Section B

NEW LIBERTY GOLD MINE (NLGM) PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
Section B: Surface Water Assessment Report
June 2012
Report No. GHA1044
May 2012
AUREUS MINING INC
New Liberty Gold Mine Project

ESIA - Surface Water
Hydrology Specialist Study
Assessment Report
Submitted to:
Aureus Mining Inc.
Monrovia
Liberia
Report Number: 10612898-11406-2

Distribution:
1 Copy: Aureus Mining Inc.
1 Copy: GAA Library
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
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).
Specialist study scope and objectives
The key aims and objectives of this study included:
• An overview of existing baseline conditions;
• Determination of potential impacts on the runoff due to the proposed mine;
• 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.
Baseline surface water hydrology environment
• Average annual rainfall for the NLGM is 3,500mm;
• 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);
• Average monthly rainfall given in Table 20;
• Annual precipitation for wet and dry years given in Table 22;
• Potential evaporation for NLGM is given in Table 26;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
• 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;
• 24h Probably Maximum Precipitation (PMP) of 838mm;
• 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.
Assessment of potential surface water impacts
Assessment of potential surface water impacts is discussed in Section 11.0.
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;
• 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;
• 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
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

DMER Department of Minerals Exploration and Research
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
GAA Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
MASLAB SGS Laboratory Services Ghana Ltd
MLME Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy
NWA National Water Act
PCSWMM PC Storm Water Management Model
PWP Process Water Pond
RMF Regional Maximum Flood

SANS South African National Standard
SCS Soil Conservation Service
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
UPD Utility Programs for Drainag
WHO World Health Organization
WQ Water Quality
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3.1 Mining Method ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Open Pits ................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3.3 Waste Rock Dump................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.4 Gold Processing Plant ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.5 Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) ................................................................................................................ 6
2.3.6 Water Management ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.7 Waste Management ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Development and Operation ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................................ 9
3.0 PROJECT MOTIVATION ......................................................................................................................................... 11
4.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY .......................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 Mineral Resource Estimate.................................................................................................................... 12
5.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT ............................. 12
6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................... 14
6.1 Site Layout .................................................................................................................................................. 14
6.2 Diversion of the Marvoe Creek .................................................................................................................... 14
6.3 Go-No-Go Project Alternative...................................................................................................................... 15
7.0 SPECIALIST STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 15
7.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................ 15
7.1.1 Desktop review of relevant documentation ............................................................................................ 15
7.1.2 Delineation of study area for the assessment ........................................................................................ 16
7.1.3 Field work .............................................................................................................................................. 16
7.1.3.1 Flow monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 16
7.1.3.2 Water quality monitoring..................................................................................................................... 21
7.2 Assumptions and limitations ........................................................................................................................ 22
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 i
8.0 SURFACE WATER BASELINE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 22
8.1 Regional climate .......................................................................................................................................... 22
8.2 Regional hydrology...................................................................................................................................... 23
8.3 Regional surface water................................................................................................................................ 25
8.4 Regional runoff estimation........................................................................................................................... 27
8.5 Regional storm events................................................................................................................................. 28
8.6 Project site rainfall data ............................................................................................................................... 29
8.7 Annual precipitation for dry and wet years for NLGM area .......................................................................... 31
8.8 Mean discharge and runoff coefficients for NLGM area .............................................................................. 31
8.9 Evaporation for NLGM area ........................................................................................................................ 33
8.10 TRMM multi-satellite precipitation analysis for NLGM area ......................................................................... 34
8.11 Intensity Duration Frequency curves for NLGM area .................................................................................. 36
8.12 Marvoe Creek .............................................................................................................................................. 40
8.13 Water quality for NLGM area ....................................................................................................................... 42
8.14 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................ 47
9.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................. 47
9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 47
9.2 Study objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 47
9.3 Modelling criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 48
9.4 Clean and dirty water sub-catchments ........................................................................................................ 50
9.4.1 Description of the proposed stormwater management system .............................................................. 50
9.5 Modelling the stormwater management plan............................................................................................... 51
9.5.1 Sub-catchment Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 51
9.5.2 Channel Characteristics......................................................................................................................... 51
9.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 56
10.0 INTEGRATED SITE WIDE WATER BALANCE....................................................................................................... 56
10.1 Modelling objective ...................................................................................................................................... 56
10.2 Assumptions................................................................................................................................................ 56
10.3 Model set-Up ............................................................................................................................................... 57
10.4 Model inputs ................................................................................................................................................ 58
10.5 Model Results ............................................................................................................................................. 60
10.6 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 61
11.0 SURFACE WATER IMPACT PREDICTION AND EVALUATION............................................................................ 61
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 ii
11.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................................... 61
11.2 Project Phases ............................................................................................................................................ 63
11.3 Construction Phase Impact Assessment ..................................................................................................... 63
11.3.1 Erosion sedimentation due to stripping of vegetation ............................................................................ 63
11.3.2 Impact of road river crossings on river banks and bed .......................................................................... 63
11.3.3 Erosion and sedimentation during construction of river diversion .......................................................... 64
11.3.4 Impact of local stormwater runoff on river diversion .............................................................................. 64
11.4 Operational Phase Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 64
11.4.1 Impact of excess mine water discharge on receiving stream water quality ........................................... 64
11.4.2 Impact of discharge of dirty stormwater to environment ........................................................................ 65
11.4.3 Impact of flooding of pit ......................................................................................................................... 65
11.4.4 Impact of catchment reduction on downstream users ........................................................................... 65
11.5 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Impact Assessment ........................................................................ 65
11.5.1 Impact of pit decanting on downstream users ....................................................................................... 65
11.5.2 Pit filling and decanting .......................................................................................................................... 66
11.5.3 Runoff from dirty areas on receiving environment ................................................................................. 66
11.5.4 Flooding of flood control dyke in the Marvoe Creek............................................................................... 66
12.0 STATEMENT OF THE DEGREE OF IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE ........................................................................... 66
13.0 RESIDUAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................................. 66
14.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................................... 66
15.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION/MANAGEMENT MEASURES............................................................................... 67
15.1 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 67
15.2 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................... 67
15.3 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 67
15.4 Cost estimate for mitigation ......................................................................................................................... 72
16.0 SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMME ................................................................................................. 72
17.0 CONCLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 72
18.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 73
19.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................................. 74
19.1 Trevor Coleman, MSc Eng .......................................................................................................................... 74
19.2 Angelina Jordanova, PhD Eng .................................................................................................................... 74
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 iii
TABLES
Table 1: NLGM TSF Design Specifications (Golder, May 2012) .......................................................................................... 7
Table 2: NLGM Project estimated water usage ................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3: NLGM Mineral Reserve Estimate ........................................................................................................................ 12
Table 4: Coordinates of selected monitoring sites (UTM Zone 29N) ................................................................................. 16
Table 5: Monitoring equipment installed at the monitoring sites ........................................................................................ 19
Table 6: Surface water slope ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Table 7: Measured discharge and gauge plate level ......................................................................................................... 20
Table 8: Coordinates of water quality monitoring sites ...................................................................................................... 21
Table 9: Meteorological data for Firestone Harbel ............................................................................................................. 23
Table 10: Meteorological data for Robertsfield (i.e. International Airport) .......................................................................... 23
Table 11: Annual rainfall recorded in Liberia ..................................................................................................................... 24
Table 12: Average annual and monthly evaporation recorded at Liberia and other sites (mm) ......................................... 25
Table 13: Major river systems in Liberia ............................................................................................................................ 26

3
Table 14: Mean discharge in m /s of the major rivers in Liberia ........................................................................................ 27
Table 15: Runoff coefficients estimated for river catchments in Liberia as published in UNDTCD (1987) ......................... 28
Table 16: Stations with storm data..................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 17: 24-hour rainfall depths (Golder internal database) ............................................................................................. 29
Table 18: Maximum recorded 24-hr rainfall (Hayward and Oguntontoyinbo, 1987) ........................................................... 29
Table 19: Site precipitation data ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 20: Average monthly rainfall estimated for NLGM site ............................................................................................. 30
Table 21: Monthly distribution estimated for NLGM site .................................................................................................... 31
Table 22: Annual precipitation for wet and dry years ......................................................................................................... 31
Table 23: Flow monitoring stations .................................................................................................................................... 32
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 26: Potential evaporation calculated for NLGM site ................................................................................................ 33
Table 27: Estimated TRMM monthly rainfall for period of 1998 to 2011 ............................................................................ 35
Table 28: 24h storm rainfall depths.................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 29: Recommended 24h rainfall depths .................................................................................................................... 36
Table 30: IDF curves developed using Adamson’s relationships ....................................................................................... 37
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 33: Recommended IDF curves ................................................................................................................................ 39

