Environmental Protection Authority - EPA WA · Advisory Council to the Environmental 21 Protection...

Environmental Protection Authority

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 98-99

i

Transmittal to the Minister ii

Chairman’s Overview 1

Members 3

Custodial Responsibilities 5

Water for the environment 5

Landclearing 5

Biodiversity 6

Social surroundings 6

Major Environmental Issues 6

Dryland salinity 6

Greenhouse effect 7

Perth’s Bushplan 8

Compliance with Forest Management 8Plans

Biological survey requirements 9

Maximising environmental benefits from 9project EIA

Special areas 9

Projects impacting upon National Parks 10

Perth’s Coastal Waters Studies 11

North West Shelf Marine Environmental 11Management Study

Shark Bay 12

Peel-Harvey Management Strategy 12

Assessment of Major Projects 12

The importance of context in EIA 12

Developments in Cockburn Sound 13

Industrial infrastructure & harbour 14development, Jervoise Bay

Mineral sands mining at Jangardup 14

Proposed gypsum mining, Red Lake 15

Derby Tidal Power Project 15

Murrin Murrin 16

Busselton Waste Water Treatment Plant 16

Ord River Irrigation 16

Water allocation 17

Planning schemes 17

Industrial Estates 18

Kemerton 18

Boodarie 18

Oakajee 18

Maitland 18

Policy Development 18

Environmental Protection Policies 18

Position Statements 19

Guidance Statements 19

Legislation Issues 20

Waste Management WA 20

Dairy Regulations 20

Proposed changes to EPA 20Administrative Procedures

Site Visits carried out by the EPA 21

Advisory Council to the Environmental 21Protection Authority

Appendices

1. The EPA and its role 23

2. Formal assessments 26

3. Section 16(e) advice 29

4. Position Statements 30

5. Guidance Statements 31

6. Site visits carried out by the EPA 32

7. Financial report 33

Contents

ii


Transmittal to the Minister

Hon Cheryl Edwardes (Mrs) MLAMINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

In accordance with Section 21 of the Environmental Protection Act, Isubmit the EPA’s annual report for the year ended 30 June 1999.

It is with pleasure that, on behalf of the EPA, I advise that for the reportingperiod, the EPA has conducted its functions such that it has met itsobjectives outlined in Section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act. Thishas been achieved with the assistance of the services and facilities of theDepartment of Environmental Protection.

Bernard BowenChairman

14 October 1999

Environmental Protection Authority

Westralia SquareLevel 8141 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000Phone: (08) 9222 7000Fax: (08) 9222 7155


1

Chairman’sOverviewThis report covers myfirst full year asChairman of theEnvironmental ProtectionAuthority (EPA).It has been a challengingand rewarding time.

The EPA was established byParliament as an independentAuthority with the broad objectiveof protecting the State’senvironment. This is undertakenthrough the process of providingoverarching environmental advice tothe Minister for the Environmentthrough the preparation of environmental protection policies and theassessment of development proposals and management plans, as well asproviding public statements about matters of environmental importance. Oneof the avenues for public statements is this Annual Report to Parliament.Included in the Report is a discussion of the public expectation that the EPAwill assume a custodial or guardianship role to ensure the broad-basedprotection of all elements of the environment. Information about the EPA andits linkages with government departments is given in Appendix 1.

The array of matters coming before the EPA for examination during the yearwas diverse and challenging, and included a proposal to establish industrialinfrastructure and a harbour in Jervoise Bay, proposals which impacted onNational Parks, the Stage 2 proposal for the expansion of the Ord irrigationsystem, a proposal to build a tidal power station near Derby and the mid-termreport on progress and compliance with the Forest Management Plans. Thereports on some of these subjects created considerable public debate. The EPAis always available to explain aspects of its reports to the community ifrequested to do so, but its prime function is to provide advice to the Ministerfor the Environment, and not to become part of the debate which mightfollow.

The Western Australian environment is a product of the State’s geologicalhistory. It has a relatively flat landscape with very old soils which are poor innutrients. A consequence of this geological history has been the developmentof an extremely diverse array of plants and animals. This biodiversity is one ofthe unique aspects of Western Australia and is most widely known throughthe magnificent native plants which attract people from around the world.

Throughout the year the EPA has given special attention to the protection ofthe State’s biodiversity during its assessment process. One set of proposalswhich has been specially time consuming, not only for the EPA but also forstaff in government departments, has been a number of applications to clearagricultural land, mostly in the West Midland and the Esperance areas. Thishas been at a time when salinity problems arising from too much clearing inpast decades have been clearly identified, and funds are being allocated fortree planting programs. The challenge now is to establish a response to theseapplications in terms of equity rather than to allow further clearing.

2


A major assessment undertaken by the EPA was that of the expansion of theMurrin Murrin Nickel-Cobalt Project near Leonora. An important element ofthe assessment was that of “social surroundings” in relation to the impactwhich the proposal would have on the Aboriginal communities. This led theEPA to be more closely involved in direct consultation on the project sitewith the Aboriginal people of the area, and later to an invitation to myselfand the Deputy Chairman to visit the nearby Mt Margaret Community. Thesubsequent visit and further discussions were extremely valuable, and willassist the EPA in its consideration of “social surroundings”, including theproposal to expand the Ord irrigation system (Ord Stage 2) in the EastKimberley. The EPA is very conscious of the need to maintain an open-doorpolicy for members of the public, not only in relation to social surroundingsbut also covering a whole range of environmental matters.

The EPA values very highly its discussions with proponents. In addition toproponents having the opportunity to brief the EPA at its meetings which areheld every two weeks, the doors of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairmanare always open to proponents, from large companies to individuals, so thatthey have an opportunity to explain their proposals and seek an understandingof the approach best suited to attaining continuous improvement inenvironmental protection. The EPA at all times wants to work with theproponent to achieve the best environmental outcome. For most of theproposals coming before the EPA the outcome is an agreed approach to soundenvironmental management. However, at times the EPA has concluded thatits advice to the Minister will be that the impact of a proposal submitted isnot environmentally acceptable and that it should not proceed. The EPArecognises that this can cause a proponent considerable distress, but the EPA’srole is to protect the environment, both now and into the future.

During the year the EPA had discussions with stakeholder representativesabout the assessment process set out in its Administrative Procedures. Thesediscussions have led to the introduction of two new levels of assessment with aview to providing a more efficient service. The details of these two levels ofassessment are given later in this Report. The Administrative Procedures alsoincludes information about the appeal process to assure interested parties thatthe full array of appeals to the Minister is available and that the transparentpublic process, which is an essential element of the work of the EPA, is notdiminished.

I take this opportunity to thank proponents of proposals, members of thecommunity, advisers to the EPA from both the public and the private sectors,and also the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of EnvironmentalProtection and his staff for the part each has played in assisting the EPA indoing its work of protecting the environment. It is very important that allthose involved have confidence that the process will deliver outcomes whichgive full attention to environmental protection.

I also want to record my appreciation of the Deputy Chairman specifically andmembers of the EPA for their assistance so readily given to the work of theEPA. Finally, although it is an independent Authority, its work is enhanced bythe Chairman having an opportunity to inform the Minister about matters ofimportance being considered by the EPA. I thank the Minister for theEnvironment for her courtesy in being available for discussions whenrequested by me from time to time.

Bernard BowenChairman

Mrs Cheryl Edwardes MLAMinister

The Advisory Council to theEnvironmental ProtectionAuthority (ACTEPA)provides advice to theAuthority on environmentalissues.

*

Minister for the Environment

ACTEPA

Department ofEnvironmental Protection

*

EnvironmentalProtection Authority

Independent advice

Service to the EPA

Mr Bernard BowenChairman

Ms Sally RobinsonDeputy Chairman

Mr Denis GlennonMember

Dr Roy GreenMember

Dr Elizabeth MattiskeMember


Mr Bernard Bowen AM FTSE,Chairman

Member and Deputy Chairman from14 January 1994

Chairman from 12 August 1997until 31 December 1999

Bernard Bowen was Director of theDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlifebetween 1968 and 1985, and Directorof the Fisheries Department between1985 and 1991. He was Chairman ofthe Western Australian WildlifeAuthority between 1968 and 1985,member of the Perth ZoologicalGardens Board between 1972 and1987 and member of the NationalParks Authority between 1975 and1985.

Mr Bowen has extensive experience inmarine research and management atthe national and international levels.Between 1994 and 1996, Mr Bowenparticipated in the preparation of theNational State of the EnvironmentReport as Chairman of the Estuariesand the Sea Reference Group.

Mr Bowen has been appointed to theNational CSIRO Marine SectorAdvisory Committee for a period ofthree years.

Ms Sally Robinson, MEIA,MAWWA, MIRWA, MIAWQ, Deputy Chairman

Member from 6 May, 1997

Deputy Chairman from 1 January1998 until 31 December 1999

Sally Robinson is an environmentalmanager with more than 25 yearsexperience. She has worked for themining and petroleum industries andfrom 1981-1989 was employed by theWA Environmental ProtectionAuthority department in the areas ofenvironmental impact assessment,project coordination, pollutionlicensing and policy development. Sheproposed improvements to achievebetter integration of the assessment(Part IV) and licensing (Part V)functions of the Act. She carried outand managed the Peel-Harvey Estuary(Dawesville Channel) ManagementStrategy assessment.

Ms Robinson was a member of thejoint Australian/South Africandelegation to South Africa in 1994 onrivers classification and management.She has visited South Africa andIndonesia as an invited internationalexpert on integrated catchment

management and in 1998 advised theSouth African Government on theirnew water resource and catchmentmanagement legislation. She hasrecently been invited to China as partof a CSIRO/Ausaid project.

In 1999 Ms Robinson was a Statefinalist in the Telstra AustralianBusiness Woman of the Year Awardsin recognition of her contribution toenvironmental protection in WA andher work as Deputy Chairman.

Ms Robinson has a Bachelor ofScience (Hons) degree in Geology andZoology from the University of Bristol,a BA in Australian History andPsychology from Murdoch University,and a Masters level clinicalcounselling qualification. She is aformer National Vice-President of theEnvironment Institute of Australia.

Ms Robinson is the principal ofStrategic Environmental Solutions andbetween 1994 and 1996 participated asa consultant on the 1996 NationalState of the Environment Report as amember of the Inland WatersReference Group.

Mr Denis Glennon

Member from 1 January 1998 until31 December 1999

Denis Glennon is Managing Directorand board member of EnvironmentalSolutions International Ltd, acompany specialising inenvironmental management,

3

Members

The EPA has five members - a full-time Chairman, a half-timeDeputy Chairman and three part-time members. However, memberswork far in excess of their part-time appointments.

Figure 1: Operational structure of the EPA.

contaminated site assessment andremediation, and hazardous waste,sludge and wastewater treatment.

Mr Glennon has a wide knowledge ofenvironmental and pollutionmanagement systems and engineering,ecologically sustainable developmentand environmental managementpolicy formation, especially in regardto industrial waste disposal.

He is a Director and immediate pastchairman of the EnvironmentManagement Industry Association ofAustralia (EMIAA), which comprisesmore than 200 private sectorcompanies, research centres, tertiaryinstitutions and Federal and Stategovernment departments.

Dr Roy Green, AO, FTSE, FAIP

Member from 6 May 1998 until 5May 2000

Roy Green was a consultant in Paris in1996-97 with UNESCO’sIntergovernmental OceanographicCommission, a body responsible forthe international coordination ofmarine research, services, data systemsand education and training. From1988 to 1995 he was the AustralianDelegate to the Commission, and onthe Executive Council.

From 1994 to 1996 Dr Green wasChief Executive/Acting ChiefExecutive of the CSIRO, and from1988 to 1994 Director of the CSIROInstitute of Natural Resources and theEnvironment.

Dr Green was also appointed byFederal Cabinet to chair three of thenine working groups (Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries) which reportedto Government on EcologicallySustainable Development in 1990-91.He was also on the Advisory Councilfor the 1996 National State of theEnvironment Report.

Dr Green holds fellowships in manyprofessional societies, and membershipof many advisory boards. Currently DrGreen is Chairman of the AdvisoryCouncil for the National Land andWater Resources Audit, and is amember of the Advisory Committeefor the Natural Heritage Trust.

From 1976 to 1982, Dr Green wasSecretary, Australian Science &Technology Council, and between1982 and 1987 he was the DeputySecretary, Department of Science.

Dr Elizabeth Mattiske

Member from 6 May 1998 until 5May 2000

Libby Mattiske is a plant ecologistwith a Bachelor of Science withHonours and a PhD from AdelaideUniversity.

