Ballymore Resources Limited v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation [2025] QLC 15

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Ballymore Resources Limited v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation [2025] QLC 15 PARTIES: Ballymore Resources Limited (applicant) v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (statutory party) Alfred Moxham (non-active objector) Whitsunday Conservation Council (non-active objector) Stewart Alexander (non-active objector) FILE NO: MRA197-24 PROCEEDING: Hearing of an application for mining lease and objection under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 DELIVERED ON: 11 July 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 6, 7, 8 May and 17 June 2025 HEARD AT: Proserpine; Brisbane PRESIDENT: PG Stilgoe OAM ORDERS: 1. I recommend to the Honourable Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) that MLA 100351 be approved. 2. Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), I recommend to the Honourable Minister that the Environmental Authority EPSL 00460513 -- 1 of 59 -- 2 be issued in terms of the draft amended Environmental Authority annexed to these reasons and marked “A” as further amended pursuant to these reasons. 3. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide a copy of these reasons to the Honourable Ministers responsible for administering both the MLA and the Environmental Authority. CATCHWORDS: ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – Queensland – applications for mining lease – objections to applications – where objections raised issues regarding the assessment process for the environmental authorities – where the objectors did not elect to be active in proceeding – where the objections concern water, ecology, offsets, land disturbance and vegetation, waste and contamination, air quality/dust, noise, traffic, past compliance, currency of requirements, significant impact on MNES, requirement to carry out and EIS for the application, and consultation and transparency – whether the Court should recommend the application for mining lease be approved ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – where the applicant objected to conditions in the draft environmental authority – where the Court recommended the draft environmental authority should be issued pursuant to the reasons HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) 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 no evidence of a limitation on human rights identified Acts Interpretation Act 1954 Sch 1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Act 2014 Environmental Protection Act 1994 s 6A, s 191 Human Rights Act 2019 s 13, s 15, s 24, s 25, s 26, s 27, s 28, s 58 -- 2 of 59 -- 3 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 252A, s 252B, s 260, s 267, s 267A, s 269(4) Re Aradon Pty Ltd [2001] QLRT 35 Re Kenneth James Willis [2001] QLRT 29 Telstra Corporation v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256 Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 APPEARANCES: A Hellewell (instructed by McCullough Robertson) for the applicant K McAuliffe-Lake (instructed by Litigation Unit, Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation) for the statutory party [1] The village of Dittmer is nestled in tropical rainforest along the banks of Kelsey Creek west of Proserpine. Ballymore Resources Limited owns the historic Dittmer mine on the other side of the creek. The mine operated sporadically from 1934 through to the 1980s. [2] Ballymore has plans to restart mining operations as exploration activities and studies indicate a potential resource of approximately 300,000 tonnes of gold, copper and silver bearing ore.1 [3] Ballymore has two existing mining leases, ML 10340 and ML 10341, and a corresponding environmental authority (EA), EPSL 00460513. It has applied for an additional mining lease MLA 100351 (the MLA) to expand the existing mine to an area adjacent to the existing tenements. The MLA sits over Crown Land (the Project). [4] The Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) issued a draft environmental authority (EA) which, if approved, will operate over the existing mining leases and the MLA. [5] There were twelve objectors to the MLA and the draft EA. Nine withdrew and one attempted, unsuccessfully, to withdraw. 1 Affidavit of Andrew Nicholas Gilbert affirmed 6 December 2025 [16] (Gilbert Affidavit). -- 3 of 59 -- 4 [6] Because there are objectors, the matter has been referred to the Court for a recommendation to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines whether the MLA ought to be granted and to make recommendations as to the appropriate EA conditions. [7] Ballymore also wants to amend the proposed EA conditions. In various documents produced at the hearing, depending upon its level of involvement, DETSI is described as; DETSI, the Chief Executive, the delegate and the statutory party. For simplicity, I will refer to each of them collectively as “DETSI”. [8] Similarly, the documents refer to the standard EA conditions and the draft EA conditions. I am concerned with the entire suite of conditions. For simplicity, I will refer to both the standard EA conditions and the draft EA conditions as “the EA Conditions”. The Moxham objection [9] Stuart Moxham submitted an objection under the Enduring Power of Attorney to Alfred Moxham. Ballymore submits that I do not have jurisdiction to the objection because the preconditions for Stuart Moxham to act as Alfred’s attorney have not been satisfied. [10] I have before me a copy of the Enduring Power of Attorney. The Enduring Power of Attorney takes effect: a) upon Alfred Moxham’s written instructions; or b) in the event of a medical emergency; or c) upon a loss of capacity. [11] However, the Enduring Power of Attorney is not given to Stuart in the first instance. It is given successively to Lowana Moxham, and then to Stuart in the event Lowana is unable to act. [12] There is no evidence before me that Lowana’s appointment has failed. I, therefore, accept Ballymore’s submission that Stuart was not authorised to lodge the objection on Alfred’s behalf. [13] That is a different question from whether I may take account of the objection when considering the factors under s 269(4) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MRA). -- 4 of 59 -- 5 Ballymore says that I can only consider “proper” objections. It says that the use of the word “entity” in s 260 of the MRA implies, in this case, a natural person2 and because Stuart was not the natural person who lodged the objection, it is invalid. [14] An objection must be in writing, in the approved form,3 and state the grounds of objection and the facts and circumstances relied on in support of those grounds.4 [15] The approved form echoes the legislation and advises objectors that a “properly made objection” is one that is in the approved form, and states the grounds of the objection and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of those grounds. Neither the MRA nor the form prohibits an agent from lodging an objection. [16] I have the power5 to strike out objections that are outside the jurisdiction of the Land Court, frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. The Moxham objection is not frivolous or vexatious, nor is it an abuse of process of the court. It is also not outside the jurisdiction of the Land Court in the sense that the objection suggests something that is outside the Court’s power. [17] In the circumstances, although Stuart had no power under the Enduring Power of Attorney to lodge the objection, he did have power to lodge the objection as Alfred’s agent. I am not persuaded that it is beyond my power to consider the contents of that objection. The objection grounds [18] The objectors chose not to be active in this proceeding and have provided no evidence or submissions to the Court. Despite this, I must still have regard to their objections. In broad terms, they are: a) water; 2 “Entity” is defined in Schedule 1 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) to include a person and an unincorporated body. 3 Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MRA), s 260(1). 4 MRA, s 260(2). 5 MRA, s 267A. -- 5 of 59 -- 6 b) ecology; c) offsets; d) land disturbance and vegetation; e) waste and contamination; f) air quality/dust; g) noise; h) traffic; i) past compliance; j) currency of requirements; k) significant impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES); l) requirement to carry out an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the application; and m) consultation and transparency. Was an EIS required? [19] Ballymore commissioned environmental consultants Nitro Solutions to prepare an assessment as to whether an EIS was required against the criteria for environmental impact statements for resource projects under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act).6 Nitro Solutions reported that, because no category A or B areas were contained within the MLA, the Project did not meet the EIS triggers. [20] Ballymore points out that DETSI also considered the EIS guideline and determined that one was not required due to the scale of the proposed activities.7 6 BRG Report - EA Compliance Review prepared by environmental consultants Nitro Solutions for the Dittmer Gold Project for Ballymore Resources on 17 November 2020. 7 Affidavit of Anthony Morgan Williams affirmed 28 August 2024 (Williams Affidavit), at pages 177 to 178; and Second Affidavit of Teale Gibbs affirmed 1 May 2025 (Second Gibbs Affidavit) [7]. -- 6 of 59 -- 7 [21] The objectors have not pointed to any evidence that would justify a different view from that taken by DETSI or Nitro Solutions. The section 269(4) criteria [22] Section 269(4) of the MRA prescribes the matters I must consider when making a recommendation. Section 269(4) does not function as a checklist; it lists the factors which must be weighed and balanced to reach an overall conclusion and recommendation.8 Section 269(4)(a) – Has the applicant complied with the provisions of the MRA? [23] Ballymore filed a Declaration of Compliance pursuant to sections 252A and 252B of the MRA9 and DETSI has raised no concerns. [24] There is no evidence to suggest that Ballymore has not complied with the provisions of the MRA. Section 269(4)(b) – Is the area of land mineralised? [25] Andrew Gilbert is the Director Operations at Ballymore. He holds qualifications in mining engineering. He has stated that: “…the Project is mineralised with gold, copper, and silver with further association of base metals such as Lead, Zinc, and Iron.”10 [26] Ballymore has compiled all available development and mining information from the mine and, more recently, completed over 50 drillholes all of which successfully intersected the targeted lode structures and confirmed the extensive mineralisation of the Project.11 8 Re Kenneth James Willis [2001] QLRT 29 [43]; Re Aradon Pty Ltd [2001] QLRT 35 [40]; [44]. 9 Declaration of Compliance dated 15 November 2023. 10 Gilbert Affidavit [82]. 11 Gilbert Affidavit [87]. -- 7 of 59 -- 8 [27] Ballymore also relies on information contained in a report prepared by Derisk Geomining Consultants12 which confirms the mineralisation of the Project. [28] I am satisfied that the area of land is sufficiently mineralised. Section 269(4)(c) – Is there an acceptable level of development? [29] Ballymore submits that there is an acceptable level of development because its proposed mine plan will allow for the extraction of the extensive mineralisation. [30] Mr Gilbert gave evidence that the Project will produce approximately 30,000 tonnes of gold, copper and/or silver ore per annum for approximately ten years. He states that there is potential for further realisation once additional exploration has been carried out. [31] I am satisfied that the MLA will provide an acceptable level of development. Section 269(4)(d) – Is the MLA an appropriate size and shape? [32] The total area of the Project is approximately 272ha.13 Mr Gilbert states that the size and shape is informed by the known mineralisation sources.14 [33] The primary activity will be underground. Mr Gilbert states that vein systems have been mapped for up to 1km of the surface and lines of existing working extend for at least 3km. Ballymore’s exploration work includes the assessment and definition of a priority target area for exploration and design of an exploration program. It is apparent that the potential for acceptable mineralisation covers a significant area. [34] The size and shape of the Project reflects that, and I accept that the evidence shows that the size and shape of the MLA is appropriate. 