Proposed new channel in Peel estuary
Hi All
I went to a public meeting on monday night at the port Bouvard Recreational and Sporting Club club house. The meeting was conducted by the Peel Preservation group inc, and the hot topic for the public meeting was the proposed new channel to be cut across the Peel estuary from the east end of the cut to Point Grey The meeting was facilitated by the Hon David Templeman and a lot of information about the possible effects of this channel was provided by Dr Vic Semeniuk who spoke on Coastal processes, intra estuarine sedimentation and Principles of acid sulphate soils their significance and various other matters the dredging could affect.
Dr Chris Hallet (Fisheries Research) gave an overview of fish and invertebrates fauna reserch findings relating to the estuary changes to the fish community resulting from the cut.
Two other speakers also gave presentations on possible effect that could result of this proposed channel being dredged.
And guess what the Peak body representing amateur fisherman gave a great talk on the possible effects that the channel will have on fishing in the estuary and how it will put in a submission against the channel being dredged- YEAH RIGHT !
The supposed PEAK Body looking after amateur fishermen has been noticeably missing at any public meetings that take place south of the river that will have affect on rec fishing, like the meeting held in Rockingham last year when the extent of the removal of sea grasses needed for the proposed marinia in Mangles Bay was disclosed
It appears to myself and a couple of mates that if it happens south of Fremantle who cares it's too far for the peak body representing amateur fishermen to attend and make representation or supply information to rec fishermen about something that may have far reaching adverse result on fishing.
This peak body has lost all respect for it by half a dozen estuarine fishermen, the only person to give some information about adverse affects on fishing came from a much respected pro fisherman.
One very disgusted fisherman.
Rick
Posts: 1118
Date Joined: 22/12/06
Development
No doubt this has something to do with a proposed new delevolpment at Point Grey
PGFC Member
crasny1
Posts: 7006
Date Joined: 16/10/08
First Ive heard about this!!
Still got the old abode in Parkridge with a great view of the estaury. Moving up here I have heard nothing about this, as Kcity is to far north!!
Is this a channel they propose to allow bigger boats to Point grey??
Neels
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
Proposed new chanelin Peel estuary
Yep certainly is ,what is proposed is that the developer puts in a chanel for 300 residence of the new Point Gray development can have access accros the estuary for their floating gin palaces.
Now in my view putting at risk the whole estuary system for approx 300 residences doesn't quite make scence to me. I have nothing against people having floating gin palaces or any other kind of boat, horses for courses and all that. Just that putting at risk a great recreational water way with one of the best crab fisheries for hundreds of Ks is not acceptable for the benifit of just 300 people (development figures not mine).
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
http://www.pointgrey.com.au/m
http://www.pointgrey.com.au/marina_studies#environmental-links
http://www.mandurahmail.com.au/news/local/news/general/up-in-arms-over-channel-dredge-plan/2126330.aspx?storypage=0
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Estuarine systems
Wow, a 2300 page document on the pros and cons of another disaster.
Tell me, how many people will spend the time to read that.
When is the government going to put a halt to this non stop attack on our inland waterways.
The day the Dawesville cut was opened it spelt the end of the Peel/Harvey Estuary.JMO.
Isn't this a job for the "Enviromentalists",Pew or the like.
Rod P
Posts: 725
Date Joined: 20/05/08
I don't know but hasn't the
I don't know but hasn't the Cut helped the inlet? I just assumed it had.
grantarctic1
Posts: 2546
Date Joined: 03/03/11
I thought
I fished the inlet before the cut was put through, what a stinking mess it was.
After the cut was opened, the change(for the good) was almost instant.
The only problem i see, is more and more cannal's were made with more houses and created the same problem they had before. Too much water and not enough movement (tide) to clean out the area.
Maccatak
Posts: 29
Date Joined: 30/07/09
If it wasnt for the cut the
If it wasnt for the cut the estuary would be a stinking mess, as far as I can see it has only been good for the whole of the Mandurah area.
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
RECFISHWEST SUBMISSION- Point Grey Marina
RFW had been is discussions with the developer well before any public meeting by the way
RECFISHWEST SUBMISSION
Attention: Leanne Thompson
Recfishwest Submission to the Environmental Protection Authority on the Public
Environmental Review (PER) - Point Grey Marina EPA Assessment No. 1751
Recfishwest is Western Australia’s peak recreational fishing body. We represent the interests
of more than 600,000 Western Australians who go fishing and are recognised in this capacity
by the Government of Western Australia. Recfishwest’s charter encompasses ensuring that
marine and freshwater systems are only exploited in such a manner as to allow sustainable
use of their resources.
Recreational fishing is an extremely important pastime in the Peel region for both locals and
visitors. Fishing for blue swimmer crabs in the Peel-Harvey Estuary is highly valued by the
recreational fishing community. Mandurah crabs are an iconic recreational fishing species in
Western Australia. This estuary system also supports important recreational finfish and prawn
fisheries.
Recfishwest would like to make the following observations and comments in relation to the
PER document for this development.
Fauna surveys and risk assessment
While the proponents have undertaken surveys on various fauna in the development zone,
including the stygofauna and troglofauna, and assessed the risk of this development towards
these ecological communities, no such work has focused on the estuarine fish and
invertebrate fauna. The proponent has only undertaken a desktop study to identify the fish
fauna likely to occur within the development area. While this is a good starting point,
Recfishwest believes that a more detailed survey of the fish and crab fauna within the impact
zone is essential. A specifically designed fish and invertebrate survey within the development
area is the only method in which to gain the knowledge required to adequately assess risk and
develop strategies to minimise impacts.