Table 34: Marvoe Creek diversion - Hydrology Model Inputs and Results ........................................................................ 42
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
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 40: Mine operating data ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Table 41: Watershed areas ............................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 42: Monthly runoff coefficients ................................................................................................................................. 60
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 53: NLGM Environmental Monitoring Programme ................................................................................................... 72
Table B1: Liberian water quality standard .......................................................................................................................... 79
Table B2: World Bank and WHO water quality standard (all values in mg/l except where indicated) ................................ 80
Table B3: South African water quality standard ................................................................................................................. 81
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 2: Proposed NLGM Site Infrastructure and Mining Layout........................................................................................ 5
Figure 3: NLGM Gold Production Schedule......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4: The Lake Piso RAMSAR Wetland area in relation to the Project area ............................................................... 10
Figure 5: Marvoe Creek surface water monitoring sites..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Cross-sectional profile of M1 monitoring site ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 7: Cross-sectional profile of M2 monitoring site ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: Major river system in Liberia ............................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 9: Estimated average runoff coefficients for the Western Africa (1971–1995) (J Schuol and et al, 2008) .............. 27
Figure 10: Monthly distribution of evaporation ................................................................................................................... 34
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 v
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 19: The proposed stormwater management system layout .................................................................................... 53
Figure 20: Conceptual flow diagram .................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 21: Scoping system for assessment of significance ............................................................................................... 62
Figure C1: Marvoe Creek monitoring site M1 .................................................................................................................... 84
Figure C2 Marvoe Creek monitoring site M2 ..................................................................................................................... 84
Figure C4: Water level data logger installed at monitoring site M1 .................................................................................... 85
Figure C4: Rain gauge installation at NLGM camp offices ................................................................................................ 85
Figure C5: Flow measurement performed at monitoring site M1 ....................................................................................... 86
Figure C6: Flow measurement performed at monitoring site M2 ....................................................................................... 86
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
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:
• An overview of existing baseline conditions;
• Determination of potential impacts on the runoff due to the proposed mine;
• 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;
• Policy, legal and administrative frameworK applicable to the project;
• Project alternatives;
• Specialist study approach and methodology;
• Surface water baceline environment;
• Stormwater management;
• Intergated site-wide water balance;
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 1
• Surface water impact prediction and evaluation;
• Statement of the degree of irreversible damage;
• Residual impacts;
• Cumulative impacts; and
• Recommended mitigation/management measures.

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Project Background
Should the proposed New Liberty Gold Mine be developed, it will be the first commercial gold mine in
Liberia.
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
2.2 Project Location

The Project is located in the Grand Cape Mount County of Liberia, approximately 90 km northwest of the
capital, Monrovia. The Project refers to the NLGM license only of the Class A area as shown in Figure 1.
Project access is by 100 kilometres of tarred road and 40 kilometres of laterite road from the capital city of
Monrovia. The Marvoe Creek runs through the proposed Project area. Sinjé is a large town located to the
south of the Project area. Villages in the vicinity of the proposed mine site include Kinjor (adjacent to the
NLGM camp), Larjor and Jawajei.
Figure 1: Project Location and Surrounding Communities
2.3 Project Description

The proposed Project will comprise of an open-pit gold mine that is expected to operate for approximately
8 years with an ore production and treatment rate of approximately 3,050 tonnes per day. Waste rock will be
mined at an average daily production rate of 45,000 tonnes per day.
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:
• Open pit gold mine and associated waste rock dump;
• Gold processing plant;
• Tailings Storage Facility (TSF);
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 3
• Support facilities and infrastructure at the mine site, including water and waste infrastructure and
storage facilities;
• Marvoe Creek Diversion;
• Accommodation and associated facilities;
• Ancillary facilities and buildings, such as administrative offices, service buildings, laboratory,
hydrocarbon storage, explosives storage; and
• Non-paved roads and haul roads, existing and new.
The key Project infrastructures are outlined in the following sections with a map of the envisaged NLGM site
infrastructure layout shown in Figure 2.
2.3.1 Mining Method

Mining will be undertaken by conventional open-pit methods: drilling, blasting, excavating, and road haulage
of ore and waste. Top soil will be removed prior to excavation or clearing of areas and stored for
rehabilitation purposes. After selective blasting within the planned open pit, the blasted ore and waste rock
will be loaded onto trucks using excavators. The ore will be transported to the processing plant. The waste
rock will be classified, screened and separated into NAF (Non-acid forming) and PAF (Potential acid forming)
waste rock and disposed of as per engineering design of the waste rock dump. Non or low sulphide bearing
materials may be used internally to construct haul roads, the ROM pad, and the tailings storage starter
embankment.
2.3.2 Open Pits

Open pit mining refers to a method of extracting rock or minerals by means of an excavation from surface.
The term is used to differentiate this form of mining from underground extractive methods that require
tunnelling into the earth. The New Liberty open pit will form a contiguous mining area along a strike length of
2 km. The depth of the open pit will be approximately 220 m below surface. Water from the dewatering of the
opencast pits will be treated and pumped into the Marvoe Creek.
2.3.3 Waste Rock Dump

A provisional waste rock dump design has been created by AMC Consultants and is expected to cover an
area of 540 000 m² and rise to a height of approximately 60 m. The current design capacity of the waste rock
dump is approximately 28 million m³ (i.e. 56 million tonnes). The waste rock dump will be constructed with an
18º degree overall slope angle to conform to post closure stability angles. The location of the waste rock
dump will be to the immediate south of the open pit in the valley area currently occupied by the Marvoe
Creek.
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
2.3.4 Gold Processing Plant

A gold processing plant will be constructed to extract the gold from the ore. DRA Mineral Projects are
currently conducting the feasibility study and detailed design of the processing plant. Ore will be processed
using a conventional Carbon in Leach (CIL) gold recovery circuit designed to treat +-1,100,000 Mt/year and
(+-91,670 tonnes per month) and will comprise of the following:
• A crushing and milling circuit;
• Gravity circuit to recover free gold;
• 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;
• Cyanide Detoxification of residual slurry prior to discharge to the TSF;
• 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.
2.3.5 Tailings Storage Facility (TSF)

The waste remaining when gold is extracted from crushed rocks is referred to as tailings. Tailings leave the
processing plant in the form of slurry consisting of a solid material (sand-like in texture) and process water.
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 Containment dams (main dam and saddle dams);
² Basin liner;
² Underdrain;
² Non-contact water diversion system;
² Contact water collection system; and
² Emergency spillway.
The NLGM TSF design specifications are summarised in the table below.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 6
Table 1: NLGM TSF Design Specifications (Golder, May 2012)

Parameter Design specification
Total capacity 8.7 million tons (at 1.1 Mt/annum over 7.9 years)
3
In situ dry density of tailings 1.45 t/m
3
Specific Gravity 2.9 t/m
3
Annual tailings volume 0.76 Mm
Area of footprint 84 ha
Maximum height 24 m
Overall side wall slope 1:2.5 outside slope
Material water content on deposition, after
5.5 % by mass at point of discharge
compaction
-9
0.3 m compacted clay layer of permeability 10 m/s
In-situ liner
under laboratory conditions
Pumped discharge system comprising ditches and
Drainage management
sumps sized for a 1:100 year storm event
2.3.6 Water Management

Raw Water Dam
A raw water dam is planned to be constructed to store runoff water from its own catchment, the processing
plant runoff and the ROM pad runoff water (clean water) and possibly borehole and Marvoe Creek water.
This water will be used to make up the supply to the gold plant. The operational philosophy is that the water
level in the dam will be maintained below the level of an emergency spillway during wet season. An outlet
channel will be constructed for when the design capacity is exceeded.
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
2.3.7 Waste Management

A waste management strategy will be developed and implemented. Hazardous waste will be incinerated via
an incinerator and non-hazardous waste will be disposed of at a landfill site close to the accommodation
camp.
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.
All hazardous effluent and discharges will be disposed of at the TSF.
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.
2.4 Development and Operation

From the pit designs and mineral reserves a mining and treatment schedule was prepared (Figure 3). The
schedule shows that the mine will produce ore at a rate of approximately 1.1 million tonnes per annum for
8 years after an initial pre-strip.
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
Figure 3: NLGM Gold Production Schedule
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 8
2.5 Protected Areas

