Seaway Concerns

[Hornblower]

I was reading another post on this site saying something about if the new cruise terminal goes ahead on the Gold Coast that fishing the seaway may go by the by. Does anyone know anything about this for sure and if so can we possibly get the information so we know where we stand, one way or another. Cheers!

[freespool2]

Hi hornblower,

yes, unfortunatly its true and it must be stopped.
There is a lot of great info on the saveourspit.com website, there is also another thread on this site under the fishing news forum, happy reading...

cheers andy

[Az]

there definately would be a lot more restrictions in place thats for sure.. I don't know what stage it is at at present, hopefully someone else can share more info on the topic!!

[jim_farrell]

Nothing in place to say no fishing, however restrictions would be put in place. I can't see surfers being allowed to paddle across with a block of flats bearing down on them. ;D ;D There is no info on it as nothing is concrete yet. That said, now is the time to have your say. Go to sight andy suggested.
Jim

[shaman]

I've read and heard plenty of arguments against the terminal, winds, siltation,dredging dramas, flooding etc but the pollies are very quiet in defending their decisions. Maybe they think they're above explaining to the peasants or maybe they are just plain wrong..............could this be so??

Could our pollies be so stupid or ignorant?? or could the agenda overule the environment and our quality of life?????

We must be wrong, they can't act while ignoring the facts, can they????

They must be keeping all their arguments saved up as a big surprise until the end when they'll go "TA-DAH" "See we were nver going to do anything to hurt you guys just in the name of revenue or ego, don't be silly!!!"...............................................BIL LY

[Hornblower]

No worries Chaps, I might throw off a letter to Mr Beattie asking for his views on restrictions and how fishing plays a big part in the tourism of the Gold Coast. Thanks for you info, and I will have a look at that website and get back to you. Might send the letter to his office Certified Mail ;D ;D That way there will be less chance that it can get "lost enroute" and a better chance of a quicker reply. ;) ;) Keep any info coming in though as it all helps in these things. This will give me soemthing to do when the SouEasters blow up. :-/ :-/

[Jitlands]

So its Ok to build the original seaway and construct wavebreak island because it has provided some good fishing spots but now its all NO PROGRESS, SAVE THE SPIT, NO DREDGING and the only real reason is because a few want to protect 3 or 4 fishing spots in the seaway.

It's a man made environment that has produced some good habitat and therefor some good fishing spots buts who is to say that a deeper entrance with extended walls won't in time produce good habitat.

There is no doubting the ever growing population of the Gold Coast combined with the flood of Brisso's each weekend is a greater threat than the proposed seaway alterations.

The days of the end of the north wall being some sort of angling heaven are long gone. Its like friggin Queen St out there on the weekends

Perhaps rather than flogging a dead horse anglers could get a better result by lobbying for batter ramp facilities and perhaps an artifical reef within an easy run of the entrance, ????

[Burley_Boy]

Hear hear Jitlands.

The artificial reef idea is great and needs more of a push along.

As far as surfers paddling the Seaway its probably easier for them to avoid a ship popping in once a month or so as opposed to avoiding getting run over by every dork with a motorised craft that thinks 30knots within 10feet of a surfer is a-OK.

[shaman]

Jitlands, good point and i'm sure the local fish population will adjust to life in their new habitat but there is a lot more pressing questions being raised than 3 or 4 fishing spots.
What about local floodplains that are now residential communities??
Apparently there was a rather noticible change in tide levels when the seaway was first built, obviously the amount of dredging needed will affect tidal influence to some degree. I for one would be interested in some data. This dredging would only benefit the offshore fisho as the seaway would be more navigable with more water at the entrance.
With the little that's being offered on the subject there is even less from the pollies. It seems a bit quiet on the rebuttle scene.
It would be remiss of me if I didn't mention the local population of leisure-seekers that use the spit and it's facilities, apparently the local lifestyle doesn't count.
What happened to the local Aboriginal title on the spit, why aren't their spokespeople jumping up & down, protesting the further destruction of this so-called pristine area. Or doesn't it matter anymore now that it's sold off.
Too many questions and not enough answers..........................BILLY

[Jackinthebox]

Beattie & co will push it through regardless because they want the big bikkies from the ground leases under the terminal etc.

I guess the pipeline may become a thing of the past as well, how much does a cruise ship draw?

