LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY: Brisbane

NUMBER: EPA495-15

MRA496-15

MRA497-15

Applicant: New Acland Coal Pty Ltd ACN 081 022 380

AND

Respondents: Frank Ashman & Ors

AND

Statutory Party: Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

FURTHER STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE TO THE LAND COURT BY BRIAN GEORGE BARNETT

20 FEBRUARY 2017

1. Expert details and qualifications

Name

1.1 My name is Brian George Barnett.

Address

1.2 My business address is Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd of Floor 11, 452 Flinders Street, Melbourne,

in the State of Victoria.

Qualifications

1.3 I am employed by Jacobs (formerly SKM) as a Senior Groundwater Modeller.

1.4 I hold a bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Honours), University of Auckland, 1979.

1.5 Annexure A to my first Statement of Evidence dated 10 May 2016 contains a copy of my curriculum

vitae.

2. Instructions

2.1 I have been requested by Clayton Utz to prepare a statement in relation to the 2016 IESC Final

Advice (which is attached to this statement at Annexure B) and the documentation associated with

that advice, as well as further documents finalised since that advice that are relevant to groundwater

2

issues associated with the Expansion. My letter of instructions from Clayton Utz is contained at

Annexure A.

2.2 A glossary of the terms used in this statement is contained at Schedule 1 to this statement.

3. Background

3.1 I have given groundwater evidence on behalf of the Applicant in these proceedings in the following

forms:

(a) Statement of evidence dated 10 May 2016.1

(b) Joint expert report dated 11 May 2016.2

(c) Oral evidence during the hearing.

3.2 The focus of my evidence in these proceedings to date has been on aspects of the Applicant's

groundwater modelling relating to faulting. Faulting was also an important component of the 2014

IESC Advice and the 2015 IESC Advice as well as the most recent 2016 IESC Final Advice.

3.3 Shortly after giving evidence in these proceedings, I was engaged by the Applicant to attend a

meeting on 30 May 2016 between representatives of the Applicant and its groundwater consultants,

SLR, and representatives of the DoEE including a representative from the OWS. The OWS provides

secretariat and technical support to the IESC. The meeting included a status update of the

continuing work that was being undertaken in relation to groundwater issues associated with the

Expansion including work related to issues that had been previously raised by the IESC. I am also

aware through my engagement as a peer reviewer for the current model update project (referred to in

paragraph 3.6 below) that the Applicant and SLR have had further meetings with representatives of

the DoEE, OWS as well as the DNRM and, as referred to on page 2 of the Groundwater Model

Update - Phase 1 Completion Report referred to below, there has been extensive consultation with

these key stakeholders relating to the upcoming first review of the groundwater model.

3.4 The culmination of the Applicant's engagement with DoEE (including OWS) and DNRM resulted in

the Applicant providing the following additional documents to the DoEE on 24 October 2016:

(a) Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016a").

(b) GMIMP Status Report (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016b").

(c) Make Good Status Report (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016c").

1 Document ID: NAC.0083 (Exhibit 826).

2 Document ID: OCA.0070 (Exhibit 825).

3

(d) Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016d").

3.5 These documents (which are all annexed to this statement at Annexure C to Annexure F) are

referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice along with other documents that are not annexed to this

statement because they either relate to issues other than groundwater or are documents that are

already exhibits in these proceedings (refer to Schedule 2 of this statement as to a list of those other

documents).

3.6 I have been involved in a third party peer reviewer capacity in respect of the Applicant's proposal to

update its groundwater model. As part of this role, I peer reviewed the Fault Hydrogeological

Investigation Program Report and the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report. I

also have an ongoing role in peer reviewing the Applicant's on-going groundwater modelling, which

will include preparation of a peer review report that will be included as an Appendix to the modelling

update report.3

3.7 Subsequent to (and as discussed in) those documents listed in section 3.4 of my statement, the

Applicant prepared the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Drilling and Testing Report

which is annexed to this statement at Annexure G. This document describes pumping tests

undertaken at the Fault Investigation Site that are aimed at quantifying the hydrogeological effects of

the faults at this site. The 2016 IESC Final Advice does not reference this report because it was

completed after the submission of information to the IESC on 24 October 2016, however, it was

foreshadowed in the 2016 IESC Final Advice where the IESC said "The future work program,

including a large-scale pump testwill provide further detailed information on the groundwater

behaviour of faults within the area of groundwater impact".4

3.8 On 18 January 2017, the EPBC Approval for the Expansion was given by the DoEE. The EPBC

Approval and the EPBC Approval Reasons for Decision are annexed to this statement at Annexure H

and Annexure I. Further, prior to giving the EPBC Approval, the Minister for the Environment and

Energy provided draft proposed conditions of the EPBC Approval to the IESC for consideration. On

21 December 2016, the Chair of the IESC provided the DoEE with the IESC Chair Conditions Letter

in which the Chair of the IESC indicated that the "IESC considers that the draft conditions fully

address the matters that were raised in the [2016 IESC Final Advice]." The IESC Chair Conditions

Letter is annexed to this statement at Annexure J.

3.9 This statement includes my opinion about the significance of the groundwater reports listed in

paragraphs 3.4 and 3.7 of my statement, the IESC 2016 Final Advice, the EPBC Approval, the EPBC

Approval Reasons for Decision and the IESC Chair Conditions Letter (collectively the "New

3 Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report, page 9.

4 2016 IESC Final Advice, item 3a., page 3.

4

Groundwater Documents"), in the context of the groundwater issues raised during the course of

these proceedings.

3.10 I have read, and am aware of, criticism of the Applicants response to the 2014 IESC Advice and the

2015 IESC Advice. In particular, I understand that there was a perception that the Applicant had

ignored the earlier advices and had not demonstrated an intention to address the IESC concerns.

For example, I have been shown the following from the transcripts in these proceedings:

(a) Professor Werner in response to a question from Mr Ambrose QC about the model:5

Its also the fact that I dont see people or the conceptualisation or the modelling even

going in the right direction to resolve them, which to me is potentially worse, because

theres so much talk about, in the future we will; in the future we will. I dont see the car

pointing down the right direction of the highway at the moment..

(b) Dr Currell in response to a question from Mr Ambrose QC about whether CG's Imposed

Conditions 10-12 address Dr Currell's concerns:6

The issue with that is that the deficiencies in this model were identified two years ago

by the IESC and they have not been substantially addressed and remedied, which to me

says theres still a great deal of uncertainty, and a lack of confidence that we can place in

this model right now. I dont see that another two years, given the lack of whats been

done over the previous two years is going to you know, I dont have confidence that

thats going to address all the concerns, based on track record. And I guess thats all I can

say.

3.11 Having reviewed the previous IESC Advices and the work that has been undertaken as outlined in

the New Groundwater Documents, I consider that there has been a continuing narrowing of the

issues from the 2014 IESC Advice through to the 2016 IESC Final Advice. In any event the IESC,

through the 2016 IESC Final Advice and the IESC Chair Conditions Letter, has clearly indicated that

it is now satisfied that all of its concerns have been addressed, including through field investigations

and modelling work that is either currently in progress or is planned and through the EPBC Approval

conditions.

3.12 In particular, the IESC has indicated its satisfaction that its residual concerns can effectively be

addressed through the proposed on-going programs of data collection, review and model updates

that are scheduled to occur following approval of the Expansion. In its previous advices, the IESC

had not indicated whether its concerns could be addressed through approval conditions but the 2016

5 T27-66, lines 26-30.

6 T10-85, lines 31-39.

5

IESC Final Advice and the IESC Chair Conditions Letter has put this issue beyond any doubt.

3.13 In my view, there could be no better endorsement of the current state of the groundwater modelling

from the IESC than the following:7

The methods and data used by the proponent in their updated groundwater modelling, as described

in Question 1, are appropriate for this stage of the proposed project and consistent with industry

standards.

3.14 The message is further reinforced by the IESC when they state:8

Matters that remain outstanding could be addressed through collection of additional data before and

during operations.

3.15 Finally, the IESC Chair Conditions Letter indicates:

"The IESC considers that the draft conditions fully address the matters that were raised in the [2016

IESC Final Advice]."

3.16 From my review of the Additional Groundwater Documents, I concur with the findings of the IESC as

outlined in the 2016 IESC Final Advice.

