Like a lot of environmental issues, I am left wondering where the truth
lies here. Is this an appalling decision that will wreck the reef? Or does
the counter argument hold, that a typical cyclone raises and redistributes
x-times this amount of sediment so the reef will deal with it? One
would hope (am I naive?) that the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority
understand the issue and would not approve if the dredging on its own was
likely to cause irreversible damage to the reef. They say:
"After rigorous assessment, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
has approved an application by North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation to
dispose of dredge spoil at a deep water location offshore of Abbot Point,
subject to strict environmental conditions.
Authority Chairman, Dr Russell Reichelt, said he recognised the amount of
debate and community concern that the project had generated and shared with
everyone a strong desire to ensure the Reef remains a great natural wonder
into the future.
"This approval is in line with the agency's view that port development
along the Great Barrier Reef coastline should be limited to existing
ports," Dr Reichelt said.
"As a deepwater port that has been in operation for nearly 30 years, Abbot
Point is better placed than other ports along the Great Barrier Reef
coastline to undertake expansion as the capital and maintenance dredging
required will be significantly less than what would be required in other
areas.
"It's important to note the seafloor of the approved disposal area consists
of sand, silt and clay and does not contain coral reefs or seagrass beds."
General Manager for Biodiversity, Conservation and Sustainable Use, Bruce
Elliot said the stringent environmental conditions imposed on the dredge
disposal would help protect biodiversity, heritage and social values of the
multi-use Marine Park and ensure potential impacts of this activity are
avoided, mitigated or offset."
I suspect the bigger issue is the reason behind the dredging which is to
export massively more coal with significant local environmental impacts
(there goes Bimblebox?) and huge global effects through increased CO2
output.
Denise uses the word "waste" - whereas a more accurate term is dredge
spoil. Interestingly in the US, dredge spoil islands from the intra coastal
ship canal are an important site for breeding colonial waterbirds. One
person's rubbish is another person's treasure. Having visited one or two of
these in the breeding season, with their collection of terms, skimmers,
herons, egrets, avocets etc they are not like a pile mine tailings or
rubbish dump. As most of the coast there, like here, has a lot of human
pressure, these spoil islands are now vital for local bird populations.
They are not proposing to make islands out of this stuff in Queensland -
but perhaps they could? They will need to keep the channel clear so regular
replenishment is possible. I'm sure some terns, noddies and pelicans could
appreciate it.
Mark Stanley
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 06:50:40 +0930
From: Denise Goodfellow <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Great Barrier Reef dumping
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Good morning all from a very wet Darwin River
Are any members raising concerns about the decision to dump waste in the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
Regards
Denise Lawungkurr Goodfellow
PO Box 71, Darwin River,
NT 0841
043 8650 835
PhD candidate, SCU
Vice-chair, Wildlife Tourism Australia
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
|
