EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline for Environmental Offsets (Draft)

Environmental Assessment Guidelines

EAG

X

DRAFT

Environmental Assessment Guideline

for

Environmental offsets

October 2012

Environmental Protection Authority

Western Australia

DRAFT

Foreword The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has developed this draft guideline to help proponents understand the need to consider environmental offsets for the purpose of environmental impact assessment.

The guideline provides advice to proponents on the principles of environmental offsets including guidance on determining the circumstances under which offsets may be required, and how to develop an appropriate offset package.

The EPA is looking for proponents to:

1. first, determine if there is a significant residual impact or risk;

2. if so, propose an offset that is proportionate and relevant to the impacts; and

3. ensure the proposed offset is consistent with this guideline.

The EPA’s overarching objective is to counterbalance any significant residual environmental impacts and risks of a proposal through the application of offsets. While it is recognised that this may not always be achievable, the EPA expects the proponent to develop offset proposals which aim to achieve this outcome.

The EPA prefers to maintain a flexible approach to determining offset requirements, so that the impacts of a particular proposal can be considered in the local context. This approach is consistent with the environmental impact assessment process. Where residual impacts are significant, the EPA will recommend offsets commensurate with the scale and significance of the impacts. Conversely, the EPA will not require offsets when residual impacts are not considered to be significant. This flexibility encourages proponents to avoid and mitigate impacts, and to demonstrate scientifically how impacts might not be significant.

The EPA requires proponents to consider offsets in their environmental review document. For the PER level of assessment, this provides the opportunity for the public to comment on the adequacy of offsets through the consultation period.

The EPA also recommends offsets as conditions on proposals, to ensure transparency and accountability, and to provide the opportunity for offsets to be appealed. While the EPA maintains its flexible approach to determining offsets, having EPA reports publicly available will demonstrate that there is a consistent approach to applying offsets across proposals.

In September 2011, the Western Australian (WA) Government released the WA Environmental Offsets Policy. The policy recognises that environmental offsets are a component of the environmental assessment and decision-making process and should be used to compensate for significant residual environmental impacts and risks. The approach in this guideline is consistent with the principles outlined in the WA Environmental Offsets Policy.

I am pleased to release this document for public comment.

Dr Paul Vogel CHAIRMAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

DRAFT

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................... 4 2 DEFINITION, OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ............................................. 4 3 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT .............................................. 5

3.1 Western Australia ................................................................................. 5

3.2 Commonwealth .................................................................................... 5

4 OFFSET PRINCIPLES ......................................................................... 6 4.1 Offsets are only considered after mitigation of impacts ........................ 6

4.2 Offsets should be relevant and proportionate ....................................... 7

4.3 Environmental offsets are not appropriate for all proposals.................. 8

4.4 Offsets must deliver long term benefits for the environment................. 8

4.5 The context of the proposal must be considered .................................. 8

5 OFFSET DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 9 5.1 Does the proposal need offsets? .......................................................... 9

5.2 When should offsets be considered? ................................................. 11

5.3 What is an appropriate offset? ............................................................ 11

5.4 What details should be included in the environmental review document?................................................................................................ 13

5.5 Who should be consulted regarding offsets?...................................... 14

6 OFFSET IMPLEMENTATION............................................................. 15 6.1 Undertaking the offset ........................................................................ 15

6.2 Timing of the offset ............................................................................. 15

6.3 Offset conditions ................................................................................. 15

6.4 Public availability of data .................................................................... 16

6.5 Transparency ..................................................................................... 16

7 DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................... 16

DRAFT

DRAFT Environmental Assessment Guideline October 2012 Environmental Offsets

4

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Environmental Assessment Guidelines (guidelines) are developed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under section 16(k) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). These guidelines provide advice to proponents, consultants and the public generally about specific procedures, methodologies and the minimum requirements for environmental management which the EPA would expect to be met by the proponents of proposals undergoing environmental impact assessment (EIA). This guideline consolidates and replaces the following EPA policy advice: Position Statement 9: Environmental Offsets (2006); Environmental Protection Bulletin 1: Biodiversity Offsets (2008); and Guidance Statement 19: Environmental Offsets - Biodiversity (2008).