12 Derisk Geomining Consultants, ‘Independent Geologist Report of the Queensland Explorations Assets Held by Ballymore Resources Ltd’, 18 June 2021; Taurus Funds Management, ‘Dittmer Project Overview’, 1 November 2023. 13 Area and shape statement ML 100351. 14 Gilbert Affidavit [95]. -- 8 of 59 -- 9 Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [35] Ballymore wants an initial term of 15 years. This allows two years to complete on-going exploration and feasibilities studies and to construct the necessary infrastructure, an ore extraction period of ten years, and three years to conduct the necessary rehabilitation.15 [36] I am satisfied that a term of 15 years is appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Does the applicant have the necessary financial and technical capabilities? [37] Ballymore has provided a Financial Capability Statement which demonstrates that it has the required funding to successfully complete the proposed work program.16 [38] It has also provided a Technical Capability Statement which confirms that it has the necessary technical capabilities to carry on the proposed mining activities.17 [39] I am satisfied that Ballymore has the necessary financial and technical capabilities. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the applicant’s past performance been satisfactory? [40] An objector raised a concern about Ballymore’s compliance with the existing EA. In response, DESTI attended the mine site in February and May 2024 to conduct compliance inspections. Ballymore has not received any infringement or non-compliance notices because of those inspections. [41] Ballymore submits that its past performance has been satisfactory: a) it is the holder of two mining leases and 14 environmental management plans, all of which are in good standing; b) it has not been the subject of any show cause notices; c) it has no cancelled tenures; 15 Length of Term Statement Dittmer Gold Mine dated 12 July 2023. 16 Financial Capability Statement Dittmer Gold Mine dated 12 July 2023. 17 Technical Capability Statement Dittmer Gold Mine dated 12 July 2023. -- 9 of 59 -- 10 d) it has not been issued with any penalties or convictions under the MRA; e) it has a good environmental record; and f) it has no history of non-compliance or action taken under the MRA or EP Act against the company or any of its directors. [42] There is no evidence that Ballymore has been the subject of show cause notices, penalties or convictions. I am satisfied that Ballymore’s past performance has been satisfactory. Section 269(4)(h) – Is there any disadvantage to holders of existing exploration permits and mineral development licenses? [43] There are no overlapping tenements held by any other parties within the proposed MLA area.18 [44] There is no evidence of any disadvantage to permit or license holders from granting the MLA. Section 269(4)(i) – Will the proposal conform with sound land use management? [45] Ballymore submits that the operations to be carried on under the authority of the MLA will conform with sound land use management because:19 a) the mine is in an area which has significant historical disturbance, including the historical infrastructure, and is not suitable for other uses; b) it will endeavour to use existing disturbed land including the waste rock dumps that are not historical infrastructure; c) the use and subsequent rehabilitation of the land will accord with the principles of sound land use; d) the land use is appropriate due to the mineralised nature of the land, and location of proposed development; 18 Gilbert Affidavit [108]. 19 Gilbert Affidavit [109]. -- 10 of 59 -- 11 e) because the primary land use will be underground, there will be limited surface disturbance; f) while most of the proposed development is located on unallocated state land or State Forest the surface disturbance will be minimal and located primarily on areas of historic disturbance; g) it has engaged, and will continue to work with, external parties to identify and implement post mining land use improvements. This may include but not be limited to: (a) re-establishment of safe access to State Forest for access by public; and (b) de-establishment of historic mining equipment from previous tenures within the application area with a view of increasing the safety to members of public for access to the State Forest area. [46] I note that the Queensland Government has held the mine area since the 1980s through its Abandoned Mines Program. Other than fencing certain areas of the workings, there is little evidence of government-initiated remediation works. Ballymore’s proposed remediation efforts are better than no remediation. [47] The proposed land use will conform with sound land use management. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be an adverse environmental impact caused by the proposal? If so, are those impacts appropriately managed? [48] As I have already noted, Ballymore is already subject to an EA. If the MLA is granted, the existing EA, with some modification, will apply to Ballymore’s operations. [49] Ballymore submits that the EA will ensure that the mining and associated activities on the MLA will be carefully managed because the EA, including the rehabilitation requirements, will place strict limits on the environmental impacts caused by the Project.20 [50] The objectors raised concerns about the potential impact on: 20 Gilbert Affidavit [112]. -- 11 of 59 -- 12 a) water; b) ecology; c) significant impact on MNES; d) offsets; e) land disturbance and vegetation; f) waste and contamination; g) air quality/dust; and h) noise. [51] DETSI considered the objectors’ concerns in its Assessment Report when determining the amendment to the EA. DETSI’s position was that the EA Conditions sufficiently address the objectors’ concerns.21 [52] The MLA is subject to the eligibility criteria and standard conditions for mining lease activities – Version 2 (ERA Standard Conditions), and 26 additional conditions that are set out in its draft EA22 (together, the EA Conditions). Ballymore also has an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in place for the Project.23 [53] Nonetheless, I propose to consider each of the grounds of objection separately. Water [54] The objectors are concerned about environmental pollution of surface waters and groundwater, including toxic dust, erosion and leaching into watercourses and waterbodies, particularly in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment.24 [55] I can understand the objectors’ concerns given that the Dittmer residents draw their water from the surrounding area. 21 Ex [AMQ-05] of Williams Affidavit. 22 Revised Applicant’s Proposed Environmental Authority EPSL 00460513 (Applicant’s Proposed EA). 23 Dittmer Project Environmental Management Plan (EMP) dated 5 December 2024. 24 Whitsunday Conservation Council MRA Objection dated 12 December 2023. -- 12 of 59 -- 13 [56] Ballymore engaged Hydroelement Solutions25 to provide an expert opinion on the surface water conditions.26 It determined that the risk of contamination to Dittmer’s drinking water and the Great Barrier Reef catchment is low because: a) Ballymore does not propose a tailings dam and processing will be undertaken at an off-site facility.27 This effectively eliminates the possibility of any potential impacts typically associated with on-site mineral processing such as leaching into watercourses and waterbodies.28 b) The waste rock is non-acid forming, significantly reducing the likelihood of acidic drainage occurring from these waste rocks.29 [57] As it was required to do, DETSI considered the relevant water quality objectives when assessing Ballymore’s application. It decided that the EA Conditions should include water quality conditions. By conditions A6, B5, B7 and B9, Ballymore is not authorised to release any contaminants to the receiving environment. [58] Ballymore has agreed to a rigorous surface water monitoring regime, which includes the water quality objectives derived from the “Proserpine River, Whitsundays Island and O’Connell River basins Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basins 122, 123 and 124, including all surface waters of the Proserpine River, Whitsunday Island and O’Connell River Basins and adjacent coastal waters”.30 [59] The EA Conditions include a surface water monitoring regime by which receiving waters will be monitored monthly to ensure compliance with particular water quality standards. I will later refer to some of those conditions in detail. [60] Conditions A5, A6, A8, A11, B2, B5, B7 and B9 require erosion and sediment control structures where appropriate, outline the design requirements of dams, and state that the 25 HydroElement Solutions, ‘Geochemical Characterisation of Waste Rock – Dittmer Gold Project’, March 2024. 26 HydroElement Solutions, ‘Groundwater Monitoring Plan – Dittmer Gold Project’, May 2024. 27 Williams Affidavit [45]. 28 Gilbert Affidavit [220]; Above n 26, at page 24. 29 Above n 26, at page 24. 30 Affidavit of Teale Gibbs affirmed 21 March 2025 (Gibbs Affidavit) [43]; [58]. -- 13 of 59 -- 14 direct or indirect release of waste, wastewater or other contaminants to any watercourse, waterway, groundwater, wetland or lake is not authorised.31 [61] Condition V12 requires Ballymore to carry out erosion management to minimise erosion and maintain roads and tracks within the disturbed areas of the mine tenure. Mr Gilbert has also given evidence that, as part of its surface water management plan, Ballymore will incorporate additional controls to ensure that stormwater control devices are installed to divert surface stormwater around the historic tailings dam where applicable.32 [62] Condition V13 sets out how waste materials and dangerous goods must be stored and handled. Condition V14 states that general waste cannot be buried with 100m of a watercourse.33 [63] The objectors also raised concerns about dewatering of groundwater. Those concerns are addressed in condition V28 which implements a groundwater monitoring program.34 [64] Hydroelement Solutions provided a groundwater monitoring plan requiring suitable groundwater monitoring bores to commence baseline groundwater data collection.35 It concluded that: “(a) there is limited potential for groundwater occurrence because of limited headwater catchment area in the vicinity of ML 10341 or MLA 100351, low rock porosity, and increased local capture of groundwater recharge by a potentially remnant cone of depression in the water table. As a result of the limited potential for groundwater, mining related activities, including extraction of groundwater from underground workings within ML 10341 or MLA 100351, are unlikely to impact on the quantity of groundwater in the area that potentially exist east and northeast of ML 10341 or MLA 100351; … 31 Williams Affidavit [23]. 32 Gilbert Affidavit [275]. 33 Williams Affidavit [23]. 34 Williams Affidavit [26]. 35 Above n 26. -- 14 of 59 -- 15 (d) with appropriate mitigation measures in place, the Project’s impacts to groundwater were likely to be low…”36 [65] I am satisfied that the risk of environmental pollution of surface waters and groundwaters is low. To the extent that there is a risk, I am satisfied that the EA Conditions sufficiently address the objectors’ concerns. Ecology and Matters of National and Environmental Significance [66] The objectors raised concerns about multiple endangered and threatened plant and animal species in the Proserpine State Forest.37 [67] The Proserpine State Forest is classified as a category C Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA) which is managed by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.38 [68] Ballymore commissioned Jack Baseggio, Senior Environmental Consultant at Base Consulting Group, to prepare a Significant Residual Impact Assessment Report (SRI Report) for the Project.39 [69] The SRI Report concluded that: “…the [mine] activities were not expected to have a significant residual impact on vegetation communities, connectivity areas, protected wildlife habitat, wetlands or waterways within the proposed clearing areas.”40 [70] Likewise, he considered that the risk to flora and fauna was minimal as the proposed clearing areas are less than 0.5ha.41 36 Gilbert Affidavit [233]. 