Mod 3 - Processing & Tailings Storage

Dear Madam/Sir,

I am currently a resident of Canberra, however I have strong ties to the Deua River Valley, as my parents have lived there for nearly 20 years. I have also lived there intermittently over that time. I am writing to state my objection to and ask that you disallow the modification proposed by Unity Mining to use Cyanide for gold processing on-site at the Dargues Reef Gold Mine in Majors Creek.

Aside from the time I have resided there, I enjoy visiting the Deua River on a frequent basis - it is one of the cleanest and most aesthetically beautiful rivers of NSW, from which water can safely be consumed directly. Gold processing on-site at the mine and subsequent accumulation of Cyanide in a tailings dam above the Deua Catchment poses a serious risk to the health of the river - not only from an ecological perspective - but also for those who rely on the river for drinking water, for which the number is estimated to be up to 100,000 people. Threatened species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Federal) and Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW) would be impacted on detrimentally. One example of this is the Australian Grayling (Prototroctes maraena).

Majors Creek is a major tributary to the river - a flood event occurring in this area could result in a failure in the tailings dam thus eventually carrying toxic Cyanide into the Deua River. Major flooding events have historically been reported in the Araluen Valley (rainfall exceeding 300mm in 24 hours). It is not a matter of whether a leak would happen, but when it would happen.There are numerous cases worldwide where tailing dam failures have resulted in irreversible damage to waterways, seriously harming the ecology and health of humans in the surrounding areas. An example of this is the Mount Polley disaster in Canada.

Longer term should such a disaster occur, devastation to the livelihood of residents of both the Araluen and Deua River Valleys would result. The effects would also be felt economically in the area, having a considerably negative impact on tourism to a large part of the Eurobodalla and Palerang Shires. .

It would be completely irresponsible and reckless to allow gold processing using Cyanide to go ahead at Dargues Reef Mine. The risks are just far too great to be ignored. The Deua River should be left alone, safe from any serious risk posed from mine pollution so that future generations can continue to experience its beauty, and the livelihood it has always supported may continue into perpetuity.

This region has a lot to offer and I believe that the inevitable creation of jobs, related services and ultimately wealth that this mine will bring will enhance the region further.

