Sue Pennicuik

Media reports yesterday that the government has received two 'confidential' reports that link channel deepening to coastal erosion in the south of Port Phillip Bay and the loss of Portsea front beach are no surprise to locals or others who have been watching the changes in the south of the Bay since the channel deepening project ended, Sue Pennicuik, Greens MP for Southern Metropolitan Region said today.

Read more: Beach loss linked to dredging -- Reports say wave surges hit Portsea. by Cameron Houston in the Age of 7 July 2013.

"Why are these reports confidential?" Ms Pennicuik asked. "Information about the state of Port Phillip Bay belongs to the public, not to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) or to the Port of Melbourne," she said.

The Port has refused to release the full range of data it has collected on the changed bathymetry in the Bay since channel deepening.

"I have asked for this information through the parliament and through Freedom of Information (FOI) and have not been given access to the range of meaningful data that would allow the parliament and the public to see just what has happened and is happening in the Bay and how much more water is entering and leaving on each tide.

"The Port has repeatedly denied that the loss of Portsea Beach is the result of channel deepening, when all the signs that people have been observing for nearly four years point to that clearly being the case. Now, one of the confidential studies is confirming that the 'size and velocity of waves reflected towards Portsea front beach appear to have increased.

"The research also found that wave energy had been redistributed along the Mornington Peninsula following the completion of the project, which is also no surprise to those of us who have seen for ourselves the 'larger and more powerful swells at the southern end of the peninsula' over the past four years,” Ms Pennicuik said.

"However, evidence that channel deepening has enabled any larger ships to enter Port Phillip Bay is and always has been opaque and dubious.

"Many scientists warned that allowing significantly larger volumes of water into the Bay though the Heads could lead to just the sort of outcomes we are seeing, but were dismissed and derided at the time.

"What is most galling is that the decision makers who ignored these warnings have escaped any responsibility for the damage done in the south of the Bay, which is likely to be irreversible and ongoing.

"Meanwhile, the DEPI stands by its position that there are no issues from channel deepening in relation to erosion at Portsea.

"This official denial has to end. Port Phillip Bay is public property and an ecological system.

"The government and Port of Melbourne should release all the data and information it has, and continues to collect, on the changes to the Bay," Ms Pennicuik concluded.

For further comment: Sue Pennicuik --03 9530 8399

Click on first picture to see film of "Frankston Storm-tide surge and Channel Deepening - seaviews"

.

Click on second picture to see film of "Storm tide views of CBD and Houses on Kananook Creek, Frankston"

The films made by Sheila Newman and including still-footage by James Sinnamon, show very high water at a time when the tides themselves were not at their highest, but rain was heavy and run-off had increased in storm conditions. This means that a very high tide could be devastating under similar rain and storm conditions.

Storm tides and heavy rains - recipe for disaster in overpopulated, overdeveloped Melbourne

Sue Pennicuik (Greens, Victoria) says that analysis of tidal data supports residents' reports of higher Bay tides since channel deepening. But even without higher tides overpopulation has made old conditions more dangerous. Films made by Sheila Newman and including still-footage by James Sinnamon, show very high water in a creek at a time when the tides themselves were not at their highest. What caused the very high levels in the mouth of Kananook Creek, Frankston, were increased volumes of run-off from increased hard surfaces associated with more buildings to accommodate population growth in Frankston, plus the very heavy, tropical style rain on top of the storm-tide. This means that, even without sea-level rise, a king tide could be devastating if it occurs during a similar short period of high rain and wind. Note that the deepening of the channel from the ocean to Port Phillip Bay was done to accommodate much bigger ships justified by projections of greater volumes of trade associated with the bigger populations in Australia as encouraged undemocratically by her state and Federal governments.
ABC TV Stateline 7.30 PM this evening (2 July 10) also has a story on the evidence of higher tides since channel deepening.

Rising tides in Port Phillip Bay – is channel deepening to blame?

"There have been growing reports of higher tides, beach erosion, faster currents and an increase in swell (surge from Bass Strait) since the Entrance to Port Phillip Bay was deepened,” Greens MP, Sue Pennicuik said today.

The Office of Environmental Monitor (OEM) is reported* as saying that there is no evidence to suggest that dredging is to blame for erosion at Portsea beach; and that the most likely explanation was natural erosion caused by the local impact of storms and seasonally high tides, exacerbated by the swell rolling in from Bass Strait.

“Tidal data that I have obtained from the Port of Melbourne Corporation and have had analysed, supports what so many residents, swimmers, divers and other businesses in the southern part of part Phillip Bay have been reporting since channel deepening: that tides are higher in the south of the Bay” said Greens MP, Sue Pennicuik today.

