But there is sooooo much debris..... I hope MPA and their main contractor do a good cleanup job! (hint : remove all foreign objects). I wonder where these concrete chunks will be dumped? Will they be totally removed from Labrador or will they merely be dumped 'out of sight'? After all, concrete is supposed to be 'good' for reefs (refer to the reefbuilding project at the other end of Labrador Beach).
There were a quite a few 'new' tires on the beach... these were most likely abandoned by the contractors from their boats/barges as they were all within a few metres of each other and not spread out over the whole length of the beach (which would imply that they floated in from far and away).
Loose tires are a constant feature on Singapore's shores. Commonly used by local marine craft as a cheap and effective bumper, these are frequently cut away or thrown overboard by boatowners/operators just so that they do now have to dispose of them on their own. Perhaps could insist that boatoperators print their boat registration numbers on all such tires so that errant litterbugs can be identified and prosecuted. MPA are after all in charge of marine pollution concerns.
This looks newly put up. Sumitomo Corp are the main contractors. I wonder what their environmental policy is. Construction-site first and Environment later or vice versa...or a quirky balance of both depending on who's looking and asking questions?
It was thought that some of the items and rubbish seen earlier had already been removed. Eg. the outboard motor. (see : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vxu_tx5NynY/R1_vgNkh08I/AAAAAAAADYE/fnMMMNPVobs/s1600-h/d7881m6.jpg)
Correction : the outboard motor is still there. Something that heavy could not have been floated in with the tide.
The poorly thought out reefbuilding ($145,000) project
Things are still gloomy for the more visible beach end of Labrador Nature Reserve.
Here's a pic showing what's left of the "experiment in progress' sign.....sigh!
Building a reef is good...but the methods used must support the ecosystem as a whole and not carelessly or inadvertently harm one part whilst showing that effort was expended to improve another part. This especially so when the methods used do not exhibit any signs of adequate planning. (How else can one explain the abandonement of at least 3 seacil structures all over the intertidal zone?).
Close-ups of the some of the concrete seacils
What an EYESORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A disintegrating corner of one of the abandoned seacil structures. Plastic piping is good for our nature reserves?
More plastic bits.
A shot from above...
And more plastic....which will break off and form part of our shores forever...all because some educational institution decided to abandon their unwanted seacil structures on the shore. Why did they not want so many structures which they had painstakingly built? ... Could it be because of improper planning? Or the team got tired? And did not want to deal with removing the monstrousity they had created?
Probably one of the seacil pipe sections...moving off to 'start life' on it's own.
Another long pipe section...
Wait a minute...these pipe sections mean that the seacils deposited on the seabed must have broken up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These pieces must have been washed ashore. So all may not be well for the project.
Another piece which may have broken up from the deposited seacils. Sigh.
The standard of execution is wanting.....actually it is embarassing that an institution of higher learning can justify (and continue to ignore calls to remedy the situation) the dumping of unwanted structures on the shores and filled with all kinds of plastic bits to break off. A generation of students is going to graduate with this in mind...that it is ok to do so. Sigh.
Some Questions :-
- What sort of planning was made?
- Who was involved in approving the project?
- Did the planning involve the use of the foreshore within the nature reserve to use as a construction site? Bear in mind that the foreshore area would have been heavily trampled on during the construction phase.
- Were experts consulted on the project and in particular the exact way in which the materials were going to be used and assembled (and abandoned)?
- Why were so many (up to 4 separate pieces are visible) structures abandoned on the shore?
- Was there any approval from the authorities that the structures could be abandoned?
- Is there any of the $145,000 left to handle the remediation of the foreshore due to the abandoned structures? If no, how was the $145,000 all spent?
- Despite knowing about the abandonment of the structures for so many months now (about 1.5 years in fact), are there any concrete (pun intended) plans to remove the concrete structures?
"Our Environmental Policy
(Since 19 May 2005)
[--] will protect, care for and continually improve our environment by complying with relevant legislation and requirements, and maintaining an effective Environmental Management System that enables us to create a cleaner and healthier environment for ourselves and future generations."
Well, this school is in likely already in breach of at least 2 legislative provisions in the Parks and Trees Act and the Environmental Public Health Act. Sigh.