Rolleston Coal Holdings Pty Ltd v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation
[2025] QLC 22
•5 September 2025
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Rolleston Coal Holdings Pty Ltd v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation
[2025] QLC 22
PARTIES:
Rolleston Coal Holdings Pty Ltd
(applicant)
v
Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland Inc
(non-active objector)Lock the Gate Alliance Ltd
(non-active objector)and
Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation
(statutory party)FILE NO:
EPA286-24 (EPML 00370013)
PROCEEDING:
Objection to amendment application for environmental authority
DELIVERED ON:
5 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARD ON:
17 July 2025
Submissions received 25 July 2025HEARD AT:
Brisbane
MEMBER:
JR McNamara
ORDERS:
1. I recommend that the administering authority responsible for the Environmental Protection Act 1994 approve the application to amend EPML 00370013 on the conditions stated in the draft environmental authority contained in Attachment B of these reasons.
2. I direct the Registrar to provide, as soon as practicable, a copy of these orders and the reasons and access to the Land Court e-trial site to the administering authority responsible for the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – LAND COURT – where there are objections to a draft amended environmental authority – where the amendment application was deemed a major amendment requiring public notification – where an Environmental Impact Statement was not required – where the objectors did not elect to be active in proceedings – where the objections concern inadequacies in assessment process, terrestrial ecology, rehabilitation, offsets, greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, surface water, groundwater, groundwater dependent ecosystems, social and economic impacts, and human rights – where the applicant and statutory party agree as to all conditions of the draft amended environmental authority – whether the Court should recommend to the administering authority that the application for an amended environmental authority be approved
HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – Human Rights Act 2019 s 58 – where the Court is acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity – where public entities are required to properly consider human rights relevant to their decisions – where the Court has previously held that greenhouse gas emissions limit the right to life – whether the Court accepts that the limitation on human rights in this instance is demonstrably justified
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 3A
Environmental Offsets Act 2014
Environmental Protection Act 1994 s 125, s 172, s 191
Human Rights Act 2019 s 15, s 16, s 26(1), s 58Ballymore Resources Limited v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation [2025] QLC 15
BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation [2024] QLC 7
Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd & Anor v East End Mine Action Group (No 4) [2021] QLC 22
Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796
Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5
Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors [2020] QLC 33
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21APPEARANCES:
DG Clothier KC, with JJ Underwood (instructed by Allens) for the applicant
AR Hellewell (instructed by In-house Legal, Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation) for the statutory party
The ROC
[1]The Rolleston Open Cut Coal Mine (ROC) is owned and operated by Rolleston Coal Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant). The applicant is owned by Glencore Operations Australia Pty Limited, which is owned by Glencore PLC (Glencore).
[2]The ROC is located in the southern part of the Bowen Basin.
[3]The ROC commenced mining in 2005 within Mining Lease (ML) 70307. Since that time the ROC has been granted additional MLs to facilitate expanded mining operations, as well as supporting infrastructure such as a rail loop, and for surface water management.
[4]ROC exports coal via the Port of Gladstone (RG Tanna and Wiggins Island Coal Terminals) as well as supplying domestic customers in Gladstone, including the Gladstone Power Station.
The Project
[5]The applicant has applied to amend Environmental Authority (EA) EPML 00370013 for the Spring Creek North Continuation Project (SCNCP) which would extend the disturbance footprint of the mine to the northern portion of ML 70307 and ML 70415.
[6]The ROC site location, with an outline of all current MLs, including the SCNCP area, is depicted in Attachment A to these reasons.
[7]ML 70415 was granted in 2016 as part of the Rolleston Coal Expansion Project (RCEP), and subject to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and EA amendment. A substantial portion of ML 70415 was approved to be impacted as part of the RCEP. Those impacts were largely to occur to the west, with only minor impacts authorised in the north.
[8]SCNCP operations would result in new disturbance of approximately 592.2 ha across ML 70307 and ML 70415, with the proposed Spring Creek North pit covering 454 ha. Hence the need to amend the EA.
Current operations
[9]There are currently four pits operating at the ROC. The 2023 Life of Mine (LOM) plan, based on current approvals, estimates production would continue until 2040 at a rate of up to 16 Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa).
[10]The current EA authorises the applicant to mine “up to 19 million tonnes of run of mine (ROM) coal per annum.”[1]
[1]ROC.0002 Exhibit D, Condition A2.
Proposed SCNCP operations
[11]The applicant submits that the SCNCP will not increase the mine’s permitted production rate (that is, 19 Mtpa) or extend the life of the mine. Mining will continue to be conducted using open cut methods.
[12]The proposed Spring Creek North pit will yield approximately 33.7 Mt of ROM coal over the life of the Project. This is additional total production. The SCNCP will utilise existing approved ROC infrastructure wherever practical. However, some additional mine infrastructure, as well as upgrades to some existing mine infrastructure, will be required.[2]
[2]This will include a new clean water drain at the western end of the Project area to separate clean water from mine affected water, as well as the extension of the current Spring Creek pit dewatering pipeline to the north of the proposed Project area. A new 66 kV powerline will be installed to the north of the Project pit.
[13]The Project will allow the Non-Use Management Area (NUMA) mining void at the current Spring Creek Pit Ramp 1 to be removed and progressively backfilled, allowing for a Post-Mining Land Use (PMLU) of grazing across that area.
[14]Two residual voids[3] which would support a PMLU, namely stock watering (cattle) would remain on the SCNCP post-mining.
[3]Initially identified in the EA amendment application as Voids 7 and 8, that correspond with Voids 8 and 9 in the Public Environment Report; ROC.0009 Exhibit A.
The amendment application
[15]The amendment application was lodged by environmental consultants, Mining and Energy Technical Services Pty Ltd (METServe),[4] on behalf of the applicant on 10 May 2023 and proposed mostly no changes or amendments to the Schedules to the EA. The following amendments were proposed:
(a)An amendment to the trigger level for sodium within EPML 00370013 Table D3 (unrelated to the SCNCP but sought to ensure sodium levels would be better monitored);[5]
(b)The addition of three groundwater monitoring bores to assess any impacts on groundwater resulting from the SCNCP (already installed) – amendment to Table 2 – Groundwater monitoring locations and frequency to include new locations;
(c)An amendment to Condition K1 and Table K1 “Significant Residual Impacts to Prescribed Environmental Matters” to include the prescribed environmental matters within the SCNCP impact area – and associated amendment to Figures 4 to 8 to reflect updates to Table K1.
[4]COM.0009.
[5]ROC.0011 [18].
[16]The METServe “Supporting Information for Application for Amendment to EPML00370013” document[6] included technical assessments relating to surface water, groundwater, terrestrial ecology, and impacts on matters of national and state environmental significance.
[6]COM.0009.
[17]The applicant in written submissions notes that the METServe Supporting Information document explained that the Project would involve impacts to prescribed environmental matters (PEMs) in overlapping areas of the MLs,[7] namely:
(a)124.1 ha of Natural Grassland TEC (Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES), Endangered).
(b)536.2 ha of King Bluegrass habitat (MNES, Endangered).
(c)424.8 ha of Koala habitat (MNES, Endangered).
(d)536.2 ha of habitat for Cyperus clarus (Matter of State Environmental Significance (MSES), Vulnerable).
(e)124.1 ha of habitat for Trioncinia retroflexa (MSES, Endangered).
(f)7.0 ha of Regional Ecosystem (RE) 11.4.7 (Acacia harpophylla) (MSES, Endangered).
(g)124.1 ha of RE 11.8.11 (Dichanthium sericeum) (MSES, Of Concern).
(h)20.5 ha of MSES Prescribed RE within a defined distance from the defining banks of a relevant watercourse (RE 11.3.25 (1.7 ha), RE 11.4.7 (0.1 ha) and RE 11.8.4 (0.8 ha).
[7]ROC.0011 [20].
[18]In response to questions from the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (the statutory party), further technical reports were provided: an Air Quality Assessment dated 14 December 2023,[8] and a Noise and Vibration Assessment dated 14 December 2023.[9]
[8]COM.0021.
[9]COM.0022.
[19]The application to amend the EA was determined to be a major amendment requiring public notification.
[20]Following the scheme of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) the applicant published a public notice about the amendment application and (ultimately) satisfied the statutory party of its compliance with the public notice requirements. The (2nd) submission period ended 1 February 2024.
[21]Five submissions were determined to be properly made. The submitters were The Environment Council of Central Queensland, Lock the Gate Alliance (LtG), The Mackay Conservation Group, The Queensland Conservation Council, and Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland (EnvA).
[22]On 9 February 2024 the EP Act ‘decision stage’ commenced. During the ‘decision stage’ various versions of the draft EA were provided to the applicant for consultation on a final set of conditions. The final version of the draft EA was agreed on 24 July 2024, although an updated Figure 2[10] and Figure 4[11] was accepted on 25 July 2024.
[10]To include all groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and potential GDEs within the drawdown extent of all ROC operations, not just the SCNCP.
[11]To label Void 6 to clearly display location of water filled void.
[23]Having processed the amendment application in accordance with the EP Act, the delegate, Dr Alison Cummings,[12] decided in accordance with EP Act s 172(2)(a) to approve the amendment application, subject to site-specific conditions. A notice of the approval together with the draft EA was issued to the applicant and submitters on 31 July 2024.
[12]Delegated the power of the Chief Executive of the administering authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to make decisions in response to EA applications.
The objections
[24]On 28 August 2024, the statutory party received objection notices from two of the five submitters requesting their submission be taken as an objection. The objectors are LtG and EnvA. The submissions raised similar issues. There are themes common to the submissions, and to submissions and objections made in other recent matters in the Land Court.
[25]Having initially elected to be an active objector,[13] on 26 February 2025, the Court was informed that “henceforth [EnvA] elects to be an inactive objector”. LtG did not elect to be an active objector.
[13]Land Court of Queensland, Practice Direction 4 of 2018 – Procedure for Mining Objection Hearings [19].
[26]Despite the “inactive status” of both objectors, in making the objections decision the Court is obliged to consider any objection notice for the application.[14] Significantly though, with no active objector, the evidence presented by the applicant was not challenged at the hearing. Some of the evidence presented to the Court by the applicant was produced after and in response to submissions and objections.
[14]Environmental Protection Act 1994 s 191(e).
[27]Both the delegate and the applicant summarised and “grouped” the objections by subject matter.[15] I will adopt the grouping advanced by the applicant, satisfied that it engages in full with the objections:
[15]STP.0005.0010 [13]; ROC.0011 [7].
(a)alleged inadequacies in the assessment process;
(b)terrestrial ecology, rehabilitation and offsets;
(c)greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air quality;
(d)surface water, groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs); and
(e)social and economic impacts and human rights.
[28]At the hearing the applicant and the statutory party were agreed as to all conditions of the draft amended EA. Following the hearing the applicant prepared and provided a marked-up document which identifies the proposed changes to the conditions between:
· the version of environmental authority EPML 00370013 dated 1 July 2024, the current EA in force; and
· a clean version of the amended draft EA which comprised Exhibit C to Dr Cummings’ affidavit filed 14 July 2025.
That version of the draft amended EA is Attachment B to these reasons.
[29]The parties handed up an agreed list of documents relevant to the Court’s consideration of the section 191 EP Act criteria. The agreed list is Attachment C to these reasons. I have reviewed the list in the context of the matters to be considered and I have read the relevant evidence, and the parties’ submissions. I am satisfied that the documents concern the matters to be considered in the objections decision, including the draft EA, the objections notices and the standard criteria. Regard must be had, amongst other things, to the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity.
The precautionary principle
[30]As noted by President Kingham in Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6)[16] citing Preston CJ in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council[17] at [142], the precautionary principle has a protective function:
“…to require the decision-maker to assume that there is, or will be, a serious or irreversible threat of environmental damage and to take this into account, notwithstanding that there is a degree of scientific uncertainty about whether the threat really exists.”
