Salt Mine danger to Exmouth Gulf
Halt the Salt Alliance spokespersons Chris Tallentire, Stephen Hood and Frank Prokop have been interviewed today and the topic should be covered in the media on and after Tuesday 2 January.
FATAL FLAWS UNCOVERED IN PLANS TO MINE SENSITIVE EXMOUTH GULF AREA
Halt the Salt MEDIA STATEMENT Tuesday, 2 January 2007 http://haltthesalt.org.au/news/media070102.php
No plans for disposal of toxic bitterns;
Essential nutrient flow patterns ignored
Plans to build a massive salt mine along the eastern edge of Exmouth Gulf are based on fatally flawed assumptions that could destroy the area’s sensitive ecosystem.
Environmental management plans released by the mine's proponents have not accounted for the essential nutrient regeneration of the marine ecosystem that is regularly provided by heavy rainfall events.
And the company, Straits Resources, has also failed to detail how it will dispose of vast quantities of toxic bitterns that are the by-product of its proposed solar salt project.
Straits is seeking approval from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to build one of the World's largest salt mines over 411 square kilometres along the eastern edge of the Gulf behind the environmentally sensitive mangrove fringe and adjacent salt flats and marshes.
The area is one of the nation’s most biologically productive environments and the plans are opposed by a major alliance of environmental and commercial and recreational fishing groups known as the Halt The Salt Alliance (www.haltthesalt.org.au).
Alliance spokesman and Conservation Council of WA director Chris Tallentire today revealed the Alliance had found fundamental flaws in the Environmental Review Management Plan (ERMP) released by Straits for public comment under February 26.
"There are fundamental, critical shortcomings with the plan that should lead the EPA to stop the project due to the massive risks involved," Mr Tallentire said.
"Firstly, the company has failed to take into account the reliance of the eastern Gulf's intertidal system and marine population on hinterland surface water flow as an ongoing source of nutrients."
"We know that the historical pattern of cyclonic activity and flood-out events that occur every two-and-a-half years help the mangrove, seaweed and seagrass habitats to function like a battery, fixing and gradually re-supplying nutrients and energy.
"By building a system of 70 kilometre rock retaining walls, Straits would radically alter this natural drainage and replenishment pattern and could starve much of the ecosystem of its vital natural resources."
The second fatal flaw in Straits' plan is its failure to detail how it will dispose of the highly toxic bitterns produced through its salt extraction process."
"If this material entered the Gulf ecosystem through seepage or wall failure it could kill vast numbers of marine creatures.
"Straits knows it cannot dispose of the bitterns into the marine environment, so in desperation it wants approval to store them until new technology may become available to allow discharge not to occur."
"They have a massive waste disposal problem and their only plan is to hide it in the hope that an alternative comes along in the future."
"This is not a responsible, sustainable solution and cannot be entertained by any government or regulatory body serious about protecting the environment for future generations."
The MG Kailis Group, one of the largest commercial fishing operations and employers in the Exmouth region, and Recfishwest, the State’s peak recreational fishing body, back the concerns.
MG Kailis Group Compliance and Projects Manager Stephen Hood and Recfishwest Executive Director Frank Prokop said the ERMP had failed to alleviate their numerous concerns with the proposal.
"This mine poses a massive risk to the existing sustainable fishing, aquaculture, pearling and tourism industries of the region. The effects would be irreversible and ecosystem changing and aren’t worth the risk," Mr Hood said.
"Fishing and aquaculture are highly dependent on the maintenance of high water quality and of the natural ecological processes driving marine productivity. All these activities will be threatened by the proposed project, yet the ERMP dismisses the risks as 'relatively minor'," Mr Prokop said.
The ERMP has also confirmed the following:
Both commercial and recreational fisheries will see a reduction in recruitment as a consequence of changes to habitat structure and foodwebs resulting from this proposal.
Dredging and ship-loading activities could seriously degrade critical habitats for threatened Dugongs and Green Turtles.
The project will massively modify approximately 411 square kilometres of land with bunds and hypersaline ponds.
There are no decommissioning plans or commitments detailed, leaving the WA taxpayer exposed to the astronomical costs of restoration.
The excavated inland harbour may expose significant areas of acid generating sulphides as well as removing mangrove and algal mat habitat.
The silty bottom of the eastern Gulf is likely to be mobilised by repeated dredging operations smothering marine producer habitats.
