Jump to content

We need help in protecting Great Barrier Island.


Recommended Posts

So Aleana, it means that until the dumpers show proof of no harm you should also be opposing them.

 

No no no no no.

 

Don't confuse law with logic!

 

No test = no facts = no opinion from me i.e. I remain neutral.

 

It doesn't matter if the law has been written to allow or disallow dumping without a test. It affects hat the dumpers are allowed to do but it doesn't actually inform me whether the mud is bad or not. Only a test can do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, so as I've already admitted it looks very plausible that it's crappy mud. But that was still 20 years ago. Can't we get a more recent report and make sure it covers the area being discussed (its not viaduct this time is it)?

 

And even IF the lab test comes back saying the harbor mud is less than 100% pure NZ, then that doesn't automatically tell us we can't dump it at the proposed site 15nm off GBI.

 

Because it's an entirely different question "Given we now know exactly how dirty this mud, how far away and how deep would you need to dump it to have negligible effect on the environment?"

 

And nobody has answered that either.

 

So even IF the lab test came back "mud = nasty" then there would be a whole new argument here about how far is far enough etc.

 

Which would be another fact-free argument which I would also not know the answer to until someone qualified presented the evidence.

 

See my point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The risk are toxins which may or may not be in the mud.Dumped at sea 15 miles n or ne of Gt Barrier which may drift on to the Barrier with risk to marine life. The effects may not be seen immediately as it could take 10/15 yrs?? 

Why take the risks when we are only guardians and need to protect for future generations.

 

As its been said before dump it on land. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree it sounds plausible and if you have the evidence to swap 'must be' for 'is proven to be' then I'll get my pen out! :thumbup:

 

I think your argument would carry more weight if you knew where they intend to dredge. That post screams very loudly that you don't.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your argument would carry more weight if you knew where they intend to dredge. That post screams very loudly that you don't.

 

But that still evades the point by relying on strong assumption and not fact.

 

Arrange to get a proper test of the intended dredging area seabed and send it to the lab.

 

Why is everyone so afraid of a test???

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But that still evades the point by relying on strong assumption and not fact.

 

Arrange to get a proper test of the intended dredging area seabed and send it to the lab.

 

Why is everyone so afraid of a test???

 

I understand you naivety around this as that is exactly the space some people want the population to be in. Those people are very good at their job as we can see city wide. Not sure why your reading skills have deteriorated so much though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you naivety around this as that is exactly the space some people want the population to be in. Those people are very good at their job as we can see city wide. Not sure why your reading skills have deteriorated so much though.

So tell me what I’ve missed rather than speaking in code?

 

In the absence of facts from this thread I decided to try to find out more by speed-reading the entire EPA report myself.

 

If anyone else has done the same let me know - I’d be interested to see what you make if it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify this a little, Wind does not create, nor does it alter the course of the current that flows up the East Coast. Wind against a current causes the Sea state to increase. The sediment will not "blow" onto the Islands Coast. A floating object can and will be influenced by the Wind, with the influence being proportional to the amount of its surface is clear of water and thus influenced by the Wind. 

The sediment should run with the current and in many respect, be little different than a River in flood, of which that River is capable of moving a heck of a lot more silt than any barge can.

I am a Stromwater Engineer. If it feels wrong you do your calculations again. I cant sleep, this issue feels so wrong.

 

Google "Auckland Council TP108"

Stormwater is required to settlle in ponds for a minimum of 24 hours to achieve 80% treatment. The remaining 20% is predominatly the clays and organic sludge. I have run a test on stormwater in a sample bottle. It took 5 days for it to clear and all the sediment to settle out.

 

The top layer of the ocean will keep sludge and clays suspended for many many days. In an easterly chop It will very liley cover all the eastcoast beaches of Great Barier in nasty black smelly sh*t, algea and slime in my opinion. 

 

Iif you stir up our stormwater treatment ponds we end up with too much botulism which parralyses ducks and kills all the eels. I am no expert in salt water ecology but it cant be good.

 

Your pod of dolphins, whales and other schooling fish will surely be affected . All the shell fish could be decimated which naturaly clean the ocean. I have a feeling this will  seriously affect the whole eco system of the Barier.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a dumping zone out by Barrier, has been for a long while.
This one is more the volume and what it is they want to dump that has many concerned.
 
 

I am a Stromwater Engineer.

Don't suppose you know anything about the Shelly bay interceptor project? It's technical name maybe a little different. The one where they want to reduce the occasional flooding in 2 streets and a few things like that which behind the promo is to stop a lot of the raw poohs, heavy metals and other contaminates pouring into Westhaven. The one where they sold it to the council as being moved to discharging in 'the channel' but in reality will be discharged into the shallows just west of the bridge. Not only Rod Dukes helicopter but raw sh*t and a lovely array of toxins as well. But in a sad way I suppose that will disperse the crap a bit wider rather than highly concentrate it in one of the areas up to be dredged soon.