[16][2022] QLC 21.
[17](2006) 67 NSWLR 256.
[31]The principle embraces the concept of proportionality. Measures taken in applying the principle should not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary to achieve the objectives, recourse should be had to the least onerous measure, and the disadvantages should not be disproportionate to the aims.[18]
[18]Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 [114], referencing Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256 [166].
[32]The applicant does not argue that the principle does not apply – but say where there is uncertainty the impacts are either minimal or they can be managed through management plans and offsets. In relation to offsets, the objectors’ main concern was that no offset area has been proposed.
[33]On 10 May 2023 the SCNCP was referred to the Minister for the Environment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act). On 17 August 2023 the Minister determined the SCNCP is a “controlled action” to be assessed by Public Environment Report (PER).
[34]On 28 March 2025 METServe submitted a draft PER[19] for ‘adequacy review’ to the Commonwealth Regulator. The draft PER includes Appendix J, a draft Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (BOMP).
[19]ROC.0009.
[35]Mr Brad Dreis, Principal Ecologist at E2M prepared an “Objections Response Memo” for the applicant concerning environmental offsets dated 15 May 2025.[20]
[20]ROC.0006.
[36]Mr Dreis concludes that: “The SCNCP BOMP demonstrates that the proposed offsets achieve the requirements to compensate the impacts to four MNES and an eight MSES that will be significantly impacted by the project.”[21] In particular he says that the proposed offset area provides sufficient habitat to wholly or partially acquit the offset liabilities for all four MNES and six MSES in accordance with the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (EPBC EOP) and the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy V1.13 (QEOP). For the two MSES that are partially acquitted by land-based offsets and the two with no available habitat, financial offsets are proposed.
[21]Ibid page 5.
[37]Exhibited to the first affidavit of the delegate[22] is the assessment report[23] completed for the EA amendment application. The report says that the precautionary principle had been considered in the assessment of the amendment application and that “the application does not propose any actions that threaten serious or irreversible environmental harm.”[24] It then says that the proposed application does not relate to a new or untested activity and that the draft EA has been conditioned to ensure that suitable control measures are undertaken for key risks.
[22]STP.0005.
[23]STP.0008.
[24]STP.0008.0041.
[38]The applicant obtained an expert report from Principal Ecologist Dr David Dique dated 16 May 2025.[25] In the context of terrestrial ecology potentially impacted by the SCNCP, Dr Dique says that in his opinion there was adequate information presented on terrestrial ecology values to inform the impact assessment. He said that the precautionary principle had been applied and where there was a lack of evidence from field collected data, protected matters were considered likely or with potential to occur and an impact assessment was undertaken.
[25]ROC.0003.
[39]He said:
“This is appropriate given the survey data available, overlapping distributions of species, and general paucity of records in areas of central Qld not surveyed. The impact assessment has concluded a significant impact to MNES, including the Natural Grassland TEC, one threatened flora species (king bluegrass) and one threatened fauna species (koala) despite no evidence of some of these matters to be classified as known to occur and confirms the conservative nature of the assessment.”[26]
[26]Ibid [29].
[40]The applicant identified that the Project would impact on listed threatened vegetation communities and the suitable habitat of a number of plant species, noting that the region has been extensively cleared for mining and agriculture and cumulative clearing of the remaining remnant vegetation places species and ecosystems at high risk.[27]
[27]Ibid page 8-9, section 3.4.
[41]Dr Dique’s opinion was that:
“… the Precautionary Principle has been applied in defining which matters should be assessed, and the impact assessment has identified significant impacts even for matters without direct evidence of occurrence. Significant residual impacts will require offsetting that will reduce the risk of potential further decline of relevant species and ecosystems (refer to paragraph 37 of this expert report). The assessment outcomes are appropriate and aligned with industry standard.”[28]
[28]Ibid [33].
[42]Management plans are also in place to minimise impacts to flora and fauna as a result of ongoing ROC operations. Dr Dique concludes that: “… the baseline description of ecological values, the species-specific habitat mapping and quantification of impacts, and ultimately the impact assessment are adequate and appropriate for the scale of the proposal and aligned with industry standard.”[29]
[29]Ibid [38].
[43]Overall, Dr Dique’s opinion is that the precautionary principle has been applied, and even without observations or evidence of targeted species from surveys, their potential habitat has been mapped, and impacts assessed, with offsets proposed for those species concluded to be significantly impacted.
[44]Mr Paul Sear, Operations Manager and Site Senior Executive in his second affidavit annexes the METServe PER[30] which states that the precautionary principle has been adopted throughout the risk assessment process and considered in all phases of project development. More specifically it says that where possible, impacts to significant species and ecological communities have been avoided through the placement of mine infrastructure in locations of lowest ecological importance. Further, significant residual impacts (SRIs) that will occur to threatened species (koala) will be offset to ensure no net loss of habitat for these species (as described in the BOMP).
[30]ROC.0009 page 306, Table 14-1(b).
[45]Finally, the cumulative impact assessment documented in the PER concluded a negligible outcome on terrestrial flora and fauna, which in Dr Dique’s opinion was appropriate as two of the projects were around 50 km from the SCNCP.
[46]Offsets are discussed in more detail below at [124] – [141].
[47]The recommendation to the Coordinated Assessment Committee (CAC) on the need for an EIS (discussed in more detail below at [61]-[68]) regarding the standard criteria says: “The application of the precautionary principle is not required. Although a threat of serious and irreversible harm exists, there is no scientific uncertainty regarding the harm.”[31]
[31]STP.0031.0015.
[48]I am satisfied regardless of whether the precautionary principle has been engaged, appropriate consideration was given to the principle by the applicant and by the statutory party in its consideration of the EA amendment application. I agree that there appears to be no scientific uncertainty about environmental damage which might result from the SCNCP. The PER, inclusive of the BOMP, and the applicant’s management plans satisfy me that the measures proposed appropriately account for the risks.
Intergenerational equity; conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity
[49]The definition of intergenerational equity adopted by President Kingham in Waratah[32] and subsequently in Ballymore Resources[33] per President Stilgoe is that:
“… the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.”[34]
[32]Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21.
[33]Ballymore Resources Limited v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation [2025] QLC 15.
[34]Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 [119].
[50]The comments in the Report to the CAC[35] regarding intergenerational equity are that:
“The health, diversity and productivity of the environment is unlikely to be maintained or enhanced, if the project proceeds and impacts the PEMs as anticipated. Although environmental offsets will be required to ‘counterbalance’ the significant residual impacts, this is ultimately determined via the quality of the offset delivery – which cannot be concluded until years into the future.”[36]
[35]The CAC Recommendation is attached to the applicant’s Supplementary Submissions Re: Assessment Level Decision and PRCP Process. The recommendation notes key aspects to the application to include: … Impacts to 8 separate PEMs (MNES and MSES).
[36]STP.0031.0015.
[51]In the same way the impact on the 8 PEMs will reduce biological diversity and ecological integrity within the area, and also the surrounds, the offsets framework has been established to counterbalance these impacts “as best as possible”.
[52]Both principles may be engaged as a consequence of the SCNCP ecological impacts and as a result of GHG emission impacts.
[53]The assessment report exhibited to the first affidavit of the delegate (assessing officer) says that intergenerational equity was considered and the assessing officer was, in a somewhat circular way, “satisfied that the proposed SCNCP will not deleteriously affect the health, diversity and productivity of the environment for future generations” on the basis that compliance with the conditions of the draft EA “will ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained for the benefit of future generations.”[37]
[37]STP.0008.0041.
[54]More meaningfully the report says the PMLU for SCNCP is the current use of grazing with water in the two final voids supporting stock watering. In relation to GHG emissions the assessing officer says there are draft EA conditions requiring the avoidance and mitigation of GHG emissions – which are expected to be low as a percentage of state, national and global emissions and existing emissions budgets. As a consequence, “its influence on intergenerational equity is expected to be low and does not preclude the approval of SCNCP.”[38]
[38]STP.0008.0042.
[55]The METServe PER annexed to Mr Sear’s second affidavit at Table 14-1 (in consideration of Ecologically Sustainable Development Principles (s 3A EPBC Act)) says in regard to the principle of intergenerational equity:
“[Rolleston Coal Holdings] have undertaken impact assessments and are incorporating management plans into the Project’s activities and will continue to evolve the Project’s strategy where appropriate. Where the Project will have an impact on the surrounding environment, [Rolleston Coal Holdings] have adopted offsets programmes and will engage in progressive rehabilitation in affected areas. These measures are made with the collective goal of maintaining or enhancing the environment for the benefit of future generations.”[39]
[39]ROC.0009 page 306, Table 14-1(b).
[56]The ecological impacts of SCNCP are well researched and adequately managed under the terms of the draft EA – as discussed above under the heading: The precautionary principle. The draft EA, together with the range of plans including the Draft GHG Abatement Plan, BOMP, Social Performance Management Plan, Human Rights Management Plan, Cultural Heritage Management Plan, and through offsets is aimed at conserving the natural and cultural diversity to ensure development options are available to future generations.
[57]The applicant does not argue that the principle is not engaged. If the principle is engaged I am satisfied the draft EA and outcomes which aim to return the affected land to its current use, low impact grazing, does not weigh against the draft EA for the SCNCP or the goal of intergenerational equity.
[58]The intergenerational nature of climate change arising from the emission of GHGs is an important consideration and is dealt with more substantially in these reasons under that heading at [142] and in relation to human rights at [237].
[59]It is sufficient to note for now that to reflect commitments made by the applicant with regard to emissions reduction, new conditions in the Air schedule were made, including the need for a GHG abatement plan. The GHG abatement plan must include an annual inventory; intended objectives, measures and performance standards to avoid and mitigate GHG emissions, and to ensure consistency of SCNCP emissions with the Commonwealth Safeguard Mechanism; a process of review, assessment and implementation of new technologies to further reduce SCNCP GHG emissions where reasonable and feasible; and a program for annual monitoring, auditing and reporting on GHG emissions from all relevant SCNCP activities.
[60]I will now move to discuss the objections by category, as listed at paragraph [27] above.
Objection categories
Alleged inadequacies in the assessment process
[61]EnvA raises the concern that the statutory party has not appropriately applied the standard criteria in the EP Act when determining that the expansion project does not require an EIS. They submit that the proposal must be refused, or alternatively, require the statutory party “to do a thorough environmental and social impact assessment.”[40]
[40]COM.0042.0002.
[62]The applicant says that neither objector identifies any basis on which the Court should challenge the statutory party’s decision[41] that the expansion project does not require an EIS. They submit that the correct process was followed for EA amendment applications and that the decision was made following a rigorous assessment process, including “extensive” METServe analysis and 11 technical reports. The proposal was also subject to public scrutiny.
[41]ROC.0011 [81].
[63]Though situated on existing MLs, the SCNCP area has not previously been approved for mining. It is located outside of currently approved disturbance areas assessed by the 2015 RCEP EIS, and approved by EA EPML 00370013, and EPBC Act approvals 2001/497, 2009/5175, and 2011/5965.
[64]The applicant informed the Court that as a matter of administrative process, the application form for an amendment requires the provision of information relevant to the statutory party to decide whether to require an EIS process. This information is used to prepare a report for the CAC. The “Report to CAC” is an internal document completed by the assessing officer and signed off by the “endorsing officer” and delegate - and recommends (to the CAC) whether to require an EIS process. The CAC members comprise senior departmental officers. The CAC Recommendation records the recommendation whether an EIS process is required, or not, and identifies members’ key areas of note.
[65]The CAC on 19 July 2023, after considering: the Business Centre Coal’s recommendations;[42] the statutory party’s Trigger Guidelines; the standard criteria; and the statutory party’s assessment of the supporting information provided by the applicant, recommended that an EIS was not required for the EA amendment.
[42]STP.0031.
