dynamic-environmental-services

Small Changes, Big Risk: Why Your EA Doesn’t Cover Everything Under an ERA

Sun, 29 Mar 2026 23:09:15 GMT

Holding an ERA Doesn’t Mean You Can Do Everything Within It

We regularly see sites assume that because they hold approval for an ERA, they can undertake anything that falls within that ERA.

That’s not how Environmental Authorities work.

An EA does not approve the full scope of what an ERA could include. It approves what you applied for — including the way the activity is undertaken, the infrastructure used, the controls you committed to and the scale and intensity you described.

Sometimes, there are some obvious limitations set by your EA per ERA. For example, you may hold ERA 54 Mechanical Waste Processing, Threshold 2 (general waste), therefore, if you want to take regulated waste, you know that you aren't licenced to do so, as it is Threshold 3 & 4. It's the more subtle changes where things can come unstuck, particularly in the waste management ERA space.

What Your EA Actually Covers

When your EA is granted, it is based on a specific proposal. That proposal includes:

The activity itself
Where it will occur
What materials or wastes are involved
How it will be undertaken
What controls are in place to manage environmental risk

That combination forms the risk profile that was assessed and approved. It is not a blanket approval for all variations of that activity/ERA.

Where Sites Get Caught Out

Most non-compliances in this space are not deliberate. They come from operational changes that seem minor at the time:

Moving an activity to a more convenient location
Scaling up volumes
Changing inputs slightly
Adjusting how something is managed day-to-day

Individually, these can seem insignificant. But from a regulatory perspective, they can fundamentally change the risk to environmental values — which means they fall outside what was originally approved.

Example 1 – Crushing Concrete under ERA 54

You are approved to undertake crushing concrete under ERA 54. What was approved:

Crushing within an enclosed building
Dust suppression sprays on the machine
Settled dust wet cleaned within bunded area, and vac truck removed offsite to be disposed at facility that is licenced to accept it

You now want to undertake crushing outdoors. It’s still crushing — so it feels like it should be fine. But the risk profile is no longer the same:

Dust is no longer contained and can travel offsite
Fine material can be mobilised into stormwater
Noise is no longer attenuated by the building (for offsite sensitive receptors/neighbours)
Wind becomes a factor

The original approval was based on a controlled system. Moving outdoors changes how emissions behave and where they end up.

Example 2 – Wastewater Reprocessing under ERA 55

You are approved to receive and reprocess wastewater in ponds. What was approved:

A purpose-built pond with engineering design
Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) completed
Leak detection system installed
Groundwater monitoring bores in place
Defined and assessed allowable inputs

You now want to construct another pond, or accept a slightly different input. Again, this appears similar.

But, because you think you are already approved for this activity, you aren't putting together an EA application which steps through all the requirements, and therefore, some aspects get missed:

If the new pond is missing any of those design or verification elements, seepage risk increases
Without monitoring or leak detection, early warning systems are lost
Different inputs may behave differently in storage or treatment (for example, odour risk)
The original assessment of contaminants and volumes may no longer apply

Even if the pond looks the same, the certainty of performance and level of risk is not the same.

Example 3 – Other Activities under ERA 55

You are the same site as Example 2, already approved under ERA 55 to receive and reprocess wastewater in ponds.

You now want to treat contaminated soils using stabilisation (e.g. lime dosing). It’s still ERA 55 — so it feels like you should be covered.

But let's think about what was approved:

Treatment of liquid waste in lined ponds
Risks primarily related to odour, pond failure, seepage and groundwater

What changes:

Dust generation from handling soils
Airborne contaminants and exposure pathway
To be undertaken in an unlined, unbunded area
Stormwater contamination from open treatment areas
Land contamination risks
Potential for offsite reuse (if uncontrolled, contamination of other sites)

Same ERA — completely different risk.

The original EA for wastewater ponds does not consider these impacts, so the new activity has not been approved.

Why “Almost the Same” Isn’t the Same

A key point that is often missed is this: Environmental risk is driven by more than just the activity itself.

It is driven by:

How emissions are generated
How they are controlled
The pathways they can travel
The receptors they can reach

Small changes to any of these can significantly change the outcome.

Two activities that look identical operationally can have very different impacts once you consider odour, dust, surface water, noise, or groundwater pathways.

When Do You Need an EA Amendment?

As a general rule: Assume an EA Amendment is required. Request a pre-lodgement meeting, be clear about the change you are thinking of, and take guidance from the assessing officers.

This is not a space for “we’ll just make the change and see how it goes”.

Why It Matters

Operating outside the scope of your EA is not just a paperwork issue. It can result in:

Non-compliance with conditions
Environmental harm or nuisance
Regulatory action
Be issued a stop works notice, essentially cutting off your source of income
Costly and time-consuming remediation or retrospective approvals

We often see sites end up in a far more difficult position trying to justify a change after the fact, rather than assessing it properly upfront.