Maybe some of the revenue can be used to sink a few more artificial reefs - we're gonna need 'em if the marine parks juggernaught keeps rolling on!

[gawby]

I will go with Jitlands and Burley Boy.
If the seaway is dredged out deeper and made the walls longer it will make it safer for all concerned and i am sure the deeper water will bring bigger fish in.
As for local flood plains that are now residential areas, if yo go and buy a lot and do not check how deep the water was during the 74 floods you get what you get.
I remember the 74 floods very well and the dreging of the seaway is not going to make one iota of difference if this happens again.
Looking to the future, the cruise terminal will probably generate jobs and bring money to the Gold Coast that we would miss out on otherwise.
Graeme ;)

[seatime]

Not down-playing the impact on the environment and community, but there may be an up side if the terminal does go ahead.
The Seaway was originally built to provide a safer access for boats, dredging can only make it safer for the growing boating fraternity. It might not be a fair comparison but is the Tweed completely ruined by dredging at the bar.
Granted the project is motivated by financial gain and not safety, but it will help alleviate some of the overcrowding on the broadwater by allowing more boats to access deeper water.

[manchild]

Thanks Jitland ,i called an idiot expressing the same view in the another thread -the news section.10 years from now it would be just as normal to everybody with the terminal as itis now without it .
cheers
George

[manchild]

Now let those abusing pm-s coming ;)

[Chimo]

Some interesting points have been made#in this thread.
In this discussion could I add some more for you consideration and comment:-

1 the seaway and wavebreak are artificial and have replaced a setting not unlike Jumpinpin as it is now
2 the degree and extent of floodplain inundation is likely to be impacted by the combination of a heavy rainfall event that follows an earlier wet period so that the catchment is saturated and the flood detention structures like Hinze and Little Nerang are at capacity or close to it. #
Add to this the fact that the lower reaches of the Nerang river are seriously silted so that watercarrying capacity is reduced and this also applies to an extent in the sthn broadwater. #Rain fall in these circumstances will produce very high runnoff rates. #A little like a tin roof; ie 1mm of rain on 1 sq meter produces 1 litre of runoff.
3 If the circumstances as described in point 2 coincide with cyclonic conditions and a high tide coincides with peak land runoff then the chance for floodplain inundation is significantly higher - several of these factors did combine in '74
4 conditions in the sthn and central braodwater have appeared to change over time in relation to the tidal change point. #ie more of the tidal water in the broadwater flows out the seaway leading to more coastal erosion on the broadwater side of sth stradbroke. #
5 with increased siltation and the southern tidal flow the indications may be that flows thru Jumpinpin could be further decreased which tends towards the continued shallowing and addition siltation so that North and Sth Stradbroke may in time; once again, be one
6 increased flow thru the seaway has some potential to hasten the reduction of flow thru the Jumpinpin #channel and over its sandbar. #
7 no doubt entension of the seaway walls and dredging of the seaway channel will impact the environmental disclimax in the locality but it is very unlikely for a climax envirnoment to have established in the relatively short period since the seaway and wavebreak island were established. #
8 the potential for the re-establishment of a similar disclimax with most if not all if not a greater diversity of sealife is what the EIS needs to consider along with many other issues "onsite' and just as significantly "offsite" from the actual ship terminal
8 Given the fluid, dynamic nature of the environment of the seaway, rivers, broadwater, stradbroke islands and man's wants and needs etc the scene is going to keep changing so why not consider, on balance, that which may also #benefit the Qld / Gold Coast economy in what is a totally dynamic and dare I say an already very much altered setting.

looking forward to some peer review.......

Cheers

Chimo GOM.

[Burley_Boy]

What will impact us more is if the hippie greenie mobs move in and create more green zones and sea tree huggin areas.

[seatime]

It is surprising that there is so much opposition expressed on this forum. From a fishing and boating perspective, we'll adapt very quickly.
20 years ago landbased fisho's had to walk to the spit as vehicles needed a permit. The bar was as dodgy as the Pin bar is today.
Do people move to the Gold Coast for the wide open spaces (reclaimed and filled) or for other reasons.

keep em coming.

[frankj]

Phew, Chimo could you repeat that but slower this time.