No designated protected areas are located within the Project area (Figure 1).
As illustrated, the closest protected areas to the Project are as follows:
• Gola East Forest Reserve, Sierra Leone, 45 km northwest of the Project;
• Un-named forest reserves, Sierra Leone, 32 km west of the Project;
• Cape Mount Nature Conservation Unit, Liberia, 30 km southwest of the Project;
• Gola National Forest, Liberia, 45 km northeast of the Project; and
• Kpelle National Forest, Liberia, 55 km northwest of the Project.
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
3.0 PROJECT MOTIVATION

BMMC is committed to ensuring that Liberia and its people benefit from its planned mining operations.
Among the initial benefits that will be realised by the Project, which will be further defined during the EIA
process include:
• 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;
• Royalties will be paid to the Liberian Government by BMMC;
• 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.
4.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY

The New Liberty gold deposit is a classic Archaen shear zone hosted greenstone gold deposit. BMMC
currently plans to mine approximately 8.7 million tonnes of ore and generate 130 million tonnes of waste rock
over a period of approximately eight (8) years. Exploration drilling to date has delineated four (4) zones of
mineralization known as: Larjor, Latiff, Kinjor and Marvoe, forming a combined strike of over 2 km.
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
4.1.1 Mineral Resource Estimate

Resource estimation by BMMC has been based on interpretations using integrated geological and grade
information recorded from diamond drill core logging and assaying. Procedures for classifying the reported
resources were undertaken within the context of the mineral resource classification scheme used in Canada,
the National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101).
Estimated tonnages and grades have been classified with consideration of the following criteria:
• Quality and reliability of raw data (sampling, assaying, surveying);
• Confidence in the geological interpretation;
• Number, spacing and orientation of intercepts through mineralised zones;
• 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
PROVEN Tonnes (Mt) 0.7

Au Ounces In-situ (kozs) 102
Au Grade In-situ (g/t) 4.3
PROBABLE Tonnes (Mt) 8.0

Tonnes (Mt) 8.7
TOTAL
Waste Tonnes (Mt) 130
Strip Ratio (t/t) 14.9
Notes: 1. CIM definitions were used for Mineral Reserves
2. A cut off of 0.65 g/t Au is applied for all zones
3. Due to rounding, some columns or rows may not add up exactly to the computed totals
5.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT
Institutional Framework
The institutional frameworks under which the EIA, and thus this Scoping Report, will be conducted are as
follows:
• The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia (January 1986).
• The Environmental Protection and Management Law of the Republic of Liberia (November 2006);
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 12
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 Environmental Policy of the Republic of Liberia (November 2002).
• The National Biosafety Framework (November 2004).
• The National Integrated Water Resources Management Policy (November 2007).
• The National Integrated Water Resources Management Policy (July 2009).
• The Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (April 2009).
• The National Forestry Reform Law (2006) and the National Forestry Policy and Implementation
Strategy (2006).
• Mineral Policy of Liberia (March 2010), Section 7.
Treaties and Conventions

The Government of Liberia is a signatory of the following international treaties and conventions:
• Convention of Biological Diversity;
• International Tropical Timber Agreement;
• United Nations Convention on Climate Change;
• UN Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species; and
• RAMSAR (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance).
Terms of the Mineral Development Agreement

Section 16 of the Mineral Development Agreement between the proponent and the Liberia Government is of
relevancy to this Scoping Report which reads “16.1 Environmental Impact Statement: The Parties recognize
that Operations may result in some pollution, contamination or other environmental damage to land, water
and the atmosphere within the Contract Area and elsewhere. Accordingly, the Operator shall submit to the
Minister before the commencement of Exploration and Production and Environmental Impact Statement
(“EIS”) The EIS shall show the adverse effect operations will have on the environment and review plans to
mitigate such effects”.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 13
Applicable water quality standards

Water quality can be seen as the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water. Water quality
standards specify the quality of acceptable water, defined in terms of these characteristics. Within the “Water
Resources Policy and Legislation” study (DMER, 1987). Liberian Water Quality Standards were developed.
The Liberian Water Quality Standards are attached in Appendix B
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.
6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Assessing alternatives helps to identify the most appropriate method of developing the Project, taking into
account location, activity alternatives, technology alternatives, temporal alternatives and the no-go
alternative. Alternatives also help identify the activity with the least environmental and social impact.
6.1 Site Layout

The placement of infrastructure such as the TSF, waste rock dumps, processing plant, roads, workshops,
and offices took into account financial, environmental and social considerations to develop a site layout with
the fewest impacts as possible. Processing Plant
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:
• Technologically proven process design;
• Reliability of the equipment during operation;
• Efficient process design for maximum recovery of gold;
• Ease of maintenance;
• Geology and topography;
• Cost-effective technology;
• Power and fuel efficiency; and
• Compliance with environmental, health and safety standards.
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.
6.2 Diversion of the Marvoe Creek

A number of alternatives were assessed for the proposed diversion of the Marvoe Creek so as to allow
mining of the ore deposits. These alternatives were assessed based on topography, resource location and
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 14
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.
6.3 Go-No-Go Project Alternative

The current land use consists of limited agricultural and logging operations. The no-project option will result
in the continuation of such land uses. Although economically viable, the continuation of subsistence
agriculture will not provide the level of short-term and long-term economic growth to the area that this Project
would offer. The economic benefits of the Project potentially include:
• Increased employment opportunities for local people in the area;
• Improved livelihood opportunities; and
• 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.
7.0 SPECIALIST STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The approach and methodology that was employed during the Surface Water Hydrology assessment is
outlined in the following sub-sections.
7.1 Data Collection

Relevant recent information from Aureus and project consultants such as AMC, DRA, Aquaterra and Digby
Wells was used to inform the impact assessment.
7.1.1 Desktop review of relevant documentation

The following documents were reviewed at a desk-top level in order to obtain secondary data on the Surface
Water Hydrology environment, and also to gain an understanding of the scope and context of the proposed
project:
• 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 and Social Management Framwork – Energy& Electricity Distribution in Liberia.

Submitted to World Bank. Government of Liberia (2010);
• 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
• 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);
• Liberia environmental profile, Dr G.V.Brandolini and Dr M. Tigani, Monrovia, December 2006:
• Mamdouh Shahin (2002). Hydrology and Water Resources of Africa;
• 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
• 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.
7.1.2 Delineation of study area for the assessment

For the purposes of the Surface Water Hydrology assessment, the local study area was defined as the
NLGM site layout area (as shown in Figure 2), with a buffer study zone of approximate 6 km around this
area.
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).
7.1.3 Field work

7.1.3.1 Flow monitoring
The first hydrology site visit was undertaken from 26 November 2010 to 4 December 2010. The site visit was
undertaken to set up monitoring stations and provide training to Aureus local employees on stream flow
monitoring. During the site visit two sites, M1 (upstream of the proposed project) and M2 (downstream of the
proposed project), on the Marvoe Creek were selected for the flow monitoring. The coordinates of the
Marvoe Creek sites are listed in Table 4. The location of the surface water monitoring sites is shown in
Figure 5.
Table 4: Coordinates of selected monitoring sites (UTM Zone 29N)
Stream name Site number Easting Northing
Marvoe Creek M1 263851 775367
Marvoe Creek M2 262502 774553
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 16
During the site visit, the following tasks were performed:
• Selection of sites for flow monitoring on the Marvoe Creek;
• Selection of suitable cross-sections for flow gauging stations;
• Set up of the flow monitoring stations by putting in place benchmarks (BM) and gauge plates (GP) and
surveying the cross section;
• Installation of a water level data logger;
• Installation of a rain gauge at the NLGM exploration camp;
• Provision of training on stream flow monitoring to local Aureus employees; and
• 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:
• Scientific knowledge and experience;
• The ease of access; and
• 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
Table 5: Monitoring equipment installed at the monitoring sites

River name Site number GP Water level data logger
Marvoe Creek M1 Yes Yes
Marvoe Creek M2 Yes No
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
Figure 6: Cross-sectional profile of M1 monitoring site
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 19
Figure 7: Cross-sectional profile of M2 monitoring site
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.
The monitoring work required the following:
• Monitoring data collection included discharge measurement, downloading of water level and rainfall
data recorded; and
• Monitoring has to be conducted at a bi-weekly interval.
The following monitoring procedure was recommended:
• 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
• 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.
7.1.3.2 Water quality monitoring

The water quality monitoring component of the surface water study was initiated in 2011.
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.
The scope of the field work included the following:
• Selection of water quality monitoring sites;
• Training of NLGM staff in the use of the hand held water quality multi-parameter meter; and
• Collection of samples for water quality analysis.
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.
Table 8: Coordinates of water quality monitoring sites