Dr Mattiske has consulted privately inthis field for over 20 years, and iscurrently Managing Director ofMattiske Consulting Pty Ltd. Thecompany conducts botanical andecological studies and advisesgovernment agencies and miningcompanies on how to minimise theenvironmental impact of proposeddevelopments. The company hasundertaken vegetation mapping andother botanical studies for a range ofmajor mining companies operating inWestern Australia and a range ofgovernment agencies.

Dr Mattiske’s involvement, both pastand present, with many environmentalcommittees, includes the System 6Committee, the CSIRO RegionalResearch Committee (Wildlife &Ecology), the EPA AdvisoryCommittee on Forest ManagementPlans, the National Parks & NatureConservation Authority (WA),CALM Ranking Panel for theConservation of Western Australia’sThreatened Flora and Fauna,Australian Heritage Commission,Forest & Research CommitteeWorking Group of Scientists toReview Forest Monitoring & ResearchProgrammes, Council for SustainableVegetation Management and theAustralian State of the EnvironmentCommittee.

4



5

CUSTODIALRESPONSIBILITIESOF THEENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAUTHORITY

The EPA has over-archingresponsibility for the provision ofadvice to Government on allenvironmental matters, and thepublic expectation of the EPA isthat the EPA will assume a broadcustodial, or guardianship, role inrelation to the protection of air,water, soil, flora, fauna and themaintenance of biodiversity.

In providing this role, the EPAhas initiated EnvironmentalProtection Policies (EPPs) such asthose relating to air quality inKwinana and the Goldfields (seetable 1, page 19). There will alsosoon be implementation of the airNational Environment ProtectionMeasure (NEPM) through aStatewide EPP mechanism. Theenvironmental protection ofimportant groundwater moundsand coastal waters is also beingaddressed through a StatewideEPP framework which will provideover-arching environmentalprotection objectives with area-specific regulations.

Some elements of the EPA’scustodial responsibilities arediscussed below.

Water for the environment

The EPA has been developing,with the Water and RiversCommission, a tiered process forthe assessment of water allocationto ensure that environmentalwater requirements are properlyaccommodated, prior to waterbeing allocated for consumptiveuses. The approach taken by theEPA was outlined in its Section16(e) advice on the Perth’s WaterFuture proposals.

In Western Australia, the EPA hasprimacy under its legislation interms of the protection of Western

Australia’s environment, and thesetting of environmentalobjectives including that for water(both quality and quantity). TheWater and Rivers Commission(WRC) is responsible for the dayto day protection andmanagement of the State’s waterresources, including determininghow much water is available forthe environment and a range ofother uses, in accordance withEPA’s environmental objectives.The EPA examines theenvironmental impacts of anyproposal to take water and ensuresthat an adequate amount of wateris allocated to the environmentbefore any allocations to otheruses are made. The amount ofwater taken to protect theenvironment therefore becomes aconstraint on the amountavailable to allocate to other uses.In principle, any allocations ofwater should be:

• sustainable, taking into accountlong term environmental requirements;

• consistent with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Agreement and with the National Principles for the Provision of Water for Ecosystems (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 1996); and

• consistent with the environmental values and objectives identified by the EPA.

Landclearing - an activity withlong-term impacts on soil qualityand biodiversity

Increasingly, the EPA is involvedin the formal assessment of landclearing applications from rurallandholders. This is aconsequence of the Memorandumof Understanding on theassessment of land clearing in theSouth West of Western Australia,to which the EPA is a signatory,and reflects EPA concerns aboutthe role of landclearing inincreasing land degradation andloss of biodiversity.

The South West of WesternAustralia is megabiodiverse on aworld scale. Significantbiodiversity has already been lostfrom extensive clearing of land foragricultural purposes, which hasresulted in extensive drylandsalinity and severe interruption ofcatchment hydrology andecosystem processes.

Much of the South West of theState now needs extensive andhigh level intervention to restorehydrological processes at thecatchment scale, and this needs to

Current members of the Environmental Protection Authority (from front left) Ms Sally Robinson(Deputy Chairman), Mr Bernard Bowen (Chairman) (from back left) Dr Roy Green,Dr Elizabeth Mattiske, and Mr Denis Glennon.

6


happen soon. Faced with this,continued clearing in these areascannot be supportedenvironmentally.

As a signatory to the NationalStrategy for the Conservation ofAustralia’s Biological Diversity,Western Australia has anobligation to play its part inmeeting the agreed nationaltargets. The EPA is currentlyfinalising a Position Statementaddressing clearing in thewheatbelt (agricultural area),metropolitan area, and the rest ofthe State. The EPA’s PositionStatement will provide guidanceat the proponent level to assistthe State in meeting theseobligations.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity is a key issue for theState and one in which the EPAhas an over-arching role to play.Other Government agencies andauthorities with a role in theprotection of biodiversity havemanagement responsibilities foronly those parts of theenvironment which fall withintheir area of specifiedresponsibility. The EnvironmentalProtection Act requires the EPAto consider and advise onprotection of the environmentover the whole State, regardless ofland tenure and other legislation.

The EPA is planning a workshopon biodiversity with the focus ofenabling the EPA to give practicaleffect to biodiversity as a factor inthe environmental assessmentprocess, in policy formulation andin the provision of general adviceacross the breadth of the EPA’sfunctions. The workshop willassist in fostering a commonunderstanding in the communityof aspects of biodiversity whichare important to the communityas stakeholders in the assessmentprocess.

Social surroundings

The Environmental ProtectionAct provides for the inclusion of“social surroundings” in the

definition of the term“environment”.

In practice “social surroundings”does not involve a full socialimpact assessment, but isrestricted to the impacts of aproposal on aspects such as onAboriginal culture and heritage,visual amenity and the activitiesof people not associated with butimpacted by the proposal. In someinstances, “social surroundings” asan environmental factor hasincluded the impact of a projecton the economic viability ofexisting operations - an examplebeing the impact of the proposedOakajee Port (assessed inSeptember 1997) on the existingrock lobster industry in theimmediate vicinity.

“Social surroundings” alsoincludes environmental assetsregarded by the community ashaving icon status. Increasingly,the EPA is being asked to giveconsideration to “socialsurroundings”, some as a result ofthe Ministerial Appeals process.There are several examples,including:

a) Section of the Fremantle Bypass road. This was initially afforded a level of assessment of“not assessed-public advice given” by the EPA. However there were several appeals to the Minister because of community interest in retaining the landscape of Clontarf Hill. The Minister determined the appeals and requested the EPA to consider its level of assessment to assess “more fully or more publicly” totake account of the impacts of the proposal on Clontarf Hill through the public review process.

b) Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) - Koolyanobbing Iron Ore Loading Facility, CockburnSound. Initially, the EPA set the level of assessment for this proposal, adjacent to the existing FPA loading facility in Cockburn Sound, as “not assessed - public advice given”. There were a number of

appeals to the Minister relatingto visual impact and amenity.The Minister determined the appeals and requested the EPAto further consider its level of assessment to assess “more fullyor more publicly” to take account of the visual impact and amenity aspects of the proposal.

c) Murrin Murrin Nickel-Cobalt proposal near Laverton. Following an appeal by the Bibila-Langutjurra and Goolburthunoo Aboriginal people, the EPA gave increasedconsideration to the concerns of the Aboriginal communities in relation to the impact of theMurrin Murrin proposal. This has been reported elsewhere in this Report and has provided experience in relation to the Ord Stage 2 proposal.

d) Ord Stage 2 proposal. The EPAis engaged in consultation withthe Aboriginal people affected by the Ord Stage 2 proposal to ensure that they are able to participate in a relevant and meaningful manner in the EPA’s assessment of the project,and that the potential impacts of the proposal on their cultureand heritage are properly considered and assessed.

The EPA is currently preparing aPosition Statement and GuidanceStatement to provide pro-activeassistance to proponents to enablethem to provide appropriatedocumentation on theenvironmental factor of “socialsurroundings”.

MAJORENVIRONMENTALISSUES

Dryland salinity

In its 1995-1996 Annual Report,the EPA drew attention to theissue of dryland salinity. The EPAregards salinity as the most seriousenvironmental issue in WesternAustralia. The impact is not only


7

on the availability of agriculturalland but also on the naturereserves and biodiversity ingeneral in the wheatbelt area. Inaddition, the rising water tableassociated with salinity problemsis likely to be a factor in increasedflooding at times of high rainfallevents.

The EPA commends theGovernment on the action takento establish the State SalinityCouncil which has developed theSalinity Action Plan. TheCouncil has also raisedcommunity awareness about theseriousness of the salinityproblem. Salinisation should notbe seen simply as a problem forthose who live in the country; itneeds to be tackled by the wholecommunity through acombination of actions.

The action taken by Government,landcare groups and many farmersis a significant step forward, andthe Action Plan being revised willprovide a renewed focus.However, being aware thatdryland salinity is the State’s mostserious environmental issue, theEPA encourages the Governmentto raise the profile further in theminds of the community andconsider two approaches:

a) The introduction of either legislation or a policy statement into Parliament which sets long term goals for tackling dryland salinity as well as establishing the broad infrastructurearrangements by which the goals will be given attention. Action on salinity needs a top-down and bottom-up approach, and a statement by Parliament about salinity would raise community awareness as well as reinforce the serious nature of the problem, and set broad directions for action.

b) The establishment of a small salinity action implementationgroup, comprised of technical and policy people at a senior level, which has the responsibility to bring together

a number of highly motivated professional staff combining the expertise which currently resides within a number of government departments. The group would provide integratedprofessional advice on an arrayof technical, social and financial issues, and steer the actions necessary for implementation at the various levels which will be needed in the decades ahead. It would need Ministerial support at a very senior level.

This approach should not be taken as a criticism of the multi-departmental approach adopted to date. However, overtime it may be found that the most efficient and effective wayforward is to have an inter-disciplinary unit dedicated to thinking full time about salinity and its management.

Greenhouse effect

Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol,Australia has committed to reduceits greenhouse-gas emissions by 35per cent from a calculated‘business as usual’ increase of 43per cent in the period from 1990to 2010, to give a net increase ofonly eight per cent.

In Western Australia, there are alarge number of major new energyprojects planned for the nextdecade and a consequence of thisdevelopment will be an increasein WA’s greenhouse-gas emissions.

This will occur primarily fromincreased energy use by expandingindustries and new industries, andthe processing of energy in theform of natural gas for overseasuse. Greenhouse-gas emissions inWA (excluding land clearing)have been reported as increasing16 per cent from 1990 to 1995, ascompared with an increase of nineper cent in Australia, over theperiod 1990 to 1996.

The Western Australian industriesare mostly export orientated andthis poses a dilemma in terms ofgreenhouse-gas emissions.Although a new Western

Australian liquified natural gas(LNG) proposal could result in anincreased WA emission of CO2, itwould also result in significantdecreases in, say, Korea, due tothe LNG being used there toreplace coal. The EPA now has todeal with the fact that althoughWestern Australia’s emissions arelikely to rise as downstreamprocessing industries aredeveloped (generating moregreenhouse-gas), they could alsocontribute to a greater reductionglobally. The question then is,should the EPA take account ofan international net decrease inCO2 emissions generated fromWA resources being exported,despite extraction of thoseresources resulting in a significantnet increase in the emission ofgreenhouse-gas in WA? This isparticularly problematic as thereare currently no internationalagreements in place to credit thedecrease.

During the year, the EPA began totake account of internationaldevelopments with respect togreenhouse-gas emission reductioninitiatives. It has recognised Stateand national positions as outlinedin the draft National GreenhouseStrategy.

Also, the EPA has prepared aninterim Guidance Statement forThe Assessment of EnvironmentalFactors: Minimising GreenhouseGas Emissions to assist in theassessment of new projects. ThisGuidance Statement recognisesthe need for Western Australianindustry to competeinternationally.

An example of theimplementation of the interimGuidance in the assessment ofnew projects is demonstrated bythe recent EPA assessment of theMurrin Murrin Nickel-CobaltProject. The EPA assessmentconcluded that the proposalwould be a significant contributorto Western Australia’sgreenhouse-gas emissions andtherefore its environmentalobjectives were:

• to minimise greenhouse-gas emissions for the project and reduce emissions per unit product to as low as reasonably practicable; and

• to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, and in accordance with established State and Commonwealth policies.

