The Coordinated Project process

It is strongly recommended that, before lodging an application for a coordinated project declaration, project proponents schedule a pre-lodgement meeting with the Office of the Coordinator-General (OCG). Ideally, the meeting should be held at least four weeks before the application is lodged.

Pre-lodgement meetings are not intended to pre-empt the Coordinator-General's final decision on an application for a coordinated project declaration. The meeting is intended to clarify application requirements and the quality of the information necessary to properly assess the impacts of the proposed project, thereby preventing any unnecessary delays to the Coordinator-General's consideration of the application and potential declaration of the project.

Topics for discussion include:

• assessment process, including timeframes
• EIS or IAR assessment pathway
• fees
• content of initial advice statement
• requirements of financial and technical capability statement
• pre-feasibility assessment requirements
• terms of reference for the EIS for project
• criteria under section 27 of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act)
• approvals, including any alternative approval pathways
• expected date of the final investment decision
• high-risk, sensitive or contentious matters or impacts
• possible referral of project to the Australian Government.

Meetings are free and do not oblige a proponent to subsequently lodge an application for a coordinated project declaration.

To request a meeting contact the OCG on 1800 001 048 or via cpdinfo@coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au

Applications for declaration of a coordinated project must be submitted to the Coordinator-General in writing.

The application must include an:

• initial advice statement (IAS)
• statement regarding the proponent's financial and technical capability to complete the EIS or IAR process
• pre-feasibility assessment of the technical and commercial feasibility of the project
• relevant fee.

Guideline - Application requirements for coordinated project declaration ( 676.8 KB)

It is strongly recommended that proponents attend a pre-lodgement meeting before lodging an application.

Initial advice statement

The IAS is a scoping document that provides information on the:

• size and nature of the proposed project
• environment in and around the project location
• scale and extent of the project's potential environmental impacts
• any proposed measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts.

The IAS helps the Coordinator-General determine whether the project in question should be declared a coordinated project and the level of assessment required (i.e. EIS or IAR).

Should pre-application discussions between the proponent and the OCG consider that an IAR process may be applicable to the development proposal, the IAR should also contain sufficient information to enable a determination of:

• the level of certainty of the impacts predicted by the proponent, and

• the extent to which the proposed impact mitigation measures:
  • conform to established industry best practice, or
  • may be adequately managed by application of published standard conditions.

If the Coordinator-General subsequently decides that the level of assessment is by EIS, the IAS will also inform the draft terms of reference.

If and when the project is declared a coordinated project, the IAS becomes a public document. It remains the key source of public information regarding the project proposal until the EIS or IAR is released. Therefore, it should not contain any confidential information.

Financial and technical capability statement

A proponent's financial and technical capability statement must provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the proponent has access to the:

• technical capabilities to complete the EIS or IAR process
• funding to complete the EIS or IAR and any additional information that the Coordinator-General may require to complete the assessment of the project.

The financial and technical capability statement is subject to commercial-in-confidence considerations; it is not a public document.

Pre-feasibility assessment

An application for a coordinated project must include a separate statement assessing the technical and commercial feasibility of the project.

This pre-feasibility assessment is subject to commercial-in-confidence considerations; it is not a public document.

Fees

Applications for the declaration of a coordinated project by the Coordinator-General are subject to fees.

Cost recovery fees apply to projects the Coordinator-General declares coordinated under section 26 of the SDPWO Act, and to changes to projects that have been subject to a Coordinator-General's evaluation report.

These are upfront fees payable prior to particular stages of the EIS and IAR processes.

Fee arrangements are detailed in the State Development and Public Works Organisation Regulation 2020.

An explanation of the current fee system is provided in Overview of fees for coordinated projects ( 174.4 KB).

Adjustments under the fee schedule will occur on 1 July each year to reflect movements in the Consumer Price Index over the previous March to March 12-month period.

In addition, proponents may be required to pay the costs associated with:

• public notifications during the relevant stages of the EIS or IAR processes
• independent studies or reports the Coordinator-General commissions to examine a specific aspect of a project.