“Preliminary analysis of wind data from the past ten years suggests that wind beach erosion, particularly at Portsea was not caused by seasonal weather events alone,” she said.

Changes to shoreline

"I am very worried about the tidal changes that are being seen at many places around the south of Port Phillip Bay," said Ms Pennicuik. "It is one of the most serious effects of the channel deepening project that the government was clearly warned about at the time.”

“The preliminary analysis that I am releasing today strongly suggests that the average daily high tides have increased significantly at four points in the south of the Bay, by much more than was predicted by the Port of Melbourne on the basis of ‘expert advice’ in the Channel Deepening Project (CDP) Supplementary Environmental Effects Study.** However, more data is needed about tides, swells, currents and weather events to be able to know for certain what is happening in the south of the Bay, Ms Pennicuik said.“

"Unfortunately, the five metres of sea bed and rock can't be put back at the Entrance and Port Phillip Bay may be permanently damaged as a result of the expensive channel deepening project that we didn't need,” she said.

(From a media release from Sue Pennicuik, 2 July 2010)

In Frankston

The storm-tide associated with the flooding recorded in the films on 26 April 2009 above did not occur during a king tide. If the conditions had been similar and it had been a king tide, the damage and danger would be much greater. In the past few weeks there have been higher tides than in April 2009, but the amount of rainfall coinciding was not as great as in April 2009. Residents have the impression, however that Kananook Creek is running faster since the channel deepening in Port Phillip Bay. If this is true then erosion will be greater on the banks and the land where houses on Long Beach are situated.

Why does rain pose a new problem?

The state government (under Kennett, Bracks and Brumby) have made policies to increase development and population in Frankston over objections from many residents. The associated development has increased the hard surfaces (in the form of built surfaces like roofs, roads, gutters, pavements etc) and decreased the big tree coverage. Blocks have been moonscaped and smaller trees have been substituted for the old ones removed.

This decreased vegetation mass has the effect of decreasing the absorption and transpiration once provided by tree cover, which kept water tables down and absorbed a lot of running water. Now, when there is a lot of rain, more runs down into the bay via the hard surfaces and drains and it runs faster. During the storm tide in April 2009 Kananook Creek was flooded by water from drains and surrounding hard surfaces as well as by the incoming tide which was driven by high storm-winds. On this particular day the low pressure system was 997.7, the maximum wind gust was 93, the high tide was .92 cm and the rainfall was 30mm.

If this flooding from the hills had met with a king tide what would have happened to the houses, businesses and residents along Kananook Creek?

The Council will have to redo their planning scheme where the Land Subject to Inundation Overlays did not correlate with the land contours and did not accommodate the changes that were brought on by overpopulation and overdevelopment in the April 2009 situation.

In the absence of rain, storm-tide-surges still highly problematic

On August 25, 2009, most of the conditions were very similar to those on 26 April 2009. The low pressure system was 999.4, the maximum wind gust was 96, the high tide was .93 cm, but rainfall was only 8.4 mm. The creek did not flood, but this storm-surge still inundated the pier forecourt.

What will happen to Seaford, the next suburb, which is much lower than Frankston, if these trends continue?

Frankston most vulnerable to storm-tides but weather-station removed

Melbourne Water also seems to have been taken by surprise and to have used old data for Frankston Beach in the design of new infrastructure because new data was not available due to the removal of a Bureau of Meteorology weather station at the end of Frankston Pier.

Frankston has the longest reach of westerly winds in the bay and the storm surges rely on prevailing westerlies. For instance, when tide levels are .389mm in St kilda, they may be .730mm in Seaford. In Frankston, they would be higher again. The removal of the weather station makes information for Frankston elusive, just at a time when it is crucial.

All this indicates that the state of organisation and technology and planning in Victoria is not of a sufficiently high standard to predict or deal with the impacts of accelerated and additional development and population growth. The government departments are not competent for the demands they have been generating. The promotion and engineering of population growth and development was done against public opinion. This makes any impact, particularly any damage to person or property, all the worse, since it would have been avoidable if the governments had listened to the public.

Bigger pipes were put in under the McCoomb reserve, on the bend of the creek near the mouth, adding to the inflow rate and volume. These pipes should probably go out into the bay. It has been suggested by a resident that all big buildings should have retention pits. Others have called for no more building permits to be granted and for massive replanting of trees above the flood-level.

The Future

The Future Coasts site finds the likelihood of tropical style rains to be increased, with more storms in this area. Storm surges can virtually double height of water over the highest tide. Sea level rise on its own may not be the worst problem in the future; it will be more storm surges.

Notes

* The Age, 5/5/10, "Life’s not so swell at Portsea."
** SEES Appendix 45 Cardno Lawson & Treloar, 2007b.