I have never known a development of this size to not attract a frenzy of hysteria about the sky falling in and the end of the world. Sometimes the doomsayers are correct, some times they are unfounded, for the average person life goes on in a slightly different way.
The Gold Coast would be one of the most significant examples of over development and commercialisation around. So I think it might be a little late in the day to be beating the chests about conservation now. I would guess that a significant number of the people making much of the noise live within and enjoy the sprawl that is the Gold Coast. Before they built their mansions or took over their highrise apartments there would have been many people arguing against the developments they are now trying to protect. These commercial and residential developments would in total have impacted the coastal environment hundreds of times more than any cruise terminal will. Imagine the Nerang River 40 years ago, and then consider someone raises a proposal to build as many riverside developments as there is. The reaction would be horrendous. The end is nigh. But surprise surprise, life continued on, the river still provides good fishing, very good at times. Maybe it's different fishing, but nothing stays the same, change is inevitable. Maybe the terminal will kill the seaway, but I don't think so. I think it will change and some will not like that, however others will find new features, new attractions and different fishing challenges.

Life's too short, just enjoy it.

Happy fishing.

Frank

p.s. no further correspondence will be entered in to.

[Chimo]

I agree with Frank, I'm here for lifestyle too, and aint it wonderful and a fact of life that nothings stays the same.

It's also useful and enjoyably between fishing trips to chat, share, discuss and agree or disagree and in the process maybe also gain some extra knowledge?

Isn't that part of the reason that we are all pecking away on this site ?

How much rain are we going to get this weekend in SE Qld anyway?

Cheers

Chimo

[freespool2]

Unfortunately this issue is larger than a few people wanting to protect 3 or 4 fishing spots in the seaway.

Thousands of local, interstate and international vistitors use the spit and broadwater on a daily basis, these include leisure makers, fishermen, bathers, surfers, paddlers, jetskiiers, snorkellers, scuba divers, sunbakers, cyclists, walkers, dog owners, and picnickers to name a few!

The spit is the only large tract of easilly accessible undeveloped ocean beach frontage between the NSW border and Bribie Island, with our population increasing daily surely open space for the public is a significant resource worth fighting for.

The Governments computer simulation done in Malaysia clearly states that the smallest ship tested (245m) could not safely navigate the seaway in winds over 16 knots or an ebb tide greater than1.3 knots, larger ships (289m) can apparently negotiate a dredged seaway in winds up to 20 knots but the ebb tide speed is still way too fast for safety. How about over 30 knots of breeze (common) and 4 to 5 knots of tide (common), there are even official signs in the seaway warning people of the fast tides experienced within the seaway.

Master mariners question the viability, feasibility and sanity of this proposal.

It would be a shame to ruin our magnificent beaches to the north and south of the seaway with an oil spill caused by a vessel far too large for the proposed infrastructure entering or leaving the seaway. What happens if one of the huge ships gets it wrong, unusual wind gusts, flood tides, we could have a blocked seaway with an environmental disaster of unseen proportions.

Government information says a ship would need several hours to manoeuvre in the seaway during docking and departures, during which time no one could use it because of safety and security issues, which raises safety issues for any vessels offshore who require rescue or medical assistance.

The Governments "Initial Advice Statement" predicts that only $4.6 million pa would be generated by the shipping terminal, far less than .05% of the Gold Coasts tourism dollars, and worse still states "wider indirect economic benefits from the terminal are difficult to model and are highly speculative.

Just the dive industry alone generates $200 million tourism dollars pa, employing hundresd of Gold Coasters, then there is recreational and charter fishing, surfing ect ect.

There would be very little or no commercial benefit to businesses on the Gold Coast, with meals prepaid onboard, and excursions pre paid and often serviced by the cruise company only about 1/3 of the cost of shore excursions would go to the local operator, stamps and postcards would be the major purchases.


The inital and ongoing dredging (24 hours 7 days a week) will be huge, and just one abnormal event of nature can undo months of expensive dredging overnight, and who pays for that, yep, we do.


Report 55, from the Gold Coast 2020 Harbour Vision Process clearly states concerns that such dredging may cause serious erosion and flooding in rivers and canals and closure of the bar at Jumpinpin.

The main beneficiaries of this proposal are the developers which stand to gain 8 hectares of prime crown land for free.

"Build it and they will come" is a line from a movie, not a reality. Cruise compnies play ports off against each other to reduce or eliminate all port charges, so both the Brisbane and the Proposed Gold Coast terminal will be played as suckers.

Sorry to go on a bit.

