❓ A parliamentary question on notice regarding the Geraldton Port Enhancement Project's impact on seagrass meadows, specifically addressing exceedances of water quality trigger levels for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) during dredging operations and the subsequent management actions taken.
AnsweredQoN 948Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Geraldton Port Authority’s (GPA) environmental monitoring and response commitments documented in the Public Environmental Review for the Geraldton Port Enhancement Project and in the GPA’s subsequent environmental management programme. These specified alert and action water quality trigger levels for ‘photosynthetic active radiation (PAR)’ over seagrass meadows during dredging operations, and I ask -
(1) On what date was the alert trigger level for PAR first exceeded and notified and will the Minister table the records of that notification?
(2) What action was taken when the alert trigger level for photosynthetic active radiation was exceeded?
(3) On what date was the action trigger level for PAR first exceeded and notified and will the Minister table the records of that notification?
(4) When was the Minister advised that the project was not meeting its water quality criteria and that action was required under the environmental management plan?
(5) Which, if any, of the management actions prescribed in the environmental management plan for excessive turbidity were implemented and were they effective?
(6) Were any measures prescribed in the environmental management plan not implemented?
(7) If not, why not?
(1) On what date was the alert trigger level for PAR first exceeded and notified and will the Minister table the records of that notification?
(2) What action was taken when the alert trigger level for photosynthetic active radiation was exceeded?
(3) On what date was the action trigger level for PAR first exceeded and notified and will the Minister table the records of that notification?
(4) When was the Minister advised that the project was not meeting its water quality criteria and that action was required under the environmental management plan?
(5) Which, if any, of the management actions prescribed in the environmental management plan for excessive turbidity were implemented and were they effective?
(6) Were any measures prescribed in the environmental management plan not implemented?
(7) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 August 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
50 days
(1) The alert level was first exceeded on 20 November 2002. The Geraldton Port Authority notified the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff in Geraldton by telephone of the “alert” situation at the time it occurred. The Geraldton Port Authority (GPA) also notified the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Group (DPMAG) at its 20 December meeting that the “alert” level was triggered. The Department has been advised that no formal minutes of this meeting were taken. (2) As required under the Environmental Management Plan, monitoring of Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) was increased to a daily basis. (3) The action level for PAR was first exceeded on 21 March 2003 and subsequently considered by the DPMAG on 26 March 2003. I now seek leave to table the minutes of this meeting (Attachment 1). See tabled paper. (4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
The Geraldton Port Authority (GPA) also notified the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Group (DPMAG) at its 20 December meeting that the “alert” level was triggered. The Department has been advised that no formal minutes of this meeting were taken. (2) As required under the Environmental Management Plan, monitoring of Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) was increased to a daily basis. (3) The action level for PAR was first exceeded on 21 March 2003 and subsequently considered by the DPMAG on 26 March 2003. I now seek leave to table the minutes of this meeting (Attachment 1). See tabled paper. (4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(2) As required under the Environmental Management Plan, monitoring of Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) was increased to a daily basis. (3) The action level for PAR was first exceeded on 21 March 2003 and subsequently considered by the DPMAG on 26 March 2003. I now seek leave to table the minutes of this meeting (Attachment 1). See tabled paper. (4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(3) The action level for PAR was first exceeded on 21 March 2003 and subsequently considered by the DPMAG on 26 March 2003. I now seek leave to table the minutes of this meeting (Attachment 1). See tabled paper. (4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(7) Answered by (6).
The Geraldton Port Authority (GPA) also notified the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Group (DPMAG) at its 20 December meeting that the “alert” level was triggered. The Department has been advised that no formal minutes of this meeting were taken. (2) As required under the Environmental Management Plan, monitoring of Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) was increased to a daily basis. (3) The action level for PAR was first exceeded on 21 March 2003 and subsequently considered by the DPMAG on 26 March 2003. I now seek leave to table the minutes of this meeting (Attachment 1). See tabled paper. (4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(2) As required under the Environmental Management Plan, monitoring of Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) was increased to a daily basis. (3) The action level for PAR was first exceeded on 21 March 2003 and subsequently considered by the DPMAG on 26 March 2003. I now seek leave to table the minutes of this meeting (Attachment 1). See tabled paper. (4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(3) The action level for PAR was first exceeded on 21 March 2003 and subsequently considered by the DPMAG on 26 March 2003. I now seek leave to table the minutes of this meeting (Attachment 1). See tabled paper. (4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(4) The DEP notified me in March 2003, and the Chairman of the Dredge Plume Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) advised me on 12 May 2003, following a DPMAG meeting on 2 May 2003, that the action levels were exceeded in March 2003. (5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(5) The DPMAG proposed four management actions: · Continuously rotating the barges to reduce fines discharge from the barges; · Reducing by approximately 50% the amount of turbid water normally discharged from the support barge just prior to departing to dump material; · Alternating the active support barge water overflow outlet during loading to promote additional settlement of fines during loading; and · Working the dredge at the seaward end of the channel, where possible, to aid flushing of turbid water. Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
Overall, the management actions resulted in a small reduction of the quantity of fines being discharged by the operation into the marine environment. (6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(6) The Environmental Enforcement Unit within the Department of Environment has collated all of the relevant information as a basis for determining whether the dredging management actions undertaken, and currently being implemented were in compliance with the environmental conditions and provide for sufficient protection of the seagrass and other benthic habitats of Champion Bay. The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
The Report notes that while dredging in the Geraldton Port had reduced light conditions on the seabed and risked damage to the seagrass, the GPA is not operating outside the Ministerial Conditions imposed on the project. However, it has been acknowledged that the size of the plume exceeded that which was anticipated by the EPA. In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
In response, the Department is now in the process of implementing changes to monitoring and management arrangements to ensure greater protection of the seagrass, particularly if dredging is to continue into the next seagrass growing period. (7) Answered by (6).
(7) Answered by (6).
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.