[66]The CAC noted that an EIS was completed for the mine in 2015. The CAC said that the Project was not proposing to increase the mining rate or LOM, thereby not increasing GHG emissions beyond the activities approved in the 2015 EIS. At [148] below I note that although the approved ROC production rate and/or LOM might not increase, the SCNCP will increase the amount of coal produced in any one year. The CAC also stated that the identified impacts to PEMs are well understood and could be adequately assessed using the EA assessment process, and that as the relocation of the accommodation camp was a “potential only”, appropriate options, including relevant approvals, would be considered in closer detail at the relevant time.[43]
[43]STP.0032.0002.
[67]I note, and as can be seen in Attachment A to these reasons, the north-eastern corner of the proposed SCNCP pit footprint overlaps with the existing ROC accommodation camp, located within the north-eastern area of ML 70415. The section of pit which overlaps with the camp is not currently scheduled to be mined until around 13 years into mining activities within the Project pit. The applicant submits that alternative accommodation options are being considered and approval will be sought through a separate specific approval process, as required.
[68]I am unable to conclude that the assessment process was inadequate. In my view the assessment process was probing and rigorous. The applicant was responsive and commissioned and submitted a significant number of expert reports relevant to the application.
Terrestrial ecology, rehabilitation and offsets
Terrestrial ecology
[69]The objectors both submit that there is insufficient and inadequate information provided in the EA amendment application in respect of the Project’s impact on terrestrial ecology. Each complaint is considered below.
[70]Supported by the report of Dr Dique, the applicant contends that despite the numerous assertions from the objectors that inadequate assessment and surveying have been conducted in respect of terrestrial ecology, the evidence demonstrates that the direct and cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered in depth.[44]
· The disturbance footprint
[44]ROC.0011 [101].
[71]The objectors submit that the 92.7% of the disturbance footprint which is mapped as remnant vegetation should be recognised for its importance in maintaining connectivity and ecological value in the Brigalow Belt Bioregion. However, it is Dr Dique’s opinion that the remnant vegetation within the disturbance footprint is of low importance.[45] Dr Dique notes that the majority of that area (75%) is classified as of “Least Concern” under the Vegetation Management Act 1999, and has a Biodiversity status of “No Concern at Present”. Only 1% of the disturbance area had been designated either “Of Concern” or Endangered. Despite the objectors’ concerns, Dr Dique is of the opinion that the impacted cleared areas are at such a small scale, they would be regarded as “negligible”.[46]
· Inadequate assessment and survey efforts
[45]ROC.0003 [16].
[46]Ibid [41].
[72]There are objections made that the application contained inadequate assessment of ecological impacts and that the survey efforts were not in line with the statutory party’s Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines. Dr Dique refers to the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment and Significant Impact Assessment contained in a METServe Report,[47] pointing to the fact that the ecological impacts of the Project were considered extensively, and that all impact assessments and surveys were undertaken in line with Commonwealth and State guidelines, including the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines. An ecological field assessment was undertaken in November 2021 to validate ecological values within the Study area. A second field assessment was undertaken in March 2022 to provide further evidence of ecological values and obtained habitat quality assessments. The majority of the Study area consists of remnant vegetation, with a few non-remnant areas.
[47]COM.0009 Appendix C and D.
[73]Both State and Commonwealth values were identified as listed in the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment.
[74]While there are 6 fauna species the SCNCP might impact, of particular concern was the habitats of the koala and the squatter pigeon.
[75]The Supplementary Ecological Assessment Report says:
“There are over 40 koala records within 50 km of the Project Area (ELA 2023). The majority of koala records are within 20 km of Springsure and within Carnarvon National Park to the south. There are seven koala records within approximately 25 km of the Project Area, with one located approximately 1 km north-east of the Project Area adjacent to the Dawson Highway, however this record is from 1990 and has a very low location precision.”[48]
[48]ROC.0009 page 485.
[76]There are also 30 known records of squatter pigeons in the area surrounding the Project, but none recorded within the SCNCP.
[77]Within the Study area, locally important koala trees, silver-leaved ironbark and mountain coolabah, were recorded. Locally important koala trees (LIKTs) are characterised as trees which koalas regularly browse which could be considered a substantial portion of the koala diet.[49]
[49]COM.0009.0404.
[78]Ancillary habitat trees which were also recorded within the Study area include brigalow and black teatree. Ancillary trees are defined as trees which are not necessarily food trees but provide important habitat for koalas. Due to the absence of eucalypt dominated riparian habitat, no refuge habitat was identified in the Study area. Refuge habitat is habitat which koalas can persist in hot and dry conditions where trees will retain enough moisture for koala survival.
[79]Suitable habitat for koala was mapped and the total mapped habitat for koala within the Project Area was approximately 549.8 ha consisting of:
• 412.70 ha of breeding habitat; and
• 137.09 ha of dispersal habitat.
[80]For the purposes of the 2023 METServe Supporting Information report[50] the Study area encompassed the SCNCP, approved ROC operations and the surrounding region. However, the Significant Impact Assessment report (Appendix D to the Supporting Information report) defines “Study area” as: “Area of Rolleston West Mining Leases (MLs) 70415 and 70307 that is north of the existing Spring Creek pit … known as Spring Creek North.” The Significant Impact Assessment was to determine whether the SCNCP was likely to have a SRI on terrestrial flora and fauna listed under the EPBC Act and/or the Nature Conservation Act 1992.
[50]COM.0009.0035.
[81]On either definition the Study area contains suitable habitat for the species including LIKTs. Riparian areas and alluvial terraces dominated by Eucalyptus are not present within the Study area.[51] The majority of the habitat consists as one contiguous patch of silver-leaved ironbark and mountain coolabah open woodland. Both the silver-leaved ironbark and mountain coolabah are LIKTs.
[51]COM.0009.0577.
[82]In 2021 an acoustic assessment to detect fauna species in the Study area was undertaken. Appendix D to the METServe Supporting Information Report: “Acoustic Analysis Recording Data for grey falcon, white-throated needletail and koala” says that 84 hours of recording data between 23-25 November 2021 was collected across the “Study area” by two (unattended) acoustic sound recorders and analysed for the presence of grey falcon, white-throated needletail and koala. The Study area for the purposes of the acoustic analysis is only described as “south of Emerald”.
[83]Grey falcon was not detected. White-throated needletail was not detected. Koala was not detected.
[84]While koala was only considered a “potential occurrence” within the Study area, having regard to the context of the impact (424.8 ha of LIKT dominant open woodland), as noted above, a Significant Impact Assessment was undertaken against the Significant Impact Criteria.
[85]Field surveys within the Study area were undertaken from 13-16 November 2022. Survey methods were based on survey guidelines including: a review of koala habitat assessment criteria and methods, survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals and the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland V.4. It is accepted that the surveys conducted represent only a snapshot of time and may not provide a true indication of presence or absence of fauna species within the Study area.
[86]The “Survey Methods and prescribed effort” described in the Significant Impact Assessment in respect of koalas was:
“Direct observation: Active diurnal and nocturnal (spotlighting) searches in suitable habitat.
Spot assessment technique (SAT): Searching for scats for 2 minutes (or until the first scat is detected) within a 1 m radius of the base of a central tree and its nearest 29 neighbouring trees. All trees must be at least 10 cm diameter at breast height (DBH).”[52]
[52]COM.0009.0569 Table 3; this information is repeated in the 25 March 2025 SCNCP Supplementary Ecological Assessment Report.
[87]The “Survey effort” was:
“Diurnal searches: 4 days
Nocturnal searches: 3 nights
SAT: 3 searches in separate areas of the Study area.”[53]
[53]Ibid.
[88]The Significant Impact Criteria include: will the impact lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population; will it reduce the area of occupancy of the species; and, will it fragment an existing population into two or more populations.
[89]The responses in the Significant Impact Assessment were:[54]
1. that while the Project will require the removal of approximately 424.8 ha of suitable habitat for the species, it is unlikely this will result in a long-term decrease in population size as the species was not detected within the Study area and the area subject to clearing represents a small proportion of suitable koala habitat;
2. that a loss of >400ha of likely koala habitat may result in a reduction in the species area of occupancy; and
3. that the Project will not fragment an existing koala population into two or more populations as the Study area does not form an important linkage between areas of known or likely koala habitat within the surrounding landscape.
[54]COM.0009.0592.
[90]Further, the report states that while the Project will require the removal of approximately 424.8 ha of habitat, this action is unlikely to result in a significant impact on the species given the context of the impact – that is, it is a small proportion of suitable koala habitat; it is unlikely to significantly impact the koala breeding cycle as the species was not detected during field surveys and that the Study area represents a small proportion of habitat.
[91]The assessment outcome was that:
“Based on the Study area’s context in the broader landscape, koala is only considered a potential occurrence within the Study area. However, given the Project may result in a reduction in Area of Occupancy for listed populations of the koala, and in doing so interfere with the recovery of the species, there is potential that the Project will have a significant impact on the species.”[55]
[55]COM.0009.0594.
[92]I note that the Supplementary Ecological Assessment Report states that areas surrounding the Project area were not able to be ground truthed (verified) and that species habitat was mapped using habitat models for target species – and where existing modelled habitat was not available for relevant species, habitat was modelled based on publicly available data. Koala habitat in areas adjacent to the Project area were modelled based on publicly available material.[56] E2M developed a mapping methodology based on availability of LIKTs and ancillary habitat trees.
[56]SCNCP Supplementary Ecological Assessment Report section 2.3.2; ROC.0009 page 475.
[93]The assessment considered cumulative impacts on target MNES by comparing the SCNCP’s direct impact to the area of habitat present in the Basalt Downs Subregion (of the Brigalow Belt North bioregion). The impact area as a percentage of available habitat with respect to all four MNES, including koala, was determined to be negligible.[57] Of the 620,753 ha koala habitat present within Basalt Downs, the SCNCP accounts for 549.79 ha and another mine for 26.9 ha (or 0.09%). Already mined areas offer no available habitat.
[57]ROC.0009 page 521, Table 7.
[94]The assessment and survey efforts were extensive, detailed and appropriate, and in line with the Terrestrial Vertebrae Fauna Survey Guidelines. While I have gone into some detail regarding koala habitat, it is important to note that MNES (including koala) are protected under the EPBC Act, and the applicant’s Offset Area Management Plan must be approved by the Commonwealth Minister.
· Threat to regional vegetation communities and fauna species
[95]The objectors say that the SCNCP will or may impact on two threatened regional vegetation communities and six plant species, as well as six threatened fauna species.
[96]Habitat assessments, targeted species searches, acoustic monitoring, habitat quality assessments, site-based attribute assessments and species habitat assessments were undertaken across surveys in November 2021 and March 2022, and targeted surveys in November 2022.
[97]Survey methods referenced the Queensland Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines, and also Commonwealth species specific survey guidelines.
[98]The draft BOMP presents an approach to compensate for the SRIs. Management plans are already in place to minimise impacts to flora and fauna as a result of ongoing ROC operations which will encompass the SCNCP. Where significant impacts are expected, the applicant has committed to put appropriate offset measures in place.
[99]The potential impacts of concern to the objectors have been considered, investigated and adequately addressed.
· Impact on Brigalow Belt subregion
[100]The objectors also say that there has not been adequate assessment of the cumulative impacts that the substantial clearing for mining and pastoral activities has already had in the Brigalow Belt subregion. The PER, which post-dates the objections, at 5.1.7.5 discusses cumulative impacts[58] of several other coal mining operations including Meteor Downs South, Springsure Creek, and Blackwater South mines and concludes that the SCNCP is predicted to have negligible cumulative impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna. Dr Dique also reviewed the EAs for those mining operations noting that Blackwater South and Springsure Creek mines did not approve any clearing limits on ecological matters. He also concluded that for Meteor Downs South the cumulative impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna would be negligible.[59]
[58]ROC.0009 page 174-5.
[59]ROC.0003 [45].
