Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
Hyder employed others on its behalf (e.g. Nolan, Valenza, and/or others) to wrote, approve and/or authorise reports for man X, man Y and CASACIR in relation to the Neerim North quarry.
Three so-called monitoring bores were drilled at the Neerim North quarry in April 2009 – Hyder wrote, approved and/or authorised reports that gave the sites of those bores in various conflicting locations, and conflictingly labelled the bore numbers. Based on that alone, it made the reports it produced as fact suspect.
From there it deteriorated because of the contradicting information having been provided on behalf of Hyder to the tribunal about the groundwater as fact, compared to the information provided in the subsequent reports, also as fact. They can’t both be right so, was what was given to the tribunal as fact lies, or is what is in the reports that differs so greatly the lies? My guess is that the truth is a moving target based on what man X, man Y and CASACIR want Hyder to say and what it was prepared to say. I don’t know why people can’t just tell the truth and be done with it.
Hyder admitted to have visited the quarry site on 29 July 2008, 8 November 2008, and 19 May 2009, and could have commenced monitoring on any of those dates – which would have given real background/baseline information against which to accurately depict the quarry detrimental impacts – but it did not do so, it waited until the impacts were in place so that it was impossible to show what impacts there actually were.
Hyder then found it entirely appropriate that the monitoring bores were only drilled to 12, 14 and 15 metres deep when the stated intention is to excavate up to 70m.The limited bore depths thus hid the real impacts on the groundwater. Further, when one of the bores was deliberately ripped out without being decommissioned (as required by law), Hyder did not take issue with it.
The 2008 tribunal members stated in their reasons that “103 We find it essential that the environmental flows to Kookaburra Creek be maintained with water of the same quality as at present emerges from the spring”. In spite of this demand, Hyder made the decisions: *to ignore the tribunal members’ demands, *to not commence monitoring until the quarry had already well and truly commenced polluting and contaminating, and had already polluted and contaminated the water, *to set those polluted and contaminated levels as the “background/baseline” measures and levels as the control level and the basis upon which to assess any (further) pollution or contamination *to ignore reality, *to ignore some of the conditions of the planning permit (e.g. identification of affected parties and compensation), *to ignore our pre-existing legal rights to the natural flow of Kookaburra Creek, *to ignore the demands of legislation such as the demand for certain permits and licences under the Water Act 1989, *to ignore the fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR were failing to meet their fraudulent undertakings, *to accept and even suggest, a narrow open drain as a so-called “wetland” instead of insisting on a proper wetland, *to allow polluted and contaminated quarry wastewater and drainage to relace the natural spring flows of Kookaburra Creek, *to give contradictory information within reports and to the tribunal, and *so on – and it portrayed itself as hydrogeological expert. Just some of its other failures are revealed below.
Hyder admitted that there were potential contamination issues: “Potential sources of groundwater contamination are identified in the Work Plan. These are: hydrocarbons and other chemicals from refuelling and workshops; sewage; and *loss of sediment from the settling dam”[1], and “The only potential for degradation in surface water quality would occur if the make up water quality into the drainage depression below Pearce Road was high in suspended solids due to the turbidity associated with runoff into the sump” [2] – it knew that there were potential pollutants identified in the work plan, but it later acknowledged that there were contaminants from the quarry in the sump. Also, it remain a fact that it was not at all really concerned by the actual contamination, and deliberately delayed commencing monitoring until the impacts had materialised and then used those contaminated and polluted levels as the “background/baseline” levels.
Hyder stated “Precautions will be taken to ensure no hydrocarbons or other potentially dangerous chemicals are spilt in the excavation or around the site (equipment will be refuelled near the service facility/workshop located out of the excavation on a bunded concrete pad fitted with a triple interceptor trap)”[3] – it made grand sounding claims, but it could subsequently see for itself that the claims were false given that equipment and machinery was being re-fuelled and repaired in the excavation and around the site, there was contamination by hydrocarbons in the dam, and there was no “bunded concrete pad” or “triple interceptor trap” installed at any time until September 2010 – over a year after commencing works at the quarry.