The 300 metre-long Panamax bulk carriers, barges and service vessels are likely to increasingly disturb and disrupt the use of the area by megafauna such as Humpback Whales, Dugongs and Sea-Turtles. The international shipping may transport exotic marine pests from high-risk regions.
The Halt the Salt Alliance will be making a detailed submission to the EPA along with many other community and industry based organisations that share its concerns about the potential impact of the mine on the environment and existing sustainable industries.
"I urge everyone to go to our campaign website at www.haltthesalt.org.au to find out more about the massive scale and potential impact of this project," Mr Tallentire said.
Media contacts:- Chris Tallentire, Conservation Council of WA 0418 955 191, Stephen Hood, MG Kailis Group 0418 901 048, Frank Prokop, RecfishWest 0419 949 118
========
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background......
Edit. Access to the Halt the Salt website http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/ comes and goes this morning 3 Jan Western Australian time.
If the links don't work - keep trying.
northwester
Posts: 40
Date Joined: 08/10/06
i do
I do work for straits resorces and i do agree with some of this and i have seen the outcome in port hedland and also karratha from the salt mines and the ecosystem is still the same if not getting better.... and my personal opinion is if it is managed properly there will be no problems apart from so callad do gooders that do more harm than good... it is still one year away!!!!!!!!!
feeel free to voice your opinion !!!!!!! i am not after a argument i would like to know different views on this.......
And terryF please respond
WORK IS JUST TO FILL IN BETWEEN FISHING TRIPS
kyza
Posts: 20
Date Joined: 27/08/06
how much salt do we want? is
how much salt do we want? is the price too high, i think so, im one of those so called do gooders. Well that is fine by me, the best way to manage this thing is with education. POWER TO THE PEOPLE, it seems that money is the down fall of our world, and stinkin religion.
i respect your opinion northwester but i dont agree.HAPPY FISHING
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Exmouth Gulf Salt Works
norwester
I have copied the contents of a media release by the Halt the Salt organisation.
It's a media release, not my words. It has raised questions which need to be answered.
But since you have asked me to respond, here are some different questions for you, since you have made statements in support, and you work for Straits Resources.
Putting your own words back to you - norwester please respond.
1. How do you know "the ecosystem is still the same if not getting better" at Port Hedland and Karratha, as you claim?????
2. Are Port Hedland and Karratha on the same scale as the proposed Exmouth salt works? eg do they cover 411 square kilometres - more than 70 kilometres long, equivalent to the area from Rockingham to Quinns Rock, and inland ten kilometres from the coast.?
3. Are you a marine scientist and/or do you have comparative survey data of what the surrounding areas and marine life were before the Port Hedland and Karratha salt works and what they are now?
4. Are Karratha and Port Hedland works on the shores of a gulf, shallow in places, which is a critical breeding and nursery area for the Ningaloo Reef, which is so valuable and vulnerable that they have to prevent recreational fishermen from catching fish in 34% of it.?
5. Did the Karratha and Port Hedland works radically alter the natural 'flood-out' drainage pattern and artificially redirect the flow of sediment and nutrients into the surrounding marine areas.?
The one thing I will partly agree with you on is that, based on my experience as a professional engineer, almost anything can be done "if it is managed properly" - but the "if" must be in very large letters.
And the "managed properly" needs to be defined to include that all environmental needs are covered and all natural drainage, habitat and nutrient systems are left in place, there are safeguards and back ups to the safeguards, nothing can go wrong, no human error can bypass any of these things, there will never be uncontrollable storm damage, eg cyclones like cyclone Vance, there will never 1000 year floods in the life of the project which can bypass these safeguards or designs, and yes, all those things can be done but they cost immense amounts of money, and they themselves add to the impact of the project, and the plain facts are that they won't be done and can't be guaranteed with the amount of money a company would be prepared to spend to make a profit out of the venture.
So there will always be compromises and the Exmouth area has a history of major cyclones and floods which overwhelm man's attempts to manage nature.
For example - have a look at http://haltthesalt.org.au/images/eg_cyclone_vance_lge.jpg and http://haltthesalt.org.au/main/campaign_values.php and try to convince me that blocking off or diverting some of those flows into the gulf will have no effect on the gulf.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background......
Edit. Access to the Halt the Salt website http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/ comes and goes this morning 3 Jan Western Australian time.
