Comments on Port Otago Application to renew inshore consents for dumping of spoil at Shelley beach, Aramoana/the Spit and heywards Point.
If you want to make a submission on this consent application, please click on the ‘Make a Submission” page.
24th August 2011
Application was submitted to ORC 19th August 2011 .
Submissions close on the 9th September 2011.
Nic Reeves’ SUMMARY POINTS:
Summary of Port Otago application and supporting scientific reports is that: any disposal at Spit Beach will be a positive outcome for the ‘surfable’ wave at Aramoana, this is keeping in line with NZCPS policy 16, therefore no problem, although we will ask local surfers what they think via a qualitative assessment of waves at the Spit, and do a Bathymetric survey once a year.
(anything typed in red below are comments supporting the Ports’ NO HARM positive outcomes)
* They are saying that its all positive outcomes for the ‘surfability’ of the wave at Aramoana, although monitoring needed, monitoring kind not specified.. They look at monitoring through ANNUAL measurement of seabed topography in the vicinity of the disposal sites ( this is not adequate enough, we need more than just seabed topography)
* Not mentioned anywhere is the surf break at Murderers, and the need for that to be monitored.
* They repeatedly talk about conferring with LOCAL surfers, no mention anywhere about Surfbreak Protection Society. It is very important we are recognised and on the technical group and other working parties.
* We need to advise that the Surf Break at Aramoana is not just the waves out front of keyhole rock, but the ENTIRE wave environment along the beach AND under the cliffs to the north west end of the bay.
So lets look at the APPLICATION
Submissions close on the 9th September 2011.
To replace consent 2000.472 which expires 1st Dec 2011.
The consent is for a 3 year duration. After that, a 35 year duration will be sought.
They are still applying for the same volumes at the Historical Sites of:
Shelly Beach 50,000 cm
The Spit, Aramoana 200,000 cm
Heywards Point 200,000 cm
= 450,000 cubic metres per year
SPECIFIC POINTS OF INTEREST
They recognise that The Spit dumpsite is ‘seaward’ of the Spit surfbreak which is Nationally protected surf break under NZCPS
Disposal Site Selection 4.4
They say that The spit site has been used for many years without causing any identified adverse effects.
4.5.9 They says it is crucial to continue to use the Historical disposal sites for the ongoing use of the Port of Otago to achieve maintenance dredging.
Although other disposal sites and methods have been identified, none are viable to capture the volumes of material need to be disposed of.
Check out Activity 5.1
Regional Plan: Coast Otago, Chapter 9.
The approval of use of the Historical sites for disposal of spoil approved.
It is advised that disposal of Spoil is a Discretional Activity under RCP rule 18.104.22.168
Policy 29 of the new NZCP 2010 revokes the requirement for all restricted coastal activities, that the RCP be amended (it has not been) so only the discretionary activity applies to this proposal.
Assesment of Environmental Effects 6
6.2 positive effects “Research undertaken to date indicates that the disposal activity has positive effects in terms of the Aramoana Surf Break.”
6.3 Effects on coastal Processes
Changes in wave height arising form the physical size and shape of the disposal mound
dr Martin Singles report (appendix C) states “Shoaling within the disposal sites has resulted in an improved wave break for surfing at Aramoana.. There is no evidence that wave energy is focussed on to the beaches”
Monitoring through annual measurement of seabed topography in the vicinity of the disposal sites”
6.7 Effects of Recreation.
Dr McComb states there is a relationship between the disposal mound and ‘surfability’ of waves generated at Aramoana. The effect of continued disposal activity at the Spit Beach disposal ground on wave generation at Aramoana could be both positive and negative. So Port Otago intends to work with local surfers during the term of the 3-year consent to get a better understanding of the relationship between disposal mound ‘surfability’ at Aramoana, in order to develop a management plan which minimises any long term effects on this surf break.
In the mean time, on the basis of the specialist work undertaken, the effects on surfing from the ongoing disposal activity will not be adverse and is expected to continue to be a positive effect within the term of the consent sought.
6.8 Effect of disposing at greater volumes than recent years.
6.8.2 Spit. 200,000 cm a year is not sustainable practice over the long term.
They say that the mound has a slight effect on the local coastal processes, and influences surfing wave quality. Focussing effects that increase the local wave heights along the adjacent beach are likely to confer positive outcomes for surfing. However the wave focussing process is highly dependant on the mound shape. Therefore as the mound erodes over time and the sediments are distributed shoreward and eventually spread along the beach and nearshore regions, the effects will also change.
Over the term of this consent it is proposed to mange the disposal within the Spit in a way which enables effects on the surf breaks to be monitored, involving local surfers in the qualitative assessment of surfability. This will be used to develop an operational management plan which minimises negative effects on the surf break being developed in the future, in the event that disposal is continued at this site.
*** My comment here is, is this enough? Only local surfers? What exactly is a Qualitative Assessment of Surfability? what about Surfbreak Protection Society? Other specialists like ASR etc? CAMera? Specific Bathymetric surveys? What are the specifics of the Operational management Plan?
Policy 16 NZCPS Surf bReaks of national Significance.
They say Dr Single confirms that “shoaling within the disposal sites has resulted in an improved wave break for surfing at Aramoana”. On the basis of the monitoring work undertaken, effects on surfing from the ongoing disposal activity will not be adverse, and is expected to be a positive effect for surfing activity within the terms of the consent sought.
On this basis, it is considered that the proposal will PROTECT the surf break of national Significance, in line with this policy.WTF????
9.3 Other Interested Parties
Incorrectly stated that Peter McComb met with representatives of South Coast Boardriders on 24th March 2011.
((They did not, it was Nic Reeves as Surfbreak Protection Society, and Rod Rust, independent. South Coast did not front up to the meeting. nice it was stated as a precursor to future meetings, but it has to be with Surfbreak and local surfers and groups, and recognised as that)).
A verification of the dominant wave driven circulation features identified in the work of Dr McComb, which will include liaising with the local surfing community on the quality of the Aramoana surf break at Different times.
These above comments above and excerpts from the application only
I have not looked thoroughly into the reports attached:
port otago maintenance dredging consents – physical coastal environment
but check out
3.2.4 Wave environment.
5. seabed Elevation Changes at the exiting disposal sites. with a GIS analysis
6. gaps in information.
8. Recommended Studies. Adaptive management.. observation of effects on beach resource, or the surfability of waves at Aramoana.
Port Otago maintenance dredging consents – beach Morphology, otago Harbour Entrance to Karitane.
3. morphology and beach profiles
3.1.1 Aramoana Beach
3.1.3 Murdering Beach
3.1.7 karitane beach
Met oceans Solutions Ltd- Wave Current and Sedimant Transport Model Studies.
Preliminary wave, current and sediment transport model studies fro dredge disposal investigations.
3.6.3 Wave circulation patterns.
4. summary – no mention of the surf break
4.2 future work..
4.3.2 Spit.. “it is highly likely that considerably less than 200,000 cm per year will be specified for the Aramoana beach system for long term management” .. “the presence of the disposal mound will modfy the incoming wave field… and does influence the surfing wave quality… are likely to confer positive outcomes for surfing”