In Closing

Your EA is not an approval for everything that falls under the ERA listed on your licence.

It is approval for what you applied for — a specific activity, undertaken in a specific way, with specific controls.

If those things change, your approval may no longer apply.

That’s why the detail in your original EA application — and any amendments — matters. What you describe is what gets assessed, and ultimately, is what you are approved to do.

If your operations are evolving, don’t assume you’re covered.

Stop, assess the risk, and confirm whether an amendment is required.

Give us a call to discuss your waste-related activities — whether it’s an original EA application or an amendment.

Last updated 29 March 2026.

This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.

Handling Excess Soil from Excavation and Hydroexcavation

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 23:11:19 GMT

When is it a resource? When is it a waste? And what do you actually need to do?

Managing excess soil from cut/fill activities and hydroexcavation is one of the most commonly misunderstood environmental and planning compliance risks on construction sites. Soil can be one of the most valuable resources on a construction site, but poor management can quickly become extremely costly.

1. Soil: Resource or Waste?

Soil is a resource when it is:

Suitable for its intended reuse, and
Reused for a lawful and beneficial purpose (either within the project or at another suitable location)

Soil becomes a waste when it is:

Surplus to requirements, and
Discarded, disposed of, or requires treatment before it can be reused

This distinction is critical. Stockpiling soil “just in case” without a defined reuse purpose can shift it from resource → waste.

2. Contamination Considerations

Before any off-site movement or reuse, you must understand if the material is potentially contaminated. Some indicators might be:

The land is listed on the EMR or CLR
Notifiable activities have occurred on the land (whether listed or not)
Known or suspected historical spills
Mine spoil or deeply excavated material
Naturally mineralised soils
Areas affected by demolition (e.g. potential asbestos containing material)
Imported fill of unknown origin
Presence of biosecurity matter (e.g. weeds)

These indicators signal a risk that the material may contain contaminants. Material may be contaminated, even if it appears clean. Laboratory analysis may be warranted, with comparison to regulated waste classification thresholds and/or National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM), Schedule B1 as relevant.

3. Can the receiving lot legally accept it?

Even if soil is suitable for reuse, the receiving site must be legally able to accept it.

If managed as a resource:

Placement must be for a lawful and beneficial purpose
If volumes exceed relevant Operational Works (Earthworks) thresholds under the local planning scheme, the receiving lot may require a Development Approval. These thresholds vary by local government (often around 50 m³, but not always).

Important: Even movement within a project can trigger regulatory requirements if material is transported across lot boundaries.

If managed as a waste:

The receiving site must be appropriately authorised, such as:

- ERA 60 (waste disposal), or

- ERA 62 (waste transfer and processing)

*Waste levy, transport, and disposal costs will apply (waste levy will be $100/tonne or more, in addition to haulage and landfill disposal fees)

There are potentially some opportunities for a receiving landfill to apply for a waste levy exemption for clean earth for use as day or intermediary landfill cover. It is up to the discretion and operational needs of the landfill to allow this as an option, but as the disposer, offering to pay for the preparation of the waste levy exemption application can position you well, and has the potential to save you millions of dollars from an investment of just a few thousand.

Another consideration is whether the source site can legally supply the material. Large-scale excavation and off-site supply of soil can be considered resource extraction (e.g. quarrying), which may trigger Development Approval requirements depending on the nature, scale, and intent of the activity.

4. Hydroexcavation Material – Not Just “Water”

Hydroexcavation produces a slurry comprising:

Soil/sediment
Water
Potential contaminants (e.g. hydrocarbons, salts, metals)

This material is not simply “water” and should not be assumed to be suitable for discharge or reuse.

In most cases, hydroexcavation waste:

Requires assessment prior to reuse
Will be classified as a liquid waste or regulated waste, depending on contamination, unless a suitable on-site reuse opportunity is available

Key considerations include:

Can it be beneficially reused on-site without causing environmental harm?
Does it require dewatering prior to reuse or disposal?
Is disposal to a licensed facility required?
Does waste tracking apply?

Inappropriate discharge of hydroexcavation slurry can constitute environmental harm.

5. Temporary vs Permanent Stockpiling

Temporary Stockpiles (during construction) are generally acceptable where:

There is a clear reuse purpose
Stockpile duration is limited
Appropriate controls are in place:

- Erosion and sediment controls

- Stabilisation (if long duration)

Permanent Stockpiles

Permanent or long-term stockpiling introduces additional risk and often requires Development Approval.
Demonstration that the activity is not waste disposal

Generally, soil cannot be stockpiled indefinitely and without a defined use, unless it was indicated on the final landform approved as part of the Development Approval.

In Closing

Most soil management issues don’t arise from complex contamination — they arise from poor planning and unclear intent.