Save our spit

Cheers andy

[Jim_Byrne]

The pending devlopment of a cruise ship terminal at the Southport Spit is a very serious matter with masive ramifications for the spit precinct.
I will point out that I am not a greenie, I merely have a long term understanding of this area, it is my backyard. I dont live in a mansion or a highrise just a small common lowrise unit in Main Beach.

I am not opposed to development of land, but in the right area, and only if it is for the benefit of the community. I wonder whether this is the case with this proposal.
As freespool2 points out this is the last public piece of coastal land attached to the mainland for a long way north, and is a parkland enjoyed by many thousands of people in its current form. Maybe it should be saved from being turned into a concrete mass? How many people have seen how grotty and polluted cruise ship terminals across the world appear?
As a fisherman and boat owner I prefer the seaway entry and parklands the way it is.
We stand to loose a free protected anchorage for boats up past Seaworld along with a an important fish habitat and highway between the river and the ocean, an area where festivals can be held, a recreational area for families swimmers, picknickers, and more (in short a lot). What for when their is a Cruiseship Teminal in Brisbane only 40 minutes away that is just about complete? Yes there has been development on the Broadwater before (thats why it is so narrow now) and yes things are still OK, but has there been a Cruiseship Terminal before? What if there is a spill of oil or fuel of some sort?

I hold grave concerns as to whether the roads and other infrastructure of the local area can handle the increasing numbers of users given that at present the roads leading to the spit precicnt are congested in peak times. How will this work with the proposed unit development as well as the Cruiseship Terminal itself, along with the other developments proposed for Seaword Drive. The existing big business's will also be looking to expand in the future, i.e Seaworld and Marina Mirage. The area between the trawlers base and the Seaworld Car Park is also earmarked for development in the near future. How can it allfit on the narrow peice of sand we call the spit?

Is the traffic senario going to end up like it is in Surfers now? How are they going to manage this? Are they going to build a bridge over from the Southport side of the Broadwater? Will they build a Bridge to Wavebreak Island? Will they build a tunnell under the Broadwater? Any bridge they build will have to be big enough to allow massive vessells under it considering how close they get when they pass under the Gateway Bridge.

Chimo, Gelsec and FrankJ, the entrance may come good again as it did when the current walls were put in, but will that be the case with the ongoing dredging that would be needed to maintain a safe entry for these massive vessells, and after the reconstruction of the entry itself it may take many years to return to its former self if at all.
Has everyone seen the amount of turbulance created by the propellers of these ships? Motor behind one in the Brisbane river or in the shipping channel some time. In a confined space (the broadwater) it would destroy the botton of the waterway. Did you see that report the other week by a dive master where he said that the amount of marine life that surrounded the piepline in the seaway was more diverse than anything on the East Coast, including the Reef.
I know it has come here, and may come back again, but do we as users of this area want to take the chance? Even with a boat big enough to fish outside most of the time, I still regularly fish the Seaway. Where will all those recreational fisherman who use the seaway fish while this development is taking place? Not every can go outside?
I don't think a larger seaway will make it possible for smaller boats to get outside more easily,as they still have to handle the conditions outside. Where will all the boaties who park up from Seaworld moar their boats?

I think the Crusieship Terminal is possibly a good idea if it was not such a confined space they were trying to fit the it in, but feel the proposed location of it could threaten a small pocket of open parkland and diverse environment that I think should be kept, so all visitors and residents of the Coast can make use of it, instead of building another monument for greedy Developers and Governments.

Save our Spit!

Jim

[Hornblower]

Hey guys, just thought I would butt in at this point. I didn't mean the environmental impact of this potential development when I kicked off this thread (indeed I wasn't even thinking of that) I was more concerned about severe restrictions being placed on us as are what are currently in place at Fisherman Islands wharves etc. If that happens you can bet your bottom dollar even vehicular access to the spit would be changed dramatically - perhaps even banned. I am not against a cruise terminal going in there, only that our current great access rights would be denied us. Anyway, keep your thoughts coming I must admit that you have given me a lot more to think about then what I was first thinking.

Cheers ;) ;)

[Burley_Boy]

Freespool.
Maybe I'm naive but I simply don't believe some statements such as it only generating 4.5million dollars, People come here to enjoy what the coast has to offer and both directly and indirectly a lot of money comes in from tourists and in this case a shipload of people who have not got their own transport. A new industry will be created to directly service any perceived need.
So the very little to no commercial value to the local industry doesn't hold water. Realize that big developers and Seaworld and Warner Brothers all employ and utilize local industry and smaller developers and local labour so to point at the big nasty developers who just take the money out of the local economy does not hold water

I don't believe a ship will block the Seaway for hours on end

I don't believe 24hour a day dredging.

