1: Lectures for 2008

ACTION REQUIRED!!

The Kangaroo Population At the Halls Head Treatment Plant (Letter from Beryl Francis who may be contacted through PPG

The treatment plant at Halls head is currently undergoing an up-grade creating a stressful environment for the resident kangaroo population. As you are probably aware, I have lived across from the plant for the last 15 years and have seen the kangaroo habitat gradually shrink as development encircles them and confines them within the treatment buffer.After many trials to find out if the Water Corp have any management plans in place for the animals, I finally managed to make contact with a gentleman called Harry Goff who is theliaisons person between the Water Corp and the private contractors doing the up-grade. Apparently no one has ever given a thought to what is happening to the 'roos and as anenvironmentalist, Harry has been very keen to discover more about them and what can be done for their long-term future. He has been taking advice from specialists in this field and has continually up-dated me on his progress. There are plans to assess the kangaroos and do a night count with the aimof possibly re-locating them and I have been asked if I would be interested in helping out. Of course i said yes. As this will need a fair bit of planning: getting passes to enter thearea, some sort of training for volunteers, getting more advise from specialists, it will take time before any of this can go ahead.When all is ready, the count will take place over about 3 nights. Ian and myself, along with Harry, will be involved and if anyone from the Group is interested please let me know.

2: Speakers in 2008

KINGSLEY GIBSON – “Climate Change : the potential for disaster – what we can do about it now” 24.4.08 in the Tuckey Room. (as reported by Shirley Joiner)

What was considered to be a “worst case scenario” for Climate Change is now the expected outcome – it could be even worse! We need to reduce greenhouse emissions. The easiest way is by using renewable energy.

Climate change has already increased the frequency of severe storm events – what was once a 1-100 event is now 1-20 frequency and may become 1-5 frequency with drastic implications for buildings, streets and other infrastructure. These is an undeniable decrease in rainfall as well as the temperature increase and this could lead to a loss of 30% of South West Flora species eg Acacia (then fauna too due to lack of habitat). Each degree in temperature rise is equivalent to 100 km shift to the north, of weather patterns

The ocean has warmed by .8 deg (may be 1 deg already as figures are always a little behind time). As this warming increases we could experience a loss of 80-90% of coral reefs (oddly Ningaloo will be one of the last to be effected), a decline in sea ice, increase in glacial retreat, with global water stress and major impacts as the polar ice melts and the poles absorb and reflect more heat.

At 2 deg. temperature increase, all Greenland’s ice will be lost, the oceans acidified resulting in loss of marine life including krill – approaching “Tipping Point” (beyond which there is NO Human remedy).

As we reach 2 – 3 deg. increase we will experience global drought with major climatic refugees. The Amazon forests will actually burn (they are irreplaceable) and the resultant extra CO2, be devastating.

At 4deg. the permafrost melts releasing methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.

At 5deg. the seabed releases methane, further adding to the greenhouse gasses. Beyond this temperature rise – life may not be sustainable.

International Climate Change experts believe we can still make it!

WHAT CAN WE DO ???

Energy efficiency can reduce the effects by 30%.

Use fuel efficient vehicles – diesels use 57% of fuel of petrol motors and 40% less emissions.

In housing – black roofs increase heat by 12 – 14%, we need eaves, correct solar orientation.

Civic/commercial buildings need lighting and ventilation by windows.

Need better transport planning – easier use of buses and bikes.

Energy efficient appliances – check ratings, turn off computers/appliances when not in use (standby power can be up to 10 – 12% of the total).

Rainwater tanks are cost effective over a few years.

Lighting – reduce number of globes in multiple fittings (especially fluro tubes).

The cost of these changes are minimal – about .12% of economic growth figures. We need to change our style of economy, our energy production (more wind and solar power) and our culture.

If we do not change our direction we will end up where we are headed (Chinese Proverb)

In answer to questions, Kingsley told of LED Street lights which cost more initially but are more reliable, reducing energy use by 90% and of other types which directed light onto the street not into the air and drivers faces.

He sees wind power as “cost competitive”, but solar panels still expensive ($12000 - $13000 per house).

Kingsley says that we need to consider sea level rises when developing along the coast.

3:

4: Peel Deviation - Point Grey

Peel Deviation Freeway

March 26 2001

Letter to Judy Edwards, W.A.Minister for the Environment and Allanah MacTiernan,W.A.Minister for Planning

THREAT TO THE PEEL HARVEY REMNANT NATIVE BUSHLAND AND WATERWAYS POSED BY THE PROPOSED PEEL DEVIATION FREEWAY

Dear Ministers

We understand from Mr D H Lee of Main Roads WA that the proposed alignment for the Peel and Serpentine Deviation(Western Australian Freeway) may come up for your consideration and conditional approval toward the middle of this year.

Threat to bushland, waterway and agriculture.

We are writing to you now so that you have time to give serious consideration to the impact which this proposed section of the Freeway would have on the hitherto undeveloped Eastern side of the Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary. The effect of building this section of the Freeway will be to encourage land speculation for residential/tourist development along the Eastern side of the estuary within an hour's Freeway travel from central Perth. We enclose a map copied from WA Planning Commission's Peel Region Scheme which illustrates that the whole of the Western side of the Peel Harvey has already been given over to Urban and semi rural residential development. If the Peel Deviation part of the WA Freeway between Ravenswood in the north and Lake Clifton in the south is allowed to go ahead, the same intensive development will occur on the Eastern side of the Peel Harvey, thus completely surrounding it.