The proposed Modification 3 for the Dargues Reef Gold Mine is of concern because of the location of the mine at the head of a precious water catchment and the potential damage that could occur from the seepage or spillage of toxic materials. While the EIS does address issues of risk, it seems to minimise them and arguably understates the risk of failure in the longer term, and possibly even in the shorter term. The EIS accepts that some seepage of cyanide waste and other toxic materials will occur. While it argues that the levels are within a 'safe' zone, it fails to consider the cumulative impact of lower level seepage over time, or the immediate likely impact of a major failure, or to seriously consider what the adverse impacts might be on the natural and social communities downstream. It overlooks that the proposed method of cyanide based carbon-in-leach processing is banned in some countries. The substances we are talking about, which I understand will end up in the tailings dam - cyanide, mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium - are toxic to aquatic eco-systems and to humans. It is surprising that United Mining would consider it acceptable for there to be any risk of toxicity to downstream water systems, to productive agricultural lands and other natural environments, and to community drinking water supplies. While the EIS outlines measures to minimise risk, I would submit that there is no minimum level of acceptable risk. A major failure event, or even a build up of lower levels of toxins over time, could have serious social, environmental, economic and public health impacts for downstream communities. The EIS appears to make no effort to balance the modest community and public purse benefits predicted in the EIS (limited employment over just a 4 year period) against the risk of what could be catastrophic impacts on wildlife, aquatic systems, natural environments, public health, agriculture, tourism and the Eurobodalla economy more generally. In addition, there would be clean up costs. The fact that there is no substantial cost benefit analysis presented as part of the EIS is surprising. To risk toxic substances in any way polluting the catchment that is partly responsible for Eurobodalla's drinking water and that supports a tourism industry which boasts pristine natural environments would seem to be rather cavalier. I ask Environment and Planning not to endorse such a risky endeavour. The EIS does not seem to take seriously what is being risked in the short, medium and very long term. While the proposed mine expansion would cease in 2022, the tailings dam would last well into the future. There are so many examples of dangerous and toxic materials now in our environment from past practices when there was not full knowledge (asbestos for example). There can be no justification for government planning processes to support a project which may put future populations at risk. Responsibility must accompany knowledge. It is also of concern that the EIS does not seem to have fully accounted for the unknowns and instabilities of climate change in its risk assessments. While different weather scenarios have been considered, there doesn't seem to be adequate accounting for the predicted increase in the intensity and frequency of adverse weather events which we know climate change will bring (and which some believe is already happening). So while conventional risk assessments based on, for example, a 1 in 100 year storm and flood scenario, or a 1 in 1000 year event, might have once seemed sufficient, we no longer know what the likelihood of such extreme events will be. A 1:100 year or even 1:1000 year event may occur much more frequently in the future. How will the proposed mining system designs and waste storage facility deal with this? The dam construction and lining might cope with one, or even two such events, but could it cope with several? The long term storage of toxic wastes, into an unknown future well after the cessation of mining, could pose dangerous and unacceptable risks to public safety in that future. It is also the case that the EIS seems more concerned with localised processes for ameliorating the impact of sudden storms and rapid downpours. But in the case of an extreme weather event, or a series of such events, such localised spillways may well be inadequate. The EIS states that the sedimentation and pollution for which the company has already claimed responsibility and for which it has been fined, occurred after some particularly bad downpours. While the EIS assures us that steps will be taken to implement 'best practice' and to prevent such accidents recurring, it is possible that with the unpredictable adverse weather events possible in changed climate circumstances, there may be no way of preventing a serious accidental overflow or system failure for other reasons. Another likely consequence of climate change will be a higher valuing of food security. Responsible planning must ensure that the protection of productive agricultural land is prioritised over other land uses. With significant local food production, the Braidwood and Eurobodalla / Moruya areas are well placed to develop viable local economies. Such will be critical for sustainability in an unknown future. This further reinforces the need to resist any risk of undermining agricultural viability in the farmlands supported by the Deua and Moruya River catchments and the Majors Creek catchment. I submit these concerns as a resident of Eurobodalla shire, a frequent visitor to Palerang Shire and as a health professional who holds strong concerns for public and community health, and for the viability of sustainable local economies into the future.

Dear Sir / Ms

The only thing to say is Brazil & BHP or maybe Mount Polley Canada.
Both tailings dam failure diasters with connection to Australian so called responsible miners.
Please have a look at the amount of failures that do happen at this link.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html

Apparently the number of tailings dam collapses is increasing as costs are cut and more risk is taken.

I object to any risk to our water supply by this proposal.
There is no reason that we should accept the risk to our water supply given the number of dams that fail worldwide.

Yours Sincerely

Lenard Ryan

I object to extending the approved mine life from 31 August 2018 to 31 December 2024. I believe this company requires regular reviews of its operations. I would like to see yearly operational reviews of the tailing dam site due to the sensitive environment and vagaries of the impact of climate change.
I object to increasing the approved maximum ore extraction from 1.2 to 1.6 million tonnes over the life of the project. This company has already been bought & sold many times, therefore the continuity of management and accountability requires regular monitoring.
I object to the construction and use of a waste rock emplacement area;
I object to construction and use of a vehicle crossing over Spring Creek and to the amendment to the project boundary.
Overall I do not believe this Company has a secure financial base. To this end I would like to see an independent audit of the Company 's financial accounts with monies set aside by an independent body, eg EPA or Council, to have funds for any potential remedial works to offset any failures of the above modifications.
I would also like to mention the the poor risk management strategies of this industry in general. Brazil, Mt Polly and the more recent 150 deaths in China, all failed tailings dams, are surely good enough reasons to be very suspicious of any Company in the present financial and environmental atmosphere.

After thinking on the recent tailing dam disasters elsewhere in the world, namely Mt Polley, Mariana, and China, how can this company seriously think they have sufficient funds to bring people back from the dead-that I would like to see! That doesn't even take into account the water supply,wildlife, agriculture, tourism. It should be mentioned that this tailings dam also has the potential to outflow into the Shoalhaven River as well as the Deua/ Moruya system.
Where is the independent financial review of this Company's accounts and where is the money set aside for future potential disasters?
Although I know live in Perth, I was born and grew up in Moruya. I have fond memories of growing up in this pristine area which I would like to ensure to a future generation.