In the assessment of this particular project, the EPAconcluded that having particular regard to:

• the application of new energy-efficient technology in the project;

• the comparative reductions in CO2 emissions already achievedthrough “no regrets” measures; and

• the potential reductions through “beyond no regrets” measures;

• the project could be managed to meet the EPA’senvironmental objective for greenhouse gases, provided the proponent continues to investigate and implement, as appropriate, both “no regrets” and “beyond no regrets” measures to further reduce CO2 emissions throughout the life of the project as part of a Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Management Plan.

Although industrial developmentproposals form a large part of newproposals assessed by the EPA, itshould be noted that industry, andin particular new industry, is notthe major emitter of greenhouse-gas in Western Australia. Forexample, manufacturing is onlynine per cent, petroleum refiningonly two per cent, and oil and gasrefining four per cent. Electricitygeneration makes up 34 per cent,of which household electricity is12 per cent. Other high producersof greenhouse-gas are agriculture(27 per cent) and transport (13per cent).

Perth’s Bushplan

Perth’s Bushplan was released forpublic comment in November1998 and represents a majorcoordinated conservationinitiative by four statutoryauthorities (EPA, WesternAustralian Planning Commission,National Parks and NatureConservation Authority, Waterand Rivers Commission) and fourgovernment agencies (Departmentof Environmental Protection,Ministry for Planning,Department of Conservation andLand Management, Water andRivers Commission).

It provides a blueprint for theprotection of regionally significantnative vegetation for the coastalplain portion of the Perthmetropolitan area. The EPA’sspecial interest in Perth’sBushplan resulted from theamalgamation of the Authority’sSystem 6 Update Program (whichwas reviewing conservationrecommendations for the whole ofthe System 6 area and the SwanCoastal Plain portion of System 1)with a number of other programsbeing run by government agenciesand authorities.

A total of 52,000 ha of remnantbushland was identified forprotection. The final Bushplanreport will update and replace thelongstanding System 6recommendations for this area.

The Government also establishedan independent BushplanReference Group, reportingdirectly to Ministers, to overseethe public consultation on thePlan. This group is chaired by DrLibby Mattiske, who is also amember of the EPA.

Compliance with ForestManagement Plans

In 1992, the EPA assessed aproposal by the Department ofConservation and LandManagement (CALM) to amendthe 1987 Forest ManagementPlans and Timber Strategy. Thisassessment resulted in the

approval of the amendmentproposal (with environmentalconditions) under theEnvironmental Protection Act.Subsequently the proposal, in theform of a Management Plan 1994-2003, was approved under theConservation and LandManagement Act.

A condition of the 1992Ministerial Statement approvingthe amendments was that:

“The proponent shall prepare‘Progress and ComplianceReports’ to help verify theenvironmental performance of theproject, in consultation with theEnvironmental ProtectionAuthority. These shall includebrief annual progress reports tothe EPA and major public reportsin 1997 and 2002.”

The EPA examined the CALM1997 public report and provided areport to the Minister for theEnvironment in November 1998.During the preparation of thereport, the EPA was also requestedto provide advice which may be ofassistance to the Minister inrelation to her consideration ofthe Regional Forest Agreementfor Western Australia.Accordingly, the November 1998Report was written in two parts:

1. Advice in Relation to the Development of the Regional Forest Agreement in WesternAustralia; and

2. Progress Report on Environmental Performance and mid-term Report on Compliance: Forest Management Plans 1994-2003.

The EPA report drew attention toa number of issues in relation tothe environmental conditionswhich needed to be addressed byCALM. Subsequently, discussionswere held between the EPA andCALM with a view to establishinga mechanism by which the issuescould be addressed. As a result ofthose discussions, there is now anagreed process by which therecommendations in the EPA

8



9

report in relation to compliancewith environmental conditionsare being given attention.

Biological survey requirements

Historically, the majority of themajor biological baseline data setshave been collected bygovernment agencies. To a largeextent this work is now beingundertaken by botanists andzoologists in consulting companiesand academic institutions, duringthe course of providinginformation required for theproponents’ environmentalassessment documents.

The EPA is concerned that, attimes, insufficient attention isgiven to the appropriateness orrelevant detail of the biologicalsurveys which can lead to anenvironmental review documentbeing inadequately assessed by theEPA and the Department ofEnvironmental Protection.

The EPA recognises this as amajor problem, especially nowthat understanding and protectingthe State’s biodiversity is high onthe list of EPA priorities. TheEPA is giving attention to thestandards it requires for biologicalsurveys and will shortly bereleasing both a PositionStatement and a GuidanceStatement on the subject. TheStatements will be made availablefor public comment prior to theEPA finalising the text. Thedevelopment and establishment ofminimum standards for differenttypes of projects in various

sections of Western Australiashould assist proponents and thepublic generally, and will alsoassist greatly the EPA in itsassessment process.

Maximising environmental benefitsfrom project EIA

In addition to aiming to provide apro-active approach to selectingenvironmentally appropriate sitesfor developments (see “SpecialAreas” initiative) the EPA is alsomaking progress in trying toensure that there is an overallenvironmental gain fromindividual proposals, ifimplemented. At times, aproponent may not be able tomeet the EPA’s environmentalobjective for all environmentalfactors, but there may be anopportunity for a netenvironmental benefit if thegovernment is able to addressissues of concern which arebeyond the scope of a proponent.

The Jervoise Bay proposal is anexample where the EPA foundthat the proponent was not ableto achieve all the environmentalobjectives within the scope of theproject, but that the governmentcould assist by making input toensuring an overall environmentalgain, either by addressing thediffuse source pollution enteringCockburn Sound and establishinga management structure to do so,or by other actions, includingestablishing terrestrial or marinereserves or National Parkselsewhere.

A second, but different, exampleis that of the Busselton wastewatertreatment plant upgrade. Here theWA Water Corporation isinvesting funds to achieve areduction in off-site nutrients inaddition to the introduction ofthe new wastewater treatmentplant. This is to be achieved byestablishment of a resourcingprogram to address the 95% ofnutrients entering Geographe Bayfrom diffuse sources in thehinterland catchment.

This approach has the potential toachieve greater overallenvironmental gains in anenvironmental cost/benefit sense,if implemented. Clearly, theestablishment of an effectivemanagement structure which willgive attention to reducing thenutrient inputs from diffusesources to Cockburn Sound andthe contribution by the WaterCorporation of money, technologyand expertise to reduce diffusecatchment nutrient inputs toGeographe Bay can lead toenvironmental gains.

Special areas

The Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) process hasoften provided a means by whichareas of the State with highenvironmental values have beenidentified. An example is theidentification of the BungleBungle (Purnululu) area as havinghigh environmental and culturalvalues, making it worthy ofreservation as a National Park. Atother times, the level ofinvestigation associated withpreparing environmental reviewdocumentation identifiesenvironmental values which,although not necessarily requiringformal reservation, arenonetheless worthy of protection,perhaps through very careful sitingand environmental managementof a proposal.

To assist proponents, the EPAtook a pro-active approach toidentifying potentiallyenvironmentally sensitive or“special areas” and to this end

From right to left: Libby Mattiske, Sally Robinson and Bernard Bowen and officers fromAnaconda Nickel Ltd inspecting a trial excavation pit at Murrin Murrin.

held a series of workshops ofspecialists to take advantage ofthe corporate knowledge withinthe State with a view to preparingan EPA Position Statement.

Four workshops were held withexperts covering a wide range ofexpertise. Although theopportunity was available forpeople to identify areas on maps,all workshops preferred to identifyimportant environmental assets ina descriptive manner. Examplesinclude:

• all remnant vegetation in the wheatbelt (now under threat from regional dryland salinity);

• inflow areas of natural salt lake sytems (repositories of lake biodiversity);

• relict Gondwanan floras and faunas, and areas likely to contain them;

• important geological sites (eg type areas for description of stratigraphy, fossil locations, special mineralised areas);

• source areas for botanical “type specimens”; and

• rainforests of the Kimberley.

The material from the workshopsis being compiled and the EPAwill consider the most useful wayto present the information toimprove awareness of proponentsand the community on thelocation of important off-reserveenvironmental assets.

The EPA recognises that someproposals, in particular miningproposals, cannot always belocated on alternative sites. Theinitiative is aimed at proposalswhich can be located on a rangeof sites. It is not intended toidentify or suggest areas thatshould be formally reserved, but toidentify areas that, where possible,proponents may wish to avoid.

Projects impacting upon NationalParks

The EPA has considered proposalswhich have the potential toimpact on the Millstream-

Chichester National Park,Kalbarri National Park andD’Entrecasteaux National Park.

The EPA is conscious thatNational Parks have beenprovided a high degree of securityto protect the purpose for whichthey have been established.Projects which have the potentialto impact upon the national parkvalues have to be given specialconsideration by the proponent aswell as by the EPA.

The proposal described in Bulletin924 West Angelas Iron OreProject - East Pilbara, Ashburton,Roebourne, released in January1999, outlines the development ofan iron ore deposit that includedthe establishment of a railwayinfrastructure through theMillstream-Chichester NationalPark. The EPA provided thefollowing advice to the Ministeron this matter:

“The over-riding environmentalissue which has arisen during theassessment of this proposal is theproposed construction of a newrailway line, particularly wherethe proposed route crossesnational parks or areas of highconservation value …” and

“... the construction of a new railline through the Millstream-Chichester National Park isinconsistent with the EPA’senvironmental objectives whichare inherent in the designation ofnational parks and A-classconservation reserves.”

Accordingly, the EPArecommended that the Ministerconsider the EPA’s strongpreference for use of the existingHamersley Iron railway line or forlocation of the railway outside theNational Park. However, the EPArecognised the Government mayconsider broader issues in relationto the route of the railway line.Accordingly, the EPA providedalternative conditions, dependingupon the final decision ofGovernment.

During the year, changes weremade to the boundaries of theKalbarri and D’EntrecasteauxNational Parks to remove areaseither permanently or temporarilyto allow activities to beundertaken which would not be inaccord with the purposes of theNational Park.

An area was permanently excisedfrom the Kalbarri National Parkand the EPA currently has beforeit a proposal to establish anairport in the excised area toservice the township of Kalbarri.

The areas excised from theD’Entrecasteaux National Park areto provide for the possibility ofmining mineral sands. The areasof interest were classified as CClass Reserves for the purpose ofconservation and resourcemanagement, on theunderstanding that they would beincorporated back into theD’Entrecasteaux National Parkafter mining and rehabilitationhad been undertaken, along withthe inclusion of a parcel of privateproperty.

10


From left: Colin Murray, Sally Robinson, Bernard Bowen, Beverly Walker, Libby Mattiske,Graeme French, Roy Green and Bryan Jenkins in Kununurra for a site visit of the Ord Stage 2project area.

When assessing proposalsinvolving National Parks, theEPA not only considers theimpacts on biodiversity and theecosystems generally, but also the

need to give attention to thespecific attributes of the park aswell as the public concern that aNational Park may be used for apurpose other than that for whichit was set aside. This is important,irrespective of any change inpurpose for an area whichoriginally was within theboundaries of a National Park.

Perth’s Coastal Waters Studiesand on-going consultative process

Two major studies have beenundertaken in the Perth coastalwaters. These are the SouthernMetropolitan Coastal WatersStudy and the Perth CoastalWaters Study. The results of thesestudies will form the basis of aprogram to protect theenvironmental values of the areathrough the statutory process ofan Environmental ProtectionPolicy. However, it is necessary togive particular attention to theconsultative process which needsto be undertaken before arrivingat such a Policy for submission toGovernment. The key elementswhich need to be considered arethe environmental values andquality objectives to be adopted,the areas to which the objectivesshould apply, and the criteria bywhich environmental quality willbe judged.

In October 1998 a discussionpaper was released entitled TheFuture of Perth’s Coastal Waters:Have Your Say. This discussionpaper addressed environmental

values, environmental qualityobjectives and draftenvironmental management areas.CSIRO was contracted toundertake the communityconsultation and has nowprovided its report to the EPA, aswell as making it available to thepublic.

The discussion paper andcommunity consultation was animportant step in the preparationby the EPA of a document settingdown its environmental valuesand quality objectives to be usedin the next stage. Followingrelease of the EPA document,work will commence on thedevelopment of environmentalquality criteria in consultationwith the public generally andstakeholders.

The EPA wants to ensure thatwhen the protection program forPerth’s coastal waters is presentedto Government for considerationas an Environmental ProtectionPolicy, the technical matters willhave already been fully debatedthrough a public consultativeprocess.

North West Shelf MarineEnvironmental Management Study

An important development duringthe year in terms of marine

management was theannouncement by CSIRO thatthe Division of Marine Researchhad allocated funding of $3.5million over the next four years toNorth West Shelf environmentalresearch.

