Marina Debate

[Guest]

This marina has 2 special features

1. It is shallow draft, the basin is between 1.2m and 1.5m deep at low tide.

2. Not only is it located in a estuary, it is built within a sandspit. The marina basin is on the northwestside starting at the yachtclub and stretching halfway along. At this point a groyne is to be built square off the sandspit stretching out to the channel.

From my understanding this groyne will stop the natural water flow along the sandspit.

Groynes are used in many places to stop sand movement, sand builds up on the side the current approaches from and in this case that appears to be the marina basin.

[marinheiro 352]

I guess Shorebreeze has some connection to SOSSI, given that he is remarkably well informed about them using all their standard arguments, and this is his/her first posting - maybe a declaration of interest would be in order?

Me - I am an absentee Sandspit resident (bit like Smithy, have to work offshore to feed the expensive habit), I am a member of SYC, SRRA and have signed up for a berth, but am not a spokesman for the club/marina.

In the question of who hijacked the Sandspit residents & ratepayers association - well that is rather a matter of opinion. At the end of M Taplin's chairmanship in 2011 his chairman's report, which is normally a pretty benign sort of document, was rejected by approx 75% of those attending the meeting. Many saw him using the association as a vehicle to advance his personal views and hence did not support his re-election.

The Herald article was written by Alison Jones, described as a "writer and environmentalist", who may be the same Professor Alison Jones from the University School of Maori Education. I somehow think, if this is the same person, then she had some assistance to write the article. I guess it is not a coincidence that an article with much the same text, probably provided by SOSSI, appeared 2 weeks before in the local "Mahurangi Matters" newsletter. At least MM gave the marina committee the opportunity to make a rebuttal, which the Herald article did not.

As far as this siltation question goes, I do have some past experience in this having been an occupant of Westpark and along with Bad Kitty and a few others was intrumental in establishing the Berth Holders association in 2005. In summary the cause of silting there is due to its location being at the top end of the harbour and every incoming tide picking up a large quantity of fine silt from the large upper harbour mudflat area and carrying it into the marina where it settled. This was shown in aerial photos of the marina at half tide incoming - very discoloured, and half tide outgoing - very clear. So there is a deposition event every tide. At Sandspit the concern now is being put as silting due to run off, well this will only happen in strong rain events - lets say an average of 1 a month for 6 months of the year. This is a very very different situation to Westpark if you do the maths. Also reinforces the comment made previously that a positive move would be to encourage better land management on properties feeding into the Glen Eden river, just as has been done for the Mahurangi River. My expectation about the marina is that it will probably behave in much the same way as Half Moon Bay, with a bit of silting probably occurring in its south eastern corner over time. The fact there has been minimal silting at the exisitng club wharf is a good indication for the future. Almost all the older marinas in Auckland have needed a bit of maintenance dredging from time to time, Bayswater probably being the only exception with its very strong tidal flow. Milford is a in a worst case situation because of the sill which creates a settling pond situation whenever there is a run off event. A misrepresentation being made about who pays for dredging in a marina - this is by the berthowners at every marina, not by councils/ratepayers.

Motorbike talked about finding the best location for a marina - well lets be honest, no matter where you want to put a marina there will always be opposition so it can only be looked at from the position of a location judged to have the least impact. The Environment Court considered this at length for Sandspit(for the Land Consent appeal, the water consent had already been granted on first application a couple of years before) and decided that the marina satisfied this criteria, their decision can be found on a link in the Marina's web site. The decision amongst many items considered possible alternative locations including Scandretts & Goldsworthys but did not accept that these were appropriate, which I agree with. I note M Taplin was previously quoted in the Herald that he " would respect the Environment Court's decision...." . Seems now this may not be the case.

Lower, the Marina dredged draft will be approx 2.2- 2.5m to match the channel depth. I think you are misinterpreting the levels on the drawing on the Marina's web site which are relative levels to the zero datum. You will see on the drawing the centreline of the channel is shown as "0" as the datum, but the channel actually has a depth of approx 1-1.5m at Mean low water. For sure the marina will not suit deep keels but with my centreboard reduced draft of 1.5m just fine for me.

Standing by for incoming.....

[shorebreeze 0]

Marinheiro would like me to declare my interest. I'm a Sandspit resident. Isn't that reason enough to be interested? Sandspit and its associated estuary is an absolutely beautiful gem of the Hauraki Gulf.

The Hauraki Gulf, according to the Hauraki Gulf State of the environment report in 2010 is in a state of environmental decline. The proposed marina would add to that decline.

Now that interests me!

If the poster who claims to have a graduate degree in marine ecology knows anything about the site of this proposal, then s/he would know that currently it is a healthy shellfish bed. No shellfish would live there after 120,000 cu m have been taken away. Nor would they re colonise a mud pit. S/he should know that shellfish don't cope very well with sediment, especially fine sediment.

