alt Hacker NewsThe ecological studies also cover the surrounding areas. They can’t say that absolutely everything is significant so to make the stronger case they pile the significance into the area they think is the likely site to be developed. Then the miners are ‘responding’ to the feedback by relocating to a less significant location that already has been ecologically studied and deemed insignificant.
That's not how environmental surveys work, or the process for challenging them. They absolutely must include detailed information about the actual site and the activity proposed to occur at that site.
Subsequent developments can take advantage of the initial survey but must still provide an environmental study about how their own activity will impact their specific site.
The #1 reason for environmental surveys being deemed invalid in court is the course of action you discussed: developers trying to avoid scrutiny by not being sufficiently specific about what they are actually planning to do or where.