18 area will be diverted by a cut-off
trench (C4) north where it will be discharged into the Marvoe Creek channel at the outfall point OF5.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 50
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• The dirty run-off generated from the active pit areas will be contained in a pit sump and pumped to a silt
trap. Proposed location of the silt trap is on a west-south of the pit. A silt trap has to be designed for the
2 year return period flood peak. The pit areas will require berms to be constructed along the perimeter
to divert any locally generated stormwater runoff away from the pit area;
• The WRD area will require berms and diversion channels to be constructed along the perimeter to
divert generated dirty run-off to a silt trap. The silt trap has to be designed for the 2 year return period
flood peak. Location of the silt trap will be finalized on a later stage of the project;
• The dirty run-off generated from the TSF area will be contained in a Tailings Storage Pond and pumped
to the plant for re-use. The TSF area will require berms and diversion channels (C1 and C2) to be
constructed along the perimeter to divert any locally generated stormwater (S1 and S3) runoff away
from the TSF;
• The dirty run-off originating at the Process Plant areas will be contained in the Plant Pollution Control
Dam located at the plant property. This will eliminate the risk of dirty water runoff being discharged into
the environment.
The soils were identified as being in the sandy group (Mine Water Management Report, RPS Aquaterra
2012). The model uses these criteria to incorporate infiltration into the analysis using the Green-Ampt
infiltration method. The sandy group resulted in a Suction Head of 55.4 mm, a Hydraulic Conductivity of 120
mm/hr and an Initial Deficit of 0.33 for input into the model. The infiltration parameters are listed in Table 38.
Simulated runoff peaks are summarised in Table 39 for the 50 year recurrence interval storm event. However
to account for the high impermeability of the proposed pit areas: a suction head of 316.3 mm, a hydraulic
conductivity of 0.6 mm/hr and an initial deficit of 0.25 was implemented into the model.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 51
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
9.6 Recommendations
A stormwater channel cleaning program should also be implemented as a standard operating procedure. As
a minimum the sediment should be removed from the channels during the dry season and at least once
during the wet season. This maintenance program would improve the efficiency of the proposed system by
reducing the probability of spills.
A deterministic site wide water balance model has been developed for the end of operations on linked Excel
spreadsheets (Golder, 2012).
The water balance model integrates flows between the mine facilities on a monthly basis over a one-year
period. The flow modelling is used to establish a water management plan for the mine and to quantify water
re-use, water supply requirements and water storage requirements under varying climatic conditions.
The supply of water is a combination of re-use and raw make-up, and includes:
² Marvoe Creek or wells will be used as the source of raw water for the Process Plant (PP);
3
² Minimum raw water required for the PP is 30m /hr;
² Contact water collected at the Mine Open Pit (MOP) and Waste Rock Dam (WRD) will be pumped to a
Silt Traps (ST);
3
² The tailings pond will have a maximum storage capacity of 0.5 M-m ; any water above this will be
continuously pumped to the Return Water Dam (RWD) and then to the Process Water Dam (PWD) for
re-use;
² Excess contact water collected at the Process Plant site will be pumped to the Plant Pollution Control
Dam (PCD);
² There will be some water which will be locked within the void spaces of the tailings;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 56
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
² Water requirements for dust control have been estimated based on an average monthly rate of
2.5mm/day during the dry season (November-March) and the surface area to be treated. It is assumed
that the total dust controlled surface area is 42ha.
3
² RAW Water Dam storage capacity is 900,000m ;
3
² Clear Water Dam storage capacity is 1,500m ;
3
² Plant Pollution Control Dam storage capacity is 4,000m ;
3
² Process Water Dam storage capacity is 1,500m ;
² It has been assumed that the rainfall run-off diverted from WRD will require primary treatment by
sedimentation (RPS Aquaterra, 2012);
² It has been assumed that pit dewatering can be discharged directly back into the environment without
any treatment for water quality other than potential sediment removal (RPS Aquaterra, 2012); and
² Sediment basins have to be sized based on the removal of sand sized particles for the 10 year ARI 6hr
rain event (RPS Aquaterra, 2012).
