Get our beach back

Townsville Bulletin - - NEWS -

I HAVE been pur­su­ing the pro­vi­sion of a groyne wall at Nelly Bay since about 2005.

At long last it has now come to a more pos­i­tive stage where the DOT ( Dept. of Trans­port) have made ap­pli­ca­tion to the Great Bar­rier Reef Marine Park Au­thor­ity to take the sand- filled geo­tex­tile ( 2M x 1M x 0.6M high) bags into or about the marine park.

There is a no­tice ask­ing in­ter­ested peo­ple to have in­put to the de­ci­sion to per­mit the ap­pli­ca­tion for in­for­ma­tion pack­ages from www. tmr. qld. gov. au/ nelly­bay­beach­groyne or www. gbrmpa. gov. au/ about- us/ con­sul­ta­tion

It is im­por­tant to re­alise that to make a re­sponse it has to be an email to as­sess [email protected] gbrmpa. gov. au

I would like to ex­plain to the reader my rea­son for pur­su­ing the groyne.

This whole project is very much “mon­key see, mon­key do” where the groyne will act like Bright Point used to be­fore the har­bour con­struc­tion and stop the 24/ 7 east­erly mi­gra­tion of sand from about Lilac St.

It is a pas­sive wall where I could sim­ply use a sheet or iron or two and some star pick­ets.

In un­der Bright Point in the cor­ner of the bay we used to en­joy the sand flats for all sorts of out­door ac­tiv­i­ties.

This can hap­pen again “mon­key see, mon­key do” in the lee of the har­bour break­wa­ter and groyne. No rocket science about it, no se­cret men’s or women’s or po­lit­i­cal busi­ness about it.

It has been as­serted by oth­ers to block in un­der the Kelly St bridge but the ex­pert SEMP ( Shore­line Ero­sion Man­age­ment Plan) has rec­om­mended the groyne op­tion.

When I have seen the bridge blocked un­der­neath by the beach sand mi­gra­tion is when it gives rise to the col­lec­tion of the Tri­chon­desmium and/ or sea­weed that col­lects in the cor­ner of the har­bour en­ter­ing through the main chan­nel and be­ing blown across the har­bour, to col­lect, die and stink.

When the har­bour can breathe through un­der the Kelly St bridge there is no or lim­ited is­sue.

The Tri­chon­desmium and sea­weed of con­cern do not come from the beach, as some will have us be­lieve, proven by the fact the bridge can al­ready be blocked un­der­neath when the stink oc­curs, prov­ing the source as be­ing through the en­trance chan­nel.

An­other main is­sue is that when the DOT em­ploy the TCC at about $ 80,000 a year to re­move the sand from un­der the bridge, they smash the firmer un­der­storey of the beach sand with the very heavy ma­chin­ery giv­ing rise to that sand be­com­ing mo­bile, fur­ther re­duc­ing the pro­tec­tive ef­fect of a beach and al­low­ing greater mi­gra­tion.

For the best part of 20 years, our lead­ers and bu­reau­crats have fum­bled over this project, ne­glect­ing the com­mu­nity, the as­set of beach, fore­shore, trees and in­fra­struc­ture that we have lost to the neg­li­gence.

I can’t think of any­one who can say the Nelly Bay is in good or­der.

The ex­pert study and rec­om­men­da­tion was done and paid for many years ago with only just now “pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion” process to be pro­gressed through.

I ask the reader, if they agree with what I am say­ing, to make the ef­fort to go to the email ad­dress, to put the num­bers and pos­i­tive power of the peo­ple up­front to push firmly to get our beach back for us, our chil­dren and vis­i­tors.

You can email me at magis elec­tri­[email protected] big­pond. com for a dig­i­tal ver­sion of this that you might copy and paste to the DOT web­site say­ing that you agree with what I de­scribed and that it is time to have our beach back and stop the de­struc­tion.

If the DOT and TCC do not pro­vide a vis­ually con­ducive groyne wall then they will be­come the re­cip­i­ents of com­mu­nity angst that I be­lieve they are aware of and so take con­fi­dence that they will pro­vide a de­cent and proper de­sign.

The stone and mud very at­trac­tive ei­ther. “I want my beach back!” MICHAEL SCH­MIDT,

Nelly Bay. is not

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.