With the State Governmenthaving previously allocated $2.7million over four years toundertake a marineenvironmental management studyof the region, the CSIRO fundinghas provided an opportunity for amuch larger joint cooperativestudy involving the State, CSIROand the Australian Institute ofMarine Sciences (AIMS).

The establishment of acooperative North West Shelfstudy was agreed to by the threeparticipants in June 1999. Sixmajor projects have beenidentified that will deliverinformation and state-of-the-artdecision support capability forsustainable management of allactivities on the North WestShelf. In addition, a formalagreement between theDepartment of EnvironmentalProtection (DEP) and theAustralian Petroleum Productionand Exploration Association(APPEA) was signed giving thestudy access to the petroleumindustry’s very substantial data setson the North West Shelf.

The EPA welcomes the initiativeundertaken by the StateGovernment in recognising theneed for the environmentalmanagement study and providingthe basis for collaboration withCSIRO and AIMS. It is importantthat Western Australia encouragesthese two national researchorganisations to focus theirattention on Western Australia tothe maximum extent possible.

Shark Bay

Shark Bay has been designated aWorld Heritage Area, and is theonly such Area in WesternAustralia. The administrativearrangements for the WorldHeritage Property include a


11

“The over-riding environmental issue which hasarisen during the assessment of this proposal is the

proposed construction of a new railway line,particularly where the proposed route crossesnational parks or areas of high conservation

value …” and

“... the construction of a new rail line through theMillstream-Chichester National Park is inconsistentwith the EPA’s environmental objectives which areinherent in the designation of national parks and

A-class conservation reserves.”

12


Community ConsultativeCommittee and a ScientificAdvisory Committee. The EPAhas had discussions with theChairs of both those Committeeswith a view to ensuring that thevalues of the World HeritageProperty are given full attentionwhenever proposals which couldimpact on the Property comebefore the EPA. The primarymanagement objective for theProperty is the conservation,protection and preservation of theShark Bay World Heritage valuesand it is necessary for proponentsto demonstrate that proposals donot compromise or conflict withthat objective.

The EPA is currently developing aGuidance Statement to drawthese matters to the attention ofproponents and Decision-MakingAuthorities, and to assure thepublic that the values of theWorld Heritage Property will beaccorded full recognition by theEPA in its assessment process.

A matter of special importance tothe Shark Bay area is advicecurrently being prepared by theEPA, at the request of theMinister for the Environment, onthe impact on the World HeritageProperty if at-sea petroleumactivities were to be permitted.The Report will be in two parts:the first a summary of the naturalWorld Heritage values of the area;and the second will examine thepotential impacts of the variouspetroleum activities fromexploration to production andtransport of the product. TheReport will be available for publiccomment before being finalised bythe EPA.

Peel-Harvey ManagementStrategy - assessment of progressand compliance

The Environmental Conditionsset by the Minister for theEnvironment on the Peel-HarveyEstuary System (DawesvilleChannel) Management Strategyrequire the EPA to assess progressand compliance by the proponentsin implementing the managementstrategy.

There are three co-proponents:the Department of Transport, theWater and Rivers Commissionand Agriculture WA. Theconditions were set in a mannerwhich made the co-proponentsequally responsible forimplementation of the wholestrategy. This was to ensure thatall the required managementoccurred, and to prevent theproponent agencies from takingresponsibility each for their corearea alone (eg Agriculture WA forcatchment management).

The proponents have prepared apublic progress and compliancereport.

To assist in its assessment ofcompliance, the EPA hasestablished an Expert ReviewGroup which includes the keyexperts who developed themanagement strategy. The group’smembers are:

Mr Bernard Bowen(Chairman)

Mr Geoff Bott(Department of EnvironmentalProtection adviser)

Mr David Deeley(Consultant, water quality andestuary aspects)

Dr Robert Humphries(Water Corporation, water qualityand systems ecology)

Ms Sally Robinson(Legal and administrativeframework for management)

Dr John Yeates(Consultant, catchmentmanagement)

The key compliance elements are:

• performance of the Dawesville Channel compared with predictions modelled and management targets;

• development of and performance of the catchment management plan, compared with the catchment management targets set; and

• the usefulness of the legal and administrative framework put

in place to underpin and support the strategy.

In addition, the Peel-HarveyExpert Review Group will bereviewing the appropriateness ofthe management targets set, themanagement package, and theframework for management. Thegroup will report to the EPA andrecommend changes to the targetsor the implementation frameworkif required.

ASSESSMENT OFMAJOR PROJECTSThe EPA assessed a diverse rangeof proposals covering resourcesdevelopment, industrialprocessing, and land use planningand development.

A total of 816 proposals werereferred to the EPA forconsideration. Of these, the EPAdetermined that 57 proposalsrequired detailed formalassessment, reporting andrecommendations to the Ministerfor the Environment. A further327 required informal review andspecific advice to the proponents.

During the year, 45 formalassessments were completed,including six which providedstrategic advice under section16(e) of the EnvironmentalProtection Act. Some of the moreimportant assessments arediscussed below. This is precededby a consideration of theimportance of context in theassessment process. At theconclusion of the section,information is provided about theassessment of water allocation andof planning schemes. For acomplete list of assessmentscompleted by the EPA, seeAppendices 2 and 3.

The importance of context inEnvironmental Impact Assessment

An important starting point forthe EPA in carrying outenvironmental impact assessmentis the consideration of the type ofproposal and the environmentalcontext of the proposed location.


13

These considerations are beingincreasingly included in theGuidelines issued for the formalassessment of projects.

Context may include aspects suchas:

• current land uses on the site and in the general region;

• land tenure;

• the environmental values of the site and nearby areas;

• community expectations and aspirations about the uses to which special areas, including National Parks and NatureReserves, might be put and how these uses may affect othervalues;

• biodiversity on-site and in a regional context;

• the environmental “balance sheet” in regard to potential environmental gains and environmental losses from the proposal, both at the local scaleand at the State scale; and

• the balance between an individual’s perception of their rights to develop and the collective interests of the community in relation to wise use of environmental resources and intergenerational equity.

There are many aspects to theEPA forming its overall judgementof environmental acceptability,including consideration of theoverall environmental costs andbenefits, and who bears thosecosts (community, proponent or areasonable balance). An idealdevelopment could be regarded asone which demonstrates goodenvironmental outcomes and canbe regarded by the community asa socially justifiable development,in terms of overall environmentalcosts and benefits. Such a projectwould achieve a sensible balancebetween environmental costs andbenefits and would not put anunreasonable burden on thecommunity to bear theenvironmental costs, either in thisgeneration or in subsequent ones.

The judgement made by the EPArelates to whether or not theEPA’s environmental objectivescan be met. It is the proponent’sresponsibility to demonstrate this,and they have a range of possiblemechanisms for meeting theobjectives, including appropriatesite selection, accurateidentification of all theenvironmental issues at thepreferred site, prevention ormitigation of impacts throughdesign and other planning, as wellas showing that theenvironmental impacts can bemanaged to meet the objectives.

Increasingly the EPA isconfronted by projects which raisehigher order questions relating tomatters of context. Someexamples include:

• The Ord Stage 2 irrigation development. The task beforethe proponent is to justify the removal of 35,000 ha of native vegetation in the context of the agreed targets set in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’sBiological Diversity, to which all the States and Territories are signatories. Clearing at any scale can have impacts on biodiversity and is becoming increasingly difficult to justify on environmental grounds. The EPA will need to consider whether the proponent’sproposals for environmental management will affordbiodiversity its proper consideration, if such large scale clearing is to stand scrutiny when compared with smaller scale clearing from a farmer in the wheatbelt area.

• Proposals impacting on National Parks and World Heritage Areas. National Parksand World Heritage Areas arecreated because of the particular environmental and cultural values that they contain. However, in creating such areas, they also assume another value in the eyes of thecommunity, which is the additional ‘specialness’ they have because of being made

into a National Park or World Heritage Area. The EPA has togive proper consideration to the expectations of the community in regard to the environmental values of such areas as well as to the community’s expectations for management of these areas. It has been suggested that in carrying out its assessments the EPA should disregard the fact that an area has been afforded National Park (or similar status) and simply report on the environmental effects on the land and other environmental resources, as though they were not National Parks. The EPA does not sharethis view.

Developments in Cockburn Sound

Proposals which impact uponCockburn Sound are particularlychallenging for the EPA.Cockburn Sound has for somedecades been a site for industrialdevelopment, but it is also an areaof considerable importance to thecommunity for a broad range ofrecreation activities, includingfishing and boating. It is perhapsthe State’s most significantmultiple-use area.

Past industrial activities have ledto a major reduction in areas ofseagrass, and have changed thewater quality to the extent thatsome areas of Cockburn Soundnow have a high potential foralgal blooms. Industry has playedits part in reducing wastes flowinginto the Sound, but neverthelessthere is still a diffuse source ofnutrients which impact upon thewater quality.

Noting the current state of waterquality in areas of CockburnSound, each additional proposalfor the area raises public concernand requires the preparation ofdetailed technical information toassist the EPA in its assessmentprocess.

The proposal to establish anindustrial infrastructure andharbour at Jervoise Bay led theEPA to undertake a strategic

14


assessment of Cockburn Sound, sothat each proposal could beconsidered in the context of otherproposals being contemplated.The strategic assessment wasundertaken in conjunction withthe assessment of the Jervoise Bayproposal.

The preparation of the strategicenvironmental assessment reportbrought together scientists fromaround Australia to provide theirbest estimate of the impact on theCockburn Sound ecosystem undera number of developmentscenarios. The results of thatassessment were provided in anEPA report to the Minister.

Industrial infrastructure andharbour development, JervoiseBay (southern harbour)

The EPA assessed and reported onthe proposal by the Department ofCommerce and Trade to build anew harbour and marine-basedindustrial estate at Jervoise Bay, inthe northern portion of CockburnSound.

As a consequence of concernsraised by the EPA and insubmissions received, the originalproposal was modified in twomajor ways. Firstly, the size of theharbour was reduced and an islandoffshore breakwater was includedto improve water circulation.Secondly, a portion of theFremantle-RockinghamControlled Access Highwayalignment was routed alongRussell Road rather than throughBeeliar Regional Park as originallyproposed.

Following an assessment of themodified proposal, the EPAformed the following majorenvironmental conclusions:

• Although the harbour re-designimproved the harbour water,predicted water quality impactsresulting from the marine structures indicated that the harbour would reduce water quality in Jervoise Bay (to the north) and also to the south. Consequently existing poor water quality conditions within

Jervoise Bay would be worsenedby the harbour, with the likelihood of increased frequency of algal blooms.

• Construction of the harbour would cause the loss of 2.1 hectares of seagrass, 17.4 hectares of low relief reef and 200 hectares of mainly sandy seabed previously covered by seagrass. Given the significant historical loss of seagrass in Cockburn Sound, any further loss should be avoided.

• Approximately one third of A Class Reserve 24309, which is part of the Beeliar Regional Park, is proposed to be developed as a part of the harbour. This reserve is locally and regionally significant in terms of its vegetation and landforms, such as coastal cliffs,and it is unlikely that this complex could be replaced by reservation of another area of land.

• Removal of the Controlled Access Highway south of Russell Road from Beeliar Regional Park would be a significant environmental improvement.

The assessment of the JervoiseBay proposal included someimportant statements about theenvironmental assessment process.The report included a sectionwhich reminded readers that therole of the EPA was to provide thebest environmental adviceavailable but it was the role ofGovernment to make decisions.In the case of the Jervoise Bayproposal, the EPA advice was thatwithin the context of the currentwater quality of Cockburn Sound,the proposal was unable to bemanaged to meet the EPAobjective for this factor. TheReport went on to say that theEPA recognised that theGovernment may decide that theproject should be implementedand advised that if this were to beso, such implementation shouldbe accompanied by a broad-basedenvironmental response whichincluded a commitment to an

ongoing program of research andinvestigation aimed at providinginformation on which to baseenvironmental managementdecisions as well as theestablishment of a managementstructure to introduce measures toameliorate the environmentalimpacts. In providing this advice,the EPA recognised that at timesa proponent may not be able toachieve environmental initiativeswhich lead to the overallenvironmental acceptability of aproject but that Government maybe in a position to introducemeasures which provideenvironmental gains in areasoutside the control of theproponent.

