❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment's (DoE) handling of KCGM's groundwater management plan, particularly regarding timelines for historical groundwater level research and public consultation. The Minister defends the DoE's decisions, citing standard processes and the complexity of the research.
AnsweredQoN 2956Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the final KCGM Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan dated September 29 2005 and the Department of Environment (DoE) file note titled ‘Note on Reissue of Licence 6420’ dated September 29 2005,
(1) Can the Minister state why the DoE endorsed KCGM to be able to have from at least September 29 2005 till January 31 2006, nearly four months to produce historical ground water levels?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state how the DoE justifies giving KCGM a period from January 2005 until January 2006 the time to research and produce what they regard as being the historical ground water levels when a three week public comment period on the historical ground water levels is only available to the public?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how the DoE then justifies endorsing KCGM to have a further four weeks from February 21 2006 until the March 31 2006, to produce a further final report on historical groundwater levels which will have no public review?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DoE has not made KCGM identify the historical groundwater levels in the area in question prior to the establishment of the Oroya tailings dam if it is their intention to establish the true historical groundwater levels in the area?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Is it correct that the DoE has imposed a works approval condition which states ‘The granting of Works Approvals for the three remaining 2.5 metre TSF height increases will be subject to KCGM demonstrating to the satisfaction of the DoE that their Groundwater Management Plan is achieving the agreed reductions in groundwater levels’ which precludes further lifts of the tailings until KCGM demonstrates to the satisfaction of the DoE that their seepage and groundwater management plan is achieving the agreed reductions in groundwater levels?
(10) Can the Minister therefore explain why the DoE has endorsed a seepage and groundwater management plan (SGMP) dated September 29 2005, which states ‘The Achievement of all targets in this SGMP is not necessary to confirm the success of this plan’?
(11) Does the Minister consider there is ambiguity between the works approval conditions and the SGMP statement in question (10) above?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) If yes to (11), why?
(14) Will the DoE ask KCGM to identify the historical groundwater levels beneath the Oroya Tailings dam prior to its construction to establish the true historical groundwater levels in the area?
(1) Can the Minister state why the DoE endorsed KCGM to be able to have from at least September 29 2005 till January 31 2006, nearly four months to produce historical ground water levels?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state how the DoE justifies giving KCGM a period from January 2005 until January 2006 the time to research and produce what they regard as being the historical ground water levels when a three week public comment period on the historical ground water levels is only available to the public?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how the DoE then justifies endorsing KCGM to have a further four weeks from February 21 2006 until the March 31 2006, to produce a further final report on historical groundwater levels which will have no public review?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DoE has not made KCGM identify the historical groundwater levels in the area in question prior to the establishment of the Oroya tailings dam if it is their intention to establish the true historical groundwater levels in the area?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Is it correct that the DoE has imposed a works approval condition which states ‘The granting of Works Approvals for the three remaining 2.5 metre TSF height increases will be subject to KCGM demonstrating to the satisfaction of the DoE that their Groundwater Management Plan is achieving the agreed reductions in groundwater levels’ which precludes further lifts of the tailings until KCGM demonstrates to the satisfaction of the DoE that their seepage and groundwater management plan is achieving the agreed reductions in groundwater levels?
(10) Can the Minister therefore explain why the DoE has endorsed a seepage and groundwater management plan (SGMP) dated September 29 2005, which states ‘The Achievement of all targets in this SGMP is not necessary to confirm the success of this plan’?
(11) Does the Minister consider there is ambiguity between the works approval conditions and the SGMP statement in question (10) above?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) If yes to (11), why?