4. The 2016 IESC Final Advice

4.1 In this section of my statement, I discuss the 2016 IESC Final Advice and provide my opinion

regarding the additional documentation which informed that advice.

4.2 My comments below make reference to the IESC's response to the various questions it was asked to

consider.

IESC Question 1

Question 1: Does the additional information reasonably address the technical/scientific matters

raised in the Departments request for additional information dated 20 October 2016, and the key

issues identified in the IESC advice (December 2015), or does it provide a robust process to address

the uncertainties relating to those matters?

Issue 1: Mapping and testing faults

4.3 The previous IESC advices indicated that the IESC considered there to be insufficient evidence to

7 2016 IESC Final Advice, bottom of page 5.

8 2016 IESC Final Advice, under the heading "Response", item 2, page 2.

6

support the inclusion of faults in the groundwater model and to understand how these faults may act

to influence groundwater movement in the region of the mine.9 The IESC no longer requires that the

inclusion and parameterisation of faults in the model be resolved before approval. In my opinion, the

IESC has changed its position on this issue as a result of further information included in the Fault

Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report and the Groundwater Model Update Phase 1

Completion Report.

4.4 The Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report includes a summary of the current

understanding of the faults present at the site and includes further groundwater modelling results that

have helped to illustrate the relative importance (or more particularly the lack of importance) of the

faulting included in the model. This work has highlighted the following matters:

(a) The large number of drillholes present at the site that have been used to define geological

structures including faults.

(b) The hydrogeological significance of the faults.

(c) The sensitivity of the modelling associated with the faulting.

4.5 Page 2 of the 2016 IESC Final Advice refers to Geological mapping and drilling data provided by the

proponent details the location, throw direction and strata offsets of four out of five faults10

within the

proposed project area.. In my opinion, this is referring to the following:

(a) Figure 1, page 3 of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report (reproduced

below as Figure 1) that illustrates the number and location of drillholes constructed at the

site that have been used to help characterise the faults that are present. As indicated on

page 1 of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report, data from almost 3000

individual drillholes have been used to define the geological model and faulting contained

within the geological model. Although there has been criticism during these proceedings

about the amount of data collected, the amount of hydrogeological information available at

the mine site is considerable and, in any event, much greater than at most (if not all)

greenfield mine sites which obtain regulatory approval on the basis that further data will be

collected during mining. Specifically, the Applicant has been able to, and continues to,

collect the following data sets that are usually not available for a greenfield mine site prior

to environmental approval:

(i) geological data obtained both from drillholes (as illustrated in Figure 1) and

from the Stage 1 and 2 mining pits. This data is being used to help identify and

9 Item 1j. on page 4 of the 2014 IESC Advice and item 12a. to c. on pages 4 and 5 of the 2015 IESC Advice.

10 I believe this phrase refers to the five faults or fault groups of substantial strike length in close proximity to the

mining pits.

7

characterise faults present at the site and to help delineate the hydrogeological

units included in the model;

(ii) time series groundwater level data in bores located in and around the mine site

that help illustrate the groundwater responses that have occurred as a result of

mining. These data are being used to help calibrate the model; and

(iii) groundwater inflows into the mining pits. These data are being used to help

calibrate the model.

Figure 1 Drillhole locations at the New Acland Coal Mine (from Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program

Report)

(b) Figures 3 to 7 of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report that show the

interpreted hydrogeological strata on five cross sections and a map (Figure 2) showing the

locations of those cross sections. These figures are reproduced below as Figure 2 and

Figure 3.

8

Figure 2 Geological cross section and fault locations (from Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report)

9

Figure 3 Geological cross sections showing fault displacements (from Fault Hydrogeological Investigation

Program Report)

4.6 Collectively these data illustrate that there is a large geological data set that has been used to help

define the locations and strike directions of faults present at the site. They also demonstrate that

there are substantial displacements or strata offsets associated with many of these faults. For

10

example, Cross Section A-A indicates displacements of coal seams that are in the order of 80 m

across the fault.

4.7 The 2016 IESC Final Advice11

also refers to groundwater level observations presented in the Fault

Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report as evidence that monitoring results suggest that

one fault acts as, at a minimum, a partial barrier to groundwater flow. The IESC appears to

accept (correctly in my view) SLRs interpretation in this regard.

4.8 The 2016 IESC Final Advice then indicates that the IESC is satisfied that planned pumping tests

targeting this particular fault will provide useful information on the role of the fault that can be

implemented in future model updates (and not prior to approval) and provides:12

The results and methods of this study should be incorporated into the ongoing groundwater model

updates, as required by the Queensland Coordinator-Generals Imposed Condition 12 (DSDIP,

2014), and applied to other faults in the project area.

4.9 In my opinion, the evidence which supports the IESCs position is found in Table 3 and Figure 10 of

Section 4.2 on page 15 of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report as reproduced

below as Figure 4. The table and figure illustrate that there is a head drop of approximately 5 m in

the Acland Sequence across the fault located at the Fault Investigation Site. In this regard, the IESC

conclusion supports my previous evidence on faulting,13

in that it is difficult to explain (and to model)

a head difference (and head gradient) of this magnitude in the absence of a geological structure such

as a fault that inhibits groundwater movement.

11 2016 IESC Final Advice, under the heading "Explanation", item 3 a) on pages 2 and 3.

12 2016 IESC Final Advice, page 3, first paragraph.

13 Statement of Evidence of Brian Barnett dated 10 May 2016 (Document ID: NAC.0083 (Exhibit 826), pages

25-27).

11

Figure 4 Hydrogeological cross section and measured groundwater levels at the fault investigation site (from

Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report)

4.10 The pumping test referred to in the first paragraph of page 3 of the 2016 IESC Final Advice has now

been completed and reported in the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Drilling and

Testing Report. The pumping test results as included in that Report14

indicate that the fault acts as a

significant (but not complete) barrier to groundwater flow. It therefore reinforces the earlier

interpretation of the hydrogeological significance of this fault that had been relied upon by the IESC

in the 2016 IESC Final Advice.

4.11 I agree with the IESC conclusions with regard to this matter. I agree that there is additional evidence

that has been collected and submitted that confirms that at least some of the faults at the site act as

impediments to groundwater flow. This evidence includes the geological cross sections that illustrate

a number of faults that have substantial throw and the observed head drop across the fault at the

Fault Investigation Site. I am further reassured on this matter by the results of the pumping test as

outlined in the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Drilling and Testing Report that

demonstrates that the tested fault acts as a partial permeability barrier and inhibits groundwater

movement.

14 Section 6.4 on page 46 of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Drilling and Testing Report.

12

4.12 I am aware that both the pumping test and the groundwater monitoring described in paragraphs 4.10

and 4.11 above have been carried out at a location that does not align with any previously modelled

faults. This can be seen in Figure 5 below that shows the Fault Investigation Site at which the

information was obtained and both mapped and modelled faults. I do not consider the siting of the

Fault Investigation Site to be a matter of concern because:

(a) the Applicant has committed to re-conceptualise the model including the faulting as part of

the current modelling update. SLR states15

that the extent and nature of exactly how

[the faults] will be replicated, if at all, will need to be based upon the reconceptualisation

and fault testing program. The results of the assessment and the proposed methodology

for modelling will be provided in the Phase 2 report. In other words, it can be assumed

that the faults included in the next model update (currently in progress) will not be the

same as those previously included in the model;

(b) the objective of the fault investigation program is not to justify the location and character of

the faults included in superseded versions of the model. Rather, it is to provide

information on which to re-conceptualise faulting at the site with the ultimate aim of

determining an appropriate set of faults to be included in subsequent versions of the

model;

(c) the IESC has indicated that it accepts that the findings from the Fault Investigation Site

can be extrapolated to other faults in the area with significant throw. On this matter, the

IESC state:16

Groundwater behaviour and drilling information provided are for a single fault. Could be

applied to other faults with significant throw displacements (i.e. those that fully/mostly

truncate stratigraphy).

Logically this also means that, in the view of the IESC, site specific fault investigation

findings could also be applied to other locations along the tested fault provided the fault at

these locations has a significant throw; and

(d) the results of sensitivity testing shows that the faulting included in the current modelling

does not have a dramatic effect on the model results that have been used to design the

Bore Assessment Program and the Make Good Agreements (this is discussed further

below under the heading "Issue 2: Additional groundwater modelling and sensitivity

analysis").

