❓ Hon Giz Watson questions the EPA regarding the Mesa A/Warramboo Iron Ore Project, focusing on the geotechnical stability of the mesa rim post-mining and the impact on troglobitic fauna. The Minister's response indicates concerns about the proponent's demonstration of long-term stability and clarifies the current understanding of the fauna's habitat and diet.
AnsweredQoN 4721Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Regarding the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) summary for EPA Bulletin 1251 - Mesa A/Warramboo Iron Ore Project, and a newspaper article dated 30 March 2007 titled ‘tiny, blind cannibals stand in way’ which appeared in the
West Australian
, I ask -
(1) Is it correct that the EPA bulletin 1251 in part states ‘However, the EPA considers the 50m width (up to 200m in some areas) of the rim to be retained to be inadequate for the protection of troglobitic fauna, and landscape and Aboriginal heritage values associated with Mesa A. The EPA is concerned that the narrow width of the rim to be retained may mean that it is not geotechnically stable post mining’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text of this document?
(3) Can the Minister explain how the EPA services unit came to the conclusion that the narrow width of the rim to be retained may mean that it is not geotechnically stable?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state what specific advice was provided by the EPA services unit to the EPA in relation to the EPA’s concern that the narrow width of the rim to be retained may mean that it is not geotechnically stable post-mining?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that EPA has identified five new species and that these creatures live between 5 metres and 30 metres below ground level and feed on organic matter that comes down in the rainwater from the roots of surface plants?
(8) If no to (7), what specifically is correct?
(9) Can the Minister explain what evidence does the EPA services unit have that these creatures live between 5m and 30 metres below ground level and feed on organic matter that comes down in the rainwater from the roots of surface plants?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
West Australian
, I ask -
(1) Is it correct that the EPA bulletin 1251 in part states ‘However, the EPA considers the 50m width (up to 200m in some areas) of the rim to be retained to be inadequate for the protection of troglobitic fauna, and landscape and Aboriginal heritage values associated with Mesa A. The EPA is concerned that the narrow width of the rim to be retained may mean that it is not geotechnically stable post mining’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text of this document?
(3) Can the Minister explain how the EPA services unit came to the conclusion that the narrow width of the rim to be retained may mean that it is not geotechnically stable?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state what specific advice was provided by the EPA services unit to the EPA in relation to the EPA’s concern that the narrow width of the rim to be retained may mean that it is not geotechnically stable post-mining?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that EPA has identified five new species and that these creatures live between 5 metres and 30 metres below ground level and feed on organic matter that comes down in the rainwater from the roots of surface plants?
(8) If no to (7), what specifically is correct?
(9) Can the Minister explain what evidence does the EPA services unit have that these creatures live between 5m and 30 metres below ground level and feed on organic matter that comes down in the rainwater from the roots of surface plants?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
29 May 2007
Responded by
Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
55 days
(2) Not applicable. (3) The EPA considered that the proponent had not demonstrated that the rim of the mesa would be geotechnically stable in the long term after mining. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA Service Unit advised the EPA that the long-term geotechnical stability of the remaining rim of the mesa post-mining had not been demonstrated by the proponent. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(3) The EPA considered that the proponent had not demonstrated that the rim of the mesa would be geotechnically stable in the long term after mining. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA Service Unit advised the EPA that the long-term geotechnical stability of the remaining rim of the mesa post-mining had not been demonstrated by the proponent. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA Service Unit advised the EPA that the long-term geotechnical stability of the remaining rim of the mesa post-mining had not been demonstrated by the proponent. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(5) The EPA Service Unit advised the EPA that the long-term geotechnical stability of the remaining rim of the mesa post-mining had not been demonstrated by the proponent. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
.......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(3) The EPA considered that the proponent had not demonstrated that the rim of the mesa would be geotechnically stable in the long term after mining. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA Service Unit advised the EPA that the long-term geotechnical stability of the remaining rim of the mesa post-mining had not been demonstrated by the proponent. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA Service Unit advised the EPA that the long-term geotechnical stability of the remaining rim of the mesa post-mining had not been demonstrated by the proponent. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(5) The EPA Service Unit advised the EPA that the long-term geotechnical stability of the remaining rim of the mesa post-mining had not been demonstrated by the proponent. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(7) No. (8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(8)-(9) The presence of troglobitic fauna at Mesa A was identified by the proponent. The sampling by the proponent has not yet been able to determine precisely which portion of the mesa profile the species live in. It is expected that the species rely on organic matter derived from the surface but this remains to be confirmed. (10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(10) Not applicable. .......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
.......................................................................... ............. Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
Notes: (1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
(1) The EPA assessed the proposal by the Robe River Mining Company and released its report and recommendations (EPA Bulletin 1251) on 26 March 2007. This report was subject to a 14 day appeal period. Appeals have been lodged on the EPA report. These appeals will be considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as part of the appeals process.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.