Currently there is a strip of remnant indigenous vegetation protecting some of the Eastern edge of the Peel Harvey estuary in a series of registered nature reserves and there are also 2 privately owned and managed nature reserves, Lake Mealup and the Goodale Sanctuary. The balance of the land between the waterway and the South West Highway is broad acre agricultural (apart from 2 speculative development applications at Birchmont and Point Grey). The farms in this area have been the subject of intense and successful Landcare operations initiated by the Dept of Agriculture and aimed at revegatation and reducing runoff of fertilisers into the estuary.

If the Peel Deviation Freeway route is persisted with, the agricultural production and lifestyle of this area, together with the landcare initiatives, will be destroyed by speculative residential developments. Also the well preserved natural bushland in the nature reserves will become seriously threatened by human population pressure wanting access to the waterway for recreation. We appeal to you not to allow this to happen and to confine residential/tourist development to the Western side of the Peel Harvey which was the original long term plan for this area.

Alternative fast traffic route south.

Peel Preservation Group have consistently suggested to Main Roads WA through the Peel Deviation Community Liason Group, and by written submissions, that the Freeway should swing east just north of Mandurah to join the South West Highway just north of Pinjarra, and that the South West Highway should be upgraded to 4 lane dual carriageway south of Pinjarra with bypasses around the towns as required. This solution would protect the natural integrity of the East side of the Peel Harvey waterway, protect the agricultural industry of the Pinjarra/Waroona plain and continue to service the agricultural towns which lie along the South West Highway. It would also provide 2 fast dual carriageway roads south ( the Coast Road and the upgraded South West Highway) and provide an alternative fast route avoiding Mandurah's heavily populated coastal strip.

Upgrading south west highway cheaper than Peel Deviation. One of us has obtained relative costings from Main Roads WA of upgrading south west highway compared to building the Peel Serpentine Deviation Freeway (letter Feb 22 2001 ref 640-3V2 (XR 815-10). After analysis of that letter we conclude that the only work required to accommodate our suggested alternative to the Peel Deviation, is construction of a second carriageway between Pinjarra and Picton - cost about $100 million. All the other works detailed in the letter have already been planned or are under construction now. This is less than the $136.6 million estimated for the Peel Serpentine Deviation.

Pressure group in favour of Peel Deviation is not the only community view.

1. a high speed Freeway/Highway from Perth to the main growth centres of Mandurah and Bunbury will be provided by the Kwinana Freeway extension to Mandurah extending East to Pinjarra and the upgraded South West Highway.

2. A significant proportion of the current south-north traffic will be diverted away from Mandurah to travel on the faster upgraded South West Highway.

3. Extension of the Kwinana Freeway to Mandurah will aid the 40% of Mandurah's workforce that work in Perth.

We strongly question the commissions' statement of a need to attract a level of heavy traffic away from the South West Highway so as to improve the amenity of towns like Pinjarra and Waroona. These towns grew up along the South West Highway and to some extent depend upon it and are likely to diminish if southbound traffic no longer goes near them. Bypasses for heavy traffic are already planned for both Pinjarra and Waroona and these will certainly have road houses on them to service passing trade while tourists will still be able to enter the towns to sample their amenities. If all southbound traffic is filtered away from these towns, many local businesses are likely to close.

We point out that PPG is not the only community group which is NOT in favour of the Peel Deviation Freeway. At meetings of the Peel Deviation Engineering and Environmental study held throughout 1995, representatives from the following groups supported PPG's submissions as outlined above: Lake Mealup Preservation Society, Murray Conservation Group, Goegrup Lakes and Serpentine Society, Goodale Sanctuary Pty Ltd, Coolup Land Conservation District Committee, WA Farmers Federation. Representatives from the following government agencies also put forward strong environmental arguments against construction of the Peel Deviation Freeway: Peel Inlet Management Authority, Pinjarra Catchment Centre (Agricultural Dept). Both the Conservation Council WA and Greens WA have publicly expressed support for our suggestions.

In view of public concern about construction of the Peel Deviation Freeway, and the viable alternative suggested, we hope you will take time to consider before giving the go ahead for a hugely expensive new road which will be very environmentally destructive and is not supported by many in the community.

Yours sincerely

Griselda Hitchcock, Jo Te Puni, Brian Bucktin - members of PPG executive committee.

Back to Top

Map courtesy of Dr Christine Sharp, the Greens Party of WA

Point Grey. January '99 - Enjoy the Tranquility While You Can

Back to Top

Warning: Point Grey Development Reproduced from Preservation Times February 2000

Preservation Times cartoon by Frank

Plunket's 1997 proposal for a new town of 7000 people, golf course, marina and tourist complex at Point Grey on the east side of the Peel Harvey estuary, was opposed on environmental grounds by PPG, the Lake Mealup Preservation Society (LMPS), W A Conservation Council plus several government agencies including CALM and the Peel Inlet Management Authority.

However, the Dept. of Environmental Protection and the Minister for the Environment gave the green light to the developers on condition that they addressed the environmentally based objections to the township by preparing a series of management plans. These management plans are now being released for public submission over the next few months. and PPG are commenting on them with input from LMPS who have conducted in depth research into the environmental threats posed by the Point Grey development.

Waterbird Management Plan

PPG stressed that the 30 metre wide foreshore reserve proposed in the Plan is not nearly wide enough to protect waterbird roosting and nesting sites and also that the proposed waterbird monitoring programme should also be carried out over a longer period (at least 20 years) and over a much larger area surrounding the development than is proposed in the Plan.

Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan.

The potential for Phosphorous and Nitrogen nutrient leakage into the estuary from this huge development is considerable, particularly as the sewage effluent is to be treated on site and no suggestion is made in the Management Plan to control fertiliser use on urban or semi-rural areas. PPG again stress the inadequacy of the propoposed monitoring program, suggesting that sampling of nutrient runoff should begin 5 years prior to construction and continue until the development is complete.

Back to Top