A bridge high as the gateway... nah sorry don't belive it either.

That the Seaway has incredibly diverse life on par with the barrier reef, yep i know that one is true for sure and around wavebreak and I feel for the dive industry who will be impacted initially by loosing or at least severe damage to one of the best dive sites on the east coast.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I have not been convinced by the barrage of arguments varying from sound to ludicrous. I went to Ian Banks film showing about the Seaway and he done a great factual presentation with council reps present but the question session was marred by being hijacked by a couple of old Save the Spit campaigners who in my eyes made me loose a lot of faith in the entire lobby group. It was embarrassing.

Unfortunately the sound arguments get lost amongst the rubbish.

[GAFYM]

Hey Guys...

If the "nutty fringe groups with the votes" get their pertition through Parliament for the "Banning of killing all native animals" you wont have to worry about fishing anymore.
And dont think they dont have a chance.
Who would have thought there are only 300 Grey Nurse Sharks left on the East coast of Aust and they r now protected. (Which i might add is a total lot of crap)
(was a navy diver)
Dont really care about the Grey Nurse he is harmless if left alone and crap to eat anyway, but i do about what accompanied the ruling. Cant fish here... Cant fish there.
As for the cruise ship terminal...isn't Beattie building one in Brisbane? >:( >:(

[shaman]

The arguments Freespool refers to are the same ones that I have heard and made reference to in my earlier post. My question remains the same, we've all heard bucketloads of arguments against the terminal but the govt is tendering none in their defence ie; wind factors (13 knots???), tidal effects on shipping etc (1.3 kts??). Where are our outspoken leaders??? Where is the information we require to make an informed decision? (not that our opinions would make any difference).

If anybody could supply me with any reference areas that I could gleen any information regarding the govts rebuttles against these claims could you please post it. Obviously all the members who so vehemently stand ready to defend the terminal development would have this info, wouldn't they?? Or are we just crossing our fingers and hoping It doesn't crash and burn???

My main gripe is, that with some of the claims being made, we all risk this development becoming a white elephant. Maybe these "experts" are right???? Maybe the money spent on this could be better spent????
Maybe the tourism $ figures spouted are correct????
How much future investment (ratepayers $$$) to fix a major cock-up??
How do we know whats going on while the pollies are not commenting??
......................BILLY

P.S. Hornblower have a look at the plans and you'll see how restricted access (if any) there will be. There will be no more Spit, just more marinas for big yachts etc., restaraunts and facilities for tourist $$ and absolutely no facilities for our local lifestyle (as we know it) which would be ok by me, if they could prove its worth.........BILLY

[seatime]

Rather not see it built as I believe it will be a fiscal failure. I don't want my taxes propping up a failed venture a la Spirit III and the Tas gov't.
As a major partner the Beattie Gov't will be left holding the bag when it all turns pear shaped. I'm yet to see a convincing argument against the terminal. All the arguments about oil spills and ships blocking channels and endless dredging are, well, they're brown and they float.
Those Malaysian simulations aren't worth the paper they're written on.

All that wailing and gnashing of teeth from the green movement, and some are on here masquerading as fishermen, is certainly generating support from those who see being green as the latest fashion statement.
There is a lot of people that support these cause's because they have nothing else to do or they want to meet persons of the opposite sex, a rent-a-crowd like the rent-a-posters we read here.

that's about 6 cents worth now.

[shaman]

[quote author=gelsec link=1152533483/15#25 date=1152946401]Rather not see it built as I believe it will be a fiscal failure. I don't want my taxes propping up a failed venture a la Spirit III and the Tas gov't.
As a major partner the Beattie Gov't will be left holding the bag when it all turns pear shaped.

Well This could be possible as we "HAVE" recieved data.

[shaman]

All the arguments about oil spills and ships blocking channels and endless dredging are, well, they're brown and they float.
Those Malaysian simulations aren't worth the paper they're written on.

.

And the data you are basing this on comes from where????

[shaman]

they want to meet persons of the opposite sex, a rent-a-crowd like the rent-a-posters we read here.