The SYCMS paid consultant marine biologist said the site is of enough importance that it should not be excavated unless there were an unequivocal community desire for a marina. And there is not!

Anyone who knows about estuaries knows that they are the basis of the marine food chain. So why fool around with them in this destructive way!

The marina society could have set up sediment traps years ago, but didn't, and got away with it, temporarily. Maybe their honesty and integrity could shine through by spending the necessary dollars out of the berth-seekers' pockets to fund and implement a catchment plan to protect their expensive boat park.

Public documents easily accessed show that 55,000 cu m of dredged sediment per year, from all Auckland region marinas can be dumped off Gt Barrier Island. This marina's capital dredging alone would be 120,000 cu m. Where is that going? How do Gt Barrier Island residents feel about that?

[Grinna 2]

This entire post can be summarised in one acronym .... NIMBY

 

Marinheiro would like me to declare my interest. I'm a Sandspit resident. Isn't that reason enough to be interested? Sandspit and its associated estuary is an absolutely beautiful gem of the Hauraki Gulf.

The Hauraki Gulf, according to the Hauraki Gulf State of the environment report in 2010 is in a state of environmental decline. The proposed marina would add to that decline.

Now that interests me!

If the poster who claims to have a graduate degree in marine ecology knows anything about the site of this proposal, then s/he would know that currently it is a healthy shellfish bed. No shellfish would live there after 120,000 cu m have been taken away. Nor would they re colonise a mud pit. S/he should know that shellfish don't cope very well with sediment, especially fine sediment.

The SYCMS paid consultant marine biologist said the site is of enough importance that it should not be excavated unless there were an unequivocal community desire for a marina. And there is not!

Anyone who knows about estuaries knows that they are the basis of the marine food chain. So why fool around with them in this destructive way!

The marina society could have set up sediment traps years ago, but didn't, and got away with it, temporarily. Maybe their honesty and integrity could shine through by spending the necessary dollars out of the berth-seekers' pockets to fund and implement a catchment plan to protect their expensive boat park.

Public documents easily accessed show that 55,000 cu m of dredged sediment per year, from all Auckland region marinas can be dumped off Gt Barrier Island. This marina's capital dredging alone would be 120,000 cu m. Where is that going? How do Gt Barrier Island residents feel about that?

[Guest Saturday Night Special]

So how long have you been there as a resident ?my family have been operating boats from there now for 5 generations

 

 

Marinheiro would like me to declare my interest. I'm a Sandspit resident. Isn't that reason enough to be interested? Sandspit and its associated estuary is an absolutely beautiful gem of the Hauraki Gulf.

The Hauraki Gulf, according to the Hauraki Gulf State of the environment report in 2010 is in a state of environmental decline. The proposed marina would add to that decline.

Now that interests me!

If the poster who claims to have a graduate degree in marine ecology knows anything about the site of this proposal, then s/he would know that currently it is a healthy shellfish bed. No shellfish would live there after 120,000 cu m have been taken away. Nor would they re colonise a mud pit. S/he should know that shellfish don't cope very well with sediment, especially fine sediment.

The SYCMS paid consultant marine biologist said the site is of enough importance that it should not be excavated unless there were an unequivocal community desire for a marina. And there is not!

Anyone who knows about estuaries knows that they are the basis of the marine food chain. So why fool around with them in this destructive way!

The marina society could have set up sediment traps years ago, but didn't, and got away with it, temporarily. Maybe their honesty and integrity could shine through by spending the necessary dollars out of the berth-seekers' pockets to fund and implement a catchment plan to protect their expensive boat park.

Public documents easily accessed show that 55,000 cu m of dredged sediment per year, from all Auckland region marinas can be dumped off Gt Barrier Island. This marina's capital dredging alone would be 120,000 cu m. Where is that going? How do Gt Barrier Island residents feel about that?

[shorebreeze 0]

To NZRat....and your point is?

 

Grinna.....Guilty as charged. Obviously Grinna cares nothing for Sandspit, the estuary nor the Gulf. Sandspit, The Gulf, and NZ IS my backyard.

What DO you care for Grinna? or is it all self interest and not the bigger picture of how we live, what we take, what we contribute or are you simply providing red herrings to divert the argument away from an inappropriate development proposal in a sensitive environment, which if it were built would certainly aid your mates and all those you want to rope in, to commit financial suicide?

Get back to the points of the Herald article rather than taking cheap shots to divert the debate.

[Guest]

shorebreeze - has it ever occurred to you that people who sail and live on boats may just be as concerned for the quality of the marine environment as you are?

[Guest Saturday Night Special]

your shouting loud I wish to know how long you have been there

[shorebreeze 0]

NZ rat. You probably are aware that Sandspit is a very sensitive environment at present..with reference to the social environment and identifying myself would not be useful or relevant to the debate.

 

Crew Ogre. Indeed I do hope that those who are fellow boaties are sensitive to the marine environment.