15 At page 5 of the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report, second last bullet point.

16 2016 IESC Final Advice, Attachment A, line item b).

13

Figure 5 Location of the fault investigation site (from Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report and

using Figure 3.0 from March 2016 IESC Response)

4.13 The matters outlined in (a) and (b) above are acknowledged in the 2016 IESC Final Advice17

where

the IESC says "The future work program, including a large-scale pump test and installation of

additional monitoring bores will provide further detailed information on the groundwater behaviour of

faults within the area of groundwater impact. The results and methods of this study should be

incorporated into the ongoing groundwater model updates, as required by the Queensland

Coordinator-General's Imposed Condition 12 ) DSDIP, 2014), and applied to other faults in the

project area." In other words, the IESC recognises that further work is required to be undertaken in

relation to faults and is satisfied that the results of this work can properly be incorporated into

subsequent versions of the model in accordance with the CG's Imposed Conditions.

Issue 2: Additional groundwater modelling and sensitivity analysis

4.14 The 2016 IESC Final Advice18

refers to modelling that is reported in the March 2016 IESC Response

and the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report.

4.15 The 2016 IESC Final Advice firstly refers to groundwater model sensitivity analysis undertaken by

AGE and reported in the March 2016 IESC Response (referred to as New Hope Group, 2016 in the

17 At the top of page 3.

18 On page 3, item 3b.

14

2016 IESC Final Advice). This document describes a sensitivity analysis carried out on the faults

included in the AEIS model in which the faults were removed and models re-run to illustrate

drawdown impacts predicted without the inclusion of faults in the Walloon Coal Measures and Basalt

units. The document illustrates comparisons between predicted groundwater drawdown in the AEIS

model and in similar models in which the faults have been removed. The results of particular

relevance are presented in Figure 4.0 to Figure 7.0. These figures illustrate that the predicted extent

of groundwater drawdown in the Marburg Sandstone in particular, is not strongly influenced by the

presence of faults in the Walloon Coal Measures and Basalt units.

4.16 This modelling was the subject of criticism in the proceedings19

due to the fact that the models

without faults were not constrained by calibration. I do not accept that this criticism is valid. The

objective of the sensitivity analysis is to illustrate the impacts that faults have on the drawdown

estimates. To achieve this objective, it is important that the sensitivity model retain all model

boundary conditions and parameters other than the faults so that the resultant changes in drawdown

can be attributed exclusively to the inclusion of faults. Indeed, if the model is re-calibrated before

running the sensitivity case without faults (as the OCAA appear to suggest), then boundary

conditions and aquifer parameters will be revised to compensate for the removal of the faults. Such

changes only confound the interpretation of the sensitivity analysis as the differences in predicted

drawdown will be due to both fault removal and to the changes in boundary conditions and aquifer

parameters. The IESC specifically refers to the no fault modelling "assuming all other model

parameters and structures remaining the same" i.e. that the only change from the AEIS modelling

was the removal of faults and the model has not been recalibrated to compensate for their removal.

In this regard, the IESC appears to accept the AGE modelling outcomes in the March 2016 IESC

Response and do not share the concerns raised by the OCAA.

4.17 The 2016 IESC Final Advice also refers to separate SLR modelling results presented in Attachment

A of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report (referred to as SLR, 2016a). The work

is similar to that undertaken by AGE as described in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16 above. In this case,

however, I am aware that SLR has undertaken a recalibration of the models after the removal of

faults. While the results are of interest as they also suggest that the faults are not constraining

drawdown propagation in the Marburg Sandstone, they are, in my opinion, less demonstrable than

those obtained by AGE as described in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16 above. This is because the

recalibration undertaken by SLR has led to changes in hydrogeological parameters to help

compensate for the removal of faults. Accordingly, the differences between the AEIS model with

faults and the no faults sensitivity analysis arise from both the effects of fault removal and those of

the parameter changes brought about by re-calibration.

4.18 In light of these two documents, the IESC appear satisfied that the influence of the faulting on the

19 In particular, refer to the exchange between Mr Holt QC and Mr Durick at T25-48, line 45 to T25-51, line 6.

15

model predictions is not sufficient to warrant further pre-mining investigation beyond that currently

proposed (and as detailed in the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report).

4.19 In my opinion Figure 7.0 of the March 2016 IESC Response (reproduced below as Figure 6) and

Figure A12 of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report (reproduced below as Figure

7) are important factors in forming the IESC position as documented in the 2016 IESC Final Advice.

They show comparisons between the drawdown in the Marburg Sandstone predicted by the AEIS

model with faults and without faults.

16

Figure 6 Predicted groundwater drawdown in the Marburg Sandstone for the AEIS model with faults

and the no faults sensitivity analysis (being Figure 7.0, March 2016 IESC Response).

17

Figure 7 Predicted groundwater drawdown in the Marburg Sandstone for the AEIS model with faults

and the no faults sensitivity analysis (being Figure A12, Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program

Report).

4.20 Because the Marburg Sandstone is the most transmissive unit, it follows that the maximum

drawdown at most locations is predicted in this layer. Of particular relevance is the fact that the

Applicant's Bore Assessment Program and Make Good Agreements are based on the maximum

modelled drawdown in any of the modelled layers (i.e., predicted drawdown in the Marburg

Sandstone) irrespective of the layer in which the existing bores are located.20

Figure 6 and Figure 7

suggest that the predicted drawdown extent without faults is not significantly different from that

predicted by the AEIS model with faults. It therefore follows that the extent of area covered by the

Applicant's Bore Assessment Program and Make Good Agreements would not change significantly if

the no faults model were used to define this area rather than the AEIS faulted model.

4.21 While the IESC acknowledges that there are still issues that need to be resolved, it considers that the

modelling is appropriate for this stage of the project. The IESC refers to the Groundwater Model

Update - Phase 1 Completion Report throughout the 2016 IESC Final Advice. It is evidently

reassured by the forward modelling program outlined in that Report and satisfied that any continuing

issues will be dealt with by that program. Of course, the model including the conceptualisation is

also to be reviewed every 3 years over the life of the Expansion as required by the CG's Imposed

Condition 12.

20 Make Good Status Report, page 3, paragraph 2 under the heading "Baseline Assessment Program".

18

4.22 I believe that the sensitivity analysis discussed in paragraphs 4.14 to 4.20 above has been important

in reassuring the IESC that the potential groundwater impacts of the mine are manageable. It is my

opinion that, before the results of this work were made available, the IESC had concerns that the

faulting included in the model was masking broader and more significant groundwater drawdown

impacts with the full extent of the masking of drawdown being undefined and unconstrained. The

sensitivity analysis results now available to the IESC have alleviated such concerns. The work has

illustrated that even when faults are removed from the model, the extent and magnitude of predicted

drawdown is not substantially greater than that previously predicted. With this reassurance, the

IESC is happy to accept that the model, even with inherent uncertainties and shortcomings, is

consistent with industry standards and that proposed and mandated upgrades to the model are

adequate to ensure that future groundwater impacts are being adequately predicted and managed.

4.23 I agree with the IESC interpretation of the significance of the model sensitivity analysis results.

4.24 I believe that the differences between the drawdown predictions in the Marburg Sandstone obtained

from the AEIS model that includes faults and from similar models that do not include faults do not

suggest that the modelled faults are acting to dramatically suppress drawdown propagation in the

Marburg Sandstone. Given the manner in which the Applicant has used the drawdown estimates to

define the properties included in the Bore Assessment Program, I believe that the model results for

the Marburg Sandstone are the most important and that model results for other aquifers are not as

important.

4.25 I do not accept that the conclusions made by the IESC on this matter are undermined or in any way

invalidated by the fact that the AEIS model with faults and the sensitivity models with no faults

include features that the IESC has previously identified as needing to be addressed and that have

been raised during these proceedings. I believe that one of the key features of the model that leads

to similar drawdown predictions in the AEIS model with faults and the no-faults sensitivity models is

the fact that the AEIS model does not include any faults in the Marburg Sandstone. I further believe

that if faults are precluded from the Marburg Sandstone aquifer in future versions of the model, then

the model drawdown predictions will continue to be relatively insensitive to the inclusion of faults in

the overlying units.