Monitoring site name Location East North
WQ Site 1 Jawajei village 267248 777626
WQ Site 2 SW M1 263851 775367
WQ Site 3 SW M2 262502 774553
Parameters suggested for the analysis are below:

6+
• Cations: Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr , Cr (Total), Cu, Fe, Hg, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Sb,
Se, Si, Sr, Th, Tl, U, V and Zn;
• Anions: Cl, F, SO4, and CN (free, total and wad);
• 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).
The water quality sampling procedure is:
• 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
• Field parameter measurement – Measurement of pH, temperature, electrical conductivity (EC),

dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and total dissolved solids (TDS) to be
collected in the field using a Hanna multi parameter meter at the time of sampling; and
• Documentation – Field staff to label samples with unique sample numbers, document field observations
and to take photographs of the monitoring sites.
7.2 Assumptions and limitations

The assumptions and limitations upon which this study is based are:-
• 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;
design process should be followed which involves further hydraulic analysis, geotechnical work,
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.
8.0 SURFACE WATER BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

8.1 Regional climate
The Liberia Hydrological Service (LHS) is responsible for the collection and management of hydro-
meteorological data and the calculation of climate statistics. There were 47 hydro-meteorological stations in
Liberia before the civil war and rainfall statistics date back to 1927 at the Ganta station. The stations were
operational until 1989. Since 1990, no new records have been made because of the civil war that ended in
2001. All the meteorological stations were destroyed during the war except one in western Liberia. It is
simply not possible at present to obtain any meaningful data from existing information over the full range of
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 22
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
Table 10: Meteorological data for Robertsfield (i.e. International Airport)

Annual average temp Annual average relative Annual average sunshine duration
Year
(°C) humidity (%) (hours)
1977 25.9 88 3.7
1978 25.9 88 3.6
1979 26.0 88 3.7
1980 26.2 88 3.3
1981 26.2 87 3.6
1982 25.9 84 3.9
8.2 Regional hydrology

In Liberia, the rainy season begins in April or May, and reaches a peak in July through September, and
tapers off again in October. Monrovia and Buchanan, on the coastal plains, receive heavy rain fallouts
earlier in the season, then they experience a period of reduced rainfall called the “middle dries” before heavy
rainfalls return in August. In the southeastern part of the country, the rainy season begins in April and lasts
for two or three months, and then is followed by a drier period of two or three months. Then a second rainy
season begins in September and lasts until November.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 23
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
Table 12: Average annual and monthly evaporation recorded at Liberia and other sites (mm)
Station
Location
Robertsfield 122 NA (1) 1318 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Firestone
84 1977 (1) 1329 NA NA NA NA NA 108 95 99 86 120 111 105
Harbel
Monrovia 95 NA (2) 985 99 81 96 91 81 70 68 71 68 79 83 97
Bumbuna
1972-
(Sierra 230 (3) 1355 135 141 174 145 123 108 79 66 74 89 103 118
1979
Leone)
Boké, 1992-
550 (4) 994 117 106 162 139 115 64 38 33 35 42 56 86
(Guinea) 2002
Fria 1991-
460 (4) 842 112 110 127 119 87 42 29 23 27 34 47 86
(Guinea) 2004
Notes: - Evaporation values are presented as Lake Evaporation. A 0.8 coefficient has been applied to convert from Pan Evaporation
to Lake Evaporation and Potential Evapotranspiration has been considered equivalent to Lake Evaporation.
- NA (Not available)
(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
8.3 Regional surface water

2
Liberia has a total land area of 111369 km . The major river systems in Liberia are shown in Figure 8. The
country shares seven international catchments with its neighbours: the Mano and Cavalla are shared basins
between Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast, respectively, while Lofa, St. Paul and St. John drain parts of Guinea.
Information regarding the river system is presented in Table 13. Published (Ministry of Agriculture, 2007)
mean monthly discharges of these rivers are listed in Table 14.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 25
Figure 8: Major river system in Liberia
Table 13: Major river systems in Liberia

2
Catchment area (km )
River Basin Main tributaries
Total Within Liberia
Cavalla 28,000 11,500 Duobe
St Paul 20,500 11,500 Via/Tuma
Zor Creek
St John 15,500 14,000 Ya Creek
Mani
Gwen Creek
Cestos 14,000 11,500
Nuon
Lawa
Lofa 11,000 9,600
Mahe
Morra
Mano 7,500 6,000
Mano
Farmington and Du 4,000 4,000
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 26
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
8.4 Regional runoff estimation

Very little information on the volumes of runoff for Liberia is available. An estimation of runoff for a 4-million
2
km area covering 18 countries in West Africa including Liberia was made by application of the distributed
hydrological model ‘‘Soil and Water Assessment Tool’’ (SWAT) (J Schuol and et al, 2008). The hydrologic
model is based on the catchment water balance and considers precipitation, interception, evapotranspiration,
surface runoff, infiltration, percolation, and subsurface runoff. The simulation time-period was from 1966 to
1995. Average modeled runoff coefficients for a period of 1971 to 1995 are shown in Figure 9. It has to be
noted that the model (SWAT) requires daily data for precipitation and minimum/maximum temperature, as
this data is not available, the monthly climate statistics were therefore used to estimate the daily data
required to run SWAT. However, the results provide a useful broad understanding of the runoff for Liberia.
According to Figure 9, runoff coefficients range between 0.1 and 0.49 at the basins located in Liberia.
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
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
8.5 Regional storm events

Data for storm events found for sites around West Africa are listed in Table 16. The rainfall depths for storm
events sourced from the available literature are presented in Table 17 and Table 18.
Table 16: Stations with storm data
Distance
Locations Zone Northing (m) Easting (m) Type of Data Value
from Site
24 hr Rainfall
Lola, Guinea 29 551452 862216 300 km NE Table 17
depths
24 hr Rainfall
Gouan, Guinea 29 563612 847797 310 km NE Table 17
depths
24 hr Rainfall
Fria, Guinea 28 655082 1146521 460 km NE Table 17
depths
Hourly and 24
Gagnoa, Cote
30 174980 678795 585 km E hour rainfall Table 17
d’Ivoire
depths
Highest
Monrovia, 100 mm in
29 300058 697699 95 km S-E Recorded
Liberia 3 hours
Rainfall
Highest
Various
Recorded 24 hr
Stations
Rainfall
Table 18
Banjul,
28 328498 1487759 920 km NW PMP
Gambia
Table 18
Warri, Nigeria 30 191631 616737 1,900 km E PMP

Table 18
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 28
Table 17: 24-hour rainfall depths (Golder internal database)

Return period (years)
Location
2 5 10 25 50 100
Lola, Guinea 75 105 119 131 137 141
Gouan, Guinea - 57 118 124 130 134
Fria, Guinea 113 145 163 185 200 213
Gagnoa, Cote d’Ivoire 79.2 107 125 - 165 182
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)
8.6 Project site rainfall data

The project site has a tropical climate with two seasons: wet and dry. The dry season lasts from mid-
November to mid-April and the rainy season from mid-April to late October. It does not rain continuously
during the rainy season. It is common to have sunny days during the months when the rain is heaviest. This
is also true for the dry season; there are some rainy days during the dry season.
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
Table 19: Site precipitation data

Year Month Rain Gauge Data (mm) Met Station Data (mm) Difference (mm)
11 54
2010
12 114
1 58
2 65
3 140
4 81
5 245 181.4 63.6
6 495 559.3 -64.3
2011
7 458 343.1 114.9
8 937 509.8 427.2
9 546 650.3 -104.3
10 261.9
11 148.8
12 0.0
1 4.8
2012 2 0.3
3 28.7
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.
Table 20: Average monthly rainfall estimated for NLGM site

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MAP
Rainfall
24 44 81 156 239 409 596 701 673 393 146 41 3,500
(mm)
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 30
Table 21: Monthly distribution estimated for NLGM site

Period Rainfall (mm) Distribution (%)
Jan 24 0.7
Feb 44 1.3
Mar 81 2.3
Apr 156 4.5
May 239 6.8
Jun 409 11.7
Jul 596 17.0
Aug 701 20.0
Sep 673 19.2
Oct 393 11.2
Nov 146 4.2
Dec 41 1.2
Year 3,500 100
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
Annual Return Period (year) Wet (mm/year) Dry (mm/year)
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
8.8 Mean discharge and runoff coefficients for NLGM area

Local stream data has been being collected at two flow monitoring stations in Marvoe Creek (M1 and M2)
from December 2010 up to date. The location of the surface water monitoring sites is shown Figure 5.
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
Table 23: Flow monitoring stations

UTM Drainage
Flow Monitoring Coordinates area
Station
East North km2
M1- Marvoe Creek 263851 775367 101
M2-Marvoe Creek 262502 774553 124

Source: Golder 2012
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
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:
• Wet Season (May – October): 0.55;
• Dry Season (December – March): 0.14; and
• Transition (April and November): 0.27.