Soil is one of the most valuable resources on your site. Used well, it reduces costs and supports better environmental outcomes (particularly rehabilitation/revegetation). Managed poorly, it quickly becomes a liability — triggering approvals, disposal costs, and compliance risk.

Effective soil management begins with thoughtful cut and fill planning to minimise excess and avoid turning a valuable resource into a liability, and concludes with well-executed revegetation to stabilise the site and minimise future erosion and soil requirements.

Want to explore waste classification thresholds or NEPM further? Check out our Resources page for direct links to these resources.

Last updated 27 March 2026.

This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.

How to get the most out of dressage lessons

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 01:39:33 GMT

If you aren't improving between your dressage lessons, the problem probably isn't your coach, but your system.

Dressage lessons are one of the most valuable tools a rider has, but only if you know how to use them effectively.

You’re not alone. Many riders invest in lessons but struggle to carry the progress through to their everyday rides.

If you want to get the most out of your lessons and accelerate your progress, it’s time to rethink how you approach your lessons.

Let's start with one of the most important (and most overlooked) factors: pre-planning .

1. Pre-Planning

As the rider, you should be coming into each lesson with a clear idea of what you want to work on.

How often does this happen?

Coach: "How are things going?"

Rider: "Pretty good"

Coach: "Ok, that's good. What would you like to work on today"

Rider: "I'm happy for you to decide, you are the expert"

From a coach’s perspective, this immediately sets the tone. It can come across as a lack of interest or dedication, even if that’s not your intention.

Everyone pays the same for a lesson, but the riders who get the most value are the ones who take ownership of it.

While the rider cannot influence all aspects of the coach's mindset coming into the lesson, you can easily do this one simple thing.

Spend 15 minutes the day before your lesson to think about what you would like to work on. The day of can be too hectic and cloud your memory and judgement, particularly if you are running late or just a bit stressed about the lesson in general.

Then at the start of your lesson, don't wait for your coach to ask what you want to work on - set the context and then explain what you would like to work on before they have even had a chance to ask. Here are some examples (these are real recent examples of mine):

"At my last competition, I realised I was having trouble navigating the corners. I had a think about this, and realised I always ride in arenas with fences. Once we get into a competition arena with a small fence, I feel like I am not giving the horse clear enough direction, which results in a loss of balance and straightness. Can we work on positioning, aids and some different ideas to improve this?"
"I have been working on improving the engagement and activity in my walk pirouettes, and would like to show you where they are at, and get your feedback on how they are tracking and where to go next with this training."
"I am feeling like I am too often locking my arms when things get hard in collected movements. I would like us to touch on some of those collected movements today for the purpose of you helping me with not locking my arms."

Some examples of what not to say you want to work on:

"Flying Changes". Chances are, you don't have the building blocks established, and your coach is going to immediately be put in a position where they need to give you feedback which could be tricky for both of you to navigate, setting the scene for a potentially awkward lesson, or a coach who feels pressured into attempting to teach you and your horse something you aren't ready for. Perhaps instead you could say 'I'm feeling like the engagement of the canter is progressing well. Can we work on some exercises to test and challenge our straightness, because I know that needs to be very established before we start to think about flying changes?'
"Everything". What does this even mean? What it sounds like is that you have brought a negative mindset to the lesson.

Coming with a clear direction shapes the entire tone of the lesson, even if the lesson doesn't end up working on exactly what you had intended it to.

2. Talking too much... or not enough!

Your lesson time is limited, and valuable. Finding the right balance of saying enough, but not too much is critical.

You're paying to hear your coach's advice, not to convince them why you can't do what they are asking of you.

On the flip side, blindly riding around and around having no idea what the coach means or wants doesn't help anyone. The coach becomes frustrated (and potentially disengaged), and the rider confused and discouraged.

The right amount of communication is really individual to each rider/coach relationship, but getting it right is invaluable to both parties.

3. Not videoing or writing notes

It’s incredibly common to think, “I’ll never forget that, that was gold.”

And then 48 hours later… it’s gone.

If possible, have someone video your entire lesson (not just snippets to make highlight reels!), positioned where they can hear your coach speaking. If that's not an option, consider a Pivo, or just setting up your phone near the coach to capture audio, if nothing else.

Instead of, or in addition, taking 5 minutes immediately after untacking and cooling your horse to write some notes in your phone will help immensely with information retention and provide a valuable resource for later reference.

Most importantly, as uncomfortable as it can be, watch back your video, with the volume on (and/or read your notes)! You should watch this after your lesson, between that lesson and your next, and before your next lesson.

4. Not riding again soon enough after the lesson

After we have done a trip away for a clinic, we can come home exhausted (both horse and rider), and it’s tempting to give both yourself and your horse a break.

While psychical recovery is important for both horse and rider, repetition is essential for learning.

