Initial Hydrogeological Investigations

In 2005 the Planning Permit was altered to include the need for the completion of a hydrogeological report into the possible impacts of mine dewatering on the groundwater in the area. This groundwater has served as a stock watering amenity for the farmers in Costerfield for generations. 

The mine was able to subvert this condition with the acquiescence of the regulators by twisting the wording of Permit Condition 24. The so-called report that was eventually presented to the Environmental Review Committee by AGD was, in fact, merely a seven-page letter.

No evidence of the commissioning of a completed initial hydrogeological report has ever been presented by the mine, merely the letter calling for an expression of interest that is transcribed below. A copy is available here.

Dewatering nevertheless (re)commenced and further potential cumulative irreversible environmental damage to the groundwater system was allowed to proceed under the watch of the Responsible Authority.


Who were the regulatory officers who confirmed that the letter calling for an expression of interest from URS was actually a commissioning document? 

On what basis?

 Can we see the commissioning document?

***

Planning Permit 
DM/753/03 – Permit for an Underground Mine
14 January 2004

[Condition] 26. Three (3) bores at locations to be determined by Goulburn-Murray Water in consultation with the Responsible Authority, shall be installed up to one (1) kilometre from the mining site, with two (2) being downstream and at least one (1) being one 1 (km) from the mine site and regular results observed to monitor any impacts of the dewatering on the groundwater levels be reported to the Environmental Review Committee.

There was obviously concern about the impact on groundwater levels from the mine’s dewatering operations. And, of course, there would be. The farmers in the area have been using the groundwater-fed creeks and water holes for over a century to water their stock all year round. The creeks retract into a series of pools and ponds (real ponds: frog live in them) but never completely dry up. Flows cease but the water remains. 

Remained.

ERC Meeting
9 March 2005

4.2 Current Status of Approval Process

Colin Burns stated that the Work Plan Variation had been submitted to DPI and had been referred to various departments and authorities and was very close to the stage where it would be endorsed.

Colin Thornton confirmed that this was the case and that the only outstanding matter related to DSE desire to detailed management plans for offset sites prior to endorsement.

Colin Burns indicated further discussions would be held with DSE and that once endorsement had been received an application for a Planning Permit would be made.

Colin Burns stated that hydrogeological work to produce detailed designs for the groundwater monitoring and seepage detection systems was planned.

Fred Shea suggested there was a government hydrogeological group that could be able to undertake this work. Colin Burns agreed to contact them.

***

Obviously endorsement took place because the Permit acquired a new condition to replace Condition 26 of the previous Permit iteration. And why would it not? This seems like a pretty good condition; one that addresses the issues raised at the ERC meeting very thoroughly.

Planning Permit 

DM/253/2005 – Permit for an Underground Mine
11 August 2005

 ***

And so Colin Burns contacted URS. He explains the process undertaken to get the condition altered. Doesn’t sound like he was too pleased about all the trouble he was having to go to.

Letter: Colin Burns to Bryan Chadwick (URS)

6 July 2005

Hydrogeological Investigation
Impact of Mine Dewatering at Costerfield

1. Introduction

AGD Operations Pty Ltd requires the services of a hydrogeological consultant and invites URS Australia Pty Ltd to submit a proposal for the provision of those services.

2. Background

Mining of the Augusta deposit will require mine dewatering and the potential for the lowering of groundwater levels on the supply of water to properties in the area needs to be considered. Consideration of this matter thus far is summarised below.

·        Preliminary investigations into the impact of the mine dewatering on groundwater levels indicate that the zone of impact will extend up to 1500 metres from the mine.

·        There is one registered “bore” within the 1500 metres of the proposed mine that is licensed for groundwater extraction and this bore is I fact a disused mine shaft from which water is no longer extracted.

·        There are no known users of groundwater in the area.

It has been concluded from the above that mine dewatering will not have any detrimental impact on groundwater use, however some concern has been expressed by local landowners in regard to the impact of such dewatering on water sources within their properties.

