Click this link to download a summary of Frankston Beach’s profiles: Frankston beach summary results Oct 2017 to May 2019

Neil Blake, Port Phillip Baykeeper has more than 30 years’ experience in protecting Port Phillip Bay.

As founding director of the EcoCentre, Neil Blake (OAM) has been widely recognised and loved by the community for his deep knowledge, personable character, and extensive experience in environmental management, local history, biodiversity and community development.

The Port Phillip Baykeeper program works with Schools, Government, Researchers, Business and Community to protect Port Phillip Bay. It is a community program of Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc and is affiliated with Waterkeeper Alliance, a global network of nongovernmental advocates for an identified waterway. Waterkeepers are recognised by their community and local government. They advocate compliance with environmental laws, respond to citizen complaints, identify problems which affect their waterway and devise appropriate solutions.

Summary of the KBR Report

At the risk of over simplification, a fair paraphrase of the report in every-day language would be as follows:

• Using the best techniques and information available the beach is unlikely to wash away.
• The double arm breakwater with dredging every few years was determined to be the preferred option using a number of subjective assumptions and judgments. Some of these assumptions were that;
  • all weather use by recreational boaters is needed, and
  • the Coast Guard needs to use a conventional propeller driven craft rather than one than could float in shallower water using jet propulsion – such as that presently used by the Water Police.
• The construction cost of this preferred option would be $17 million (±40%).
• Water from Sweetwater Creek and local drains are unlikely to change very much.

Download the full report here

The following is a summary of FBA’s latest submission on the proposed Coastguard building, safe refuge and breakwater at Olivers Hill, presented at Council Meeting 3^rd September 2017.

The community was given 3 days to prepare a submission on the above developments in the Council’s Agenda.

FBA support the volunteer Coastguard and its endeavour to save lives, however, as a Council representing its community we expect some sort of compromise between coastguard service and the preservation of Frankston’s most popular swimming beach – the beach and the foreshore is our greatest asset.

There has been no compromise. The Coastguard Executive Summary Risk Mitigation acknowledged by Council, in its Agenda, states that the key risks relate to understanding “the impact of the breakwater on the coastline and sand movements.”

Council is taking no action to mitigate these risks; this is a major gap and raises questions about the focus and management of the planning and approval process.

Council in consultation with the Coastguard over a 12 month period has ignored the key risks. There is no evidence other options were considered. The rationale provided for the relocation is:

• the building on the foreshore is in poor condition and no longer fit for purpose
• Olivers Hill is the only location that offers an opportunity in Frankston

FBA submits that the Coastguard and FCC ought to seek options in support of the Coastguard which will not interfere with coastal processes by using its current location – demolishing and rebuilding and mooring the large rescue boat on the lee side of Frankston pier, thus providing a quick response to emergencies. There is also the vacant information centre available.

These options give the Coastguard a more visible community presence and an opportunity to engage with the Yacht Club rescue activities and with people who are using the Bay.

Historically, all government and private investigations that have been completed at Olivers Hill have insisted that anything to do with coastal processes and structures going out into the Bay must include numerical and physical modelling and the Council and the Minister for Planning has agreed with this through Amendments to the Frankston Planning Scheme –

1999 Panel Report, and the 2003 Minister’s Assessment, C15;

2004 C30 Amendment;

2008 Priority Development Panel Report and the 2009 Planning Scheme Amendment, C50.

FBA’s experience with the history of similar structures in Port Phillip Bay and failure to predict the effects of breakwaters, highlights the need to ensure sand movement is understood and addressed in particular to the north of the proposal; effectively, numerical and more importantly physical modelling.

All the information FBA holds regarding the development proposed at Olivers Hill is the Council’s Agenda 3^rd September 2017 and a Scope statement 20^th October 2017.  Both of these are inadequate:

The Council’s Agenda 3^rd September 2017 documents Federal Government funding $500,000 (which has not been signed off), hydrological plans, concept plans, staged development of a new coastguard building and safe haven at Olivers Hill, but lacks funding for physical and numerical modeling, which should take place prior to the above development.

It is of great concern that despite the ‘key risk’ being identified as ‘understanding the impact of the breakwater on the coastline and sand movements,’ there is no action to quantify what will occur.

Council in the Agenda states indicative costs:

“$145,000 for a Hydrological Study and concept design of breakwater (utilising part of the %500K Federal Government grant currently awaiting approval);

$15,000 for a Geotechnical Report for new building location;

$14,000 for a Concept design for new building.

The anticipated total project cost of the relocation of the building carpark and landscaping….is in the order of $.5M. In addition, the total cost of the breakwater is estimated to be …$3M.”