Mineral sands mining atJangardup

In April 1999, the EPA reportedon a proposal by Cable Sands(WA) Pty Ltd to extend itscurrent Jangardup heavy mineralsmining operation, locatedapproximately 47 km south ofNannup, into a small part of CClass Reserve 44705, NelsonLocation 13471 which is adjacentto D’Entrecasteaux National Park.The EPA concluded that theproposal could be managed tomeet the EPA’s objectives forvegetation communities,rehabilitation and water quality.

The Jangardup extension involvesthe maximum clearing of fourhectares and the EPA concludedthat the area to be disturbedrepresented an opportunity forCable Sands to demonstraterehabilitation of native vegetationand to restore the conservationvalues of the area.

The EPA, in its consideration ofthe proposal, noted that CableSands made a commitment toprepare and implement a Miningand Restoration Plan for theextension area which wouldaddress clearing, landformrestoration, dieback management,vegetation re-establishment, weedmanagement, completion criteriaand monitoring of rehabilitationsuccess.


15

With regard to water quality andacid sulfate soils, the EPAconsidered information thatindicated the Jangardup orebodywas geologically different from theBeenup orebody, where themanagement of acid sulfate soilswas known to be of considerableimportance. The EPA also notedthat Cable Sands had beenmining in this orebody for sometime and that the results of watermonitoring provided furthersupport that acid sulfate soilswere, perhaps, unlikely to be aproblem in the Jangardupextension.

The EPA is assessing anotherproposal by Cable Sands to minemineral sands at its Jandgardupsouth deposit. This proposal islocated 54 km south of Nannup,close to Lake Jasper, and involvesthe disturbance of 300 hectares ofthe C Class Reserve set aside forthe purpose of conservation andresource management, and 100hectares of freehold land. Theproposal is subject to anEnvironmental Review andManagement Program level ofassessment.

Proposed gypsum mining at RedLake, Shire of Nungarin

In March 1999, the EPArecommended againstimplementing a proposal to strip-mine gypsum dunes on themargins of Red Lake. The duneswere located in a 10 hectare‘window’ of vacant Crown Landin the Lake Campion NatureReserve, which is about 46 kmnorth of Merredin in thewheatbelt.

The proposal was put forward as aproject that could meet the strongdemand for gypsum, which is usedin the wheatbelt for rehabilitatingdegraded Moort soils (hard-settinggrey clays). Research byAgriculture Western Australia hadshown the beneficial effects ofgypsum applications for soils thatwere water-logged and difficult tocultivate due to clayeyconsistency. These types of soilsusually resulted from mechanical

disturbance, such as ploughingand stock puddling.

Gypsum dunes are commonlyfound on the margins of salt lakesin the wheatbelt, and some ofthem have been set aside forconservation. Although gypsum ispresent on land already allocatedfor agriculture, access to thisresource is problematic due to theprivate ownership of the land.

The EPA recognised theimportance of gypsum foragriculture. However, afterexamining the proposal in detail,the EPA recommended against itsimplementation because:

• the vegetation found in reserves surrounding salt lakes is very significant, both due to the unusual nature of plant communities found on the gypsum soils and also because less than 10 per cent of uncleared or unmodified vegetation in the surrounding shire of Nungarin is protected on publicly owned land. Furthermore, the EPA has not been provided with evidence that vegetation can be satisfactorily rehabilitated after strip mining of gypsum dunes;

• due to the extensive clearing in the wheatbelt, any further clearing represents an addition to the already unacceptable cumulative impacts of clearing on the biological diversity in the wheatbelt; and

• due to extensive clearing in the greater region and the consequent loss of natural values, the environs of Red Lake represent considerable heritage value which would be devalued by strip mining 600 metres of dunes from the foreshore of Red Lake.

Derby Tidal Power Project

In its 1997/98 Annual Report, theEPA described a proposal toconstruct a tidal power stationacross the two arms of DoctorsCreek on the tidal flats nearDerby. The proposal attracted

significant public interest, notingthat the proposal, if approved,would be the first tidal powerproject in Australia, and only thethird in the world. The proposalwould also provide renewableenergy. The EPA is supportive ofinnovative renewable energyprojects which would make asubstantial contribution togreenhouse gas savings, and mayalso have benefits in terms oftechnology transfer opportunities.

Unfortunately, the proposal atDoctors Creek was found to havesome environmental concernsthat led the EPA, after a greatdeal of thought, examination anddiscussion, to recommend to theMinister that it should not beimplemented. The concerns aboutthe project were associated withthe regeneration response ofmangroves and associatedecosystems, as well as themanagement of sedimentation.The project would severely impactupon approximately 1,500hectares of mangroves, but wouldcreate up to 2,400 hectares ofpotential mangrove habitat.Whether or not mangroveregeneration would occur isunknown. In addition, the EPAwas aware that Doctors Creek hadbeen identified as a site ofscientific importance resultingfrom geomorphological studiesundertaken by a number ofscientists.

The tidal power project was aparticularly difficult assessment asthe EPA recognised thatexperimentation in renewableenergy carried a value in its ownright. The tidal power proposalwould assist Western Australia,and Western Power in particular,in meeting commitments ongreenhouse reduction and itscommitment to the production oftwo percent renewable energy by2000. However, on examinationof the proposal in detail, the EPArecognised that there would beenvironmental costs and it had tomake a judgement on this matter.The EPA was also aware that theDerby Hydro Power proposal wasone of a number of proposals

16


being considered by theGovernment for the provision ofpower to the West Kimberley. Onbalance, the EPA considered thatsome of the other potential powersupply options would be moreacceptable from an environmentalimpact perspective.

Murrin Murrin Nickel-CobaltProject Stage 2 expansion

Anaconda Nickel Limitedoperates a large nickel-cobaltmining and processing project 60km east of Leonora. In 1998,Anaconda referred to the EPA aproposal to increase theprocessing and production of theapproved Murrin Murrin Nickel-Cobalt Project by approximately250 per cent. This proposalincluded additions to the miningareas, process water borefields,and processing facilities.

The Stage 2 proposal was assessedby the EPA at the level of aPublic Environmental Review,which involved a public reviewperiod of eight weeks. The reviewalso included a site visit by theEPA to hear the concerns of thelocal Aboriginal communities atLaverton, Leonora and MtMargaret regarding the projectand its proposed expansion.

The Murrin Murrin project is alarge scale operation, spread overa distance of approximately 150km, and will affect up toapproximately 120 km2 (12,000hectares) of land over the life ofthe project.

The two most importantenvironmental factors consideredby the EPA were:

• groundwater - effects of groundwater abstraction on other beneficial uses; and

• community liaison - the environmental concerns of local Aboriginal communities.

The EPA’s assessment resulted in arecommendation to the Ministerthat the proposal wasenvironmentally acceptable.

One of the most valuable aspectsof the assessment was thediscussions held by the EPA withthe Aboriginal Communities ofthe area. This led to an invitationto the Chairman and the DeputyChairman to visit the nearby MtMargaret community to furtherdiscuss environmental matters ofimportance with both AnacondaNickel and the Aboriginal people,including the importance of thebaptismal pool in Cement Creek.

Busselton Wastewater TreatmentPlant (WWTP) expansion

The Water Corporation will beupgrading its existing WastewaterTreatment Plant (WWTP) atBusselton to deal with increasingvolumes of human effluent. Theessential element of the project isthat the Water Corporation willtreat increasing amounts ofsewage effluent as the populationof the Busselton area increasesand as septic systems currently inuse are replaced progressively byinfill sewerage.

The project will be in two stages,and will result in there being adischarge of tertiary treatedwastewater to the VasseAgricultural Drainage Networkand then to Geographe Bay on ayear round basis rather than onlyin winter as is currently the case.The implementation of theproject would result in an overalldecrease in phosphorus loads forboth Stages 1 and 2 and Stage 1of the proposal would also resultin a decrease in nitrogen load tothe Vasse Agricultural DrainageNetwork. Stage 2 would dischargeabout the same nitrogen load tothe environment as the currentWWTP.

The Water Corporation will bemonitoring the water quality closeto the discharge point inGeographe Bay, and if the waterquality objectives are not beingmet as a result of the WWTPactivity, a range of othermechanisms will be considered soas to further decrease thedischarge of nutrients. The EPA isaware that most of the nutrients

entering Geograph Bay (about 95per cent) is from a range of diffusesources in the catchment area.

The EPA welcomes a decision bythe Water Corporation to expendfunds on an EnvironmentalImprovement Initiative aimed atreducing nutrient inputs toGeographe Bay from the diffusesources, principally agricultural.This initiative recognises that theexpenditure of some fundsadditional to the cost of theWWTP has the potential to leadto environmental improvement inrelation to the diffuse sourcenutrient levels reachingGeographe Bay.

Ord River Irrigation Area Stage 2Kununurra

The Ord River Irrigation Area islocated on the Weaber, Keep andKnox Creek Plains that straddlethe Western Australian andNorthern Territory border northof Kununurra. Following a call forexpressions of interest by theGovernments of WesternAustralia and the NorthernTerritory for development of theOrd Irrigation Area Stage 2 (M2Channel Supply Area), the EPAreceived a referral fromWesfarmers Sugar Co Pty Ltd/Marubeni Corporation and theWater Corporation of WesternAustralia as co-proponents. Theproposal includes the constructionof about 400 km of water supplychannels and drains to supplyirrigation water to about 35,000ha of land, mostly for sugarcanefarms.

The Western Australian andNorthern Territory Governmentshave agreed that the proposalshould be jointly assessed, but co-ordinated by the EPA. It has alsobeen agreed that the assessmentshould require environmentaldocuments at the level of anEnvironmental Review andManagement Program (ERMP) inWestern Australia andEnvironment Impact Statement(EIS) in the Northern Territory.

Draft guidelines for theERMP/EIS were subject to public


17

comment during April 1999, inaccordance with both theWestern Australian and NorthernTerritory administrativeprocedures, and final guidelineshave now been produced. One ofthe most importantenvironmental aspects is theconservation of biodiversity inrelation to the proposed clearingof 35,000 ha of vegetation. Theguidelines provide specificreference to biodiversity andrequire it to be addressed in theenvironmental review document.In addition, the EPA has haddiscussions with the proponent toprovide further information aboutthe EPA’s expectations in relationto its assessment of biodiversity.Another important matter in theEPA assessment will be the impactof the proposal on the social andcultural heritage values of theAboriginal people.

Water allocation

The EPA is consistantly involvedin the assessment of waterallocation, either at the strategicor the proposal level.

A three-phase allocationassessment approach is being usedby the EPA in co-operation withthe Water and Rivers Commission(WRC) which applies both tosurface water and groundwater.

Phase 1 - Regional water allocation plan or water supply strategy phase

Phase 1 covers preparation by theWRC of regional water allocationplans or strategic water supplystrategies. These plans orstrategies are broad and mayembrace more than one waterresource system and are preparedfollowing an extensive communityconsultation process whichincludes a strategic review ofenvironmental issues. The EPAusually provides advice underSection 16(e) of theEnvironmental Protection Act.

Phase 2 - Subregional/water resource system allocation plan or resource investigation phase

This phase focuses on a particularwater resource system (in wholeor in part) and determines thelimits for potential water resourcedevelopment that would enableecologically sustainable use whilstensuring ongoing protection ofwater-dependent and otherecosystems.

At this stage the EPA may:

• formally assess the environmental water requirements and provisions being proposed to protect water-dependent ecosystems, inaccordance with EPAenvironmental values and objectives. Conditions may then be set by the Minister for the Environment which would legally bind the WRC in the subsequent issuing of water allocation licences. Whereenvironmental water provisionsfor the resource are consistent with EPA environmental values and objectives, the allocation of water available to consumptive uses may be considered to be sustainable; or

• provide strategic advice pursuant to Section 16(e) of the Act on the environmental values and environmental factors arising out of any sourcedevelopment configurations proposed in allocation plans, and identify matters requiring more detailed consideration in project planning (Phase 3).

Phase 3 - Water resource development or water supply project planning

Water supply project planninginvolves preparation of specificpurpose plans to develop aparticular resource (whether asurface or a groundwaterresource), typically six to 10 yearsahead of expected water needs. Aproponent for development of asource (the service provider orsome other water user) develops adetailed source developmentproposal in accordance with asubregional allocation plan. The

proposal is referred to the EPA forpossible assessment under Section38 of the EnvironmentalProtection Act.

If a formal assessment is requiredby the EPA, an environmentalreview is prepared by theproponent and the EPA conductsits assessment in accordance withits procedures for environmentalimpact assessment under Part IVof the Act.

For some projects, particularlylarge ones, there may be a needfor additional, more detailedstrategic environmental guidancefrom the EPA before referral ofthe proposal under Section 38.