This must not be at the physical (or mental) detriment of the horse, but by riding at least a few times in the days after a big clinic, you will find all that valuable information flooding back to you 'in the moment' that you need it, helping to form new neural pathways that are your 'toolkit' for progress.

5. Not having another lesson soon enough

Many aspects dictate when you can have another lesson - finances, work commitments, coach availability, and more. However, too long between lessons can mean:

Practicing bad habits
Practicing a way of doing things that your coach didn't mean, but you misinterpreted
Going off track without realising

As a guide, your next lesson should be not necessarily a specific time period, but when you feel that either:

You have progressed well with solidifying the concepts learnt in the last lesson, or,
You can't quite get those concepts (or your interpretation of them) to work for you.

In Closing

If you want to improve faster, don’t just invest in lessons, invest in how you use them.

With the right approach, every lesson can drive real, meaningful progress.

About Lisel

Lisel Dingley brings a systems-based approach to both business and riding.

Balancing horses and a full-time career as the owner of Dynamic Environmental Services supporting some of the largest projects in Queensland, Lisel understands how important it is to make every ride count.

She offers a small number of one-on-one mentoring sessions for riders who want to build better systems around their training, horse and land management, and integrating horses with a career outside of horses, to achieve more consistent progress.

If that sounds like you, get in touch via email to equine@deservices.com.au - mentoring availability is limited.

Groundwater Monitoring - Does compliance with your Environmental Authority mean you have met your General Environmental Duty?

Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:39:46 GMT

Hypothetical Situation: A site’s Environmental Authority lists a number of groundwater bores, and states that they must be monitored for certain parameters 6 monthly. The EA has another condition which states that a groundwater review must be undertaken every 3 years by an appropriately experienced person (hydrogeologist).

The site diligently samples the groundwater bores, and collates the field and laboratory results into a spreadsheet.

However, those results are not reviewed when they are received… because the EA says that a groundwater review must be undertaken every 3 years, with no other specific review obligations.

Given groundwater monitoring is intended as a warning system for contamination, is only reviewing the groundwater results every 3 years adequate to meet the General Environmental Duty of the Environmental Protection Act? Or a general EA condition such as the requirement to take all reasonable and practicable measure to prevent or minimise the likelihood of environmental harm being caused by the activities?

When a dam containing hazardous waste is found to be leaking (found upon visual inspection), and subsequently the previous two years of groundwater data are reviewed and found to indicate this has been occurring prior to the visible leak being detected, it is likely this will not be looked upon favourably in a prosecution. “But it wasn’t time for our 3 yearly review!” is unlikely to be acceptable to the Regulator.

Perhaps the EA has another condition which states that deterioration of groundwater quality must be reported to the Regulator within 14 days of receipt of the results. If data is only reviewed every 3 years, how is this condition being met?

Perhaps the EA has a condition that requires the development and implementation of a Groundwater Monitoring Plan. It is suggested an adequate Groundwater Monitoring Plan should include guidance on interpretation of results, not just what, when and where to monitor. In our opinion, a Groundwater Monitoring Plan without interpretation guidance is defective and non-compliant with the intent of the condition. And if it does have guidance, is this clear enough to be accurately and swiftly executed by site personnel?

We see many shortcomings in groundwater monitoring. Some of the most common and most significant include:

· Data that clearly demonstrates potential environmental harm, which has not been noticed or investigated. There are some really easy ones in this space – your groundwater should not have PFAS in it! If it does, you either have identified contamination of the aquifer or contamination of your samples by your sampling methodology or the laboratory. Regardless, this should be promptly investigated.

· Sites not being aware which of their bores is a leak detection bore and which are aquifer monitoring bores. One should be dry and the second should not be dry, and if this is not the case, this needs investigating.

· Sites not having modelled groundwater flow direction to determine what is an upgradient (background) monitoring bore, and what is downgradient (identification) monitoring bore, and therefore not being able to interpret results adequately.

· Not monitoring water quality in ponds that have the potential to leak, and therefore being unaware of the potential contaminants that would indicate seepage into the aquifer from the pond.

Groundwater monitoring can be a highly effective detection system of potential environmental harm, but only if it is undertaken well, by persons with a comprehensive understanding of monitoring well construction, groundwater and contaminants, and with an adequate system of bores in place.

Last updated 19 November 2024.

This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.

Can you always legally clear Category X (White) Vegetation?

accounts@deservices.com.au (Lisel Dingley) — Tue, 17 Sep 2024 04:49:46 GMT

Definitely not!

We have put together a quick list of aspects which might mean you cannot clear your Category X Vegetation.

If the clearing may impact Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) under the Commonwealth EPBC Act, noting Category X (a State-based classification) does not remove the need for federal referral/approval, particularly where vegetation has regrown for 15+ years or provides habitat for threatened species.

If Protected Plant Trigger Mapping exists across the area you intend to clear, and you have not had a flora survey undertaken and/or have a protected plant clearing permit. This can also apply if protected plants exist without trigger mapping.