8.9 Evaporation for NLGM area
There is no local evaporation data available for the project site. Annual lake evaporation was estimated
based on annual values presented in Table 12. Conservatively, it is estimated that the average annual lake
evaporation for the NLGM site is approximately 1000 mm; close to the lower values in the region. The
monthly evaporation distribution was based on a weighted average (by distance) of evaporation distribution
at Monrovia (95 km from site; 0.29 distance weight=95/(95+230)) and Bumbuna (230 km from site; 0.71
distance weight=230/(95+230)) based on the monthly data presented in Table 12. The monthly distributions
at these stations are shown graphically in Figure 10. The remaining stations are presented only as reference.
Table 26 shows the monthly evaporation estimated for the NLGM site.
Table 26: Potential evaporation calculated for NLGM site
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MAE
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
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
Figure 10: Monthly distribution of evaporation
8.10 TRMM multi-satellite precipitation analysis for NLGM area

The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) is intended to
provide a “best” estimate of precipitation from the wide variety of modern satellite-borne precipitation related
sensors. The TRMM estimates are provided at relatively fine scales (0.25° × 0.25°,3-h) and data is available
for the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2011(Huffman et al 2007).
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
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
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.
8.11 Intensity Duration Frequency curves for NLGM area

Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) curves describe how rainfall intensities change with storm duration. Short
storm durations typically have higher rainfall intensities than storms with longer durations. Two methods,
Adamson (1981) and Bell (1969), were applied for development of the IDF curves.
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
Table 30: IDF curves developed using Adamson’s relationships

Duration Rainfall intensities (mm/hr)
(hr) 1:2 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200
0.1 196.00 336.00 394.80 481.60 551.60 627.20
0.25 128.80 220.80 259.44 316.48 362.48 412.16
0.5 89.60 153.60 180.48 220.16 252.16 286.72
1 57.40 98.40 115.62 141.04 161.54 183.68
2 37.10 63.60 74.73 91.16 104.41 118.72
3 28.00 48.00 56.40 68.80 78.80 89.60
4 23.45 40.20 47.24 57.62 66.00 75.04
5 19.88 34.08 40.04 48.85 55.95 63.62
6 17.50 30.00 35.25 43.00 49.25 56.00
8 14.18 24.30 28.55 34.83 39.89 45.36
10 11.90 20.40 23.97 29.24 33.49 38.08
12 10.38 17.80 20.92 25.51 29.22 33.23
18 7.47 12.80 15.04 18.35 21.01 23.89
24 5.83 10.00 11.75 14.33 16.42 18.67
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
Table 31: IDF curves developed using the Bell’s relationships

Rainfall intensities (mm/hr)
Duration (hr) 1:2 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200
0.1 272.4 359.6 397.1 446.8 484.3 521.9
0.25 177.6 234.5 259.0 291.4 315.9 340.3
0.5 120.5 159.1 175.8 197.7 214.4 231.0
1 79.1 104.5 115.4 129.8 140.7 151.6
2 50.8 67.1 74.1 83.3 90.3 97.3
3 38.9 51.3 56.7 63.8 69.1 74.5
4 32.1 42.3 46.8 52.6 57.0 61.4
5 27.6 36.4 40.2 45.2 49.0 52.8
6 24.4 32.2 35.5 40.0 43.3 46.7
8 20.0 26.4 29.2 32.8 35.6 38.3
10 17.1 22.6 25.0 28.1 30.5 32.9
12 15.1 19.9 22.0 24.8 26.9 28.9
18 11.4 15.0 16.6 18.7 20.2 21.8
24 9.3 12.3 13.6 15.2 16.5 17.8
Table 32: Differences in rainfall intensities between Adamson and Bell (Adamson-Bell)
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
Table 33: Recommended IDF curves

Duration (hr)
1:2 10 1:2 50 1:2 1:200
0.1 272.4 359.6 397.1 481.60 551.60 627.20
0.25 177.6 234.5 259.4 316.48 362.48 412.16
0.5 120.5 159.1 180.5 220.16 252.16 286.72
1 79.1 104.5 115.6 141.04 161.54 183.68
2 50.8 67.1 74.7 91.16 104.41 118.72
3 38.9 51.3 56.7 68.80 78.80 89.60
4 32.1 42.3 47.2 57.62 66.00 75.04
5 27.6 36.4 40.2 48.85 55.95 63.62
6 24.4 32.2 35.5 43.00 49.25 56.00
8 20.0 26.4 29.2 34.83 39.89 45.36
10 17.1 22.6 25.0 29.24 33.49 38.08
12 15.1 19.9 22.0 25.51 29.22 33.23
18 11.4 15.0 16.6 18.67 21.01 23.89
24 9.3 12.3 13.6 15.24 16.53 18.67
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
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
8.12 Marvoe Creek

The area is well drained by several small creeks. The dominant drainage feature in the study area is the
Marvoe Creek. Numerous small, unnamed creeks that are all largely similar in character feed the Marvoe
Creek. The Marvoe Creek is situated within the mining lease area. It is a tributary of the Mafa River, which
flows into the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of Lake Piso in the vicinity of the city of Robertsport.
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
• 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.
24 hrs Storm Distribution

2nd quartil
90.0
80.0
70.0
1998
60.0
2000
50.0
2002
40.0
2006
30.0
2009
20.0
Average
10.0 Average w
0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
-10.0
Time (Hrs)
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)
Figure 15: 24h Cumulative rainfall distribution for the site
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 41
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
8.13 Water quality for NLGM area

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.
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
Liberian
SA WQ
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
Liberian
SA WQ
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
Liberian
SA WQ
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
Liberian
SA WQ
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
Liberian
SA WQ
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
8.14 Conclusions and recommendations

Based on the above information, Golder recommends that the following key hydrological inputs for the water
infrastructure design and the EIA be used for the project going forward:
• Average annual rainfall for the NLGM is 3,500mm;
• 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);
• Average monthly rainfall given in Table 20;
• Annual precipitation for wet and dry years given in Table 22;
• Potential evaporation for NLGM is given in Table 26;
• 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;
• 24h Probably Maximum Precipitation (PMP) of 838mm;
• 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.
9.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

9.1 Introduction
According to the Environmental Protection and Management Law of the Republic of Liberia, the proposed
project must comply with the requirements of existing Liberian environmental processes and standards as
specified by the relevant legislation. Based on an analysis of such standards, it can be noted that presently
there is no concrete comprehensive legal framework governing stormwater management in Liberia, therefore
the following international standards can be referred to for guidance. These include:
• 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).
• South African Regulation 704 (DWA, National Water Act, 1998)

9.2 Study objectives
Key issues associated with management of stormwater include separation of clean and dirty water,
minimizing run-off, avoiding erosion of exposed ground surfaces, avoiding sedimentation of drainage
systems and minimizing exposure of polluted areas to stormwater.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 47
The stormwater management modelling addresses the following:
• Compile a Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed New Liberty Gold Mine area;
• To divert run-off from undisturbed areas around disturbed areas; and
• 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.
9.3 Modelling criteria

South African Regulation 704 on use of water for mining and related activities aimed at the protection of
water resources (DWA, National Water Act, 1998) has been used in modelling of capacity required for clean
and dirty water systems.
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
9.4 Clean and dirty water sub-catchments

The proposed NLGM area was discretised into sub-catchments based on the topography of the project site.
These sub-catchments were then classified as either clean (blue) or dirty (pink) run-off catchments based on
the land usage. The extent of the clean and dirty run-off areas is shown in Figure 17.
The clean run-off areas are:
• Area S1 – Upslope of the eastern portion of the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF);
• Area S3 - Upslope of the western portion of the TSF;
• Area S5 - Area located between the Waste Rock Dump (WRD) and Open Pit (OP);
• Area S10 - Upslope of the Waste Rock Dump (WRD);
• Area S16 - Upslope of the eastern portion of the WRD;
• Area S17 - Upslope of the eastern Open Pit (OP) boundary;
• Area S18 - Upslope of the Process Plant area.
The dirty run-off areas are:
• The dirty run-off generated from the TSF area;
• The dirty runoff originating from the Process Plant areas;
• The dirty run-off generated from the active pit areas; and
• The dirty run-off generated from the WRD.
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.
9.4.1 Description of the proposed stormwater management system

