Outcome:	1. Environment			Question Nos: 5–9
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	False Cape
Hansard Page ECITA:	99, 100, 101 

Senator  McLucas  asked:
5.	It looks a lot like a road, doesn’t it? For the benefit of others who might not know where this is, this is between the wet tropics World Heritage area and the Great Barrier Reef. We are talking about a piece of land on East Trinity that is between two World Heritage areas, and the picture that I have provided to you is meant to be about seeking geotechnical information. That looks like a road to me. You have confirmed it looks like a road to you. I do not know how that complies with the approvals that you have given. 

6.	When officers visited the site in December of this year, why did they attend?.....Could you take that on notice and tell me why officers visited the site in late December this year?

7.	Let us move to the initial agreement. Looking through the initial agreement, I can find conditions that are relevant to the construction of buildings-how high they are going to be and whatever; and that seems to be about visual amenity, and that is fine-but very little about stormwater run-off, erosion questions. More fundamentally, there is some discussion, especially in the minister’s press release, about the impact on the Great Barrier Reef, but none at all about the Wet Tropics World Heritage area. Can you explain why there was some discussion, albeit limited, about potential impact on the reef but none at all on the impact on the Wet Tropics World Heritage area?

8.	It is hard to get to but extremely visible, and the impact of this development will be huge. I am concerned to know about the ability of your department to monitor these stringent conditions that the minister has signed off on. 

9(a).	Why was the Wet Tropics Management Authority not consulted in the approval process? 
9(b).	Can you also advise what sort of ongoing monitoring the Department of the Environment and Heritage will undertake to ensure compliance? If the answer is that you will wait until July next year after the wet season, after we have had major rains with those sort of cuts around the place, then well and good. But I would like to know what the compliance regime with the ‘stringent conditions’ that the government has applied to this site will be. 

Answer/s:
5.	The Australian Government’s approval for the False Cape development does not allow for any construction of the actual resort and residential development on False Cape until a number of plans have been approved. 
•	Geotechnical investigations, involving the construction of access tracks to support a geotechnical drilling rig, no greater than 4 metres wide, have been permitted to enable the company to determine the final design and construction requirements necessary to prepare a plan in accordance with condition 5 of the Commonwealth approval. 
•	To minimise erosion and sedimentation, the cuts and batters associated with the access tracks were required to be re-vegetated and mulched as soon as possible after completion. 
•	Vegetation clearance from the access track construction was restricted to a minimum of 2.5ha. 
•	Further, all works were required to be carried out in accordance with the Cairns City Council approval for preliminary roadwork on the site. Council officers routinely inspect the site. 
•	The Department is satisfied that, to date, these conditions have been met but continues to closely monitor the progress of this project. 

6.	In December 2005, two officers from the Department visited the False Cape site as part of ongoing monitoring of the site. The site visit revealed that:
•	all access tracks were of a necessary width to allow the geotechnical investigations to occur, with the occasional passing bay for machinery;
•	hydromulching was being carried out to minimise erosion and sedimentation runoff; 
•	temporary silt traps and bunding were in place to minimise silt and sedimentation leaving the site; 
•	there was minimal vegetation clearance from constructing the access  tracks; and
•	the access tracks did not cut through to False Cape beach. 
The Cairns City Council has advised that these measures appear to be effectively mitigating the erosion and sedimentation runoff from the site, which have included recent high rainfalls. 

7.	The Conservation Agreement was developed to ensure long term protection of the site and to ensure that future owners do not impact on the aesthetic values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Matters regarding the management of stormwater runoff and erosion have been dealt under condition 5 of the approval conditions. There was no detailed consideration of the potential impact on the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (and consequently consultation with the Wet Tropic Management Authority) as the False Cape development is approximately 2km from this World Heritage property and is not expected to have an unacceptable impact on its values. 

8.	All projects approved under the EPBC Act undergo a compliance risk assessment at the time of approval and a database is used to monitor ensuing activity. The Department’s monitoring and audit program involves a range of measures including compliance checking, site visits, audits and the exercise of monitoring warrants if necessary. Specific monitoring of the False Cape development will include:
•	a review of the annual compliance certificate from the proponent in accordance with condition 8;  
•	an independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval in accordance with condition 9; and
•	regular monitoring site visits as the project develops.

The Act contains significant penalties for a breach of approval conditions.   

9(a). See 7. above.

9(b). See 8. above.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 10
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	EPBC Case Studies
Hansard Page ECITA:	102

Senator Siewert asked:
Senator Siewert—So there is one case where they have been formally required to pay and remediate and a number of others have been negotiated informally. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr Early—Informally, not through the legal system. But they are formal agreements. In fact, the one that the minister just mentioned is costing the company in the order of $400,000. So it is formal as far as they are concerned.
Senator Ian Campbell—Mr Early referred to a report on this. It might pay to give Senator Siewert that report.
Mr Early—There have been a number of case studies in our annual report so I can dig them out and give them to you.

Answer:
The EPBC Act annual reports which present a number of case studies on the operation of the Act can be viewed on the internet at: 

http://www.deh.gov.au/about/publications/annual-report/

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  12
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife
Topic:	Threatened Marine Species
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked:
What progress has been made in the assessment and listing of commercial species including the Orange Roughy, Eastern Gemfish, Harrisson's Deepsea Dogfish, Southern Dogfish and Endeavour Dogfish?

Answer/s:
The Threatened Species Scientific Committee has substantially progressed its assessment of these five marine species.