On several properties in the area water is obtained from “collection points” which are apparently fed by a combination of surface run-off and water that enters the collection point through the ground. Water continues to enter these collection points after surface run-off has ceased and as a result there is a belief amongst property owners that they are fed from groundwater. While there is some evidence, in terms of the water quality and the relative depths of the collection points and the groundwater, that this belief could well be erroneous, the perception remains. In response to these concerns, the City of Greater Bendigo included the following in a Planning Permit relating to the proposal for an underground mine.

Three (3) bores at locations to be determined by Gouburn-Murray Water in consultation with the Responsible Authority, shall be installed up to one (1) kilometre from the mining site, with two (2) being downstream and at least one (1) being one 1 (km) from the mine site and regular results observed to monitor any impacts of the dewatering on the groundwater levels be reported to the Environmental Review Committee.

Subsequent to the grant of this permit AGD decided to vary the proposal to include an open pit mine thus requiring a new Planning Permit. In the course of applying for a new permit AGD pointed out that the above condition was nonsensical and was unlikely to achieve the result required. In response the Council determined that the above condition be replaced with the following:

Prior to the commencement of mine dewatering a qualified hydrogeologist will be commissioned to complete an investigation into the existence of a hydrological connection between the groundwater in the area of the mine and the water collection points utilised on properties in the area as a source of water, the need for a groundwater monitoring program to enable assessment of the impact of the mine dewatering on water supplies and, if such a needs exists, a detailed design of such a program. The hydrogeologist’s report will be provided to Goulburn Murray Water, the Responsible Authority and the Environmental Review Committee and must be to the satisfaction of Goulburn Murray Water and the Responsible Authority.

It is apparent from the foregoing that a hydrogeological study needs to be completed.

***

And one would presumably also say that it is apparent, too, that that study be completed prior to the commencement of mine dewatering. 

It should have been (and in the end obviously was) a pretty simple investigation. Burns was kind enough to provide URS with not only the three pieces of evidence they should deem pertinent, but also the conclusion that could be drawn (“It has been concluded from the above”) from their mere presentation: “that mine dewatering will not have any detrimental impact on groundwater use.” Still, to assuage those “local landowners” and their worries about, perhaps, losing some of the Constitutionally-guaranteed amenity of water that they employ to maintain their stock, the report would have to be done; “needs to be completed”.

He also manages to twist the natural questioning of an uncertainty into something that is somehow inconceivable: “While there is some evidence, in terms of the water quality and the relative depths of the collection points and the groundwater, that this belief could well be erroneous, the perception remains.” Perhaps those naïve landowners are confusing “water that enters the collection point[s] through the ground” with them being “fed from groundwater”.

Obviously the perception remains because there is only “some evidence” that the “belief could well be erroneous”. “Some”, “could well be” – not very convincing stuff. Scientific uncertainty? You aren’t going to change “local landowners’” minds with that sort of vacillation. They’ve been here for generations and reckon they know the land a little better than Burns. Believe it or not, they want evidence before they let you perpetrate irreversible damage to their lands.

And to say that there “are no known users of groundwater in the area” is a blatant lie. As explained above, farmers in the area have used the groundwater-fed creeks and “collection points” for generations. The groundwater was always available and did not need to be accessed via bores.

In any case, at least Burns was clear in his final sentence here as to what had to happen: “It is apparent from the foregoing that a hydrogeological study needs to be completed.” [Emphasis added.]

Here is the first sentence of that Permit condition again. “Prior to the commencement of the mine a qualified hydrogeologist will be commissioned to complete an investigation into the existence of a hydrological connection…” Seems simple enough. Get someone in to do a report so you know what the situation is before you dewater. One would not want to begin possibly destructive actions upon the groundwater system without knowing of the possibility or extent of any hydrological connection. Would one? And one wouldn’t want to possibly compromise the investigation by commencing dewatering before a qualified hydrogeologist had assessed the extant, “baseline” conditions? Would one? That would be like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, surely. 

