Ultimately WA Environment Minister Bill Marmion has the authority to scrap the project, but the EPA’s recommended level of assessment effectively amounted to a “no to the proposal” in the words of its chairman Paul Vogel.

This announcement was made about six weeks ago and project manager LDO received the long-awaited reasons for the decision in an EPA report released yesterday.

Most of the EPA concerns centred over the possible impacts to the Sue aquifer, which it noted was one of the least understood in the Perth Basin.

“Various small to large scale faults exist throughout the Sue Group in the area of proposed development which makes understanding the aquifer characteristics and potential impacts difficult,” the EPA said.

Citing the precautionary principles in the state’s environmental regulations, the EPA concluded that the mine poses serious risks to surface and ground water in the region, and consequential impacts on social surroundings.

Opposition to the project has even come from English comedians Ben Elton and Michal Palin, and the EPA said less than half a per cent of the 793 individual comments received was supportive of the development.

In response to the EPA’s report, LDO is calling for Marmion to force a “more rigorous” assessment, based on the views of government departments alone.

“Between December 2010 and March 2011, the EPA received advice from nine government agencies, including the Department of Water, Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, in regard to the project – none of which supported the EPA’s decision not to allow the project to proceed to a full and comprehensive Public Environmental Review,” LDO said.

“In fact, the departments stated that additional studies were required to determine the impact of the project – as would have occurred under a full PER process.

“This advice includes a statement from the Department of Water the day before the EPA’s decision that listed the studies that should be undertaken, as well as a statement from the Department of Mines and Petroleum confirming that assumptions on the project would be premature.”

LDO also questioned how the EPA was concerned with impacts to “social surrounds” of the region, without defining this term or providing assessment of them.

The company is reviewing the report in more detail to determine its rights of appeal.

The EPA’s resistance to the project could set a negative precedent for other coal mining proposals in the state, and followed its recommendation against the development of the Coolimba coal mine in the Mid West earlier this year.

The mine site is about 15km from the town of Margaret River and the tenement area covers 80 hectares, including land underneath the river.

Bord and pillar mining was proposed for areas 160-500 metres underground according to the EPA.

The draft mining plan targeted a production rate of 1.2 million tonnes per annum for a mine life of 20 years.

The Vasse project is conservatively estimated to have resources of at least 116Mt, according to data provided by Intierra.