By the same token, Recfishwest believes that this PER contains too many broad statements in
relation to the fish and invertebrate fauna of the zone of influence. For example, the
statement “Estuarine species are more tolerant of suspended solids than oceanic species” may
be somewhat true but misleading as many species deemed to be oceanic inhabit the estuary
in high abundances as a result of the Dawesville Cut. These species include Australian herring,
silver trevally, tailor and Australian salmon, all of which are important species to the
recreational fishing sector.
RECFISHWEST SUBMISSION
Public Environmental Review (PER) - Point Grey Marina, April 2011.
A more focussed fish and invertebrate study will also aid in quantifying some of the impacts of
this project. For example, statements such as “a relatively small number of crustaceans will be
killed by direct impact with the dredge” should be quantified to some extent.
The PER states that dredging will occur between May and October to avoid coinciding with
breeding times of key species. Very little evidence is used to justify this position. Recfishwest
believes that dredging at this time of year is preferable for numerous reasons such as to
minimise the impact on the commercial fishery, lessen interactions with the community and
the presence of beneficial outward flows due to winter rains. However, the generalised
statement regarding spawning times is oversimplified and far too dismissive. The proponents
must investigate potential impacts on spawning fish and crabs as well as impact on larvae and
juveniles and look towards measure to reduce these impacts.
Recfishwest is particularly concerned about the impacts of dredging on spawning cobbler, a
species with increased vulnerability due to low fecundity and distinct breeding behaviours.
Indeed, the PER states “The cobbler breeding habit of nesting burrows as they spawn has
made them particularly vulnerable to human induced impacts. Unlike many fish which spawn
prolifically, and several times of year, the cobbler reproductive cycle is conducive to low larval
dispersal”. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the western shoreline of Point Grey is important
cobbler spawning habitat and that this species exhibit spawning behaviour during August and
September in that area. Recfishwest believes that this species represents a single example of
how the risks of dredging have not been adequately assessed.
Detailed fauna surveys and risk assessments were raised as an issue by stakeholders during
consultation back in 2007. So far these measures have not been taken. Recfishwest believes
that a simple desk top study is insufficient in terms of collecting relevant site specific
information in determining any impacts of dredging. A survey specifically focussed on fish and
invertebrate fauna within the zones of impact and influence will:
• Accurately identify species within the zone
• Quantify direct impacts
• Identify potential impacts
• Identify non-commercially or non-recreationally important species
• Identify species movements, migrations and spawning times
• Guide impact mitigation strategies
Dredge impacts and mitigation
Some uncertainty remains as to the environmental consequences of the proposed channel
dredging across the Harvey Estuary, particularly given the aforementioned lack of appropriate
knowledge regarding the fish and invertebrate fauna within the area.
Recfishwest is concerned about the maintenance dredging that will be required on a 5 to 10
year basis. The Dredge and Spoil Disposal Management and Monitoring Plan (DSDMMP)
states that maintenance dredging will involve estuarine spoil disposal. Recfishwest believes
that this methodology is unacceptable and the DSDMMP must be altered to encompass an
onshore treatment and disposal of spoil strategy.
RECFISHWEST SUBMISSION
Public Environmental Review (PER) - Point Grey Marina, April 2011.
Given the fact that this maintenance activity is within the known scope of this project, the
methodology should be investigated and clearly determined before project approval is
granted. This is particularly important given an anticipated maintenance dredging volume of
50,000 m3, which is equivalent to approximately half of the initial dredge volume of 95,000
m3.
Recfishwest also believes that dredging periods must link closely with tide and prevailing
weather condition to minimise the size of the dredge plume in the estuary. For example, we
suggest that easily suspended sediments are dredged during out going tides. Recfishwest also
suggest that dredging should be avoided at peak recreational times such as fine weather
weekends in an attempt to decrease the social impacts during the dredging phase of this
development.
Increased recreational fishing pressure
Recfishwest commends the proponent recognising the potential impacts of increased fishing
pressure on key species as a result of recreational fishers using the marina and boat ramp
facilities. However, while the implementation of education materials within the marina and
the monitoring of recreational fishing effort are laudable, Recfishwest believes this will not
sufficiently offset the impact of increased fishing pressure. Instead, we believe that the
proponent should look to provide offsets for the project impacts such as fish stocking or
habitat enhancement reefs. We believe that investment in these initiatives will provide
longer-term benefits for the environment and the community.
Recfishwest does not object to this development in principle. We strongly believe that more
knowledge is required as to its potential impacts on the fish and invertebrate fauna of the
estuary. We believe the same due diligence which has been applied to terrestrial
communities must also be applied to aquatic communities, particularly since a large
proportion of this development will occur in the estuarine environment. We expect this
project to provide no net loss of marine ecological function or loss of access for the
recreational sector.
Recfishwest believes that this development has the potential to offer benefits to the
recreational fishing community when completed. However, the potential risks and
environmental impacts of this development must be clearly identified so that measures can be
taken to minimise these impacts during construction and ongoing maintenance.
http://www.recfishwest.org.au/content/submissions/
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
sorry about the formatting
had issues with converting pdf file
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
recfishwest member
Meglodon are you a member of your peak body?
Interested in your views of the submission above.
Member feedback- negative or positive is always welcomed.
Always interested to hear from anglers with their concerns but a better way of finding out is call direct on 9246 3366
Membership is just $20pa and you receive regular updates on topical issues like marine planning, fish stocking projects, artificial reefs planned for around the state, kids fishing clinics - including remote communities, negotiation on wrl management changes, resource sharing agreements, wilderness fishing conservation strategies, initiatives for expenditure of licence fee funds, Young Future Leaders program identifying smart upcoming anglers who want to make a difference, future research, new recangler survey methodology, and a few other things they are working on
New board election in Oct where you get to put your hand up or vote for someone.
Best money passionate anglers can spend