37 Williams Affidavit [27]-[28]. 38 Gilbert Affidavit [187]. 39 Affidavit of Jack Albert Baseggio affirmed 5 December 2024 (Baseggio Affidavit); Significant Residual Impact Assessment Dittmer Gold Mine dated 3 April 2024. 40 Ibid, at page 35. 41 Gilbert Affidavit [196]. -- 15 of 59 -- 16 [71] DETSI considered the SRI Report and agreed with the conclusion that the proposed activities will not result in significant residual harm to prescribed environmental matters.42 [72] While it is true that, at the hearing, Mr Baseggio acknowledged that the SRI Report addressed only some of the proposed clearing,43 DETSI submits that the 10ha limit on disturbance will be sufficiently protective.44 [73] Ballymore also prepared an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) Self-Assessment Report dated 11 September 2024 that addressed the impact of the Project on conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity. As part of this assessment, Ballymore conducted an ecological survey. These assessments found that the mine was unlikely to have a significant impact on any endangered species or on any migratory species. The assessment concluded that the mine will not have a significant impact on MNES and therefore does not require referral to Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in accordance with the EPBC Act.45 [74] Condition A13 of the EA Conditions requires Ballymore to consult with the relevant administering authority prior to undertaking activities within the category C ESA. If it is determined through consultation that additional conditions are necessary, Ballymore must comply with those conditions.46 [75] The objectors say that the site is also identified as within a Statewide Biodiversity Corridor and a habitat for the Endangered Proserpine Rock Wallaby, Northern Quoll and Greater Glider.47 42 Ex [AMQ-05] of Williams Affidavit; Second Gibbs Affidavit [7]. 43 Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-37. 44 Outline of Submissions by the Statutory Party filed 10 June 2025 (Statutory Party’s Closing Submissions) [20]. 45 Dittmer Gold Project - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) Self-Assessment Report dated 11 September 2024, at page 28. 46 Gilbert Affidavit [190]. 47 DETSI First Information Request dated 9 February 2024, at page 10. -- 16 of 59 -- 17 [76] Under conditions V15, V16 and V17 of the draft EA, Ballymore must undertake targeted surveys within planned disturbance areas in accordance with the latest version of the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland, Ecological Sciences, Queensland Herbarium and prepare management plans for any identified threatened species. If any species are found in the surveys, Ballymore must prepare a management plan and must not disturb any trees identified as a breeding place.48 [77] Conditions V19 and V20 address impacts to MNES and state that significant residual impacts to prescribed environmental matters are not authorised under the EA or the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 (Qld). Ballymore must keep supporting records.49 [78] I am satisfied that the ecological impacts and potential impacts to MNES are low. I am also satisfied that the conditions imposed on the MLA by the draft EA are sufficient to address the objectors’ concerns. Offsets [79] The objectors question whether offsets are necessary due to significant residual impacts to prescribed environmental matters. [80] The SRI Report concluded that, because the proposed clearing area is less than 0.5ha, and mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts on the landscape, including progressive rehabilitation management practices, the mine will not cause any harm to the vegetation and fauna communities. [81] DETSI concluded that offsets are not necessary.50 I am similarly satisfied that offsets are not required. Land Disturbance and Vegetation [82] The objectors raised concerns about the area of disturbance. 48 Applicant’s Proposed EA, V16. 49 Applicant’s Proposed EA, V20. 50 Williams Affidavit [38]. -- 17 of 59 -- 18 [83] The Eligibility Criteria of the EA Conditions limits overall disturbance to 10ha and mine workings to 5ha.51 [84] At present, the proposed total surface disturbance of the Project, including current disturbances is 1.42ha.52 Ballymore submits that the total proposed disturbance for the Project will not exceed the maximum allowable limit and it will continue to comply with the EA Conditions to minimise land and vegetation disturbance. [85] Under the EA Conditions, Ballymore is required to rehabilitate areas disturbed by mining activities to a stable landform, similar to that of the surrounding undisturbed areas.53 This includes, if disturbed, the areas the subject of historical mining activities. [86] Ballymore states that it will not be undertaking activities that disturb the tailings dams, the historic waste rock dumps and the Kelsey Creek water supply dam.54 Even though it is not responsible for rehabilitation of these areas Ballymore has stated its commitment to progressively rehabilitate historical workings where appropriate and to make safe and put in appropriate controls for uncontrolled shaft and mine openings, some of which date from the 1930s and 50s, in the State Forest.55 [87] I am satisfied that the conditions in the draft EA are sufficient to address the concerns and ensure that Ballymore rehabilitates the disturbed areas. Waste and Contamination [88] The objectors raised concerns about contamination from mine tailings, including leaching into waterways and dispersal by wind.56 [89] Ballymore does not propose a tailings dam, or an on-site processing facility, and does not intend to further disturb the historic tailings dam and waste rock dumps. 51 Williams Affidavit [41]. 52 Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-3. 53 Condition B18 of the Eligibility Criteria and Standard Conditions for Mining Lease Activities – Version 2 (ERA Standard Conditions). 54 Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-3. 55 Ibid, 1-25. 56 Williams Affidavit [42]. -- 18 of 59 -- 19 [90] New Conditions V21 and V22 of the draft amended EA annexed to these reasons require that Ballymore ensure that it complies with its intention not to disturb the historic tailings dam, or the background control site. [91] Nevertheless, Appendix 4 of the EA Conditions includes criteria for dams, including tailings dams57 which address the objectors’ concerns. [92] The report of Hydroelement Solutions, concluded that: “…as the Project will be toll treating and the processing of gold will be occurring off site at specialised facilities, there is an effective elimination of the possibility of any potential environmental impacts typically associated with on-site mineral processing.”58 [93] Similarly, testing of the waste rock revealed that it is non-acid forming, significantly reducing the likelihood of acidic drainage occurring.59 [94] Conditions A8, A9, A10, A11, B5 and B6 of the EA Conditions, specify measures that must be undertaken in the event of a spill and how acid producing waste rock is managed.60 [95] Ballymore submits that the mine will generate minimal domestic waste, which will be removed of at an approved facility.61 Conditions V13 and V14 of the EA Conditions require all waste material to be stored and handled in accordance with Australian Standards and restrict where waste can be buried.62 [96] I am satisfied that the conditions imposed on the MLA by the draft EA are sufficient to address the objectors’ concerns. 57 Williams Affidavit [45]; Applicant’s Proposed EA, Definitions. 58 Above n 26, at page 24. 59 Ibid. 60 Williams Affidavit [43]. 61 Gilbert Affidavit [223]. 62 Williams Affidavit [46]. -- 19 of 59 -- 20 Air Quality/Dust [97] The objectors raised concerns about the dust from mine activities, including truck loading and haulage, affecting air quality [98] Ballymore submits that, as the mine does not have a proposed point source release, it expects that the greatest risk to air environmental values will be the potential dust emissions which may result from vegetation clearing, earth works and mining operations.63 [99] It also submits that the EMP is sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts including air and dust.64 It proposes to minimise air emissions risks by:65 a) clearing small areas of land at a time; b) considering the daily wind direction though the installation of wind socks; c) planning site activities during favourable wind conditions; d) designing stockpiles to minimise the cross-sectional area exposed to prevailing winds; e) implementing dust suppression systems; f) implementing regular vehicle maintenance and water spray usage; g) investigating national pollutant inventory reporting obligations; h) rehabilitating disturbed areas and avoiding dumping during high winds; i) regularly service vehicles, plant and equipment to ensure that exhaust systems and fuel consumption comply with manufacturers’ specifications; j) stabilise topsoil stockpiles if left in place for longer than four weeks. Methods may include covering and planting of native grasses or sterile grasses; 63 Gilbert Affidavit [207]. 64 Gilbert Affidavit [208]. 65 Gilbert Affidavit [209]. -- 20 of 59 -- 21 k) progressively rehabilitate disturbed areas; l) during high wind speed towards sensitive receptors avoid dumping ore/waste on the surface; m) during high wind speed towards sensitive receptors, avoid loading ore onto haul trucks on surface; and n) implementing a monitoring, reporting and review process as detailed in the EMP. [100] Condition A3 of the EA Conditions regulates dust. Conditions V7, V8 and V9 require a dust management program to be implemented, vehicles to be managed to avoid dust during transport, and dust and particulate matter emissions levels are not to be exceeded. The proposed emissions levels are consistent with the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2019.66 [101] I am satisfied that these conditions will ensure that air quality and dust impacts are minimised. Noise [102] The objectors raised concerns about the noise from trucks, processing equipment and explosions affecting Dittmer residents.67 [103] Conditions A4, V10 and V11 of the EA Conditions address noise. These conditions outline the noise limits that must be achieved at a commercial or sensitive place and impose blasting restrictions.68 [104] Ballymore submits that it will meet all EA Conditions to ensure that noise from the Project does not harm any sensitive or commercial locations. It proposes the following steps to minimise the impact of noise pollution:69 66 Williams Affidavit [49]. 67 Williams Affidavit [50]. 68 Williams Affidavit [52]; ERA Standard Conditions; Applicant’s Proposed EA. 69 Gilbert Affidavit [258]. -- 21 of 59 -- 22 a) limiting site surface activities to between 7:00am and 6:00pm from Monday to Saturday; b) ensuring vehicles, plant, and equipment are serviced regularly to keep mechanical features, such as exhaust noise, within manufacturers’ specifications; c) establishing a procedure to follow when noise complaints are received, as outlined in the EMP; and d) building noise bunds or structures around noisier surface activities, like ore stockpiles or crushers, to minimise noise impact. [105] Ballymore has also engaged an acoustical engineer from ATP Consulting Engineers to: a) prepare a preliminary Trigger Action Response Plan for potential noise impacts on sensitive receptors mine; and b) provide a noise impact assessment report as per final Project layout.70 [106] I am satisfied that these conditions will ensure that noise impacts are mitigated. