The 345 ha of seabed on which North Port Quay would be located is so degraded that virtually no marine life or sea grass exists there at all.
When North Port Quay is established a 3.2 kilometre breakwater will arrest the flow of pollutants from Gage Roads allowing the now degraded area where the development would be located to return to its natural state thus encouraging the return of marine life and aquaculture.
The marina would be home to thousands of pleasure craft that are currently using the already-overloaded Swan and Canning Rivers.
From North Port Quay it’s envisaged more and more boat owners would choose to slip their moorings and travel up and down the coast rather than on the rivers.
18 comments:
would the impacts on the seabed be confined to the 345 ha the project would takes up?
The main concern is that with global warming, scarce petroleum resources and their high prices, why are boat slips for power boats such a prominent feature of the north quay port? Power boats are not only an unnecessary and extravagant waste of resources but are also consider, by many other water users, a big source of noise and air pollution.
The unnecessary use and waste of fuel should discouraged. Indeed they should not be permitted when it is possible to do so. Accordingly the north quay port plan should eliminate boat slips, at least slips for use by fuel consuming, polluting power boats.
It is stated that:
"a 3.2 kilometre breakwater will arrest the flow of pollutants from Gage Roads allowing the now degraded area where the development would be located to return to its natural state"
this doesn't make any sense - how could the area where the development is to be located return to its natural state?
Where is the fill coming from?
dredge spoil can only fill so much.
There is currently a shortage of "building sand" and a number of cases of illegal clearing from companies trying to get fill / sands.
If it really is "green" it will be interesting to see if the fill hasn't resulted in any loss of vegetation or biodiversity in other parts of the state.
I think its great that developments like this are focusing on the environmental impacts rather than just pure profits. Companies like this should be heralded for taking the initiative to consider public open space, social ramifications, sustainability, energy use, carbon emissions and impacts of transport etc . They are really ahead of the rest in having a great vision and realising the way of the future.
Long gone are socially and environmentally irresponsible growth- this is something Perth and indeed Australia can be proud of! This will be viewed in the future as being a landmark initiative and the first (of hopefully more environmentally conscious developments) of its kind.
Where is Gage Roads? Isn't it the name given to that mass of water between the Perth coast and Rottnest Island?
The seabed is sand because of the natural process of the alluvial deposition from the sand plume from erosion of the limestone, that is the foundation of our city, by the waterways that feed the Swan River.
The sand that constitutes the seabed and beach is the only close to 'natural' part in the North Mole area. Is the developer suggesting that the area was sea grass beds or limestone reef before the development of Fremantle harbour. And that their proposed add-on, unnatural development will magically return the centuries lost natural state?
Surely the developers ridiculous "pollution arresting" claims pertain to pollutants from industry in Cockburn Sound and those being flushed from the suburbs down the Swan River?
You could at least make that clear.
All that arrested pollution drifting in through the gap in the south rock wall makes the thought of swimming at the fake beach in the middle of the devlopment an itchy prospect.
I think rather than arresting pollution, this type of garbage post, is muddying the waters and prosecuting a misconception polluting the minds of the readers.
The real problem is the destruction of sea grass beds in the Garden Island sheltered waters of Cockburn Sound and the loss of habitat and fish nurseries in the process.
Plonking a huge great coastal development at the mouth of the Swan River will not improve that existing problem.
Environmentally you arguements are not sound.
Inshore current disruption, loss of sea grass and more importantly kelp beds both at site and down current are all significant factors.
More importantly, the comment refering to the pollutants from gage roads. The design of the complex makes for a very good water trap with limited flushing, so I guess you will reduce pollutants elswhere by concentrating them within the development.
Down current effects of development will be significant and will include erosion of near shore environment resulting in public monies being wasted on saving and restoring beach areas along the stretch from the development through to cottesloe. Increased sediment in the water from development will cause death of sea grass ( a flowering plant dependent on sunlight ) and also affect kelp colonies that are significant marine ecologies along the coast from leighton through to cottesloe. My belief is that such a development as one proposed would have huge affects on the local marine environment particularly migratory fish species like pink snapper.
This response from Chris Carman, managing director (Benchmark Projects Australasia.
The whole development is designed to take advantage of the natural currents and “littoral drift” that exist in the area. The breakwater is specifically positioned and shaped to allow the movement of sand to reverse the erosion at Port Beach, in fact it will actually accrete.
There is adequate allowance for flushing through the development via three continuous “canals” and wide openings at both ends, positioned to take advantage of natural tides and prevailing winds. There will be no concentration of pollutants within the development.