Planning Schemes

Changes to planning legislation in1996 meant that under Section48A of the EnvironmentalProtection Act, the EPA wasrequired to assess proposedstatutory regional and townplaning schemes and amendmentsto these schemes.

The EPA completed assessmentsof six statutory planning schemesduring the year, the mainassessment being theMetropolitan Region SchemeAmendment for the re-development of the ForrestfieldMarshalling Yards. The key issuesfor the assessment were:

• protection of a possible habitat of the, Western Swamp, or Short Necked, Tortoise;

• protection of wetlands, notably,Munday Swamp; and

• soil and groundwater contamination.

The EPA also assessed a proposedTown Planning SchemeAmendment in the Shire ofSerpentine-Jarrahdale whichwould allow for the expansion ofthe town of Byford. The site inquestion was a former Navyammunition depot, and isadjacent to an operating brick-works and a clay quarry, andtherefore highly constrained.Furthermore, the site is within the

18


Peel-Harvey Estuary catchmentand is adjacent to some regionallysignificant vegetation.

INDUSTRIAL ESTATES

The EPA welcomes theopportunity to provide strategicadvice to assist government andindustry plan for growth ofindustrial projects but at the sametime take into account therequirements of environmentalprotection.

Kemerton

The report ‘Industry 2030 -Greater Bunbury Industrial Landand Port Access Planning’ wasprepared by the WesternAustralian Planning Commissionto ensure that there were well-located and planned industrialestates and transport routes inBunbury. The EPA providedadvice on the key environmentalissues in August 1998. They were:

• protection of regionally significant vegetation;

• protection of important wetlands, including Mialla Lagoon;

• provision of adequate buffer area to protect existing and future residents from gaseous emissions, noise, dust and risk; and

• drainage management.

The EPA found that while mostenvironmental issues wereadequately dealt with, two issuesrequired further work. These were:

• determining the extent of regionally significant vegetation in the Kemerton area; and

• a comprehensive water management plan to ensurethat significant wetlands and watercourses adjacent to the proposed industrial core areadequately protected.

This additional work is in progresswith a view to the EPA finalising

its advice to the Minister beforethe end of 1999.

Boodarie Industrial Estate, nearPort Hedland

The EPA provided strategicenvironmental advice beforeindustrial projects were consideredfor this area. Use of the site hasnow commenced with thecompletion of the BHP hotbriquetted iron plant.

Oakajee Industrial Estate, nearGeraldton

Again, the EPA provided strategicadvice. Two projects are plannedfor the area, but have notprogressed to date. They are:

• a direct reduced iron/hot briquetted iron plant by Mt Gibson Iron Limited; and

• a steel plant by Kingstream Steel Limited.

Maitland Industrial Estate, nearKarratha

This Estate has been assessed bythe EPA, but currently there areno plans for projects to beestablished there. The EPArecognises that industry wouldprefer to be on Burrup Peninsulawhich is closer to the ports.However, the EPA looks forwardto the time when the MaitlandEstate becomes an attractivealternative to the Burrup.

POLICYDEVELOPMENT

The EPA is moving from a mostlyreactive mode, treating eachproposal and environmentalproblem on its merits, to a moreproactive mode. The transition isgiven effect primarily through thepublication of Position andGuidance Statements. TheAuthority is mindful of two keyaspects of this transition. Firstly, itincreases certainty at the expenseof flexibility. Secondly, it is aresponse to the considerable

amount of feedback the EPAreceives from stakeholders abouthow it conducts its operations.This includes the outcome of the1992 statutory review of theEnvironmental Protection Act1986.

The EPA believes that, with theexperience and maturity reachedafter some twenty-seven years ofoperations, the accumulatedwisdom and policy directionsestablished can be usefullypublished for the benefit ofproponents, decision-makers, peakinterest groups and otherstakeholders.

As well as Position and GuidanceStatements, the EPA hasembarked upon its most intensivework load with respect toEnvironmental ProtectionPolicies. Policies are statutory andenforceable instruments under theEnvironmental Protection Act1986 and must proceed throughan orderly, public process for theirformulation and approval, andthen be reviewed after seven yearsof operation.

Environmental Protection Policies

The Authority is developingState-wide EPPs for groundwaterprotection, marine waters and airquality. As well, it hasforeshadowed the possibility of aState-wide rivers and estuariesEPP sometime in the future.However, legal drafting difficultieshave meant that progress onfinalising these EPPs has slowedwith legislative amendmentsnecessary to enable the Authorityto fulfil its objectives.

While the process of amendmentshas commenced it may be sometime before the EPPs can befinalised. They will then provide acomprehensive and flexiblecoverage of the keyenvironmental resources of theState and allow programs forprotection to be implementedresponsively and responsibly.

Progress on the remaining EPP inprogress, the EnvironmentalProtection (Western Swamp

Tortoise) Policy has also beenslow. Potentially affectedlandowners in the catchments ofthe two last known habitats of thevery rare Western Swamp, orShort Necked, Tortoise haveexpressed concerns about theimplications of an EPP for theirproperty use and values. The EPAhas been working with the Shireof Swan to preparecomplementary measures. TheEPP will establish theenvironmental values to beprotected and land-use controls toprotect those values beingmanaged through a policystatement under the Shire’s TownPlanning Scheme. The EPA ishopeful that this long standing,unfinished EPP can be finalised in1999-2000.

In accordance with therequirement for statutory reviewsof EPPs in place, a number of EPPreviews have been initiated by theEPA in 1998-99. The Authority isrequired to submit a new draftEPP to the Environment Ministerwithin seven years of approval ofthe original EPP. Table 1summarises these requirements.

The review of EPPs must followthe same open and transparentprocess as the original EPP,including full public consultation.

During 1998-99 the EPAcompleted a review of theEnvironmental Protection(Kwinana) (Atmosphere) Policy1992 in which it recommendedthat the existing policy becontinued unchanged. The keyissues raised in public and agencysubmissions during the reviewprocess will be addressed as part ofthe State-wide air quality EPP(which will also incorporate therequirements to meet WesternAustralia’s obligations under theNational Environment ProtectionMeasure for air). Where issues ofallowable land uses in industry -urban separation distances wereinvolved, these have been referredto the Ministry for Planning aspart of its FRIARS study.

An amendment to theEnvironmental Protection Act

1986 (assented to on 21 May1998) provided for the Minister todeem a National EnvironmentProtection Measure made underthe National EnvironmentalProtection (Western Australia)Act 1996 to be an approved EPPfor implementation purposes.

Position Statements

The EPA initiated PositionStatements in early 1998 for thepurposes of demonstratingleadership and vision inenvironmental matters,documenting values and beliefs ofthe EPA for guiding policyformulation and environmentaldecision-making, and conveyingpractical wisdom on higher orderenvironmental policy topics.

The first position statement,“Environmental Protection ofCape Range Province”, wasreleased soon afterwards. Sincethat time, the EPA has beenworking on position statementsfor:

• rangelands;• wetlands;• special (environmental) areas;• principles for environmental

protection;• remnant vegetation protection

and management;• standards for biological surveys;• benthic primary producers;

• gypsum mining; and• social surroundings (with

respect to the definition of “environment”).

A number of these are expected tobe released during 1999. For moreinformation see Appendix 4.

Guidance Statements

Guidance Statements are issuedby the EPA to assist proponents,and the public generally, to knowthe minimum requirements forelements of the environmentwhich the EPA would expect tobe met in the assessment process.Proponents are naturallyencouraged to do better than theminimum set. Proponents able todemonstrate that they will meetor exceed the requirements arelikely to find that their assessmentwill be more straight-forward andtake less time. A proponent whowishes to deviate from theminimum level of performance ina Guidance Statement would beexpected to put a well researchedand clear justification to the EPAarguing the need for thatdeviation.

A list of Guidance Statementsprogressed during the year tovarious levels can be found atAppendix 5.


19

Table 1: The current EPPs and their review dates.

Name Approval Date Review Date

Environmental Protection (Kwinana) 17.07.92 17.07.99(Atmosphere) Policy 1992

Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet-Harvey 11.12.92 11.12.99Estuary) Policy 1992

Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal 18.12.92 18.12.99 Plains Lakes) Policy 1992

Environmental Protection (Gnangara Mound 24.12.92 24.12.99 Crown Land) Policy 1992

Environmental Protection (Goldfields 29.01.93 29.01.2000 Residential Areas) (Sulphur Dioxide) Policy 1992

Environmental Protection (Ozone Protection) 10.09.93 10.09.2000 Policy 1993

Environmental Protection (Swan Canning 10.07.98 10.07.2005 Rivers) Policy 1998

Environmental Protection (South West 28.10.98 28.10.2005Agriculture Zone Wetlands) Policy 1997

20

LEGISLATION ISSUES

Waste Management (WA)

Recent changes to theEnvironmental Protection Acthave meant that the EPA nowmonitors the operations of WasteManagement (WA).

Waste Management (WA)currently operates the intractablewaste disposal facility at MtWalton East and the septage andindustrial liquid waste treatmentplant at Forrestdale. In May 1999,the EPA finalised by tender theappointment of an independentauditor to assist the EPA inregulating the operations of WasteManagement (WA).

Intractable waste disposalfacility, Mt Walton East

The EPA has assessed andapproved the TransportManagement Plan andEnvironmental Management Planfor disposal of Kanowna BelleGold Mine’s arsenic waste at theintractable waste disposal facility,Mt Walton East. This is the thirdyear of a 20 year program byKanowna Belle Gold Mines todispose of arsenic waste at thisfacility.

The EPA is currently assessingproposed changes to conditionsunder Section 46 of theEnvironmental Protection Act to:

• extend the time limit on approval for this facility;

• introduce waste acceptance criteria for each disposal activity at this facility; and

• consolidate the existing Ministerial Statements into a single Ministerial Direction to provide a clear, relevant and workable set of Ministerial Conditions and proponent commitments.

Septage and industrial liquidwaste treatment plant,Forrestdale

The EPA recently commencedassessment, at ConsultativeEnvironmental Review level, of aproposal to change the status ofthe septage and industrial liquidwaste treatment plant atForrestdale to include acceptanceof hazardous waste.

Dairy Regulations

The EPA became aware of thesignificance of dairy farms asnutrient sources when theproposal to upgrade the BusseltonWaste Water Treatment Plant wasfirst raised in 1998. It wastherefore a consideration duringthe assessment of that project.

The EPA was aware thatAgriculture Western Australia, incollaboration with the dairyindustry, the Water and RiversCommission and the Departmentof Environmental Protection hadrecently released guidelines on theEnvironmental Management forAnimal Based Industries - DairyFarm Effluent. Whilst thisdocument provides excellentguidelines for the dairy industry,there was no statutory frameworkto assist in their implementation.The EPA considered the lack ofregulations to be an importantfactor, and essential to progresscontinuous improvement inenvironmental protection.

Accordingly, the Authority agreedto the drafting of regulations toaddress the discharge of nutrientsfrom dairy farms. In doing so, itwas aware that many dairy farmersalready met the guidelines andthat nutrient problems did notexist in all areas. To address these,the proposed regulations will bestructured so as to apply only inareas where it has beendemonstrated that a nutrientproblem exists and that dairyfarms are a significant source. TheDepartment of EnvironmentalProtection has advised that,following consultation with allkey stakeholders, the regulationsshould be finalised early in 2000.

PROPOSEDCHANGES TO EPAADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURES

Section 122 of the EnvironmentalProtection Act empowers the EPAto set down AdministrativeProcedures which indicate theway in which the EPA will carryout some of its functions.

During the year, the EPA gaveconsideration to the proceduresfor conducting the environmentalimpact assessment process, with aview to making improvements.

In particular, the EPA was mindfulof the need to have two newcategories of assessment tomanage referrals under Section 38of the Act. Firstly, a method ofcarrying out an expeditedassessment (called anEnvironmental ProtectionStatement) but without reducingthe assessment rigour and the fullappeal rights. Secondly, it wasthought desirable to be able toprovide a ‘quick no’ for proposalsthat were unlikely to be able to bemade environmentally acceptable.

Draft Administrative Procedureswere prepared and then discussedwith key stakeholders and peakgroups including the Chamber ofMinerals and Energy, WAConservation Council, Chamberof Commerce and Industry,Australian Petroleum Productionand Exploration Association,Department of Minerals andEnergy and Department ofResources Development.