If the links don't work - keep trying.
kyza
Posts: 20
Date Joined: 27/08/06
NICE WORK TERRY F. Education
NICE WORK TERRY F. Education is power thank you for the time and the passion involved.Our ocean is precious CHEERS!!!
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
No for or against here...but
No for or against here...but offer the following.....
there has been a salt mine at this location before.....like 30+ years....it was abandoned by new owners sometime in early 1980's ...the causeway out to it from Onslow direction was bulldozed to keep people out...
This project has benefits in that the company will have to continue doing bological surveys etc to assess their impact but also other industries within the sound.....
Why arent local 'industry' taking such a proactive attitude with The Sound....form a fighting fund to picket the De-sal Plant....
More to this story I think....
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Forum on Exmouth Salt Project
Open Forum
Environmental Impacts of the Yannarie Solar (Salt) Project
An open forum on this vitally important issue has been organized by the Halt the Salt Campaign http://www.haltthesalt.org.au/
Where: Conference Room 7, City West Lotteries House, 2 Delhi St, West Perth.
When: 9AM to 1PM on Monday 5 February 2007
Presenters will include;
Dr Margaret Brocx The Yannarie Wetland system
Dr Colin Walker Review of hydrological investigations
Dr Jim Penn The Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery
Dr Nic Dunlop Gulf food-chains and nutrient cycles
Dr Curt Jenner Humpback Whales
=========================
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background......
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Generational mistake...
Good on you Terry, great topic - very important for us!
I think this would be one of the biggest mistakes ever to be made by this state if this project went through.
Purely at the economic level - what is worth more, long-term...the Exmouth Gulf prawning industry, commercial fishing industry, and tourism/recreational fishing industries combined or the salt project? I would be very interested to see an analysis of that. That might sound like a long and dramatic bow drawn - but I wonder who would know the most about the prawning industry in this area? Kailis, thats who. And they have been vehemently, vocally opposed to this project since it was at the "I've got an idea" stage. So if the prawning industry is at risk, obviously that means prawn stocks are at risk. If prawn stocks are at risk, fish stocks are at risk...I dont need to go any further to demonstrate my point here. Kailis arent going to put their neck out against a risk that wasnt real - this area is very well understood to be the engine room of fish and prawn stocks for the whole region, providing nutrients and habitat as 'nursery' areas.
Jobs? - really, is WA in desperate need of jobs I wonder? last I heard we had a 3.1% unemployment rate, one of the lowest in the world. No, we dont need jobs. We cant cope with the amount of people coming here for work as it is - not enough water, not enough power, not enough houses, not enough developed land. How many people are moving here each month for work? cant remember the figures, but i am sure it was in the thousands. Rental and house prices up north rival total weekly earnings for people who arent tradies - the jobs line we hear is about greed, not need.
Engineering? Ask New Orleans about engineering. They had massive engineering works, implemented over decades by the US Army Corps - just takes a big storm or two to take it all away. And they werent totally naive, it was a low-lying area prone to flooding etc - they would have done their engineering based on worst case scenarios, borne out of hundreds of years of experience, modelling etc - but what can you do against the reality? Hindsight doesnt mean s***, but foresight does. Coastal engineers and geomorphologists repeatedly warn against people developing in places like Vasse, Busselton and other low-lying areas that DONT get cyclones etc...tis just a matter of time before more floods...and they would be warning against this development - no doubt.
Speaking of big storms or two - ever noticed the architecture of houses in Exmouth or Onslow, the two closest towns to this place? Built like bunkers to withstand the FREQUENT cyclones that cross this coast. Great link Terry, to that photo taken after TC Vance - check out the inundation - its hard to understand the scale of the picture there, but the water has gone about 30 - 40 km inland - think of that volume of water and the forces involved. Surely any kind of development there would have been smashed. And where would all the salt, bitterns, etc have gone? spread out across the terrestrial landscape, and then drained back across the mangrove, macroalgae, seagrass and coral habitats seaward of the area...hypersaline water is toxic.
It doesnt matter how 'properly' things are managed or designed - the forces at work in massive natural events are bigger than we can build against, its just the way it is. Vance wasnt the biggest cyclone possible, it wasnt a 1 in a 100 year event - and it thrashed Exmouth. If I remember rightly, Vance DIDNT co-incide with spring tides - if that is true, imagine how much more flooding there would have been if it did.