² Background data including - mill operating data, annual precipitation and evaporation distribution, run-
off coefficients, flow logic between the various mine infrastructure, and watershed areas of the mine
infrastructure (which is developed by introducing diversion ditches and berms to reduce the volume of
the contact water);
² Flows related to the ore and tailings production - water in the tailings discharge; water tied-up in the
deposited tailings, fresh make-up water going into the Process Plant for reagent mixing etc., moisture
going into the Process Plant in the ore, losses in the Process Plant such as evaporation and spillage;
and, water re-circulated to the Process Plant from the Tailings Pond
² Inflows related to precipitation - runoff from natural ground, precipitation onto ponds and wetted tailings
beach; runoff from dry tailings beach;
² Seepage flows (loss from the TSF and into the open pit); and
² Miscellaneous flows (such as potable water, water for dust control, make-up water to the Process Plant
supply, treated sewage etc.).
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 57
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 58
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table 41 presents watershed areas associated with the different facilities on the mine site, and drainage
areas for different types of surface in each watershed. These are based on the site drainage plan that was
available during the modelling.
Table 41: Watershed areas
Watershed area Percentage of watershed area
Facility Type of surface
(ha) (%)
Natural ground 51.0
Mine Open Pit 156
Open pit wall 49.0
Natural ground 16.0
WRD 136
Waste rock 84.0
Natural ground 29.4
Waste rock 4.4
TSF 126
Unsaturated tailings 58.4
Pond and saturated tailings 7.8
Natural ground 53.0
Plant Site 15 Prepared ground 46.0
Pond 1.0
Runoff coefficients for the estimation of monthly runoff volumes from natural ground were estimated based
on local stream flow data collected during the monitoring period (Table 24 and Table 24) while runoff
coefficients for other types of surface are based on published values and professional experience. Runoff
coefficients used in the model are presented in Table 42.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 59
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
25 5,064 2,459
50 5,483 2,342
100 5,900 2,245
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 60
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
3
Table 45: Annual average flows in m /hr for dry years
Return period
Outflows Average
25 50 100
Outflow from the Mine Open Pit 513.4 377.9 364.2 350.5
Run-off of the WRD 151.5 106.4 101.8 97.2
Outflow from the TSF to RWD 403.4 313.4 304.1 294.9
Raw water for the plant 115.1 30.0 30.0 30.0
10.6 Conclusions
The following conclusions relating to water management of the mine can be made;
• The proposed mine is located in a rainfall positive area, where rainfall exceeds evaporation by
approximately 2.5m;
• The available water at the site exceeds the process plant recycling requirement in the event of a 100yr
dry hydrological condition;
• Up to the 100yr dry, water withdrawals from RAW Water Dam are only required for portable water
supply (3m3/h) and mill raw water requirements (minimum raw water required for the PP is 30m3/hr);
• Water withdrawals from the silt trap for dust control during the dry season (November-March) have
3
been estimated as 43.5m /s;
• The water balance model should be updated to reflect the changes made once in operation; and
• Water balance modelling is an on-going process. Calibration will be refined as the knowledge of the
system during the operational phase is improved. This should improve the overall water balance
accuracy.
• Direction of an impact may be positive, neutral or negative with respect to the particular impact
(e.g., a habitat gain for a key species would be classed as positive, whereas a habitat loss would be
considered negative).
• Magnitude is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis (e.g., the area of
pasture, or the concentration of a metal in water compared to the water quality guideline value for the
metal), and is classified as none/negligible, low, moderate or high. The categorization of the impact
magnitude may be based on a set of criteria (e.g. health risk levels, ecological concepts and/or
professional judgment) pertinent to each of the discipline areas and key questions analysed. The
specialist study must attempt to quantify the magnitude and outline the rationale used. Appropriate,
widely-recognised standards are used as a measure of the level of impact.
• Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e. transient
(less than 1 year), short-term (0 to 5 years), medium term (5 to 15 years), long-term (greater than 15
years with impact ceasing after closure of the project) or permanent.
• Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and is classified as
site, local, regional, national, or international.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 61
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact actually occurring as either
improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40 % to
60 % chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will definitely
occur).
• Impact significance was rated by the specialists using the scoring system shown in the box below
(Figure 20).
After ranking these factors for each impact, the significance of the two aspects, occurrence and severity, was
assessed using the following formula:
SP (significance points) = (magnitude + duration + scale) x probability
The maximum value is 100 significance points (SP). The potential environmental impacts were then rated as
of High (SP >75), Moderate (SP 30 – 75) or Low (SP <30) significance, both with and without mitigation
measures on the following basis:
SP >75 Indicates high environmental Where it would influence the decision regardless of any
significance possible mitigation. An impact which could influence the
decision about whether or not to proceed with the project.
