Saturday, 7 August 2010

Submission Time! - Port Otago Dredging

Lets Save the
Surf Break

Sorry about this large looking post, I hope it does not appear confusing.

The simple thing is to copy the Submission Form 13 at the end of this post under the red arrow, Write your submission where prompted, and send away to the addresses or email address supplied:

Or If you have a computer you can make a submission using the form available from

> Download a submission form

Your submission form should include a full copy of Appendix One of the submission

Submissions Close THIS Friday 13th August at 5pm

Postal Addresses:

The Otago Regional Council, Private Bag 1954, Dunedin 9054.

Also send a copy of your submission to:

Port Otago Limited, PO Box 8, Port Chalmers 9050. Attention: Lincoln Coe.

The following text is the written version of the video content above.
Following that is a Resource Consent Submission Guide.

The AEE (Assessment of Environmental Effects) states that there will be no more than minor or unchanged on the surfing wave environment along the North Coast (see excerpt below)
... these conclusions are based on monitoring reports for the AO dump site 6.3ks out to see in 27 meteres of water.
These results in the AEE DO NOT include the
Cumulative Effects of both AO and the existing near shore dump sites at
Shelley Beach, Aramoana and Heywards Point.

One of the resource consent applications is a 'change of conditions of the current consent' to be changed from deposition of spoil from maintenance dredging to deposition of spoil from the capitol dredging from the proposed Next Generation Project of deepening the harbour shipping channel and widening the turning bay at Port Chalmers.
A total volume of up to 7.2 million cubic metres of Sand Silt and Rock
The current consent allows spoil from maintenance dredging up to 450,000 cubic metres per year to be disposed of at these three near shore sites.
The Aramoana Beach dump site has played an integral part in the wave quality at Aramoana since dumping began there in 1985. The spoil mound is reported (Kilpatrick 2005) to have contributed to the world class waves, although the effects of ongoing dumping in the area are unknown and potentially detrimental. (Kirk 2003) noted significant retention of spoil at Aramoana, 60% of the spoil does NOT disperse into the greater marine environment. The spoil mound is growing, surfers feedback and experiences report wave quality is already being compromised. When was it last good at Aramoana?

Once the resource consents are granted the Next Generation Project will begin the capitol dredge work with the two smaller dredges owned by Port Otago, the New Era and the Vulcan. Operation of these dredges will be stepped up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week deepening the inner harbour and depositing spoil at the three current dump sites (this is the change of condition of the current consents). Volumes are 450,000 cubic metres a year of which 200,000 m³ a year at Aramoana, 200,000m³ at Heywards Point (inclucing rock blasted from the inner harbour) and 50,000m³ at Shelley Beach. Over the last 5 years only 50,000m³ in total has been deposited at the Aramoana site. (see graph at left of the total spoil deposited at the three sites since 1985)
These two dredges are not equipped to travel the 6.3ks out to sea to the AO site on a consistent enough and financially viable basis to carry out the massive movement of 7.2 million cubic metres of silt, sand and rock from the deepening of the harbour shipping channel.

The major issue is this:
The large contract dredge from overseas WILL NOT BE CONTRACTED to dump at the AO site until the large shipping companies actually give the go ahead for their ships to come to Port Otago. This all depends on the Global Economy and suitability of Port Otago as a financially viable destination, these vists are said to be decided in the next 2-10 years. There is no legal contract for these large ships to even come to Port Otago yet.
So we are looking at 2-10 years of full capacity dumping of spoil for this project at the near shore Existing Disposal Sites, with a smaller amount at AO until this decision is made.

Can the North Coast Surfbreaks sustain this volume of matter in their swell corridors?
We would like you to submit on these consent applications your concerns over the stepped up operation volumes. Remember studies show the spoil mound at Aramoana is accumulating, shifting and causing mounding of waves already over the dump site breaking at times in just 5-7 metres of water taking energy out of the swell and affecting wave refraction and direction.

We can request in our submissions that regular ongoing monitoring specific to surfing wave environment and quality be carried out immediately by qualified specialists in the surfing wave environment, and during the entire Next Generation Project. If any compromise is recorded, then the consents be reviewed, altered or ceased.
Due to the potential contaminant content of the spoil, and the water turbidity created from dispersal of matter in the surfing and swimming environment, please also request regular monitoring of water quality (such as is carried out at St Clair).
Also report your experiences surfing at these breaks, especially Aramoana, and how you feel the wave quality has changed over the years.