2 DEFINITION, OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE This guideline outlines the EPA’s expectations for environmental offsets related to development proposals subject to EIA under Part IV of the EP Act. Specifically, this guideline applies to proposals assessed under section 38 and does not apply to schemes assessed under section 48A. Planning solutions are applied under the Planning and Development Act 2005 for schemes. The EPA’s overarching objective related to environmental offsets is: “to counterbalance any significant residual environmental impact and risks through the application of offsets.”

The EPA expects proponents to undertake actions to counterbalance predicted adverse environmental impacts or risks from a proposal. These actions are taken after all reasonable mitigation efforts to avoid and minimise impacts have been applied and a significant environmental impact or risk remains. Environmental offsets are actions which are additional to the proposal. These actions improve or protect the environmental value of an asset elsewhere to compensate for the loss of environmental values as a result of implementing the proposal. Environmental offsets are a last resort, used after all steps have been taken to avoid, minimise and mitigate environmental impacts. While the EPA encourages proponents to practice good corporate citizenship and to work with the communities in which they operate, it does not consider it appropriate to recommend social services (such as provision of interpretive signage) as environmental offsets as they do not address the environmental impacts of the proposal. The objective of this guideline is to outline the principles which underpin offsets, and help proponents identify when environmental offsets may be required and how to design them.

DRAFT


5

3 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

3.1 Western Australia This guideline should be read in conjunction with the WA Government Environmental Offsets Policy (2011) which provides direction in Government for the consistent application of environmental offsets across various approvals processes. The EP Act is the primary legislation in Western Australia (WA) “for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution and environmental harm, for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment...”. The EPA, an independent authority, is responsible for providing advice and recommendations to the Minister for Environment on significant and strategic proposals referred to it for EIA under Part IV of the EP Act. Where a proposal is assessed by the EPA, it advises the Minister for Environment on whether it should be implemented and, if so, what conditions including offsets should apply. The EPA makes these recommendations publicly available and they are open to appeal. After this appeals process, the Minister must decide whether the proposal may be implemented and, if so, what conditions the implementation should be subject to, if any. The Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) will review the environmental review document, prepared by the proponent, which includes offsets, and assess whether it is to a standard that is acceptable and consistent with the policies of the EPA. For proposals referred to but not assessed by the EPA, offsets may still be required for impacts regulated under other WA Government approval processes (see WA Government Environmental Offsets Policy). Clearing undertaken in accordance with a Ministerial statement is exempt from the requirement for a clearing permit under Part V of the Act.

3.2 Commonwealth The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the federal legislation for “...the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity” with a focus on protecting matters of national environmental significance and Commonwealth lands, waters and actions. The Australian Government has outlined its requirements for environmental offsets under the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy (2012). Under the EPBC Act, new proposals or developments are referred to as an ‘action’. Strategic Assessments are a series of these actions. It should be noted that these actions assessed under the EPBC Act are often also assessed under the EP Act. Australian Government offset requirements may either be complementary or additional to WA Government offsets for the same proposal. This occurs because both governments have different responsibilities in relation to the environment. Sometimes these overlap and sometimes these are distinct. For example, some conservation significant species are important for both the state and commonwealth, but others are not.

http://epa.wa.gov.au/EPADocLib/WAEnvOffsetsPolicy-270911.pdf



http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/offsets-policy.pdf

DRAFT


6

The EPA however, endeavours to align offset packages to meet both requirements as far as possible. Referring proposals to the Australian Government as early as possible provides the best opportunity for complementary offset requirements.

4 OFFSET PRINCIPLES

4.1 Offsets are only considered after mitigation of impacts Environmental offsets address significant impacts that are predicted to remain after on-site avoidance and mitigation measures have been undertaken. Protection and conservation of existing environmental assets will always remain a priority above the use of environmental offsets. The following steps represent the mitigation hierarchy designed to address potential impacts as a result of the implementation of a proposal (see Figure 1).

• Avoid: impacts to the environment are avoided through selection of a practicable alternative such as proposal re-design, re-engineering or re-location of infrastructure.

• Minimise: the degree or magnitude of the unavoidable impacts are minimised by changing the site design, layout or process, thereby reducing the impact on land, air, water and living things.

• Rectify: once minimised, impacts are rehabilitated, restored or reduced over time with the aim being to return the site to pre-development condition.