[101]The objectors also say that there has been no consideration of the impact of “emissions” on MNES and MSES. The applicant, in written submissions say that it is unclear what the objectors mean by “emissions”: GHG emissions or noise emissions. Nonetheless, the applicant deals with both, again with reference to Dr Dique’s report, submitting that the complaints are unfounded because both types of emissions are addressed in the PER.[60]
[60]ROC.0011 [95].
[102]GHG emissions are discussed in detail later in these reasons. A Noise and Vibration Assessment Report dated 14 December 2023[61] was competed for the SCNCP which modelled noise at year 4 of operations and a cumulative scenario from the SCNCP and Meteor Downs South mine rehabilitation activities. Conditions C4 and C5 require all monitoring of noise emissions to be undertaken in accordance with the most recent version of Queensland Government’s Noise Measurement Manual, the relevant Australian Standard and the Environmental Protection Regulation 2019.
[61]COM.0022.
[103]Impacts on the Brigalow Belt subregion, including cumulative impacts, have been appropriately considered.
· Disturbance area
[104]An issue is raised by the objectors regarding a discrepancy in the size of the disturbance area for the Project. The objectors reference[62] the inconsistency between section 5.4.1 and Table 2(f) of the METServe Supporting Information Report,[63] with the former listing the area proposed to be cleared as 592.2 ha and the latter saying 606.8 ha. I note however that the figure at section 5.4.1 refers to the estimated disturbance footprint, while the figures at Table 2 refer to the Project area itself.[64]
[62]COM.0038.0009; COM.0042.0002.
[63]COM.0009.0013; COM.0009.0052.
[64]ROC.0003 [48].
[105]There is no discrepancy.
· Insufficient survey effort – terrestrial ecology
[106]There is a further concern that there was limited information on the terrestrial ecology which would be impacted by the disturbance or the cumulative impacts “from the many new and expanding coal mines” in the Bowen Basin. The objectors say that the terrestrial ecology survey efforts were insufficient. This concern is raised in the context of the precautionary principle. Dr Dique at [50] of his Expert Witness Statement says:
“Appendix C (ELA, 2023) Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 outline MNES and MSES values provided by desktop review that may occur in the Disturbance Footprint. Table 8 in Section 3.1 of Appendix C (ELA, 2023) presents these values in summary. Appendix C (ELA, 2023) does not contain an impact assessment, as it is restricted to baseline values description. An impact assessment is documented in Appendix D (E2M, 2023). This includes a LoO assessment (Section 4.2, Table 5) and the results of a desktop review and field surveys (Section 4.1 and Section 5, respectively). Section 7 presents impact assessments for MNES and MSES values. Refer to Section 3.2 (Objection 2) for the description of terrestrial ecology impacts as a result of the SCNCP. Table 4-5 of the PER (Metserve, 2025) lists the field survey methods and survey effort undertaken within the Disturbance Footprint by AECOM, ELA and E2M. This table references the survey guidelines for individual MNES, however, does not include all relevant survey guidelines for species (e.g. the draft referral guidelines for nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (DCCEEW, 2023)). Table 3 in section 3.3.3 of Appendix D (E2M, 2023) outlines survey effort. The table is restricted to MNES and MSES fauna and compares survey effort with requirements as outlined in relevant documentation.”[65]
[65]Ibid [50].
[107]The applicant translates this paragraph saying: “Dr Dique disagrees. He notes that the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment outlined the MNES and MSES that may be impacted by the Project, and that the Significant Impact Assessment quantified the extent of these impacts by reference to desktop reviews and field surveys.”[66] They translate the reference in the above paragraph to Table 4-5 as: “Table 4-5 listed the field survey methods that were undertaken and referred to the survey guidelines for individual MNES.”[67]
[66]ROC.0011 [97].
[67]Ibid.
[108]Dr Dique and offsets expert Mr Dreis conclude that sufficient survey efforts were taken to assess the impacts on terrestrial ecology.[68] As I noted at [43] when considering the precautionary principle, Dr Dique says: “In my opinion, the Precautionary Principle has been applied, and even without observations or evidence of targeted species from surveys, their potential habitat has been mapped, and impacts assessed, with offsets proposed for those species concluded to be significantly impacted. The assessment is adequate, appropriate and conservative.”[69]
· Overall inadequate assessment of terrestrial fauna and flora
[68]ROC.0006 page 7.
[69]ROC.0003 [51].
[109]The final terrestrial ecology issue raised by the objectors was that the SCNCP overall had been the subject of inadequate assessment of terrestrial flora and fauna, including an inadequate assessment of direct and cumulative impacts. In his report, Dr Dique says that the METServe Supporting Information Report, the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment and the Significant Impact Assessment together provide a clear picture and adequate assessment of the direct and cumulative impacts that the SCNCP may cause.
[110]In my view the applicant has considered and addressed the concerns of the objectors comprehensively. I am satisfied that there is no further or additional amendment to the draft EA necessary arising from this group of objections.
Rehabilitation
[111]The objectors say that the applicant’s rehabilitation plan is inadequate.
[112]EnvA and LtG say that the applicant has failed to adequately plan for rehabilitation, leaving a “highwall that cannot be battered down without extending the slope outside of the current approval limit and into the Project footprint”, as an attempt to cover up the applicant’s failure to do genuine rehabilitation work and comply with previous conditions.[70]
[70]COM.0046.0003.
[113]In his first affidavit Mr Sear deposes that progressive rehabilitation certification was granted by the statutory party on 25 June 2018, 22 November 2019, 25 August 2022 and 31 January 2024 comprising a total area of 828.8 ha.[71]
[71]ROC.0002 [15].
[114]The northern extent of the existing Spring Creek mining area has been “mined out”, leaving an area called “Ramp 1” that includes a previously authorised steep sided highwall.
[115]The METServe PER annexed to Mr Sear’s second affidavit and which was completed after submissions were made and objections received says at Table 1-1(h):
“Proceeding with the Project will enable [Rolleston Coal Holdings] to implement an improved final landform across the Project pit and current Spring Creek pit. Ramp 1, in the existing Spring Creek mining area, has been mined out leaving a highwall that cannot be battered down any further without extending the slope outside of the current approval limit and into the Project footprint. Currently the final Ramp 1 landform would not support the proposed post-mining land use of grazing. The development of the Project would extend the current Spring Creek Pit north and fill the existing Ramp 1 void with waste rock. A buffer has been included in the Project area to provide the ability to reshape the highwall batter to a grade that would support grazing and minimise potential environmental impacts.
The consequence of not proceeding with this action would be the Ramp 1 area remaining as a highwall post ROC mine life.” [72]
[72]ROC.0009 page 20-1, Table 1-1(h).
[116]This proposal would seem to resolve the concern of the objectors regarding the highwall.
[117]The objectors also say that the applicant has not provided adequate details as to how they intend to reduce or eliminate ponding to minimise the risk of tunnel erosion. Mr Sear addresses this at [20] in his second affidavit:
“Rolleston undertakes the following measures to minimise the risk of erosion, including tunnel erosion, in the final rehabilitated landform at the Mine:
(a) initial landform design, including, where possible, ensuring that slopes are water-spreading rather than water-concentrating;
(b) appropriate waste and soil placement, including ensuring that sodic / potential dispersive material is buried at depth;
(c) if the potential for erosive concentration of flow cannot be eliminated by final landform shaping, the area of flow concentration, where possible, is rock armoured;
(d) revegetation of waste landforms to provide sufficient surface cover; and
(e) in isolated cases, the application of ameliorants.”[73]
[73]Ibid [20].
[118]The applicant says that despite the objection, the measures in place will minimise tunnel erosion. I accept that conclusion.
[119]On 30 November 2018, the EP Act was amended to introduce new requirements for the progressive rehabilitation and closure of mined land. The amendments required new EA applications to be accompanied by a proposed Progressive Rehabilitation and Closure Plan (PRCP): s 125(1)(n).
[120]Transitional provisions were introduced to apply to holders of pre-existing EAs: s 754. Among other things, the transitional provisions empower the statutory party to give EA holders a notice requiring them to provide a proposed PRCP within a stated period of time. The proposed PRCP must be assessed in the same way as PRCPs accompanying new EA applications, with certain exceptions.
[121]The transitional provisions apply in this case. The applicant has been given a transitional notice and has submitted an application for the grant of a PRCP to the statutory party for its approval.
[122]If the draft EA is granted, the proposed PRCP will be updated to refer to it rather than the current EA.
[123]The rehabilitation will be managed through this regime, which the applicant says ensures that the rehabilitation scheme will be adequately imposed.
Offsets
[124]The objectors say that while the amendment application acknowledges that offsets will be required, an insufficient amount of information is provided on how the applicant proposes the offsets will be met.
[125]To contextualise this objection some background information concerning offsets follows.
[126]As already noted, MNES are protected under the EPBC Act. Significant impacts to MNES must be compensated through the delivery of environmental offsets in accordance with the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy. This policy states that an environmental offset must “deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of the protected matter as compared to what is likely to have occurred under the status quo”. Environmental offsets and the associated Offset Area Management Plan are approved by the Commonwealth Minister, and legally secured, prior to the commencement of any disturbance to MNES.
[127]Offsets are only required under the Queensland framework in the following instances:
(a)When the PEMs that experience SRIs are not MNES; and/or
(b)When the Commonwealth Government decided that the activity was not a controlled action, yet residual impacts to a matter of both state and national environmental significance qualify as significant under Queensland definitions.
[128]The statutory party says that under section 15 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 (EO Act), the administering authority should not impose an offset condition on an authority for impacts that are the same or substantially the same as those being assessed under a relevant Commonwealth Act.[74]
[74]STP.0005.0018 [62].
[129]The SCNCP was referred to the Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act on 10 May 2023.[75] As noted at [33] on 17 August 2023 the Minister determined the SCNCP is a controlled action. The Minister also determined that approval is required as the action has the potential to have a significant impact on MNES protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act; and that the proposed activity be assessed by PER. The applicant’s draft PER was submitted on 28 March 2025 for adequacy review.
[75]ROC.0009.
[130]It is also submitted that should the Commonwealth determine an offset is required for the koala, ordinarily a land-based offset will be required. If an offset is not required for the koala under the EPBC Act; one will be required under the EO Act given that a SRI has been established.
[131]Table K1 of the draft EA is headed “Significant residual impacts to prescribed environmental matters”. An amendment reflected in the table is: Habitat for an animal that is endangered wildlife – Koala – Phascolarctos cinereus. A note to this entry says: “(These) matters will be offset under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) approval conditions”. The maximum extent of impact is recorded as 424.8 ha, and it is stated that there is an offset requirement. The note to that entry in the table reads: “If it is determined that an offset is required under the EPBC Act for these matters, a duplicate offset will not be required under the EO Act”.
[132]I note that any offset for the koala habitat would also benefit any loss of habitat to the squatter pigeon.
[133]In relation to the objection and as noted at [36], Mr Dreis in his 15 May 2025 report (which post-dates the objections) concludes that the BOMP demonstrates that sufficient habitat is available to wholly or partially acquit the offset liabilities for all four MNES and six MSES in accordance with the EPBC EOP and the QEOP.[76]
[76]ROC.0006 page 1.
[134]For the two MSES that are partially acquitted by land-based offsets and the two with no available habitat, financial offsets are proposed.[77]
[77]Ibid page 4-5.
[135]EnvA say that offsets are often of minimal success and will not do enough to ensure that the cumulative impacts of the expansion project are addressed.
[136]Mr Dreis says in relation to the efficacy of offsets:
“The SCNCP BOMP details the legal securement requirements of the proposed offset area and the management and monitoring requirements to ensure that sufficient improvement in habitat quality for this area can be achieved to ensure that the impacts to MNES and MSES are adequately offset in accordance with the EPBC EOP and QEOP. These offsets will be protected and managed for 20 years to maximise the effectiveness of the offset and ensure the performance criteria of the BOMP are achieved. Where offsets are not sufficiently progressing towards the performance criteria, an adaptive management framework will be implemented.”[78]
[78]Ibid page 1-2.