Hyder stated “Any hydrocarbons or other potentially dangerous chemicals contamination will be immediately treated on site with a spill kit and potentially contaminated water will be removed by an Environment Protection Authority accredited contractor”[4] – two more grand sounding claims, but there was no spill kit on site until after at least 2 August 2011 (and there may still be no spill kit for all I know), and it later admitted that contaminated water was on site, and was, in fact, was being allowed to exit into Kookaburra Creek and our property, and from there into the Latrobe River and ultimately to the Gippsland Lakes (a RAMSAR site).
Hyder then went on to state [emphasis mine] that “The quality of groundwater in Victoria is protected under the 1997 State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwater’s [sic] of Victoria (EPA, 2002) The purpose of the SEPP Groundwater’s [sic] of Victoria is to maintain and, where necessary. Improve groundwater quality sufficiently to protect existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwaters throughout Victoria”[5] – yet it took no issue with a monitoring bore being adjacent to septic tank and lines as well as being close to hydrocarbon storage and re-fuelling (with absolutely no containment for the over-spills that leaked directly on to the ground for many months, and then much later, being close to the triple interceptor trap that leaked); it also failed to take issue that the second monitoring bore had been drilled into overburden and was unreadable; it yet further failed to issue with the fact that the third monitoring bore was subject to contamination from the effluent from cattle, and was subject to damage by being unprotected for a considerable period of time.
Hyder noted that “Surface water quality if assessed against an Adopted Assessment Criteria (AAC) for beneficial use”[6] – but ignored the fact that the water that had been clean and clear before the quarry, but that after the commencement of the quarry was no longer suitable for drinking and therefore failing one of the major “potable” requirements – in fact, it provided table 5.7 which stated that the following beneficial uses applied to the surface water at Neerim North: “Primary Contact Recreation”, “Secondary Contact Recreation”, “Aesthetic Enjoyment”, “Indigenous Cultural and Spiritual Values”, “Non-indigenous Cultural and Spiritual Values”, “Agriculture and Irrigation”, “Aquaculture”, “Industrial and Commercial Use”, “Human Consumption after appropriate treatment”, “Fish, Crustacea & Molluscs for human consumption”. The surface water (particularly in relation to the spring they incorrectly called the “south-west spring”, the “primary dam”/”pit sump”, and the falsely named “Clean Water Dam”), as a result of the quarry, was now no longer suitable for drinking water supply or primary contact recreation purposes, and it was seriously arguable that it is appropriate for most of the other “benefits” that it was required to be satisfactory for (e.g. I certainly would not want to eat anything that came out of that water, and I doubt very much if Hyder or even man X, man Y and CASACIR would be willing to eat it either).
Filthy dam
Having above identified some of the risk factors to water quality, after 4½ months of such impacts, Hyder made it clear, in spite of the tribunal members demanding that the environmental flow and quality remained the same as before the quarry works started, that it believed it to be entirely acceptable (to it) that it must ignore the impacts already commenced and that the information gathered would then become the “background/baseline data”. Hyder then went on to say in its “Scope of Work” that [emphasis mine]: “Hyder personnel will carry out the first stage of background monitoring at the Neerim North site, to provide background/baseline data”[7]. It additionally stated “The Surface water and Groundwater Monitoring Program was originally developed by the Expert Witness, John Nolan and outline in Hyder (2009). … [and that] Groundwater and surface water sampling was undertaken by Hyder Consulting on a monthly basis. The dates of sampling are shown below: *Sample Round 1 (December 2009): 18th – 19th December (Annual Monitoring Event); *Sample Round 2 (January 2010): 28th January; and *Sample Round 3 (February 2010) 22nd February”[8] – thus it proved that the start of the monitoring was on 18 December 2009, and since the works at the quarry commenced on 4 August 2009, the monitoring did not start until 4½ months after the water quality impacting quarry works commenced – and it was happy as a qualified expert that this was entirely appropriate!