Issue 3: Groundwater modelling approach and predictions

4.26 The previous IESC advices indicated that the IESC had concerns regarding: the level of calibration

achieved,21

the choice of boundary conditions assigned to the edges of the model domain,22

the

manner in which the final void has been modelled23

and the absence of groundwater extraction from

21 Item 3, page 3, 2015 IESC Advice.

22 Items d, e and f, pages 3 and 4, 2014 IESC Advice and Item 4, page 3, 2015 IESC Advice.

23 Item w, page 6, 2014 IESC Advice and paragraph 4, page 2, 2015 IESC Advice.

19

neighbouring users including those in the Oakey Creek Alluvium.24

The 2016 IESC Final Advice

addresses the following points (predominantly on page 3). I will address each of these separately in

the following paragraphs.

3a - Model Calibration

4.27 The IESC refers to the proposed approach to future model calibration described in the Groundwater

Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report and appears to accept this as an appropriate response

to IESC concerns.25

In the IESC Chair Conditions Letter, the IESC also confirms that all of its

residual concerns have been dealt with by the conditions of the EPBC Approval.

4.28 I agree that the matters identified by the IESC as items c, d and e on page 3 and as item 6 on page

6, with respect to model calibration are being dealt with as part of the groundwater model update that

is currently being undertaken.

4.29 I also refer to paragraphs 5.7 to 5.10 of this statement as to how I consider the calibration issues

raised by OCAA in these proceedings will be addressed as part of the program proposed in the

Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report.

3b - Model Boundary Conditions

4.30 The 2016 IESC Final Advice states that the Groundwater model boundaries have been satisfactorily

justified.26

The 2016 IESC Final Advice also states that the proposed approach to assess the

impacts of the boundary conditions will be assessed during the planning and design stage of the

updated modelling as described in the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report

(refer to Section 5.2 Numerical Modelling/Model Setup/Domain on page 6). This suggests that the

IESC is satisfied that the proposed approach will address any residual concerns.

4.31 I agree with the IESC position on this matter. I consider that the choice of head assigned to a head

dependent boundary condition at the edge of the model domain is only problematic if the modelled

drawdown responses propagate to the boundary. In most instances, the calibration process will

ensure that model boundary heads are consistent with the observed groundwater heads and with

conceptualisation of groundwater flow directions. In order to avoid undue interaction between model

boundary conditions and the groundwater responses of the Expansion, the Groundwater Model

Update - Phase 1 Completion Report27

proposes that a sensitivity analysis be undertaken on the size

24 Application of appropriate methodologies, page 2, 2014 IESC Advice and Item 6, page 3, 2015 IESC Advice.

25 Item c, page 3, 2016 IESC Final Advice.

26 Item d, page 3, 2016 IESC Final Advice.

27 Section 5.2, page 6.

20

of the model domain and, if necessary, increasing the model size until the influence of the model

boundary conditions becomes insignificant. This approach is consistent with the Australian

Groundwater Modelling Guidelines which states on page 49 that In general terms the model domain

must cover the entire area of interest with, in most cases, a spatial buffer to ensure that the limits of

the model domain are sufficiently remote to reduce the impact of the assumed boundary conditions

on the model outcomes. Often it is not clear or obvious what size buffer is required. Simple analytical

models can assist with determining the expected spatial extent of groundwater responses.

Alternatively, a sensitivity analysis can be designed to test the impact of the model extent and the

selected boundary conditions on model outputs.

3c - Groundwater abstraction from neighbouring users

4.32 I am aware that OCAA suggests that the absence of the groundwater extraction from other

groundwater users was a major issue with the modelling.28

The IESC had also referred to this issue

in its previous advices.29

The 2016 IESC Final Advice30

refers to the on-going collection of

groundwater extraction data as described in the Make Good Status Report and proposed update to

the groundwater modelling as detailed in the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion

Report. The IESC accepts that previous concerns regarding the inclusion of groundwater

abstractions will be addressed by the planned groundwater modelling as described in the

Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report.31

Again, the IESC (correctly in my view)

considers that this issue is being adequately dealt with in the on-going model improvement and

review process. The IESC is satisfied that a clear process has now been outlined and is under way

for including groundwater extraction from other groundwater users in the model.

4.33 I can confirm from my role as a peer reviewer for the current model update that groundwater

extraction from all identifiable groundwater users within the model domain will be included in both

calibration and predictive models.

3d - Modelling of the final voids

4.34 The IESC has identified the modelling of water quality in the final land form (including pit lakes) as a

residual issue. They note that long-term risks posed by gradual or rapid changes in water

quality(e.g. salinity pH, metals and toxicity) within final voids has not been provided. They further

suggest that This work should be informed by on-going gathering of data and information during

mining and incorporated into regular updates of the groundwater pit lake levels and water quality

28 See paragraphs 49, 936, 959, 1117-1148 of OCAA's Closing Submissions.

29 Application of appropriate methodologies, page 2, 2014 IESC Advice and item 6, page 3, 2015 IESC Advice.

30 On page 3, item 3e.

31 2016 IESC Final Advice, page 3, item 3e.

21

model.32

In other words the modelling of the final voids remains an issue that should be resolved.

However, as demonstrated by the above comments, the IESC is satisfied with the Applicant

undertaking the required data gathering and modelling after approval is granted. The issue can be

addressed by the provision of a plan to acquire data and undertake the modelling.33

4.35 I agree that this issue can be effectively addressed through on-going collection of data during mining

and through more detailed modelling once these data are obtained as required by condition 18 of the

EPBC Approval. The process is in line with that described on page 12 of the Australian Groundwater

Modelling Guidelines where it is noted that The process is one of continual iteration and review

through a series of stages. and that Any number of iterations may be required before the stated

modelling objectives are met.

IESC Question 2

Question 2: Does the proponents revised groundwater modelling provide a reasonable prediction of

the expected maximum range of groundwater drawdown for the proposed mine?

4.36 In response to this question, the IESC again refers to the modelling sensitivity study that includes a

predictive model that has been constructed and run with no faults. The 2016 IESC Final Advice

indicates that the IESC considers that the envelope of predicted drawdown outcomes as defined by

the AEIS modelling and the sensitivity study modelling encompass the probable range of

groundwater drawdown that would be realised by the project.34

4.37 The IESC recognises35

that a groundwater model is a simplification of reality and that unexpected

outcomes cannot be discounted. This is true of all groundwater models and the IESC advises that

the residual risk that actual drawdown will exceed those predicted can be addressed during the

regular groundwater model updates process required by the regulator and through ongoing

monitoring and refining hydrogeological characterisation.36

In my opinion, the planned program of

data collection and model updates will lead to an increase in the confidence in model predictions, in

particular, the inclusion of additional calibration data through the use of groundwater head and flux

observations collected during mining. As model confidence increases and uncertainties decrease

the chances that groundwater responses to future mining will deviate substantially from modelled

predictions will be reduced.

32 2016 IESC Final Advice, page 4, item 4a.

33 Also refer to condition 18 of the EPBC Approval conditions which were approved by the IESC as described in

the IESC Conditions Letter.

34 2016 IESC Final Advice, page 5, item 5.

35 2016 IESC Final Advice, page 6, item 6.

36 2016 IESC Final Advice, page 6, item 6.

22

4.38 In the GMIMP Status Report that was considered by the IESC, SLR acknowledged that as a result of

the model update process, the groundwater predictions may be different to those derived from the

AEIS 2014 model and this may result in the requirement to change the locations of monitoring

bores.37

Again SLR, like the IESC, is merely confirming that a groundwater model is a simplification

of reality and that unexpected outcomes cannot be discounted.

IESC Question 3

Question 3: Are there any additional management measures that may be implemented to better

address the above matters?

4.39 In response to this question, the IESC38

notes that there are still some residual issues that have not

been fully addressed. However they state on page 6 that A range of measures to mitigate, manage

and monitor the residual concerns is provided below. If the proposed project is approved, these

measures could be undertaken prior to commencement of, or in some instances during, mining. In

other words the IESC is satisfied that the process required to fully address all outstanding matters

can be undertaken after approval and prior to or during mining.