Policy 18 NZ Coastal Policy Statement
Protection of Surf Breaks of National Significance
The NZ Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) has been under review in recent years, and the new working papers are out. Many Regional Councils around New Zealand are already adopting and applying this new NZCPS.
These Port Otago resource consent applications need to accommodate the conditions and guidelines laid out in the NZCPS, along with the Regional Policy Statement which is modelled on the NZCPS.
Aramoana and Murderers and Karitane, three North Coast surf breaks in the affected area of these consents are listed amoung only twenty Surfbreaks of National significance recognised nationwide in Policy 18 Download and view here.

I believe that the Otago Regional Council needs to recognise the national and international value of these surfbreaks, the economic impact from tourism and student university choice on the Otago economy. The ORC need to protect the delicate bathymetric conditions that are required for them to exist, by ensuring they are not destroyed by inappropriate development such has the possibility of the Port Otago Next Generation Project.

We need to, as a collective of surfers, let them know how valued the North Coast surf break treasures are, and that we are willing to fully shout out and participate to ensure they are preserved for our own continued stoke, and the many generations of surfers to come.

How to prepare a submission on a resource consent application

Use the front page of Submission Form 13. (Copy attached).

This has the name of the Applicant – Port Otago Ltd already on it.

Add your name, full postal address and contact telephone number

Don’t forget to add your signature and the date you sign

If there is anything in the application you oppose – tick the oppose box

Tick the box saying you wish to be heard. The hearing committee is likely

to give greater weight to your submission. If you change your mind about

wanting to be heard at a later date there is no particular issue with this.

Tick the yes box if others making a similar submission. You will gain points

with the Council if you indicate a willingness to collaborate with other submitters raising a similar point.

On a supporting page you must cover the following points:

Identify who you are and why you are writing (eg I have been a surfer in Dunedin for 'so many years'). Clearly indicate which specific parts of the application you are concerned with. If you are concerned with the whole application you can say the application in its entirety. If you are concerned with only part, describe that part. Eg the part that relates to ‘monitoring of wave and water quality along the affected breaks at ...

My submission is : State whether you support or oppose the whole or specific parts of the application as identified above. eg I support the application in its entirety or I oppose the application in its entirety or I oppose the part of the application which seeks consent to ...

Set out clearly the reasons for your support or opposition

Eg Are there any negative effects that the proposal will have on you and what are the implications of this for you. If there are adverse effects has there been adequate consideration of alternatives by the applicant. Suggest practical solutions. Is the application consistent with Regional policy and the district plan

Be as concise and as logical as possible. Don’t use emotive language, don’t ramble in your argument. Use headings with short paragraphs or bullet points. Build up your case clearly. Be factual and objective.

What decision you would like the consent authority to make eg I only approve the application if the following condition is imposed. Or I decline the application in its entirety.


Port Otago Next Generation Project website

with all the reports and monitoring studies here

Consent Applications and

Assesment of Environmental Effects (AEE Report) here


Submission Form 13

File No: 2010.193

This is a Submission on publicly notified resource consent applications pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Applicant Details:

Name of Applicant: Port Otago Limited
Application Numbers: }
Type and Description of Applications: }
Locations: } See Appendix One
Legal Descriptions: }
NZMS 260 Map References: }

Submitter Details:
(please print clearly)

Full Name/s

Full Postal Address: Post Code:

(please tick your preferred Daytime contact number)

Work Ph:
Home Ph:
Mobile Ph:

Signature/s of submitter/s (or person authorised (Date)
to sign on behalf of submitter/s)

Please tick one of the following submission types regarding the applications,
Do you:

Do you:
Wish to be heard
Not wish to be heard
in support of my/our submission.

If others make a similar submission, I/we will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing.

The specific parts of the applications that my submission relates to are:
(Give details)

My/Our submission is
(the reasons for your views, use a separate sheet if necessary)

I/We seek the following decision from the consent authority
(give precise details, including the general nature of any conditions sought)

Date submissions close: 5pm on Friday 13 August 2010

A copy of your submission must be served on the applicant as soon as reasonably practicable after the service of your submission on the Otago Regional Council

Address for Otago Regional Council:
Otago Regional Council, Private Bag 1954, Dunedin, 9054
Address for Applicant:
Port Otago Limited, PO Box 8, Port Chalmers 9050. Attention: Lincoln Coe

Appendix One

Application No: 2010.193 – Coastal Permit – Restricted Coastal Activity
To disturb and remove up to 7.2 million cubic metres of dredge material from the foreshore and seabed for the upgrading of the Lower Harbour Channel, Port Chalmers swinging and berthing areas to a maximum design depth of 17.5 m.