• Offset: where it is predicted that significant residual environmental impacts still exist, an environmental offset package should be used to counterbalance those residual environmental impacts.

Figure 1: Mitigation hierarchy - with each level of mitigation, the proposal’s environmental impact is reduced. Offsets counterbalance the significant residual loss or risk with an environmental gain elsewhere.

DRAFT


7

4.2 Offsets should be relevant and proportionate Environmental offsets imposed under the EP Act must relate to the affected environment and be relevant to the environmental values impacted by the proposal. These impacts are both the direct impacts, such as from clearing, as well as the indirect impacts, such as from groundwater drawdown. Any offset package needs to be relevant not only to the environmental asset being impacted (e.g. flora, fauna, vegetation) but also to the environmental values and attributes associated with these assets which may be lost or at risk (e.g. habitat). Ideally, offsets should be ‘like-for-like’ – that is, impacts to an environmental asset should be offset by actions that benefit the same kind of asset. For example, an impact to a Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice Schedule 1 species should be offset with a package aimed at improving the viability of that species. Where this is not possible, the offset should relate to a similar asset (for example, vegetation is replaced with other vegetation or fauna replaced with fauna). As a last resort, an alternative asset which is more threatened or covers a larger area but has different values may be an acceptable offset.

Example of a relevant response Proponent M will impact, through clearing, vegetation community D. A relevant offset would include the protection and management of community D elsewhere. If no appropriate area of community D is available for purchase an alternative may be the protection of a larger area than that impacted of community F or management of community F, which has a similar level of threat.

The beneficial effects of offset packages should also be proportionate to the level of impact and value of the asset being impacted. A suitable offset should at least counterbalance the impact and take account of any risk of failure. This means that where there is a risk that the offset may not fully result in the desired outcome, the offset should have a ratio of greater than 1:1. For example, rehabilitation is unlikely to return full function to an ecosystem so this needs to be accounted for in the offset. The EPA also encourages proponents to achieve an overall net benefit to the environment through the application of offsets.

Example of a proportionate response Proponent A’s proposal will directly impact on 100 ha of a species’ habitat. This is located in the middle of a contiguous area of good condition habitat for the species and its removal will cause fragmentation of this habitat. The species will be significantly impacted, but this is only one population being affected. Proponent B’s proposal will directly impact on 100 ha of the same species’ habitat. It is located on the fringe of a separate area of habitat for the species. This area is degraded and while its loss is still significant, it will not cause fragmentation. In this case, the residual impact from Proponent A to the continuation of the species is more significant than from Proponent B. The impact from Proponent A causes direct loss through clearing plus indirect loss

DRAFT


8

through fragmentation. Therefore, the offset proposed from Proponent A should be more significant (e.g. larger area of land set aside for conservation).

4.3 Environmental offsets are not appropriate for all proposals Environmental offsets may not be appropriate in all circumstances. In some cases, the EPA may determine a proposal to be environmentally unacceptable, regardless of any offset proposed. In these instances, offsets will not make proposals with unacceptable impacts “acceptable”. Conversely, where the EPA considers that the residual environmental impact or risk is not significant, an offset will not be required. This may include where the EPA considers the impact is of a low magnitude or is of a short term nature.

4.4 Offsets must deliver long term benefits for the environment Environmental offsets must ensure a long lasting environmental benefit and be capable of being maintained into the future, including after the proposal has been completed. This means offsets must increase and maintain the environmental value of the asset being protected. In some cases this will require ongoing active management. Offset packages should consider and address the need for ongoing management, where appropriate. For example, an offset involving feral animal control to increase vulnerable native species should continue beyond the duration of the proposal. If this does not occur, the increase in environmental value (e.g. number of individuals of the native species) may be only temporary.

4.5 The context of the proposal must be considered Cumulative impacts For any proposal it is important to consider the impacts in the regional context. On its own, a proposal may be seen to have no significant impact. However, when considered with other proposals, activities and threats in the region, the cumulative incremental impacts may become increasingly significant. As such, the circumstances may play a role in determining the requirement for and scale of an offset. For example, native vegetation in good-to-excellent condition is a high value asset. Generally, the EPA has not required offsets for clearing good-to-excellent condition vegetation, unless it also results in significant impacts to species and communities. However, in areas subject to extensive clearing and other land pressures, the requirement for an offset based on cumulative impacts becomes more apparent. This is why the requirement for an offset is best based on the significance of the impact.