4.40 These issues are dealt with in the EPBC Approval conditions referred to below. Condition [13xiii.] of

the EPBC Approval states that the GMMP must address the groundwater management measures

outlined in the 2016 IESC Final Advice. Condition 16 provides that the approval holder must

undertake groundwater model reviews in accordance with the requirements of the CG's conditions

and requires that the reviews must address all matters raised in the "December 2015 and 2016 IESC

advice" in regards to groundwater modelling.

4.41 Further as outlined in paragraph 3.8 of this statement, in the IESC Chair Conditions Letter, the IESC

indicated:

"The IESC considers that the draft conditions fully address the matters that were raised in the [2016

IESC Final Advice]."

2016 IESC Advice Attachment A

4.42 In Attachment A to the 2016 IESC Final Advice, the IESC tabulates a summary of matters requested

by DoEE in October 2016. The following items from that Attachment are related to the faulting,

groundwater modelling and the matters that I have referred to above.

37 GMIMP Status Report, page 6 (note that the report contains "page 8" on each page in error).

38 2016 IESC Final Advice, page 6.

23

4.43 Item a) Local geology, including faults which impact on how groundwater impacts move away from

the mine. This line of the table is shown below:

The IESC considers the matter to have been addressed and refers to the fault mapping and fault

testing program described in paragraphs 4.3 to 4.9 of this statement. The IESC recognises that the

model with a southeast strike needs to be verified (tested further), however running the model

without faults addresses this uncertainty. The response clearly demonstrates that the IESC does

not share the concerns of Professor Werner and Dr Currell regarding the manner in which the faults

have been modelled and the importance of the faults. The IESC note that the no-faults model

outcomes provide a valuable perspective on the importance of faults in the model and the results

used for on-going make-good measures. I agree with the IESC on this matter.

4.44 Item b) Groundwater monitoring including faults which impact on how groundwater impacts move

away from the mine. This line of the table is shown below:

Here the IESC refers to the results in the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report for a

single fault. It should also be noted that the recent pumping tests undertaken near the fault (as

outlined in the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program - Drilling and Testing Report which had

not been completed at the time of the IESC advice) have demonstrated that this fault indeed does act

as a partial barrier to flow confirming the preliminary findings in the Fault Hydrogeological

Investigation Program Report that was considered by the IESC. The IESC accepts that the proposed

fault testing program is appropriate. Of note is the indication that the IESC considers that it is

suitable to extrapolate findings for one fault to others with significant throw displacements, and that

the fault testing results should be incorporated during model updates required by the CGs Imposed

Condition 12 and is not required prior to approval. I believe that this is an appropriate response to

this issue. The only practical means of testing and verifying fault behaviour is through a program of

mapping strata across faults, measuring head differences across faults and, if necessary undertaking

pumping tests with observations on both sides of the faults. In my opinion, the degree to which a

fault will act as a barrier to groundwater flow will depend on the displacement of geological strata

24

across the fault. In this regard it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to apply the findings at one

fault investigation site to other faults, or parts of faults, that display similar levels of displacement.

4.45 Item c) Groundwater monitoring including the timeframes for an update and more conservative

estimates of impacts. This line of the table is shown below:

The no-faults sensitivity analysis is again referenced here. The IESC notes that the final void

modelling including water quality modelling is an outstanding issue that will need to be resolved.

This is dealt with in the conditions of the EPBC Approval referred to below.

Other matters

4.46 In this statement, in relation to the documents that were provided to the IESC, I have predominantly

referred to the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report and the Groundwater Model

Update - Phase 1 Completion Report. Two other important reports, namely the Make Good Status

Report and the GMIMP Status Report were also provided to the IESC.

4.47 The Make Good Status Report indicates that the Applicant's baseline assessment program is very

well advanced. The IESC noted this in line item f) of Attachment A to the 2016 IESC Final Advice

and indicates that this program will provide contextualisation of regional water resources through the

collection of accurate information on both groundwater allocations and the actual use of groundwater.

4.48 As indicated in paragraph 4.20 of this statement, the Make Good Status Report also indicates that

the Applicant's baseline assessment program and Make Good Agreements are based on the

maximum modelled drawdown in any of the modelled layers (i.e. predicted drawdown in the Marburg

Sandstone) irrespective of the layer in which the existing bores are located. 39

This is a conservative

approach and provides additional protection to landowners. Even if landowner bores would otherwise

not be included in such a program because they are in aquifers that have predicted drawdown less

than the trigger value to activate the baseline assessment program, the Applicant has nevertheless

included such landowners in the program. In addition, in the last paragraph of section 2.1 of the

Make Good Status Report, it is noted that even where landowners are outside of the predicted trigger

39 Make Good Status Report, page 3, paragraph 2 under the heading "Baseline Assessment Program".

25

value drawdown extents, where those landowners have expressed concerns, the Applicant has

included those landowners in the baseline assessment program.

4.49 The GMIMP Status Report indicates that the Applicant has already installed all monitoring bores for

the Expansion following an extensive drilling program from 2014 - 2016. Further, as indicated in

paragraph 5.13(a) of this statement, the monitoring network includes the utilisation of paired

monitoring bores to assess inter-aquifer connectivity. Section 4 of the GMIMP Status Report also

indicates, properly in my opinion, that refinement of this network may be required following future

model updates if predicted drawdowns change. In my opinion, this is an appropriate approach that is

consistent with the notion that the model may be revised through future validations and iterations.

4.50 I consider that the advanced state of both the baseline assessment program and the groundwater

monitoring network also indicates that groundwater issues are being given prominence by the

Applicant and further support the IESC's position (which is also my position) that the available data

and the status of the groundwater modelling undertaken by the Applicant are appropriate for this

stage of the proposed project and are consistent with industry standards.40

Changes to the composition of the IESC

4.51 The IESC membership has changed over the period in which it has provided advice on the proposed

Expansion. At the times of the 2014 and 2015 advices, from my knowledge and understanding of the

committee members, the only committee member with groundwater modelling skills and experience

was Professor Simmons of Flinders University. I can confirm that Professor Simmons is a widely

respected academic and teacher of groundwater science.

4.52 At the time of the 2016 IESC Final Advice, two additional groundwater scientists were added to the

committee. Dr Wendy Timms of the University of New South Wales and Dr Glen Walker, formerly of

Land and Water Division of CSIRO joined the committee. The curriculum vitae of each of Dr Timms

and Dr Walker from the IESC website are annexed to this statement at Annexure K. Dr Timms and

Dr Walker bring a great deal of practical, as opposed to academic, experience to the committee.

They are experienced groundwater practitioners and are well respected in the groundwater

community. I believe that the addition of Dr Timms and Dr Walker to the committee has resulted in a

different perspective on the modelling that has improved the relevance and quality of the advice.

Summary of my opinion on 2016 IESC Final Advice

4.53 In my opinion, the 2016 IESC Final Advice is largely based on the following evidence and logic:

(a) It has been established that faults present at the mine site act as impediments to

groundwater flow. This is based on the following:

40 2016 IESC Final Advice, item 5 on page 5.

26

(i) A series of geological cross sections have been provided that illustrate

significant displacements across faults that have been mapped at the site.

(ii) Groundwater heads measured in bores on either side of one of those faults

indicate a significant head difference across the fault (as illustrated in Table 3

and Figure 10 of the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report as

reproduced in Figure 4 above). It is also important to note that subsequent to

the 2016 IESC Final Advice a pumping test carried out at one fault location (as

reported in the Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program - Drilling and

Testing Report) illustrates that the fault acts as an impediment to groundwater

flow.

(b) The results obtained from the Fault Investigation Site can be extrapolated to other faults

that have significant displacements. It follows that the result can equally well be

extrapolated to other locations along the tested fault provided the displacement is

significant.

(c) Recent sensitivity analysis modelling that has been undertaken with the faults removed

from the model has illustrated that the extent of drawdown impacts, as used to define the

properties at which make-good measures may be required, is similar in both the AEIS

faulted model and in the no-fault sensitivity analysis.

