<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Port Phillip Baykeeper &#187; Advocacy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bay-keeper.com/category/advocacy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bay-keeper.com</link>
	<description>Say g'day to the Bay</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:14:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>More toxic mud to be dumped in the bay</title>
		<link>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/10/more-toxic-mud-dumped-in-the-bay/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/10/more-toxic-mud-dumped-in-the-bay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BayKeeper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maintenance dredging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Port of Melbourne]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bay-keeper.com/?p=2263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over the past 70 years millions of tonnes of contaminated mud have been dredged from the Port of Melbourne and dumped in Port Phillip Bay. Meanwhile, the sand flathead population has declined 80% since the 1960s and we don&#8217;t know why. The Port of Melbourne Corporation is currently seeking Commonwealth and state government approvals to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Over the past 70 years millions of tonnes of contaminated mud have been dredged from the Port of Melbourne and dumped in Port Phillip Bay. Meanwhile, the sand flathead population has declined 80% since the 1960s and we don&#8217;t know why.</p>
<p><div id="attachment_2278" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 817px"><a href="http://www.bay-keeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Goomai-bucket-May-08.jpg"><img src="http://www.bay-keeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Goomai-bucket-May-08.jpg" alt="" title="Goomai bucket May 08" width="807" height="749" class="size-full wp-image-2278" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Toxic mud bound for the Bay</p></div><br />
The Port of Melbourne Corporation is currently seeking Commonwealth and state government approvals to dredge and dump a further 2.3 million cubic metres over the next 10 years. They say the work will be completed &#8220;in accordance with an approved Environmental Management Plan.&#8221; </p>
<p>The question is: will the EMP be detailed enough to really protect the environment? The Channel Deepening EMP didn&#8217;t require testing for toxins in sediments outside of the dredge disposal area. In other words, there were no checks to ensure that dumped contaminants didn&#8217;t disperse beyond the disposal area. </p>
<p>Dispersal of fine silts by wave action is especially likely when the mud is dumped through the bottom of a dredge spoil disposal barge.  </p>
<p>Get along to one of the upcoming Port of Melbourne Corporation community information sessions on maintenance dredging. Ask them how many cubic metres of silt will be dumped from the bottom of barges; and at what point as they sink through the water column will they not be dispersed by wind driven wave action? What studies show that dumping dredge spoil has not harmed the Bay ecology? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/10/more-toxic-mud-dumped-in-the-bay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A fresh approach to ciggie litter</title>
		<link>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/09/a-fresh-approach-to-ciggie-litter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/09/a-fresh-approach-to-ciggie-litter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BayKeeper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cigarette butts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Community Pulse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marine litter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Port Phillip beaches]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bay-keeper.com/?p=2215</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cigarette butts accounted for 37% of litter items removed from City of Port Phillip beaches on Clean Up Australia Day 2011 by the Port Phillip Clean Beaches Coalition. Apart from the fact that ciggie filters don&#8217;t biodegrade and are laced with a range of toxic substances, these little suckers are so small they scoot straight [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cigarette butts accounted for 37% of litter items removed from City of Port Phillip beaches on Clean Up Australia Day 2011 by the Port Phillip Clean Beaches Coalition. Apart from the fact that ciggie filters don&#8217;t biodegrade and are laced with a range of toxic substances, these little suckers are so small they scoot straight through most litter traps! </p>
<p>In search of a positive solution, Baykeeper has teamed with Ormond College (Melbourne Uni) students and the City of Port Phillip&#8217;s Community Pulse program to better understand where the butts come from. The team has conducted 4, fortnightly surveys so far, collecting butts from a 500m section of Blessington Street, St Kilda; the car park at St Kilda Marina Reserve; and, the 120m St Kilda South Beach. </p>
<div id="attachment_2238" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 467px"><a href="http://www.bay-keeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Your-butt-looks-big-in-this-21.jpg"><img src="http://www.bay-keeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Your-butt-looks-big-in-this-21.jpg" alt="" title="Your butt looks big in this! (2)" width="457" height="502" class="size-full wp-image-2238" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Butts on the street sail away when it rains!</p></div>
<p>A total of 11,857 butts have been collected. The team has recorded where each butt was found. As there has been relatively low rainfall over the survey period, only around 10% have been found on the beach. 8% were in the Marina Reserve carpark; 35% in front of businesses and the rest near residences and parks. </p>
<p>Understanding where the hotspots are provides a basis for positive solutions to the issue. The next steps include talking to local government, residents, traders and smokers to explore how they can be part of the solution. Baykeeper welcomes anyone interested in joining the butt safari team, or forming their own team to survey other areas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/09/a-fresh-approach-to-ciggie-litter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sand flathead &amp; mud ghost shrimp &#8211; why have they gone?</title>
		<link>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/09/sand-flathead-ghost-shrimp-why-have-they-gone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/09/sand-flathead-ghost-shrimp-why-have-they-gone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BayKeeper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mud ghost shrimp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sand flathead]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bay-keeper.com/?p=2178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Populations of sand flathead (once considered the most common fish in the Bay) and mud ghost shrimp (once the most common benthic organism in the Bay) both declined dramatically between the 1970s and 1990s. Although a study is underway to investigate if overfishing caused the flathead decline, there appears to have been no attempt to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Populations of sand flathead (once considered the most common fish in the Bay) and mud ghost shrimp (once the most common benthic organism in the Bay) both declined dramatically between the 1970s and 1990s. Although a study is underway to investigate if overfishing caused the flathead decline, there appears to have been no attempt to explain why the mud ghost shrimp became 700 times less abundant. Baykeeper has been looking into this in recent months.  While there are no clear conclusions, some interesting observations have been made. </p>
<div id="attachment_2180" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 401px"><a href="http://www.bay-keeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/flathead-lesions-2.jpg"><img src="http://www.bay-keeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/flathead-lesions-2.jpg" alt="" title="flathead lesions 2" width="391" height="291" class="size-full wp-image-2180" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">sick flathead caught in Port Phillip Bay early 2009</p></div>
<p>Firstly: while many scientific studies on different aspects of the Bay ecology at different points in time, there has not been ongoing monitoring of the bed of the Bay. What species live in or around the sediments and what chemical and physical changes are occurring? Without this info, any discussion on the health of the Bay is pure speculation.</p>
<p>Secondly: since the 1990s, the impacts of marine pollution in the Bay has been measured and discussed primarily in terms of potential risk to human health, with virtually no consideration to the impact on the health of marine species. You can read all about it here <a href='http://www.bay-keeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ongoing-monitoring-needed-to-explain-species-decline-in-Port-Phillip-Bay.pdf'target="_blank">ongoing monitoring needed to explain species decline in Port Phillip Bay</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bay-keeper.com/2011/09/sand-flathead-ghost-shrimp-why-have-they-gone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