Final Draft AdministrativeProcedures have been prepared toaccommodate the two new levelsof assessment and to alter thepublic review period for the PublicEnvironmental Review (PER)from normally eight weeks, tobetween four and ten weeks.Although the ConsultativeEnvironmental Review level ofassessment is still available, its usewill mostly be taken over by theEnvironmental Protection


21

Statement or a ‘limited issue’Public Environmental Review.

The ‘quick no’ would only be usedoccasionally and only followingseveral consultations with theproponent to improve or relocatethe proposal.

It is anticipated that the proposedchanges will be gazetted early inthe next financial year andtrialled. Gazettal of the fullyrevised, AdministrativeProcedures is planned within thenext 12 months.

It is proposed that anEnvironmental ProtectionStatement can be one of twokinds:-

• Proponent-initiated. Whereby the proponent consults with interested members of the community whilst preparing their environmental review documentation so that community views can be accommodated prior to referral,and the need for broad public review is reduced.

• EPA-initiated. When the EPAreceives a referral, it may decide that the proposal is straightforward but would benefit from having Environmental Conditions imposed by the Minister for theEnvironment.

SITE VISITS CARRIEDOUT BY THE EPA

During the year, various EPAmembers (subject to availability)travelled within the State toexamine proposals in the field andto meet with proponents on-site.

Although time consuming, theseEPA site visits have been valuableand proponents have welcomedthe opportunity to meet with theEPA to discuss issues in a lessformal setting. Relevant staff fromthe Department of EnvironmentalProtection accompanied the EPA.

Whenever possible, EPA membersuse the opportunity of being inthe field to meet with key localstakeholders, including localgovernment CEO’s and ShirePresidents, and other interest andconservation groups, andAboriginal communities.

Other site visits were also carriedout by individual EPA members,mostly the Chairman and DeputyChairman.

Site visits have proved veryvaluable in a number of ways,including:

• they give EPA members a clearer understanding of the environmental setting of a proposal;

• they provide an opportunity formeeting proponents, addressingissues, and networking in an informal atmosphere whilst on-site;

• they provide an opportunity forthe mutual exchange of views and make it easier to communicate with proponents and others through telephone interaction or subsequent formal EPA board meetings;

• they lead to better environmental advice being provided to the Minister;

• they enhance the identity of the EPA as an independent institution; and

• they provide an identity to an otherwise “invisible” Board.

A list of the EPA and other sitevisits is given in Appendix 6.

ADVISORY COUNCILTO THEENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAUTHORITY

The Advisory Council to theEnvironmental ProtectionAuthority (ACTEPA) wasestablished to provide advice tothe EPA on a range ofenvironmental issues.

ACTEPA meets bi-monthly and iscomprised of a cross-section ofmembers of the community.Appointees are individuals whocan bring to the table a range ofperspectives and expertise fromindustry, conservation andtechnical fields, rather thanrepresenting particular groups.

Current members:

Chairman Mrs Jan Star

Dr Des Kelly

Mr Harry Butler

Mr Simon Holthouse

Mr Alex Gardner

Mr Graham Slessar

Mrs Marion Blackwell(the above appointments expire on1 September 1999)

Deputy Chairman Mr Norm Halse

Dr Sue Graham-Taylor

Professor Frank Murray

Mr Ian Le Provost

Ms Linda Siddall

Mrs Jos Chatfied(the above appointments expire on1 September 2000)

The Council’s role is to providecomment and advice to the EPAon any matters referred to it bythe EPA. Council may alsoinitiate discussion onenvironmental matters with theEPA.

Eight meetings were held duringthe year. ACTEPA was keptadvised of a range of issues beforethe EPA and their input wassought. Issues covered include:

• Perth airport master plan;

• Transportation routes - social aspects;

• Derby tidal power proposal;

• Fitzroy Basin/West Kimberley developments;

• Perth Coastal Waters Consultative Study;

• Regional Forest Agreement andEPA Compliance Report;


22

• Report on review of environmental implications of Perth Metropolitan TransportStrategy;

• Cockburn Sound developmentsand Section 16(e) approach;

• Perth air quality;

• Biodiversity;

• Progress of Greenhouse Council and Air Quality Coordinating Committee;

• Administrative Procedures;

• Environmental impact assessment;

• Water Law Reform Bill; and

• Environmental assessment of mining proposals and environmental objections in the Warden’s Court.

The EPA records its appreciationof the time and effort taken byAdvisory Council members duringthe year.


23

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 98-99 APPENDIX 1

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

The role of the Environmental Protection Authority

The EPA is an independent advisory body and provides overarching policy advice to the Minister forthe Environment. Its objectives, as stated in the Environmental Protection Act, are to protect theenvironment and to prevent, control and abate pollution.

The EPA carries out a number of functions in pursuing its objectives including:

• environmental impact assessment;

• formulating environmental policies;

• co-ordinating activities necessary to protect, restore or improve the environment of the State;

• seeking information and providing advice; and

• carrying out studies, investigations and research into problems of environmental protection.

A major role of the EPA is to ensure the environment is protected when development decisions aremade. It does this by providing high level independent environmental advice to the Minister for theEnvironment and others so that environmental considerations are taken into account in the decision-making process.

Approval of proposals and the environmental conditions to be imposed on developments are made bythe Minister, who may take into account broader issues than those considered by the EPA.

Under the Environmental Protection Act, environment is defined as “living things, their physical,biological and social surroundings and the interactions between all of these”. The Act further explainsthat “the social surroundings of man are his aesthetic, cultural, economic and social surroundings to theextent that these surroundings directly affect or are affected by his physical or biological surroundings.”The EPA interprets environment to include beneficial use and risk associated with the environment.

General approach taken by the EPA

The EPA is regarded by the community as an advocate for the environment and believes thattransparency of process is fundamental to the effective development of environmental policy and to theimplementation of environmental protection.

In evaluating issues, the EPA seeks input from stakeholders and the public through liaison, publicmeetings, submissions, as well as through site visits with proponents and members of the community

The broad principles of ecologically sustainable development and biodiversity provide a valuablestarting point for the EPA. However, recommendations are also made on the basis of protecting:

• ecological processes;

• biodiversity;

• declared rare flora and fauna;

• vegetation associations and habitat;

• water quality and quantity (marine, estuarine, fresh and brackish waters);

• air quality and quantity;

• soils and land;

• individuals and society from risk; and

• beneficial uses of the environment.

These elements are considered during the assessment of each development proposal assessed by theEPA. The EPA also considers the environmental management framework for each proposal to ensurethat the whole proposal and all of its environmental impacts are managed. This includes environmentalmanagement plans, objectives and performance indicators. Proponents are encouraged to conduct an

24

APPENDIX 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 98-99

annual audit and a periodic review of their operations in keeping with the broad philosophy of ensuringcontinuous improvement in environmental management.

The Organistaion for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Pressure-State-Responsemodel, which was used in the preparation of the National State of the Environment Report, provides avaluable framework for considering the management of environmental change. The main elements ofthis model are:

• human activities place pressure on the environment;

• these pressures change the quality and/or quantity of natural resources, ie. the state of the environment is changed; and

• growth of the society will inevitably lead to a change in the environment however, this must be accompanied by an environmental response initiative which either enhances the environment or ameliorates the impacts and manages the environment.

A series of non-statutory statements has been developed to set out the EPA’s view on specificenvironmental matters, giving proponents and the community an understanding of the EPA’s views.They are designed to increase certainty for proponents and the public. If the EPA’s views areincorporated early in project development by proponents, assessments can be carried out more rapidly.

Role of the proponent

A common concern raised with the EPA each year is that the Environmental Impact Assessmentprocess is biased because the proponent has the responsibility to prepare, or have prepared, theenvironmental impact statement (EIS). The idea is that the proponent, who has the greatest stake inhaving the project proceed, should not be given the opportunity to control the development of themajor document on which the environmental impacts of the project are likely to be judged.

However, the proponent has a pivotal role to play in the preparation of the EIS, provided theappropriate checks and balances are in place. The EIS is the prime way for proponents to ensure thatenvironmental factors are given consideration in project decision-making.

It should be remembered that an EIS is only one element of the process of environmental impactassessment (EIA). There are a number of steps in EIA in WA which are designed to ensure theobjectivity and adequacy of the information which is available to the decision-making authority. Thesesteps can be summarised as:

• the guidelines for the preparation of an EIS are set by an assessment division within the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP);

• the guidelines are public and at one level of assessment the guidelines are available for public comment;

• the EIS can be released only after the assessment division of the DEP is satisfied that the document isappropriate for release;

• the public has the opportunity to comment on the EIS after it has been approved for release;

• the proponent is required to respond to public comments on the EIS, and the response is also available to the public;

• the EPA provides the Minister for the Environment, who is the decision-making authority, with an assessment report on the project after receiving advice from the the DEP assessment division and many others; and

• the public (and the proponent) have a further opportunity to provide advice or information to the Minister, in the form of an appeal, following the public release of the EPA report.

An essential element in the EIA process is the involvement of the proponent in the preparation of theEIS. It is only through this mechanism that the proponent will appreciate the environmental impacts ofthe proposed project, and thus the need for good project design and a management program toameliorate those impacts. The EPA encourages and expects the proponent to give a high priority toenvironmental responsibility, including the preparation of the list of environmental commitments aspart of its management program. This can be achieved only if the proponent is fully involved in aconsideration of the environmental impacts of a project through the preparation of the EIS. The EIS

25


forces the proponent to consider environmental factors in project formulation. It is also important forthe proponent and their consultant to prepare the EIS as though looking at the project through the eyesof the EPA. It needs to be as truthful and as full as possible.

EPA linkage with government agencies

The EPA seeks advice from agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, theMinistry for Planning and WA Planning Commission, the Water and Rivers Commission, theDepartment of Conservation and Land Management, the National Parks and Nature ConservationAuthority and the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority.

Department of Environmental Protection

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the main service department of the EPA,although the EPA uses staff and facilities of other departments by arrangement with the Ministerconcerned. The DEP carries out a variety of functions under the general guidance of the EPA, includingenvironmental impact assessment and preparation of draft reports, research and co-ordination functionsin relation to the environment, pollution prevention and management, and the preparation of draftpolicies.

To foster a better working relationship, the EPA and DEP hold a planning day each year at which issuesand management approaches are scoped, and important understandings about resource sharing,independence of advice and other matters are reached. The planning days provide an opportunity forthe EPA, the CEO and Directors of the DEP to understand the various complexities and constraints ofEPA and DEP functions.

The Ministry for Planning and W A Planning Commission

The EPA has two distinct relationships with the Ministry for Planning (MfP) and Western AustralianPlanning Commission (WAPC). The first is with the MfP and WAPC as proponents of planningschemes and amendments. The second is with those agents as advisers on planning matters.

Regular meetings are held between the EPA Chairman and Chairman of the WAPC (approximatelymonthly). Meetings are also held with the CEOs of MfP and DEP to discuss matters impinging onplanning and environment and the implementation of assessments through Section 48A of theEnvironmental Protection Act.

The Water and Rivers Commission

Two distinct relationships also exist with the Water and Rivers Commission and the EPA: one aproponent (eg for water allocation plans,) and the other as a provider of expert advice on matterspertaining to water resource protection and management as inputs to the environmental assessmentprocess.

The EPA receives briefings and advice from officers of the Water and Rivers Commission on waterresource management issues relating to proposals, and it assesses water allocation plans.

The Department of Conservation and Land Management

In the case of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), the EPA has threedifferent working relationships. CALM is a proponent for forestry proposals (Forest Management Plans)which are assessed by the EPA. CALM is also a key provider of expert advice on conservation andbiodiversity issues during the environmental assessment process. The third area is that of auditingcompliance with Environmental Conditions set by the Minister for the Environment. The very differentnature of these three working relationships can present management challenges.

It is essential for the EPA and CALM to work closely together to ensure that the different aspects oftheir working relationship are undertaken in an effective and efficient manner.