Hyder again confirmed that its belated data was used for the background conditions because it had entirely failed to take proactive readings: “Statistical analysis of analyte trends found that the majority of analytes show consistent trends and represent the natural background conditions”[9]. It then went on to say [emphasis mine] “It should be noted that in applicable cases surface water quality was assess against the AAC[[10]] for beneficial use. Exceedances were then compared to historical data using a statistical trend based analysis, but which current and historical results are assessed against a median value. Those which are greater than an acceptable standard deviation of ±95% from the median have been deemed anomalous. Trend analysis is considered only a guide at this stage as there is a limited data set. As sampling proceeds greater certainty can be applied to trend analysis”[11] – it again used the new levels for creating the background levels because it had failed to do proper and responsible monitoring over a period of time prior to the quarry works commenced and there were no historical measurements because, as an expert, it had failed to take any measurements.
Hyder made the claim that [emphasis mine] “A statistical analysis of results suggest that based on the three-month trends, result [of the analysis of the Physical Parameters (EC, pH, Turbidity and Temperature)] are considered to represent the natural background condition”, that “Analyte Concentration Trends over the Monitoring Period. A statistical analysis of result from the December (2009) to February (2010) period determined that the trends indicate that the variation in trends is within the range of normal values, and is therefore represent [sic] the natural background condition with some exceptions”, and that “Turbidity in surface water features is likely to be related to the presence of cattle which have access to the … Clean Water Dam. The extent of the quarry and associated drainage does not yet impact surface water systems at this site”. This is spite of admitting that “… Figure 5-14 to Figure 5-16 shows the trends in analytes. It should be noted that there is a gap in data from December to late January, as weekly monitoring for physical parameters did not commence till the beginning of February”[12] – so clearly the fact that the monitoring did not commence until months after the quarry commenced, and in spite of the fact that there was a serious gap in what monitoring did occur, it was generally “normal” and “followed the statistical trends” that did not actually exist in any really meaningful or true and accurate form[13].
Hyder claimed that [emphasis mine] “Regular monitoring of the weir during Stage 1 will be undertaken”[14]. The monitoring is therefore admitted to knowingly and deliberately not commence prior to the start of the quarry, and, in fact, is later admitted to not commenced until 4½ months after the quarry commenced – thus allowing for the serious contamination that occurred to be set up as the baseline and control limits so that the quarry could continue to do harm to neighbours and the environment, yet Hyder did not consider this to be improper at all. Amazing, simply amazing.
Hyder again proved that it bungled and was, in my opinion, inept for failing to take readings over a period of time before the quarry commenced, and it therefore believed it entirely appropriate to have to rely upon contaminated “controls”. “The quarry development is in its early stages and the data collected are to be considered as background information. Continued monitoring is required in order to build a sufficient background dataset, from which accurate long-term trends can be deduced. This is important in the development of understanding surface and groundwater systems. … As defined in our Hydrological assessment, during Stage 1 development, the monitoring provides data to built [sic] background information, as the quarry activity doesn’t reach any existing surface water feature or impact on any groundwater level”[15]. It made this claim in spite of existing significant impacts on Kookaburra Creek and the spring which fed it, and then it went on to state: “[R]esults are building background data and characterising the physical and chemical properties … Any exceedances of the AAC may actually represent the natural conditions. Therefore, building background data to complete a trend analysis is important in understanding the normal parameters”[16], and “The review of data from March to May 2010 indicates that results are representative of natural background conditions”[17], and “The monitoring program is progressively building sufficient background data, from which long-term trends can be deduced. As environmental factors such as rainfall appear to influence trends a twelve-month dataset will provide a better understanding of seasonal influences on groundwater and surface water systems”[18].
I don’t suppose it occurred to Hyder that the reason there were no specific patterns at that stage was because it had not commenced monitoring until 4½ months after the quarry works had commenced when they said [emphasis mine]: “In some cases the AAC have been exceeded or results are considered statistically anomalous, but no specific pattern in trends can be established”[19].