If the clearing is through a mapped waterway for waterway barrier works and may constitute a temporary (or permanent) barrier, and you haven't confirmed compliance with the Accepted Development Requirements for waterway barrier works, including submitting your pre-works notification.

If the clearing is through a watercourse, and does not meet the exemption requirements of a Riverine Protection Permit, and you do not hold a Riverine Protection Permit.

If you are not within your lot boundary, for example, when your lot or your adjoining lots are intersected by a mapped easement such as for a river or road, or you want to clear in the road easement in front of your property.

If your clearing will (or may) disturb an animal breeding place and you do not have a Species Management Program in place.

If your clearing will include ground disturbance and you have not met your Cultural Heritage Duty of Care requirements.

If the vegetation is mapped as protected under a local government planning scheme, and you do not have an approved clearing permit from the local government.

We often work with landholders who have unintentionally undertaken unpermitted clearing, and are subject to enforcement action by the Regulator. Remedying this is costly and time consuming. This is not a space for ‘act now, and ask for forgiveness later’. You may find yourself planting back out the trees you cleared plus 50% more, and being committed to ensuring their survival for the next 15 years.

Subsurface Challenges: How Renewables Projects in Queensland Fail to Identify Dispersive Soils in Planning and Initial Stages, and the Subsequent Consequences

Tue, 27 Aug 2024 04:48:51 GMT

In Queensland, it's no secret that the renewables industry is booming. However, consistently, particularly in the south of the state, these projects are quickly encountering an unexpected challenge - dispersive soils. While those in the erosion and sediment control field could reasonably foresee this based just on the geographic location or through a brief site visit only, consistently renewables projects are not aware of this aspect until well into construction, when unexpected erosion issues start to emerge.

It may be surprising that these very significant projects, with budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars, can overlook an aspect that is likely to cause considerable challenges if management is not planned and budgeted.

Failure to identify dispersive soils in project scoping and planning can result in development of inappropriate erosion and sediment control plans, unsuitable rehabilitation plans, failing rehabilitation, and lengthy maintenance periods of erosion and sediment controls until groundcover is achieved (including desilting, reshaping, restabilising). Drains fail due to erosion, releasing sediment which settles downgradient, reducing drain capacity, resulting in drain overtopping and sediment deposition onto roads or hardstands (reducing trafficability) or releasing sediment into waterways. Erosion and poor stormwater management from failed drainage can mean water is not managed as per design and begins to erode in and around infrastructure, including roads, hardstands, solar panel piles, and waterway culvert crossings, resulting in expensive repairs of often difficult to access areas (particularly in solar construction due to tracking infrastructure). Some projects believe they will solve their erosion issues with hard reinforcing, like rock placement (riprap) or shotcrete or concrete, and are consequently shocked when these expensive repairs are promptly undermined. These impacts can result in landholder and broader community complaints, environmental consequences, compliance challenges, and costly rework.

During project planning, there are multiple avenues to identify this challenge. From an initial desktop perspective, publicly available soil mapping with attached descriptions could be reviewed, which will indicate dispersiveness. Even at the highest level of state-wide soil classification, the considerable portion of the state mapped as sodosols should be an indication of potential dispersiveness, named due to high concentrations of exchangeable sodium, driving sodicity, which often results in dispersion.

Assuming these aspects are overlooked, the early onsite inspections allow for an opportunity to visually observe indications of dispersive soil, often presenting as gully erosion along pre-existing roadsides and along farm tracks, or as gully or tunnel erosion adjacent to waterways, which contain the classic 'chocolate milk' water. These inspections are generally undertaken by ecologists and geotechnical engineers, and rarely, if ever, by erosion and sediment control specialists. Identifying this potential constraint is not in their purview, or skillset.

Geotechnical investigations always include Emerson Testing, which is a measure of the dispersiveness of a soil, however this almost always is restricted to the depth of the base of foundations, well below the topsoils or subsoils likely to be disturbed, exposed, and requiring final stabilisation. However, even when shallower soils indicate dispersiveness, such as being Emerson Class 1 or 2, this is often only considered in foundation design, and is not considered in drainage design, erosion and sediment control or rehabilitation scoping, planning and budgeting.

Due to these common oversights, it is important to turn our attention to developing improved recommendations for renewables developers to identify dispersive soils, and communication of these. Using a common ~40 turbine wind farm as an example, which is generally linear infrastructure (consisting of significant lengths of roads connecting turbines), and taking guidance from the IECA White Books, Chapter 3 Site Planning, Table 3.2, the required number of sample sites would be in excess of 930. Using an estimate of 1 sample location per 30 mins, it is unlikely that a wind developer will be interested in 232 days of soil sampling prior to/during project scoping.