If a project has the potential to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance (MNES), the project proponent must refer it to the Australian Environment Minister under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). MNES are currently:

• world heritage areas
• national heritage places
• wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention)
• listed threatened species and ecological communities
• listed migratory species (protected under international agreements)
• Commonwealth marine areas
• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
• nuclear actions, including uranium mining
• water resources, in relation to coal seam gas and large coal mining development.

If the Minister determines that a project may have an impact on MNES, it is deemed to be a controlled action. If a project is deemed not to be a controlled action, it does not require assessment under the EPBC Act.

Assessment options

If an environmental impact assessment of a controlled action is required, the assessment may be conducted under the Queensland environmental assessment bilateral agreement with the Australian Government. This eliminates unnecessary duplication.

The most recent assessment bilateral agreement was signed between the Queensland and Australian Governments on 18 December 2014.

If the bilateral agreement is not applied to a project, the Queensland process may be accredited especially for a particular project; or the Australian and Queensland governments conduct separate assessment processes. Such separate processes are generally conducted in parallel.

Not all controlled actions are assessed through a full EIS. For example, assessment under the EPBC Act may be by submission of preliminary documentation by the proponent. The alternative IAR process under the SDPWO Act falls within the scope of assessment options defined in the EPBC Act and is incorporated within the assessment bilateral agreement.

Regardless of the assessment process, the Australian Environment Minister retains the approval powers and has the final say on whether or not a controlled action can be undertaken.

• Queensland Bilateral Agreement Information
• EPBC Act - Environment Assessment Process fact sheet

Referral of coal and coal seam gas projects to a scientific committee

Under the Council of Australian Governments National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (NPA), projects of sufficient scale in this sector that may have a significant impact on water resources must be referred to an Independent Expert Scientific Committee.

The NPA was given force by amendments to the EPBC Act that came into effect in October 2012.

• National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development
• Queensland protocol for referral of projects to the Independent Expert Scientific Committee

Decision-making process

Under the assessment environmental agreement and accredited processes, the Coordinator-General provides the EIS evaluation report to the Australian Government Minister.

After receiving the report, the Minister has 30 business days to:

• inform the proponent of the proposed decision to approve with conditions or refuse the controlled action
• consider the proponent's written comment on the proposed decision (which must be provided to the Minister within 10 business days), and
• issue the decision on the controlled action.

This timeframe may be extended and is suspended if and while the Minister seeks further advice or information about the project.

If a project is declared a coordinated project requiring an EIS, the Coordinator-General prepares a draft terms of reference (TOR) that set out the matters the project proponent must address when preparing the EIS.

State government advisory agencies are then invited to comment on whether the draft TOR adequately covers all matters the project proponent must address when preparing the EIS.

In some instances, the Coordinator-General may also seek comments from the public.

The Coordinator-General is required to finalise the TOR as soon as practicable after the consultation closes or, if the draft TOR were not publicly notified, as soon as practicable after advising the project proponent that an EIS is required. There are fees associated with the finalisation of the TOR.

For examples of finalised TORs for coordinated projects, refer to projects on the current projects page.

Revising the TOR

The TOR may be revised if:

• there are significant changes to the project concept or design
• significant new issues emerge during the preparation of the EIS.

Depending on the nature and extent of these changes, another round of comment by the advisory agencies may be required on the amendments to the TOR.

The public and government advisory agencies are invited to make submissions on the draft EIS. Under most circumstances, submissions are also invited on the IAR.

Government advisory agencies and, on occasions, the public may also be invited to comment or make submissions on:

• draft TOR for the EIS
• revised draft EIS or IAR
• application for project change.

Proponent's public consultation activities

When preparing the draft EIS or IAR, project proponents consult with stakeholders and members of the community who may be impacted by the project.

Consultation activities can include community reference groups/consultative committees, letters, public meetings, media articles, emails, newsletters and websites.

The proponent is required to report on the progress and outcomes of its public consultation activities when it provides the draft EIS or IAR to the Coordinator-General.

Proponents are also required to develop a stakeholder engagement strategy as part of the project's social impact assessment.