Application No: 2010.194 – Coastal Permit – Restricted Coastal Activity
To disturb and remove natural material from the foreshore and seabed for the ongoing maintenance dredging of the Lower Harbour Channel, Port Chalmers swinging and berthing areas to a maximum design depth of 17.5 m.

Application No: 2010.195 – Coastal Permit
To discharge decant water and all associated contaminants from the channel upgrading dredging operation.

Application No: 2010.196 – Coastal Permit
To discharge decant water and all associated contaminants from the ongoing maintenance dredging operation.

Otago Harbour Dredging
Purpose: Upgrade the lower harbour channel, swinging area and Port Chalmers berths.
Location: Harbour entrance channel from the landfall tower approximately 2.4 kilometres north of Taiaroa Head to the Port Chalmers swinging basin.
Map Reference: Between approximately NZMS 260 J44:331- 928 and I44:257-855
Chart Reference: Between approximately NZ661 & NZ6612 45º45.07’S 170º43.61’E and 45º48.82’S 170º37.87’E
Legal description: Crown Land Sea bed
Otago Harbour
Bed of Otago Harbour DP 3904
Sec 52 Blk I Lower Harbour West SD

Application No: 2010.198 – Coastal Permit – Restricted Coastal Activity
To deposit up to 7.2 million cubic metres of dredge material sourced from the channel upgrading works and maintenance dredging at the new off shore disposal site A0.

Application No: 2000.472_V1 – Variation – Coastal Permit
To vary the purpose and conditions of existing resource consent 2000.472 to authorise the disposal of dredge material derived from the dredging of the shipping channel or within Otago Harbour from activities associated with the operation and maintenance of Port Chalmers facilities, in accordance with the following existing maximum annual discharge quantities at the following locations: Heywards Point disposal site (200,000 cubic metres), Spit Beach disposal site (200,000 cubic metres), South Spit Beach disposal site (50,000 cubic metres)

Disposal of Dredge Spoil
Purpose: Disposal of associated dredge material at new and existing disposal sites.
Location: New Disposal Site A0 : Pacific Ocean, approximately 6.3 kilometres northeast of Taiaroa Head
Existing Heywards Point disposal site: Pacific Ocean, approximately 1.5 kilometres northeast of Heyward Point
Existing Spit Beach disposal site: Pacific Ocean, approximately 1
kilometre to the northeast of Spit Beach
Existing South Spit Beach disposal site: western end of South Spit Beach

Map Reference: New Disposal Site A0: approximate mid point J44:387-948
Existing Heywards Point disposal site: approximate mid point J44:308-935
Existing Spit Beach disposal site: approximate mid point J44:317-912
Existing South Spit Beach disposal site: approximate mid point J44:320-896

Chart Reference: New Disposal Site A0: approximate mid point NZ661 & NZ6612 45º44.1’S 170º48.0E.
Existing Heywards Point disposal site: approximate mid point NZ661 & NZ6612 45º44.7’S 170º41.95E.
Existing Spit Beach disposal site: approximate mid point NZ661 &
NZ6612 45º45.93’S 170º42.62E.
Existing South Spit Beach disposal site: approximate mid point NZ661 & NZ6612 45º46.80’S 170º42.78E.
Legal description: Crown Land sea bed

Application No: 2010.197 – Coastal Permit
To disturb and deposit up to 30,000 cubic metres of rock rip rap to form a rock buttress under the container wharf and multipurpose wharf and their associated berths to improve foreshore and seabed stability.

Application No: 2010.199 – Coastal Permit
To construct a new public use fisherman’s wharf at Boiler Point.

Application No: 2010.200 – Coastal Permit
To extend the existing Port Chalmers multipurpose wharf by 135 metres.

Application No: 2010.202 – Coastal Permit
To disturb up to 1,000 cubic metres of the coastal marine area whilst erecting the fisherman’s wharf and extending the Port Chalmers multipurpose wharf.

Application No: 2010.203 – Coastal Permit
To discharge contaminants to the coastal marine area whilst depositing rock rip.

Application No: 2010.205 – Coastal Permit
To discharge contaminants to the CMA whilst constructing the fisherman’s wharf and extending the Port Chalmers multipurpose wharf.