(d) The IESC has indicated its satisfaction that the no-faults sensitivity analysis is likely to

represent the upper limit of the envelope of modelling outcomes that may arise from the

uncertainty in the fault locations and fault properties used in the modelling while properly

acknowledging that "there will always be some residual risk of drawdown extending

beyond the bounds presented in the modelling." Accordingly, the IESC accepts that at the

likely upper limit of the uncertainty envelope, the drawdown impacts can be managed

within the existing monitoring and make-good measures currently being implemented by

the Applicant. The IESC has therefore concluded that the exact location of, and properties

assigned to, the faults do not exert a significant influence on modelling and project

outcomes.

(e) The IESC acknowledge that, in line with the Queensland CG's Imposed Condition 12, the

Applicant has outlined a plan of on-going field investigations, data collection and

upgrading of the groundwater model. The IESC has confidence that any remaining

concerns around the validity of the modelling can be adequately addressed through this

process.

27

4.54 I am in full agreement with the IESC on all of the above and consider that the findings in the advice

accord with current industry and regulator expectations and standards on the use of groundwater

models to assess future impacts of mining operations.

5. Will matters identified during these proceedings be considered as part of the model review

contemplated in the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report?

5.1 As noted on page 2 of the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report, a working

group (including myself) has undertaken a thorough analysis of groundwater modelling issues raised

in the Land Court process.

5.2 In my opinion, the Applicant's program of works as outlined in the Groundwater Model Update -

Phase 1 Completion Report addresses the issues that have been raised in these proceedings.

5.3 This program, as required by the CG Imposed Condition 12(c), requires a comprehensive update of

the model, which includes a full review of the hydrogeological conceptualisation. I note that the

Applicant has proposed that the first review of the groundwater model occur prior to mining (and after

the collection of certain further data), which is earlier than that proposed by the CG.41

5.4 The EPBC Approval conditions also require the Applicant to undertake groundwater model reviews in

accordance with the CG's Imposed Conditions and such reviews must address all matters raised in

the 2015 IESC Advice and the 2016 Final IESC Advice. These conditions are discussed in more

detail in section 6 of this statement.

5.5 The IESC has reviewed the program of works in the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1

Completion Report and is clearly comfortable with the approach and progress to date, as indicated

by the following comment: 42

The methods and data used by the proponent in their updated groundwater modelling, as described

in Question 1, are appropriate for this stage of the proposed project and consistent with industry

standards.

Examples of how the model review contemplated in the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1

Completion Report addresses OCAA's issues

5.6 In this section, I identify some examples of how, in my opinion, the Applicant's program of works for

the groundwater model update, as outlined in the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion

Report, adequately addresses the issues that have been raised by OCAA's groundwater experts in

these proceedings. In particular, I have been asked to comment on the issues raised in paragraphs

41 Applicant's Reply Submissions, condition 2(a) on page 293.

42 2016 IESC Final Advice, item 5, page 5.

28

69 to 84 of OCAA's IESC Submissions (on the admissibility of the 2016 IESC Final Advice) as being

issues OCAA suggests have not been resolved in the 2016 IESC Final Advice.

Model calibration issues

5.7 In paragraphs 69 to 73 of OCAA's IESC Submissions, OCAA questions whether issues raised in the

2015 IESC Advice regarding calibration are being adequately addressed in the current modelling.

The submission focuses on the fact that the IESC refers to improvements in model calibration in the

Alluvium and questions whether such improvements can also be expected in the Walloon Coal

Measures.

5.8 The Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report outlines generally the approach to

calibration that will occur as part of "Phase 3" of the groundwater model update.43

The document

outlines calibration objectives, calibration targets (including the weights assigned to each target) and

the proposed Monte Carlo approach to calibration. There is no specific reference in this report to

calibration methods or targets in the Alluvium or Walloon Coal Measures or any other

hydrogeological unit present in the model. I can confirm that the measures taken to improve

calibration will apply equally to all hydrogeological units. The 2016 IESC Final Advice on model

calibration refers specifically to improving calibration in the Alluvium suggesting that this is the focus

of its concern. I believe that the IESC has referred specifically to the Alluvium and to alluvial bores

as the IESC considers that the inclusion of groundwater extraction in the model is a key component

that will lead to an improved calibration. The addition of groundwater extraction to the model will

probably have the biggest effect on the Alluvium model layer which hosts a high level of groundwater

extraction.

5.9 Further, I have been asked to consider the other issues relating to the model's calibration in OCAA's

Closing Submissions.44

In my view, these issues will also be addressed as part of the proposed

approach to calibration of the model that will occur as part of "Phase 3" of the groundwater model

update.

5.10 For example, an issue raised in OCAA's Closing Submissions was that the number of realisations of

the model (18) was too small.45

This issue is expressly dealt with in the Groundwater Model Update -

Phase 1 Completion Report where it is stated that "at least 40 calibrated realisations" will be

established as part of the model review. This issue was also referred to by the IESC at item 6d. of

the 2016 IESC Final Advice. I can also confirm that more realisations than 40 will be used should

they be found to fit the agreed calibration criteria. Other issues raised by OCAA during these

43 Pages 7 to 8 under the heading "Regional Model Calibration".

44 For example, see OCAA's Closing Submissions, section 8.9 "Model is poorly calibrated" starting on page 298.

45 OCAA's Closing Submissions, paragraphs 1168 to 1171, pages 297-298.

29

proceedings relating to recharge and specific storage values were also referred to by the IESC at

item 6a. of the 2016 IESC Advice. Again, the IESC does not consider that these issues have to be

resolved before approval but, in my view correctly, consider that they can be addressed through

appropriate approval conditions. Such improvement and refinements over the life of a project and

associated groundwater model is standard practice.

Other groundwater users

5.11 I also refer to paragraphs 4.32 and 4.33 of this statement regarding my view that the current

groundwater modelling update will include groundwater extraction from all identifiable groundwater

users within the model domain in both calibration and predictive models. This addresses a key

concern raised by OCAA during the proceedings. As noted in those paragraphs, the IESC again is

satisfied that this issue can be dealt with through the current and planned groundwater modelling and

through conditions of approval.

Issues raised in paragraphs 74 - 77 of OCAA's IESC Submissions

5.12 In paragraphs 74 to 77 of OCAA's IESC Submissions, OCAA suggests that there are "key issues that

appear to be overlooked in the IESC 2016 Advice". In my view, the Groundwater Model Update -

Phase 1 Completion Report and the various conditions imposed on the Expansion address the

proposed process for dealing with these issues in the next update of the groundwater model.

Accordingly, rather than those issues having been overlooked, they have either been fully addressed,

are in the process of being addressed as required by conditions of approval, or are no longer

considered of significance by the IESC in light of other information that the Applicant has supplied. I

do not believe that the IESC could issue this advice nor the IESC Chair Conditions Letter if there

were any substantive concerns that had simply been overlooked. Any suggestion that the IESC

has overlooked issues raised in its 2014 and 2015 advices is, in my opinion, not plausible.

5.13 Below I give some examples as to how issues identified by OCAA have been, or are being

addressed:

(a) In paragraphs 80(a) and (b) of OCAA's IESC Submissions, OCAA questions the evidence

base for conceptualisation and modelling of the vertical connection between key aquifers

as well as the assignment of aquifer properties to key units. Further on this issue, the

IESC notes in the 2016 IESC Final Advice that the final GMMP should include "an outline

of the proposed methodology to assess groundwater connectivity between each

hydrogeological unit using nested bore arrays..". This is reflected in the EPBC Approval

conditions, which the IESC considers is the appropriate manner to address these issues.

The Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report outlines the additional data

to be collated as part of the model update process. The report then outlines that, as part

of "Phase 2" of the model update process, there will be an analysis and discussion of

michaelHighlightmichaelHighlightmichaelHighlight

30

various data including groundwater gradients and flow directions and aquifer hydraulic

testing.46

The evidence base for the conceptualisation and modelling of the vertical

movement of groundwater and the connections and flow between aquifers as well as the

assignment of aquifer properties to all hydrogeological units is being reviewed as part of

"Phase 2" and will be incorporated into the groundwater model during Phase 3 of the

update. Further in section 5 headed "Inter-aquifer Connectivity" of the GMIMP Status

Report, it is noted that the already installed monitoring network "includes the utilisation of

paired monitoring bores to provide monitoring of vertically stacked aquifers within and

immediately surrounding the Project site. These include the alluvium, basalt, Marburg

Sandstone aquifers, as well as the other Walloon Coal Measures units above and below

the target seams of mining. .These bores will allow assessment of vertical hydraulic

gradients between aquifers prior to commencement of Stage 3 mining, and ongoing

monitoring during the Project will allow assessment of any changes to these gradients as

a result of mining. Furthermore, if changes in vertical gradients are measured during the

Project, these measures can be used to provide an estimate of potential groundwater take

through analytical or numerical modelling".