.

This I can live with........good on ya.............. ;D ;D

[shaman]

that's about 6 cents worth now.

"APPARENTLY"

[seatime]

All the arguments about oil spills and ships blocking channels and endless dredging are, well, they're brown and they float.
Those Malaysian simulations aren't worth the paper they're written on.

.

And the data you are basing this on comes from where????

Personal and professional dealings with a most corrupt and graft riddled maritime flag state, like most in SE Asia.

[shaman]

Okie-Dokie then.

[freespool2]

All that wailing and gnashing of teeth from the green movement, and some are on here masquerading as fishermen, is certainly generating support from those who see being green as the latest fashion statement.
There is a lot of people that support these cause's because they have nothing else to do or they want to meet persons of the opposite sex, a rent-a-crowd like the rent-a-posters we read here.

If these comments are directed at me, you are way off the mark.

I have been a fisherman since i was old enough to walk to my local creek, i am also a commercial skipper having worked within the fishing charter industry here on the coast for 15 years.

I am only interested in passing along information that i think is relevant to the readers of these forums and i welcome comments and others thoughts and views if they are not of a personal nature.

save our spit

cheers andy

[seatime]

I am only interested in passing along information that i think is relevant to the readers of these forums and i welcome comments and others thoughts and views if they are not of a personal nature.
save our spit

cheers andy[/quote]

How do you offer comments, thoughts and views, if they aren't of a personal nature. Otherwise you're just repeating what you've heard without forming your own opinion.
No wonder the public suffers from apoplexy, too many vested interests to give any real credence to the debate.
rgds :(

[Hornblower]

Guys, I have done a bit of reading on the web the last couple of days about this, and I see everyones point. Freespool2 you make extremely valid points about the development along with some of you other blokes. Gelsec, I also beleive what you say is right about the system quickly recovering. I can always remember when the canal developments first started, everyone said it would end fishing, who'd have thought we'd be catching Jacks in them today along with aheap of other species. realistically though, I think it might be a bit of a white elephant and reading between the lines it seems that the Govt may have gone luke warm on it as well. I mean when you think of it, all the infrastructure is already in place in the Brisbane River, at Hamilton, all that is needed is the terminal, which is under construction. Vast difference to the GC Seaway when you think of it. If they build both terminals, both will compete will each other, and utlimately the one who offers the lowest berthing fees and is closest to the cruise destinations will probably win the day. Another consideration is that the vast amount of our population is in Australia's Southern regions and Sydney would still be a very viable alternative. No the more I look into it, the more I think the Govt will not go along with it, after all, they have to offer the owners of the terminal a viable proposition and garuantee it don't they. Also it I haven't been able to find much current comment on it. I think it may have been a bit of a smoke screen for the health crisis, perhaps. I had to laught at this comment though - "The deputy premier’s office said the terminal would open up the untapped southern Queensland coast to tourism, and complement the existing tourist trade in the Gold Coast." which was made on the 14/3/2006. Who are they kidding, I would have thought the Gold Coast Tourist Market was tapped to death ;) ;)

Cheers ;)

[freespool2]

Gelsec,

I am sorry if u misunderstood what i said.

save our spit

Cheers andy

[GAFYM]

People,
Go to www.fishingparty.com.au/AnimalWelfare.pdf and have a real good read. >:( >:( >:(

[Hornblower]

Mmmmm, interesting, goes to show that Bartlett has lost the plot. Has he termed what "Justifiable" is, or if we run over a roo and it survives do we have to put it on life support?? The man is a fool, let us hope that everyone else voting for the bill realises it as well.

[fishingjew]

So its Ok to build the original seaway and construct wavebreak island because it has provided some good fishing spots but now its all NO PROGRESS, SAVE THE SPIT, NO DREDGING and the only real reason is because a few want to protect 3 or 4 fishing spots in the seaway.

It's a man made environment that has produced some good habitat and therefor some good fishing spots buts who is to say that a deeper entrance with extended walls won't in time produce good habitat.

There is no doubting the ever growing population of the Gold Coast combined with the flood of Brisso's each weekend is a greater threat than the proposed seaway alterations.

The days of the end of the north wall being some sort of angling heaven are long gone. Its like friggin Queen St out there on the weekends

Perhaps rather than flogging a dead horse anglers could get a better result by lobbying for batter ramp facilities and perhaps an artifical reef within an easy run of the entrance, ????