I'm an American who has been living in Moruya this year. I lived in a cottage on the Deua river, and found it to be one of the most beautiful and pristine places I have ever encountered. The family and surrounding community depend on this water, and we object to the dargues gold mining operation, including its expansion of privileges under Modification 3, the extension of over 6 years of mining, and the increase in total ore mining.

Mining will almost certainly have negative impacts in this sensitive ecological area, and will threaten a river and people that should be protected, not exploited. It's a boom and bust business that will not help our local community, and will forever damage our home.

If the mining MUST go through, please at least do not allow the modification 3 to go through, nor the extension and increase in total ore mining that is being asked for by Unity Mining.

Thank you for considering our voices,
Elisa Wirkala

I object to this proposal on the following grounds :-
!. It intends to use the "approved" tailings dam. However it has since been established that the wrong rainfall and evaporation figures were used.
2. Although the proponents say they will not use cyanide, the dam is inadequate to store the volume of tailings without spilling. This position is made even worse since the volume of ore is to be increased as well.
3.Sediment spills from the tailings dam will have a devastating effect on local aquatic life, and on water quality for those who need to extract from the creek and river downstream.

I note that the Proponent has re-instated a number of Commitments in the Revised Statement of Commitments in Appendix 2 to its Response to Submissions.

The Proponent explains this as follows.

"The Proponent notes that a range of Commitments inserted during the Land and Environment Court action are duplicated by Conditions of approval. However, in light of the fact that these matters were considered by the Court, the Proponent proposes to retain them within the Statement of Commitments."

There are a large number of other Commitments that the Proponent still proposes be deleted, despite the fact that they too were considered by the Land and Environment Court. Appendix 5 to the Land and Environment Court's Order of 8 February 2012 includes the following Commitments, now proposed for deletion by the Proponent: 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 3.1; 4.1; 4.7; 4.8; 4.9; 4.10; 4.12; 4.13; 5.7; 5.9; 5.12; 6.1; 6.2; 6.4; 6.4b; 6.4c; 6.4f; 6.9; 6.10; 7.1; 7.3 to 7.18; 8.1; 8.2; 8.4; 9.1; 9.2; 10.1 to 10.5; 10.7; 10.9; 10.10; to 10.14; 11.1; 12.1; 12.2; 12.5; 13.7 to 13.9; 14.5; 14.15; 15.1 to 15.6; 15.8 to 15.11; 15.13; 15.14; and 16.1.

A small number of Commitments could safely be deleted, as they are no longer relevant., namely: 6.4; 6.4c; 10.1 to 10.4; 10.9; 10.11 to 10.13.

The remainder of the Commitments should be retained, as they do not duplicate other Commitments, nor are they duplicated by the Conditions of approval.

Commitment 4.12 is not duplicated by Commitment 10.8, as Commitment 10.8 does not require signing up of drivers to the Code. It is not self-evident that Commitments 6.9 and 7.18 duplicate Commitment 6.5. Commitment 9.2 is still relevant, because it is possible that items of suspected non-Aboriginal heritage significance could be identified at some time during the life of the Project. Commitment 10.5 is also still relevant as transportation of concentrate is still proposed.

In accordance with Condition 3 of Schedule 2 to MP10_0054, if there is any inconsistency between a Commitment and a Condition of approval, the Condition prevails. The Proponent has not identified any inconsistencies, and where it claims that a Commitment is "now addressed by" a Condition, this claim is usually incorrect. Commitments are very often based on undertakings given in the 2010 Environmental Assessment, and set out the manner in which the Proponent proposed to address the general requirements that were later imposed as Conditions by the Planning Assessment Commission or the Land and Environment Court.

Other Comments

I note that my submission (no. 262) is claimed by the Proponent in Appendix 4 to its Response to Submissions to constitute an objection to, rather than support for, Modification 3. In fact, my submission was made in support of the Modification. The first sentence states that "with the exception of the proposed revision to the Statement of Commitments, I strongly support Modification 3, on both economic and environmental grounds".

