Dredge will return to Ettalong
The contractor hired by Gosford Council to dredge the Ettalong channel will return to the site after NSW Maritime survey results revealed an agreed depth of 2.5 metres to complete the work was not met.
Johnson W Marine Salvage Pty Ltd is expected to return to the site in two months time to ensure the problem is fixed.
Council's director of city services Mr Stephen Glen said the additional work would not incur an extra cost to council since the contractor would be paid based on the amount of sand that was taken from the site.
Mr Glen said he had no idea how the contractor came to the conclusion the dredging was complete when it had its own equipment to gauge the depth and width of the channel floor.
"NSW Maritime surveyed the dredged area two to three weeks ago to determine how much the cost of works would be based on the amount of sand dredged from the area and if the original contract had been fulfilled," Mr Glen said.
"The survey revealed that more sand needed to be dredged from the area in order to satisfy the original contract made between NSW Maritime, council and the contractor."
Mr Glen said a depth of 2.5 metres was needed as agreed in the contract but could not specify how much sand had been dredged from the area so far.
"We are currently negotiating with the contractor to work out an appropriate time to start dredging works in the area since he has taken on another job."
Mr Glen confirmed that the channel remained safe for boat users and this relied on the skipper of each vessel to be cautious and follow NSW Maritime markings when passing through the affected area.
Peninsula Chamber of Commerce president Mr Matthew Wales blamed the dredging method for the problem.
"The dredging work has been undertaken by the cheaper grading option which spreads the sand from the channel back onto the Ettalong shoal rather than the conventional suction dredging that can deposit the sand at some other location in the system,".
"The Peninsula Chamber was always of the view that any sand won from the channel should have been deposited onto Ettalong Beach where it is needed rather than spreading the sand back onto the bar.
"Mother nature has worked quickly to dump the sand back into the channel causing everyone to question to effectiveness of the work."
Mr Wales said he understood the south section of the channel re-silted in the space of weeks with almost 3000 cubic metres returning to the channel from the Ettalong shoal.
"This has resulted in several yachts running foul of the bottom already," Mr Wales said.
"It is understood that Gosford Council has ordered the contractor to return in two months to fix the shortfall in the channel depth which is only 1.8 metres below datum as opposed to the contract depth of 2.5 metres."
The Peninsula Chamber has urged council and the State Government to set aside recurrent funds in their respective budgets so that emergency dredging can be undertaken on a needs basis.
"It is obvious that the channel will need to undergo regular monitoring and that funds need to be available to carry out dredging work on short notice," Mr Wales said.
"Our current problems stem from the fact that both the council and NSW State Government do not have a long term strategic plan to tackle channel silting nor have they ensured that money was available when it was needed.
"It's time to have a plan of action for the future and that should include suction dredging to renourish Ettalong Beach on a regular basis.
"Then perhaps we wouldn't be having this argument."
Cr Peter Freewater said he also had "reservations" about the sweeping method used to clear the channel.
"The sweeper method is basically a broom attached to a barge that pushes the sand away from the channel and then smooths it across the top of the sand shoal," Cr Freewater said.
"The dredging plan that I developed for council recommended the use of a cutter-suction dredge with a barge mounted hopper to remove sand from the site and place it on the far side of the shoal, away from the channel.
"The sweeper method was used on advice from staff at the Department of Lands, partly because it was cheaper and so more could be done for less money, and also because it was available to begin before Christmas, 2009.
"The engineering consultants were also aware that the sweeper was to be used and I'm sure they would have provided advice in this regard.
"I trust that council staff were given assurances that the sweeper would do the job.
"As a councillor I was not asked if the sweeper was appropriate because it was an operational decision and council staff made the arrangements in cooperation with the State Government.
"While I can understand that the dredging has not addressed the entire length of the channel because that was beyond the scope and funding of the project, I will be extremely disappointed and frustrated if problems persist in the areas that supposedly have been addressed.
"This has been an extremely expensive project and no one would like to think that ratepayers money has been wasted."
Mr Glen denied that the method of dredging was the reason the depth of 2.5 metres was not met by the contractor.
He also said the council had no intention of providing recurrent funding.
The council had only agreed on a "one-off" contribution for funding for the dredging work.
Clare Graham, 4 Mar 2010
Interviewee: Steve Glen, Gosford Council
Cr Peter Freewater, Gosford Council
Press release, 3 Mar 2010
Matthew Wales, Peninsula Chamber of Commerce