Scientific uncertainty irreversible damage, cumulative impacts...

Yet despite the lack of any such report and in total disregard of this condition, the Permit was stamped (see above) by COGB’s Greg Speirs on 11 August, 2005.

***

Now listen in on the 8 March 2006 ERC Meeting where a local resident ERC Member asks about the completion of this initial hydrogeological report:

6.4 Groundwater
6.4.1 Groundwater Levels

Groundwater levels have been monitored at a variety of locations during the pre-production dewatering that occurred during January and February. Results show that the water level at the point of pumping has fallen some 18.5 metres while water levels at all other points have fallen much less (0 to 2 metres).

Colin Thornton observed that the results are only indicative of what has happened during the preliminary stages of dewatering. Colin Burns agreed and indicated that monitoring would be on going.

B** asked why the DPI had approved the commencement of dewatering when the Planning Permit required that a hydrogeological study be completed prior to commencement of dewatering.

Colin Thornton indicated that while DPI was not responsible for enforcing planning permit conditions, they were not aware that any breach of planning permit conditions had occurred.

Colin Burns stated that the Planning Permit requirement had been satisfied since the requirement is that “Prior to the commencement of dewatering a qualified hydrogeologist will be commissioned to complete an investigation….” [Emphasis actually in the original ERC Minutes!] A hydrogeologist has been commissioned and has provided a report, a copy of which has been provided to all ERC members. The fact that the report recommends further work and that such recommendations have been accepted by AGD [!!] does not mean that dewatering should not be commenced prior to the completion of further work. 

Colin Thornton noted that the further work recommended by the hydrologist cannot be conducted unless dewatering is commenced.

Greg Speirs indicated that he did not believe that the commencement of dewatering was breach of the planning permit conditions but that he would review the matter.

It is almost as if someone asked for a sentence that could be used as an example of a breach of the precautionary principle here. 

Compare these two utterances, please:

The fact that the report recommends further work and that such recommendations have been accepted by AGD does not mean that dewatering should not be commenced prior to the completion of further work.

 and

Lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment

At Costerfield, then, it would seem that lack of full scientific certainty - the fact that "further work" needs to be done - should not be used as an excuse to postpone the continuation of dewatering - dewatering that may pose the threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment. Whatever the mine might want.

Say hello and good-bye to the precautionary principle at Costerfield!

And, here, we also have two regulators, Speirs and Thornton, facilitating the commencement of mining operations in contravention of Planning Permit condition 24 by acceding to the tortuous semantics of the mine’s representative, Colin Burns. The Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority representative, Gordon O’Brien, remained silent. No Goulburn-Murray Water Representative was in attendance or offered an Apology.

And here we also learn that dewatering had already commenced in January and February. 

So the horse had bolted. 

Would it really be the case that Council, in order to assess the impact of the mine “prior to …dewatering” would call for the mere commissioning of a hydrogeologist? Indeed there appear to be at least two, and probably three tasks that need completing

to complete an investigation into the existence of a hydrological connection between the groundwater in the area of the mine and the water collection points utilised on properties in the area as a source of water, the need for a groundwater monitoring program to enable assessment of the impact of the mine dewatering on water supplies and, if such a needs exists, a detailed design of such a program.

Surely it was intended that the results of this investigation be known before dewatering commenced, no? That would be the point of the “assessment”. Did Council intend that the detailed design of a groundwater monitoring program be provided prior to the completion of the very investigations that would inform that program? And it would be irresponsible of the Responsible Authority to give the greenlight to mine dewatering before the results of any investigation were in, thereby possibly causing irreversible damage to a groundwater system they knew little about, surely.

“commissioned to complete”; “It is apparent from the foregoing that a hydrogeological study needs to be completed.”

But the mine had already been allowed to dewater in January and February – producing a drop in groundwater in places of up to 18.5 metres – “Colin Thornton observed that the results [i.e., the drop in groundwater levels!] are only indicative of what has happened during the preliminary stages of dewatering” [!!!] – and was then allowed to proceed with its dewatering and the expansion of its area of impact, merely by alleging the commissioning of a study.

