Even More Media Misinformation

6. The Wappentake Creek is Not Dry "At Least 40% of the Time"
We have shown here that the initial hydrogeological assessment declared that the Wappentake Creek was not an ephemeral creek; that it flowed most of the year.

Groundwater is always an issue for underground mining, and it is a persistent issue in Bendigo.

On 20 February, 2013, Mandalay Resources produced a Hydrological Assessment - Application for Groundwater (Take and Use) Licence Increase to inform its application to increase dewatering for the Costerfield mine from 179ML/year to 700ML/year.

"An earlier application had been made by Mandalay to Gouldburn-Murray Water for an increase from 179 ML/a to 350 ML/a however in light of recent mine drainage inflows and the potential for underground mining activities to expand in the future, an increase in the requested entitlement of 700 ML/a is now considered an appropriate volume to cover this contingency." (p. v)

(Note that at this stage there was no Splitters Creek Evaporation Facility to actually deal with this more than tripling of groundwater extraction "entitlement". 

And then there's this...)

On page 14 of its report, URS, the mine's preferred consultancy firm, summarises the flow data for the Wappentake Creek and Major Creek thusly:

Table 4.1 below summarises the flow exceedance data for both stations over the same data period from March 1981 to May 1986 and it can be seen that for over 40% of the time (40% of the 1,884 days over the 1981-1986 data period) flow in both creeks was effectively zero.

The portion of the residual mass rainfall curve for Heathcote rainfall between 1950 and 2013, which covered the 1980s creek flow data period, shows clearly in Figure C1, the 1982 drought, which resulted in an extended period of zero flow in the creek. However there are periods throughout the monitoring record where data was collected, when there was no flow in the creek.

So, to summarise the summary:

Representative water flow in the Wappentake Creek was measured over a 5-year period. For one year of that period there was a drought. Even so, the Wappentake Creek flowed 60% of the time.

Anyone who has bothered to visit Costerfield to actually see the Wappentake Creek will know that the water there is captured in various pools and ponds (real ponds, where frogs live, or at least used to). Flow is not constant but there is always water there. Was.

When he first came across the Wappentake Creek on October 7, 1836, Major Thomas Mitchell had this to say in his diaries:

VALLEY OF THE DEEGAY.
October 7.
The whole of this day’s journey (fourteen miles) was along the same valley that we had entered yesterday. The deep bed of a stream, then containing a chain of ponds only, pursued a meandering course through it.

A chain of ponds.The deep bed of a stream.

***

By August of 2013, Mandalay Resources was in need of some method to deal with the inflow of groundwater into its mine and so proposed the construction of an evaporation "pond". 

Yup, that's right. Get an increase in dewatering allowance from 179 to 700ML and THEN organise how you're going to deal with it.

Residents weren't impressed. They had already observed diminishing flows in the creek from extant dewatering activities.

This article from the Bendigo Weekly shows their early concerns.

And it also shows the response from the mine, backed up with "data" from Goulburn-Murray Water.

Mandalay Resources' former Sustainability Manager, Mr Andrew Mattiske told the Weekly's reporter that

Goulburn Murray Water data shows the creeks are dry “at least 40 per cent of the time”.
“Putting water down the creeks year round could potentially change the ecology of the creeks,” he said. [Emphasis added.]

Now that is not what the data showed at all, is it? Have a read of that "Summary" again.

Obviously Mr Mattiske did not understand what the regulators' data was indicating. At no point does the URS report based on G-MW data mention the creek being "dry".

In fact, the Wappentake Creek flowed for 60% of the time during which data was collected. And one year of that data collection period was "the 1982 drought".

The Wappentake Creek was not dry "at least 40% of the time". 

"for over 40% of the time (40% of the 1,884 days over the 1981-1986 data period) flow in both creeks was effectively zero"

(Flow in "both" creeks? Effectively? Wonder what that means exactly?)

In any case, this blatant misinformation served to underplay the potential impacts of the proposed evaporative facility on the surface water system in the Wappentake Valley. 

It also serves to minimise any restorative efforts made towards maintaining flows in the creek for ecological/environmental purposes. 

Oh and the utilisation of a reverse osmosis plant capable of dealing with this toxic groundwater water - a plant with an output capacity of 2.5 ML/day - has since occurred and, to date, has not destroyed the Heathcote power grid. 

Oh and the Reverse Osmosis plant does more than just "reduce salinity". It removes a very high proportion of the heavy metals and other chemicals that make the water toxic.


(One would assume that any member of a regulatory authority would have apprised themselves of the quality of the water before making an informed decision to approve the subsequent Splitters Creek Evaporative Facility on the basis of the water being merely salty or saline. Not in the least. Cr Elise Chapman of Bendigo Council was heard to vote in favour of the Splitters Creek facility because there was only going to be "salt" in the water. 

Let's see her put this stuff on her fish and chips.

If this is the quality of people in charge of the decision making in Bendigo, we say good luck to the people of Woodvale!)

And that picture of the mine in Costerfield in the Bendigo Weekly story provided by Mandalay Resources shows an innocuous little mine... from 2006, not 2013... isn't that cheeky? Or contemptible? Or misinformation?