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [107] Section 269(4)(k) requires me to consider the impacts upon the public right and interest and whether any good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the MLA. Consultation and transparency [108] The objectors raised concerns about consultation and transparency without going into detail.71 [109] I have already noted that Ballymore has complied with the public notification requirements.72 The objectors responded to that public notification by lodging objections. 70 Gilbert Affidavit [260]. 71 Stewart Alexander MRA Objection dated 14 December 2023. 72 Williams Affidavit [74]. -- 22 of 59 -- 23 To the extent that the objectors say they did not have enough time to consider the proposal, compliance with the statutory regime is a complete answer. [110] Ballymore also prepared a Stakeholder Engagement and Community Engagement Plan.73 Ballymore submits that, pursuant to that plan, it has and will continue to provide updated information and consultation with the community.74 Currency of requirements [111] The objectors are concerned that the current EA Conditions are significantly broader in scope than the existing EA. The implication in this objection is that the existing EA is no longer fit for purpose. [112] DETSI points out that, while the existing EA is authorised under the Code of environmental compliance for Mining Lease Projects January 2001 – Version 0, all proposed activities on the new tenure will be subject to the most recent version of the ERA Standard Conditions, being Version 2.75 [113] Ballymore has agreed that Version 2 of the ERA Standard Conditions will apply for the existing tenures, as well as the additional tenure. This is reflected in the draft EA. Traffic and transport impacts [114] The objectors raised concerns about excessive traffic resulting from the Project.76 [115] Haulage trucks will exit the MLA to the north of, and outside, Dittmer. They will not travel through the main section of the township. Any traffic impacts to residents within the township will be minimal.77 [116] Ballymore has committed to haul trucks being scheduled for times when they will have least impact. They will be limited to the hours of 7:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday 73 Ballymore Resources Stakeholder Engagement and Community Engagement Plan dated May 2024. 74 Gilbert Affidavit [312]. 75 Williams Affidavit [62]. 76 Above n 71, at page 4. 77 Applicant’s Outline of Submissions filed 27 May 2025 (Applicant’s Closing Submissions) [269]; Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-17. -- 23 of 59 -- 24 and 7:00am to 12:00pm Saturday78 and will predominantly operate to avoid school bus times. Ballymore expects the proposed mining operations will result in approximately five trucks per day.79 [117] Ballymore has been consulting with the Whitsunday Regional Council about a road user agreement even though no such agreement is required until more than 10,000 tonnes is trucked out of the mine.80 [118] Ballymore will be engaging a suitably qualified traffic engineer to provide designs on the access to public roads from the MLA, and traffic movements on and off site. This work will be completed prior to commencement of haulage operations.81 [119] Conditions B1 and B2 of the EA Conditions describe the requirements for roads and trucks. Conditions V9 and V12 of the EA Conditions require vehicles to be managed to avoid dust during transport, and outlines erosion measures that must be implemented. [120] I am satisfied the traffic issues which may arise will be addressed appropriately. Public interest [121] Ballymore submits that the Project will provide benefits to the local communities in which it operates, the broader Central Queensland region and the Queensland economy as a whole. [122] It has provided a detailed Community Benefit Statement82 which states the mine is projected to:83 a) work with and use local suppliers in the Proserpine region; b) provide ongoing employment of local personnel in the Proserpine region; c) provide financial benefits to the Yuwi Aboriginal Corporation; and 78 Gilbert Affidavit [264]. 79 Applicant’s Closing Submissions [268]; Gilbert Affidavit [266]. 80 Gilbert Affidavit [265]. 81 Gilbert Affidavit [267]. 82 Ballymore Resources Community Benefit Statement. 83 Gilbert Affidavit [304]. -- 24 of 59 -- 25 d) agree compensation with relevant landholders and government departments. [123] Ballymore submits, and I accept, that it has already contributed to the local community by supporting events.84 [124] Ballymore submits that the materials proposed to be mined are of high public interest in relation to critical minerals and broader economic outcomes.85 It states there is currently a high demand for gold demonstrated by the recent increases in gold price globally and there is also increased demand for critical minerals including copper and silver to support the green energy transition. It submits the mine will provide a key supply to the domestic and global market for these minerals and assist the Queensland economy through direct and indirect expenditure and associated royalties to the state of Queensland.86 [125] The only matter that is potentially adverse to the public interest is the effect of blasting on the Dittmer community. I deal with this separately in my consideration of the EA conditions. [126] I am satisfied any prejudice to the public right and interest are outweighed by the public interest in the social and economic benefits of the Project. Section 269(4)(l) – Is there any good reason to refuse the grant? [127] Section 269(4)(l) requires me to consider whether any good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the MLA. In my view, the only remaining consideration is the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HR Act). [128] The Court, in its recommendatory jurisdiction, is subject to the HR Act because it is a public entity to which the HR Act applies.87 [129] Mr Anthony Williams, the Assessing Officer at DETSI undertook a human rights impact assessment and considered that the Project will not have any human rights implications.88 84 Gilbert Affidavit [303]. 85 Gilbert Affidavit [113]. 86 Gilbert Affidavit [306]. 87 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HR Act), s 58. 88 Ex [AMW-03] of Williams Affidavit. -- 25 of 59 -- 26 [130] Ballymore submits that there are two human rights that may be engaged: property rights89 and the right to privacy (home)90.91 [131] Ballymore submits that there is no evidence that there will be any restriction of any person’s use or enjoyment of any property nor the destruction of any property. It also submits that, although the impacts from dust, noise and vibration may, in theory, interfere with neighbouring residents’ right to privacy, these impacts will be managed through the EA Conditions. [132] DETSI submits that the following additional rights have the potential to be engaged: a) recognition and equality before the law;92 b) cultural rights;93 and c) the right to protection of families and children.94 [133] Teal Gibbs is the Manager (Minerals Business Centre) in the Environmental Services and Regulation Division at DETSI. Her role includes managing and making administrative decisions for environmental authorities. She is assisting DETSI while the original decision-maker is on long service leave.95 [134] Ms Gibbs has a slightly different view from Ballymore of the human rights implications. She considers that the potential impacts from blasting, noise, traffic and air quality may impact the human right to protection of families and children, particularly if Ballymore was permitted to carry out blasting during rest hours. Ms Gibbs also considers that the cultural rights of the Gya and Ngaro peoples may be limited.96 [135] Ballymore has undertaken a duty of care assessment to determine the likelihood of the Project causing harm to aboriginal cultural heritage and to categorise the activities to 89 HR Act, s 24. 90 HR Act, s 25. 91 Applicant’s Closing Submissions [289]. 92 HR Act, s 15. 93 HR Act, s 27 and s 28. 94 HR Act, s 26; Second Gibbs Affidavit [22] – [26]. 95 Gibbs Affidavit [1]. 96 Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-56. -- 26 of 59 -- 27 determine if they are likely to cause any additional surface disturbance. It has engaged with the North Queensland Land Council (NQLC), which represents the Gya and Ngaro people. The NQLC has provided a draft cultural heritage management agreement and the parties are continuing to negotiate to finalise that document. [136] Ballymore has an Indigenous People and Local Community Policy97 in which all employees are trained. [137] Despite Ms Gibbs’ greater caution, she similarly concludes that the proposed conditions in the draft EA are sufficient to protect the other human rights potentially engaged.98 [138] I agree. Section 269(4)(m) – Appropriate land use? [139] Ballymore submits that the operations to be carried on under the authority of the MLA is an appropriate land use because:99 a) historically, Dittmer is a gold mining town; b) the previous land use was underground mining, and the mine is a continuation of that; c) the land use is appropriate due to the mineralised nature of the land, and location of proposed development in a rural area with a relatively low population density; d) the primary land use will be underground with limited surface disturbance; e) most of the proposed development is located on unallocated state land with the remainder located on State Forest. Surface disturbance is minimised and located primarily on areas of historic disturbance; and 97 Ballymore Resources Indigenous People and Local Community Policy dated 17 January 2022. 98 Figure 3 [Survey plan showing the external boundaries and access for the Dittmer Extended MLA] of Additional Information Document to Support Application to Amend Environmental Authority Number EPSL00460513 dated 15 August 2023. 99 Gilbert Affidavit [116]. -- 27 of 59 -- 28 f) it has engaged, and will continue to work with, external parties to identify and implement post mining land use improvements. This may include but is not limited to: (a) re-establishment of safe access to State Forest for access by public; and (b) de-establishment of historic mining equipment from previous tenures within the application area with a view of increasing the safety to members of public for access to the State Forest area. Conclusion under section 269(4) of the MRA [140] There is no evidence to support a refusal of the MLA. The EP Act [141] Section 191 of the EP Act sets out the matters I must consider when making an objections decision. [142] Relevantly, I must consider any objection notice for the application100 and the standard criteria.101 I am also required to have regard to the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity, the principle of polluter pays, the principle of proportionality and the principal of primacy of prevention.102 The precautionary principle [143] There are two preconditions to the application of the precautionary principle. The first is that there must be a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, adequately substantiated by scientific evidence. The second is that there is scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage.103 [144] DETSI considered the application of the precautionary principle104 and was satisfied that there were no threats of serious or irreversible environmental harm. 100 Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act), s 191(e). 101 EP Act, s 191(g). 102 EP Act, s 6A. 103 Telstra Corporation v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256. 