The site wide framework for this work is to separate the clean and dirty catchments. The clean water runoff
being generated from the upslope clean water catchments will be diverted away from the area producing
dirty water as shown in Figure 18.
The proposed clean stormwater management is:
• 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.
The proposed dirty stormwater management is:
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 50
• 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.
9.5 Modelling the stormwater management plan

The PCSWMM model was used as the flood analysis model. PCSWMM is a dynamic rainfall-runoff
simulation model used for single event or long-term simulation of runoff quantity. This model was set up for
the site and used to size the conveyance structures for separation of clean and dirty stormwater runoff.
9.5.1 Sub-catchment Characteristics

The discretisation into sub-catchments is based on the topography of the New Liberty Mine area. The
parameters used to model the overland and channel flow are shown in Table 38. Manning’s ‘n’ coefficient
used in the model for the impervious areas and pervious areas were 0.013 and 0.10 respectively.
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.
9.5.2 Channel Characteristics

All diversion channels have been sized to divert the clean and dirty water runoff for the 50 year return period
flood peak. A freeboard of 0.3 m was included. Sizes of the conveyance structures are given in Table 39.
The proposed clean and dirty water diversion channel layout can be seen in Figure 18. The Manning’s
roughness assumed for the channels were 0.035 (Vegetation lined channels) and 0.013 (concrete lined
channels) (Hicks et al. 1998).
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 51
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.
10.0 INTEGRATED SITE WIDE WATER BALANCE

Mine water management is a fundamental issue that affects most mines worldwide. The risk of surface and
groundwater contamination caused by mining activities, and any subsequent environmental consequences,
results in the need for careful planning and operation of mine water infrastructure. The need to provide an
adequate approximation of process water supply, as well as the assurance of compliance of discharge water
quantity and quality with local environmental legislation and best practises is becoming equally important.
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.
10.1 Modelling objective

The objective of the water balance is to integrate flows across the mine site and to quantify water re-use,
water supply requirements and water storage requirements.
The water demand at the mine can be grouped into the following two major categories:
• Water for ore processing; and
• Water for human consumption.
The supply of water is a combination of re-use and raw make-up, and includes:
• Contaminated stormwater runoff;
• Re-use of process water return flows; and
• Raw water from available surface or groundwater sources.

10.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in determining the water balance:
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
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).
10.3 Model set-Up

The water balance model is set up to include:
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 Lake evaporation from ponds and the wetted 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.).
A conceptual flow diagram in plotted in Figure 19.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 57
Figure 19: Conceptual flow diagram
10.4 Model inputs

The mine operating data used in the water balance are given in Table 40. The monthly rainfall and
evaporation used in the model are listed in Table 21 and Table 26 respectively.
Table 40: Mine operating data
Parameter Source Value Unit
Ore reserve Aureus 8,700,000 t
Design mill production rate DRA 3,349 t/d
Mill availability (% of the year the mill is available to
DRA 90.0 %
operate)
Factor of safety on the design value DRA 0.96 -
Nominal (average) mill production rate Calculated 3,140 t/d
Life of mine Calculated 7.9 years
Water content of ore going into the mill Aureus 10.0 %
Nominal (average) mill fresh water requirements 3
DRA 115 m /hr
(flocculant)
3
Water lost in the mill to evaporation Assumed 90 m /d
Discharge slurry density from plant Assumed 40.0 % solids
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 58
Tailings / ore ratio DRA 1.004 -

Nominal (average) tailings production rate Calculated 3,152 t/d
Specific gravity of tailings solids DRA 2.90 -
Void ratio of deposited tailings Assumed 1.00 -
Dry density of deposited tailings Calculated 1.45 t/m3
3
Total volume of deposited tailings Calculated 6,024,000 m
Saturated water content of deposited tailings Calculated 34.5 %
3
Volume of water retained in the tailings Calculated 1,087 m /d
Water required for dust control in the months November
Assumed 1,045 m3/d
to March
3
Potable water requirements DRA 71 m /d
Sewage (estimated as 80% of potable water) Assumed 57 m3/d
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
Table 42: Monthly runoff coefficients

Natural Prepared Open Pit
Month Waste rock Tailing Ponds
ground ground walls
Jan 0.14 0.70 0.85 0.20 0.60 1.00
Feb 0.14 0.70 0.85 0.20 0.60 1.00
Mar 0.14 0.70 0.85 0.20 0.60 1.00
Apr 0.27 0.70 0.85 0.20 0.60 1.00
May 0.55 0.80 0.95 0.25 0.65 1.00
Jun 0.55 0.80 0.95 0.25 0.65 1.00
Jul 0.55 0.80 0.95 0.25 0.65 1.00
Aug 0.55 0.80 0.95 0.25 0.65 1.00
Sep 0.55 0.80 0.95 0.25 0.65 1.00
Oct 0.27 0.80 0.95 0.25 0.65 1.00
Nov 0.14 0.70 0.85 0.20 0.60 1.00
Dec 0.14 0.70 0.85 0.20 0.60 1.00
10.5 Model Results

The water balance has been performed for the average annual rainfall and the precipitation scenarios listed
in Table 43.
Table 43: Annual precipitation for wet and dry years
Annual Return Period (year) Wet (mm/year) Dry (mm/year)
25 5,064 2,459
50 5,483 2,342
100 5,900 2,245
Key outputs from the modelling in form of flows are:
• Outflow from the Mine Open Pit;
• Outflow the WRD;
• Outflow from the TSF.

3
Table 44: Annual average flows in m /hr for wet years
Return period
Outflows Average
25 50 100
Outflow from the Mine Open Pit 513.4 705.9 758.1 810.0
Run-off of the WRD 151.5 219.2 237.3 255.4
Outflow from the TSF to RWD 403.4 538.7 575.0 611.0
Raw water for the plant 115.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 60
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.
11.0 SURFACE WATER IMPACT PREDICTION AND EVALUATION

The aim of this section is to identify the potential surface water impacts that are likely to arise as a result of
the proposed project.
11.1 Impact Assessment Methodology

The impact assessment was done according to the following methodology:
• 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
• 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).
Magnitude Duration Scale Probability

10 Very high/ don’t 5 Permanent 5 International 5 Definite/don’t know
know
8 High 4 Long-term (impact 4 National 4 Highly probable
ceases after
closure of activity)
6 Moderate 3 Medium-term (5 to 3 Regional 3 Medium probability
15 years)
4 Low 2 Short-term (0 to 5 2 Local 2 Low probability
years)
2 Minor 1 Transient 1 Site only 1 Improbable
1 None 0 None
Maximum SP is 100 points

SP>75 High environmental significance
SP 30 to 75 Moderate environmental significance
SP<30 Low environmental significance
Figure 20: Scoping system for assessment of significance
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
11.2 Project Phases

For the purposes of this impact assessment, the NLGM Project timeframe has been subdivided into three
phases, as follows:
• 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.
11.3.1 Erosion sedimentation due to stripping of vegetation

During the construction phase, large areas of the site will be stripped of vegetation which will increase
erosion and sedimentation. This has been scored as a moderate impact as the scale of the impact will be
restricted to the site. The mitigation of the impact is the construction of stormwater collection channels
conveying the runoff to sediment control dams. The sediment control dams will settle out the sediment
before the runoff is discharged to the environment. If the sediment control mitigation is put in place then the
impact is ranked as low.
11.3.2 Impact of road river crossings on river banks and bed

This impact has been ranked assuming that there will be river crossings. The construction of the crossings
will change and alter the river banks and the river bed. There is the potential for erosion downstream of the
crossings, backwater upstream of the crossings and erosion at the entrance to the crossing structures. This
impact was ranked as medium. The mitigation measure is a properly designed culvert crossing to pass the
design flood with minimum backwater. The approaches and exits from the river crossings must be protected
to prevent erosion. If this applied then the impact is ranked as a low.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 63
11.3.3 Erosion and sedimentation during construction of river diversion

The excavation of the diversion channel and construction and the flood control dyke in the Marvoe Creek will
increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Construction of the river diversion will require
construction of coffer dam. The sediment generated in the channel will be transported into the downstream
river channel. An adequate pumping system should be sized with the coffer dams to ensure safe working
conditions. The impact was ranked as medium. The mitigation is to construct the channel during the dry
season and to provide a sediment control dam at the diversion channel exit to settle out and reduce the
sediment loads leaving the site. If this applied then the impact is ranked as a low.
11.3.4 Impact of local stormwater runoff on river diversion