While the gold standard would likely consist of a full-scale soil survey including sampling for all relevant characteristics (including dispersiveness) and development of associated soil mapping, with final micrositing of project infrastructure (particularly wind turbines) having consideration of soil characteristics, it is unrealistic to move immediately from the current process to this.

In order to identify the existence of dispersive soils, a well-designed reduced soil sampling program and analysis suite is possible, which will fast track the process and reduce costs.

In our experience, Emerson Aggregate Testing has not proven to be a reliable indicator of dispersion, if other soil characteristics are disregarded. If targeting dispersion only, a more suitable suite is one that includes, at least, exchangeable basic cations (Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium), Cation Exchange Capacity and Particle Size Distribution, in addition to Emerson Aggregate Testing (EAT).

In our experience, soils can exhibit severe dispersion in the field, and have exchangeable cation aspects which would indicate a high likelihood of dispersiveness (such as sodic or magnesic soils), but have moderate to low dispersiveness based on Emerson testing. The reason for this is currently unknown comprehensively, though some theories are held and are under investigation. Furthermore, sands and gravels are unsuitable for Emerson testing, and failure to undertake Particle Size Distribution (or field assessment) to identify these may result in EAT scores that indicate negligible dispersiveness, yet the soil may lack soil cohesiveness, which tend to erode regardless of dispersiveness.

Identification of dispersive soils is critical in the planning and design stage of renewables projects to prevent budget blowout. Topsoils and shallow subsoils should be included in sampling regimes as part of project scoping, or at least, early works. A reduced sampling density and analysis scope is suggested to be sufficient for this purpose, and should be undertaken by all renewables developers.

Last updated 27 August 2024.

This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.

The many definitions of 'weed'

Tue, 13 Aug 2024 05:56:11 GMT

What is a weed?

Nearly every site, property, landholder, project and person has a different view on what is a weed. We often find this is a heated point of discussion through the entire life of a project, while projects work to coexist alongside other types of land users.

Macquarie Dictionary describes weed (noun) as 'a plant growing wild, especially in cultivated ground to the exclusion or injury of the desired crop', or 'any useless, troublesome, or noxious plant, especially one that grows profusely'.

The Biosecurity Act 1994 does not use or define the word, instead referring to prohibited invasive plants and restricted invasive plants. Under the Act, prohibited matter is not currently present or known to be present in the State, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that if it did enter the State or part of the State the biosecurity matter may have a significant adverse effect on human health, social amenity, the economy or the environment. Restricted matter is currently present in the State, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that, if restrictions under this Act are not imposed on the biosecurity matter to reduce, control or contain it, it may have an adverse effect on human health, social amenity, the economy or the environment.

Local councils often refer to weeds as high, medium, or low priority in their Biosecurity Plan. These can include plants that are not listed as restricted invasive plants under the Biosecurity Act , in addition to plants which are listed.

Every pastoral landholder has differences in what they consider to be a weed. They may include:

Hay Grower :

Toxic plants that may become more palatable to stock when dried into a hay, which may otherwise not be eaten in a pasture situation
Plants which have a longer drying time than the hay species, increasing the risk of mouldy hay
Plants which are spiky, which the person feeding the hay and the animals eating the hay can be scratched by
Plants which may become weeds at the buyers property
Plants which are not the hay species and are less palatable and/or less nutritious
Plants which, due to some reason, impact the value or saleability of the hay

Grazier, improved pastures:

Plants which are toxic
Plants which are not toxic, but impact the health, value or saleability of the stock
Plants which are less palatable and/or less nutritious than the preferred pasture species
Plants which outcompete preferred pasture species
Plants which reduces the carrying capacity of the land

Cropping:

Any plant which is not the crop being grown

Other definitions include:

Any plant which is not native to Australia
Any plant which is not endemic to the area it is occurring

Or perhaps a combination of all of these!

In all of these pastoral settings, a native, endemic species could very well be considered a weed, and in a way that aligns with the Macquarie Dictionary definition.

Working to solidly define the meaning of the word in the context of your site and your project is critical to understand obligations and goals moving forward. Part of this is understanding the surrounding land uses and how different plants may impact operations, but on the flip side, it is critical to communicate with surrounding land managers to ensure realistic expectations and an aligned common goal.

Last updated 13 August 2024.

This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.

Australian Standard 1940

Tue, 16 Jan 2024 07:12:29 GMT

Common mistakes with AS 1940 Compliance

AS 1940:2017 covers the storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids, including diesel and many oils (depending on their classification and flash point).

In Queensland, compliance is primarily driven by the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) and the Hazardous Chemicals Code of Practice. While AS 1940 is not explicitly mandated in all circumstances, it is widely adopted as the accepted benchmark and is often required by Environmental Authorities, internal standards, Environmental Management Plans, and site procedures.

In addition, Section 357 of the WHS Regulation 2011 (Qld) requires that where there is a risk of a spill or leak of a hazardous chemical, appropriate spill containment must be provided.

