We Asked, You Said, We Did

The EPA asked for your comments on the draft Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) prepared by the proponent for the Outer Harbour Port Development, Kwinana

We received 35 submissions on a range of environmental and other issues.

The proponent responded to the comments and amended the ESD. The EPA approved the scoping document as the basis for the Public Environmental Review on 4 February 2025. The approved ESD and the proponent’s response to the submissions received are available on the EPA’s website.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There is public interest about the environmental effects of the proposal. Many of the matters raised relate to the future broader development plan at Carlton Plain (Stage 2 and 3), Mantinea and Tarrara.



Due to the public interest in the proposal, the EPA will release the Environmental Management Plan for public comment for 3 weeks. As part of the consultation process, the EPA Chairman will be available to meet with interested people in Kununurra during the review period, to discuss matters related to the Environmental Management Plan.

Read further information about the EPA's decision on level of assessment here.

 

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There was one comment on this referral, requesting it be assessed as a Public Environmental Review.

The EPA considers that the likely environmental effects of the proposal are not so significant as to warrant formal assessment. The potential environmental impacts on Flora and Vegetation and Terrestrial Fauna can be adequately dealt with under Part V Division 2 (Clearing) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The potential environmental impacts on Inland Waters Environment Quality, Terrestrial Environmental Quality and Rehabilitation and Decommissioning can be adequately dealt with under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were 32 comments on this referral; 22 recommended an API B level of assessment and 10 indicated a PER.

The EPA determined not to assess the proposal as it considers that the proposal is not so significant as to warrant formal assessment. Public advice was provided to the proponent on the management of feral animals. Potential discharges can be dealt with under Part V Division 3 of the EP Act.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There was one comment on this referral.

The EPA determined to assess the proposal at the level of API-A as the proposal raises a limited number of preliminary key environmental factors that can be readily managed and for which there is an established condition setting framework.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were no comments on this referral.

The EPA decided not to assess the proposal and did not provide formal advice.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were no comments on this referral.

The EPA decided not to assess the proposal as any potential impacts could be dealt with under Part V Division 2 of the EP Act (Clearing).

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine whether this referral should be declared a derived proposal.

There were no comments on this referral.

The EPA declared the proposal to be derived and issued a notice under s39B with a statement of reasons on 16 February 2015.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There was one comment on this referral.

The EPA determined to assess the proposal at the level of API-A as the proposal raises a limited number of key environmental factors that can be readily managed, and for which there is an established condition setting framework.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There was one comment on this referral.

The EPA determined to assess the proposal at the level of API-A as the proposal raises a limited number of preliminary key environmental factors that can be readily managed and for which there is an established condition setting framework.

The EPA asked for your comments on the draft Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) prepared by the proponent for the Mulga Rock Uranium Project.

We received 39 submissions on a range of environmental and other issues.

The proponent responded to the comments and amended the ESD. The EPA approved the scoping document as the basis for the PER on 25 February 2015. The approved ESD and a summary of submissions and changes are on the EPA's website at http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/EIA/ScopingDocuments

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were no comments on this referral.

The EPA considers that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment and does not warrant formal assessment. Public advice was provided.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were no comments on this referral.

The EPA considers that the likely environmental effects of the proposal are not so significant as to warrant formal assessment, and provided public advice.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were no comments on this referral.

The EPA decided not to assess the proposal as any potential impacts could be dealt with under Part V Division 2 of the EP Act (Clearing).

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There was one comment on this referral, recommending an API A level of assessment.

The EPA considers that the likely environmental effects of the proposal are not so significant as to warrant formal assessment and provided public advice on this proposal. The EPA also notes that the potential impacts can be managed and mitigated by the proponent's mitigation measures and dealt with by other statutory processes.

The draft Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) was released for public review in accordance with Western Australian Government procedures.

There were 17 submissions on the draft ESD, ranging from general comments to submissions on several environmental factors.

A number of amendments were made and the EPA has released the final ESD. It is available on the EPA's website at http://epa.wa.gov.au/EIA/ScopingDocuments. A table of the summary of submissions, the proponent's response, and note of amendments is also available.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were no comments on this referral.

The EPA determined that potential impacts are not so significant as to warrant formal assessment, and can be regulated and managed under Part V of the EP Act via the Works Approval and Licensing process.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were two comments, both preferring assessment at the level of API-A.

The EPA determined that the proposal did not require formal environmental impact assessment as potential impacts could be managed under Part V (clearing ) of the EP Act.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were two comments on the referral, one indicating an API-B and one a PER level of assessment.

The EPA determined that the proposal be assessed as a PER with a public review period of six weeks as it is for a !arge scale expansion !hat raises a number of environmental factors !hat may potentially be impacted.

Public comment was invited on the referral to help the EPA determine the appropriate level of assessment.

There were two comments on this referral, both indicating that the proposal be found environmentally unacceptable.

The EPA determined that the proposal should undergo formal environmental impact assessment at the Public Environmental Review (PER) level. The proposal directly impacts conservation significant flora. Detailed assessment is required to determine the extent of the proposal's direct and indirect impacts and potential mitigation, including rehabilitation and offsets. Several preliminary key environmental factors are complex.