Then it suggested that others were to blame for impacts of the quarry [emphasis mine]: “Thus, suggesting the results are indicative of normal conditions, with random outliers possibly attributed to external environmental factors”[20], “The occurrence of TPH in surface water is attributed to external human influences. As the quarry does not yet utilise the dam and drainage existing from the quarry does not currently flow into the dam, the cause of contamination cannot be attributed to quarry activities. However, the occurrence of TPH is of concern and needs to be further investigated.”[21], and “The occurrence of TPH at the CWD needs to be investigated as to its origins. At present no run-off from the quarry enters the dam, therefore the TPH has to have originated via another means”[22]. Hyder states that it did not use the CWD yet, but the sediment runoff from the eastern end of the bund went into it and had done so from the time the bund was commenced in early August 2009 (with the creation of the bund requiring many types of machinery and equipment, all using hydrocarbons!). Further, there was a lot of quarry traffic going up and down the road and in through the gate close by, and the muck and whatever would come off the tyres and be washed off the road into the dam – so it was attributable to the quarry!! What other “human influences” are there in relation to the dam? None that I know of.
Hyder rightly claimed that [emphasis mine] “the beneficial uses include potable water and ecosystem support”[23], yet it allowed and approved of a complete lack of monitoring prior to the quarry works commencing, and approved and took part in the seriously delayed monitoring, thereby allowing and approving serious contamination to set the standard and baseline from which to gauge all other quarry contamination of the ground and surface water systems. Potable water in the situation of the quarry denotes, amongst other uses, that it is drinkable water – would anyone from Hyder drink the water now? I seriously doubt it based on its own later analysis of the lack of quality of the water.
Hyder made the claim that “The spring to the west of the development area will be protected in Stage 1 by using culverts to manage the flow under the quarry access road”[24] – but it ignored a number of facts: (1) that the installation of culverts to divert the flow of the waterway (Kookaburra Creek) had to have a prior permit to do so, but that no such permit had been sought or granted when doing the works; (2) that there was actually no protection of the spring or of Kookaburra Creek at any stage: the dust and hydrocarbons from around the site drained into the spring, and the dust and hydrocarbons from the haul road, as well as polluting in the dam, also went into the flow of Kookaburra Creek. Protection? I don’t think so – yet its subsequent monitoring reports failed to address these issues or the impacts of those issues (in fact, those pollution levels were used as part of the new “background/baseline” levels, and that was perfectly acceptable to it as a professional company).
Hyder made the claim that “The site drainage system, concrete sediment trap and primary settling dam will be constructed in Stage 1”[25]. There was no site drainage system as depicted by the work plan and planning report performed during stage 1, nor was it implemented in stage 2 to date as far as can be seen from the road and from the 2020 Google Earth maps – yet the subsequent monitoring reports up to 2013[26] failed to address these issues or the failure to follow through with those issues.
Hyder claimed that “The contour drains above the excavated area along the northern boundary will lead water into the quarry benches then into a series of rubble lined drains to drop the water down into the quarry sump floor”[27] – there have been no such rubble lined drains performed as far as can be seen from the road and from the 2020 Google Earth maps – yet the subsequent monitoring reports up to 2013[28] failed to address these failures.
Hyder claimed that “It is also understood that water within the existing primary settling dam at 420 m AHD may be pumped to the existing clean water dam in the south-east corner of the proposed Work Authority area. This storage has a reduced water level of about 424 m AHD. Water from this dam will be used to make up losses of spring water into the drainage line”[29]. Firstly, there had not been any lowering of the water level (an no mention of this failure in subsequent reports). Secondly, the falsely-named “clean water dam” was in fact a filthy dam that was admitted by man X under oath as being a dirty dam[30]. Additionally, it was later acknowledged as being polluted by hydrocarbons and faeces as well as other contaminants – yet Hyder sticks to the false name of it being “clean” in order to compel others to believe its and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s false claims (that it is potable water as admittedly required by law). Again, Hyder believe that this is entirely acceptable.
Hyder stated as fact that “The spring to the west of the old quarry will be excavated in Stage 2. This will result in, a loss of groundwater inflow to the drainage line immediately to the south of Pearce Road and in the south-west corner of the property. … Water within the existing settling dam at 420 m AHD may be pumped to the existing clean water dam in the south-east corner of the proposed Work Authority area to make up losses of spring water into the drainage line”[31]. There are so many issues with this claim. Firstly, the law says that the water could not be taken from us without our permission (or that of any subsequent landowners who bought our property) – and we were never going to give our permission and they all knew that; they made the claim as fact when the law does not allow this to occur if we objected and we have objected at every stage. Secondly, the “water” they were intending to pump to replace what had been clean clear spring water before the quarry works commenced and the contaminated readings used for “quality”, would be the quarry wastewater and drainage Hyder admitted was contaminated by quarry activities. Thirdly, as previously stated, the “existing clean water dam” was actually a filthy dam it admitted was contaminated by quarry activities. Fourthly, the so-called ”drainage line” is in fact Kookaburra Creek, a waterway under the Water Act 1989, and as identified on Vicmap 8122-3-3. The fact is that Hyder was bending to what suited man X, man Y and CASACIR rather than telling the truth.