104 EX [AMW-05] of Williams Affidavit, at pages 144 and 185; Second Gibbs Affidavit [7]. -- 28 of 59 -- 29 [145] It is not enough for the objectors to refer to the precautionary principle without attempting to engage with the necessary preconditions for its application. I agree with DETSI that there are no threats of serious or irreversible environmental harm and, therefore, no reason to invoke the precautionary principle. Intergenerational equity [146] As President Kingham observed in Waratah105 there has been little judicial consideration in Queensland of what intergenerational equity means. Her Honour adopted a definition that was consistent with the way the principal has been considered in other jurisdictions; 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.”106 [147] As Ballymore points out, this land already has a significant and lengthy mining history. It must ensure the land is properly rehabilitated once its activities cease. It has committed to extend its rehabilitation efforts to areas outside its scope of works. [148] The EA Conditions also ensure that Ballymore will preserve, where possible, the ecological value of the area. Ballymore has designed the mine footprint to minimise impacts and it will use existing infrastructure where possible. [149] Ballymore’s post mining land use proposals include: a) re-establishment of safe public access to the State Forest: b) making safe historic mining equipment from previous tenures; and c) ensuring the post mining land use is at a higher standard than exist today and a stable land form. [150] I am satisfied that the principles of intergenerational equity are met. 105 Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 (Waratah) [117]. 106 Waratah [119]. -- 29 of 59 -- 30 Conservation of biological adversity and ecological integrity; best practice environmental management for activities [151] I have already outlined the EA Conditions which, to the greatest extent possible, ensure the preservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity. I do not need to repeat them here. [152] I note, as has Ballymore, that DETSI is also satisfied that the Project will not compromise biodiversity or ecological integrity. The public interest [153] I have already considered the question of public interest when considering the MLA. Ballymore submits there are six reasons that it is in the public interest to grant the EA: a) areas of existing disturbance will be rehabilitated to a stable platform similar to that of the surrounding undisturbed areas; b) historical mining activities will be rehabilitated as part of Ballymore’s rehabilitation project. This obligation currently rests with the state; c) Ballymore intends, where possible, to make unsecured shaft and mine openings in the state forest safe. Ballymore points out that this, too, is an obligation that currently rests with the state. Ballymore will incorporate additional controls to minimise surface stormwater from historic turning dams contact with Dittmer drinking water even though the management of the historic turning stands are not Ballymore’s responsibility; d) the Project will provide social and economic benefits to the local community, as detailed in paragraphs [120] to [122] above; e) the materials proposed to be mined are of high public interest in relation to critical minerals; and -- 30 of 59 -- 31 f) the current public access to the State Forest is in disrepair. Ballymore bring that access to a standard suitable for future use.107 g) I note that DETSI has submitted that the vibration impact of the blasting may be contrary to the public interest. I deal with this submission later. Submissions made by the objectors [154] The objectors’ concerns about the EA are largely the same as their objections to the MLA. I have dealt with them in considering the MLA and I do not need to consider them again. [155] I consider that the suite of conditions in the draft EA are sufficient to address all objections. Ballymore’s objection to the conditions [156] Ballymore objected to two conditions arguing that they were not necessary or desirable, nor were they reasonable or relevant. a) Blasting (V11(a) of the draft EA); and b) Water Quality (V21 to V24 of the draft EA). Conditions V21 to V24 - Water Quality [157] The EA Conditions require a water quality monitoring regime to be implemented. Ballymore does not object to that proposition and, as at the date of final submissions, proposed the following conditions: [New V21] Mining activities are not permitted to occur within: a) the two (2) historic tailings dams as shown in Figure [#] and shown as “Tailings - not remediated”; b) Kelsy Creek Water supply dam; or c) a 100 m buffer zone in all directions of the: 107 Applicant’s Closing Submissions [192] – [198]. -- 31 of 59 -- 32 a. Background/Control site as specified in Table 3 – Surface waters monitoring sites; or b. different Background/Control site determined by an appropriately qualified person and accepted by the administering authority under condition V23. [New V22] No mining of minerals is permitted in the bed and banks of Kelsey Creek. Surface waters [New V23] Prior to undertaking any mining activities upstream of SW1 the holder of this environmental authority must engage an appropriately qualified person to determine the Background/Control site in Table 3 – Surface waters monitoring sites. V24 The receiving waters must be monitored at the locations and at the frequency specified in Table 3 - Surface waters monitoring sites for the parameters prescribed in Table 4 - Receiving Waters Quality Objectives. [158] The conditions require a control site to establish a background water quality relevant to the area. Ballymore and DETSI cannot agree on the appropriate control site for the monitoring. -- 32 of 59 -- 33 [159] Mr Terry Harck, a hydrogeologist and geochemist, prepared a Technical Report in relation to conditions V21 to V24.108 He identified a control site – SW1 – as the appropriate site. [160] DETSI is not satisfied that SW1 is appropriate. Relying on the evidence of Mr Harck, it says that the control site needs to be upstream of any activity which might impact on surface water, and it needs to be representative of the environment, generally, in the area.109 [161] At first blush, as depicted in the figures below,110 SW1 appears to meet those criteria. 108 RGS Technical Report dated 13 February 2025. 109 Transcript of Proceedings dated 8 May 2025 at T2-6. 110 Map of Dittmer Surface Water Monitoring Locations; Close Up Map of ML 100351 showing abandoned mine areas. -- 33 of 59 -- 34 -- 34 of 59 -- 35 [162] However, DETSI submits SW1 does not meet those criteria because: a) the MLA is of a significant size; b) it includes a number of known disturbances which can impact surface water quality and may include unknown disturbances; c) it has a complex topography and a number of creeks and drainage channels traversing it; and d) Ballymore is entitled to disturb the MLA anywhere and that might materially impact upon the location of an appropriate control site. [163] Mr Harck had not visited the subject site in preparing his report, so his conclusion was an estimate based on his knowledge of the geology of the area, his experience generally, -- 35 of 59 -- 36 and by reference to the ANZECC guidelines.111 DETSI put to him, and he agreed that, if the environmental authority permits disturbance anywhere on the mining lease, SW1 does not meet the requirements for a control site because there is the potential for the historic tailings dam to be disturbed.112 [164] Mr Harck noted that the guidelines are not specific about the distance a control point must be upstream, but his evidence was that a buffer of between 50m to 100m was appropriate.113 Mr Gilbert’s unchallenged evidence was that SW1 was more than 200m from the closest underground workings.114 [165] Although its questioning of Mr Harck was directed to the potential interaction between SW1 and the historic tailings dam, DETSI now submits that SW1 is inappropriate under any circumstances. It says that, because the MLA is so large, and there are no conditions restricting where Ballymore may operate, the potential exists for an unknown disturbance to cut across SW1. [166] Ballymore says that its amended conditions provide for that situation: in the event that SW1 is no longer suitable, new conditions V23 and V21(c) provide a mechanism for choosing a new location. [167] DETSI says it is puzzled by Ballymore’s insistence on using SW1 as the controlled site. There is no mystery. Mr Gilbert detailed the difficulties in accessing a control site further upstream, a position with which DETSI did not cavil. [168] DETSI submits that the control site should be in a place approaching the MLA boundary but has provided no evidence to support that proposition. [169] Reluctantly, DETSI agreed that, wherever the control site is located, a condition which provides a 100m buffer zone in all directions, as contemplated by the New V21(c), was a good idea. And yet it was still not satisfied with the proposed condition, arguing that such a condition would be difficult to monitor, given that it required measuring distances 111 ANZECC Guidelines dated October 2000, at pages 3.1-14 – 3.1-16. 112 Transcript of Proceedings dated 8 May 2025 at T2-10. 113 Transcript of Proceedings dated 8 May 2025 at T2-3; T2-4. 114 Applicant’s Closing Submissions [40]. -- 36 of 59 -- 37 to points underground.115 As Ballymore has pointed out, other conditions involve consideration of underground distance and DETSI has not pointed to any difficulty in monitoring those conditions. It also submitted that it has the expertise to calculate those distances. [170] In its oral submissions,116 DETSI asked me to find as a fact that SW1 was not an appropriate control site. I am not prepared to make that finding. The evidence that is before me, in my view, gives a contrary indication, but it is a matter for expert opinion confirmed by a site visit. [171] Ballymore’s proposed conditions are appropriate and will accommodate any change in the receiving environment of SW1. Blasting [172] Condition V11(a) prevents Ballymore from blasting between 6:00pm and 7:00am (Restricted Hours). DETSI imposed this condition to ensure that residents’ amenity would be unaffected by vibration. [173] Ballymore wants this condition removed. Although the mine will operate 24 hours a day, Ballymore submits it will only blast during the Restricted Hours for maintenance and/or to ensure safety. It submits that the condition unreasonably restricts its ability to safely manage misfires or other blasting related hazards that may occur during the Restricted Hours.117 [174] Condition V10, Table 1 contains the specific noise limits during the Restricted Hours. Ballymore submits that it can and will comply with these noise limits, and therefore it is not necessary to impose limitations on their activities during the Restricted Hours.118 [175] However, Ballymore has submitted the following alternative condition: V11 Blasting must: 115 Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-10; T1-19; T1-31 – T1-36. 116 Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-20. 117 Gilbert Affidavit [56]. 118 Gilbert Affidavit [51]-[62]. -- 37 of 59 -- 38 a) Not cause an exceedance of the limits for air blast overpressure or ground vibration particle velocity in Table 2 – Blasting noise limits at a sensitive place or commercial place. [176] Ballymore submitted that this blasting condition should be accepted because: a) the vibration impacts to residents of Dittmer will be imperceptible; b) Ballymore has the technical ability and the resources to comply with the proposed condition, and agrees to ensure that it complies with the EA condition;119 c) DETSI’s Condition V11(a) does not allow for the safe and effective management of operations in the underground environment and unreasonably restricts Ballymore’s ability to safely manage misfires or other blasting related hazards that may occur;120 and d) Ballymore has procured appropriate blast monitoring equipment from a qualified blasting consultant and will monitor all blasts on-site to ensure compliance with the Project’s EA Conditions. It will monitor individual blasts in proximity to sensitive receptors and manage and investigate any incidents to ensure that the amenity of the residents of Dittmer is not affected.121 119 Supplementary Affidavit of Andrew Nicholas Gilbert affirmed 24 April 2025 [22]; Letter from Heilig & Partners Engineered Excellence to McCullough Robertson Lawyers dated 23 April 2025. 120 Gilbert Affidavit [56]. 