(b) In paragraph 80(c) of OCAA's IESC Submissions, OCAA questions the quality of the

calibration data (such as pit inflows data) and the evidence base for groundwater recharge

and discharge. This data is addressed by the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1

Completion Report which outlines the additional data collated as part of the "Phase 1"

process. This includes groundwater inflow records for the Stage 1 and 2 mining pits as

well as other information that will form the evidence base for the re-conceptualisation of

the model in "Phase 2" and the model update in "Phase 3". The groundwater pit inflow

calibration targets are being reviewed and, if required, will be updated as a part of this

work.

(c) In paragraph 80(d) of OCAA's IESC Submissions, OCAA questions the calibration method

and uncertainty analysis. As is noted in paragraph 5.8 of this statement, the Groundwater

Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report outlines generally the approach to calibration

of the model that will occur as part of "Phase 3" of the groundwater model update. The

document outlines calibration objectives, calibration targets (including the weights

assigned to each target), the proposed Monte Carlo approach to calibration and the

information that will be provided in support of the calibration results (including a summary

of calibration sensitivity and uncertainty for parameters used in the Monte Carlo process).

The issues raised by OCAA will be addressed through this process.

46 Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report, page 5.

michaelHighlightmichaelHighlight

31

Faulting

5.14 A key issue of focus for OCAA in OCAA's Closing Submissions was the role of faulting in the

model.47

OCAA also raised this issue in paragraphs 82 to 84 of OCAA's IESC Submissions.

5.15 I have already outlined above in section 4 of this statement my conclusions about the additional

information provided to the IESC in respect of faulting. Further to that information, I also note the

following:

(a) The Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report notes at page 5 that the

extent and nature of how faults will be replicated in the revised model will be based on the

re-conceptualisation as informed by the fault mapping and testing program, the results of

which will be provided as part of "Phase 2".

(b) The Applicant has proposed an amendment to the draft environmental authority conditions

to require further information and investigation of faults.48

(c) The Applicant has proposed a further condition on ML 50232 that the groundwater model

review (which is to occur prior to mining and in accordance with the Applicant's condition

referred to in paragraph 5.3 of this statement) must include updated information about

faulting based on the data collected under the condition described in paragraph 5.15(b) of

this statement.49

(d) The EPBC Approval conditions expressly require the groundwater model update to

include "validation of the existence and nature of faulting and its potential effect on the

predicted lateral extent of groundwater drawdown".50

5.16 I believe that these conditions, as well as the additional information about faulting that is described in

section 4 of this statement and in the Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report, will

ensure that the next iteration of the groundwater model (and subsequent updates of the model)

appropriately characterise the role of faults and properly represent these features in the numerical

model.

47 For example. see OCAA's Closing Submissions, section 8.6 "Faulting in the model is unjustified and affects

model predictions", from page 259.

48 Applicant's Reply Submissions, condition D15(d) on page 287.

49 Applicant's Reply Submissions, condition 2(b)(iii) on page 293.

50 EPBC Approval, condition 16(i) on page 5.

32

6. EPBC Approval - Conditions

6.1 In my view, the EPBC Approval contains key groundwater conditions that, along with the extensive

groundwater conditions already imposed through the CG's Imposed Conditions, the Draft EA

conditions and the additional conditions proposed by the Applicant during the proceedings, provide a

high level of protection for the objectors in these proceedings. This is confirmed by the Minister for

the Environment and Energy throughout the EPBC Approval Reasons for Decision.51

The IESC also

confirms in the IESC Chair Conditions Letter that the conditions proposed by the Minister for the

Environment and Energy address all of the IESC's residual concerns.

6.2 In particular, I note the following key conditions:

(a) Condition 12 which provides that the Applicant must submit a GMMP to the Minister for

written approval and that mining activities must not commence until the GMMP has been

approved by the Minister in writing. This approval is in addition to the approval required to

be provided by the DNRM under the CG's Imposed Condition 10 (in respect of the

equivalent plan).

(b) Condition 13c. requires sufficient bores to be installed to determine the lateral extent of

groundwater drawdown and flow direction, to monitor potential impacts on groundwater

resources and the effect of faulting on groundwater drawdown. With respect to faulting,

this condition complements condition D15d) proposed by the Applicant in the Applicant's

Groundwater Conditions.52

(c) Condition 13x. which provides that the GMMP must include "mechanisms for addressing

the impacts of the action to groundwater resources, including details of measures for

impacts to water bores, and offsets for the Oakey Creek Alluvium and Tertiary Basalt

Aquifer".53

Such offsets for the Oakey Creek Alluvium and Tertiary Basalt Aquifers "may

comprise a retirement of part or all of an existing entitlement, or purchase and retirement

of a new entitlement".54

(d) Conditions 13ii. and iii. regarding baseline monitoring.

(e) Conditions 13iv. and v. which provide that the GMMP must contain monitoring bores to be

used as early warning indicators of groundwater drawdown propagation and threshold

51 Refer paragraphs 56 to 92 and 103 in particular.

52 See page 287 of the Applicant' Reply Submissions.

53 EPBC Approval, page 4.

54 EPBC Approval, page 9.

33

triggers for these early warning monitoring bores.

(f) Condition 13A which provides that, if monitoring reports, based on threshold triggers for

early warning monitoring bores, indicate that a groundwater drawdown limit will be

substantially exceeded, the Minister may require the Applicant to suspend its mining

operations. This condition was specifically referred to by the Minister for the Environment

and Energy in the EPBC Approval Reasons for Decision.55

(g) Condition 14 which provides that the Minister may submit the GMMP to the IESC or other

independent expert for review before making a decision on whether to approve it under

condition 12.

(h) Condition 16 which provides that the Applicant must undertake groundwater model

reviews in accordance with the requirements of the CG's conditions and requires that the

reviews must address all matters raised in the "December 2015 and 2016 IESC advice" in

regards to groundwater modelling. It is also important to note that the Applicant's

proposed groundwater conditions require the model to be reviewed earlier than that

required by the State and Federal regulators (with the first review to occur prior to any box

cut excavation - in particular, I refer to condition "2 Collection of data and groundwater

model review" located at page 293 of the Applicant's Reply Submissions). The result of

this is that the revised groundwater model is expected to be available for the associated

water licence application process for the Expansion.

(i) Condition 22 which requires that, within three months of every 12 month anniversary of

the commencement of the action, the Applicant must publish a report on its website

addressing compliance with each of the conditions of the EPBC Approval. Documentary

evidence providing proof of the date of publication must be provided to the DoEE at the

same time as the compliance report is published. Reports must remain on the approval

holders website for the duration of the approval.

(j) Condition 23 which requires that the Applicant must report any contravention of the

conditions of this approval to the DoEE within 2 business days of the Applicant becoming

aware of the contravention.

(k) Condition 24 which requires that upon the direction of the Minister, the Applicant must

ensure that an independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is

conducted and a report submitted to the Minister. The audit must not commence unless

and until the Minister has approved the independent auditor and audit criteria. The audit

report must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the Minister.

55 Refer paragraph 79.

34

(l) Condition 28 which requires that, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Minister, the

Applicant must publish all management plans referred to in these conditions of approval

on its website. Each management plan must be published on the website within 1 month

of being approved by the Minister or updated and remain available on that website for the

life of the approval.

7. Overall Conclusion

7.1 The information recently provided to the IESC for consideration (as listed in paragraph 3.4 of this

statement) has helped to reassure the IESC that the Applicant is addressing its previous concerns.

This is largely through the Applicant gathering data that helps clarify the location and hydrogeological

function of the faults and illustrating that the inclusion of faults in the Walloon Coal Measures and

Basalts is not unduly masking a much broader propagation of drawdown impacts. It is clear that the

IESC is now happy that their remaining groundwater modelling concerns are being addressed and

will be addressed through the program of model updates that is currently under way. In this regard,

the IESC appears confident that the potential groundwater impacts associated with the planned

Expansion can be adequately managed through the planned work program and through the

implementation of numerous conditions attached to the approvals.

