We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

There was one comment on this referral.

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

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

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

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

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

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).

We Asked

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

You Said

There was one comment on this referral.

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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

We Asked

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

You Said

There was one comment on this referral.

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

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

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

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).

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

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.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on the referral.

We Did

The EPA determined that air and noise emissions from the proposal are not so significant as to warrant formal assessment and can be regulated and managed under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

The EPA determined that the proposal did not require assessment but provided public advice. It is situated in a pine plantation and there are no significant environmental Impacts. However, the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Forest Products Cornission are to make decisions regarding access to the pine plantation.

We Asked

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

You Said

Two comments on this referral were received, one recommending it be assessed as API-A and one as a PER.

We Did

The EPA considers that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment and does not warrant formal assessment. The potential impacts can be adequately managed to meet the EPA's objectives through the implementation of the proponent's environmental monitoring and management plan and regulated through other statutory processes.

We Asked

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

You Said

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

We Did

The EPA determined not to assess the proposal. The proponent is required to prepare a Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan to avoid and minimise indirect Impacts on native fauna in Neerabup National Park. This plan is required under the environmental conditions attached to Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment no. 992/33 (Clarkson-Butler). The EPA is satisfied that the impacts of proposal can be managed under the statutory planning processes to meet the EPA's objectives for terrestrial fauna.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

Having regard to the measures by the proponent to minimise potential impacts, the EPA is satisfied that the potential impacts can be managed to meet EPA's objectives for benthic communities and habitat, marine environmental quality, and marine fauna. The EPA determined not to assess the proposal but provided public advice.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on this referral.

We Did

The EPA determined not to assess the proposal. The potential indirect impacts to Threatened Ecological Communities can be managed under Part V of the EP Act and the EPBC Act. The TEC is protected in a proposed conservation area.

We Asked

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

You Said

There were no comments on the proposal.

We Did

The EPA determined to assess the proposal based on the proponent's information - API (A) - and will prepare the scoping document (ESD). The proposal, for changes to an existing operation, raises a limited number of key environmental factors. Due to the potential cumulative impacts to the Fortescue Marsh from increases in abstraction and reinjection of groundwater from existing and proposed operations in the area, the EPA considers an independent peer review of hydrological processes is required.