SP 30 - 75 Indicates moderate Where it could have an influence on the decision unless it
environmental significance is mitigated. An impact or benefit which is sufficiently
important to require management. Of moderate
significance - could influence the decisions about the
project if left unmanaged.
SP <30 Indicates low environmental Where it will not have an influence on the decision.
significance Impacts with little real effect and which should not have an
influence on or require modification of the project design
or alternative mitigation.
+ Positive impact An impact that is likely to result in positive consequences /
effects.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 62
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• Construction Phase;
• Operational Phase; and
• Decommissioning and Closure Phase.
11.3 Construction Phase Impact Assessment
BMMC proposes to initiate the construction phase of the project in the third or fourth quarter of 2013. The
duration of the construction phase will be approximately 12 months.
From the surface water hydrology perspective, Table 46 summarises the potential impacts that are related to
the construction phase of the proposed project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 46: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project – Construction
Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Surface Water Impact
Before mitigation After mitigation
(Construction Phase: NLGM Project)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Erosion and sedimentation due to stripping of
8 2 1 5 55 M 4 2 1 3 21 L
vegetation
Construction of road river crossings on water
8 2 2 5 60 M 6 2 2 3 30 L
course banks and bed
Erosion sedimentation during construction of
8 2 2 5 60 M 6 2 2 3 30 L
river diversion
Impact of local stormwater runoff on river
8 2 2 5 60 M 6 2 2 3 30 L
diversion construction
The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the NLGM
Project, as summarised in the table above.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 63
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
From the surface water hydrology perspective, Table 47 summarises the potential impacts that are related to
the operational phase of the proposed project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 47: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project – Operational
Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Surface Water Impact (Operational
Before mitigation After mitigation
Phase: NLGM Project)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Impact of excess mine water generated on the
site on the water quality of the receiving 10 3 2 5 75 M 4 3 2 2 18 L
stream.
Impact of discharge of polluted stormwater to
10 3 2 3 45 M 4 3 2 2 18 L
environment
Flooding of pit if flood peak exceeds the design
10 3 2 5 75 M 4 3 2 2 18 L
capacity of the river diversion
Impact of catchment reduction on the Lake
2 3 4 2 18 L 2 3 4 2 18 L
Piso RAMSAR wetland
The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the operational phase of the NLGM
Project, as summarised in the table above.
11.4.1 Impact of excess mine water discharge on receiving stream water quality
The site wide water balance shows that the mine will generate significant volumes of excess mine water.
This water may not meet the WHO drinking water standards. The discharge is therefore considered to be
polluted and will impact of the water quality of the receiving streams and the downstream users. The impact
was ranked as medium. The mitigation measure is to collect and treat the water in a form of sedimentation
pond to meet the WHO drinking water standards. This mitigation measure will reduce the impact rank to low.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 64
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
From the surface water hydrology perspective, Table 48 summarises the potential impacts that are related to
the closure and decommissioning phase of the proposed project.
Table 48: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project –
Decommissioning and Closure Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Surface Water (Decommissioning
Before mitigation After mitigation
and Closure Phase: NLGM Project)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Impact of pit decanting on the Lake Piso
2 3 4 2 18 L 2 3 4 2 18 L
RAMSAR wetland
Pit filling up and decanting and impacting on
8 5 3 5 80 H 6 5 2 3 39 M
receiving streams
Impact of runoff from dirty areas on receiving
8 5 3 5 80 H 4 1 2 3 21 L
water environment
Impact of flooding of the flood control dyke in
8 1 3 3 36 M 4 1 2 3 21 L
the Marvoe Creek
The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the decommissioning and closure
phase, as summarised in the table above.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 65
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
shown in Figure 4 in Protected Areas section. The impact in terms of decant water from the pit on
downstream users, including Lake Piso, which is 40km downstream of the mine site, will be insignificant due
to the dilution factor. The impact was ranked as low.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 66
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 67
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
• The design of the proposed stormwater system has been carried out at a conceptual level. A detailed
design process should followed which involves further hydraulic analysis, geotechnical work,
identification of infrastructure such as pipes and cables that could be impacted on by the proposed
system, specification and tender documents developed to allow for the construction tender process.
Confinement of any unpolluted water to a clean water system away from possible contamination;
• Water balance modelling is an on-going process. Calibration will be refined as more flows are
monitored and knowledge of the system is improved. This should improve the overall water balance
accuracy.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 72
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
18.0 REFERENCES
Aquaterra (2012). Mine Water Management Plan, New Liberty Gold Mine. Report Submitted to Auresus
Mining Inc. On 12 April, 2012.