Example of cumulative impact A proponent will clear 1000 ha of good condition native vegetation within an area that is subject to extensive mining and pastoral pressures. More mining development is proposed in this region in the future. The proponent will require an offset as the impact from multiple sources is causing cumulative impacts on this area, the sum of which is significant.

DRAFT


9

Consequential impacts The consequential impacts of a proposal to the surrounding environment must also be considered. A common example is where a new development in a remote area opens up access or brings about a major increase in the local population. This can result in increased pressure on facilities, infrastructure and resources and may introduce weeds or dieback into a formerly ‘clean’ area. It may be appropriate for the proponent to contribute to the necessary increased management and maintenance costs where these are the direct result from the proposal.

Example of consequential impact A proponent wants to develop a regional coastal area. This development requires employment of thousands of people during the construction phase. Out of work hours, many of these employees are expected to go fishing. Access to fishing in this area has previously been restricted as it was a difficult area to access. The likely increase in fishing pressure during the construction phase means that the Department of Fisheries will require an officer to be located nearby to manage the environmental impact of recreational fishing. While this impact is not directly a part of the proposal, it is a result of the proposal. Without this development, this officer would not be needed. As a result it may be appropriate to provide an offset requiring funding for this officer during the construction phase.

5 OFFSET DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Does the proposal need offsets? Significance Any proposal assessed by the EPA may require offsets as all proposals assessed have a potential to significantly impact the environment. The key is whether the proposal is determined to have a significant residual environmental impact or risk after the mitigation hierarchy has been applied. This analysis should be detailed within the proponent’s environmental review document. The outcome of the detailed analysis will determine the significance of the residual impact. In determining significance the EPA will have regard to the following:

• values, sensitivity and quality of the environment which is likely to be impacted;

• extent (intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic footprint) of the likely impacts;

• importance of the land being impacted (e.g. tenure or land purpose);

• consequence of the likely impacts (or change);

• resilience of the environment to cope with change;

• cumulative impact with other projects;

• level of confidence of the impacts predicted;

DRAFT


10

• objects of the EP Act, policies, guidelines, procedures and standards against which a proposal can be assessed;

• the public concern;

• presence of strategic planning policy framework; or

• the extent to which other statutory decision-making processes meet the EPA’s objectives and principles for EIA.

Specifically with regards to offsets, the level of confidence in the impacts predicted also includes the level of confidence of success of mitigation actions. In the assessment of a proposal, predicted impacts to environmental assets which are important to the State (e.g. gazetted National Parks, Declared Rare Flora) are likely to increase the significance of the residual impact. Other resources to consider for determining whether an impact is significant includes the:

• ten clearing principles in Schedule 5 of the EP Act; and

• the EPA’s Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitat in Western Australia's Marine Environment (EAG3) - for benthic primary producer habitat, cumulative loss guidelines exist and provide an indication of when offsets may be required.

Proponents should identify all remaining impacts and risks predicted, regardless of significance, after the mitigation hierarchy has been applied. Each impact should then be assessed against each of the above considerations. Offsets should also be considered where there is a temporary impact. For example clearing may cause loss of foraging habitat available. This could have significant consequences for a population until successful rehabilitation is achieved. If a proponent determines that an offset is not required, it needs to demonstrate the basis of this determination to the EPA, addressing at a minimum why any predicted residual impact is not significant or how it will be effectively mitigated. Offset requirements for strategic proposals The provisions of the EP Act related to strategic and derived proposals provide for the EPA to assess strategic proposals. A strategic proposal identifies one or more future proposals that may, individually or in combination, have a significant effect on the environment (see Environmental Protection Bulletin 17). The EPA’s assessment of a strategic proposal will identify the need for offsets to address any significant residual impacts in a derived proposal. Offsets for contingency In some proposals there may be a need for a contingency offset in circumstances where there is a level of unpredictability associated with the impacts or there is a low risk of occurrence, but a high environmental consequence should it occur.

http://edit.epa.wa.gov.au/EPADocLib/32148%20EPA%20EPB%2017.pdf

DRAFT


11

Example of a contingency offset A proponent is proposing a development adjacent to a Conservation Reserve. While the proponent will manage weeds and keep the risk of occurrence low, there is a high consequence for the Conservation Reserve if weed invasion occurs. However, if the proponent effectively manages weeds on-site, this outcome will never occur. An appropriate offset could be a contingency offset involving a payment of funds to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) if an outbreak of weeds occurs on the Conservation Reserve.