Port Chalmers Structures
Purpose: Extend the multipurpose wharf and construct a fisherman’s wharf at Port Chalmers.

Location: Multipurpose wharf: located between the Port Chalmers container wharf and Boiler Point approximately 750 metres northeast of the intersection of Beach Street and George Street, Port Chalmers

Fisherman's wharf: located on Boiler Point, approximately 850 metres northeast of the intersection of Beach Street and George Street, Port Chalmers

Map Reference: Multipurpose wharf: approximate mid point I44: 255-860
Fisherman’s wharf: approximate mid point I44:255-861

Chart Reference Multipurpose wharf: approximate mid point NZ661 & NZ6612 45º48.55’S, 170º37.68’E
Fisherman’s wharf: approximate mid point NZ661 & NZ6612 45º48.49’S, 170º37.71’E

Legal description: Crown Land Sea bed
Bed of Otago Harbour DP 3904


Anonymous said...

Either way this has Environment Court all over it...

Might be wise Nic to request donations so that submitters (3rd parties) can employ a suitably qualified person(s) to represent them in Council Hearing/Environment Court?


nic on 09 August, 2010 15:56 said...

Well as I am the south Island rep for Surfbreak Protection Society, it will be us that would be, if it came to it, to the environment court.
So I could request that donations be made to surfbreak.
Click here for a link to our membership form,

a donation can be made at the same time as membership.

nic on 09 August, 2010 20:00 said...

Very interesting write up by Elizabeth Kerr here

The interesting thing is, aside from port merger politics, a number of New Zealand’s major ports are dredging their channels in anticipation of larger container vessels.

Did the ports’ boards stop to ask the shipping line(s) ‘What size of boats are you planning to send us?’ So we, the port companies, can reliably assess if we need to fund expensive consenting processes and dredging?

Sometimes, the ports’ suit brigades aren’t up to managing their way out of a paper bag? That’s not the right question, or is it. After all, this is a matter of regional-national logistics and planning for sustainable business development in New Zealand.

Bottom line: port activity must be coordinated and quality controlled for the service and development of the national export economy as much as the global shipping trade.

The ports falling into into ad hoc, reactionary localised practice; attempting to do things on the cheap; not attending to maritime safety; not upskilling and training the workforce; failing to coordinate the spread of risk across our major deepwater facilities and access points; not inviting new business partnerships and supplier relationships; and so on – is not about promoting and building an efficient, flexible and sustainable freighting base for New Zealand producers.

Why encourage container traffic through the port of Lyttelton if their cranes are unsuitably old and clunky (showing the lack of major investment in that port company’s infrastructure)?

Why send (larger?) container ships to Port Otago if there’s no harbour master to oversee maritime safety? Why would we think to promote Dunedin as an oil base without a harbour master? (Hello, Otago Regional Council, owner of Port Otago Ltd, are you going to manage your responsibilities to the marine environment anytime soon? …An international vessel grounds in Otago Harbour, we haven’t systems and accountabilities in place to manage spillage and contamination – the boat’s full of high value Fonterra milk powder immediately due to China processing plants – we’ve f***ed the supply chain. Who doesn’t get their money, who is liable?)


Knowing and managing risks and liabilities going forward through close modelling, system analysis and quality control of New Zealand supply chains, industry processing, freight handling and haulage, transportation planning, trade diplomacy, incentive systems, international gateway ports and airports – amongst other factors – is ESSENTIAL to growing the export economy.

Not too many people know how the ports operate. We assume all the systems and risks are being professionally managed by the port companies, according to statutory requirements.

The truth is – leaving statutory responsibilities aside for a moment (by the way, it’s not all tip-top with these) – each port has been crawling along, instituting its own limited management and operating systems. A power of work at every level is urgently needed to bring industry consistency to the safe management and competitiveness of our New Zealand ports.

Why allow a bunch of ‘sailors’ (many of them accountants with no wider training or expertise), dressed as port executives, to run New Zealand port infrastructure like they know what they’re doing. They don’t.

The ports’ middle management tiers are gripped by the heavy overwhelming reality of historical cumulative logistical weakness in the New Zealand port industry.

All up, ports’ management is not well organised – or sufficiently well skilled and educated – for the practical, hardnosed ‘change management’ required in the national port sector.

The port boards and bosses are under par as strategists. Let the blood-letting begin.

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Anonymous said...