Meetings with advisory agencies

During the consultation period, the Coordinator-General may arrange meetings between the project proponent and advisory agencies to:

• explain the EIS process, including the agencies' roles
• enable the proponent to outline the key elements of the project, its potential impacts and possible mitigation strategies
• solicit feedback from agencies on matters of interest or concern that should be addressed in the EIS.

Notifying the public

Public notices inviting submissions on the draft TOR, draft EIS/IAR and applications for project change are published in local, regional and state newspapers. If the project is a controlled action under the Commonwealth EPBC Act, the EIS public notice is published nationally.

A list of open public consultations is available online at haveyoursay.dsd.qld.gov.au

Consultation period

Although the length of the consultation period is not prescribed, it typically runs for at least 20 business days for a draft TOR and 30 business days for a draft EIS/IAR. If the project is a controlled action under the EPBC Act, the length of the EIS consultation period must be at least 28 calendar days.

Properly made submissions

A properly made submission:

• is made in writing to the Coordinator-General
• is received on or before the deadline for submissions
• states the name and address of each submitter
• is signed by each submitter
• states the grounds of the submissions and the facts and circumstances relied on in support of the grounds.

The Coordinator-General will consider all properly made submissions and may also consider submissions that are not properly made.

Privacy

The Coordinator-General is authorised to collect personal information under the SDPWO Act.

The department will provide the project proponent with a copy of each submission, excluding personal details. Personal information may also be disclosed to government agencies that have a role in review of the proposed project, and is also subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009.

Personal information will be collected for the purpose of:

• considering your submission
• evaluating the draft EIS/IAR or application for project change
• completing the EIS/IAR or project change process
• the performance of functions under the SDPWO Act and other legislation relevant to the proposed project.

Personal information will not otherwise be disclosed, unless disclosure is authorised or required by law, or is permitted under the Information Privacy Act 2009.

EIS

A draft EIS is prepared in accordance with:

• the terms of reference for the EIS and
• guideline for preparing an environmental impact statement, February 2024 ( 419.5 KB).

The EIS provides a comprehensive description of:

• the current environment in the area of the project
• all potential environmental impacts of the project (including social impacts)
• proponent proposals to avoid, minimise, mitigate and/or offset those potential impacts.

The impacts include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of the project.

The EIS requires studies to establish the qualities of the existing environment (natural, social, economic and built) and community consultation.

If a project is a controlled action and is being assessed in accordance with the assessment bilateral agreement, the EIS will contain a separate section regarding the project's impacts on MNES and the project will require separate approval by the Australian Government.

IAR

An IAR process may be used if the Coordinator-General is satisfied that the environmental effects of the project do not, having regard to their scale and extent, require assessment through the EIS process. It may be used for well-defined, low to medium risk projects where the likely impacts are highly predictable and the proponent's well-defined proposals to avoid, minimise, mitigate and/or offset those impacts are accepted best-practice in that industry.

The IAR:

• has no formal TOR

• is focused mostly on the:
  • locations that may be subject to adverse impacts if not appropriately managed
  • potential impacts that are either uncertain, or
  • proposed mitigation measures that depart from accepted management practices or standard conditions for that industry.

After considering the draft EIS/IAR and submissions made on the draft EIS/IAR, the Coordinator-General may ask the project proponent to provide additional information. The additional information may be included within, or attached to, the draft EIS/IAR. It is submitted to the Coordinator-General as a revised draft EIS or revised draft IAR.

A revised draft EIS/IAR could include:

• corrections, clarification and further information to that provided in the draft EIS or IAR - as requested in state government advisory agency and public submissions
• results from additional studies requested by advisory agencies or the Coordinator-General
• a description of any changes or refinements to the project proposed by the proponent since the draft EIS/IAR was released.

The Coordinator-General may decide to release the revised draft EIS/IAR for public comment – similar to that which occurred for the draft EIS/IAR. For example, public comment may be required when the additional information is considered to be substantial or there are refinements to the project since the release of the draft EIS/IAR.

Regardless of whether public consultation occurs, advisory agencies are invited to:

• comment on the adequacy of the additional information in addressing matters raised in their submissions on the draft EIS/IAR
• recommend conditions for the Coordinator-General's consideration in preparing his report on the EIS/IAR.