5.2 When should offsets be considered? Offsets are considered to be an integral part of the environmental assessment process and should be considered from the pre-referral stage. Appendix 1 outlines when offsets should be considered within the EIA process. The EPA requires that all scoping documents (prepared by either the EPA or proponent) identify the need to apply the mitigation hierarchy and establish whether the proposal is likely to trigger the need for environmental offsets. Proponents need to address the mitigation hierarchy, identify whether offsets are required, and if so, propose an offsets package in its environmental review document (i.e. Public Environmental Review (PER) or Assessment on Proponent Information (API)). Proponents must allow sufficient time and resources to scope offset proposals including discussions with third parties.

5.3 What is an appropriate offset? Generally offsets include on-ground management actions (beyond mitigation actions), research and survey projects, or land acquisition for conservation, or combinations of these. On-ground management actions mean activities that result in tangible improvement to environmental values in the offset area. Examples of these may include fencing, revegetation and the removal of key threatening processes (e.g. weeds, erosion). Research and survey projects can inform on-ground management and add to our understanding of the environmental value being impacted. Research and survey projects should be designed to address priority knowledge gaps. Outcomes of research and survey projects should be publicly available and improve management of the environment or proposal, or provide information that will improve environment assessment of future proposals. Land acquisition offsets involve the protection of assets through security of tenure or restricting the use of the land. This may be achieved through ceding land to the Crown for conservation purposes or perpetual covenants for conservation. In considering land acquisition offsets, the need for ongoing management must also be considered. Any offsets proposing land acquisition, whether the land is to be managed by the proponent, a third party or the DEC, must consider the upfront costs of establishing the offset and the on-going management costs of maintaining the offset for the long term. It is expected that these costs will be the responsibility of the proponent. These projects also need

DRAFT


12

to consider other stakeholders’ interests in the proposed offset land and whether such a proposed offset is feasible. The choice of offset depends on the:

• type of impact predicted (e.g. temporary or permanent, broad scale clearing or effect on an individual species, etc);

• options for offsets in the vicinity of the proposal (such as the availability of land for purchase and protection); and

• state of knowledge of the asset being impacted. The scale of the offset required is directly related to the significance of the impact and the risk of failure of the offset. The offset should, at a minimum, be equivalent to the predicted impact with an additional component to counter for any risk of failure of the proposed offset.

Example of scale of an offset One hectare of seagrass is being impacted by Company ABC. Research suggests that seagrass revegetation/rehabilitation is only 70% successful. This means that replanting 1ha of seagrass is only likely to result in 0.7 ha of seagrass re-establishment for the long term. Therefore, the offset proposed needs to account for this rate of success so that the long term outcome of the offset counterbalances the impact from development.

Ideally, when identifying an appropriate offset, the proponent should favour offsets that:

• provide better condition / less disturbance compared with the impacted environmental asset;

• contain habitat structure as similar as possible to undisturbed examples of the vegetation type;

• have a better ratio of area to perimeter for an ecosystem;

• contain additional numbers of rare or otherwise significant species and threatened species or community;

• are contiguous with an existing conservation reserve;

• enhance biological corridors or ecolinkages between conservation reserves;

• include actions to address threatening processes; and/or

• have secure management arrangements in place that will provide for long term conservation.

When designing an offset, proponents need to consider the time lag associated with improvements to environmental values. For example, replanted trees take time to be suitable as foraging habitat. If clearing and replanting of trees occurs at the same time, there is a loss of environmental value until the replanted trees are suitable to provide food. A good offset could require replanting to occur prior to clearing to reduce or remove this time lag, or supplement replanting with an

DRAFT


13

additional substitute to reduce the time lag (e.g. a species that bears food sooner). In cases where the offset required is small or where there are limited options for offsets, it may be preferable to apply a strategic offset. Pooling funding together from multiple proposals to undertake a targeted program can have a better outcome for the regional environment. For example, in place of several projects undertaking site specific feral animal control, a strategic offset would coordinate feral animal control program across the region. This strategic offset is likely to have better environmental outcomes than the sum of outcomes from multiple small projects. Proponents are encouraged to review recent EPA reports and Ministerial statements to provide examples of the use of offsets in other proposals. The EPA reports provide the rationale for requiring the offset and the Ministerial Statement provides the final offset condition. Both of these are available on the EPA’s website.

