Home

PSAC members who share concerns about the project are puzzled by this rationale, as we have seen little evidence of the PoMC altering content of the S-EES to reflect concerns raised by PSAC members who questioned the environmental and economic justifications for the project throughout our tenure.

Nevertheless – moving on - Mr. Nick Easy, Channel Deepening Project Manager gave us some insights into PoMC’s findings and assumptions which will appear in the forthcoming S-EES.

 In summary these are:

• According to the PoMC, the S-EES is an unprecedented Bay study. What is more, it is a stand alone document, separate to the 2004 EES. This appeared to be a significant issue for the PoMC – presumably they wish to argue that the findings of the first EES and Panel Hearing are no longer relevant. It is worth remembering however that the PoMC also claimed that the first EES was an unprecedented Bay study. Furthermore, the S-EES was undertaken in response to the findings of the first EES Panel enquiry. The EES and S-EES appear to be inextricably linked.
• The focus of the S-EES is said to be around safety, compliance and avoidance of long term impacts
• The risk assessment in the S-EES is said to be substantially different to the EES
• According to the PoMC, extensive scientific research has been undertaken in The Entrance and in the Bay, but “there are still some areas of uncertainty” in the S-EES
• The volume of contaminated and toxic material from the lower Yarra is now estimated to be 2.1 million cubic metres (in its unfluffed state – we understand that once handled, sediments can expand in volume by up to 30%)
• If the project was to proceed, contaminated and toxic sediments would still be dumped in the Bay in the Northern spoil ground in a bunded area constructed from clays from the Williamstown Channel. In a small departure from the EES design, it is proposed that it would be “capped” by a thin layer (50 cm) of coarser sandy sediments from the south of the Bay sifted slowly over the top of the bunded spoil containing toxicants and contaminants. It was estimated that it would take 100 days for the capping to be undertaken. (ie: time taken to fill the bunded area with dredged material from the Yarra, transport sand from South and undertake sifting task)
• The Hydro-hammer is now proposed for use at The Entrance if hard rock were to be encountered. (This is in spite of it not being included in the Trial dredge). PoMC asserts that it has been used elsewhere in the world – hence its performance is understood.
• Proposed dredging schedules would include down times to account for tourist seasons, fish spawning etc. These include:
• 18 December – 31 January  No dredging in South of Bay
• 1 December -28 February restricted dredging in Williamstown Channel
• Spring – no dredging in Yarra and Williamstown Channel (fish spawning)

• Estimated duration of works is now:
• Hobsons Bay and Yarra 39 weeks
• South of Bay 41 weeks
• The Entrance 27 weeks (Note that first EES estimated 8 weeks work in The Entrance – presumably the Trial dredge has indicated that rock removal and management is considerably more complex than the first “unprecedented study of the Bay” indicated)
• A number of issues regarding estimated changes to Bay hydrology as a result of the project were briefly touched on. These include:
• Change in average tide levels still estimated at approx -8mm to +9mm change, as per EES.
• A range of change in average sea level is now also predicted. PoMC claim the range is all less than 1 cm. It is interesting to note that until recently, PoMC has asserted that there will be no change in sea level as a result of the project. This point was queried with Mr. Easy who confirmed the new view. You are probably aware of the Bruun Rule, which is that generally for every one unit that water rises vertically is can spread 50-100 units horizontally on flat land. Thus a 1 cm increase in water level could cause up to a 1 metre inundation of flat beach/coastal land.
• Climate change sea level rise of 3 cm over 30 years has been included in PoMC’s projections. Mr. Easy asserted that the coastal infrastructure of municipalities around the Bay had been assessed as not being vulnerable to any damage as a result of the project.
• Mr. Jeff Bazelmans, Project Environment Manager advised that there would be no changes to Mud resulting from the project. You might be aware that the island group has a total area of 86 hectares with a land area of 60 hectares, and reaches a maximum height above sea level of only of 4 metres. Despite the name, the islands, including their outer beaches, are mainly composed of shelly sand. Resembling an atoll, Mud form a unique feature in the southern Australian landscape. A fantastic paper MUD ISLANDS: PORT PHILLIP BAY'S NATURAL WONDER tells the intriguing story of Mud history and geology and is worth tracking down. If you would like a copy get in contact with us.  Islands Islands Islands 
• Flushing time in the Bay is presently 359 days (time it takes all water in the Bay to exchange with water in Bass Strait) – Close to The Entrance the flushing time is very quick, other parts of the Bay, eg: Geelong Arm has very slow exchange rates. As you would be aware, water from Bass Strait has some different characteristics to water in the Bay, including being generally colder and lower in nutrients.
• As a result of the project, flushing time is estimated to change by 7%, dropping from 359 days to 335 days. Jeff Bazelmans, Project Environment Manager claimed this would be “good for the Bay”. One wonders where the tipping point might be between what is a “good” flushing time for the Bay, and what the PoMC might consider to have any adverse impacts on the ecology of the Bay. 
• Some “shorter” impacts to sea-grass would be expected as a result of dredging turbidity and sedimentation, mainly in the South of the Bay. PoMC expects the seagrass would “mainly” recover within 2 years.
• Treatment of toxic and contaminated sediments from the Yarra on land, rather than dumping untreated back into the Bay was raised with Mr. Easy. He again confirmed PoMC’s view that the cost and logistics of managing, treating and disposing of such a large volume of material on land was prohibitive. Mr. Easy stated that “the impacts we would see of treatment (of toxic/contaminated sediments on land) would probably be far greater than the impacts of the project (as presently designed)”
• Dumping of spoil, including the toxic and contaminated material, within the Bay continued to be justified on the basis that dumping at sea had constraints, including the translocation of marine pests to Bass Strait, as well as loss of a future resource (ie: storage of clean spoil for future projects). It is interesting to note that although it is the shipping industry that is responsible for the translocation of marine pests into our Bay, it is now our responsibility not to translocate them out of the Bay! Perhaps it is time for the shipping industry to pay their way, and contribute to cleaning up some of the environmental degradation they have caused to the Bay, and to consider whether if they had to pay the total (environmental and budgetary) costs of this proposed channel deepening, whether they would be prepared to meet those costs. Otherwise why should we?
• In June this year, in response to lobbying from the community, government initiated a Department of Treasury & Finance study into the Port’s contribution to the Victorian economy. This study was due for release prior to the S-EES, however it is yet to be completed, and is expected some time early in 2007. It would have been useful to have this study before the people prior to the November 25^th election, and certainly PSAC should have received a briefing on its findings.
• Mr. Easy advised that projected costs of the project have escalated – although he did not name a figure. The most recent official figure was $575 million, although this did not include on-land costs such as moving the Melbourne Wholesale Markets to accommodate Swanson dock expansion or any allocation for possible  costs of amelioration, compensation etc. 
• The SEES will be on public display some time early in 2007. During that time, PoMC will conduct public information sessions around the Bay. Following the public display period, and submission period a Panel Hearing will follow some time later in the year.

All of this tells us that the S-EES is shaping up to be a big event. Don't miss it - have your say about our Bay!

We would greatly appreciate your support in whatever way you can – be it offering your expertise to assess particular sections of the S-EES document when it is released, writing submissions to the S-EES, coming to the Panel Hearings, or attending forthcoming PoMC information sessions to make sure they understand the depth of feeling and intellect which says that their self serving parochial plans for our Bay do not pass the test environmentally, economically or socially.