Say, for argument's sake that the thought was thunk and the money was spent and the engineering works were built big and strong enough to resist such cyclones/flooding/etc like 1 in 100 year events (this doesnt mean they happen every hundred years, it is just a measure of the magnitude of it - they can happen x years in a row). Could you imagine the backwash etc as the water bounced off the levees etc? It would scour the remaining seaward habitat clean off the map. You can see this at a smaller scale where seawalls/groynes are built around harbours and stuff - as waves etc come in, they hit the rocks and bounce off - the combination of the incoming and outgoing energy causes extra erosion and sand etc is scoured away. If the rocks werent there, the incoming wave energy gets dissipated on the beach/mangroves etc and the system remains intact. The undeveloped areas in Indo where the Tsunami hit, where mangroves etc were intact, came out of it relatively unscathed compared to where harbours and other development had been built - I went to a seminar once that explained it really clearly once...this wasnt greenie rubbish, it was engineering fact, given by respected engineers, to other respected engineers (I'm not one, but I know a couple). To apply it to this case - look at the image that Terry gives the link for, above - the environment has evolved over time to accomodate these events, but it cant if we change it so dramatically.
Whales, dugongs, turtles...man oh man dont get me started. Dugongs - endangered already, would be put at much more risk from collision and habitat loss; turtles likewise, whales from collision. It might look like there are alot of turtles up there - but they are endangered, globally and in Australia - I heard a recent scientific analysis say that a couple of the common species we see up there are on track to be almost extinct within this generation's life! I like seeing turtles, etc...it enhances my fishing experience.
Wow, there will be an increase in biological surveys you say - as a positive? Why will there be an increase in surveys? To monitor the impact. Ahem, I would much prefer less surveys over a healthier environment than more surveys over a ****ed one. There wouldnt be much point biologically surveying all the 411km2 that would be a salt mine now would there?
Absurd that it even got past the idea stage. You cannot trust that all these things would have been designed for etc...models are models and are not reality. Human error exists, so does human 'error' (with sarcastically exaggerated quote marks). Money is more important than the health of the environment to the people who do the designs and assessments. This is fundamentally true, regardless of my ideologies - if it werent the case, they wouldnt have proposed a salt project of this scale here in the first place. Any cost, financial or otherwise, caused in the long term by a mistake on the environmental impact assessment and subsequent decision, or in the short term by an Act of God, will be borne by the public, not the company.
sorry for the blurb...I wont do another one...
Ewan
OX
Posts: 198
Date Joined: 29/11/06
Greed prospers again???
I think what you have written in your blurb Ewan was succinct and to the point.Will our government yet again only see the value of a quick buck as opposed to a long term healthy environment?As for this type of endevour assisting the environment I don't think so imo!I had lived in Karratha for 7 years and can say that the size of the salt fields can't compare to the size and shear scale of this undertaking.A question that I would like to raise is that if this type of mining activity aids the local environment, then why in Karratha is it illegal to fish in a small tidal pond attached to the mine (POND ZERO) and then consume the fish that is caught.My answer is because of the build up of chemicals within the flesh of the fish,which reside in this pond, is considered to be toxic so surely that must say something about what this can do to the local environment.
We do not need to rape our environment more than we already do, what we need to do is to help heal what we have already put at risk(fish stocks,local flora,mangrove degradation,etc).No feasibility study can take into account Murphy's law or what Mother nature can throw at us.The less risk we can potentially put against or environment the better we will be.
I for one would rather have a healthy environment as opposed to the quick cash incentive.I just hope that our estemed government wakes up to the fact (although I am not holding my breath)
Cheers OX
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
I understand your feelings
I understand your feelings here Ewan...
As I said this isnt a new idea.....there is a evap ponds there already....though not bunted ....
Have you been into this area??? Vance smashed the mangroves in the gulf mate....total changed the density of the mangroves...in some areas killed them completely...
all that water in the pic flowed back out through the creek systems ;)
and there was a 3 metre storm surge....which wasnt just the water in the gulf flooding inland....I have walked the debris line
The water flowing out was from the rain inland...
Totally agree this area needs to be protected....BUT
I dont believe all the spin especially from a commercial fishing operator keen to protect their interests....including not attracting addition boats etc into this area....get real ...PRAWN TRAWLERS are sea bed destroyers...the area use to support 20+ boats ...now there is just over half that.....Why where the professionals able to retain all their fishing grounds during the planning formation of the Ningaloo Marine Park....If this area is a nursery....lock it up!!! to every body.....including monolopy commercial interets
As I said...bigger yarn to this than meets the eye
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Trawlers sure arent the heros here!