[quote author=gelsec link=1152533483/0#11 date=1152912004]
Not down-playing the impact on the environment and community, but there may be an up side if the terminal does go ahead.
The Seaway was originally built to provide a safer access for boats, dredging can only make it safer for the growing boating fraternity. It might not be a fair comparison but is the Tweed completely ruined by dredging at the bar.
Granted the project is motivated by financial gain and not safety, but it will help alleviate some of the overcrowding on the broadwater by allowing more boats to access deeper water.




Thanks Jitland ,i called an idiot expressing the same view in the another thread -the news section.10 years from now it would be just as normal to everybody with the terminal as itis now without it .
cheers
George




Jitlands and Gelsec

Yes the seaway is man made somthing had to be done due to the instability of the strong notherly drift along the shoreline the river mouth moving sometimes as munch 60 metres in a year the ever changing and unpredictable sand banks tragic boating accidents they did a good job even building wave break as a buffer to big swells that may enter the seaway and i think its more than just a few fishing spots in the seaway seems to me that quite a few have forgotten why the sand bypass system was built . Each year some 500,ooo cubic meters of sand move northward past any given point on australia,s east coast . And we are going to extend these walls to trap more sand it has to go somewhere maybe into the new dredged channell hence ongoing dredging gelsec i might point out there would be a difference in dredging tweed especially in depth and cubic meters. might i suggest to all that they do what i did look it up potential impact of dredging. introduced marine pest species.effects of dredging. loss of seagrass.oil spills. stopping sand movement.sand erosion. dredge plumes effects on inshore reefs. a good site to look all this up is aims the dpi use them for quite a lot of their research.

Manchild

Well i must have stepped on your toes yes its the idiot from the other thread i have to ask for the sake of progress but at what cost ?

[grave41]

All this talk about the spit. It wouldnt be there if it wasnt for the old engineer whose workshop is now surrounded by a wire fence near the yacht club. He had lease rights out into the water. The club tried all sorts of tricks to get hold of that lease. then while hes sick in hospital his 50 year lease lapses. fishy.very fishy.
Worst part is i cant remember his name.a true gentleman.
Best part, the yacht club never got ther gready paws on it.They had him in court on assault charges against ther security officer .Judge took one look at him and threw it out.
Its all politics ,you or I can never win!!!!!
Passed away a few years ago god bless him.So whats next ho hum!!

[seatime]

Do u mean Humphrey's shed, forget his first name.

rgds

[Jitlands]

Not surprising to see the Gold Caost councillors who are against the alterations to the seaway have voted to run another pipeline from The Coombabah shit works to the seaway at a cost of $48 million.
The waterways they are supposedly so concerned about will recieve an additional 60 megalitres per day of treated bog.

Should add a nice flavour to the sand crabs??

[fishingjew]

From the australian tourism export council #june

The Gold Coast is a step closer to having a cruise ship terminal following promising results from a hi-tech navigation study conducted at the Star Cruises Ship Simulation Centre in Malaysia. #The Queensland Government this week announced that early indication results from the commissioned survey into the feasibility for large cruise ships to navigate the Gold Coast seaway and dock at The Spit were “encouraging”.


http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,18718284-5003425,00.html

[shaman]

Fishingjew, I hadn't even thought about accidental introduction of non-native fish pests and bacteria carried by international shipping.......
More worrying aspects..........won't have to worry about imported prawns
then will we................Billy

[fishingjew]

A bit of nostalgia

1920
The southport shire council applied to close the breakthrough at jumpinpin it has been suggested that had this scheme gone ahead there may well have been a major highway from southport to brisbane via strasbroke island and moreton island. I wonder what the seaway would look like if a certain ship the cambus wallace never ran aground at jumpinpin?

[Burley_Boy]

Jitlands,
Is there any evidence that the existing treated bog from the shitworks has done anything to the Seaway ecology or its surrounds beyond making the Luderick exstatic every outgoing tide?

Not saying I'm for or against in any way, but if you're prepared to flush then it has to go somewhere.

[Jitlands]

Yes Burley Boy we all contribute to the bog recycleing and disposal industry, That why I allways wait till I get to work for my morning contribution. This ensures its a luggage point deposit not one for the seaway.