[137]The applicant submits that they are experienced in securing offsets, having done so for the subject mine and say that “there is no reason to doubt that the applicant will in fact secure the offsets needed for this Project if it is allowed to proceed.”[79]
[79]ROC.0011 [107].
[138]In Mr Sear’s second affidavit, regarding offsets, he says at [17]-[18]:
“As at the date of the EA Amendment Application, Rolleston held suitable land which would be available and appropriate for use as an environmental offset for the SCNCP (Offset Area). As a result of assessing whether land would be suitable as offsets for Stage 2 impacts of the RCEP, Rolleston identified that there was suitable land available for future use as offsets in relation to the SCNCP.
In anticipation of the EPBC Act referral for the SCNCP requiring environmental offsets to be obtained, Rolleston engaged Eco Logical Australia to undertake an ecological assessment to determine the environmental offset potential within the Offset Area including by:
(i)conducting a desktop assessment by reference to relevant databases, and scientific literature;
(ii)ground-truthing regional ecosystems, threaten ecological communities, and threatened species habitat within the Offset Area;
(iii)conducting habitat quality assessments within the Offset Area, where required; and
(iv)determining if the Offset Area would provide suitable environmental offset for the SCNCP;
(b) a record of the identified offset land is available in the draft Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (BOMP) produced as part of the PER process.”
[139]The properties on which the proposed offsets for Stage 2 impacts are located include Meteor Downs, Meteor Park, Mount Kelman and Lot 3 (3SP293499). Lot 3 adjoins the south-west extent of the ROC operation. All properties are owned and managed by Glencore and contain ecological values similar to those within the impact area.
[140]According to the BOMP all properties have been subject to somewhat similar land management practices, which have resulted in variable levels of land degradation. Each property, however, has its own inherent level of biodiversity and habitat value for flora and fauna species. Relatively large areas of non-remnant vegetation are present where repeat cropping or land clearing has occurred. Figure 2 reproduced below shows the SCNCP Offset Area Overview.[80]
[80]ROC.0009 page 1848.
[141]I am satisfied that the concerns raised have been answered and that no further amendment to the draft EA in respect of the location and availability of offsets would be necessary. While there may be some scepticism on the part of objectors concerning the efficacy of offsets, it is encouraging that the offsets will be protected and managed for 20 years post-mining to maximise their effectiveness and meet BOMP objectives, and an adaptive management framework implemented where progress is insufficiently happening.
GHG emissions and air quality
[142]The applicant summarises EnvA and LtG’s objections in respect of GHG emissions as “three core complaints”.
Production rate
[143]The first, that the expansion project will result in additional GHG emissions due to 33.7 Mt of ROM coal over the life of the Project, in addition to the pre-existing 156.2 Mt of coal over the life of the mine.
[144]The objectors say that this is an additional volume of 21.6% of coal, which has not been reflected in the EA amendment application.[81]
[81]COM.0046.0006.
[145]The applicant says in written submissions that while “the application would authorise some coal to be extracted which would not otherwise be extracted, it will not result in the existing approved production limit being exceeded.”[82] They also say that the GHG emissions that would be created from the Project are an insignificant percentage of total global emissions, and ultimately not a cause of great concern due to stringent external and internal regulatory controls like the Federal Safeguard Mechanism, the Queensland emissions reductions targets, a GHG Abatement Plan to mitigate Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and parent company Glencore’s commitments to manage the decline of its global portfolio and implement a Climate Action Transition Plan.[83]
[82]ROC.0011 [118].
[83]Ibid [124]-[127].
[146]The applicant seeks to distinguish this matter from the recent decision of this court in Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor[84] where an expansion of a thermal coal mine would result in the extension of the life of the mine by 20 years and the life of the entire project to 2050. The applicant says that this expansion application (SCNCP) is different: the application will not increase the approved production limit nor extend the life of the mine.
[84][2025] QLC 5.
[147]At the hearing I sought clarification about this. The 2023 LOM plan says that at the current production rate of 16 Mtpa mining can continue to 2040 – but that production rates will decline from 2025. The applicant in written submissions say that since 2017 the mine’s annual production rate has averaged approximately 13 Mtpa ROM coal, and in 2024 the production rate was 12.39 Mtpa ROM coal.
[148]Dr Craig Miller, Climate Change and GHG emissions expert from Kadestone Environmental in his expert report says the SCNCP will increase the amount of coal produced in any one year. However, this additional production will be within the approved ROC production rate of 19 Mtpa.[85]
[85]ROC.0005 [5.2(a)].
[149]The predicted extraction rates for the ROC inclusive of the SCNCP, as well as the percentage of total ROC production that the SCNCP will contribute is found at Table 2-1 of the METServe SCNCP Projected GHG Assessment dated 30 September 2023.[86] The table is reproduced here.
[86]COM.0018.0009.
[150]It is apparent from this table that based on current predictions, peak production (of the combined ROC and SCNCP) might happen in 2027 at 15.7 Mt and then slowly decline over the remaining LOM. This is an “uptick” on recent annual averages of 13 Mtpa, at least in the near term before declining. There is no data that suggests 19 Mt will be extracted in any year. The contribution of SCNCP to total production would be 33.7 Mt, a maximum 28.42% contribution to total production in 2028 or 3.446 Mt.
[151]It seems unlikely that since 2017 the full production rate of 19 Mtpa has been achieved – and even with the SCNCP production might peak at 15.7 Mt in a single year. So, when the applicant says it will not increase the mine’s “production rate”, it is referring to the maximum amount allowed (19 Mtpa), not the actual production rate which is currently averaging about 13 Mtpa. In that context, I understand the basis of the objection – but accept that the maximum currently allowed production rate will not be exceeded during the life of the mine.
Emissions
[152]The second “core complaint” of the objectors is that the applicant has not developed a clear plan to reduce Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, which is inconsistent with the GHG Emissions Guideline ESR/2024/6819 v1 15 May 2024 published by the (then) Department of Environment, Science and Innovation.[87]
[87]COM.0046.0006.
[153]The objectors say that the Guideline requires the applicant to state where the emissions are expected to occur, whether that be domestically or internationally.
[154]The Guideline did not exist at the time that the EA amendment application was submitted.[88]
[88]ROC.0005 [5.8(a)].
[155]That said, while Scope 3 emissions are considered by the administering authority when deciding an EA application, the guideline says: “However, as they are outside the control of the EA holder, they are not required to be included in a GHG abatement plan.”[89] The guideline says that the level of detail required on Scope 3 emissions (for consideration by the administering authority) will depend on the type of activity proposed and its likely impact on environmental values.
[89]STP.0019.0008.
[156]I find this a little opaque.
[157]The applicant says that the statutory party has rigorously reviewed the material and propose an amendment to the draft EA conditions to require a GHG Abatement Plan (Condition B8).
[158]As a general statement, the draft GHG Abatement Plan states that: “Production from the SCNCP is integrated into the Rolleston Open Cut (ROC) operation. ROC is a relatively low emission intensity operation compared to other coal mining operations, primarily due to ROC’s minimal fugitive methane emissions.”[90]
[90]ROC.0009 Exhibit C, page 2250.
[159]In his second affidavit dated 16 May 2025, Mr Sear lists the 15 international jurisdictions ROC coal has been exported to since 2016. The PER attached to Mr Sear’s second affidavit[91] says that the ROC also supplies domestic customers in Gladstone, including the Gladstone Power Station.
[91]Ibid Exhibit A.
[160]Dr Miller, Climate Change and GHG, says that the objectors’ concerns are addressed by the proposed condition to require a GHG Abatement Plan.[92] Mr Sear says that although the draft GHG Abatement Plan is specific to the SCNCP, the existing mine is operated consistent with the draft GHG Abatement Plan.[93]
[92]ROC.0005 [5.8(a)].
[93]ROC.0009 [27].
[161]Proposed Condition B8 is as follows:[94]
[94]STP.0025.0009.
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Plan – Spring Creek North Continuation Project
A greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement plan must be developed by 4 March 2025 and implemented for all stages of the Spring Creek North Continuation Project (SCNCP). The GHG abatement plan must include:
(a) an inventory of project unmitigated annual Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for each GHG over the life of the SCNCP;
(b) the intended objectives, measures and performance standards to avoid and mitigate GHG emissions to ensure consistency of SCNCP emissions with the Commonwealth Safeguard Mechanism;
(c) a process for regularly reviewing, assessing, and implementing new technologies, where reasonable and feasible, to identify opportunities to further reduce SCNCP GHG emissions (including consideration of energy efficiency); and
(d) a program for annual monitoring, auditing and reporting on GHG emissions from all relevant SCNCP activities and the success of measures to avoid and mitigate GHG emissions and performance against Commonwealth Safeguard Mechanism targets.
[162]The Draft GHG Abatement Plan for the SCNCP is Exhibit C to the second affidavit of Mr Sear.[95]
[95]ROC.0009, Exhibit C.
[163]The draft plan is intended to address draft conditions B7 to and including B10.
[164]The plan states that Glencore has established total Scope 1, 2 and 3 industrial CO2-e emissions reduction targets (against a 2019 baseline) of: 15% reduction by the end of 2026, 25% reduction by the end of 2030, 50% reduction by the end of 2035, leading towards a 2050 net zero emissions ambition.
[165]Glencore, of course, may or may not be the holder of the MLs and EA for their full term.
[166]That said, the ROC, including the SCNCP, is a Safeguard facility under the Commonwealth Safeguard Mechanism. The Safeguard Mechanism applies to facilities that emit more than 100,000 t CO2-e per financial year. The Safeguard Mechanism (reformed in 2023) aims to ensure facilities such as the ROC contribute a proportionate share to Australia meeting its GHG emissions reduction commitments – currently 43% below 2005 levels by 2030, and net zero by 2050. Total absolute emissions from Safeguard facilities are also required to decrease over time.
[167]As for Scope 3 emissions reduction, Dr Miller says that the emissions are expected to decline over time as international customers reassess their requirements in order to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement.[96]
[96]ROC.0005 [5.8(g)].
[168]This very much depends on the international customers’ commitment and capability to meet Paris Agreement obligations.
Scope 3 emissions assessment
[169]The third “core complaint” in relation to GHG emissions made by the objectors is that the method for Scope 3 emissions calculation in the GHG emissions assessment was incorrect.
[170]LtG says that figures in the wrong table were used for the calculations resulting in a “dramatic under-estimation of Scope 3 emissions from this project.”[97] They go a step further and express how alarming it is that a global mining company can make such a basic error in their calculations, and calls into question how seriously the applicant, and their parent company Glencore, take Australia’s commitment to achieving climate agreement targets.[98]
[97]COM.0038.0003.
[98]COM.0038.0004.
[171]I have to agree with the statement that it is alarming that a global mining company such as Glencore can make such a basic error in their calculations. It was not a small error; it was in error by a significant factor.
[172]The applicant admitted to the mistake, but say that prior to the assessment of the amendment application, a Projected GHG Emissions Assessment Erratum was produced to correct the miscalculations (1 March 2024).[99] Dr Miller calls miscalculations of this nature “a common mistake”.[100]
[99]ROC.0011 [133].
[100]ROC.0005 [5.6(b)].
[173]As noted above, the ROC is subject to the Australian Safeguard Mechanism requirements for progressive GHG emissions reduction against the facility’s baseline. Dr Miller says: the “additionality of the Project” (i.e., the SCNCP) does not change this. Further he says, “the ROC and the Project may initially generate Safeguard Mechanism Credits (SMC) as its’ current emissions intensity is below the industry average. The emissions from the ROC and the Project are and will be included in Glencore’s emissions inventory for the ROC facility and in its corporate emissions reduction targets.”[101]
[101]Ibid [4.3].
