Re: EPBCA an TSCA  - I recall seeing something about bilateral agreements being reached but cant recall specifics. May have been only relevant to certain parts of the EP&A Act (eg Part 3A). Check DEWHA's website and DoP for confirmation.

The DECC recommends using the BioBanking Credit Calculator to obtain a list of Threatened species for site assessment ("field survey methods for fauna" at www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/surveymethodsfauna.htm).  Has anyone else had a go at this? 

I reckon the methods I usually use (Wildlife Atlas Search in 10km by 10km square centered on the site) give much better and more comprehensive results (at least for coastal NSW).  The Credit Calculator Results - once you finally work out how to obtain them - are a bit weird, missing quite a few probable occurrences.  My favourite question in the Calculator is: "does any part of the development impact on rainforest, eucalypt forest, heathland, marshland, grassland or rocky areas?"  If the answer is yes, you're meant to survey for Planigales.  And in the site I just did a "calculation" for, there was no question specifically asking if there were hollow-bearing trees present (only, "are there hollow-bearing trees within 200m of a riparian zone")!

Brian 

I must have dreamt it!  I wonder what that says about my sub-conscious.

Hmmm ... although the questions to be answered for an EPBC assessment and TSC assessment are similar, they are still not the same. Also, it is unlikely that a department would (or could) abrogate their responsibilities under one act for another (particularly between state and commonwealth) unless it is specifically stated in that legislation that it is appropriate to do so.

For example, note the hoo-ha over the logging in Superb Parrot habitat near Deniliquin. By all accounts, the work has passed the state tests but perhaps not the EPBC test, which is why the environmental lobby have now gone to the feds. The acts are different and - like the upper and lower houses of parliament - can be part of a checking process.

I agree it is cumbersome and time-consuming, but I don't think one can ignore it.

That would make sense Liz, and there's certainly no question of the TSC Act extinguishing the EPBC, but I have a very strong memory of reading somewhere that if, say, you do a 7-part test for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (& come up with a non-significant impact), then, as far as DEWHA is concerned, there is no need to also do an EPBC assessment for the species.  If so, it would save a fair bit of paper (& time!).

Brian

My understanding is that the EPBC Act is not extinguished by any state legislation.

Therefore, if any matters of NES are found on site, then a proper assessment pursuant to the EPBC Act guidelines is required.

A query about the EPBC act:

I remember reading somewhere that if you produce a report that addresses the NSW TSC act, you don' t have to address the EPBC act separately.  I suppose this is a ruling from DEWHA (the current acronym, I think).  Does anyone know where I might find such a ruling, so I can quote it if challenged?

Brian  

In relation to the costs  matter i remember when an SIS cost well over $50,000 on almost every occasion and based on hourly rates it could cost us probably some 40% above that due to the 'found complexity ' of the site .....not known at quotation time. 

If you quote, say on a 45 hectare site, and find a Powerful Owl you have added time constraints for identifying roost sites and or breeding sites such as we are doing right now on a project. Weekly inspections were not quoted for to do this weekly assessment. It is adding considerable cost and I am not sure that will be picked up by the client. However I, and you, are bound to do the work as per the guidelines. This is the conundrum of the business we are in.  As consultants cost recovery is paramount as the first rule of business is to 'stay in business' otherwise your skill is lost to the industry.

Over the years the cost of doing work has trebled due to survey requirements, increased preparation time, new equipment requirements, added assistance for demanding projects, obviously very increased desk top assessment and of course mapping accuracy. Yet professional fees appear to be dropping.

In regards to the matter raised and the consultant referred to it is of little use in naming and shaming as that consultant simply chose to undercut the true price. If the consultant goes out of business then that will be his reward. However if the consultant undercut the required work for that site just to get the project then that is another storey.

I suggest that quotations should specify the work required by the Council / DECC guidelines; and the quotation price should reflect that work effort in detail. Talking to the client always assists in the eventual undertstanding of the costs. try putting options for additional work e.g.if you find a threathened species then that would require additional costs.

Obviously fauna survey is some 4 times more expensive that botanical survey due to long hours involved and this should be reflected in any costings. It is certainly the case that when i an assessment of large general environmental companies reports they invariably have no fuana survey other than desk top assessment and certainly little to no trapping or detailed habitat analysis. So profit is easily achieved by those firms not doing adequte or any fauna survey.

In the end those companies tout for additional fees when Council say the work is not good enough. However the client loses in the end as it is probably then out of season to do certain additional survey works. This is the hub of the problem. Quoting for work innefficiently for the client and clearly not doing the works in accordance with industry guidelines.  

I suggest that the Association should develop a standard one page advice sheet for all member consultants that could then be provided to each client at the rear of each quotation. The advise would clarify when fauna survey should be done, when seasonal survey should be considered, the likely time involved for fauna survey by giving examples and the type of equipment that the consultant should have to undertake those works. 

I believe one page could provide significant clarification advice such that a member consultant would benefit whilst the client would benefit from Association knowledge.

