❓ A parliamentary question regarding dredge spoil dumped in Whitlock Creek near Carnarvon, inquiring about the responsible company and potential remediation. The Minister's response indicates the company is now working on the fishing boat channel, but remediation is not required due to minimal environmental impact and potential harm from removal.
AnsweredQoN 1225Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regard to the substantial quantities of dredge spoil dumped in the mouth of Whitlock Creek while dredging was occurring off Whitlock Island not far from Carnarvon approximately five years ago, I ask -
(1) Is it the case that this dredging was carried out by OGC?
(2) If no to (1), is the Minister aware of who undertook this dredging?
(3) Is it the case that the same company is now dredging for the fishing boat channel?
(4) If yes to (3), will the company be made to remove the material dumped in Whitlock Creek while it is operating a dredge in the area?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(1) Is it the case that this dredging was carried out by OGC?
(2) If no to (1), is the Minister aware of who undertook this dredging?
(3) Is it the case that the same company is now dredging for the fishing boat channel?
(4) If yes to (3), will the company be made to remove the material dumped in Whitlock Creek while it is operating a dredge in the area?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
15 October 2003
Responded by
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
36 days
(1) The dredging was conducted by Dredge Master initially and then the Cooper Group of Companies (CGC). I do not know if that is the company you are referring to with the acronym of OGC. (2) Answered by (1). (3) I am informed that CGC is now contracted to work in the Fishing Boat Harbour and channel. (4) The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) investigated this matter in November 1999. It was concluded that the area as a whole is subject to changes in hydrological regime due to the closing of the Southern Arm of the Gascoyne River, which used to flush out this area during flood events. There has been some addition of mud to the Whitlock Creek from the dredging, but this is only considered localised and without environmental impacts. Tidal flows will eventually move this mud evenly throughout the Creek and back into the Fascine. The DEP considers that the mud accumulation in the creek is insignificant. Therefore, the Company will not be made to remove this material. (5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(2) Answered by (1). (3) I am informed that CGC is now contracted to work in the Fishing Boat Harbour and channel. (4) The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) investigated this matter in November 1999. It was concluded that the area as a whole is subject to changes in hydrological regime due to the closing of the Southern Arm of the Gascoyne River, which used to flush out this area during flood events. There has been some addition of mud to the Whitlock Creek from the dredging, but this is only considered localised and without environmental impacts. Tidal flows will eventually move this mud evenly throughout the Creek and back into the Fascine. The DEP considers that the mud accumulation in the creek is insignificant. Therefore, the Company will not be made to remove this material. (5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(3) I am informed that CGC is now contracted to work in the Fishing Boat Harbour and channel. (4) The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) investigated this matter in November 1999. It was concluded that the area as a whole is subject to changes in hydrological regime due to the closing of the Southern Arm of the Gascoyne River, which used to flush out this area during flood events. There has been some addition of mud to the Whitlock Creek from the dredging, but this is only considered localised and without environmental impacts. Tidal flows will eventually move this mud evenly throughout the Creek and back into the Fascine. The DEP considers that the mud accumulation in the creek is insignificant. Therefore, the Company will not be made to remove this material. (5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(4) The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) investigated this matter in November 1999. It was concluded that the area as a whole is subject to changes in hydrological regime due to the closing of the Southern Arm of the Gascoyne River, which used to flush out this area during flood events. There has been some addition of mud to the Whitlock Creek from the dredging, but this is only considered localised and without environmental impacts. Tidal flows will eventually move this mud evenly throughout the Creek and back into the Fascine. The DEP considers that the mud accumulation in the creek is insignificant. Therefore, the Company will not be made to remove this material. (5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(2) Answered by (1). (3) I am informed that CGC is now contracted to work in the Fishing Boat Harbour and channel. (4) The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) investigated this matter in November 1999. It was concluded that the area as a whole is subject to changes in hydrological regime due to the closing of the Southern Arm of the Gascoyne River, which used to flush out this area during flood events. There has been some addition of mud to the Whitlock Creek from the dredging, but this is only considered localised and without environmental impacts. Tidal flows will eventually move this mud evenly throughout the Creek and back into the Fascine. The DEP considers that the mud accumulation in the creek is insignificant. Therefore, the Company will not be made to remove this material. (5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(3) I am informed that CGC is now contracted to work in the Fishing Boat Harbour and channel. (4) The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) investigated this matter in November 1999. It was concluded that the area as a whole is subject to changes in hydrological regime due to the closing of the Southern Arm of the Gascoyne River, which used to flush out this area during flood events. There has been some addition of mud to the Whitlock Creek from the dredging, but this is only considered localised and without environmental impacts. Tidal flows will eventually move this mud evenly throughout the Creek and back into the Fascine. The DEP considers that the mud accumulation in the creek is insignificant. Therefore, the Company will not be made to remove this material. (5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(4) The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) investigated this matter in November 1999. It was concluded that the area as a whole is subject to changes in hydrological regime due to the closing of the Southern Arm of the Gascoyne River, which used to flush out this area during flood events. There has been some addition of mud to the Whitlock Creek from the dredging, but this is only considered localised and without environmental impacts. Tidal flows will eventually move this mud evenly throughout the Creek and back into the Fascine. The DEP considers that the mud accumulation in the creek is insignificant. Therefore, the Company will not be made to remove this material. (5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
(5) To mobilise a dredge into the Creek to remove the material would cause far more environmental impacts on the creek, such as the destruction of mangrove habitat, than leaving the material in place where it has no impact.
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.