This raises the question of whether the Proponent has misrepresented the main purpose of other submissions.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that the issues categorised in Appendix 4 as constituting the main objections of submitters to Modification 3 do not include the Revised Statement of Commitments. There is therefore no indication of the number of submitters who objected to the Revised Statement. Perhaps this could be addressed in any further Response to Submissions in relation to Modification 3.

Submission: AMENDMENT TO MODIFICATION 3, DARGUES REEF GOLD MINE
Application Number: MP 10_0054 MOD3
Location: Majors Creek


As a long time resident of the Deua River Valley I strongly object to the amendment of Modification 3 for the Dargues Reef gold mine by Big Island Mining.
I also object to the timing and time frame of the submission period - immediately before Christmas, when people do not have the time, inclination or energy to properly review or research information on such an onerous document.

Therefore this, my second submission to modification 3, will list the reasons for my objection in point form as they come to mind.
* the original approval was given without consulting downstream water users. Now it appears that we are `stuck with it' and can only comment on modifications as they arise, and yet we are the ones who will suffer the consequences of a TSF failure. We do not benefit from the mine in any way.
* rainfall data used was inaccurate as it was not for Majors Creek.
* Majors Creek is susceptible to high rainfall events.
* Unity Mining has not complied with the original Conditions of Approval. For example, the design was supposed to be continuously modified to suit local rainfall and evaporation.
*the amount of ore to be mined has increased by 30% and the mine life extended by 6 years. Surely the original dimensions of the TSF would be inadequate to cope with such increases. Or will there be further modifications in the future?
*the TSF will still contain heavy metals - a risk to downstream water users and the environment in the event of a breach or collapse of the bund wall.
*at RISK in the event of bund wall failure: all residents downstream that use the Deua River for domestic and agricultural water use, Eurobodalla Shire's water supply, endangered and threatened ecological communities along the river and within Deua National Park, Batemans Marine Park.
*recent tailings dam failures around the world, including Australia(Texas) is a warning that siting a TSF at the headwaters of a river system has disastrous consequences in the event of a breach or failure(Brazil being a prime example).
* the TSF will NOT be monitored forever, and it will NOT last forever as history shows.
* soil structure at the mine site is extremely susceptible to erosion, as evidenced by EPA breaches during construction during normal rainfall conditions. TSF bund wall and levee mounds to divert runoff are inadequate to withstand a heavy rainfall event, particularly if the ground is already saturated.
*mine site located on Majors Creek Fault Line. Ground movement, whether activated by mining or not, would interfere with the stability of the entire mine site. The implications of which could be catastrophic.
* in the event of TSF failure, will Unity's bond/insurance cover clean up, rehabilitation of the river system, compensation to residents/farmers and an alternative water supply for an entire shire?
* does Unity have a contingency plan if the river system and Eurobodalla's water supply is contaminated?
* who bares the responsibility/cost if Unity goes bankrupt?

*ON MONDAY 7th Dec. Unity announced a take over bid by Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd. This opens up a whole new `can of worms'.

I cannot but feel that this whole process is a waste of time. All I know for sure is that Dargues Reef Mine is, and will be a threat to all that live downstream.

Patricia Gardiner
3054 Araluen Road
Deua River Valley, 2537
ph: 02 44788582
e: [email protected]

As part of the investigations carried out by community members on the recorded Dargues Creek/Majors Creek rainfall data, it was found that the proponent had based their site design on incorrect data. This calls into question all of the design assumptions on the existing tailings dam.

There needs to a new design for the entire site, including sediment dams and other dams and all construction, including the new proposals in this Modification. To allow a the current design to proceed without re-examining the design assumptions based on the correct data would be a very high risk action.


In addition, Unity has not complied with the original Conditions of Approval, as recently determined by the Department of Planning's Compliance Officers.
These include continuously modifying the design of the Project before and during construction to suit the local rainfall and evaporation.
Unity have not done this, but the community only found this out when Unity were required to give the data for this Modification.

The proponent is also in breach of the approvals in that they have not:
. done the stygofauna survey
. done baseline studies of the Araluen Scarp Grassy Forest
. put in one of the ground water bores on site
. consulted with downstream landowners about damage done during their pollution events of 2013, and sought a determination from the Director General of Planning if no agreement can be reached

No practices that could cause any risk factor at all of polution to our creeks and waterways in the local area, and beyond.