Council also recommended “wholesale reconstruction of existing HQ.”

Gillian Kay, Frankston Council’s Director Community Development, 20 October 2017 emailed the following scope to community members who attended a meeting 18^th October 2017 –

“The project is for the development of plans through hydrographic surveys and modelling and part construction of a breakwater in front of the Oliver’s Hill foreshore boat ramp.  The breakwater is envisaged to be constructed as a rock wall with a road on top for emergency vehicle access and includes lighting and CCTV.  It will provide safe refuge for small recreation craft and police boats in heavy weather and a secure permanent mooring in 2 – 3 metres depth for the Frankston Volunteer Coast Guard rescue vessel.  It will also enable all weather launching facilities for recreational vessels in the southern region of Port Phillip and include pedestrian access for visitors with views across Port Phillip Bay.  Pedestrian access will also allow for fishing, diving and other activities off the breakwater. 

The above scope provides sufficient information for the experts to collect data and undertake modelling of conditions that will inform the development of concept plans.” Gillian Kay.

What is of great concern for FBA and the community is that the coastguard proposal will require a very large road going out to sea in 2-3 metres of water without, we believe, giving consideration of the effect this large dense structure will have on the sediment (sand) movement and the loss of our sandy beaches.

FBA sought advice as follows:

Comment provided in response to the project scope by a geomorphologist states:

“I would be very worried by the vagueness of the Scope as stated by Gillian Kay.

It states ‘… development of plans through hydrographic surveys and modelling … ‘ ‘Hydrography’ by all definitions (geological and dictionary) means ‘the science that deals with the physical aspects of waters on the earth’s surface, esp. the compilation of navigational charts of bodies of water’. It does not refer specifically to the effects and impacts of moving water on sediment or other features (natural or otherwise) of a coast. An important matter for any survey would be the impact of a solid barrier structure on sand movement, erosion etc., especially a barrier long enough to get into deep water (2–3 m is mentioned). That requires study by a coastal geomorphologist who has had experience in such structures — the Victorian coast has had numerous cases where structures have produced adverse results, especially with sand depletion or accumulation in the ‘wrong’ places. The average engineer does not have this expertise.

It then mentions modelling. What sort of modelling? Again, it takes a coastal specialist to do this properly. Is it expected that the survey will investigate previous studies that have been done in this situation, or others that can be regarded as comparable (which depends on all sorts of factors such as orientation, weather patterns, seasonal changes, tidal ranges etc.).

I disagree with Gillian Kay’s statement: The above scope provides sufficient information for the experts to collect data and undertake modelling of conditions that will inform the development of concept plans. It gives no indication of the potential issues that would need to be addressed, and the level of investigation that would be required.

I would also be concerned that it refers to ‘part construction of a breakwater’. It would be quite inappropriate to start a construction without a final plan based on thorough preliminary investigation.”

The project, with the support of the Councillors, risks destroying an unspoiled natural environment used by 1000’s of people. FCC does not have the understanding of coastal processes and it appears it has no intention of carrying out coastal modelling, PRIOR to the other studies it proposes.

Numerical and physical modelling is estimated to cost under $500K.  Compare this with the cost of the proposed development and the impact on our foreshore and beaches.

FBA took Leon’s advice and enquired whether KRB (the engineering company Council has commissioned) a geomorphologist on its team –

We confirmed the following:

KBR has a Coastal Geomorphologist within their team who can be consulted as required to ensure they have a good understanding of both water based and land based coastal processes. The report council is intending to engage KBR for will include reviewing reports done by other consultants and state government departments over previous years as well as undertaking their own analysis on historical and current conditions of the shoreline, dunes and vegetation. Combining historical and current land and water data with the latest hydrographic modelling this will inform their component of the report which will assess what effect the installation of a breakwater is likely to have on the hydrography, beaches and dune systems along Frankston’s coastline.

This statement appears to be ambiguous in the sense that consulting the geomorphologist will be a minor study – the Hydrological study is the primary area; it is not a littoral process associated with sand movement arising from effects of currents, waves and tides and in particular in the context of changing climate conditions.

In view of the risks to our beaches and foreshore, FBA approached Neil Blake, the Baykeeper, regarding the large breakwater and boat refuge at Olivers Hill.  Neil offered to join with FBA and conduct a numerical exercise to develop a profile method for monitoring change in beach and intertidal sand surface that records the surface level of sand across Frankston beach and intertidal zone over 12 months in 4 quarterly sessions

This study was developed with a geomorphologist from the University of Melbourne.  We commenced our profiling on 21^st October 2017 and will continue quarterly   Neil has already completed 12 monthly profiling of McCrae and Middle Park beaches and this will continue for another 12 months.  The minimum for collecting data for numerical modelling is 12 months.