Bell, F.C. (1969) Generalized rainfall-duration-frequency relationships. Proc. ASCE, 95 (HY1), 6537, p 311-
327. January, 1969.
Government of Liberia (2010). Environmental & Social Management Framwork – Energy& Electricity
Distribution in Liberia. Submitted to World Bank. PO Number 0007752686. September 2010.
Golder(2011). New Liberty Gold Mine (NGLM). Project Environmental and Social Impact Assesment (ESIA),
Grand Cape Mount County, Liberia – Draft Scoping Report. Report number GHA1044. April 2011.
Golder (2012a). New Liberty Gold Mine ESIA. Surface Water Monitoring Progress Report. Report Number
10612898-11263-1. March 2012.
Golder (2012b). New Liberty Gold Mine: Tailings Storage Facility And Marvoe Creek Diversion Channel
Feasibility Design. Report No: 106GHA1064.
Golder (2012c). New Liberty Gold Mine (NLGM) Project ESIA-Preliminary Geochemistry Characterisation
Report. Report Number 10612898-11433-6. June 2012.
Golder (2012d). New Liberty Gold Mine ESIA. Surface Water Monitoring Progress Report. Report Number
10612898-11263-1. March 2012.
Hayward, D. and Oguntontoyinbo, J. (1987). Climatology of West Africa. Barnes & Noble Books, Totowa,
New Jersey. 1987.
Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Bolvin DT, Gu G, Nelkin EJ, Bowman KP, Hong Y, Stocker EF, Wolff DB (2007) The
TRMM Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis: Quasi-global, multi-year, combinedsensor precipitation estimates
at fine scale. J. Hydrometeor. 8:38–55
McSweeney, C., New, M., and Lizcano, G, UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles, Liberia, http://country-
profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk
Nippon Koei UK in association with BMT Cordah and Environmental Foundation for Africa.
UNDP (2006). First State of the Environment Report for Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia.
United Nations Department of Technical Cooperation for Development (UNDTCD).1987. Water resources
policy, management and legislation. Project # DP/UN/LIR-77-004. UNDP, New York.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 73
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 74
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
AJ/TC
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 75
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX A
Document Limitations
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
DOCUMENT LIMITATIONS
This Document has been provided by Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd (“Golder”) subject to the following
limitations:
i) This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golder’s proposal and no
responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any
other purpose.
ii) The scope and the period of Golder’s Services are as described in Golder’s proposal, and are subject to
restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or
circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly
indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any
determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.
iii) Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was
retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory
locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by
the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly,
additional studies and actions may be required.
iv) In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in
this Document. Golder’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production
of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an
opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess
the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or
regulations.
v) Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources
and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual
conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.
vi) Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data,
have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No
responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.
vii) The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained sub-consultants affiliated with Golder to
provide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for the Services
and work done by all of its sub-consultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert
claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder and not Golder’s
affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will
not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, or cause of action, against
Golder’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.
viii) This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional
advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person
other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or
decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this Document.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX B
Water Quality Standards
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Table B2: World Bank and WHO water quality standard (all values in mg/l except where indicated)
AI 0.2
Apparent Colour - 15
As (soluble) 1 0.01
As (total) 1 0.01
BOD 50 50
Cd 0.1 0.003
Chloride - 250
COD 250
Conductivity (uS/cm) - -
CR (hexavalent) 0.05 -
CR (total) 1 0.05
Cu 0.3 1 or 2
Cyanide free 0.1 0.07
Inlet tailings WAD
CN total 1 0.07
WAD Cyanide 0.5 -
Faecal Coliform
Eserichia coli - 0
Tolal coliforms - 0
Fe 2 0.3
Fluoride 1.5
Hg 0.002 0.001
Ni 0.5 0.02
Mn 0.5
Tolal phosphorus - -
Nitrate - 50
Nitrite 3
Oil and Grease 20 -
Pb 0.6 0.01
pH 6-9 -
Antimony-Sb
Phenol - 200
Se 0.01
Sodium 200
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Sulfide - -
Sulphate 250
TDS - 1000c
Temp increase <5 -
Total hardness
True Colour 15
TSS 50 -
Turbidity (NTU) - 5c
Zn 1 3
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX C
Monitoring Sites Photographs
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX D
Flow Monitoring Data
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
Thandanani Park
Matuka Close
Midrand
South Africa
T: [+27] (11) 254 4800