Decision Date on Aramoana – Heywards extended out to July

The Surfbreak Protection Society (SPS)  made a verbal submission on the 7th of May at the Otago Regional Council (ORC) Planning Hearing in Dunedin regarding a consent application to continue  disposal of maintenance dredged material by Port Otago Ltd (POL) the 100%  owned subsidiary of ORC, for a further 3 years (a renewal of an existing dredging disposal consent that expired in December  2011).

After this 3 year consent, it is the the intention of POL to apply for new consents to dispose spoil at these sites, and an already consented off shore disposal site (AO), for the Ports capital expansion project, Next Generation.

The Hearing Panel were expected to release their decision around about the 6th of June, though after consultation with the applicant,  the release date for has been extended out to the 19th of July.

(Murderers – Whareakeake, one of the NZCPS named surfbreaks in the shadow of the Heyward Point dump site)

The inshore disposal sites (Aramoana and Heyward Point) are in the swell corridors of three of New Zealand’s legally protected surf breaks, Aramoana, Karitane and murderers (Whareakeake) and Pol are requesting a much greater  increase in disposal volumes that have occurred  since 2005.

 Click on image to enlarge

The original consent( now expired) was given before the surf breaks were protected in the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.  The verbal submission by SPS Vice President David Storck supported our previously lodged written submission.

Available for download is a written copy of David Storck’s verbal submission,  Dr Shaw Mead’s statement, and SPS’s original submission.

Also available for download are the original consent application and AEE by Port Otago Ltd (which SPS successfully contested that the application should be considered as a restricted activity rather than discretionary,under the RMA in a 2011 council hearing).

The Council Officers Recommending Report, which came after the failure of Port Otago to produce a summary of proposal to the second round of prehearings(after the Port company had to reapply for consent as a restricted activity) and while elected SPS scientist Dr. Shaw Mead of eCoast.Ltd,was still caucusing with Port Otago’s elected scientist Peter McComb of Met Oceans.Ltd.  The caucusing  was never concluded as Port Otago Ltd elected to go to a full hearing instead.

Instead of the further consultation with the expected summary of proposal, POL released a new draft resource consent conditions which outlines shifting the majority of depositing to the Heyward Point site.

The Summary of Proposal was supposed to address concerns raised by the surfing community at the pre hearing stage  regarding monitoring of the surfbreaks and the avoidance of cause, rather than dealing with the effects  of dumping at Aramoana and Heyward Point after the fact.

SPS maintains that the “Adaptive Management” model put forward by POL is not a precautionary approach with regard to avoiding adverse effects on the surfbreaks.

The surfing community maintain that a full study of the swell corridors of both areas needs to undertaken, as to ensure that adverse effects are avoided before any further dumping takes place.

The Council supports POL’s  proposed”adaptive management plan,” where disposal at the sites takes place along with monitoring by way of a website set up to take opinion from surfers as to whether the dumping is affecting surfing wave quality at the named surfbreaks and if adverse effects are recognized, then POL will undertake remedial measures.

Click on image to enlarge

The Port Otago Consent Application and AEE argument against disposal at the AO offshore site is :

“An offshore site (“AO”) which is currently the subject of a consent application proposed to be used for the capital dredging project (Next Generation ) is generally less suitable for the disposal of material from maintenance dredging once the capital work on the Channel is completed. Its distance from shore both restricts access by the New Era [ barge] when seas are rough and also increases the cost of disposal.”

This would of course cost more as it is further out to sea. SPS believes that extra cost is not an excuse to ignore the term “avoid adverse effects” in the New Zealand Coastal policy Statement with regard to these named surfbreaks:

NZCPS Policy 16 Surf breaks of national significance

Protect the surf breaks8 of national significance for surfing listed in Schedule 1, by:

(a) ensuring that activities in the coastal environment do not adversely affect the surf

breaks; and

(b) avoiding adverse effects of other activities on access to, and use and enjoyment of the

surf breaks.

In 2005 after depositing 149,000 m3 at Aramoana the wave quality deteriorated noticeably, this fact was recorded in David Kilpatrick’s  research paper “Determining Surfing Break components” that same year.

 Waves breaking on the mound, Aramoana 2005 photo courtesy of David Kilpatrick

There is also anecdotal evidence from local surfers that wave quality at Whareakake -murderers was also producing shifty lumpy peaks around 15 20 years ago, after large deposit volumes at Heyward Point.

The Council Officer recommending report itself states:

“The volumes being sought to be deposited is over double the average volume that has been deposited at the sites between 2000 and 2010. As such it is appropriate that a conservative view is taken and three year term is being sought.”

It is the understanding of SPS that if the Hearing Panel comes out in favour of the SPS submission POL will appeal, We are therefore preparing an application for ELA funding to go the Environment Court if needed.

Aramoana – courtesy of Nic Reeves