Another aspect to be considered is the advice of Captain Frank Hart, Master Mariner regarding the planned location of the safe refuge, which will be exposed to the dominant onshore winds.  There is no shelter available near-by.  If yachts, small boats are unable to enter the boat harbour in strong onshore winds there is no suitable alternatives – in all designs to date the problems of a dangerous lee shore have not been recognised and have been ignored.

In view of all the above facts, to call the planned harbour a safe refuge is misleading and inaccurate in adverse weather conditions. In such conditions Olivers Hill because of its exposed location, is a place where a skipper should think long and hard before choosing to lose sea room and head towards the harbour to seek refuge.

Under such conditions, Frankston will be attracting boats at sea into a dangerous situation.

Finally, Frankston Council needs to understand the risks to their major recreational activity area in Frankston and steadfastly protect it.  The long sweep of shoreline from Olivers Hill through to Seaford is unparalleled as a natural beachscape and should not be destroyed through inadequate planning processes.

Frankston ratepayers will not thank Council if it burdens them with remedial works in perpetuity.

Image via Herald Sun.

Frankston Beach Association’s submission to Frankston City Council’s proposed council plan 2017-2021.

Thank you for the invitation to comment on Frankston City Council Proposed Council Plan 2017 -2021.

Our Association is very concerned to see the Safe Boat Harbour featuring as a second priority project on the Proposed Council Plan and firmly believe it should be removed from the Council Plan.

Some sort of boating facility has been on the Council’s agenda for 30 years and despite many concepts for a marina/safe boat harbour, it has never been completed due to environmental concerns, financial viability and negative community feedback.

Finally in 2016, the SUZ3 22ha.Safe Boat Harbour was deleted from the new Municipal Strategic Statement C100 in the Frankston Planning Scheme. A primary planning document approved by Council and the Minister for Planning.

What is on the drawing board for now:

The current Frankston City Council Proposed Council Plan 2017-2021 is in direct conflict with the MSS C100 by including construction of a safe boating harbour at Olivers Hill and a new Coastguard Building.

The Coastal Management Plan (CMP); also approved by Council is inconsistent with the MSS C100. The SUZ3 has remained in the CMP and Council can apply for an extension of time if plans for a Safe Boat Harbour have not been finalised by November 2017.

Does Council support the MSS C100 or was it a waste of time and money? Why does Council flagrantly disregard it? We are seeking clarity on where the two plans above fit in reference MSS C100?

Council and council officers should ensure their planning strategy and documents align with the MSS C100 or questions should be raised about their competence, review processes, integrity and governance.

What is the next step?

In applying for an extension to SUZ3 it appears Council has on its agenda the 22ha. Olivers Hill Safe Boat Harbour.  Is this what is proposed in the Frankston City Council Proposed Council Plan 2017-2021?

FBA submits that the SUZ3 be deleted from the Frankston City Council Proposed Council Plan and the CMP thus removing the large Safe Boat Harbour and aligning with the MSS C100.

A promise of $500,000 from the Federal Government for a breakwater seawall has lead to the revival of the safe boat harbour concept on the Council agenda.

FBA submits that the $500,000 donated for a marina would be better used for the long overdue cleanup and restoration of Kananook Creek.

Regarding the Coastguard facility, is Council aware that there is currently a move for marine services to consolidate the number of flotillas around the Bay?  FBA oppose the Coastguard building at Olivers Hill because of the negative impact on coastal processes. The Frankston Coastguard is a very small flotilla and could be suitably accommodated at Carrum Coastguard, close to where its large boat is stationed.

Supporting evidence

Council should consider advice and evidence that has been gathered over a number of years from highly qualified geomorphologists and coastal engineers and the following advice by Dr Eric Bird is an example: “The notion that the proposed safe boat harbour will have minimal impact on the coastal processes echoes assurances regarding marina projects on the coast of Victoria notably Portland, Warrnambool, Apollo Bay, St. Kilda, Middle Brighton, Sandringham and Lakes Entrance- all of which have on-going problems. Most relevant is Sandringham, in a similar location to Frankston proposal. There is the risk that any proposed marina south of Frankston will have a similar effect on sand movement, resulting in the trapping of sand along the protruding structure and consequent depletion of beaches and coastline erosion at and north of Frankston and in Daveys Bay”.

More recent supporting evidence is the damage to Blairgowrie beach. Adjacent beaches lost sand following the installation of boat berths and ugly groynes have been installed in an attempt to restore the beaches. Not a good look. Is this what Council wants for Frankston Beach?