Gold mines by their very nature must produce waste that includes a variety of heavy metals and other pollutants. These pollutants will be stored in a waste collection dam. The Dargues Reef Gold Project (and its waste/tailings dam) is located on the Deua River at the head of the Deua and Moruya River catchment. The geography of the project means that any solution spill from the mine site will quickly spread down this catchment. The Moruya River is the only source of drinking water for the northern end of the Eurobodalla Shire, an area that includes the towns of Moruya and Batemans Bay. Thus the only supply of drinking water for approximately 30,000 people can be easily and quickly destroyed. Placing such a source of pollution in such a location just beggars belief. I hope this project will be rejected.

Supplementary Submission on EA for THE DARGUES CREEK REEF GOLD MINE - MODIFICATION 3 MP10_0054

Removal of Cyanide Processing on Site and Expansion of Tailings Dam (TSF)
I am very pleased that cyanide processing & the enlargement of tailings dam have been withdrawn by Unity from this application for modification.

Failure to Comply with Original Conditions of Approval
However the failure of Unity to comply with the original conditions of approval as recently determined by the Department of Planning's Compliance Officers raises serious questions about Unity's commitment to protecting the environment.

Chief amongst these is the failure to continuously modify the design of the project before and during construction to suit the local rainfall and evaporation. The proposal needs to be revised to fit with the recorded Dargues/Major's Creek rainfall figures. New designs are needed for everything including sediment dams and other dams and all construction, including the new proposals in this modification for construction of an eastern waste rock emplacement and a vehicle crossing over Spring Creek.

Other areas of non-compliance have been:
No stygofauna survey
No baseline studies of the Araluen Scarp Grassy forest
One of the ground water bores not put in on site
No consultation with downstream landowners about damage done during their pollution events of 2013 and subsequently no determination sought from Director General of Planning if agreement was unable to be reached.

No new approvals should be allowed until the original conditions of approval are all carried out.

Extension of Time Frame for Mining Operations, Increase in Mined Ore and Expansion of Mine Site
Given the damming assessment by the EPA, the failure to comply with a number of original conditions and the litany of pollution events by Unity before the mine is even up and running I do not believe it is an acceptable risk to extend the mine's production time and volume or the expansion of the mine site .

I am further convinced of this when there is no explanation in this EA by Unity in relation to how & where the waste from the 33% of additional ore to be mined will be stored. If granted, will we need to expect yet another modification to increase the size of the tailings dam (TSF)

Unity have progressively attempted to extend the life of the mine from 2018 to 2022 and now to 2024. The longer they are there the greater the risk to our catchment. The reason the process of approval has been so drawn out is the inadequacy of Unity's proposal. The catchment community should not be made to bear the cost of their inadequacy.

Adequacy of Unity's Financial Ability to Remediate Land and/or Compensate Landholders in Case of Pollution
I have spoken about this in my original submission but would like to make some additional points.

I do not believe any risk to the Deua River Catchment is acceptable for the sake of gold mining.

However, since some mining has previously been approved Unity needs to be able to demonstrate its ability to compensate and remediate should there be pollution.

Their public liability insurance is only $60,000,000. Given the standard level of public liability to hire a hall is $20,000,000. Unity's coverage does not on the face of it seem sufficient given what they are proposing.

The tailings dam remains a major worry even though it is not being increased in size. Its position at the headwaters of the Deua and the fact that it will need to be maintained and kept in good condition for the foreseeable future remains the greatest threat to the catchment. The mine will come and go but we will be left with this toxic legacy for ever.

Supplementary Submission on EA for THE DARGUES CREEK REEF GOLD MINE - MODIFICATION 3 MP10_0054

I object to the proposed modification 3 to the Dargues Creek Gold mine.
I am a resident of Moruya, downstream from the Dargues Reef Gold Mine. Like most residents of Eurobodalla, I rely on the Deua River for my drinking water and I also use the river to swim and canoe.
Failure to Comply with Original Conditions of Approval

Unity Mining has failed to comply with the original conditions of approval as recently determined by the Department of Planning's Compliance Officers and this raises serious questions about Unity's commitment to protecting the environment.

