❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses environmental concerns related to seagrass wrack removal and sand management in Geographe Bay, particularly around the Port Geographe development. The response outlines assessment processes and potential impacts.
AnsweredQoN 1309Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In general terms, what are the environment concerns or issues associated with the removal of seagrass wrack from the beachfront of Geographe Bay west of the Port Geographe groyne field?
(2) What environmental assessment process would need to be carried out if a proposal was put forward to remove seagrass wrack from the beach where it accumulates immediately west of the western groyne at Port Geographe?
(3) If the main reason for concern about wrack removal was the loss of nutrients for seagrass growing in Geographe Bay, how would the impact of nutrients artificially introduced to the bay by farm and domestic garden runoff and septic tank leachate be assessed to determine if the loss of nutrients by the removal of wrack was being balanced or otherwise by the addition of these artificial sources of nutrients?
(4) Recognising that offshore sand bars exist close to the shore of Geographe Bay, what would be the environmental concerns or issues associated with the use of sand within these moving ridges for beach replenishment on the east side of the Port Geographe groyne field?
(5) What environmental assessment process would need to be carried out if a proposal was put forward to remove sand from an offshore bar for use in beach protection?
(2) What environmental assessment process would need to be carried out if a proposal was put forward to remove seagrass wrack from the beach where it accumulates immediately west of the western groyne at Port Geographe?
(3) If the main reason for concern about wrack removal was the loss of nutrients for seagrass growing in Geographe Bay, how would the impact of nutrients artificially introduced to the bay by farm and domestic garden runoff and septic tank leachate be assessed to determine if the loss of nutrients by the removal of wrack was being balanced or otherwise by the addition of these artificial sources of nutrients?
(4) Recognising that offshore sand bars exist close to the shore of Geographe Bay, what would be the environmental concerns or issues associated with the use of sand within these moving ridges for beach replenishment on the east side of the Port Geographe groyne field?
(5) What environmental assessment process would need to be carried out if a proposal was put forward to remove sand from an offshore bar for use in beach protection?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
6 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
34 days
As described by Murdoch University’s Western Australian Seagrass Web Page the relatively high rate of primary production of seagrasses drives detritus-based food chains, which help to support many organisms. Seagrasses are also directly consumed by birds, dugongs and turtles. Western Australian waters are considered to be relatively nutrient poor, and it is considered that seagrasses act as a nutrient store, releasing their nutrients as they are decomposed, and as a result of detritus re-suspension during storm events. 2. Seagrass wrack from west of the western breakwater is currently removed as part of the Port Geographe Seagrass Wrack Management Plan. The seagrass wrack is deposited to the east of the eastern breakwater. An environmental assessment would be required if the seagrass were to be deposited in a location other than east of the eastern breakwater. An environmental assessment, if considered a non-substantial change to the proposal, could be assessed by the DEP on advice of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the provisions of Condition 2-2 of Ministerial Statement 391. If considered a substantial change to the proposal, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . 3. No cumulative nutrient impact assessment has been conducted as this issue is outside of the scope of the proposal. However, it is agreed that other nutrient sources are likely entering the canals and adjacent sea from external nutrient sources as suggested. Whether the external nutrient source input is less than balanced, or greater than the nutrients in the seagrass wrack, is not known. It is unlikely that assessment of such a balance would be scientifically feasible given the range of existing and new nutrient sources, as well as complexities regarding the biological availability of nutrients between seagrass and such external nutrient sources. 4. The removal of sand from offshore sandbars for beach nourishment east of the eastern breakwater would unlikely receive the support of the DEP or the EPA, given that there is sufficient sand for beach nourishment west of the western breakwater that requires bypassing under existing conditions. I have been advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure also agreed with this position. In addition, sourcing sand from an offshore sand bar will not address the required removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater or sand accumulation in the harbour mouth. Such a proposal will likely have equivalent costs, if not greater costs, than removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater. 5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
2. Seagrass wrack from west of the western breakwater is currently removed as part of the Port Geographe Seagrass Wrack Management Plan. The seagrass wrack is deposited to the east of the eastern breakwater. An environmental assessment would be required if the seagrass were to be deposited in a location other than east of the eastern breakwater. An environmental assessment, if considered a non-substantial change to the proposal, could be assessed by the DEP on advice of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the provisions of Condition 2-2 of Ministerial Statement 391. If considered a substantial change to the proposal, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . 3. No cumulative nutrient impact assessment has been conducted as this issue is outside of the scope of the proposal. However, it is agreed that other nutrient sources are likely entering the canals and adjacent sea from external nutrient sources as suggested. Whether the external nutrient source input is less than balanced, or greater than the nutrients in the seagrass wrack, is not known. It is unlikely that assessment of such a balance would be scientifically feasible given the range of existing and new nutrient sources, as well as complexities regarding the biological availability of nutrients between seagrass and such external nutrient sources. 4. The removal of sand from offshore sandbars for beach nourishment east of the eastern breakwater would unlikely receive the support of the DEP or the EPA, given that there is sufficient sand for beach nourishment west of the western breakwater that requires bypassing under existing conditions. I have been advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure also agreed with this position. In addition, sourcing sand from an offshore sand bar will not address the required removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater or sand accumulation in the harbour mouth. Such a proposal will likely have equivalent costs, if not greater costs, than removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater. 5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