We have yet to finally determine the extent of seagrass beds, however preliminary investigations using divers and video cameras have revealed a highly degraded seabed condition. The concept will obviously be subject to much more robust and intensive environmental analysis. Any seagrass that is impacted will be offset and replanted with more than what is removed.
The breakwater, canals and surf reef will form a huge new habitat for marine life of all types, which does not currently exist in that area. This fact has been demonstrated all over the world.
Stunning! All this and no expense to the taxpayer. It's a no brainer, let's let the development proceed. Politicians need to understand that they are not engineers, architects, financiers so; leave it to the professionals and stick to protecting the basic rights of citizens by providing us with adequate police etc. Leave the development of the state to the experts.
Environmental benefits?
Carbon neutral?
What a joke! The CO2 added by just the site works alone will be in the millions of tonnes.
Adding a wind turbine and a few solar panels afterwards will not remove the initial outlay.
If the seagrass is degraded, replant it and add an artificial reef if needed and leave it at that.
Developers are experts in making profits.
After effects to everybody else are not their concern, just look at the Gold Coast.
Ha Ha just plant seagrass and be done with it?
Who's the philanthripist that'll foot that bill and why? what good would it ultimately do exept make people like you think you were saving the world.
I am also concerned about the environmental impacts of construction but you need to put these things in proper perspective. We are moving into an environmentally conscious period but we won't get there overnight and if we don't shoot for the moon we won;t get there.
killing off an idea because in the short term it will cause pollution is a ridiculous notion that will cause untold damage we we outgrow our decaying infrastructure.
I consider myself an environmentalist. Perth and Fremantle are going to grow whether or not this deevelopemt occurs. At least this offers some opportunities to get it right.
the survey report now added to the website includes the following from a prompt to a question:
"They were told that it would “also create three new beaches without impacting on the existing beaches, and have marina facilities for more than 1000 boats. Yet the Premier has rejected the proposal before it has had any serious investigation.”
right. isn't that push-polling?
my questions:
1. where's the brief given the the survey marketing firm? shouldn't that be published too?;
2. how many residents of the City of Fremantle were "surveyed"?;
3. how many residents of North Fremantle, Mosman Park and Cottesloe were "surveyed"?;
4. why not some other hypothetical scenario questions? eg are you aware of the Port Geographe development down south? are you aware the community has had to pay to clean that up?;
etc.
(Ed: The poll was a methodologically rigorous public opinion survey intended to learn about and measure community opinions.
The poll and the questions asked are available on by clinking the above link.)
I recieved a dvd and printed matter about your proposal for the developement at North Quay.
I have considered your promotion and I entirely reject the whole idea.
One of the first comments made in the submission stated that the seabed in the area is degraded, who said that and does this give you the right to totaly destroy what is left? I found it very hard to look at the rest of the sickening promotion.
The whole area from Cottesloe to Fremantle is now congested with traffic, very soon the Leighton Beach area will be developed and further add to this congestion. Your proposal will make the matter worse.
As usual the only people to benifit from this project will be the developers and that is what the whole thing is about, greed and self interest.
I think that you will find a huge groundswell against you and I will be doing my part.
I think the proposal is horrible,
vastly excessive in scale.
Trucking in - or even rail freighting in - all the rocks and sand is environmentally expensive.
If you must do something (?),
might something more modest be possible?
Something like a big oil rig with living spaces above, and boat moorings below, would still make money and fill the only "need" that an ocean location provides that isn't better provided on existing land - namely more boat moorings.
And, it would save trucking in dirt, and messing up any beaches.
I think the proposal is horrible,
vastly excessive in scale.
Trucking in - or even rail freighting in - all the rocks and sand is environmentally expensive.
If you must do something (?),
might something more modest be possible?
Something like a big oil rig with living spaces above, and boat moorings below would still make money and fill the only "need" that an ocean location provides that isn't better provided on existing land - namely more boat moorings.
interesting article in the West this weekend re coastal vulnerability, see:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=80144
based on Cottesloe example but has wider relevance.
quote:
"The study, funded by the Federal Government, also warns that violent storms and a projected 48cm sea level rise mean infrastructure could be destroyed and homes likely to be left without vital services such as gas, water and sewerage if the State Government fails to assess Marine Parade pipelines.
The extraordinary findings, to be presented to Cottesloe council for the first time on Monday, are based on the latest information from the United Nations and NASA on how the area will look in 2030 and 2070."
If the NPQ is engineered to avoid all this in a dynamic environment, what effects will all that engineering have elsewhere?
Post a Comment