Unity has failed to continuously modify the design of the project before and during construction to suit the local rainfall and evaporation. The proposal has not been revised to fit with the recorded Dargues Creek/Major's Creek rainfall figures. New designs are needed for everything including sediment dams and other dams and all construction, including the new proposals in this modification for construction of an eastern waste rock emplacement and a vehicle crossing over Spring Creek.

Other areas of non-compliance have been:
No stygofauna survey
No baseline studies of the Araluen Scarp Grassy forest
One of the ground water bores not put in on site
No consultation with downstream landowners about damage done during their pollution events of 2013 and subsequently no determination sought from Director General of Planning if agreement was unable to be reached.

Accordingly, there should be no new approval for extending the size or operating life of this mine.

Tailings will still contain dangerous heavy metals

The tailings dam will include finely ground heavy metals, which in this form, can result in increased mobilisation and pollution downstream, either during the operation of the mine, or after it has closed. The tailings will need to be permanently kept out of the river system and with Unity's track record, I have no confidence that is a sensible risk.
This is not a suitable site for processing ore and permanently storing tailings. Any pollution from the mine threatens recreational users of the river, the farmers who have orchards or market gardens along the Deua and people who eat that produce or rely on the river for drinking water.
The river passes through the Deua National Park which is a sensitive environmental area, where wildlife should be protected from industrial pollution.
The steep site of the tailings storage is a problem given the heavy rainfall which can occur in this area. This is not a suitable location for permanent storage of dangerous wastes.


Heavy metal pollution from the mine could harm the Deua River and the Moruya River all the way to the Batemans Bay Marine Park.
Extension of Time Frame for Mining Operations, Increase in Mined Ore and Expansion of Mine Site

Unity Mining has not so far operated the mine without accidents. There have been five pollution incidents during their six months of operation. The Land and Environment court which fined them over $200,000 held that the pollution was preventable had adequate precautions been taken. I have no confidence that Unity is able to handle these dangerous materials.
Extending the time frame of the mine's operation and increasing the amounts of materials processed only increases the risk of pollution and contamination of the Deua River catchment.

I object to the proposal and ask that it be refused.

Submission from Jackie French on Big Island Mining Pty Ltd Environmental Assessment for the Dargues Reef Gold Project MOD 3.
Submitted via email to Phillipa Duncan of the Department of Planning, 18.12.2015 with an assurance that this is an appropriate way to make this submission.


Proposed Vehicle Crossing over Spring Creek
This new creek crossing provides a vulnerable point for accidents for the entire watershed, and given the Dargues history, it is reasonable assume that accidents will happen.
If one accepts that the 'mean time to first accident' is a guide to a project's design and management, Dargues managed ten days before its first major accident, with the next ten days later.
The site is steep, and even a company with a proven record of speed, expertise and willingness to remediate damage would find it difficult or impossible to prevent major damage to areas downstream if the contents of truck, or even an oil or fuel spillage, were to occur on or near the proposed new creek crossing.
It would be irresponsible to allow yet another point where a further pollution accident can cause damage to residents immediately below the site, as well as the entire Araluen/Deua and Moruya water system

Construction of a Waste Rock Emplacement Area
No in depth assessment has been given for the prevention of acid leaching from the waste rock emplacement area, which again, may affect households, businesses, endangered species and areas of great ecological and economic value downstream.

Proposed Expansion of the Mine
The proposed expansion of the mine will lead to increased truck movements which require careful management both to avoid spillage and increase road hazard. Long- term effective management of the Tailings Storage Facility remains a risk that requires continual and rigorous monitoring for at least 50-100 years to prevent any future breach or collapse. The NSW Government record in making sure that derelict mine sites are fully and effectively rehabilitated is poor. Concern remains regarding the likelihood of there being an acid mine drainage problem at the mine. This needs to be assessed by an independent consultant with knowledge in this problem. Both issues have the potential to create negative impacts on downstream aquatic ecology.
There needs to be a full and independent i.e. not by Unity employees or long term consultants investigation of water quality from the mine backfilling, including modeling of dissolution associated with changes in hydrology, groundwater flow and the 
nature of the aquifer matrix.