The diversion channel intercepts local streams. The runoff from these streams could cause flooding of the
diversion channel during construction. This impact was ranked as medium. The mitigation measure
proposed is to construct the diversion in the dry season and to schedule the construction to start at the
downstream end to the upstream end with the flood control dyke constructed last. In this way the channel
can drain and flood water will not interrupt construction. With the implementation of this mitigation measure
the impact is ranked as a low.
11.4 Operational Phase Impact Assessment

BMMC estimates that the operational life of the project will be approximately 8 years. (The operational phase
st th
is likely to be initiated in the 1 quarter of 2014 and will be completed in the 4 quarter of 2021).
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
Potential Surface Water Impact (Operational
Phase: NLGM Project)
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
11.4.2 Impact of discharge of dirty stormwater to environment

The discharge of dirty stormwater 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 implement stormwater
management system. This mitigation measure will reduce the impact rank to low.
11.4.3 Impact of flooding of pit

The discharge of flooding pit, if the water is not pumped out immediately, is considered to be polluted and
will impact of the water quality of the receiving streams and the downstream users. However the water will be
diluted therefore 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.
11.4.4 Impact of catchment reduction on downstream users

The impact in terms of streamflow reduction will be caused by the reduction of the catchment area. The
critical areas which need to be assessed depend on the percentage of a particular area that will be isolated
and the consequence of isolating the areas. The areas with an isolated area in excess of 10% can be
considered to start having an influence on the flow patterns and volumes in the receiving catchment. The
impact of the mine and water management infrastructure will contribute to the reduction in the physical
catchment area run-off via the Mafa river that ends up in the Lake Piso, a RAMSAR wetland located
downstream of the proposed Project (Figure 4). Since the catchment areas are reduced by less than 10 %,
the streamflow reduction will be insignificant. The impact was ranked as low. No mitigation measures are
required.
11.5 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Impact Assessment

st th
The decommissioning and closure phase will likely take place between the 1 quarter of 2022 and the 4
quarter of 2022 (i.e. over 12 months).
the closure and decommissioning phase of the proposed project.
Table 48: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project –
Decommissioning and Closure Phase
Potential Surface Water (Decommissioning
and Closure Phase: NLGM Project)
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.
11.5.1 Impact of pit decanting on downstream users

The pit will fill and decant after mine closure. . The initial decant water is likely to not meet the discharge
standards (Golder, 2012c). Water quality post closure monitoring on surface water should be undertaken.
The water quality monitoring results of the water pumped from the pit during operations will provide a better
understanding of the quality that is likely post closure. Location of the Lake Piso RAMSAR wetland site is
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 65
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.
11.5.2 Pit filling and decanting

The site is in a high rainfall low evaporation climatic area. The pit will fill and decant sometime in the future
after closure of the mine. Relevant post closure monitoring on surface water should be undertaken.
Groundwater modelling of the potential decant should be verified/calibrated in order to plan for management
of decant onto surface to ensure water quality is within the relevant standards. All potentially contaminated
water is to be treated as dirty water. Initially the impact is ranked as high as the water quality is likely to be
poor (Golder, 2012c). However the water quality monitoring results of the water pumped from the pit during
operations will provide a better understanding of the quality that is likely post closure. The mitigation is to do
research closer to mine closure to see what treatment if required would be acceptable to ensure water
quality that is going to decant will be within the standards. Mitigation also is to start with research prior to
mine closure. With time the pit water is likely to be diluted and the water quality will improve over time. .
11.5.3 Runoff from dirty areas on receiving environment

If the stormwater management system is not maintained, the runoff from dirty areas will impact of the water
quality of the receiving streams and the downstream users. The impact was ranked as high. The mitigation
measure is to maintain the stormware management system. This mitigation measure will reduce the impact
rank to low.
11.5.4 Flooding of flood control dyke in the Marvoe Creek

If the flood control dyke in the Marvoe Creek is not maintained, flooding of the flood control dyke will impact
the water of the receiving streams due to the runoff from dirty areas. The impact was ranked as moderate.
The mitigation measure is to inspect the flood control dyke in the Marvoe Creek and make required repairs
and upgrades. This mitigation measure will reduce the impact rank to low.
12.0 STATEMENT OF THE DEGREE OF IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE

The Marvoe Creek diagonally bisects the Project site and the alignment is such that it passes through the
proposed Open Pit and WRD site. As a result, a permanent diversion channel is planned to route Marvoe
Creek around the Open Pit and the WRD. The diversion of the Marvoe Creek represents the irreversible
damage incurred by the project from a surface water perspective. No mitigation measures are required.
13.0 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

The impacts resulting from the proposed project were rated as moderate using the methodology prescribed
which makes use of a numerical system. There aren’t impacts that remain significant following the
application of mitigation measures.
14.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The proposed project is the first mining development in the area and will be the first gold mining industry in
the area. It is thus essential that effective mitigation measures are in place to reduce the impact on surface
water quality and quantity in region. The cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project were rated
as low.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 66
15.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION/MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Based on the potential surface water impacts identified in Section 11.0, the following section describes the
associated mitigation measures that NLGM is required to implement, aimed at reducing potential negative
environmental and social impacts and enhancing potential positive environmental and social impacts.
15.1 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

Table 49 presents the mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the
project, based on the potential impacts identified and assessed in the previous section.
15.2 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures

Table 50 describes the mitigation measures that have been identified for the operational phase of the
project.
15.3 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Mitigation Measures

Table 51 describes the mitigation measures that have been identified for the decommissioning and closure
phase – NLGM Project.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 67
15.4 Cost estimate for mitigation

Table 52: Cost estimate for implementing the surface water related mitigation measures
Cost Estimate (US$) Cost Estimate (US$)
Mitigation Measure Frequency
per month per year
Treatment Plant, if Once off capex (40 million
22 000 264 000
required USD)
Monthly water quality
Monitoring 5000 60000
monitoring 5 points
16.0 SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMME

Surface water quality and quantity monitoring is recommended for all Construction, Operational and Closure
and Rehabilitation phases. Two surface water flow and three water quality monitoring points are
recommended. Location of surface water flow monitoring points proposed to be upstream and downstream
of the NLGM project area. Required monitoring is listed in Table 53.
Table 53: NLGM Environmental Monitoring Programme
Source Monitoring Locations Parameters Frequency
NLGM
Monitoring program Monitoring program
Climate Weather/Meteorological
(Golder, 2012d) (Golder, 2012d)
Station
Three monitoring
points,up down and Monitoring program Monitoring program
Water Quality
midstream of the Marvoe (Golder, 2012d) (Golder, 2012d)
creek
Two points, up and down Monitoring program Monitoring program
Surface water flow
stream after diversion (Golder, 2012d) (Golder, 2012d)
Pit, TSF, water dams Monitoring program Monitoring program
Water quality
and ponds (Golder, 2012d) (Golder, 2012d)
Waste Rock Dump, Ore
Monitoring program Monitoring program
Acid Rock Drainage Stockpiles, ROM,
(Golder, 2012d) (Golder, 2012d)
Tailings
17.0 CONCLUTIONS AND 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;
design process should followed which involves further hydraulic analysis, geotechnical work,
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
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
Mamdouh Shahin (2002). Hydrology and Water Resources of Africa.
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.
(2005). Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project. Environment Impact Assessment. January 2005.
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.
WHO. 2004. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality - Volume 1 Recommendations.Geneva: WHO.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/GDWQ2004web.pdf
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 73
19.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

The following surface water specialists were part of the study team for this project:
19.1 Trevor Coleman, MSc Eng

Trevor Coleman is a Senior Water Resources Engineer (Principal). He is leading the Water Resources
Division. His role in the division is discipline leader in surface water which includes hydrology and hydraulics.
His current areas of work are the development of mine water management models and the development of
integrated water resource management plans for catchments. He has over 20 years experience in
hydrological, water quality and water resource systems analysis and modelling.
19.2 Angelina Jordanova, PhD Eng

Angelina Jordanova is a Civil Hydraulic Engineer in the Water Resources Division. She has over 20 years
experience in water engineering field. Her key experience includes environmental and rehabilitation studies
for rivers, water balance modelling, flood line analyses, hydrodynamics modelling, environmental impact
assessment studies and hydraulics for Reserve determination.
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 74
Report Signature Page
Angelina Jordanova Trevor Coleman

Civil Hydraulic Engineer
AJ/TC
Reg. No. 2002/007104/07
Directors: FR Sutherland, AM van Niekerk, SAP Brown, L Greyling
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2 75
APPENDIX A
Document Limitations
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
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.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
APPENDIX B
Water Quality Standards
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Table B1: Liberian water quality standard