26


Appendix 2

Formal assessments

Bulletin No. Title Release date

900 TPS No. 2 Amend 77 Rezone from ‘Rural’ to‘Residential’, July 1998‘Commercial’, ‘Public Open Space Reserve’, ‘Public andCommunity Purpose Reserve’ and ‘Mixed use’ Zones.Pt lots 521 & 523 South Western Highway Byford.Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale

901 Medium term management strategy for dredging of shell- August1998sand Owen Anchorage. Cockburn Cement Limited

904 Groundwater Resource Allocation and Management Plan October 1998to allow for development of Lexia Groundwater Scheme,Ellenbrook area. Water and Rivers Commission

905 White Opal-1 Exploration Well Cape, Range Peninsula, October 1998Exmouth. Victorian Petroleum NL

906 City of Rockingham TPS 1 Amend 295 Rezone from October 1998‘Rural’ to ‘Baldivis Town Centre’ Zone, Lots 6, 13 & PtLot 26 Cnr Narin Road and Safety Bay Road, Baldivis.City of Rockingham

908 Industrial Infrastructure and Harbour Development October 1998Jervoise Bay. Department of Commerce and Trade

909 Walpole wastewater scheme, Stage 1 at Site ‘C’ Walpole. November 1998Water Corporation

911 Clearing of 250 hectares of land, Victoria location November 199810323 - 65 km north of Dandaragan. Thomas Owen Glover

913 Mining Area C - Multiple iron ore mine development November 1998project, 100km NW of Newman Shire of East Pilbara.BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd

914 Chelonia-1 and Chelonia-2 exploration wells adjacent to November 1998boundary of Ningaloo Marine Park, North West Shelf.Apache Energy Limited

915 Narngulu to Oakajee Rail Service Corridor, Narngulu and November 1998Oakajee. Westrail

916 Brickworks Lot 6 Bushmead Road and Lots 6, 103 & 151 December 1998Lakes Road Hazelmere. Saracen Properties Pty Ltd

917 Clearing of 280 hectares of land Victoria location 10641, December 1998Half Way Mill Roadhouse, 8km west of Warradarge.Mr DG Martin

918 Fish farm for prawns, artemia, oysters and scallops on tidal December 1998flats in the upper reaches of East Doctors Creek, Derby.Kimberley Prawn Company

919 Two small open pit gold operations (Mt Charlotte Reward December 1998and Northern Orebody Open Pits and Floor Pillars),Mt Charlotte lease, Kalgoorlie. Kalgoorlie ConsolidatedGold Mine

920 Expansion of existing Titanium Dioxide pigment plant to January 1999190,000 TPA, Kemerton Industrial Park. MillenniumInorganic Chemicals

27



921 City of Gosnells TPS 1 Amend 478 Primarily to rezone January 1999400ha from ‘Rural’ to ‘Residential Development’ Landbounded by Garden St, Nicholson, Dumbarton, Campbell,Amherst and Warton Roads, Canningvale. City of Gosnells

922 Subdivision Lot 11 Bridge Road and Lot 6 Garden (Haigh) January 1999Street Canning Vale. Term Pty Ltd

923 Subdivision Lots 5, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 Haigh (Garden), January 1999Bridge and Shreeve Roads, Canning Vale, Term Pty Ltd

924 West Angeles Iron Ore project, 130km west of Newman, January 1999East Pilbara. Robe River Mining

925 MRS Amendment No. 984/33 Forrestfield Marshalling January 1999Yards & Kewdale Freight Terminal. WAPC

926 City of Belmont TPS 11 Amend 100 Zone the Kewdale January 1999Freight terminal & Pt of Forrestfield Marshalling Yards for“Industrial” & related purposes Forrestfield. City ofBelmont.

927 Shire of Kalamunda DPS 2 Amend 177 Primarily to January 1999rezone land from ‘Railway Reservation’ to ‘GeneralIndustry’ (Forrestfield Marshalling Yards) Kewdale. Shireof Kalamunda.

928 Change to Environmental Conditions – Amendments to the March 19991987 Forest Management Plans and Timber Strategy andproposals to meet Environmental Conditions of theRegional Plans and the WACAP ERMP. Department ofConservation & Land Management

929 Red Lake Gypsum mining, Mining Titles M77/528 & March 1999L77/172 2km, east of Chandler, Shire of Nungarin.Aurex Pty Ltd

930 Ravensthorpe nickel project, Bandalup Hill, Ravensthorpe. March 1999Comet Resources NL

931 Murrin Murrin Stage 2 expansion, 60km east of Leonora. April 1999Anaconda Nickel Ltd

932 Change to Environmental Conditions - heavy minerals April 1999mine Jangardup. Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd

933 Guildford cemetery development and expansion and April 1999realignment of Kalamunda Road, South Guildford.Metropolitan Cemeteries Board.

934 Shark Bay Salt Joint Venture, Construction of Additional April 1999Crystallisers, Useless Loop, Shark Bay. Shark Bay Resources

935 Change to Environmental Conditions - Relocation of May 1999Cedric Street Wetlands, Stirling. City of Stirling

936 Red October open cut gold mine, 80km south of Laverton. June 1999Sons of Gwalia Ltd

28



937 Change to Environmental Conditions - upgrading and June 1999re-opening of Toodyay Abattoir, Lot 590 Church GullyRoad, Toodyay. Mr GJ Johnson

938 Integrated regional waste processing facility Pt lits 78 and June 199985 Bannister Road, Canning Vale. Southern MetropolitanRegional Council

939 Residential development Lots 1 and 2 Baldivis Road, June 1999Baldivis. Karinya Nominess Pty Ltd, Dalacan Pty Ltd &Benara Nominees Pty Ltd

940 Proposal to construct a road across Vasse Estuary, Ford June 1999Road, Shire of Busselton. Shire of Busselton

941 Ocean Beach Limesand project application for, Mining June 1999lease 70/908 and continued limesand mining Reserve249134 Denmark, Shire of Denmark

942 Tidal Power Station, East and West Doctors Creek, and June 1999transmission lines to Derby and Broome.Derby Hydro Power Pty Ltd

29


Appendix 3

Section 16(e) Strategic advice in preparation 1998-99

Project Title Current Status

Acquaculture Strategy, Kimberley. Proponent environmental review document in preparation

Development Concept - Turquoise Coast, Jurien. Draft Guidelines in preparation

Gypsum Mine within Francois National Park, EPA inspected site in June 1999. Preparation of Cape Peron, Shark Bay EPA Report not yet initiated

Industrial – Fremantle/Rockingham Industrial EPA Report in preparationArea Regional Scheme (FRIARS)

Industrial Park Expansion, Kemerton Strategy for assessment in preparation

Land Clearing EPA Report in preparation

Petroleum Exploration and Development within Draft EPA Report in preparation prior to releaseShark Bay World Heritage Property for public review

Road – Controlled Access Highway from Proponent environmental review document Fremantle to Rockingham South of Rollinson approved for release for public reviewRoad.

Road (Southern Link) – Corridor and Alignment Strategy for assessment in preparationSelection Study for Future East-West FreightRoad Linking East-West Regional Road, BrooktonHighway, Westdale to South West Highway,Mundijong

Sewage – Implementation Plan to Reduce Sewage On holdOverflows into Swan and Canning Rivers.

Transport Strategies (DOT) - Metropolitan and Strategy for assessment in preparationcountry Areas.

Water Allocation - Draft Interim Plan for the Proponent environmental review document in Ord River preparation

Water – Drainage Water Quality and Impact on Three stage process:Receiving Water Bodies 1. Scope completed;

2. Data collection phase commenced; and3. EPA Report will be prepared after phase 2

completed

Section 16(e) Strategic advice completed 1998-99

Project Title Date completed

Structure Plan - Exmouth-Learmonth (North July 1998West Cape)

Derby Tidal Power July 1998

Industrial Land and Port Access - Greater August 1998Bunbury Area

Water - Perth’s Water Future: A Supply Strategy September 1998for Perth and Mandurah

Marine Environment of Cockburn Sound October 1998

Water Allocation Plan, Harvey Basin November 1998

30


Appendix 4

Position Statements

Project Title Current Status

Benthic Primary Producers Draft in preparation

Biodiversity Under consideration

Biological Surveys – Standards for Draft in preparation

Cape Range Final in preparation

Gypsum Mining Draft in preparation

Principles of Environmental Protection for WA Draft in preparation

Rangelands Draft in preparation

Special Areas Under consideration. Special Areas Workshops held

Social Surroundings Under consideration

Vegetation (remnant) - Protection and Management Under consideration

Wetlands Preliminary in preparation

Note:

‘Under consideration’ (drafting not commenced)

‘Draft in prep’ (drafting commenced)

‘Preliminary in prep’ (when approved it will be released for public review)

‘Final in prep’ (taking into account public comments)

‘Final’

31


Appendix 5

Draft Guidance Statements in preparation

Aboriginal, Culture and Heritage *Gas Pipelines (High Pressure), Residential Development in Proximity *

Mosquitoes

Noise, Transport - Road and Rail

Odour Impacts, Assessment

Shark Bay World Heritage Property, Assessment of Development Proposals

System 6/Perth’s Bushplan: Assessment of Proposals *

Wetlands, Protection

Mangroves, Pilbara

Draft Guidance Statements

Buffer Areas, Separation Distance between Industrial and Residential Areas *

Environmental Management Systems

Groundwater Environmental Management Areas *

Noise, Environmental *

Petroleum (Offshore), Exploration and Production

Rangelands (State) Protection

Seagrass, Habitat Protection

Surface Run-off, Management of from Industrial and Commercial Sites

Preliminary Guidance Statements

Biomedical Waste Incinerators, Management of Air Emissions

Gas Turbines, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen *

Planning Schemes, Guidance for Assessment *

Interim Guidance Statements

Development Sites, Air Quality Impacts *

Contaminated Sites Management - A Remediation Hierarchy *

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Minimisation *

Risk Assessment and Management: Offsite Individual Public Risk

Waste - Liquid Hazardous Waste, Deep and Shallow Well Injection

Final Guidance Statements

Lake Clifton, Protection

Linkages between EPA Assessment and Guidelines, Standards and Measures Adopted by NationalCouncils

* Progress of these Guidance Statements is EPA’s priority for action.

32


Appendix 6

EPA Site visits 1998-99

Date Site Participants

7 July 1998 City of Cockburn Information tour by Shire of Cockburn Bowen, Robinson, Green

27 - 29 July 1998 Yarloop Mine Site and South West Forests (with Joanna Bowen, Robinson, Young and Noel Fitzpatrick) Green

9-11 September 1998 Burrup Peninsula, West Angelas port facility & minesite, Bowen, Robinson, Millstream-Chichester National Park, Aboriginal heritage Green, Mattiske, areas, Maitland Industrial Estate Glennon

9-11 November 1998 Geraldton, Oakajee Industrial Estate, Mt Gibson, Bowen, Robinson, Tallering Peak, Narngulu, local authorities Green

23-24 November 1998 Anaconda’s nickel-cobalt project at Murrin Murrin and Bowen, Robinson, surrounds, meetings with Aboriginal community Mattiske (part)

3-6 March 1999 Exmouth - Whitecrest operations, Maud’s Landing, Bowen, Robinson, Ningaloo Marine Park, Exmouth port and drilling areas, GreenWater Corporation wellfield

18-19 March 1999 D’Entrecasteaux National Park - Cable Sands Jangardup Bowen, Robinson, mining operations, community and environmental groups Green, Mattiske

13-15 April 1999 Kununurra - Ord Irrigation project area, Shire Bowen, Robinson, representatives and community groups, Lake Argyle Green, MattiskeDiamonds

28 June-2 July 1999 Shark Bay World Heritage Area - Shark Bay Resources Bowen, Robinson, projects, Shire representatives Green

Other site visits by EPA Members

Date Site Participants

21-22 September 1998 Karratha/Dampier Port Authority Bowen, Robinson

3-4 December 1998 Kalgoorlie meetings with community groups & KCGM Bowen, Robinson

16-17 February 1999 Jurien meetings with land clearing applicants Bowen, Robinson

18-19 February 1999 Esperance - Ravensthorpe Nickel project, Esperance Bowen, RobinsonShire Council, Esperance Port Authority, communityand environmental groups

17-19 March 1999 BHP Beenup Mineral Sands -Decommissioning Bowen, Robinson, Mattiske

18 May 1999 Harvey Dam project Bowen, Robinson, Mattiske

26-29 May 1999 Kununurra - Ord Irrigation project aerial vegetation Bowen, Robinson, surveys Mattiske


33

Appendix 7

Funding

The administration costs of the EPA are as follows:

1998-99 1997-98

($‘000) ($‘000)

Recurrent

Salaries, wages and allowances 327 291

Other Expenses

Staff related expenses 63 37

Communications 4 13

Services and contracts 142 108

Consumable supplies 12 27

Work in progress 30 -

Other 19 2

597 478

Electoral Act 1907 (Section 175ZE Disclosure)

There has been nil expenditure in relation to this Act during the 1998/99 financial year.

Environmental Protection Authority - EPA WA · Advisory Council to the Environmental 21 Protection...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Protection Authority - EPA WA · Advisory Council to the Environmental 21 Protection...