I would remind the Department of the following
1. The company's poor record of Compliance, with many Compliance issues still unresolved, despite the Department' request that they be followed up. These issues include such major omissions as a further on site test bore; stygofauna monitoring to determine possible pollution or acidification; and cooperation with downstream water users during and after pollution events, and re evaluation of the entire design before and during the life of the Project, to fit the local rainfall data.


2. The five pollution events in the six months the Dargues Project operated, which took up much of those six months, and the repeated public denial of pollution events until forced to admit them in court.

4. The refusal to inspect or discuss remediation or reparation for damage downstream during those events

5. The public dispersal of information the company knew to be false, and their refusal to retract this information, when requested to.

6. Many of the 'independent' assessments made for the impact statements have in fact been made by Unity employees, or long term contractors

7. Knight Piesold can only work on the data they have been provided. This data has been shown to be faulty, underestimating rainfall and overestimating evaporation on site even though the Company was able to access and provide more accurate information. It is noteworthy that the information they have provided has led to a cheaper design, suited more to flat arid land than a steep slope above a major river system, with a record of extreme weather events.

8. The company's refusal to reply to a request for details on their financial ability to remediate and compensate for damage done downstream of their Project. They have only stated that they have the financial capacity to remediate the site itself. given the company's previous refusal to inspect or evaluate damage downstream in 2013, this omission would indicate that the company does not have the financial resources to remediate damage downstream, nor any willingness to do so.

9. The lack of any cost benefit analysis of potential damage downstream. This project has already cost the local community at least 29 jobs, and the NSW economy over three million dollars, not counting the public expense of the time taken by the EPA, Department of Planning and other government officers. I refer the Department to previous submissions about the major and long term value of downstream industries, including my own, that have already been dramatically affected financially by mistakes from this project, and the major potential for even greate damage.

10. The Company has refused to install electronic water level loggers in selected key monitoring bores and installing multi-level vibrating wire pressure sensors in selected open 
exploration bores in proximity to the mine workings if significant seepages are intersected in fault zones during mining . While this is far cheaper for a cash strapped company, it is at the cost of obtaining accurate data. the continuous data record available from a logger will capture short term variations in water levels which would otherwise be missed by the periodic manual measurements. These variations may well be significant, especially in interactions between shallow groundwater, surface water (streamflow) and rainfall. The separation of the baseflow component of streamflow also would be more meaningful and accurate if a continuous record was available from a data logger installed at each measurement station. In order to further enhance data collection QA/QC, the level logger should be capable of recording temperature and electrical conductivity of the water (EC) as basic indicators of water quality. A suitable application would be to equip the v- notch weir at the upper spring zone in Spring Creek with a water level/EC/temperature data logger to improve the basic monitoring at this location, as recommended by AGEC.
To put it bluntly: the Company appears to operate on the lowest level of monitoring and fulfillment of Conditions it can get away with, and the latest comments by the company do not give an confidence that the company culture has changed, nor is likely to. This represents a continuous risk to households and businesses worth far more than the projected profit and contribution that this project will provide, if funds can be raised for it to operate.
There is also a danger that of this mine proceeding without sufficient funding for in depth monitoring, compensation and reparation after pollution events.
Unity, and as it was formerly known, Bendigo Mining, has proved to be unsuccessful at estimating gold reserves at both Bendigo and Henty. The Ten Year `at least' gold reserves announced by Unity in 2012 at Henty proved to be false; the massive reserves promoted at Bendigo also could not be located, and as has happened in 2014-5, led to near bankruptcy and a company name change.
If the company is similarly incorrect about the extent or continuity reserves at Dargues, or the cost involved in reaching those extremely deep reserves, both the communities downstream as well as the NSW taxpayer may be faced with a bankrupt company, high remediation costs not just for the site but areas downstream, and a pollution problem for tens, if not hundreds, of years.
The NSW economy cannot afford to approve further Modifications and risk to valuable industries downstream, by a company with such a poor record.

I submit that no new Modification should be approved until the company has:
. complied with all Conditions of Approval
.updated the project design, including dams, tailings dams, and ore storage areas to fit local rainfall and evaporation figures
. provided evidence of a cost benefit analysis that includes businesses immediately downstream, and evidence that the company has the financial ability, and willingness, to investigate, remediate and compensate for damage downstream


I further submit:
.That a new creek crossing would mean a far greater risk of the accidents this project has been prone to.
.That the risk of acid leaching is too great, given the site and the project's record, for the other Modifications to be approved.