Parameter Unit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
pH -log H 6.5-8.0 6.0-9.0 5.5-9.0
Chloride mgCl/L 250 350.0 450.0
Sulfate mg So4/L 150 200 250
Hardness Caco3 mg/L 190 300 600
Iron total Fe mg/L 1.0 1.5 2.0
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.1 0.3 0.8
Zinc Total Zn mg/L 1.0 2.0 5.0
Coliform bacteria n/ml 0 0 5
Bacteria total n/ml 0 10 50
Dissolved Subst mg/L 500 1000.00 1200
Suspended Solids mg/L 10 30.0 50
Ammonia mg NH4/L 1.0 3.0 6.0
Nitrate mg NO3/L 40.0 60.00 80.0
Nitrite mg NO2/L 0.1 0.5 1.0
Phosphate mg PO4/L 0.01 0.02 0.05
Phenols mg/L 0.001 0.02 0.05
Detergents mg/L 1.0 2.0 3.0
Flouride f mg/L 1.5 1.5 2.0
Cyanide CN mg/L n.d. 0.02 0.05
Lead Pb mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.1
Mercury Hg mg/L n.d. 0.005 0.01
Copper Cu mg/L 0.01 0.1 0.2
Cadmium Cd mg/L n.d. 0.001 0.01
Chromium Trivalent Cr mg/L 0.5 0.5 0.8
Chromium Hexavalent Cr mg/L 0.05 0.1 0.1
Nickel Ni mg/L 1.0 1.0 0.1
Silver Ag mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01
Vanadium V mg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0
Boron B mg/L 1.0 1.0 1.0
Arsenic As mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.2
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Table B2: World Bank and WHO water quality standard (all values in mg/l except where indicated)
Draft World Bank Guidelines

World Health Organisation 1996
Parameter August 1995 (discharge water
(drinking water quality)
quality)
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
Draft World Bank Guidelines

World Health Organisation 1996
Parameter August 1995 (discharge water
(drinking water quality)
quality)
Sulfide - -
Sulphate 250
TDS - 1000c
Temp increase <5 -
Total hardness
True Colour 15
TSS 50 -
Turbidity (NTU) - 5c
Zn 1 3
Table B3: South African water quality standard

Parameter Units Guideline value
Algae (Chlorophyll a) ug/l chl a 0.001
Aluminium mg/l 0.15
Ammonia mgN/l 1
Arsenic mg/l 0.01
Atrazine mg/l 0.002
Cadmium mg/l 0.003
Calcium mg/l 32
Chloride mg/l 100
Chromium (VI) mg/l 0.05
Coliphages counts/100ml 1
Colour 15
Copper mg/l 1
Dissolved Organic Carbon mgC/l 5
Electrical Conductivity mS/m 70
Enteric Viruses TCID50/10l 0
Faecal Coliforms counts/100ml 0
Fluoride mg/l 0.7
Heterotrophic Plate Counts counts/1ml 100
Iron mg/l 0.5
Lead mg/l 0.01
Magnesium mg/l 70
Manganese mg/l 0.1
Mercury mg/l 0.001
Nitrate mg/l N 6
Odour TON 1
pH 6-9
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Parameter Units Guideline value

Phenol mg/l 0.001
Potassium mg/l 25
Protozoan Parasites cysts/10l 0
Radium(226) Bq/l 0.42
Radium(228) Bq/l 0.42
Radon(222) Bq/l 11
Selenium mg/l 0.02
Sodium mg/l 100
Sulphate mg/l 200
Thorium (232) Bq/l 0.228
Total Coliforms counts/100ml 0
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 450
Total Hardness mgCaCO3/l 100
Trihalomethanes mg/l 0.1
Turbidity NTU 0.1
Uranium (238) mg/l 0.07
Vanadium mg/l 0.1
Zinc mg/l 3
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
APPENDIX C
Monitoring Sites Photographs
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Figure C1: Marvoe Creek monitoring site M1
Figure C2 Marvoe Creek monitoring site M2
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Figure C4: Water level data logger installed at monitoring site M1
Figure C4: Rain gauge installation at NLGM camp offices
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Figure C5: Flow measurement performed at monitoring site M1
Figure C6: Flow measurement performed at monitoring site M2
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
APPENDIX D
Flow Monitoring Data
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Table D1: Monitoring data collected at surface water monitoring site M1

Date GP (m) Discharge (Q, m3/s)
01-Dec-10 0.39 7.559
15-Dec-10 0.28 2.624
29-Dec-10 0.30 1.995
10-Jan-11 0.20 1.377
17-Jan-11 0.20 0.900
25-Jan-11 0.28 2.449
01-Feb-11 0.20 0.613
09-Feb-11 0.20 0.355
21-Feb-11 0.34 0.229
15-Mar-11 0.30 0.549
01-Apr-11 0.10 0.079
15-Apr-11 0.05 0.047
13-May-11 0.19 0.685
29-May-11 0.20 0.662
21-Jul-11 0.40 5.107
07-Nov-11 0.40 4.768
21-Nov-11 0.45 2.880
15-Dec-11 0.30 1.246
15-Jan-12 0.20 0.857
26-Jan-12 0.15 0.460
18-Feb-12 0.20 0.118
12-Mar-12 0.25 0.107
Table D2: Monitoring data collected at surface water monitoring site M2

3
Date GP (m) Discharge (Q, m /s)
02-Dec-10 -0.03 5.623
15-Dec-10 -0.15 2.272
29-Dec-10 0.20 2.529
10-Jan-11 0.26 1.328
17/1/2011 0.29 1.079
25-Jan-11 0.16 3.006
01-Feb-11 0.33 0.775
09-Feb-11 0.36 0.390
21-Feb-11 0.40 0.213
07-Nov-11 0.10 3.104
21-Nov-11 0.13 2.406
15-Dec-11 0.00 1.121
09-Jan-12 N/A 0.995
27-Jan-12 N/A 0.302
18-Feb-12 N/A 0.160
12-Mar-12 N/A 0.105
May 2012
Report No. 10612898-11406-2
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
Thandanani Park
Matuka Close
Midrand
South Africa
T: [+27] (11) 254 4800

Section B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEW LIBERTY GOLD MINE (NLGM) PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)

Section B: Surface Water Assessment Report

AUREUS MINING INC

New Liberty Gold Mine Project

Report Number: 10612898-11406-2

Specialist study scope and objectives

The key aims and objectives of this study included:

• An overview of existing baseline conditions;

• Determination of potential impacts on the runoff due to the proposed mine;

Baseline surface water hydrology environment

• Average annual rainfall for the NLGM is 3,500mm;

• Average monthly rainfall given in Table 20;

• Potential evaporation for NLGM is given in Table 26;

• 24h Probably Maximum Precipitation (PMP) of 838mm;

Assessment of potential surface water impacts

Assessment of potential surface water impacts is discussed in Section 11.0.

Assessment of potential surface water impacts is discussed in Section 15.0.

Assessment of potential surface water impacts is discussed in Section 16.0.

• A stormwater channel cleaning program should also be implemented as a standard operating

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

GAA Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd

MASLAB SGS Laboratory Services Ghana Ltd

MLME Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy

NWA National Water Act

PCSWMM PC Storm Water Management Model

PWP Process Water Pond

RMF Regional Maximum Flood

SCS Soil Conservation Service

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

UPD Utility Programs for Drainag

WHO World Health Organization

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.3.1 Mining Method ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.2 Open Pits ................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3.3 Waste Rock Dump................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.4 Gold Processing Plant ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.5 Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) ................................................................................................................ 6

2.3.6 Water Management ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.3.7 Waste Management ................................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Development and Operation ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................................ 9

3.0 PROJECT MOTIVATION ......................................................................................................................................... 11

4.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY .......................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Mineral Resource Estimate.................................................................................................................... 12

6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................... 14

6.1 Site Layout .................................................................................................................................................. 14

6.2 Diversion of the Marvoe Creek .................................................................................................................... 14

6.3 Go-No-Go Project Alternative...................................................................................................................... 15

7.0 SPECIALIST STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 15

7.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................ 15

7.1.1 Desktop review of relevant documentation ............................................................................................ 15

7.1.2 Delineation of study area for the assessment ........................................................................................ 16

7.1.3 Field work .............................................................................................................................................. 16

7.1.3.1 Flow monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 16

7.1.3.2 Water quality monitoring..................................................................................................................... 21

7.2 Assumptions and limitations ........................................................................................................................ 22

8.0 SURFACE WATER BASELINE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 22