There is, of course, the mention here of the “report” produced by the allegedly commissioned hydrogeologist that had been “provided to all ERC Members”. This so-called report is in fact a seven-page letter. It begins with the words: “This letter…”

Being only seven pages long, it goes nowhere near satisfying any criteria by which the word “report” is usually judged and quite naturally recommends “further work”. (Fortunately these recommendations were “accepted by AGD”. Phew! At least the mine’s happy!) The hydrogeologist says that more work needs to be completed and Colin Thornton takes this as a greenlight to go ahead with the dewatering because apparently the hydrogeological investigations now require it… well, they would, by now, wouldn’t they? No use trying to discover the conditions prior to dewatering when the area had already been dewatered for two months against Planning Permit conditions. They may as well carry on mining, now, eh?

It should be noted again as extremely important that the Burns’ letter to which we refer here is actually merely a call for the submission of a proposal; it is NOT a commission at all. 

AGD Operations Pty Ltd requires the services of a hydrogeological consultant and invites URS Australia Pty Ltd to submit a proposal for the provision of those services.

Yet, this is the evidence of the commissioning of a hydrogeologist that was presented by the mine to the ERC and was accepted by the regulators as fulfilling Permit conditions, as we shall see in what follows below.

Can we see the commissioning documents?

***

(In an interesting aside regarding matters that will be referred to elsewhere – the extent of the mine’s “zone of impact” or “cone of depression” – consider the information contained in this Work Plan Variation to the Open Cut Permit for ML 4644:

WPV February 2005

7.6 Groundwater Environment

The potential impacts on the groundwater environment include contamination by way of discharge of contaminated water to the groundwater and a lowering of the water table impacting on groundwater users.

The only potential source of contaminated water entering the groundwater is by way of seepage from the evaporation pond. The only variation described here that has the potential to influence seepage from the evaporation pond is the use of a geomembrane liner which reduces the potential for such seepage.

A detailed search of the records for the Costerfield area revealed no registered bores, other than those drilled by AGD for mineral exploration purposes, within 2000 metres of the site. This is not surprising when the quality of the groundwater, which makes it unsuitable for the majority of potential uses, is considered.

The results of hydrogeological studies into the impact of mine dewatering on water table levels indicate that a cone of depression with a radius of 1000 metres will be produced. [Emphasis added.]

So in February of 2005, the cone of depression – the impact of the mine’s dewatering – was estimated to have the potential to extend 1000 metres. Yet in his letter to Bryan Chadwick of 6 July, 2005, regarding the underground mine, Colin Burns states the “zone of impact” to now be 1500 metres.

No mention is made in the Permit governing the Underground Mine of the extent of the potential cone of depression. It’s getting bigger and bigger without comment from the Regulators.

We have also spoken in a previous submission of the relative (un)desirability of a geomembrane liner over a correctly prepared clay liner in order to “reduce the potential for seepage”, and the specific Permit requirements that the clay liner be constructed “to prevent seepage”. Here’s that “pond” again.

Is the use of a geomembrane liner really the “only variation described here that has the potential to influence seepage from the evaporation pond”? We would say definitely not, because the decision to use the clay liner as merely a base for holding the liner is in and of itself a variation that would potentially influence seepage.

There is no discussion as to why the clay liner was not constructed, but it is, of course, much easier and cheaper to install a plastic liner than to properly work the clay walls to specifications...

Oh and the reason no one in the area sank any bores in order to exercise their right to the amenity of groundwater use on their properties was because the creeks never ran completely dry and the groundwater “collection points” were usually wet. No one had much of a need for bores because there was always a usable quantity of groundwater available. 

People took fish out of the Wappentake Creek over Easter. 

And then dewatering began.)

***

To resume the discussion of the “commissioning” of the initial hydrogeological report.