5.4 What details should be included in the environmental review document? There are a number of matters that must be identified and addressed in the environmental review document in relation to offsets. Offsets should be addressed in a separate section of the document, after the assessment of environmental factors. The minimum requirements for all proposals (whether the proponent believes offsets are required or not) are:

• description of all potential impacts and identification of actions that will be applied to avoid, minimise or rectify these;

• description of all residual impacts; and

• analysis of impacts to identify and detail which of these residual impacts are significant.

If the proponent believes that offsets are required, details about the offset should include:

• proposed offset projects – details of offset projects, related management activities and stakeholder consultation undertaken, and how they relate to the environmental values being significantly impacted;

• objectives and completion criteria – an outline of objectives and intended outcomes, and details of completion criteria for each offset project;

• plans and policies – an outline of relevant plans and policies and how these projects align with them (e.g. species recovery plan);

• timelines, milestones – schedule of offset project implementation including an outline of key activities, stages of implementation, and milestones towards completion;

• governance arrangements – an outline of stakeholder responsibilities for implementing the offset projects, including contractual arrangements for third parties involved and legal obligations;

http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/

DRAFT


14

• financial arrangements – details of offset project budget and recipients of funds if projects are being undertaken by third parties;

• risk management – an outline of potential risks involved for offset projects and contingency measures;

• monitoring – identify monitoring activities to assess progress with offset project implementation and for compliance purposes; and

• reporting – schedules and means for reporting details of offset implementation.

5.5 Who should be consulted regarding offsets? It is the proponent’s responsibility to consult all relevant stakeholders regarding offsets, particularly those the offset will directly affect. As a minimum, proponents should consult with the relevant management agency for the asset that is being impacted, such as the DEC, Department of Fisheries, or Department of Water. Consultation should occur in the formative stage, prior to the submission of the environmental review document to the EPA. The DEC may have any of the following roles in offsets under Part IV of the EP Act:

• As the agency with overall responsibility for planning and implementation of the protection of biodiversity in WA, providing specialist scientific advice on biodiversity conservation values, the significance of impacts and the suitability of offsets.

• As the agency that manages lands and waters vested in the Conservation Commission of WA and the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority of WA, facilitating the input of these agencies where these lands and waters may be impacted by development.

• As a party that may be directly responsible for implementation of offsets such as management of land ceded to the Crown.

Should implementation of a proposed offset involve a third party, such as the DEC for land acquisition projects, the proponent must have consulted this party before presenting the offset to the EPA. It is recommended that the proponent obtains a letter from any third party indicating that party’s willingness to participate in the offset. It should not be assumed that a government agency will support or accept responsibility for an offset. It is also important to engage with stakeholders who have an interest in land being set aside for conservation. The departments of Mines and Petroleum, Agriculture and Food, and Planning, as well as local governments and Traditional Owners are examples of stakeholders that the proponent may need to consult.

DRAFT


15

6 OFFSET IMPLEMENTATION

6.1 Undertaking the offset Offsets may be achieved through:

• direct action by the proponent;

• funding by the proponent directly to a third party; or

• contributions by the proponent to a trust fund. Whichever option is selected, it should be included in the environmental review document. If a trust fund model is proposed, a rigorous governance model must also be developed for its operation. This should at least include details on:

• membership (including Government);

• objectives;

• key offset actions and strategies;

• rules of expenditure;

• principle amount;

• probity standards;

• reporting requirements; and

• legislative requirements.