FBA have a report dated 16^th November 2016 from the Senior Project Manager, Dept. of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, which was investigating re-nourishment of the Frankston South beach.  The site was found unsuitable for beach re-nourishment unless they constructed extremely large groynes.  The introduction of long groynes would have significant downdraft affects on the existing Frankston beach, so the decision was made to no longer consider the Frankston site. There is a risk that any proposed safe boat harbour would have a similar effect.

To safeguard Frankston’s beaches, the SUZ3 Safe Boat Harbour must be deleted from the Frankston City Council Proposed Council Plan 2017-2021 and the Coastal Management Plan.

The beach is Frankston’s greatest asset and Council should not risk the enjoyment of tens of thousands of beachgoers to satisfy a few hundred boat users. Frankston rate payers will not thank you if you burden them with remedial works in perpetuity.

Kathleen Hassell, Committee Member
Frankston Beach Association Inc.
22nd May 2017

The Frankston foreshore continues to be a challenge. The summer of 2013/2014 brought little rain. Months of very dry conditions exacerbated the difficult growing conditions for newly planted tube stock.

The eroded southern beach was replenished with 15,000 cubic metres of sand in late 2013 just prior to the start of summer. Included in the works was the erection of an erosion control fence. Recent heavy winter storms have put the new works to the test with many recently placed plants being washed away. Fortunately the sand has remained on the beach.

This year working bees on the foreshore began on March 31. To date seven working bees have been carried out, including a supplementary day on the south beach. Other than the extra day on the south beach, all working bees occurred on the foreshore between Mary Street and Wells Street. Volunteers and Frankston City Foreshore and Reserves staff have planted 3200 endemic shrubs, grasses and trees to date. Two of the days were principally assigned to weed removal, particularly Gazania species which is rife in sections of the dunes.

A total of 3,800 tubes are to be planted along the Mary Street/Wells Street foreshore. These plants supplied by the Frankston Indigenous Nursery were paid by surplus funds from the Mary Street project (3000) and Beach Street project (800).

Frankston Beach Association working bees have been successful because of a dedicated of band of volunteers, aided by Chisholm TAFE Certificate 1 in Transition Education students and of course the Frankston City Council (FCC) Foreshore and Reserves staff.

The number of volunteers has increased this year thanks largely to notices in the Frankston City insert in the local Leader newspaper.

Why do people volunteer? When asked why she volunteered her time revegetating Frankston’s foreshore, Avelen Jackson replied, “to help preserve the natural environment for future generations”. Neil Robinson said he “liked working outdoors and enjoyed the company” and Dongmei Zhao says she “likes to work outdoors”.

Further Working bees are planned until mid October. Another activity this year included National Tree Day on Sunday July 27.

The Frankston foreshore needs friends who are willing to weed and plant on a regular basis. Our Association encourages and supports community volunteers, including volunteers from education institutions. Working bees are held once a fortnight during the planting season. This year Monday is our scheduled day for working on the foreshore.

CHISHOLM TAFE STUDENTS
Chisholm TAFE students regularly participate in the planting on the foreshore. Here are some comments from members of their group:

“I am working to save the environment, and planting on the foreshore will make it better for the future. I feel part of the community and it motivates me to work hard because it will assist in saving the foreshore”.

“I am proud to do this work for the survival of the foreshore and for the community to enjoy”.

“Love planting on the foreshore – we have to be careful of the little plants”.
“It was windy and cold today – we love morning tea”.

“Love doing this for the community. It is really nice to know that I can help in making the foreshore a better place”.

“It makes me happy and motivated to plant on the foreshore and survival of the little plants is very important to keep the beach healthy”.

This article was originally published in 2014.

Bridal Creeper

One of the worst weeds on the foreshore is Bridal Creeper, (Myrsiphyllum asparagoides). It is a creeper that spreads via seed eating birds and animals, and also via many underground corms. Roots grow from wherever the vine touches the ground. If left to grow freely it can completely smother the indigenous vegetation. Fortunately biological controls have been found to succeed in controlling the plant with the use of a rust fungus and a mite, which together have suppressed the spread of this extremely invasive climber. Originating in South Africa, it was a popular hanging basket plant sold by many nurseries in the past!

Boxthorn

Another South African plant, which grows to a 5 meter shrub, is Boxthorn (Lycium ferocissum). Aptly named, it has 15cm long spines on its branches making it impossible to remove by human hand. The council has resorted to using big machinery to extract them, trying not to leave the large thorns in the dunes. Again it is spread by birds and animals eating the bright red fruit. It replaces the natural shrubs of the foreshore such as coastal ti tree, coastal beardheath and boobialla, the major shrubs of the Coastal Dune Scrub.