But,
I am still not happy with ocean out fall especially when is dumped in an estuary.
These variouse levels of government are just not trying hard enough

1/ If we need to pipe salty water from the desal unit 3km out to sea why is it ok to dump shit in the seaway?

2/If the almost broke Byron Shire can engineer out their ocean and estuary disposal why can't the might of the Gold Coast Council achive this outcome?

[shaman]

Jitlands, maybe Byron council give a sh!t about the environment (pun intended ;D)
Obviously G.C.C.Council don't or money and fame are a higher priority..
.................Billy

[Burley_Boy]

Noble of you to hold your bogs Jitlands. ;D ;D
Me I just try to limit what I eat but I still talk a lot of shit according to some.

re the treatment of sewage I think it comes back to what we are prepared to pay for it. The infrastructure on the coast is undersize for the population by a country mile.

Still don't have an answer on what effect if any the discharge has had on the environment. The divers can't make out any real issues but note the Luderick loves it. Its been going on for plenty of years and should not be compared to ships dumping effluent at sea at any part of the tide or wind. Does any of the discharge enter our estuaries??

Also important to note is that its grey water not effluent that goes out on an outgoing tide. How grey is grey water??
The debate rages in Towoomba as the council wants to make drinking water out of sewage. No problems I say as all our water is just part of the cycle and has passed through millions of kidneys. But we get back to how clean is clean and how grey is grey.

[fishingjew]

The Marine Pest Problem | The National System | Research and Publications | Contacts

Introduced marine pests are plants or animals that are not native to Australia and have a significant impact on our marine industries, environment or well being. Various species of plants and animals have become marine pests across the world. In the Australian marine environment, crabs, mussels, seastars and seaweeds have become marine pests. Marine pests can cause enormous costs to the nation, impacting on human health, fisheries and aquaculture, shipping and ports, tourism, environmental values, biodiversity and ecosystem health.

The exact number of marine species that have been introduced to Australia is unknown. Australian scientists have identified over 129 exotic marine species and 209 cryptogenic (of unknown origin) species in our waters1.

Marine pests have been introduced to Australia and moved around Australia (or translocated) by a variety of human and natural means. Potential modes of transport, or vectors, for marine pests include:

Ballast water (water carried by commercial ships to ensure stability, trim and structural integrity)
Biofouling (marine organisms that attach to objects immersed in salt water such as vessels’ hulls, ropes, anchors and other equipment)
Aquaculture operations
Aquarium imports
Marine debris
Ocean current movements
Once introduced to an area, marine pests often thrive as they do not have any predators or competitors in their new environment.

Example of a marine pest

The Northern Pacific Seastar is believed to have arrived in Australia in ships’ ballast water from Japan 20 years ago. It is a voracious predator of native and commercially farmed shellfish. This species is already common in south-east Tasmanian waters and in Port Phillip Bay in Victoria and has the potential to cause environmental and economic harm in coastal waters from Sydney to Perth.

Download the CSIRO Marine Pest Information Sheet on the Northern Pacific Seastar PDF [130KB]

For more information see: Intergovernmental Agreement on a National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions which includes Fact Sheets on Introduced Marine Pests and Developing a National Approach to Fight Invasive Marine Pests

Reference

1. Hayes K. R., Sliwa C., Migus S., McEnnulty F. and Dunstan P. (2005), "National priority pests – Part II Ranking of Australian marine pests". Final report for the Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage, CSIRO Division of Marine Research, Hobart, Australia, 99 pp.

Download the CSIRO "National priority pests – Part II Ranking of Australian marine pests" PDF [3.3MB]


http://www.daff.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=2F9BEB92-39B6-43F5-BE7F14B8EE60BBEC

[Burley_Boy]

You lost me there fishingjew :-/ :-/
Is the concern about the introduction of pest species anything that has anything to do with the Seaway??

We have cargoships skirting us at the 36's and vessels from all parts of the world currently entering both the Seaway and Brisbane areas and who knows what they are currently dumping and where. Is somebody suggesting that a few more ships entering the Seaway as opposed to Brisbane port would be a greater risk than we have at the moment?

[freespool2]

With over 20,00 signatures on the save our spit petition expect a referendum coming soon to a location near you soon.

save our spit

cheers andy

[freespool2]

20,000......... sorry dropped one...!

[Jim_Byrne]

Lets hope theres some referendum freespool. I dont know if the Government want that sort of public involvement.

Save our Spit

Cheers

Jim