6.2 Timing of the offset Commencement The timing for commencement of an offset needs to be relevant to the objective of that offset. For example, for offsets where the outcomes of the offset can be applied to construction activities (e.g. research results) then these need to occur sufficiently prior to construction commencing to ensure the outcomes are available. For other offsets, the aim should be to implement offsets as soon as possible to minimise the impact of the proposal. Duration The duration of the proposed offset should be commensurate to the duration of the impact being offset and the objective of the offset project. Offsets for temporary impacts are likely to be implemented over shorter timeframes than for permanent impacts. Offsets that are designed to inform the environmental management of construction or operation should not be spread over long periods as it reduces the ability to adopt any findings in a timely manner.

6.3 Offset conditions In providing its advice to the Minister for Environment, the EPA will make recommendations that any offsets requirements are included in the Ministerial

DRAFT


16

statement. Setting offsets as conditions of approval ensures transparency, enforceability and auditability by the OEPA. All conditions will reference dollar values in Australian dollars exclusive of the Goods and Services Tax. The EPA may apply Consumer Price Index adjustments to maintain the value of offset contributions. The calculation of the amount will also be included in the conditions.

6.4 Public availability of data The EPA considers that the knowledge obtained from offsets must be shared and readily available in the public domain to ensure that the ultimate beneficiary is the environment. For recommended offset conditions involving the acquisition of data or knowledge, the EPA will recommend conditions requiring that all validated environmental data (including sampling design, sampling methodologies, empirical data and derived information products e.g. maps) relevant to the offset are made publicly available. Specifically, proponents are expected to ensure that any data generated is shared with relevant government agencies for inclusion in government corporate databases. Research results are expected to be published or communicated via articles and presentations.

6.5 Transparency EPA reports and Ministerial statements, including offset conditions, are listed on the EPA’s website. The EPA report is subject to appeals. The WA Government is also developing an online register of all offsets applied by the State. As details of offset projects will be publicly available proponents should ensure confidentiality conflicts do not arise.

7 DEFINITIONS Completion criteria: a set of performance indicators that details how an action will be judged to determine whether it has achieved its outcome. Cumulative impact: an impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of a proposal, when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future proposals and activities. Cumulative impacts may contribute to significant environmental impacts that would otherwise not be readily apparent when assessing individual proposals. Environmental asset: entities that provide environmental functions or services. This includes living things, their physical, biological and social surroundings and interactions between all of these. Environmental attributes: refer to a specific environmental characteristic associated with or which supports an environmental value (e.g. a beneficial use or ecosystem health). Environmental attributes may include:

• type or unit (in relation to landscape, landforms, vegetation, marine benthic primary producer habitat, flora, fauna, hydrology, soils, geology and geomorphology);

DRAFT


17

• endemism;

• native vegetation structural integrity;

• scale, shape and linkages of natural areas relevant to ecological processes;

• natural diversity (e.g. a range of vegetation types, total flora species or genera);

• rarity (e.g. rare and priority flora, threatened fauna, threatened ecological communities, other unusual or special attributes);

• significance (e.g. international, national, regional, local, etc.) may be related to biophysical factors and social surroundings (including indigenous or non-indigenous heritage) as identified through legislation, community objectives, management categories, government listings, etc; or

• other special attributes (e.g. fauna associations). Environmental impact: represents an effect on the environment that leads to changes in its condition. Depending on the nature of the activity causing the impact, it may have either beneficial or adverse environmental outcomes. Environmental values: particular values or uses of the environment that are important for a healthy ecosystem or for public benefit which require protection from impacts. Mitigation: in an environmental context, refers to a sequence of considerations designed to help manage adverse environmental impacts, and which includes (in order of preference)—

1. Avoidance – avoiding the adverse environmental impact altogether; 2. minimisation – limiting the degree or magnitude of the adverse impact; 3. rectification – repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted site as

soon as possible; 4. reduction – gradually eliminating the adverse impact over time by

preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Significant residual environmental impacts: are adverse environmental impacts likely to result from the implementation of new development proposals, which cannot be avoided, minimised, rectified or reduced on-site such that they are no longer significant.

DRAFT


18

Index Draft EAG October 2012

Status Approved for public consultation by the EPA Citation This document can be cited as the Draft Environmental

Assessment Guideline for Environmental Offsets. Contact Officer Luke Jacenko (08) 6467 5346

email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

DRAFT


19

Appendix 1 – PER – Simplified EIA process map for offsets

DRAFT


20

API – Simplified EIA process map for offsets

Documents

EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline for Environmental Offsets (Draft)