I love the statement from the AEE report stating that " any sediment to reach the coastline will be negligible".
As a North Coast resident, surfer , surf life saver and frequent beach goer, the recent increase in sand on Warrington beach is unbelievable.
The beach used to be 100m from the domain/clubhouse. It is now closer to 300m. I'm not sure what there report would say about this but I'm pretty sure the sand is not procreating! Its coming from somewhere close by!

Anonymous said...

Can someone tell me, does DCC own Port Otago? Cheers

Anonymous said...

ORC owns Port Otago

Anonymous said...

Thanks. Seems funny rate payers own Port Otago yet we dont really have a say?

nic on 12 August, 2010 20:12 said...

yes we do have a say. which is why this consent application is open to publi8c submission

Anonymous said...

Yeh my bad , your rite. Think what i ment to say was i dont think that the ORC and DCC have listened to the public in the past e.g stadium. I really do hope they listen this time!

Anonymous said...

Hi Nic, I like what you are doing and can see that you have put a lot of energy into it. I have worked in marine design and construction for the past several years, including working with large dredging projects, groins, wave buoys, ports, and the related beaurocratic systems. I have surfed around the Dunedin coast most of my life. The comments above and the suggestions for submission raise a few points;
1) The large shipping companies have begun building, and will continue to build, the larger container ships requiring 12 -14m draft. Although we don’t currently have contracts with these large companies, we have no chance at all of getting these contracts without a port deep enough to berth them. If Dunedin doesn’t deepen the port it spells a slow death for Port Chambers and the port as an import/export gateway for Otago. The way I see it the recreation of a few hundred surfers won’t stop developments to secure the longevity of Otago’s main port. Alter the spoil ground. . . maybe . . . how will this happen. . . ;

2) “Regular wave monitoring by qualified specialists’. . . in the context of surfing waves this is very hard to do. Beaurocrats (councils, managers, engineers, etc) like numbers and graphs. Wave buoys will give you screeds of information (directions, Hs, Hmax, Ave, period, currents, etc, etc) but even the most advanced can’t tell you whether the surf was, or was not, pumping. Photos, and video, mean nothing to these people as they most likely don’t surf. My suggestion would be that you speak to Will Gilmore of WRL (William Glamore, PhD, Senior Research Fellow - Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, maybe able to point you in the right direction.

It should also be noted that surf breaks change over time naturally, and that the increase in spoil may create better breaks nearby, who knows. As I said I admire your efforts, but I think any front from surfers needs to united and clear, not just randoms prattling on about how the surf is not as good as it use to be. The council and port are smart operators and will be probably be happy to oblige as long as they are given clear and defined parameters. Good luck
Will Lewis

nic on 14 August, 2010 09:25 said...

Hi Will,

Thanks for your input and suggestions, much appreciated.

I agree with you, and I am not against Port Otago dredging for bigger ships, and I do not attend, and have not oppoosed the consents. Our issue is what is done with the spoil in the existing dump sites as it affects the surf zone.
I recognise as an island nation and our remoteness in Dunedin within that, that this is a necessary move to secure a trump vital to the financial future of Otago.

in reply to:
I had a meeting with the CEO of Port Otago on Thursday, spurned by the video and campaign where goal was to become better heard. It felt that during my input (and that of Graham Carse and Brett Hastie)at the public consultative phase we weren't heard or considered seriously.

The video was effective for sure, as a result of consultation and expressions of viewpoints at that meeting both sides are confident that an agreeable solution can be found through open dialogue.

I agree it is hard to do, but definately measurable and quantifiable by suitably qualified specialists that do exist, like Kilpatrick, Brad Scarfe etc. Others specialists just need awareness of the nuiances of a surfing wave which have slightly different aims and methods to traditional hydrographic applications- not so coastal process orientated. People like Brad Scarfe, along with Surfbreak Protection Society (united and clear front)take the mantle to inform regional councils, planners, and central government the importance of these features, surfbreaks, and how to preserve them in a scientific and intellectual way through lobbying & submitting like this.

Randoms may prattle, but Councils and groups like Port Otago must realise that we are not all Phd educated, and expressing our feelings and experiences has just as much value as a scientific study in consideration.

Thanks for the contact of Will Gilmore, I will email him today


Felcy on 15 April, 2012 00:01 said...

My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!

Dredging Companies India


phoam surf blog Copyright © 2008 Black Brown Art Template by Ipiet's Blogger Template