Storm data from http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/rivers_and_creeks/rainfall_and_river_level_data/rainfall_and_river_level_data.asp

Discrepancy

Ms Pennicuik, Greens member of Victorian Parliament, has drawn attention to discrepancies between figures apparently given the Auditor-General by the Port of Melbourne Corporation and figures obtained from them by the Supplementary EES statement process and the hearings and the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration.

If it is true that 96% of ships were able to use the Port of Melbourne with no problems, does this discrepancy mean that the Auditor General will have to review his report and the validity of the PoMC's business case, quality of information and practice?

Dredging has cost Victorians enormously already financially, socially and environmentally. Confidence is not high in the PoMC. It is to be hoped that Ms Pennicuick will follow this matter up urgently. Any member of the public wishing to find out more could put questions to Ms Pennicuik to ask in Parliament.

Ms Pennicuick (Greens) (Southern Metropolitan)

"I am speaking today on the Auditor-General's report on the channel-deepening project. This project has been the subject of much public interest since it was first announced in 2002. That interest continues as, unfortunately, dredging is under way. It is a mega-project with a scale of dredging way above anything seen before in Port Phillip Bay -- or pretty well anywhere else in the world. "

"I have read through the Auditor-General's report on the channel-deepening project (CDP), and he concludes that after a very poor start the Port of Melbourne Corporation had developed an effective channel-deepening project. On page 2 of his report he says that the CDP included: "

" a robust business case, complying with better practice guidelines and providing government with the type and quality of information it needed to endorse the project "

" an environmental management plan that addressed the requirements of the environmental assessment process and was endorsed by ministers under the state and commonwealth environmental legislation "

" contracting arrangements, where the corporation followed sound processes in determining how works should be procured and the contractual terms. "

"The Auditor-General concluded that all of these were in order. "

"I am pleased that the Victorian Auditor-General's Office chose to audit the channel-deepening project, because due to public and community concern about the scale and risks of the project it certainly needed independent analysis, which has been sadly lacking hitherto. This report is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about the pros and cons of channel deepening, which, it must be remembered, is still happening. It is not a finished project, a point the Auditor-General himself acknowledges. It is still continuing, and he has not in fact audited a completed project. "

Was Channel Deepening needed or will it ever be needed?

"The Auditor-General's report is, perhaps, unable to answer some of the fundamental questions about channel deepening. The first question is: is it, was it or will it ever be needed? The second question is: will it provide any benefits to either exporters or importers or to the people of Victoria? These questions cannot be and are not answered by this report. "

"The fundamental question regarding the channel-deepening project has always been the need for it and the extent to which ships are actually depth constrained in the port of Melbourne. "

Wide range of figures has been quoted by PoMC

"Over the last few years the Port of Melbourne Corporation has quoted figures ranging from 25 per cent to 38 per cent of ships being unable to enter the bay fully loaded, but during the supplementary environment effects statement process and the hearings, and in the Report on Port Phillip Bay: Channel Deepening by the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration released last September, the port admitted that the true figure is around 4 per cent of ships that cannot come into the bay or leave it fully loaded. That means 96 per cent of ships are able to come in and out of the bay fully loaded. "

"The Auditor General's report states that 50 per cent of ships are unable to come into the bay fully loaded. I asked the Auditor-General at his briefing yesterday where he obtained that figure from; he replied that he had obtained it from the port. Elsewhere in this report it states -- in fact, it recommends -- that the Port of Melbourne Corporation start to collect figures on this. "

PoMC does not collect data on number of depth constrained ships entering/leaving Port Phillip Bay

"In fact it does not collect data on what ships are able to come in and out of the bay and are depth constrained. That was an assertion by the port, and it is unfortunate that that figure was used in this report. "

"The Auditor-General then went on to say that in order to measure the benefits the port should start collecting figures on what ships it feels has made use of the benefits of the project. "

Costs of shipping in Port Phillip Bay rising due to 'Channel-deepening levy'

"The other benefits of the project, as they were raised in the briefing, are to be measured by reduced costs to exporters and importers. Certainly information that has come to us is that costs to exporters are rising, because they are paying a $60 channel-deepening levy, whether they need it or not. Many exporters have said throughout the lead-up to this project that they did not need or want the project, and they did not want to be paying for it. They are now paying for it. "

"It will be interesting to see whether, through the life of the project, that measure -- the reduced costs to exporters and importers, when they are in fact rising -- ever comes to be seen. "

Source: Member Sue Pennicuik, Council, Statements on Reports, Auditor-General: The Channel Deepening Project, Hansard, 7 May 2009, p.2141