[174]The emissions from the additional areas proposed to be mined by the Project are identified in the SCNCP Projected GHG Assessment and the ROC Projected GHG Emission Assessment Erratum.[102]
[102]COM.0027.
[175]The Erratum uses the corrected Scope 3 assessment to produce a table for Total Product Coal Scope 3 emissions; Total SCNCP GHG Emissions (Scope 1, 2 & 3); Average Annual SCNCP GHG Emissions (Scope 1, 2 & 3); and Projected SCNCP Emissions vs Global GHG Emissions. The projected average annual figures are uplifted to tables in the applicant’s written submissions and are reproduced here:[103]
[103]ROC.0011 page 43-4.
[176]The Erratum is the work of Mr Andrew Turnbull, Senior Consultant at METServe. He says – what is well understood - that the majority of Scope 3 emissions will be created downstream of the SCNCP, where product coal is combusted for steam production offshore. These Scope 3 emissions will be included in the Scope 1 and 2 emission reporting by the end user for the relevant countries. He says that as such, the total SCNCP GHG value (Scope 1, 2 & 3 emissions) of 6,406,414.65 t CO₂-e pa is compared against global GHG emissions estimates.
[177]Using the 2020 WRI CAIT Climate Data Explorer (CAIT) dataset for global GHG emissions at 47,513,150,000 t CO₂-e pa, the 6,406,414.65 t CO₂-e pa value for total upstream and downstream average annual SCNCP GHG emissions gives a proportion of 0.01348%[104] of global GHG emissions for the entire extraction to consumption lifespan of coal produced by the proposed SCNCP. The ROC controlled emissions (Scope 1 and 2) remain unchanged and amount to 0.0001% of estimated annual global GHG emissions.[105]
[104]As against estimated global emissions (2022 it is estimated to be 0.01278%).
[105]COM.0027.0003.
[178]The applicant has, to the extent necessary, provided detailed information concerning emissions as corrected in the Erratum, its emissions reduction targets, and its acceptance of draft EA conditions requiring a GHG Abatement Plan, and the production of a draft GHG Abatement Plan. I address GHG emissions and climate change in the context of human rights in these reasons from [237] below.
Air quality
[179]Objections regarding air quality were raised by LtG. The objector references the Air Quality Assessment report[106] for the Project, stating that the air quality limits should be updated to be in line with 2021’s World Health Organisation’s Global Air Quality guidelines to protect the environment and residents near coal mines.[107]
[106]COM.0014.
[107]COM.0038.0010 – COM.0038.0011.
[180]Updated modelling (to the RCEP EIS Air Quality Impact Assessment 2013) in the SCNCP Air Quality Assessment, to reflect the cumulative impacts from the proposed extension, determined, amongst other things, that the maximum 24-hour average cumulative ground-level PM10[108] concentrations were predicted to occur at SR3[109] (Inderi) and above the 50µg/m3 criterion.
[108]Particulate Matter with a diameter of 10 micrometres or less. National Ambient Air Quality Standards PM10 is 50µg/m3 in outdoor air averaged over a 24-hour period.
[109]Sensitive Receptor.
[181]As a result, conditions requiring continuous monitoring of PM10 in the vicinity of the Inderi homestead were proposed. A new location for the ‘Inderi’ monitoring station south of the Dawson Highway is now included in Condition B2 and Table B2 “Dust and Particulate Matter Monitoring Locations”. In addition, Condition B4 requires an Air Emissions Management Plan be implemented for all stages of the mining activity.
[182]I am satisfied that the concerns of the objector are sufficiently addressed in the amended conditions.
Surface water, groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems
Surface water
[183]EnvA and LtG both raise objections regarding what they consider to be the inadequacy of the Surface Water Assessment provided in the EA amendment application. The applicant’s submissions categorise the objections into seven key complaints, which will be considered below. Their ultimate submission is that the surface water impacts are adequately identified and properly managed.[110]
[110]ROC.0011 [144].
[184]Of the waterways within the Comet River sub-basin, the applicant says that only Bootes Creek and Spring Creek are in an area where impacts from the proposed SCNCP may be experienced.
[185]There are no water users in the immediate vicinity that will be impacted. Flood impacts are expected to be negligible. No new release points are proposed as part of the amendment application. Surface water monitoring is proposed to continue as present via the Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP) and utilising the existing water management system.
· The Surface Water Assessment was “cursory and deficient”
[186]The objectors note that the impact assessment was only one-page long,[111] provided no predictive modelling, and did not include a considered assessment of the potential impacts to surface water.[112]
Effluent means treated
wastewaterwastewater released from sewage treatment plants.End of pipe means the location at which water is released to waters or land.
Environmental authority means an environmental authority granted under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Environmental authority holder means the holder of this environmental authority.
Environmentally relevant activity means an environmentally relevant activity as defined under Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and listed under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Protection Regulation
20082019.Endangered Regional Ecosystem means an endangered regional ecosystem identified in the database maintained by the administering authority called ‘Regional Ecosystem Description Databased’ containing regional ecosystem numbers and descriptions.
Floodwater means water overflowing, or that has overflowed, from waters, river, creek, stream, lake, pond, wetland or dam onto or over riparian land that is not submerged when the watercourse or lake flows between or is contained within its bed and banks.
Flowable substance means matter or a mixture of materials which can flow under any conditions potentially affecting that substance. Constituents of a flowable substance can include water, other liquids fluids or solids, or a mixture that includes water and any other liquids fluids or solids either in solution or suspension.
Foreseeable future is the period used for assessing the total probability of an event occurring. Permanent structures and ecological sustainability should be expected to still exist at the end of a 150 year foreseeable future with an acceptable probability of failure before that time.
Functional design is a document that contains ‘conceptual’ information about the design, operation and revegetation criteria of a watercourse diversion that addresses the outcomes stated in the conditions on the environmental authority relating to the diversion. The document should include, but not be limited to:
a)(a) Geomorphic and vegetation assessment of the existing watercourse;b)(b) Hydrologic conditions of the existing watercourse;
c)(c) The proposed watercourse diversion route;
d)(d) Results from hydrologic, hydraulic and sediment transportation modelling used in the design of the diversion.Functionality means the purpose that something is designed or expected to fulfil.
General waste means waste other than regulated waste.
Hazardous waste means a substance, whether liquid, solid or gaseous that, if improperly treated, stored, disposed of or otherwise managed, is likely to cause environmental harm
Holder means:
(a)where this document is an environmental authority, any person who is the holder of, or is acting under, that environmental authority; or
(b)where this document is a development approval, any person who is the registered operator for that development approval.
Hydraulic performance means the capacity of a regulated dam to contain or safely pass flowable substances based on the design criteria specified for the relevant consequence category in the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (
EM635ESR/2016/1933).Infrastructure means water storage dams, levees, roads and tracks, buildings and other structures built for the purpose of the mining activity.
Lake includes:
a)(a) lagoon, swamp or other natural collection of water, whether permanent or intermittent; andb)(b) the bed and banks and any other element confining or containing the water.Land in the “land and rehabilitation schedule” of this document means land excluding waters and the atmosphere, that is, the term has a different meaning from the term as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1994. For the purposes of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, it is expressly noted that the term ‘land’ in this environmental authority relates to physical land and not to interests in land.
Land suitability as defined in the Technical Guidelines for the Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining in Queensland (DME 1995).
Land use means the selected post mining use of the land, which is planned to occur after the cessation of mining operations.
Leachate means a liquid that has passed through or emerged from, or is likely to have passed through or emerged from, a material stored, processed or disposed of at the operational land which contains soluble, suspended or miscible contaminants likely to have been derived from the said material.
Levee means an embankment that only provides for the containment and diversion of stormwater or flood flows from a contribution catchment, or containment and diversion of flowable materials resulting from releases from other works, during the progress of those stormwater or flood flows or those releases, and does not store any significant volume of water of flowable substances at any other times.
Mandatory reporting level or MRL means a warning and reporting level determined in accordance with the criteria in the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (
EM635)ESR/2016/1933.Manual means the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures
(
EM635ESR/2016/1933).Measures includes any measures to prevent or minimise environmental impacts of the mining activity such as bunds, silt fences, diversion drains, capping and containment systems.
mg/L means milligrams per litre.
Mine affected water means the following types of water:
a)(a) pit water, tailings dam water, processing plant water;
b)(b) water contaminated by a mining activity which would have been an environmentally relevant activity underSchedule 2 of the Environmental Protection Regulation
20082019 if it had not formed part of the mining
activity;
c)(c) rainfall runoff which has been in contact with any areas disturbed by mining activities which have not yetbeen rehabilitated, excluding rainfall runoff discharging through release points associated with erosion and
sediment control structures that have been installed in accordance with the standards and requirements of
an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to manage runoff containing sediment only, provided that this water
has not been mixed with pit water, tailings dam water, processing plant water or workshop water;
d)(d) groundwater which has been in contact with any areas disturbed by mining activities which have not yet
been rehabilitated;
e)(e) groundwater from the mine’s dewatering activities;
f)(f) a mix of mine affected water (under any of paragraphs a)-e)) and other water.Minimise is to reduce to the smallest possible amount or degree.
Modification or modifying (see definition of ‘construction’).
Natural flow means the flow of water through waters caused by nature.
Nature includes:
a)(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts; andb)(b) all natural and physical resources; andc)(c) natural dynamic processes.Operational land means the land associated with the project for which this environmental authority has been issued.
Operational plan includes:
(a)normal operating procedures and rules (including clear documentation and definition of process inputs in the DSA);
(b)contingency and emergency action plans including operating procedures designed to avoid and/or minimise environmental impacts including threats to human life resulting from any overtopping or loss of structural integrity of the regulated structure.
Peak particle velocity (ppv) means a measure of ground vibration magnitude which is the maximum rate of change of ground displacement with time, usually measured in millimetres/second (mms-1).
Permanent watercourse diversion is a man-made structure that incorporates the geomorphologic, hydraulic, hydrologic and ecological components of a local watercourse and is designed, constructed, operated and maintained according to an engineering standard that ultimately achieves a self-sustaining watercourse able to function without features or characteristics that rely on ongoing maintenance or that impose a financial or other burden on the proponent, government or the community.
Pre-existing watercourse is the section of watercourse from which the flow of water will be diverted as a result of the construction and operation of a watercourse diversion.
Prescribed environmental matters has the meaning in section 10 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014, limited to the matters of State environmental significance listed in Schedule 2 of the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014.
Progressive rehabilitation means rehabilitation (defined below) undertaken progressively or a staged approach to rehabilitation as mining operations are ongoing.
Receiving environment means all groundwater, surface water, land, and sediments that are not disturbed areas authorised by this environmental authority.
Receiving waters means the waters into which this environmental authority authorises releases of mine affected water.
Reference site (or analogue site) may reflect the original location, adjacent area or another area where rehabilitation success has been completed for a similar biodiversity. Details of the reference site may be as photographs, computer generated images and vegetation models etc.