Hyder did admit that “The reported concentrations E.coli [sic] in surface water exceeded guidelines at the … South-west Spring and the Clean Water Dam” (still claiming it to be a “clean” water dam in spite of the admitted contamination), while also admitting that “The Pit Sump …was only sampled on one occasion (December 2009) during the quarter”. It also admitted that the “E.coli shows a variable trend with large variations in concentration throughout the monitoring period [including] faecal matter around the site”[32] – proving what I consider to be the incompetence of the monitoring and truthful relating of real facts.
Hyder refer to “the limited range of data” and “the limited range of data statistical analysis”, yet found it entirely appropriate to use as the baseline! And, in spite of this, it states “Physical parameters including EC, pH, Turbiditywhen compared to trends are considered normal” (there were no trends because there was no historical data from before the quarry impacts began), and “Bacteria analysis for E.coli found that concentrations varies greatly across surface water sites, and in the majority of cases exceeded the adopted guidelines … statistical anomalous found that results were within the natural range of variation”[33] – again, there was no statistical data, so Hyder could not make comparisons. Yet it claims “The monitoring at the Neerim North quarry has been carried out … in accordance with the appropriate guidelines” – it is my opinion that this is a load of crock if taken seriously, and it beggars belief that an expert company like this would consider what was done or, more accurately, not done, to be appropriate. And do the guideline actually suggest waiting for the pollution and contamination to have taken hold before actually commencingmonitoring? This was not what I was taught when I did my 2 courses on water management.
A summary of their clear intentions to ignore the rights of ourselves (and now the rights of those who subsequently bought our property is provided: “Any loss in spring flow will be supplemented with water from the clean water dam”[34]. Again: the monitoring is admitted to not have commenced prior to the start of the quarry, and, in fact, is admitted to not commencing until 4½ months after the quarry commenced, thus allowing for serious contamination to be set up as the baseline and control limits so that the quarry could continue to do harm to neighbours and the environment, and to take the rights of the landowners from them because man X, man Y, CASACIR, and Hyder did not have the right to take that water without consent, yet not one of them apparently considered any of this to be improper at all.
In summary, I am appalled that Hyder was obviously happy to make claims when the exact opposite was frequently the case, and to have used polluted and contaminated results used as its standard.
[1] The Hyder hydrogeological assessment dated 13 August 2009), Section 6.2
[5] Hyder first quarterly environmental monitoring report, Section 5.1
[10] Adopted Assessment Criteria
[11] Hyder first quarterly environmental monitoring report, Section 5.3.1
[13] Ibid, Section 5.3.2 [emphasis mine]
[14] The Hyder hydrogeological assessment dated 13 August 2009), Section 5
[15] Hyder March 2010 quarterly environmental monitoring report, Section 8
[16] Hyder June 2010 quarterly environmental monitoring report, Section 5.2
[23] The Hyder hydrogeological assessment dated 13 August 2009), Section 4.5.2 [emphasis mine]
[26] Subsequent reports may have dealt with it but very much doubt it.
[27] The Hyder hydrogeological assessment dated 13 August 2009),, Section 5
[28] Subsequent reports may have dealt with it but very much doubt it.
[29] The Hyder hydrogeological assessment dated 13 August 2009), Section 5
[30] T31:1-2 and T42:12 (26 November 2010): “Oh, about a third of that tree guard between the clean water, the dirty dam, cows stand in the dam…The dirty dam”
[31] The Hyder hydrogeological assessment dated 13 August 2009), Section 6.3
[32] Hyder March 2010 quarterly environmental monitoring report, Section 5.3.4