The Coordinator-General is required to write a report evaluating the EIS or IAR.

The report includes the Coordinator-General's evaluation of, and conclusions regarding, the project's environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures.

In writing the report, the Coordinator-General takes into account the final EIS or the final IAR, which incorporate relevant information from:

• all properly made submissions
• other submissions accepted by the Coordinator-General
• comments and advice from government advisory agencies and other entities
• technical reports and other advice.

After considering all relevant information, the Coordinator-General recommends the project either:

• proceed subject to conditions and recommendations designed to ensure the project's environmental impacts are properly managed
• be refused on the grounds its environmental impacts cannot be adequately addressed.

The Coordinator-General's report on the EIS or IAR is published on the department's website.

Conditions of approval

The Coordinator-General's evaluation report is not an approval in itself. The conditions of approval stated in the report only gain legal effect when they are attached to a statutory approval given under other specific legislation.

The Coordinator-General's conditions of approval do not relieve the coordinated project proponent of its obligation to obtain all other necessary approvals.

The Coordinator-General's evaluation report may state conditions that must be attached to a:

• development approval under the Planning Act 2016

• mining lease under the Mineral Resources Act 1989
• environmental  authority (mining lease) under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act)
• petroleum lease, pipeline licence or petroleum facility licence under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004
• non-code compliant environmental authority (petroleum activities) under the EP Act
• greenhouse gas injection and storage lease under the Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2009
• geothermal production lease under the Geothermal Energy Act 2010.

The report on the EIS or IAR may also recommend conditions and requirements relating to:

• a community infrastructure designation under the planning act
• approvals under other legislation that require the preparation of an EIS or a similar statement.

The Coordinator-General may also impose conditions on a project in the absence of a relevant statutory approval.

In July 2014, the Coordinator-General released Standardised outcome-focused conditions for resource projects ( 324.5 KB), a baseline set of conditions that the Coordinator-General may state or impose for large-scale resource developments. The document is intended to be general in nature and each project is assessed and conditioned on a case-by-case basis.

Development approvals

The conditions of approval in the Coordinator-General's evaluation report on the EIS or IAR only gain legal effect when they are attached to a development approval given by an assessment manager under other specific legislation. Project proponents are still required to obtain all other development approvals from local authorities (e.g. for a material change of use) and state government agencies (e.g. an environmental authority).

Assessment managers ultimately decide whether development approvals are granted for the project. These assessment managers:

• must attach the Coordinator-General's conditions to any development approval that is granted
• are not limited in their ability to refuse a project, even if the Coordinator-General's report on the EIS has recommended the project be approved
• can impose additional conditions on the development approval, provided they are not inconsistent with the conditions stated in the Coordinator-General's evaluation report.

Lapsing

The Coordinator-General's report on the EIS or IAR generally lapses three years after it is published.

The Coordinator-General may extend this time period before the report lapses.

Following the publication of the Coordinator-General's evaluation report on the EIS or IAR, the proponent may ask the Coordinator-General to evaluate a proposed change to the project and/or a condition of approval for the project.

The application for project change must contain:

• a description of the proposed change and its effect on the project
• the reasons for the proposed change
• adequate material to enable the Coordinator-General to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed change.

Public consultation on application

Depending on the nature of the change, the Coordinator-General may require the project proponent to seek comments on the change from state government advisory agencies and the public.

This consultation process is similar to the one that applies to the draft EIS or draft IAR. The proponent may be asked to respond to the submissions received.

Evaluation of project change

In evaluating the proposed change to the project, the Coordinator-General considers:

• nature of the proposed change and its effect on the project
• environmental impacts of the proposed change
• any properly made submissions on the application for project change
• any other material deemed relevant by the Coordinator-General.

Change report

Following his evaluation, the Coordinator-General prepares a change report. The report may state conditions or make recommendations, including amendments to conditions or recommendations set down in the Coordinator-General's report on the EIS or IAR.

The Coordinator-General's change report is published on the department's website.

If the two reports conflict, the change report prevails to the extent of any perceived inconsistency.

Change reports lapse at the same time as the corresponding Coordinator-General's report on the EIS or IAR, unless the change report specifically states another date.