Regional Ecosystem means a regional ecosystem identified in the database maintained by the administering authority called ‘Regional Ecosystem Description Database’ containing regional ecosystem numbers and descriptions
Register of Regulated Structures includes:
a)(a) Date of entry in the register;
b)(b) Name of the structure, its purpose and intended/actual contents;
c)(c) The consequence category of the dam as assessed using the Manual for Assessing ConsequenceCategories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (
EM635ESR/2016/1933);
d)(d) Dates, names and reference for the design plan plus dates, names and reference numbers of all
document(s) lodged as part of a design plan for the dam;
e)(e) Name and qualifications of the suitably qualified and experienced person who certified the design plan
and ‘as constructed’ drawings;f)(f) For the regulated dam, other than in relation to any levees-
i.(i) The dimensions (metres) and surface area (hectares) of the dam measures at the footprint ofthe dam;
ii.(ii)Coordinates (latitude and longitude in GDA2020) within five metres at any point from the outsideof the dam including its storage area;
iii.(iii) Dam crest volume (megalitres);iv.(iv) Spillway crest level (metres AHD);
v.(v) Maximum operating level (metres AHD);vi.(vi) Storage rating table of stored volume versus level (metres AHD);
vii.(vii) Design storage allowance (megalitres) and associated level of the dam (metres AHD); viii.(viii) Mandatory reporting levels (metres AHD).
g)(g) The design plan title and reference relevant to the dam;
h)(h) The date construction was certified as compliant with the design plan;i)(i) The name and details of the suitably qualified and experienced person who certified that the
constructed dam was compliant with the design plan;
j)(j) Details of the composition and construction of any liner;
k)(k) The system for the detection of any leakage through the floor and sides of the dam;l)(l) Dates when the regulated dam underwent an annual inspection for structural and operational adequacy,
and to ascertain the available storage volume for 1 November of any year;
m)(m) Dates when recommendations and actions arising from the annual inspection were provided tothe administering authority; and
n)(n) Dam water quality as obtained from any monitoring required under this authority as at 1 November of
each year.Regulated structure means any structure in the significant or high consequence category as assessed using the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (
EM635ESR/2016/1933) published by the administering authority. A regulated structure does not include:
a)(a) A fabricated or manufactured tank or container, designed and constructed to an Australian Standard
that deals with strength and structural integrity of that tank or container;.
b)(b) A sump or earthen pit used to store residual drilling material and drilling fluid only for the duration of
drilling and well completion activities;.
c)(c) A flare pit.Regulated waste as defined within the Environmental Protection Regulation
20082019.Rehabilitation the process of reshaping and revegetating land to restore it to a stable landform and in accordance with the acceptance criteria and, where relevant, includes remediation of contaminated land.
Residual drilling material means waste drilling materials including muds and cuttings or cement returns from well holes and which have been left behind after the drilling fluids are pumped out.
Resource activity is an activity that involves—
(a)A geothermal activity; or
(b)A GHG storage activity; or
(c)A mining activity; or
(d)A petroleum activity.
Run of mine (ROM) coal means raw coal which has been extracted as part of the mining activities and has not been subject to any form of processing, crushing, screening or washing.
Saline drainage the movement of waters, contaminated with salts, as a result of the mining activity.
Self-sustaining means not requiring on-going intervention and maintenance to maintain functional riverine processes and characteristics.
Sensitive place means:
a)(a) a dwelling, residential allotment, mobile home or caravan park, residential marina or other residentialpremises; or
b)(b) a motel, hotel or hostel; orc)(c) an educational institution; ord)(d) a medical centre or hospital; or
e)(e) a protected area under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the Marine Parks Act 1992 or a World Heritage
Area; or
f)(f) a public park or gardens.Sewage means the used water of persons to be treated at a sewage treatment plant.
Significant residual impact has the meaning in section 8 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
Spillway means a weir, channel, conduit, tunnel, gate or other structure designed to permit discharges from the dam, normally under flood conditions or in anticipation of flood conditions.
Stable in relation to land, means
land formlandform dimensions are or will be stable within tolerable limits now and in the foreseeable future. Stability includes consideration of geotechnical stability, settlement and consolidation allowances, bearing capacity (trafficability), erosion resistance and geochemical stability with respect to seepage, leachate and related contaminant generation.Stormwater means all surface water runoff from rainfall.
Suitably qualified and experienced person in relation to regulated structures means a person who is a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) under the provisions of the Professional Engineers Act 2002, and has demonstrated competency and relevant experience:
· For regulated dams, a RPEQ who is a civil engineer with the required qualifications in dam safety and dam design
· For regulated levees, a RPEQ who is a civil engineer with the required qualifications in the design of flood protection embankments.
Note: It is permissible that a suitably qualified and experienced person obtain subsidiary certification from a RPEQ who has demonstrated competence and relevant experience in either geomechanics, hydraulic design or engineering hydrology.
Suitably qualified and experienced person in relation to watercourse diversions means a person who is a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) under the provisions of the Professional Engineers Act 2002, who has an appropriate level of expertise in the structures, geomechanics, hydrology, hydraulics and environmental impact of watercourse diversions.
An appropriate level of expertise includes:
· Demonstrated competency, experience and expertise in:
o Investigation, design or construction of watercourse diversions
o Operation and maintenance of watercourse diversions
o Geomechanics with particular emphasis on channel equilibrium, geology and geochemistry
o Hydrology with particular reference to flooding, estimation of extreme storms, water management or meteorology
o Hydraulics with particular reference to sediment transport and deposition and erosion control
o Hydrogeology with particular reference to seepage and groundwater
o Solute transport processes and monitoring thereof, or
· Sufficient knowledge and experience to certify that where the suitably qualified and experienced person has relied on advice and information provided by other persons with relevant expertise
o They consider it reasonable to rely on that advice and information
o The expert providing the advice and information has knowledge, competency, suitable experience and demonstrated expertise in the matters related to watercourse diversions.
Persons with relevant expertise include:
· Geomorphologist: person who has demonstrated competency and relevant experience in stream geomorphology and watercourse diversions.
· Geotechnical Expert: person who has demonstrated competency and relevant experience in geotechnical assessment of soil characteristics suitable for watercourse diversions.
· Vegetation Expert: person who has demonstrated competency and relevant experience in vegetation systems.
· Surface Water Expert: person who has demonstrated competency and relevant experience in hydrology.
· Engineer: person who is a RPEQ under the provisions of the Professional Persons Act 2002 or has similar qualifications under a respected professional registration association, and has demonstrated competency and relevant experience in design and construction of watercourse diversions.
· Soils Expert: person who has demonstrated competency and relevant experience in soil classification including the physical, chemical and hydrologic analysis of soil.
System design plan means a plan that manages an integrated containment system that shares the required DSA and/or ESS volume across the integrated containment system.
Temporary pit lakes post-closure means for Voids 2 and 3 temporary waters will accumulate from rainfall and runoff from the reshaped void batters during significant rainfall. The backfilled profile of Voids 2 and 3 remain above the surrounding groundwater table with no groundwater expression to the temporary pit lakes.
Temporary watercourse diversion is a manufactured structure that may incorporate geomorphologic, hydraulic, hydrologic and ecological components of a local watercourse and is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to an engineering standard that ensures the diversion does not compromise the equilibrium and performance of the diversion and adjoining watercourses. A temporary diversion is replaced by a permanent diversion, or the re-establishment of the pre-existing watercourse, within the timeframe specific in the design plan.
Tolerable limits means a range of parameters regarded as being sufficient to meet the objective of protecting relevant environmental values. For example, a range of settlement for a tailings capping, rather than a single value, could still meet the objective of draining the cap quickly, preventing pondage and limiting infiltration and percolation.
µg/L means micrograms per litre.
µS/cm-1 means microsiemens per centimetre.
Void means any constructed, open excavation in the ground.
Waste management hierarchy has the meaning given by the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011.
Water means:
a)(a) Water in waters or spring;b)(b) Underground water;
c)(c) Overland flow water; or
d)(d) Water that has been collected in a dam.Watercourse as defined within Schedule 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Water quality means the chemical, physical and biological condition of water.
Waters includes river, stream, lake, lagoon, pond, swamp, wetland, unconfined surface water, unconfined water natural or artificial watercourse, bed and bank of any waters, dams, non-tidal or tidal waters (including the sea), stormwater channel, stormwater drain, and groundwater and any part thereof.
WaTERS means the Water Tracking and Electronic Reporting System.
END OF DEFINITIONS
Appendix 2 - Maps
Figure 1 –
DisturbanceOperational footprint, mine affected water release points, monitoring locations and receiving watersFigure 2 – Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems – Aquatic and terrestrial
Figure
23 - Groundwater Bore Monitoring LocationsFigure 4 - Final Landform Domains
Figure
35 –ProgressiveRehabilitation Certification
Figure46 – RCEP and SCNCP Matters of National Environmental Significance and Matters of State Environmental Significance – FloraFigure
57 – RCEP and SCNCP Matters of National Environmental Significance and Matters of State Environmental Significance – FaunaEND OF PERMIT
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
ATTACHMENT C
REGISTRY: Brisbane NUMBER: EPA286-24
Applicant ROLLESTON COAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD AND
Non-Active Objectors
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY IN CENTRAL QUEENSLAND INC & ANOR
AND
Statutory Party
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION
SECTION 191 CRITERIA AND STANDARD CRITERIA
EP Act s 191 Criteria1
Section 191(a) – the application
[COM.0008] – EA Amendment Application
[COM.0009] – Supporting Information (METServe) Report
Section 191(b) – any response given for an information request
[COM.0012] – METServe RFI Response, 28 Aug 2023 [COM.0013] – METServe RFI Second Response, 12 Oct 2023 [COM.0014] – Vipac Air Quality Assessment, 25 Sep 2023 [COM.0015] – Vipac Noise and Vibration Assessment, 25 Sep 2023 [COM.0016] – Rehabilitation Management Plan, 25 Sep 2023 [COM.0017] – Engeny Final Void Assessment, 6 Oct 2023
[COM.0018] – METServe Projected Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 12 Jun 2024
[COM.0019] – Hydrobiology GDE Assessment, 12 Jun 2024 [COM.0020] – METServe RFI Response, 18 Dec 2023 [COM.0021] – Vipac Air Quality Assessment, 14 Dec 2023
1 This table is intended to be an agreed list of relevant documents that satisfy section 191 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994(Qld). It is not intended to be exhaustive.
EP Act s 191 Criteria1
[COM.0022] – Vipac Noise and Vibration Assessment, 14 Dec 2023 [COM.0023] – METServe RFI Response, 31 Jan 2024
[COM.0024] – EA Amendment Application Submissions Response, 1 Mar 2024
[COM.0025] – Applicant's Proposed AQ Real-time Monitoring Location, undated
[COM.0026] – Map of Final Void Locations, 9 May 2023
[COM.0027] – METServe Projected Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment Erratum, 1 May 2024
[COM.0028] – Applicant's Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment, 27 Mar 2024
[COM.0029] – Permian Groundwater Data, various dates
[COM.0030] – Commentary on Geochemistry and Water Quality, 11 Apr 2024
[COM.0032] – METServe Response to Statutory Party’s Queries, 24 Jun 2024
Section 191(c) – any standard conditions for the relevant activity or authority
N/A – there are no standard conditions for the relevant authority
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, STP.0006.0006, Table 3(d)
"(d) state whether the applicant seeks to change a condition identified in the authority as a standard condition:
There are no standard conditions identified in the EA."
Section 191(d) – any draft environmental authority or draft PRCP schedule for the application
[COM.0045] – Draft EA, 31 July 2024 (note: referral document 11c)
[STP.0022] – Second Affidavit of Alison Cummings, [STP.0025] Exhibit C (Amended Draft EA)
Section 191(e) - any objection notice for the application
[COM.0038] – Lock the Gate Submission [STP.0002] – Lock the Gate Objection Notice
[COM.0039] – Lock the Gate Objection Confirmation
[COM.0042] – Environment Advocacy in Central Queensland Submission
[STP.0001] – Environment Advocacy in Central Queensland Objection Notice
[COM.0046] – Environment Advocacy in Central Queensland Grounds of Objection
(note: referral documents 12a to 12f)
EP Act s 191 Criteria1
Section 191(f) - any relevant regulatory requirement
Environmental Protection Regulation 2019 (Qld), Ch 4, Pts 1–3
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, [75(d)], STP.0008(assessment report as proof of objective assessment as per the regulation), STP.0008.0044 (item (f) in table) and STP.0008.0027
Section 191 (h) - the status of any application under the Mineral Resources Act for each relevant mining tenure
N/A – there are no new tenure/s required for the application
COM.0009.0013 – METServe ‘Supporting Information for Application for Amendment to EPML00370013’ [Table 2 item (e)]
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, STP.0006.0017 (Amendment Application Checklist, table 10(d))
"The amendment: (e) does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is (i) a new mining lease; or (ii) a new petroleum lease; or (iii) a new geothermal lease under the Geothermal Energy Act; or (iv) a new GHG injection and storage lease under the GHG storage Act No new tenure/s is required for the application."
