Mangroves

These photos show how the make up of the inter-tidal zone is changing texture due to (the marina) structures being placed into the Whangamata estuary.  These photos are taken on the banks of the low tide channel.  Previously this area was hard clean sand.

The area in these photos is dry for around two to three hours each side of low tide, otherwise they are covered in flowing tidal waters.  Yet they have turned to mud, enough for mangroves to sprout.  In an area where there were no mangroves previously.

The Waikato Regional Council consented the structures, which promote the mangrove growth.  They then placed a special mangrove tax on the landowners of Whangamata to pay for the removal of mangroves.

  

Godwits return

Migrating Godwits return to the Whangamata estuary.  A sign that summer is on its way.  This small flock are the first to return.  If the pattern of earlier years is retained more will return to Whangamata over the next weeks.

Dirty Deeds done deathly dear

Click on above letter to expand.

Recently the Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) went through a “Marina Precincts Options” exercise. Part of the multi-million dollar council expenditure that has developed around land tenure issues since the granting of consents to build a marina in 2006. The problem stems from mis-truths about land tenure given in the courtroom
The evidence endorsed by the TCDC at the New Zealand Environment Court was that the council purchased the land as a result of approaches by the owner in 1985.
The “owner” as per the evidence to the Court had passed away two decades earlier, and was represented by an “Estate Trust”. These were lawyers who would later represent the marina society.
However the evidence from the TCDC records was that it was the Council who approached the “Estate Trust” to purchase the land for use as overflow trailer boat parking and a public reserve.
It was not brought to be on-sold or on-leased which is what subsequently happened..
Two important documents, both Public Records, are “missing” from the Council files.
They are;

1. From which TCDC funds (i.e. Reserve Budget, Roading Budget etc) did TCDC use to purchase the land in 1985.
2. The Sales and Condition agreement. This agreement was negotiated and drawn up by legal teams from the Council and the “Estate Trust” .

The TCDC legal and planning team at the Environment Court had no qualms about supporting wrong evidence on land tenure of local ratepayer land. The TCDC continue this no-qualms policy today.

Dirty water.

Within two months of the marina opening and it was producing fowl water. One corner of the marina basin does not flush properly. The water in that corner is already red. It’s as if the excavated faces of the marina basin has pierced a flow of iron colour underground water to flow into the marina.
This colouring makes the water opaque. At low tide the water in the marina basin is below sea level, like a rock pool stranded by the tide. The opaque, stranded water heats up. On the 5 February at low tide the water temperature was 4 degree hotter in the marina basin than at the boat ramp, 500 metres away.
Worse is the overall water quality and the stuff that’s growing on the marina piers and boats below the water line. Petro-chemical slicks stick around for days and some weird looking stuff grows on the surface. The algae looking stuff on the piers and boats feels like jelly but alive and it’s growing very well.
Before the marina the estuary water was never this colour, the area did not amass petro-chemical spills, did not rapidly grow red / brown stuff. The opaque colouring, the petro-chemical build up and the algae (?) growth are environmental affects from the marina being constructed in that place.
Not enough tidal flushing is part of the problem. What did the Environment Court say about this matter when assessing the environmental affects?

Decision No. A 173 / 2005.
[44] Ms Sheffield went on to suggest that tidal flushing of the marina would not occur over a two day-day tidal cycle, contrary to evidence adduced for the society. Mr Caldwell stated in response that, in the light of calculations undertaken with the flushing rate, based upon a marina water depth of approximately 4.0m and a neap tidal range of greater than 1m, “ the ebb and flow during the tidal cycle and the mixing that that(sic)induces in the marina will be sufficient to ‘turn over’ the complete volume of the marina in two days (four tide cycles)” He went on to explain the reasoning supporting his view, and, having considered it against the concerns raised by Ms Sheffield, we accept that poor quality due to lack of flushing is not likely to be an issue on the basis of the works proposed in creating the marina basin and channel and maintenance dredging intended.

Good guess in theory but the Environment Court has got the reality wrong.

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap.