AS 1940 is a detailed standard, and full compliance on operational sites can be challenging. However, there are several recurring issues that are frequently overlooked.

1. Portable bunding is not suitable for permanent storage

Portable bunding units such as bunded pallets and flexible bunds are commonly used across construction and operational sites.

However, these are not intended for permanent storage applications. AS 1940 makes it clear that portable bunding units are not suitable as a long-term bunding solution.

If containers are stored in a fixed location on an ongoing basis, a compliant permanent bunded area should be provided.

2. Bund capacity – 110% vs 100% + 25% (commonly misunderstood)

Bunding requirements under AS 1940 depend on the type of storage:

Bulk tanks: bund capacity should be at least 110% of the largest tank
Package storage (drums, IBCs): bund capacity should be at least:

- 100% of the largest container, plus

- 25% of the total stored volume

A common compliance issue is applying the 110% rule to IBCs or drum storage, which can significantly underestimate the required bund capacity.

Importantly, bunding requirements are based on container capacity, not the current volume stored. Nominally empty containers should still be considered from a capacity perspective unless they have been cleaned and decommissioned.

3. Rainwater reduces effective bund capacity

Bunds must maintain their required effective containment capacity at all times. Where bunds are not protected from rainfall, accumulated stormwater reduces available containment volume, which can result in non-compliance during a spill event.

Rainwater in bunds must be appropriately managed, including:

controlled drainage via treatment (e.g. oily water separator), or
removal and disposal to a suitably licenced facility (testing may be required), or
testing prior to release (where appropriate)

Uncontrolled discharge of bund water to ground is a common compliance issue.

4. Undersized bunds for IBC storage

A frequently observed issue is an IBC stored on a small bund (e.g. 30cm deep shallow bund), often uncovered.

In many cases, these setups:

do not meet the 100% + 25% capacity requirement, and
are subject to rainwater infiltration (being uncovered)

These arrangements are rarely compliant when assessed against AS 1940.

5. Other common site issues (not limited to AS 1940)

While not strictly AS 1940 requirements, the following are also key risk areas in fuel and oil management:

Missing or open bungs in oily waste bins
Inappropriate detergents used in washdown areas (non quick-break)
Oily water separators not operating or maintained correctly

Final note

Most sites have some form of bunding in place, but the detail of how it is designed, used, and maintained is where compliance gaps typically arise.

Understanding the difference between tank and package storage requirements, and ensuring bunds maintain their effective capacity in service, will address a large proportion of common issues.

Reach out if we can assist you in improving your management of flammable and combustible liquids.

Last updated 1 April 2026.

This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.

HSE Auditing and Training

Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:33:50 GMT

Sometimes a client comes along who is an inspiration, and this leader in their industry is one of those.

Supporting heavy industry, the company owner felt unsure of HSE compliance, and first engaged the Dynamic team to undertake an onsite audit, which included observations in their workshop, in the field and an assessment of culture towards HSE. With an admirably strong safety culture, 43 opportunities for improvement were identified.

From there, the company identified that their team could benefit from upskilling in risk identification and management. Dynamic prepared and delivered highly targeted training focusing on their specific industry to all employees. Through real world examples and integrated exercises, the team were engaged throughout.

More recently, this company is now heading towards ISO accreditation, and we are thrilled to be on this journey with them. We started with an ISO gap analysis of their Integrated Management Systems to support them towards Health and Safety, Environment and Quality ISO accreditation.

We are now working closely with them to not just develop the required documents and processes, but to highly personalise them to seamlessly integrate with the business and add real value, not just achieve accreditation. Our weekly virtual workshops are always a collaborative journey to a well-considered solution.

We are looking forward to this journey progressing to external accreditation in the near future!

Development Approval Support - Green Hydrogen

Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:28 GMT

With hydrogen a new and emerging industry, associated development applications are being closely analysed.

Our client’s development approval application had been denied due to an insufficient Environmental Management Plan. As an emerging technology, there are limited real world examples to lean on, so we worked closely with our client to understand their vision of an integrated solar, battery, air water generation and hydrogen project.

Of particular importance to the Council was fire and explosion mitigation, and we drew on our complementary safety expertise to appropriately address this aspect.

We prepared an Environmental Management Plan for resubmission to council, working closely with our client and their legal team to deliver a document which was accepted, unqueried, by the Council.

Through this process, we also identified opportunities for improvement in their existing Environmental Authority and suggested amendments to improve compliance achievability once the site is operation.

This is the second disputed development approval application we have successfully assisted. Previously, a client’s application for a brewery had been disputed by the council. We prepared a thorough assessment against relevant planning legislation for also, an undisputed approval. This project was located proximal to a high-risk flood zone and residential areas, which required careful consideration and justification.

Both projects were supported by our in-house draftsperson (Surveyor & Civil Engineer) who produced supporting mapping.