Gonna break that promise of no blurbing, here...
Yeah good point about Kailis/trawing Salmo (btw - that is a cracking shot of the marlin in your profile thing!!) - Kailis would have many objections to it, other than environmental ones like you said, eg the increased boating traffic would no doubt impose some restrictions on them - they are just protecting their commercial interests...but at the end of the day the proposed ponds would interrupt the nutrient cycling for the whole area which produces their money - this is where it is WAAAAAAY different to Dampier or Useless Loop ponds, for example. The Straits project would take up almost all that area, the whole system, whereas Dampier etc are of a much smaller scale - if you could look at a map of the state you probably couldnt see them, but this one would be visible from space!
I agree entirely on the damage trawlers do...this is a different topic and I would be writing about banning them too!! But alas, they are there, and they are established and they make squillions so that is pretty unlikely to happen. In the meantime, we can account for their impact, and note that we shouldnt allow any more!!
Vance and other cyclones thrash the mangroves and everything else on the cyclone coast everytime they cross - regardless of the ferocity of the storm. The coral rubble in the lagoons up there is evidence of that - reef top coral communities up there dont last very long!! But these are natural disturbances that, by and large, most ecosystems actually 'need' to mix things up a bit...the area is flattened, which allows fast growing, fast estabishing organisms to re-colonise the area, which over time get superceded by longer lasting ones, etc. These relatively frequent disturbances maintain high biodiversity and keep nutrient cycles going as those different organisms come and go. Big events like cyclones flush out debris (= nutrients) that accumulates over time through these cycles, into the offshore system, giving it a 'boost'. There is much research to suggest that many communities (marine and terrestrial) rely on such boosts to survive in the long term...ie if such events didnt occur they would eventually exhaust the nutrients etc available to them in that place and would die out, or have to move on (if they can!).
The solar project represents a long term (permanent, if you disregard my previous complaints about engineering vs nature, re: New Orleans) disruption to all of these cycles...tidal flows, run-off, drainage after the storm/cyclone events etc are permanently changed and cannot be replicated by any environmental management/engineering...the fact of the matter is that 411km2 is removed from those nutrient cycling systems...and what drainage etc occurs, gets concentrated into drainage channels rather than running over the whole area...or gets caught by the pond system, mixed with hypersaline water and then discharged!!
The flooding (from storm surge and from rain runoff) from Vance drained back through creeks...as it should re: the flushing mentioned above. With an enormous salt pond system there it couldnt, it would be diverted by engineering works into larger, consolidated channels, drastically concentrating and changing the way things are. Something the continues to screw up environmental and ecological modelling, engineering etc, is that the natural environment as it is at this point in time, is the most perfect it ever has been. Countless evolutions of species (biology), and the interactions between species (ecology) have resulted in what we see today. In this case, the whole Exmouth Gulf system and Ningaloo ecosystems that we fish from. When we build a groyne or remove a species, it removes a chunk of that perfect system and it has to re-evolve in ways that are pretty much impossible to predict (collapse of an ecosystem, erosion of a beach downwind from the one being protected by the groyne) - there are too many factors involved - they can model the biggest ones, but the smaller ones are lost in the equations. But in some cases it has turned out that the sum of the smaller factors we dont fully understand or account for, is more important in the system than the big ones!!
Changing a major fundamental of it - such a huge area that supports the algae and mangrove primary producers (those that take energy from the sun and convert it to biomass), changing the nutrient input alters it at the base level of the ecosystem, as opposed to taking fish or prawns (which come later down the ecosystem chain) out of it. As long as you can maintain the primary production (plants) that feeds the secondary production (animals), theoretically you can remove as much as the secondary production (animals) as you like as long as you leave enough to reproduce etc...(not quite so simple as that! But thats the basic premise). But adversely changing the system that feeds the primary production (plants) screws everything before the cycle can begin...this is the main argument against it. Regardless of the enivronmental management, even if it were perfect (and as it stands it is far from that), there is 411km2 less area to give nutrients to the system, and that can't be mitigated, and would be damaging in the long term, as opposed to short-term cyclone damage. Given sunlight, nutrients, water and space, things can grow back after a cyclone or other disturbance - but take away those nutrients and space and they can't - or not as many can.