Notwithstanding that it is the case that expert judgment must also be fairly accepted if one decides that no fauna survey should be undertaken or no seasonal survey is warranted. But.....that expert judgement must be proper and right.  

John Travers 

Thanks Bruce (on behalf of the organising committee). I'm sure that ECA members would quite like a conference (or workshop) in Orange some time in the future. 

Hi all,

I enjoyed the conference and obtained useful information as usual it was great to see people again and meet new ones. The venue and food was great too (apart from the construction noise) My thanks to the committee members who worked hard to make it happen I really do appreciate your effort on our behalf.

I'm really busy (and stressed out!) doing my masters at the moment but once I've finished I will put my hand up to get involved and return the favour (I'll organise the conference in Orange so I don't have to go anywhere!) but you all can't stay at my place.

Welcome David.

I considered doing the course, but given the lukewarm reception to Biobanking, and the fact that is doesnt quite gel in my head (even after the excellent ECA conference and reading all the literature), and most of all my impression that the credits will be way too expensive for anyone to afford (and hence most will take the easier and less onerous path of the 7pt tests); plus the workload I've bottled myself into: I passed it up with a "I'll keep my $2000 and wait and see".

I also have to say that it concerns me that there are so many grey areas, and this is not helped by the constant delays and false starts. The accreditation course now being delayed proving to be the most significant in my mind recently.

So I wouldnt waste to much time on it for now.

Yes, welcome to the ECA, David.

To add to Liz's comments, I suspect most ECA members have signed up to the Biobanking training courses. The ECA advertised the courses in an ECA Information Email to all of its members. In a subsequent email, DECC informed us that over 100 consultants had signed up for the courses. I don't know how many of these consultants are ECA members, but most of them probably are.

Welcome David!

Be assured that the ECA Council is in constant contact with DECC and other authorities on behalf of members. The BioBanking "brave new world" is a case in point. Many many hundreds of hours have been spent on submissions, working groups, expert forums and the like. Whether DECC and others take any of this into consideration is entirely another matter - it seems that so often "consultation" is a box to be ticked after the policy has been written rather than a true consultative process.

Some of the questions you raise are curly ones that have arisen in Council discussions and I think are matters well worth pursuing. If you think that any or all of them require a formal response, please continue the discussion here and raise it with Council. All contributions from the membership are greatly appreciated and needed!

Don't wait until the AGM - speak up now.

Liz

hello 

It is an interesting time to be a consultant, does the eca produce submissions for such issues as biobanking etc?  Ive put my name down for biobanking creditation but it seems as if the first round of courses for consultants have been delayed...Is anyone else hoping to be part of this brave new world?

As well this DECC are reviewing their biometric databases, the CMAs are reviewing their PVP tools, also the Native Veg Act definition of poor condition of EECs is being reviewed.

I hope they clear up the confusion about where the Native Veg Act and the EPA Act have precedence as well.

Nice to be part of the ECA.

cheers

David

Rebecca, I've posted a response under a new heading "Insurance Cover".

I have an enquiry regarding public liability insurance.  I recently took out a new policy with AAMI, and notice that under the Environmental Consultant classification, there is an exclusion for 'manual work' conducted away from the office (or listed premises).  I phoned AAMI for further information regarding 'manual work' to find that 'manual work' would include collecting plant samples, using a spotlight etc.  I then asked if I could have the policy changed so that I am covered for such work (not that collecting plant samples is normally a high risk occupation), to be told that they were not able to remove that exclusion from the Environmental Consultant classification.  There was no other classification that seemed appropriate for my work.  It would seem to be a fairly useless policy if it only covers office activities.

Is this an exclusion that people live with, or does nobody use AAMI for public liability?

Hi Warren, I have heard of some Dept Agencies requiring these, and I have seen Council briefs specifying them to be considered for planning effort. As I recall, while the TSCA has provisions for the guidelines to become legal documents, these guidelines haven't been gazetted to date. Several Councils also have their own guidlines eg LCCHREMS (dont know if I spelt that right) and up here, GTCC has their bastardisation of these - and these do not conform with the DECC 2004 guidelines ie some min effort is less than DECC, some is greater.

We use the DECC's as a guideline to demonstrate our work is exceeding the minimum standard (as I think for Elliot A and B trapping, they considerably under-estimate the effort required to maximise confidence, etc). I think in terms of best practise, as there is no actual formally recognised standards, then referral to these is the sound thing to do (and the best defence should someone criticise your work).

However, if you have a little site and the min standard is in your opinion, excessive to the actual needs of the project (eg why do 9 nites of call playback for a 1ha site), then it is generally accepted practise to state your grounds for not applying the recognised standard. End of the day, its scientific method that counts.

How many people have been asked to address the DRAFT Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Guidelines prepared by DECC? My understand was that this document was not yet endorsed and as such consultants where not meant to use them yet. I need some clarification!!

Gooday all, just getting into this forum for the first time.

Greg Little

Just letting everyone know that the new WYSIWYG message editor is now live so you can now type your messages how you want them to be seen.

Enjoy!