NRM Engagement and Project Delivery

jai@clearpixel.com.au (Jai Warner) — Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:20:29 GMT

With a track record of delivering natural resource management projects since our original inception back in 2015, we were called on to support a project behind schedule. 2020/2021 was a challenge for everyone, and Covid lockdowns had prevented the necessary property visits to move the project along.

The project aimed to protect 510km of riparian areas on priority waterways throughout Southern Queensland from grazing pressures, by supporting landholders to erect fences. When we took over the project in late November 2021, 166km had been executed.

Although floods, Covid, Christmas, and more floods challenged us at every turn, by the start of February 2022, we had communicated over the phone with more than 60 landholders, completed more than 40 property inspections, and contracted 372km of fencing, well exceeding targets.

We had taken the project from well behind schedule to more than 12 months in front, in just over 2 months (with Christmas in the middle)!

We prioritised communication, both with project participant landholders, our client and their funders.

One of the keys to success in delivering this project was to develop a ‘virtual’ property visit process, which was so successful the project culminated in our client asking us to deliver training to their internal team to continue with this new improved process for success into the future.

We were lucky enough to be able to visit breath-taking properties and meet inspiring landholders from the top of the Condamine catchment around Killarney, all the way through the Border Rivers and out to the mighty Maranoa near Saint George, hearing stories and seeing the scars of droughts and flooding rains.

Dorothea Mackellar’s words rang true:

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.

You can see some of our trip highlights and hear from our client and a project participant with the videos on this page.

Solar Farm Construction

Sun, 18 Sep 2022 00:22:00 GMT

With the investors and owners of solar farms often based outside of Australia, we have provided the vital missing link between their extensive project management experience and our local environmental knowledge.

We have assisted our clients to:

Meet Development Approval conditions
Maintain a social licence to operate through community engagement , including land management advice (pest, weeds, erosion)
Demonstrate due diligence and manage risk through desktop and onsite environmental audits
Build and maintain their local reputation , mitigating complaints

Being local, we understand what concerns the local community, and our professional experience ensures we have a thorough understanding of legislation which allows us to provide innovative solutions to safeguard projects and companies.

Outcomes:

No compliance action
No community complaints
No environmental harm

Legacy Contaminated Land Investigations

Fri, 19 Aug 2022 01:28:11 GMT

It isn’t always contamination caused by the current project that needs to be dealt with. Clients had found themselves with legacy (historical) land contamination including asbestos, arsenic, lead, copper, zinc and dieldrin.

Our deliverables included:

Undertaking onsite inspections with site personnel, to begin investigation and collect site information
Preparing initial internal and external notifications
Design and implementation of interim control measures (including erosion and sediment controls )
Development of sampling plans
Soil sampling in compliance with relevant legislation
Development of site specific EILs (Ecological Investigation Levels)
Data review and comparison to NEPM limits
Providing initial advice to site management of risk level and risk management options
Project management of an appropriate level of investigation (NEPM Tiered Risk Assessment levels, including numerous Tier 3 investigations – the highest level, only applicable to the most complex land contamination) (ADD quote here about not many)
Onsite management of remediation actions and contractors, including appropriate disposal of contaminated soil
Design of ongoing management plans
Preparing final internal and external notifications

With a keen eye for detail onsite, and a practical approach to risk management, we assisted clients to appropriately manage human health and ecological risks, affordably.

Outcomes:

No compliance action
No human health or ecological unacceptable levels of risk
Practical and cost effective risk management implemented

dynamic-environmental-services

Small Changes, Big Risk: Why Your EA Doesn’t Cover Everything Under an ERA

Holding an ERA Doesn’t Mean You Can Do Everything Within It

Handling Excess Soil from Excavation and Hydroexcavation

When is it a resource? When is it a waste? And what do you actually need to do? ﻿

How to get the most out of dressage lessons

Groundwater Monitoring - Does compliance with your Environmental Authority mean you have met your General Environmental Duty?

Can you always legally clear Category X (White) Vegetation?

Subsurface Challenges: How Renewables Projects in Queensland Fail to Identify Dispersive Soils in Planning and Initial Stages, and the Subsequent Consequences

The many definitions of 'weed'

What is a weed?

Australian Standard 1940

Common mistakes with AS 1940 Compliance

HSE Auditing and Training

Development Approval Support - Green Hydrogen

NRM Engagement and Project Delivery

Solar Farm Construction

With the investors and owners of solar farms often based outside of Australia, we have provided the vital missing link between their extensive project management experience and our local environmental knowledge.

Legacy Contaminated Land Investigations

It isn’t always contamination caused by the current project that needs to be dealt with. Clients had found themselves with legacy (historical) land contamination including asbestos, arsenic, lead, copper, zinc and dieldrin.

When is it a resource? When is it a waste? And what do you actually need to do?