Mirror Bush

The New Zealand Mirror Bush (Coprosma repens), displaces indigenous shrubs too. This exotic weed grows rapidly on the coast, spreading in exactly the same manner with its red berries. Removal is easier (no thorns) by sawing and applying herbicide to the stumps. Disturbance and clearing of vegetation creates the ideal situation for the introduction of more weeds, such as veldt grasses or deadly nightshade, so it is paramount to manage an area properly and clear at a time when replacement is going to be successful, by planting or direct seeding, timing and season being considered.

Marram Grass

One of the most natural looking grass weeds of the foredune is Marram Grass (Ammophilla arenaria), a European tussock introduced for dune stabilisation. It can take over the role of the indigenous hairy spinifex, but if examined closely the dune form is quite different. The tall tussock forms a clump creating steep sided dunes, whereas the horizontal runners of the Spinifex sericeus encourage wide gently sloping dunes less prone to erosion. To remove the weed when it is the only plant binding the sand would be deleterious, but gradual replacement with the well adapted Spinifex would improve the quality and stability of the foredune. Where healthy areas of Spinifex exist any marram grass encroaching should be removed, by cutting and painting with herbicide.

Gazania

Over the years, the bright yellow flowers of the Gazania species that has colonised the coastal areas of Frankston have slowly disappeared thankfully, as this south African plant exudes a chemical inhibiter around it, discouraging growth of the natural vegetation, ensuring its own survival and spread along the length of the foreshore. This is an escaped garden plant, like so many of our weeds. When residences are close to the foreshore reserve, the likelihood of this happening with other garden plants is high, particularly if garden rubbish is dumped on the dunes.

Other Weeds

Polygala myrtifolia, a south African shrub, is one that is often planted for its bright purple pea flowers and spreads rapidly on coastal areas.

Other weeds found on Frankston Foreshore:

• Hare’s Tail (Lagurus ovatus)
• Cape Ivy (Delairea odorata)
• European Sea Rocket
• Dolechos (Dipogon lignosis)
• Cape Broom (Genista monspessulana)
• Angled Onion
• Buffalo Grass
• Tamarisk
• Sweet Hakea (Hakea suaveolens)
• Sea wheat grass (Thinopyrum junceum)

The most difficult two weeds to identify on the foreshore are Sallow Wattle (Acacia longifolia) and the South African species of Carpobrotus, as they are visually fairly close to their indigenous counterparts, Coastal wattle (Acacia sophorae) and Pigface (Carpobrotus rossi).

Indigenous Species

More than 50 indigenous plants can be found in the reserves along the Frankston foreshore.

Trees include:

• Coastal Banksia
• Tea-tree
• Coast Wattle
• Boobialla
• Drooping She-Oak

Smaller shrubs include:

• Coast Beard-Heath
• Seaberry Saltbush
• Coast Daisy Bush
• Sea Box
• Coast Everlasting
• Sticky Daisy-bush
• Coast Pomaderris
• Coast Salt Bush
• White Correa

Climbers and groundcovers include:

• Knobby Club Rush
• Clematis
• Pigface
• Bower Spinach
• Climbing Lignum
• Running Postman

Grasses include:

• Spinifex
• Coast Tussock Grass

Remnant indigenous vegetation on the Frankston foreshore can be divided into four ecological vegetation classes:

• Coastal Dune Grassland (dominated by spinifex and coast salt bush)
• Coast Banksia Woodland (dominated by coastal banksia)
• Coastal Dune Scrub (dominated by coastal tea-tree)
• Coastal Headland Scrub (Olivers Hill, where all plants are highly wind pruned).

Regardless of which vegetation class a plant falls under, they are all faced with surviving in very harsh conditions,  mostly on shore salt laden winds, waves and tides, seasonal littoral drift of the beach sand and sandy infertile soils.

It is essential to retain the remnant indigenous vegetation along the Frankston foreshore, to rehabilitate areas where this has been lost and to rejuvenate weed infested areas.
We need a healthy dune system. That means healthy vegetation in all its array of varied plants – the canopy, shrubs, grasses, lilies, sedges and herbs.

Weeds

A weed is a plant that does not belong to the Ecological Vegetation Class (E.V.C.), of the area. A weed can be a threat to the indigenous vegetation by spreading rapidly, replacing or smothering indigenous plants and inhibiting the germination or growth of natural plants.

The viability of an ecological vegetation class can be compromised, sometimes devastated.