121 Gilbert Affidavit [60]. -- 38 of 59 -- 39 [177] John Heilig, a blasting expert, provided evidence on the likely impact of maintenance and/or safety blasting during the Restricted Hours.122 He noted, and DETSI accepted,123 that his modelling was on a more conservative basis than that required by the Australian Standards. [178] Dr Heilig concluded that blasting could be completed in a way that was very likely imperceptible inside a building at Dittmer. He considered that, if a resident could feel a vibration, it would be minimal and would not impact upon their amenity.124 [179] Dr Heilig recognised that the blasting impact would be greater in the early years of operation because it would occur closer to the residents of Dittmer. Nevertheless, he concluded that blasting with a 5kg explosive weight for each of the 2025 to 2027 years would induce vibration less than 2mm/s externally and would, therefore, be very likely imperceptible inside a Dittmer residence. [180] Dr Heilig did not support the adoption of British Standard BS5228125 limit of perception at 0.14mm/s to 0.3mm/s which DETSI submitted was more appropriate. He noted that these values refer to continuous sources of vibration, whereas the blasting during the Restricted Hours would be of short duration and impulsive. He notes that short duress and impulsive vibration is less intrusive and the limit of perception for such events is typically around 1mm/s. Dr Heilig refers to these types of blasts occurring “on occasion”126 or “infrequently”.127 [181] He notes that the limit of perception applies to the point of entrance of vibration into the body. As vibration propagates from an external ground mass into a building, the amplitude of vibration decreases. Dr Heilig states that an internal level of vibration of 1 mm/s, equates to around 1.5mm/s to 2mm/s when measured externally.128 122 Affidavit of Dr John Herbert Heilig dated 23 April 2025 (Heilig Affidavit) [10]. 123 Transcript of Proceedings dated 8 May 2025 at T2-27. 124 Heilig Affidavit [13]; Transcript of Proceedings dated 7 May 2025 at T1-66. 125 British Standard BS5228-2 dated 1 January 2009. 126 Heilig Affidavit, at page 26. 127 Heilig Affidavit, at page 26. 128 Heilig Affidavit [26]. -- 39 of 59 -- 40 [182] DETSI is not satisfied with the proposed condition. [183] Firstly, DETSI says Mr Gilbert’s affidavit gives the impression that overnight blasting will occur more often than “on occasion” or “infrequently “because he said that: “Underground operations generally occur across 24 hours to maximise the efficiency of the mine. This will be a requirement to effectively develop the resource in the stated timeframes in the MLA…”129 [184] In its closing submissions, Ballymore clarified that blasting during the restricted hours was solely for the purpose of maintenance and/or safety. It also advised me that it would accept such a limitation of that nature to be written into condition V11. [185] Secondly, DETSI also submits that whether a person is, or becomes, more sensitive than others to a matter which is a limitation to their right to privacy or home does not mean that it is not a limitation to the right, nor does it mean that the public interest is not affected. The public interest is not limited to the “public” as comprised of “most people”, it is a wide consideration. The right to equality before the law means that a limitation of a right is a limitation, irrespective of whether that limitation is a product of a person’s particular vulnerability.130 [186] I agree that a person’s sensitivity does not affect whether or not there is a limitation to a human right. However, the expert evidence before me indicates that there is only the possibility (and the possibility seems to be small) of a limit to a human right because of the blasting [187] The mere identification of a limitation to a human right does not necessarily mean that there should be a complete prohibition on blasting during the restricted hours. Once a limitation is identified, the court must consider whether that limit is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified.131 That involves two steps: firstly, the legality of the limit, and secondly, the proportionality. 129 Gilbert Affidavit [56]. 130 Ibid [49]. 131 HR Act, s 13. -- 40 of 59 -- 41 [188] DETSI referred to the precautionary principle in justifying a complete prohibition.132 I have already set out the definition of the precautionary principle. Contrary to DETSI’s interpretation, it does not mean that any interference with quiet enjoyment should be avoided. Dr Heilig has demonstrated that the interference with quiet enjoyment is likely to be low. [189] Once a human right is engaged and there is evidence of a possible limitation, the Court must consider whether the limitations reasonable and demonstrably justified, in accordance with procedural requirements, not arbitrary and proportionate to other competing private and public interests. [190] Even acknowledging that there is a subjective factor to the question of interference with the person’s home, I consider that the slight possibility of a limit to a resident’s human right is reasonable and demonstrably justified. [191] I also consider that the possibility of a limitation is in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Project – given it is only likely to occur to preserve safety or for limited operational requirements. It is not an arbitrary limitation, and it is proportionate to the competing public interest, [192] If Ballymore’s proposed condition is accepted, the limit will also be legal. [193] Infringement of this human right is not inevitable. Giving the issue proper consideration, I am satisfied that any possible limitation to this human right can be justified. [194] Ballymore’s proposed condition V11, amended so that blasting during the Restricted Hours is limited to maintenance and/or safety requirements, should be included in the EA. Conclusion [195] I understand that the residents of Dittmer are used to living in a rural idyll, largely undisturbed by modern machinery or development. I also understand that many have 132 Transcript of Proceedings dated 8 May 2025 at T2-33. -- 41 of 59 -- 42 deliberately chosen this lifestyle and see the mine as an unwarranted intrusion on their rural lifestyle. I understand that they do not trust Ballymore to “do the right thing”. [196] The evidence before me, however, suggests that most of the residents’ concerns are misconceived. While is true that the character of Dittmer will change to some extent, Ballymore’s compliance with the stringent EA Conditions will go a long way towards ensuring a peaceful coexistence. I have no doubt that the residents of Dittmer will be watching Ballymore closely. I have no doubt that the residents’ keen oversight will factor heavily in Ballymore’s operations. [197] I recommend to the Honourable Minister responsible for the MRA that MLA 100351 be approved. [198] Pursuant to the EP Act, I recommend to the Honourable Minister that the Environmental Authority EPSL 00460513 be issued in terms of the draft amended Environmental Authority annexed to these reasons and marked “A” as further amended pursuant to these reasons [199] I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide a copy of these reasons to the Honourable Ministers responsible for administering both the MLA and the Environmental Authority. -- 42 of 59 -- 43 ANNEXURE A -- 43 of 59 -- Revised Applicant's proposed EA DRAFT Permit Environmental Protection Act 1994 DRAFT Environmental authority EPSL00460513 This DRAFT environmental authority is issued by the administering authority under Chapter 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Environmental authority number: EPSL00460513 Environmental authority takes effect on TBC Environmental authority holder(s) Name(s) Registered address Ballymore Resources Limited Suite 606, Level 6, 10 Market St Brisbane QLD, 4000 Environmentally relevant activity and location details Environmentally relevant activity/activities Location(s) Non-Scheduled Mining Activity Mining Lease - ML ML10341, ML10340 and ML100351 Additional information for applicants Environmentally relevant activities The description of any environmentally relevant activity (ERA) for which an environmental authority (EA) is issued is a restatement of the ERA as defined by legislation at the time the EA is issued. Where there is any inconsistency between that description of an ERA and the conditions stated by an EA as to the scale, intensity or manner of carrying out an ERA, the conditions prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. An EA authorises the carrying out of an ERA and does not authorise any environmental harm unless a condition stated by the EA specifically authorises environmental harm. A person carrying out an ERA must also be a registered suitable operator under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act). Contaminated land It is a requirement of the EP Act that an owner or occupier of land give written notice to the administering authority if they become aware of the following: • the presence of, or happening of an event involving, a hazardous contaminant on the land that is causing, or is reasonably likely to cause, serious or material environmental harm (notice must be given within 24 hours); or • if the land is contaminated land – a change in the condition of the land that is causing, or is reasonably likely to cause, serious or material environmental harm (notice must be given within 24 hours); or • a notifiable activity (as defined in Schedule 3) having been carried out, or is being carried out, on the land (notice must be given within 20 business days). Page 44 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 ABN 46 640 294 485 -- 44 of 59 -- Page 45 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 45 For further information, including the form for giving written notice, refer to the Queensland Government website www.qld.gov.au, using the search term ‘duty to notify’. Take effect Please note that, in accordance with section 200 of the EP Act, an EA has effect: a) if the authority is for a prescribed ERA and it states that it takes effect on the day nominated by the holder of the authority in a written notice given to the administering authority – on the nominated day; or b) if the authority states a day or an event for it to take effect – on the stated day or when the stated event happens; or c) otherwise – on the day the authority is issued. However, if the EA is authorising an activity that requires an additional authorisation (a relevant tenure for a resource activity, a development permit under the Planning Act 2016 or an SDA Approval under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971), this EA will not take effect until the additional authorisation has taken effect. If this EA takes effect when the additional authorisation takes effect, you must provide the administering authority written notice within 5 business days of receiving notification of the related additional authorisation taking effect. The anniversary day of this environmental authority is the same day each year as the effective date. The payment of the annual fee will be due each year on this day. An annual return will be due each year on 01 April. If you have incorrectly claimed that an additional authorisation is not required, carrying out the ERA without the additional authorisation is not legal and could result in your prosecution for providing false or misleading information or operating without a valid environmental authority. Signature Date Department of Environment, Science and Innovation Delegate of the administering authority Environmental Protection Act 1994 Enquiries: Minerals Business Centre PO Box 7230, CAIRNS QLD 4870 Phone: 07 40 4222 5352 Email: [email protected] -- 45 of 59 -- Page 46 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 46 Obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 In addition to the requirements found in the conditions of this environmental authority, the holder must also meet their obligations under the EP Act, and the regulations made under the EP Act. For example, the holder must comply with the following provisions of the Act: • general environmental duty (section 319) • duty to notify environmental harm (section 320-320G) • offence of causing serious or material environmental harm (sections 437-439) • offence of causing environmental nuisance (section 440) • offence of depositing prescribed water