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.

  

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.

Unatural features

Some cultures name natural features after ancestors or as reminders of their creation story. Thus it is with the marina company. Unnatural features created by the marina and their company are named after those who helped generate these brand new unnatural characteristics of the Whangamata landscape.
· Buddymaunga – Thinks it’s a mountain but is a little hillock.
· Matherson Falls – All patched up after a recent outburst.
· Berry Drain – Debris run through it.
The marina and their company have even planted a forest on the slopes of Buddymaunga, and they have named it Don grove.
It’s a shonky tourism policy creating artificial features.
A marina suits a place where there is already something of a natural basin (including depth) and which can access the open sea without dredging.
Unforeseen problems arise otherwise.

Soft energy attracts.

The Whangamata estuary is one of the shallowest on the east coast of New Zealand. Over 75% of its water volume leaves the estuary at low tide. Over 80% of the estuary’s area is exposed at low tide. These large inter-tidal flats attract shellfish that attract bird life including dotterel and godwits. It’s been like that for a few thousand years.
At the entrance to the Whangamata estuary is a sand delta. The flood delta is inside the entrance to the estuary and the ebb delta is outside the narrow estuary entrance. The ebb delta is known as the Whangamata Bar, one of New Zealand’s most iconic surfing spots and one of the best sandbar surfbreaks of the world. Surfing is a non-powered sport.
New technology is creating more types of non-powered craft. An example in the last 10 years are “sit on’s”. Sit ons are small rowing craft similar to an open canoe made out of extruded plastic. They are relatively cheap and have been taken up by many.
A more recent craft is the stand up surfboard. This allows the Whangamata Bar to be surfed even when it breaks less than 1 foot. Many people have also taken this up. It takes some practice to use them. Non-powered craft is where the increase in water traffic is taking place. Non-powered craft do not need marine estate.
The non-powered craft zone at Whangamata has been removed by the Councils to facilitate marine estate. If marine estate is threatened by wild life the Councils will back marine estate.
Both the District and Regional Council ran campaigns against surfing on the Bar in the New Zealand Environment Court. The District Council took it to the High Court. They continue to threaten surfing at Whangamata. The focus of Councils in the coastal marine area and coastal land area is to smooth the progress for those involved in the business of marine estate.

Number of moored craft in Whangamata on 29 November 2009.
Pole moorings – 21 boats. Swing moorings – 29 boats. Marina – 81 boats. 7 hardstand.

Mud magnet.

Mud sticks. Once accumulated it’s very hard to shift.
Sand rolls. In the wind, in storms. In water with tidal and current movements.
From the 11 to the 13th of October a group of Whangamata Camping Association (WCA) members walked and examined, around low tide, the recently excavated channel from the dugout marina basin down to the boat ramp. This part of the channel has never been dredged or altered previously.
The dredging and excavation is from a natural depth of .25 to .5 m to an artificial depth of 2m (at low tide). Rock walls and a weir structure have been placed in parts of the channel at the entrance to the excavated basin.
The most noticeable thing at such an early stage is the mud. The numerous black rock structures, only in the water months, are already deeply stained. Thick mud 5 to 10 cm thick has accumulated on the low tide flats behind the rock walls. All the marina structures are mud stained including the concrete pontoons.
The recently built weir has mud building on its surface. The structure is nearly always in moving water.
Where the rock wall ends a micro channel has formed. It runs from the low tide mark to a point 3 to 4 meters out from the rock wall and then runs (roughly) parallel to the dredged channel and joins up with (what was) a dead end channel opposite the boatramp (click on photos to enlarge.) The dead end channel opposite the boat ramp has been there for some time. The micro channel is new and came after completion of the rock wall around September 2009.
The most noticeable change is the increase in heights of the sediment banks on the western side of the causeway bridge. The increase in height has meant the channel has now carved faces into the sediment banks along its low tide meander, something that never happened previously.
The damming effect caused by the cauceway (built in 1974), is well documented. It has caused rapid infilling up stream with associated encroachment of flora. It was a known ecological disaster. Has this infilling now been accelerated?
While walking around the intertidal flats, WCA members were told by HeB workers on the site that crayfish had started living in the rock walls, and the marina is going to have problems with the channel and basin filling in.