No I havent been in there though I have eyed it off ferociously - there mus be soooooooo many fish in those mangals - I hope to remedy this lack of experience next trip up there - I'm gonna remedy it real good with my fly rod!!
Ewan
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15610
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Love it
If you ever release a book Ewan, let me know as I will snap one up quick smart. Love your posts mate, informative and a great read. Cheers for sharing your insight!!!
Adam
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Look out Terry, Ewans in the
Look out Terry, Ewans in the house!!!!!!LOL. Exellent read from all party's good to see straight out knowledge coming from a few different people. Makes for a speechless comment from myself.
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Education vs spin!!
haha (lol) - thanks!! just a regurgitation of what I've learnt...I wish I could take credit for thinking all of that up!! But it comes from greater minds from mine and is already in a million books!! Tis not greenieness coming through...its science...
dont mean to dominate the posts - cant really distill it more than I have though...hope to get some diversity of opinion!! Though methinks that everyone who doesnt get money from this will be against it...I have confidence it wont go through...but money talks!! So we still gotta fight...
The way through the spin is education!! Far, far more spin comes from the corporations, for example talking up the benefits of increased biological work from their environmental management plans, etc, than from the community groups trying to stop them! One side has a financial interest only, the other side represents many, varied interests...the choice of the greater good is easy for me!!!
Ewan
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
Yep great post Ewan...you
Yep great post Ewan...you highlighted the fragility of this great little spot...
But imagine fishing these salt ponds for 6kg Giant Herring, 15kg Milkfish and monster Bonefish on your fly rod....
Sorry just fantasising aloud....
I wonder what the government will get as a royalty????...or would it be Commonwealth as the area is a mix of A Class reserves and Crown land
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Opposition to Salt Mine Proposal
Halt the Salt media release says "More than 2,200 local and international submissions have been made to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) calling for the rejection of plans to build one of the world’s largest salt mines along the environmentally-sensitive Exmouth Gulf."
The submissions from the Halt the Salt Alliance have been posted on the Halt the Salt website http://haltthesalt.org.au/
Potential Impacts from the Yannarie Solar Salt Project on the Exmouth Gulf
ERMP Response from Halt the Salt Organisation
http://haltthesalt.org.au/publications/hts_ermp_response_rev_0.pdf
Potential Impacts from the Yannarie Solar Salt Project on the Exmouth Gulf
MG Kailis and WAFIC ERMP Response
http://haltthesalt.org.au/publications/kailis_wafic_submission_ermp.pdf
SUBMISSION ON THE YANNARIE SOLAR ERMP
Conservation Council of Western Australia
http://haltthesalt.org.au/publications/yannarie_cc_ermp_submission.pdf
Response to the Yannarie Solar Project ERMP
Cape Conservation Group
http://haltthesalt.org.au/publications/yannarie-ccg_ermp_submission.pdf
Recfishwest's submission Yannarie Solar Salt Environmental Review & Management Programme http://www.recfishwest.org.au/SubYannarieERMP.htm focuses on concerns for recreational fishing and includes:-
"Summary of Major Concerns.
Recfishwest comments are restricted to potential impacts of the proposal on issues affecting recreational fishing. Recfishwest has identified the following points as potential threats to recreational fishing in the Exmouth Gulf region;
* Impacts on recreational fish species from the modification / loss of nursery areas;
* Impacts on recreational fish species from water intake pumps particularly the entrapment of larval and juvenile finfish and crustaceans;
* Impacts on recreational fish species from potential future disposal of bitterns and/or the accidental release of bitterns through storm/cyclonic events;
* Impacts upon fish and the food webs that they depend upon from changes in marine and sediment quality;
* Impact on wilderness fishing experience following the development of this proposal.
Other concerns that Recfishwest have with the proposal are:
* Introduced marine pests and diseases from increased shipping activities due to the development;
* Impacts from barge harbour dredging / acid sulphate soils.
* Impacts from alteration of surface water flows in terms of loss of productivity of ecosystem and fisheries related by diversion of fresh-water runoff containing nutrients in heavy rainfall events........"
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background......
Recfishwest - looking after YOUR recreational fishing future.
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing interests. Who else has the time, the knowledge, the professional approach, the realistic alternatives, the willingness and the contacts?
Recfishwest needs YOUR support. We would really like you to become a member, get involved and help us.
You are the ones who benefit when Recfishwest succeeds, or you will lose out if Recfishwest is ignored.