contaminants in waters and related matters (section 440ZG) • offence to place contaminant where environmental harm or nuisance may be caused (section 443) Other permits required. This permit only provides an approval under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. In order to lawfully operate you may also require permits / approvals from your local government authority, other business units within the department and other State Government agencies prior to commencing any activity at the site. For example, this may include permits / approvals with your local Council (for planning approval), the Department of Transport and Main Roads (to access State controlled roads), the Department of Resources (to clear vegetation), and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (to clear marine plants or to obtain a quarry material allocation). Obligations under the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 If you are operating a quarry, other than a sand and gravel quarry where there is no crushing capability, you will be required to comply with the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999. For more information on your obligations under this legislation contact Mine Safety and Health at www.resources.qld.gov.au, or phone 13 QGOV (13 74 68) or your local Mines Inspectorate Office. Development Approval This permit is not a development approval under the Planning Act 2016. The conditions of this environmental authority are separate, and in addition to, any conditions that may be on the development approval. If a copy of this environmental authority is attached to a development approval, it is for information only, and may not be current. Please contact the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation to ensure that you have the most current version of the environmental authority relating to this site. -- 46 of 59 -- Page 47 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 47 Conditions of environmental authority General V1 Except for any variations, the conditions of approval for this environmental authority are the standard conditions contained within the document Eligibility criteria and standard conditions for mining lease activities – Version 2. V2 All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the activity complies with the eligibility criteria and standard conditions. Monitoring and Reporting V3 The holder of this environmental authority must, when requested by the administering authority, undertake relevant specified monitoring within a reasonable timeframe nominated or agreed to by the administering authority to investigate any complaint of environmental harm. The results of the investigation (including an analysis and interpretation of the monitoring results) and abatement measures, where implemented, must be provided to the administering authority within 10 business days of completion of the investigation and no later than 10 business days after the end of the timeframe nominated by the administering authority to undertake the investigation. V4 Except where specified in another condition of this environmental authority, all monitoring data, records and reports required by this environmental authority or related to environmental management of the activities must be: a) Kept for a period of not less than five years; and b) Provided to the administering authority in the specified format within 10 business days of a request. V5 The following information must be recorded in relation to all monitoring required under the conditions of the environmental authority: a) The date and time at which a sample or measurement was taken; b) The location or monitoring point at which the sample or measurement was taken; c) The results of all monitoring and details of any exceedances of the conditions of this environmental authority; and d) Any other details relevant to interpreting the monitoring results (eg stream flow, wind conditions or any unusual observations such as odour or colouration). V6 Notwithstanding condition B12 the holder of the environmental authority must record and notify the administering authority of any emergency, incident or monitoring result that demonstrates non- compliance to the standard or variation conditions within this environmental authority. Air V7 The holder of this environmental authority must implement and maintain a dust management program which incorporates dust control measures, and monitoring and review processes for continuous improvement of the management of dust resulting from the mining activities. -- 47 of 59 -- Page 48 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 48 V8 The environmental authority holder shall ensure that all reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigation measures are employed so that the dust and particulate matter emissions generated by the mining activities do not cause exceedances of the following levels when measured at any sensitive or commercial place: a) Dust deposition of 120 milligrams per square metre per day, averaged over one month, when monitored in accordance with the most recent version of Australian Standard AS3580.10.1 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air—Determination of particulate matter— Deposited matter – Gravimetric method. b) A concentration of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometres (PM10) suspended in the atmosphere of 50 micrograms per cubic metre over a 24-hour averaging time, for no more than five exceedances recorded each year, when monitored in accordance with the most recent version of either: (i) Australian Standard AS3580.9.6 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air— Determination of suspended particulate matter—PM10 high volume sampler with size- selective inlet – Gravimetric method, or (ii) Australian Standard AS3580.9.9 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air— Determination of suspended particulate matter—PM10 low volume sampler— Gravimetric method. c) A concentration of particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere of 90 micrograms per cubic metre over a 1-year averaging time, when monitored in accordance with the most recent version of AS/NZS3580.9.3:2003 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air— Determination of suspended particulate matter—Total suspended particulate matter (TSP)— High volume sampler gravimetric method. V9 The holder of this environmental authority must ensure that vehicles used for transporting bulk materials from mining lease(s), leave the mining lease(s) with appropriate load preparation to minimise the spillage and/or loss of particulate matter and/or windblown dust during transport. Noise V10 The environmental authority holder shall ensure that all reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigation measures are employed so that noise generated by the mining activities does not cause the noise limits calculated in accordance with the criteria in Table 1 – Noise Limits to be exceeded at a sensitive place. -- 48 of 59 -- Page 49 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 49 Table 1 – Noise Limits Sensitive place Noise level (dB(A) measured as: Monday to Saturday Sundays and public holidays 7am to 6pm 6pm to 10pm 10pm to 7am 9am to 6pm 6pm to 10pm 10pm to 9am LAeq, adj, 15 mins CV = 50 AV = 5 CV = 45 AV = 5 CV = 40 AV = 0 CV = 45 AV = 5 CV = 40 AV = 5 CV = 35 AV = 0 LA1, adj, 15 mins CV = 55 AV = 10 CV = 50 AV = 10 CV = 45 AV = 5 CV = 50 AV = 10 CV = 45 AV = 10 CV = 40 AV = 5 Commercial place Noise level (dB(A) measured as: Monday to Saturday Sundays and public holidays 7am to 6pm 6pm to 10pm 10pm to 7am 7am to 6pm 6pm to 10pm 10pm to 7am LAeq, adj, 15 mins CV = 55 AV = 10 CV = 50 AV = 10 CV = 45 AV = 5 CV = 50 AV = 10 CV = 45 AV = 10 CV = 40 AV = 5 Table 1 – Noise limits notes: 1. CV = Critical Value 2. AV = Adjustment Value 3. bg = background noise level (LA90, adj, 15 mins) measured over 3-5 days at the nearest sensitive receptor 4. To calculate noise limits in Table D1: If bg ≤(CV – AV): Noise limit = bg + AV If (CV – AV) , bg ≤ CV: Noise limit = CV If bg > CV: Noise limit = bg 5. In the event that measured bg (LA90, adj, 15 mins) is less than 30 dB(A), then 30 dB(A) can be substituted for the measured background level V11 Blasting must: a) Not cause an exceedance of the limits for air blast overpressure or ground vibration peak particle velocity in Table 2 – Blasting noise limits at a sensitive place or commercial place. Table 2 – Blasting noise limits Blasting limits Sensitive or commercial blasting noise limits place limits 7am to 6pm 6pm to 7am Airblast overpressure 115 dB (Linear) Peak for 9 out of 10 consecutive blasts initiated and not greater than 120 dB (Linear) Peak at any time 115 dB (Linear) Peak Ground vibration peak particle velocity (vector sum) 5mm/second peak particle velocity for 9 out of 10 consecutive blasts and not greater than 10 mm/second peak particle velocity at any time 2mm/second peak -- 49 of 59 -- Page 50 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 50 Erosion V12 The holder of this environmental authority must, within disturbed areas within the mining tenure(s) a) carry out erosion management to minimise erosion; and b) maintain roads and tracks Waste and Hazardous chemicals V13 All waste materials, explosives, hazardous chemicals, corrosive substances, toxic substances, gases, and dangerous goods must be stored and handled in accordance with the current relevant Australian Standard. Where no relevant Australia Standards exists, all materials must be stored within an effective on-site containment system that prevents contamination of land or waters. V14 Notwithstanding condition B6, general waste cannot be buried within 100 m of a watercourse. Land V15 Prior to undertaking any mining activities, the holder of this environmental authority must obtain an appropriately qualified person(s) to undertake targeted surveys within planned disturbance areas in accordance with the latest version of the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland, Ecological Sciences, Queensland Herbarium and the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants. Wildlife and Threatened Species Operations, Department of Environment and Science, to detect the presence or absence of: a) endangered or of concern plant species; and b) endangered or vulnerable wildlife species; and c) actual or potential habitat or nesting trees. V16 An appropriately qualified person(s) must prepare a Management Plan for any threatened species identified during the surveys required under V15, to mitigate or minimise potential impacts of mining activities. V17 Trees identified as a breeding place in the targeted surveys required under condition V15, must not be disturbed unless a Species Management Program under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 authorises this. V18 Rock armouring or appropriate stabilisation of any creek access points must occur to prevent or minimise erosion of disturbed areas both during mining operations and after rehabilitation is completed. V19 Significant residual impacts to prescribed environmental matters are not authorised under this environmental authority or the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. V20 Records demonstrating that each impact to a prescribed environmental matter did not, or is not likely to, result in a significant residual impact to that matter must be; a) completed by an appropriately qualified person; and b) kept for the life of the environmental authority. -- 50 of 59 -- Page 51 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 51 Land [New V21] Mining activities are not permitted to occur within: a) the two (2) historic tailings dams as shown in Figure [#] and shown as “Tailings - not remediated”; b) Kelsy Creek Water supply dam; or c) a 100 m buffer zone in all directions of the: a. Background/Control site as specified in Table 3 – Surface waters monitoring sites; or b. different Background/Control site determined by an appropriately qualified person and accepted by the administering authority under condition V23. [New V22] No mining of minerals is permitted in the bed and banks of Kelsey Creek. Surface waters [New V23] Prior to undertaking any