Standard Criteria2
Standard Criteria (a) - the following principles of environmental policy as set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment -
(i) the precautionary principle;
(ii) intergenerational equity; and
(iii) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity
Precautionary principle
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), p STP.0008.0041
[ROC.0009] – Second Affidavit of Paul Sear, Exhibit A (Public Evaluation Report), Table 14-1(b), p. 306 (PDF p. 317)
[ROC.0003] – Dr Dique Report, [5], [19], [29]–[30], [33], [50]-[53]
[ROC.0006] – Mr Dreis Report, pp 5, 7 Intergenerational equity
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), pp STP.0008.0041-STP.0008.0042
[ROC.0009] – Second Affidavit of Paul Sear, Exhibit A (Public Evaluation Report), Table 14-1(b), p 306 (PDF p 317)
2 This table is intended to be an agreed list of relevant documents that satisfy section 191 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld). It is not intended to be exhaustive.
Standard Criteria2
[ROC.0005] – Dr Miller Report, [5.4], [5.8(h)], [5.10(d)], [6.10], [6.14], [6.22(d)]
[ROC.0003] – Dr Dique Report, [37]-[38], [50]-[53]
[ROC.0006] – Mr Dreis Report, pp 1-2, 6-7
Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), STP.0008.0042
[ROC.0009] – Second Affidavit of Paul Sear, Exhibit A (Public Evaluation Report), Table 14-1(b), p. 306 (PDF p. 317)
[ROC.0003] – Dr Dique Report, [29]-[30], [37]-[38]
[ROC.0006] – Mr Dreis Report, p. 2 [ROC.0008] – Dr Smith Report, [34]-[37]
Standard Criteria2
Standard Criteria (b) - any Commonwealth or State government plans, standards, agreements or requirements about environmental protection or ecologically sustainable development
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), pp STP.0008.0042-STP.0008.0043, citing:
• Environmental Protection Act 1994
• Environmental Offsets Act 2014
• Queensland Environmental Offset Policy
• Significant Impact Guideline
• Environmental Protection Regulation 2019
• Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2019
• Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2019
• Environmental Protection (Water and Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019
• Departmental Guidelines on impact to the following environmental values – Air, Noise, Water, Land and Waste.
[STP.0009] – Information sheet Considering Human Rights when decision making under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (ESR/2019/4970)
[STP.0010] – Guideline ESR/2015/1725 (assessment requirements) [STP.0011] – Guideline ESR/2015/1743 (approval process) [STP.0012] – Guideline ESR/2016/1936 (model mining conditions) [STP.0013] – Guideline ESR/2015/1684 (major/minor amendment) [STP.0014] – Guideline ESR/2015/1840 (air)
[STP.0015] – Guideline ESR/2015/1838 (noise) [STP.0016] – Guideline ESR/2015/1839 (land) [STP.0017] – Guideline ESR/2015/1836 (waste) [STP.0018] – Guideline ESR/2015/1837 (water)
[STP.0019] – Guideline ESR/2024/6819 (GHG)
Standard Criteria (c)
N/A - Paragraph (c) has been omitted in the EP Act
Standard Criteria (d) - any relevant environmental impact study, assessment or report
METServe Report
[COM.0009] – Supporting Information (METServe) Report
• Appendix A: Surface Water Assessment (PDf, p 86ff)
• Appendix B: Groundwater Assessment (PDf, p 126ff)
• Appendix C: Terrestrial Ecology Assessment (PDf, p 360ff)
• Appendix D: Significant Impact Assessment (PDf, p 553ff) Additional Reports in response to Information Requests [COM.0014] – Vipac Air Quality Assessment, 25 Sep 2023 [COM.0015] – Vipac Noise and Vibration Assessment, 25 Sep 2023
[COM.0016] – Rehabilitation Management Plan, 25 Sep 2023
Standard Criteria2
[COM.0017] – Engeny Final Void Assessment, 6 Oct 2023
[COM.0018] – METServe Projected Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 12 Jun 2024
[COM.0019] – Hydrobiology GDE Assessment, 12 Jun 2024 [COM.0021] – Vipac Air Quality Assessment, 14 Dec 2023 [COM.0022] – Vipac Noise and Vibration Assessment, 14 Dec 2023
[COM.0028] – Applicant's Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment, 27 Ma 2024
[COM.0030] – Commentary on Geochemistry and Water Quality, 11 Apr 2024
Draft Public Evaluation Report Assessments
[ROC.0009] – Second Affidavit of Paul Sear, Exhibit A (Public Evaluation Report):
• Appendix C: Supplementary Ecological Assessment report (PDF, p 455)
• Appendix D: Surface Water Assessment Update (PDF, p 946)
• Appendix E: Groundwater Assessment (PDF, p 1021)
• Appendix F: Geochemistry Review (PDF, p 1313)
• Appendix H: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Assessment (PDF, p 1720)
Expert Reports prepared for this Hearing [ROC.0007] – Report of Mr Baldwin (Surface Water) [ROC.0006] – Report of Mr Dreis (Offsets)
[ROC.0003] – Report of Dr Dique (Terrestrial Ecology) [ROC.0005] – Report of Dr Miller (GHGs) [ROC.0004] – Report of Dr Merrick (Groundwater)
[ROC.0008] – Report of Dr Smith (Aquatic Ecology & GDEs)
Delegate’s assessment
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), p STP.0008.0043 where the Delegate considered:
eDocs # eTrial doc ID 19329869 COM.0018 19117299 COM.0020 19247157 COM.0023 19339730,
19761162,
19828943,
Drafts of the draft EA not before the Court
Standard Criteria2
19866981,
19940079,
19966292,
19971132,
19959431
19336534 COM.0024 19329888 COM.0027 19354739 Not before the Court 19377447 COM.0031 19407908 COM.0028 and COM.0029 19771664 COM.0025, COM.0026, COM.0030 19843355 COM.0019 19842433 Not before the Court 19881465 Not before the Court 19881464 Not before the Court 18102112 COM.0009 18749126 COM.0012 18748924 COM.0013 STP.0022 – Second Affidavit of Alison Cummings
Standard Criteria (e) - the character, resilience and values of the receiving environment
[COM.0009] – Supporting Information (METServe) Report:
• Section 5 – Description of Environmental Values, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures (PDF, p 17ff)
[ROC.0009] – Second Affidavit of Paul Sear, Exhibit A (Public Evaluation Report):
• Section 4 – Description of the Environment (PDF, p 47ff)
• Section 5 – Impact assessment / relevant impacts (PDF, p 180ff)
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), pp STP.0008.0043-STP.0008.0044
[ROC.0007] – Report of Mr Baldwin, p 11 [350]-[365]
Standard Criteria (f) - all submissions made by the applicant and submitters
Submissions from applicant
[COM.0009] – Supporting Information (METServe) Report [COM.0012] – METServe RFI Response, 28 Aug 2023 [COM.0013] – METServe RFI Second Response, 12 Oct 2023 [COM.0014] – Vipac Air Quality Assessment, 25 Sep 2023 [COM.0015] – Vipac Noise and Vibration Assessment, 25 Sep 2023 [COM.0016] – Rehabilitation Management Plan, 25 Sep 2023
Standard Criteria2
[COM.0017] – Engeny Final Void Assessment, 6 Oct 2023
[COM.0018] – METServe Projected Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 12 Jun 2024
[COM.0019] – Hydrobiology GDE Assessment, 12 Jun 2024 [COM.0020] – METServe RFI Response, 18 Dec 2023 [COM.0021] – Vipac Air Quality Assessment, 14 Dec 2023 [COM.0022] – Vipac Noise and Vibration Assessment, 14 Dec 2023 [COM.0023] – METServe RFI Response, 31 Jan 2024
[COM.0024] – EA Amendment Application Submissions Response, 1 Mar 2024
[COM.0025] – Applicant's Proposed AQ Real-time Monitoring Location, undated
[COM.0026] – Map of Final Void Locations, 9 May 2023
[COM.0027] – METServe Projected Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment Erratum, 1 May 2024
[COM.0028] – Applicant's Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment, 27 Ma 2024
[COM.0029] – Permian Groundwater Data, various dates
[COM.0030] – Commentary on Geochemistry and Water Quality, 11 Apr 2024
[COM.0032] – METServe Response to Statutory Party’s Queries, 24 Jun 2024
Submissions from submitters
[COM.0037] – Submission of Environmental Council of Central Queensland
[COM.0038] – Submission of Lock the Gate Alliance [COM.0040] – Submission of Mackay Conservation Group [COM.0041] – Submission of Queensland Conservation Council
[COM.0042] – Submission of Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland
Delegate’s assessment of objectors’ submissions
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, [11]-[73] and Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), pp STP.0008.0044-STP.0008.0045
[STP.0022] – Second Affidavit of Alison Cummings.
Standard Criteria (g) - the best practice environmental
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), pp STP.0008.0045-STP.0008.0046:
Standard Criteria2
management for activities under any relevant instrument, or proposed instrument, as follows—
(i) an environmental authority;
(ii) a transitional environmental program;
(iii) an environmental enforcement order;
(iv) a disposal permit;
(v) a development approval
“(i) The proposed draft EA conditions include site-specific conditions the administering authority deems necessary and desirable to the risks of impact resultant from SCNCP. The EA conditions have been agreed to in writing by the applicant.
(ii) Considered. There is no transitional environmental program in place for the EA nor deemed necessary.
(iii) Considered. There is no environmental protection order in place for the EA nor deemed necessary.
(iv) Considered. There is no disposal permit in place for the EA nor deemed necessary.
(v) Considered. There is no development approval in place for the EA nor deemed necessary.”
Standard Criteria (h) - the financial implications of the requirements under an instrument, or proposed instrument, mentioned in paragraph (g) as they would relate to the type of activity or industry carried out, or proposed to be carried out, under the instrument
[ROC.0002] – First Affidavit of Paul Benjamin Sear, [21]-[23]
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), p STP.0008.0046
Standard Criteria (i) - the public interest
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), p STP.0008.0046:
“The approval of the EA is considered to be in the public’s interest due to the benefit of the SCNCP to the community as a whole, e.g. employment, royalties for the State and other economic benefits while environmental impacts will be minimised and managed through the conditions of the EA.”
Social / economic benefits:
First Affidavit of Paul Benjamin Sear (ROC.0002), [38] and
• Exhibit I – Social Performance Management Plan (PDF p 185ff)
• Exhibit J – Human Rights Management Plan (PDF, p 222)
Beneficial groundwater outcomes
[ROC.0004] – Report of Dr Merrick, line 325ff
Standard Criteria2
Standard Criteria (j) - any relevant site management plan
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), p STP.0008.0046:
“No site management plan is relevant to the application”
Standard Criteria (k) - any relevant integrated environmental management system or proposed integrated environmental management system
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), p STP.0008.0046:
“No EMS applies or is proposed. The risks associated the application are well understood and have been adequately conditioned in the draft EA”
Standard Criteria (l) - any other matter prescribed under a regulation
[STP.0005] – First Affidavit of Alison Cummings, Exhibit 3 (Assessment Report), p STP.0008.0046:
“There are no additional matters prescribed under regulation that are relevant to this application. It is not anticipated that the proposed EA application will warrant consideration of any other prescribed matter other than those already discussed in this assessment report. The assessing officer has carried out an environmental objective assessment against the environmental objective and performance outcomes mentioned in Schedule 8 Environmental objective assessment of the EP Reg and is satisfied that the operation of the SCNCP can comply with them. Refer to the Environmental Objective assessment in this report.”
0
8
4