Jackie French
381 Major's Creek Mountain Road
Araluen Valley
PO Box 63 Braidwood 2622
02 48464036
jackiefrench72@ gmail.com

Dear M/S Duncan,
I wish to express utmost concern at the proposed changes to the above project. The Moruya river is the lifeblood of a very extensive catchment apart from the township of Moruya. Any development that compromises the health of that river should be banned immediately. Fortunately common sense won out over the insane idea to use cyanide in extraction but the new proposal is so far reaching that a fresh application should be mandatory.
Extending the lifespan of approval by 300%, extending the volume of ore extraction by 33%, extending the site boundary (by ?), constructing a new creek crossing and an extensive area for `waste' rock `storage' are not minor adjustments. The Department should be undertaking a fresh review of this project following request for a new application. Nothing less should be accepted.

Submission from Bryan Sullivan on Big Island Mining Pty Ltd Environmental Assessment for the Dargues Reef Gold Project MOD 3.
Submitted via email to Phillipa Duncan of the Department of Planning, 18.12.2015 with an assurance that this is an appropriate way to make this submission.

I oppose the Modifications on the following grounds:

Proposed Vehicle Crossing over Spring Creek
The company has shown itself incapable of conducting operations without considerable damage to landowners like myself downstream, and the local ecology. This crossing would mean a greater risk from the accidents this company is prone to.

Construction of a Waste Rock Emplacement Area
There has been no in-depth assessment given for the prevention of acid leaching from the waste rock emplacement area. Given the company's record, this indicates a lack of willingness to acquire the necessary data, and to carry out remediation, especially if the company goes into liquidation before final remediation. I draw the Department's attention to the auditor's report in 2014 stating that Unity is at risk of not being able to meet its obligations. Unity has now changed auditors, but a risky financial position means risk for those who may be affected downstream.

Proposed Expansion of the Mine
This should not be permitted until the company has met all Conditions of Approval and resolved the issues remaining from remediation and compensation from the 2013 spillages.


I submit that no new Modification should be approved until the company has:
1. complied with all Conditions of Approval, and that reports on this Compliance have been made available to the local community who have suffered so much from this project.
2. updated the project design, including dams, tailings dams, and ore storage areas to fit the local rainfall and evaporation figures, as required under the LEC Conditions of Approval, and that reports on this Compliance have been made available to the local community

I submit that:
1. A new creek crossing would mean a far greater risk of the accidents this project has been prone to.
2. The risk of acid leaching is too great, given the site and the project's record, for the other Modifications to be approved.

Bryan Sullivan
381 Major's Creek Mountain Road
Araluen Valley.
PO Box 63 Braidwood 2622
02 48464036
[email protected]

The Deua River Valley is my childhood home. My mother and step father still live on a property in the Valley and regularly have family and friends to stay. We all thoroughly enjoy visiting this naturally beautiful and unspoilt place in the Australian bush.

My family and the whole community depend on the Deua River's fresh water every day and fervently oppose the dangerous Dargues gold mining operation. That includes Modification 3, the time extension on mining and the plan to increase total ore mining.

If the operation or even parts of the operation go ahead, it will clearly have a devastating effect on the whole community's home, not to mention the rich array of native wildlife that heavily depend on the health of the river.

Please listen to our distresses and stop to think about the vital future of our beautiful Deua River.

Thank you,
Clea Wells

It seems to me that the planning for the Dargues Reef Project has been a "make it up as you go along" ad hoc process. This is totally unacceptable for an operation which has potentially disastrous consequences for downstream users like myself, and Eurobodalla's Nature Coast.
Unity Mining has shown nothing but contempt for environmental safeguards and the EPA, and doesn't seem to have addressed all the risks and possible negative impacts on flora and fauna in the area.
To increase the life and size of the project increases the possibility of our worst fears being realised. Serious breaches have already occurred and changes of control of the company indicates that shareholders are the main concern and local residents are only a nuisance.
We have been here for 35 years and have improved the health of our section of river and intend to be here for a long time yet.We have a lot to lose but nothing to gain from this mining venture.