❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding the determination of historic groundwater levels near the Fimiston tailings dams, specifically within Prospecting Licence 26/3126, and the adequacy of KCGM's public reporting on the matter. The Minister acknowledges public concerns about the clarity of KCGM's report and has requested revisions.
AnsweredQoN 3409Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Fimiston 1 and Fimiston 2 tailings dams and Prospecting Licence 26/3126 located in close proximity to the Fimiston 1 tailings dam -
(1) Can the Minister identify and state the historic groundwater level within P26/3126 prior to the Fimiston 1 and Fimiston 2 tailings dams being constructed?
(2) If no to (1), why does the DoE not insist that KCGM determine historic groundwater levels in accordance with the Minister’s instructions to the Department?
(3) Will the Minister request that KCGM clearly identify and produce a public plan showing what the historic groundwater levels were prior to the Fimiston 1 tailings dam being constructed in the area of Prospecting Licence 26/3126?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Will the Minister request that KCGM clearly identify and explain on a map how individual historic groundwater levels were determined on P26/3126 and all the surrounding areas so as any lay member of the public can simply look at the map and see very easily, without complications or lengthy interpretations, how the historic groundwater levels were determined, including the specific ground level contours for the entire area?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(1) Can the Minister identify and state the historic groundwater level within P26/3126 prior to the Fimiston 1 and Fimiston 2 tailings dams being constructed?
(2) If no to (1), why does the DoE not insist that KCGM determine historic groundwater levels in accordance with the Minister’s instructions to the Department?
(3) Will the Minister request that KCGM clearly identify and produce a public plan showing what the historic groundwater levels were prior to the Fimiston 1 tailings dam being constructed in the area of Prospecting Licence 26/3126?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Will the Minister request that KCGM clearly identify and explain on a map how individual historic groundwater levels were determined on P26/3126 and all the surrounding areas so as any lay member of the public can simply look at the map and see very easily, without complications or lengthy interpretations, how the historic groundwater levels were determined, including the specific ground level contours for the entire area?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
30 May 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
28 days
(2) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (KCGM) has prepared a Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's appeal determinations. As part of this plan KCGM has released for comment a historical water level review titled "Estimation of groundwater level distribution prior to the commencement of the Fimiston tailings disposal operations" (KCGM, January 2006) for public comment. I bring to your attention that the report highlights the area containing this prospecting lease as Sector C, an area of thin weathered material that occasionally contains very thin layers of aquifer material. I also note that the report expects there to be limited opportunity to extract groundwater from this area and that the current operating strategy should remain. However, this matter will be further considered by DoE and discussed with KCGM to determine whether it is possible to determine historical water levels in this Sector. (3) As per (2). (4) Not applicable. (5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(3) As per (2). (4) Not applicable. (5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable.
(3) As per (2). (4) Not applicable. (5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(5) The historical water level review outlined in (2) was released for public comment for three weeks closing on 14 April 2006. During this period a number of comments were received in regards to the difficulty that community members had in understanding the mapping within the report. The DoE also met with concerned members of the public and discussed alternative formats that may assist in understanding the mapping. DoE considers that the request made by members of the public to improve the mapping was reasonable and have therefore requested KCGM alter the report accordingly. It will then be necessary to have a second comment period on the historic water level review. The extent of the second comment period will depend on the extent of changes required to the document. DoE will ensure those who made a submission during the initial review period will be involved in the second review. However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
However, I am advised that contour mapping of historical water levels may not be achievable in all areas, particularly where there is significant uncertainty due to influences such as limited historical data and/or poor aquifer systems. (6) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable.
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.