Recall that the initial 18.5m drop in groundwater levels was “only indicative of what has happened during the preliminary stages of dewatering”. Certainly there was a drought. Still, Costerfield was spared much of the pain as it received around 75% of its usual rainfall over the period.

ERC Minutes April 2007
3. Minutes of Previous meeting

[Local landowner/farmer ERC Member] G*** suggested that the minutes circulated should be modified as follows:

a)     The record of his statement in regard to the length of time since water holes on his property were dry should be modified to state that those water holes are now dry for the first time since original selection of the land in the 1850s.

b)     That a record of his statement made at the meeting that Amelia O’Neil [URS] agreed with his view that water quality will change as it passes through the earth to the groundwater in the basement [aquifer].

It was moved by Bob Disken that the modifications suggested by G*** be made and that, given those modifications that the draft minutes be accepted as true record of the meeting. This motion was seconded by B*** and passed without dissent.

Business Arising

B*** stated that at no stage did he criticise the quality of the work performed in the hydrogeological investigation but he did believe that the scope of the investigations was too limited because it did not adequately cover issues of water quality. B*** further indicated that his interpretation of the Planning Permit condition and the contents of the approved work plan was that consideration of water quality issues was a definite requirement.

Colin Burns stated that such an interpretations [sic] of the permit condition and the contents of the approved work plan were wrong, and that water quality issues were not being considered because there is no suggestion that mine dewatering could impact on groundwater quality.

B*** stated that the use of piper plots was aimed at considering water quality issues.

Colin Burns stated that this view was wrong and that piper plots had been used to determine differences, if such differences exist, between water from various places, not to enable water quality assessment.

B*** stated that Amelia O’Neil, of URS, had advised him that URS had never been commissioned to conduct investigations aimed at determining whether a connection between surface water, alluvial aquifers and the basement aquifer exist.

Colin Burns stated that he found this very difficult to believe since the letter commissioning URS to undertake hydrogeological investigations included condition 24 of the Planning Permit, which clearly states that the commission is to “complete an investigation into the existence of a hydrogeological connection between groundwater in the arear of the mine and water collection points utilised on properties in the area as a source of water…”

Bob Disken reiterated the view of DPI that the hydrogeological investigations had been adequate, so far.

B*** stated that AGD were in breach of Planning permit condition 24.

Greg Speirs advised that this matter has been raised by B*** previously and referred to Dale Samson, the Council senior officer on mining matters, and the decision made was that Condition 24 was satisfied.

In his letter to Bryan Chadwick of URS in July of 2005, Burns had noted that “While there is some evidence, in terms of the water quality and the relative depths of the collection points and the groundwater…”. [Emphasis added.] So water quality was not a concept that was unfamiliar to him with regards AGD’s Costerfield Operations.  Yet here, he disavows any concern for consideration of the what he now deems to be "water quality" on the basis that AGD’s piper plots are supposed to measure “differences… between water from various places, not to enable water quality assessment”.

Differences in what? The chemistry of the water… that is, its quality.There's piper plots for you, in a nutshell.

(It should also be noted here that a "Water Quality Monitoring Program" was subsequently instigated at the site...)

Not only does this exchange reveal the acquiescence of the regulators to the verbal gymnastics of Burns, but it also indicates just how concerned the mine was about environmental conditions and the impacts its operations would have on its neighbours’ amenity. (The answer? Not very much at all!)  Piper plots can be, and usually are, readily employed to assess water quality, but that was not of concern to AGD. Or the regulators.

The hydrogeological investigations were “adequate, so far” apparently. Damned by faint praise from Bob.

 Can we see Dale Samson’s report to Council that accepts the request for an expression of interest as a commission?

No matter how you juggle it, a seven-page letter is not an initial hydrogeological report.

Did someone say scientific uncertainty?
Did someone say cumulative impacts?

We no longer have any way of knowing what the conditions were in Costerfield prior to dewatering for the mine. Any conclusions drawn about the impact of the mine over the past decade are, in effect, speculative, given the scientific uncertainty regarding any initial baseline assessment.