7.2 In my view, the additional investigations, modelling (both that planned and completed) and

interpretations that have been provided to the IESC illustrate a continuation of the iterative

groundwater modelling process that commenced with my work in 2009. The conditions both at a

State and Commonwealth level ensure that this iterative process will continue for the life of the

Expansion. I believe that confidence in the model predictions will increase with every update and

iteration of the model.

7.3 I consider that the Additional Groundwater Documents provide clear evidence that groundwater

issues are being appropriately managed for the Expansion and there is a clear strategy moving

forward with the groundwater modelling. Using the words of Professor Werner that I set out in

section 3 of this statement, it is clear from the New Groundwater Documents that "the car is pointing

down the right direction of the highway" in terms of the groundwater model for the Expansion. That is

reflected in the 2016 IESC Final Advice and the IESC Chair Conditions Letter where the Chair of the

IESC provided advice that the proposed conditions of the approval fully address the matters that

were raised by the IESC in the 2016 IESC Final Advice. The IESC also indicates in the 2016 IESC

Final Advice that groundwater modelling is appropriate for this stage of the project and is consistent

with industry standards. This is also consistent with my view.

7.4 I believe that the groundwater conditions included in the EPBC Approval and those conditions

already imposed through the CG's Imposed Conditions, the Draft EA conditions and the additional

conditions proposed by the Applicant during the proceedings, provide a high level of protection and

safeguard for all groundwater users.

35

8. Expert's statement

8.1 I confirm that:

(a) the factual matters included in this statement are, as far as I know, true;

(b) I have made all enquiries that I consider appropriate;

(c) the opinions stated in this statement are genuinely held by me;

(d) this statement contains reference to all matters I consider significant;

(e) I understand I have a duty to assist the court and that duty overrides any obligation I may

have to any party to these proceedings or any person who is liable for my fees or

expenses and I have complied with that duty;

(f) I have read and understand the rules contained in Part 5 of the Land Court Rules 2000, as

far as they apply to me; and

(g) I have not received or accepted instructions to adopt or reject a particular opinion in

relation to an issue in dispute in these proceedings.

Brian Barnett

20 February 2017

36

Schedule 1 - Glossary

2014 IESC Advice the IESC Advice to the DoEE dated 10 April 2014 regarding the New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Expansion (Annexure C to the Currell SoE, Document ID: OCA.0021) (Exhibit 435), pages 51-60

2015 IESC Advice the IESC Advice to the DoEE dated 10 December 2015 regarding the New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Expansion (Document ID: TMP.0009) (Exhibit 495)

2016 IESC Final Advice IESC final advice with respect to the New Acland Coal Stage 3 Expansion dated 14 December 2016 attached to this statement at Annexure B

AEIS additional information to the EIS (Document ID: EHP.0087 - EHP.0113) (Exhibits 87 - 113)

Applicant's Groundwater Conditions the conditions contained in Annexure A of the Applicant's Reply Submissions

Applicant's Reply Submissions the reply submissions of the Applicant dated and filed 30 September 2016

CG Coordinator-General

CG's Report the report on the EIS and AEIS of the CG dated 19 December 2014 (Document ID: EHP.0016) (Exhibit 16)

DNRM the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines

DoEE Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

EPBC Approval the approval for the Expansion issued by the DoEE under the EPBC Act, attached to this statement at Annexure H

EPBC Approval Reasons for Decision the statement of reasons for the EPBC Approval attached to this statement at Annexure I

Expansion New Acland Coal Mine expansion that is the subject of these proceedings

Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program - Drilling and Testing Report

the report titled "New Acland Stage 3 Project Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Drilling and Testing Report" dated 9 January 2017, attached to this statement at Annexure G

Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program Report the report titled "NAC03 Fault Hydrogeological Investigation Program, October 2016 Status Report" (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016a") dated 24 October 2016, attached to this

37

statement at Annexure C

Fault Investigation Site the site of a fault investigation as depicted in Figure 5 of this statement

GMIMP Status Report the report titled "NAC03 Groundwater Monitoring and Impact Management Plan (GMIMP) October 2016 Status Report" (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016b") dated 24 October 2016, attached to this statement at Annexure E

GMMP Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan

Groundwater Model Update - Phase 1 Completion Report

the report titled "New Acland Stage 3 Project Groundwater Model Update Phase 1 Completion Report (Numerical Model Scoping report)" (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016d") dated 24 October 2016, attached to this statement at Annexure F

IESC Independent Expert Scientific Committee

IESC Chair Conditions Letter the letter from the Chair of the IESC to the DoEE dated 21 December 2016 attached to this statement at Annexure J

Imposed Conditions the conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the CG's Report, imposed by the Queensland Coordinator-General under section 54B of the State Development Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Cth)

Make Good Status Report the report titled "NAC03 Landholder Make Good October 2016 Status Report" (referred to in the 2016 IESC Final Advice as "SLR, 2016c"), attached to this statement at Annexure D

March 2016 IESC Response the response of the Applicant to the 2015 IESC Advice (Document ID: OCA.0037 (Exhibit 721)

New Groundwater Documents has the meaning given in paragraph 3.9 of this statement

OCAA Oakey Coal Action Alliance

OCAA's Closing Submissions the closing submissions of OCAA dated 13 September 2016

OCAA's IESC Submissions the submissions of OCAA dated 23 January 2017 with respect to the admissibility of the 2016 IESC Final Advice

OWS Office of Water Science located within the DoEE

SLR SLR (Consulting)

38

Schedule 2 - Documents listed in 2016 IESC Final Advice

Document referred to in advice Comment

BMT WBM, 2016a. Receiving Environment Monitoring Program for New Acland Mine. Report prepared for New Hope Group: R.B21788.002.00.New_Acland_REMP_Design_Document.docx. February 2016.

And

BMT WBW, 2016b. New Acland Mine Receiving Environment Monitoring Program - Pre-Release Survey 2015. Report for New Hope Group: R.B21788.001.00.prereleaseREMP 2015.docx. February 2016.

These documents relate to surface water issues and are not relevant to this statement

Australian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants (AGE), 2014. Groundwater Model Peer Review New Acland Mine Stage 3. Report for New Acland Coal Pty Ltd. June 2014. (Appendix C of Appendix N, AEIS)

Document ID: EHP.0111, pages 228-251 (Exhibit 111)

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2015. Draft Environmental Authority New Acland Coal Mine. State of Queensland. 14 July 2015.

Document ID: EHP.0015 (Exhibit 15) is the EA dated 14 July 2015

Document ID: EHP.0009 (Exhibit 9) is the Draft EA dated 28 August 2015

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning [DSDIP], 2014. New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 project. Coordinator-Generals evaluation report on the environmental impact statement. State of Queensland. December 2014.

Document ID: EHP.0016 (Exhibit 16)

New Hope Group, 2016. Response to IESC 2015-073: New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 (EPBC 2007/3423) Expansion. Submission to Department of the Environment. March 2016.

Document ID: OCA.0037 (Exhibit 721)

New Acland Coal, 2014a. New Acland Coal Stage 3 Project Environmental Assessment documents, EIS. January 2014.

Document ID: EHP.0017-EHP.0086 (Exhibits 17-86)

New Acland Coal, 2014b. New Acland Coal Stage 3 Project Environmental Assessment documents, Additional information to the EIS. August 2014.

Document ID: EHP.0087-EHP.0113 (Exhibits 87-113)

L\321471899.15

Annexure A - Letter of instruction

39

Level 28, Riparian Plaza 71 Eagle Street Brisbane QLD 4000

GPO Box 9806 Brisbane QLD 4001

T +61 7 3292 7000 F +61 7 3221 9669

www.claytonutz.com

L\321462513.2

Confidential

Email

Brian Barnett

Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd

Floor 11, 452 Flinders Street

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

brian.barnett@jacobs.com

17 January 2017

Dear Brian

New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Project

1. Introduction

1.1 We refer to the ongoing Land Court matter involving the New Acland Mine Stage 3 Project (Project).

1.2 On 14 December 2016, the Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) published their final advice regarding the Project (2016 IESC Final Advice).

1.3 In the 2016 IESC Final Advice, t