 

I do support that dredging though but not where they want to dump it. Surely there is a way to bury it deep in a sealed landfill, that has to be better than spreading it around the gulf, quite a way around judging by Freedoms interesting yet a little scary post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to say it - it will be the result of a simple cost benefit analysis - the costs of the doing arguably the right thing to land would have been prohibitive - think of all the extra materials handling transport, consented and monitored disposal site etc....doesn't make it right though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know what you Aucklanders are on about. Lyttelton they only had to go 5km off the heads to dump.(how long until it all returns?) Mind you, local iwi got a nice payoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a dumping zone out by Barrier, has been for a long while.

This one is more the volume and what it is they want to dump that has many concerned.

 

 

Don't suppose you know anything about the Shelly bay interceptor project? It's technical name maybe a little different. The one where they want to reduce the occasional flooding in 2 streets and a few things like that which behind the promo is to stop a lot of the raw poohs, heavy metals and other contaminates pouring into Westhaven. The one where they sold it to the council as being moved to discharging in 'the channel' but in reality will be discharged into the shallows just west of the bridge. Not only Rod Dukes helicopter but raw sh*t and a lovely array of toxins as well. But in a sad way I suppose that will disperse the crap a bit wider rather than highly concentrate it in one of the areas up to be dredged soon.

 

I do support that dredging though but not where they want to dump it. Surely there is a way to bury it deep in a sealed landfill, that has to be better than spreading it around the gulf, quite a way around judging by Freedoms interesting yet a little scary post.

When I read the report yesterday it described in painstaking detail the scientific assessment and evidence given from both sides. This included marine pollution experts who had models to describe the clouding effect of mud as it drops through the water column and how long it takes and how much silt disperses between near and far edges etc. With videos of dumping to illustrate what happens.

 

In the end they decided that although the models indicated negligible chance of silt ever drifting as far as 15nm they did acknowledge it was better not to rely on the models. And so they specified that continuos monitoring must occur both of the toxins in the mud at source and the impact of dispersal at dump site. The level of detail specified is amazing eg they even define the size of labels and the type of pens that must be used to mark each sample taken.

 

So whilst I acknowledge many people’s gut feeling might be uncomfortable, I still struggle to find any evidence that the mud will be bad. And furthermore there seems to be a comprehensive safety net in place in the form of ongoing monitoring that will tell us if the consequences are worse than envisaged at time of consent approval - in which case the consent can be immediately withdraw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Several posts have been removed from here. Several members have received warning points. 3 Warning points and your posting rights are removed for a month. PLEASE KEEP TO SITE RULES, or go elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised how much I learned from investing the time to read the report (its long). KM pointed out that I didn’t know exactly what the source areas were so I decided the issue is important enough it was worth ploughing through the report.

 

I would encourage anyone else to do the same.

 

I genuinely believe that in today’s online world it is too easy and too tempting to support a cause by simply signing an online petition without full understanding of the facts.

 

The # revolution has de-valued the meaning of a vote. You can simply lie on the couch and follow the masses and click your like or support without having done the homework.

 

So if you feel as passionate about this as many of you do, I challenge you to invest some energy into reading the report, and then if you still feel the urge to protest and sign the petition then more power to you.

 

But if you can’t find the energy to read the report - which was produced at taxpayers expense - then I feel you are ignoring a valuable resource which is available to everyone to avail some more facts at the very least.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The EPA is government body.  The decision making committee is appointed by the EPA but they are external.  You can see who they were if you bother looking at the EPA website.  NZ uses the Precautionary Principle and has done since the RMA was introduced.  I personally think it is rubbish, but that is my personal opinion.

 

I have not read through all of the evidence that is all publicly available on the EPA website as I have better things to do.  I have been involved in consenting a range of very large and in some cases controversial projects as an applicant (employee) and providing professional advice.

 

The processes are very thorough.  It seems to me that there is the standard modern "outrage" here about what is happening, but it appears only a couple have bothered to go and read the evidence, the decision and the conditions of the consent.  A nice echo chamber of opinion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I skim read the report and learned a few words Benthic zone. "The benthic zone is the ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water such as an ocean, lake, or stream, including the sediment surface and some sub-surface layers."

 

My concern is not the bottom of the ocean. Clays and organic sludge stays in suspension and more or less might float with the waves onto the nicest beaches in the world.

 

Auckland City has many large decideous trees and no forest floor to naturally decompose them back into the soil, all these leaves wash into the harbour and sink to the bottom to create copious amounts of anarobic sludge and the soil is predominatly clay or volcanic rock (which doesnt erode).

 

Wipeout something and a nock on effect is likely to occur to other animal, eco system.

 

Forget all the monitoring.on the seabed BS just send this crap out a lot  further and deeper, If the eco system tips over the monitroing wont prewarn us, its too late. The reports may well have been written by the same people who will do the monitoring. Too hard to monitor the benthic zone at a 1000m deep.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there ls the answer Encase in concrete, use for all sorts of construction Queens wharf dolphin pontoons the AC cup new marina, the harbour board could use it for mooring weights, sea walls, pads for heavy trucks to park on to mention a few.

Why stop there,use as base coarse for new roads?? Aussie have concrete roads which are easy to repair but we are still in the dark ages of tar seal.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...