Get our beach back
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