Return of the godwits

Whangamata’s godwits are back home for summer. The usual pattern of return is a small (strong) group returning first. Within a week that small group doubles in numbers. A few weeks latter the rest return. (Click on photos to enlarge).
These photos are taken at the eastern (town) end of the Whangamata estuary where the godwits roost on the high tide. 80% of the harbour area is dry at low tide and around those times the flock forage over the large intertidal flats.
The photo of 7th November 2009 shows a piling barge moored in the background. The barge has spent a few weeks in Whangamata checking swing moorings and replacing poles. Though moored craft owners are a very small minority amongst boat users, let alone harbour users, they seem to own the Waikato Regional Councils budget and agenda for all of the Whangamata coastal marine area.
The Councils don’t understand songs of the godwit, bio diversity, cultural history or nuance like wave quality. Their attitude is they are not going to waste time or money on such things. For the Councils marine brokerage has priority as the baseline for Planning strategy in Whangamata.

The Waikato Regional Council has placed a mangrove tax on the ratepayers of Whangamata. Every one needs to be alert that the Councils do not place a “marina tax” on Whangamata. Where by the Councils disguise revenue gathering or expenditure to subsidises the investment and speculation platform of the marina company. The main techniques will be non notified consents and public excluded minutes on what are corporately owned public lands, foreshore and seabed.

A few signs around the Beach Road reserves would help protect the godwits while roosting. The Councils have refused expenditure for this.

Number of moored craft in Whangamata on 18 October 2009.
Pole moorings – 51 boats. Swing moorings – 50 boats. Slipway – 3 boats.

Sand mining forever at Whangamata?

The natural channel of the Moana anu anu has been deepened to allow boat access to an excavated marina basin. How much material has been mined out of the Moana anu anu channel bed and its delta? This has not been explained by the Waikato Regional Council Coastal Programme or the Department of Conservation, the two authorities responsible for activities in the coastal marine area (ironically on behalf of all citizens).
In the applications for resource consents for the private marina there was never a request to use the public Whangamata boat ramp for sand mining works. Over twenty days in the Environment Court and two different Council legal and planning teams never assessed that the boat ramp was to be used in this way.
Recently the Minister of Conservation and the Waikato Regional Council gave the marina company permission for five more berth spaces. The deal was done through the back door.
Yet no space has been given over to obvious periodic sand mining works required to keep the excavated basin connected to the open sea. What of the muddy crap that will becoming from the bottom of the marina basin, is that to go out on to land via the boat ramp also? The marina company were supposed to build a boat ramp within their own (leased) area. This could then be used for transporting the large amounts of seabed required to keep the marina open. A subsequent backdoor deal with Councils allowed them to delete that boat ramp.
The trouble with back door deals is they do not protect people’s use of the coast and commonly held assets, in this case the boat ramp.

Sand Mining at Whangamata

The photos in this post were taken form the same spot but different angles at the Whangamata boat ramp. The photo top shows the sand mining as a result of the Whangamata marina construction consents. The Public were never notified or told this was going to happen at the boat ramp. The sand is being excavated because the 1 kilometre channel connecting the excavated marina basin is naturally .25m - .5m deep at low tide. To operate the channel will require a depth of 1.7m at low tide.
The photo below shows in the right-hand foreground, the Whangamata boat ramp. It is river hardened sand and many people launch their boats in bare feet. Up to seven boats can be launched simultaneously. It is a safe boat ramp to use.
The rest of the channel can be seen meandering to the left. The line of poles mark the right hand side of the channel. It is this part of the channel where the piled sand has been mined.
What is clear is that months per year of sand mining will be required to keep the channel open, and that a dedicated spot on the foreshore and on land will be required to stack it. Yet the authorities have not told us yet where this will take place and who pays.

Perpetual un-notified consents?

The post of the 31 July 2009 was a submission by the Whangamata Camping Association to an application to the Waikato Regional Council (WRC). This application was for a coastal permit for exclusive occupation of foreshore at Whangamata. There are two other regulating authorities that also had a say in the application. These are the Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) who administer the boatramp, where the exclusive occupation is taking place, and the Department of Conservation who are seen as the owners of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders.
The consent was granted to the private developers by WRC with input from TCDC and DoC around the date of 7 August 2009
The photograph below shows the sand bulwark under construction and the photograph above shows the structure with the machinery laying idle. When this machinery and structure is in use, it resembles a marine quarrying operation. The sand wharf structure has become larger since these photographs were taken.
The planners and lawyers who progressed the district and regional councils case through the courts and into Parliament, never forewarned that the boatramp would be given over to the private developers or that a marine quarrying operation would begin in a residential area.
The compliance officers at the District and Regional councils never knew this was coming until it was on their desk. Ten months into construction!
Part of the purpose of planners and lawyers who consult or work for Councils and Ministries is that they assess the effects of an application on behalf of those that pay them. They require some skills in understanding how something in a sensitive and controversial setting (the Whangamata estuary) will unfold.
The WRC, TCDC, and DoC are now saying that this sand and sheet steel bulwark and marine quarrying operation will be temporary. Are these authorities in control of the situation? How will the required dredging operations take place in the future?