3. No cumulative nutrient impact assessment has been conducted as this issue is outside of the scope of the proposal. However, it is agreed that other nutrient sources are likely entering the canals and adjacent sea from external nutrient sources as suggested. Whether the external nutrient source input is less than balanced, or greater than the nutrients in the seagrass wrack, is not known. It is unlikely that assessment of such a balance would be scientifically feasible given the range of existing and new nutrient sources, as well as complexities regarding the biological availability of nutrients between seagrass and such external nutrient sources. 4. The removal of sand from offshore sandbars for beach nourishment east of the eastern breakwater would unlikely receive the support of the DEP or the EPA, given that there is sufficient sand for beach nourishment west of the western breakwater that requires bypassing under existing conditions. I have been advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure also agreed with this position. In addition, sourcing sand from an offshore sand bar will not address the required removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater or sand accumulation in the harbour mouth. Such a proposal will likely have equivalent costs, if not greater costs, than removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater. 5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
4. The removal of sand from offshore sandbars for beach nourishment east of the eastern breakwater would unlikely receive the support of the DEP or the EPA, given that there is sufficient sand for beach nourishment west of the western breakwater that requires bypassing under existing conditions. I have been advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure also agreed with this position. In addition, sourcing sand from an offshore sand bar will not address the required removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater or sand accumulation in the harbour mouth. Such a proposal will likely have equivalent costs, if not greater costs, than removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater. 5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
2. Seagrass wrack from west of the western breakwater is currently removed as part of the Port Geographe Seagrass Wrack Management Plan. The seagrass wrack is deposited to the east of the eastern breakwater. An environmental assessment would be required if the seagrass were to be deposited in a location other than east of the eastern breakwater. An environmental assessment, if considered a non-substantial change to the proposal, could be assessed by the DEP on advice of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the provisions of Condition 2-2 of Ministerial Statement 391. If considered a substantial change to the proposal, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . 3. No cumulative nutrient impact assessment has been conducted as this issue is outside of the scope of the proposal. However, it is agreed that other nutrient sources are likely entering the canals and adjacent sea from external nutrient sources as suggested. Whether the external nutrient source input is less than balanced, or greater than the nutrients in the seagrass wrack, is not known. It is unlikely that assessment of such a balance would be scientifically feasible given the range of existing and new nutrient sources, as well as complexities regarding the biological availability of nutrients between seagrass and such external nutrient sources. 4. The removal of sand from offshore sandbars for beach nourishment east of the eastern breakwater would unlikely receive the support of the DEP or the EPA, given that there is sufficient sand for beach nourishment west of the western breakwater that requires bypassing under existing conditions. I have been advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure also agreed with this position. In addition, sourcing sand from an offshore sand bar will not address the required removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater or sand accumulation in the harbour mouth. Such a proposal will likely have equivalent costs, if not greater costs, than removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater. 5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
3. No cumulative nutrient impact assessment has been conducted as this issue is outside of the scope of the proposal. However, it is agreed that other nutrient sources are likely entering the canals and adjacent sea from external nutrient sources as suggested. Whether the external nutrient source input is less than balanced, or greater than the nutrients in the seagrass wrack, is not known. It is unlikely that assessment of such a balance would be scientifically feasible given the range of existing and new nutrient sources, as well as complexities regarding the biological availability of nutrients between seagrass and such external nutrient sources. 4. The removal of sand from offshore sandbars for beach nourishment east of the eastern breakwater would unlikely receive the support of the DEP or the EPA, given that there is sufficient sand for beach nourishment west of the western breakwater that requires bypassing under existing conditions. I have been advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure also agreed with this position. In addition, sourcing sand from an offshore sand bar will not address the required removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater or sand accumulation in the harbour mouth. Such a proposal will likely have equivalent costs, if not greater costs, than removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater. 5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
4. The removal of sand from offshore sandbars for beach nourishment east of the eastern breakwater would unlikely receive the support of the DEP or the EPA, given that there is sufficient sand for beach nourishment west of the western breakwater that requires bypassing under existing conditions. I have been advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure also agreed with this position. In addition, sourcing sand from an offshore sand bar will not address the required removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater or sand accumulation in the harbour mouth. Such a proposal will likely have equivalent costs, if not greater costs, than removal of sand from the sand trap west of the western breakwater. 5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
5. The proposal for sourcing sand from offshore sandbars, located outside of the project area, would likely be considered a substantial change to the proposal. Accordingly, an assessment could be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
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.