Some of the fears expressed in Council hearings, Environment Court, High Court and Parliament, (the whole gamut of New Zealand environmental law), regarding a marina at Whangamata, were around the need for constant dredging as well as unregulated privatisation of foreshore and seabed.
Whangamata estuary has (had) three outstanding natural features close together, the Whangamata Bar (a sand bar surf spot rated internationally), a shellfish bed and a small but perfectly formed wetland. All of these features are in “Public” ownership. The wetland, now destroyed, is a carpark and gated (marine) industrial area, part of the marina project.
The occupational scope of the marina has increased spatially with the council giving over parts of the public boat ramp for dredging purposes. At no time in the 15 years of gaining consents for the marina was the use of the boar ramp signalled.
That the access channel needed dredging two months after it opened questions the sustainability of the marina and what drove (drives) the environmental planning and legal teams of those councils.
The channel that requires dredging runs through the middle of a shellfish bed. This shellfish bed has a biological history many thousands of years old and a cultural history of a thousand years. These histories along with the current use of the shellfish bed were a driver for Maori groupings to oppose the building of the marina.
These Maori groupings introduced an expert witness from the surfing community to the appeal process. The surfer’s argument was that the constant dredging of the channel puts at risk the quality of the Whangamata surfbreak. Surfers argue that the inner estuary delta was part of the sand reservoir for the Whangamata Bar. Dredging would also change water velocity flows within the estuary putting at risk the Bar’s morphology and its high quality.
The Councils spent millions of dollars degenerating the surfer argument at the time and continue to actively block or bypass concerns from representative groupings of surfers. Once the Councils have had their way with the environment, usually for the purposes of promoting marine estate, they will then announce they are ready to talk about it.
Dredging began on 5th of February without any public notice. Parliament stipulated that parties associated with the appeals were to be given a months notice of the dredging methodology so they could make comment on it. To bypass this stipulation the Regional and District Councils have crafted a twisting of the regulatory system. The District Council gets a dredging consent, which they then “give” (?) to the marina. The Regional Council then processes the consent behind closed doors.
This allows no public scrutiny of why dredging is required so soon or allow the Public to comment on methodology or perceived environmental effects.
The Regional Council’s representative in Whangamata (Harbourmaster) and the District Councils local chairperson, when asked, on 5th of February, why is dredging required so soon and how will the dredging be done, (both) replied we would have to address the marina developers. Basically the Councils want the marina developers to be the de-facto owners of Whangamata foreshore and seabed with everyone answering to them.
The methodology employed on 5th February 2010 was as follows. A barge with a long arm excavator digs out the channel placing the sediment on the barge. The barge then moves to the boat ramp (using the digger arm) and dumps the dredged material into the water on the inter-tidal flats. When the tide goes out another digger comes and scoops together the dispersed sediment and re-piles it further up the boatramp. This all happens below mean high springs in the coastal marine area.
The material is then, spread down the ski lane. There is no reason for this other than getting rid of the material. The other area it was dispersed was the north facing side of the children’s playground. The bank at this site had given way when stormwater lowed the beach profile last (2009) winter. This stormwater inundation was exasperated by the wetland being plugged.
This dredging methodology is new and has been developed by the Councils with the marina developers. It’s the methodology designers who are checking the quality of this methodology.

bio-security breach?

It has been reported that the noxious weed nutgrass has been planted on land owned by the Thames Coromandel District Council and the Department of Conservation (i.e. ratepayer and taxpayer). Some of the infested land runs along the shoreline others along side residential property.
The District Council first noticed the nutgrass in late November 2009. On the 2nd of December the District Council asked the marina company, in writing, to eradicate it and the marina company and HeB the contractors agreed to do this.
It is the Regional Council that is responsible for the bio-security of Whangamata. Until the 22nd of December the Chairperson of the Regional Pest Management Committee knew nothing of the bio-security breach, though he is in the marina company. On hearing of the situation he informed a staff member who said the first step would be to positively identify the plant.
Subsequent research from AgResearch and NIWA state that the plant is Purua grass or Bolboschoenus sp. A native plant of wetlands and coastal areas.
Maybe the plant should have been checked at the beginning by the contractors and the marina company.

Naming rights?

The marina company announced through the local Member of Parliament that they would be naming features they created after themselves including the lights.