(14) Will the DoE ask KCGM to identify the historical groundwater levels beneath the Oroya Tailings dam prior to its construction to establish the true historical groundwater levels in the area?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
117 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: This information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) KCGM in the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan (then called Groundwater Management Plan by KCGM) released for public comment in July 2005 had the timeline for developing historical limits by June 2006, without any reference to public consultation. The DoE response was provided in answers to Question on Notice 2884, but included the need for KCGM to reconsider this timeframe and to include public consultation. In particular the DoE considered that historical levels could be determined in a contemporary setting in around three months once a contractor had been appointed. It is expected that this task will require KCGM to do an extensive search for any literature and raw data on historical groundwater levels in the area. It is also expected that extensive groundwater contouring, modelling and mapping will have to be undertaken. The public consultation period of 21 days is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
This information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) KCGM in the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan (then called Groundwater Management Plan by KCGM) released for public comment in July 2005 had the timeline for developing historical limits by June 2006, without any reference to public consultation. The DoE response was provided in answers to Question on Notice 2884, but included the need for KCGM to reconsider this timeframe and to include public consultation. In particular the DoE considered that historical levels could be determined in a contemporary setting in around three months once a contractor had been appointed. It is expected that this task will require KCGM to do an extensive search for any literature and raw data on historical groundwater levels in the area. It is also expected that extensive groundwater contouring, modelling and mapping will have to be undertaken. The public consultation period of 21 days is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(1) KCGM in the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan (then called Groundwater Management Plan by KCGM) released for public comment in July 2005 had the timeline for developing historical limits by June 2006, without any reference to public consultation. The DoE response was provided in answers to Question on Notice 2884, but included the need for KCGM to reconsider this timeframe and to include public consultation. In particular the DoE considered that historical levels could be determined in a contemporary setting in around three months once a contractor had been appointed. It is expected that this task will require KCGM to do an extensive search for any literature and raw data on historical groundwater levels in the area. It is also expected that extensive groundwater contouring, modelling and mapping will have to be undertaken. The public consultation period of 21 days is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
The public consultation period of 21 days is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
This information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) KCGM in the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan (then called Groundwater Management Plan by KCGM) released for public comment in July 2005 had the timeline for developing historical limits by June 2006, without any reference to public consultation. The DoE response was provided in answers to Question on Notice 2884, but included the need for KCGM to reconsider this timeframe and to include public consultation. In particular the DoE considered that historical levels could be determined in a contemporary setting in around three months once a contractor had been appointed. It is expected that this task will require KCGM to do an extensive search for any literature and raw data on historical groundwater levels in the area. It is also expected that extensive groundwater contouring, modelling and mapping will have to be undertaken. The public consultation period of 21 days is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(1) KCGM in the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan (then called Groundwater Management Plan by KCGM) released for public comment in July 2005 had the timeline for developing historical limits by June 2006, without any reference to public consultation. The DoE response was provided in answers to Question on Notice 2884, but included the need for KCGM to reconsider this timeframe and to include public consultation. In particular the DoE considered that historical levels could be determined in a contemporary setting in around three months once a contractor had been appointed. It is expected that this task will require KCGM to do an extensive search for any literature and raw data on historical groundwater levels in the area. It is also expected that extensive groundwater contouring, modelling and mapping will have to be undertaken. The public consultation period of 21 days is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
The public consultation period of 21 days is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(3) The DoE endorsed the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan on 29 September 2005 and required development of the draft historical water levels by 31 January 2006, a period of only four months. A 21 day comment period is considered standard under Part V processes within the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . It is considered reasonable that it takes longer to research and produce a document than to provide comment on it. (4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(5) The DoE considers that five weeks is a reasonable timeframe for KCGM to consider all of the comments expected to be received during the public comment period. This may result in the need for additional groundwater modelling and contour mapping. As achieving historical groundwater levels is considered a long term goal this timeframe to consider all comments is considered reasonable. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(7) The DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting. It is acknowledged that the topography and land uses within the catchment have changed since gold was first discovered on the Golden Mile. To that end historical groundwater levels need to be considered within the future natural groundwater distribution based on current land uses and topography. (8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(8) Not applicable. (9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(9) This was answered in Question on Notice 2585. (10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(10) The Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan is attached to the license by way of a condition on licence 6420/10 and will be an evolving document with objectives and framework as outlined in Question on Notice 2885 (1) & (5). The objectives and frameworks within Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan do not only relate to reductions in groundwater levels. (11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(11) No. (12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(12) As per (10). (13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(13) Not applicable. (14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
(14) As per (7) the DoE considers that KCGM needs to establish historical groundwater levels within a contemporary setting.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.