mining activities upstream of SW1 the holder of this environmental authority must engage an appropriately qualified person to determine the Background/Control site in Table 3 – Surface waters monitoring sites. V24 The receiving waters must be monitored at the locations and at the frequency specified in Table 3 - Surface waters monitoring sites for the parameters prescribed in Table 4 - Receiving Waters Quality Objectives. Table 3 – Surface water monitoring sites Monitoring Sites Distance to Dittmer Gold Mine Location Monitoring Frequency Eastern Northing SW1 [Which must be at least 100m upstream of the historic tailings pit as shown in Figure #] [table to be populated with existing monitoring location data before finalising conditions] Monthly during natural flow conditions SW2 Monthly during natural flow conditions SW3 Monthly during natural flow conditions SW4 Monthly during natural flow conditions SW5 (La Di Da Creek) Monthly during natural flow conditions Background/Cont rol site SW1 or an alternative site determined under condition V23. Monthly during natural flow conditions -- 51 of 59 -- Page 52 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 52 V25 If a water quality indicator measured at a monitoring site specified in Table 3 – Surface water monitoring sites exceeds any water quality objective specified in Table 4 – Receiving Waters Quality Objectives the holder of this environmental authority must compare this result to the control site specified in Table 3 – Surface water monitoring sites and: a) If the quality measured at a monitoring site is equal to or less than the quality measured at the control site, no further action is required; or b) If the quality measured at a monitoring site is greater than the quality measured at the applicable control site, have an appropriately qualified person complete an investigation into the cause of the deterioration in water quality and the potential for environmental harm and submit a written report to the administering authority within 20 business days outlining: i) details of the investigation carried out including any assumptions and limitations of the investigation; ii) findings of the investigation including an explanation of the cause identified; iii) recommendations of the investigation; and iv) actions taken to comply with the conditions of the environmental authority and to prevent environmental harm. Table 4 - Receiving Waters Quality Objectives. Indicator Unit Water Quality Objective pH pH unit 7.5-7.8a Electrical Conductivity (EC) μS/cm 463a Sulfate mg/L 4c Fluoride mg/L 2.4d Aluminium - Dissolved mg/L 0.055b Arsenic - Dissolved mg/L 0.013b Boron - Dissolved mg/L 0.94b Cadmium - Dissolved mg/L 0.0002b Copper - Dissolved mg/L 0.0014b Chromium - Dissolved mg/L 0.001b Cobalt - Dissolved mg/L 0.0014b Iron - Dissolved mg/L 0.8c Lead - Dissolved mg/L 0.0034b Manganese - Dissolved mg/L 0.06c Mercury - Dissolved mg/L 0.0006b Nickel - Dissolved mg/L 0.011b Selenium - Dissolved mg/L 0.005b Silver - Dissolved mg/L 0.00005b Zinc - Dissolved mg/L 0.008b -- 52 of 59 -- Page 53 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 53 Hardness mg/L For interpretation purposes only Major cations and anions mg/L Notes: a Environmental Protection (Water and Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019 - Proserpine River, Whitsunday Island and O'Connell River Basins Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basins 122, 123 and 124, including all surface waters of the Proserpine River, Whitsunday Island and O’Connell River Basins, and adjacent coastal waters- Lethe Brook sub catchment fresh waters (moderately disturbed) bANZG (2018) trigger levels for 95% aquatic ecosystem protection for slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystems. c Environmental Protection (Water and Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019 - Proserpine River, Whitsunday Island and O'Connell River Basins Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basins 122, 123 and 124, including all surface waters of the Proserpine River, Whitsunday Island and O’Connell River Basins, and adjacent coastal waters – Table 4: Drinking water EV d Environmental Protection (Water and Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019 - Proserpine River, Whitsunday Island and O'Connell River Basins Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basins 122, 123 and 124, including all surface waters of the Proserpine River, Whitsunday Island and O’Connell River Basins, and adjacent coastal waters – Table 11: Stock watering EV. V26 Monitoring and sampling must be carried out by an appropriately qualified person, in accordance with written procedures and must address the requirements of the latest version of the following documents unless otherwise approved by the administering authority: a) for waters and aquatic environments, the latest version of the Queensland Government’s Monitoring and Sampling Manual – Environmental Protection (Water) Policy. V27 The holder of this environmental authority must engage an appropriately qualified person to develop, document, and implement a surface water and sediment monitoring plan to monitor, identify and describe any adverse impacts to environmental values of receiving waters. Figure # will be a map which has surveyed by a surveyor and in the form generally in accordance with Exhibit 3. BRL.0124.0001. V28 Within 12 months from the effective date of the environmental authority the holder of this environmental authority must develop, document, and implement a groundwater management plan. The groundwater management plan must: a) identify potential sources of contamination to groundwater from the activity; and b) ensure that all potential groundwater impacts due to the activity are identified, monitored, and mitigated; and c) include groundwater bore monitoring which includes reference groundwater quality data; and d) ensure that adequate groundwater monitoring and data analysis is undertaken to achieve the following objectives: (i) detect any impacts to groundwater levels due to the activity. (ii) detect any impacts to groundwater quality due to the activity. e) determine compliance with condition V26; and include an appropriate quality assurance and quality control program; and f) include a review process to identify improvements to the program that addresses any comments provided by the administering authority. -- 53 of 59 -- Page 54 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 54 V28 Mining activities must not cause the concentration of any groundwater quality parameter measured in accordance with condition V25 to exceed the 80th percentile for five consecutive sampling events or the 95th percentile for three consecutive sampling events. -- 54 of 59 -- Page 55 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 55 Definitions Key terms and/or phrases used in this document are defined in this section. Where a term is not defined, the definition in the Environmental Protection Act 1994, its regulations or environmental protection policies must be used. If a word remains undefined it has its ordinary meaning. 'appropriately qualified person' means a person who has professional qualifications, training, skills or experience relevant to the nominated subject matter and can give authoritative assessment, advice and analysis on performance relating to the subject matter using the relevant protocols, standards, methods or literature. ‘airblast overpressure’ means energy transmitted from the blast site within the atmosphere in the form of pressure waves. The maximum excess pressure in this wave, above ambient pressure is the peak airblast overpressure measured in decibels linear (dBL). ‘blasting’ means the use of explosive materials to fracture: a) rock, coal and other minerals for later recovery, or b) structural components or other items to facilitate removal from a site or for reuse. ‘commercial place’ means a workplace used as an office or for business or commercial purposes, which is not part of the mining activity and does not include employees’ accommodation or public roads. ‘disturbed’ means land that has been impacted by mining activities and includes: a) compacting, removing, covering, exposing or stockpiling of earth b) removal or destruction of vegetation or topsoil or both to an extent where the land has been made susceptible to erosion c) carrying out mining within a watercourse, waterway, wetland or lake d) the submersion of areas by tailings or hazardous contaminant storage and dam/structure walls e) temporary infrastructure, including any infrastructure (roads, tracks, bridges, culverts, dam/structures, bores, buildings, fixed machinery, hardstand areas, airstrips, helipads etc) which is to be removed after the mining activity has ceased f) releasing of contaminants into the soil, or underlying geological strata. However, the following areas are not included when calculating areas of ‘disturbance’: i. areas off lease (e.g. roads or tracks which provide access to the mining lease) ii. areas previously disturbed which have achieved the rehabilitation outcomes iii. by agreement with the administering authority, areas previously disturbed which have not achieved the rehabilitation objective(s) due to circumstances beyond the control of the mine operator (such as climatic conditions) and disturbance that pre-existed the grant of the tenure. iv. areas under permanent infrastructure. Permanent infrastructure includes any infrastructure (roads, tracks, bridges, culverts, dam/structures, bores, buildings, fixed machinery, hardstand areas, airstrips, helipads etc) which is to be left by agreement with the landowner v. disturbance that pre-existed the grant of the tenure. ‘environmental offset’ has the meaning in section 7 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. ‘minimise’ is to reduce to the smallest possible amount or degree. ‘natural flow’ means the flow of water through waters caused by nature. -- 55 of 59 -- Page 56 of 56 • ESR/2016/3415 • Version 3.01 • Last reviewed: 01 FEB 2024 Department of Environment, Science and Innovation 56 ‘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 (mm/s). ‘prescribed environmental matters’ has the meaning in section 10 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014, limited to the matters of State environmental significant listed in schedule 2 of the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014. ‘receiving environment’ in relation to an activity that causes or may cause environmental harm, means the part of the environment to which the harm is, or may be, caused. The receiving environment includes (but is not limited to): a) a watercourse; and b) groundwater. ‘sensitive place’ means: a) a dwelling, residential allotment, mobile home or caravan park, residential marina or other residential premises, or b) a motel, hotel or hostel, or c) an educational institution, or d) a medical centre or hospital, or e) a protected area under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the Marine Parks Act 1992 or a World Heritage Area, or f) a public park or gardens. Note: The definition of ‘sensitive place’ and ‘commercial place’ is based on Schedule 1 of EPP Noise. That is, a sensitive place is inside or outside on a dwelling, library and educational institution, childcare or kindergarten, school or playground, hospital, surgery or other medical institution, commercial & retail activity, protected area or an area identified under a conservation plan under Nature Conservation Act 1992 as a critical habitat or an area of major interest, marine park under Marine Parks Act 2004, park or garden that is outside of the mining lease and open to the public for the use other than for sport or organised entertainment. A commercial place is inside or outside a commercial or retail activity. ‘significant residual impact’ has the meaning in section 8 Environmental Offsets Act 2014. ‘threatened’ as defined in the Nature Conservation Act 1992. ‘water quality’ means the chemical, physical and biological condition of water. END OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY -- 56 of 59 -- -- 57 of 59 -- Ballymore ML100351 Abandoned Mines areas \\\ -- 58 of 59 -- Ballymore ML100351 -- 59 of 59 --