Such sensitive chaps (or chapesses) thus wouldn't want a marina sited in such an environmentally sensitive site, a shallow estuary, nursery to the Gulf. So, I hope you are one of the sensible ones?

Thus, reading the articles on the Whangateau Harbour Care website regarding this proposed marina site would aid one's marine environment enlightenment.

Goldsworthy Bay is a better site. It has been in the Rodney District plan for many years as Special Zone 10, a special marine recreation zone.

The debate is about the article posted on the site.

Let's keep to that.

Dr Grace QSM, simply has identified the truth at last.

SYCMS could have done that too. They didn't and now it's coming back to bite them.

Did they choose not to do that because it was too expensive or that it may reveal the truth and that would scuttle the project before the very few central figure puppet masters got their cosy little boatpark at the expense of the SYC, the community's harmony and the environment's integrity.

Remember the sign....integrity and sincerity shining through....but what is it shining through now?

[Fish 0]

Good God Shorebreeze you are talking emotively, and without any reasoned arguement. Jumping on anyone that asks you a reasonable question and crying they are off topic just shows you don't have any substance.

 

I've just re-red the same Taplin / Dr Grace article in this months issue of Boating, page 19.

It clearly states the silt trap testing, by there own standards and admission, is not statistically relevant, but you / they still shout about it from the highest roof top.

 

I've heard of the emotive BS and bitter arguements coming out of this issue, but this is the first time I've actually seen it.

 

Now I'm no expert, but I'm going to claim here and now, publically, that marina or no marina, the sun will still come up tomorrow, so why dont you use your negative energy for something useful.

[Fish 0]

Here is what I would call a reasoned arguement, with factual evidence, a report that was peer reviewed, and some understanding of motive as to why this issue would be raised now, and not in the consents process

http://www.sandspitmarina.co.nz/More/Pr ... pdate.aspx

[shorebreeze 0]

I believe that if SYCMS had conducted sediment monitoring for at least 3 years before the original hearings, they would have seen how unwise it would be to further their bid for a marina in the shallow estuary's intertidal zone.

They chose not to. Why? Was it because they thought it cheaper to proceed that way or had very little knowledge of how an estuary works or was it because they hoped to push through their obsession and let the chips fall where they may?

I quote accurately from the Boating NZ article of 1 September instead of taking a few words out of context. I imagine all of us boaty people will have already read the whole article.

"Although the study would ideally require 3 years of data to produce statistically robust results, the disparity between the theoretical estimate and the study data was so great as to "ring alarm bells" and prompt early disclosure to Auckland Council for the public record."

The truth is out.

[Fish 0]

So the marina outfit provided their methodology on the assessment, provided the qualifications of the assessor and got it peer reviewed, so it is open, transparent and available for critique.

 

What did you do?

You haven't outlined the methodology, location of sediment trap or anything else.

Is a sediment trap actually a whole dug in a mud flat with a garden spade? How did you monitor it filling up? Did you just walk over to it at low tide with gumboots on. Is your doctor actually a medical doctor and doesn't actually have any background in coastal geomorphology?

 

More to the point, why didn't you bring this up during the consenting process? The timing just before the public offer of berths is interesting.

 

You must however be congratulated on getting a fairly shonky story going very effectively in the media, what is it now, the Herald, the local paper and Boating NZ. Careful use of the word "expert", Dr and a few other lines to give the appearance of credibility but really there is no technical validity or scientific basis to the story.

[shorebreeze 0]

Yes Fish...as you say...open to critique. Being all 'honourable men' wouldn't the marina people want to know the truth whenever it was published rather than have any possibility of being accused of shonkiness later?

Integrity and sincerity is what the sign says, so I imagine that the marina men would welcome the truth with open arms.

Dr Grace ran some tests it seems and then critiqued the bought opinions, as according to the articles, he was alarmed at what he found out.

If anyone wants to know more, read the articles. Go to Whangateau Harbour Care, read the information there. Dr Grace tested 2 harbours and compared them. Read "What happens when you dig a big hole in an estuary ?" and I read there that one can request the raw data and methodology.

Google Dr Grace. He has a QSM. That explains his standing in the scientific community.

I'm only part of the marina debate which I understand is the heading, Fish.

[Fish 0]

Shorebreeze, you are talking around the issue. Can you provide a link to the data?

What was his QSM for, coastal geomorphology? Or services to fiction writing?

 

A close family member got a CBE, he was a renowned botanist and author, only the CBE was for services to photography. Go figure. Getting a QSM isn't a qualification.

 

I am interested in the details, if you post a link. I found the marina outfits info fast enough, they kind of won the arguement for me at the bit where they said the existing channel up to their wharf hasn't silted up over the last 20 odd years. Kind of compelling argument.

[Grinna 2]

Dr Grace is not an expert in coastal geomorphology. He would be inelligible to give expert evidence in this regard because it lies outside his qualifications, area of expertise and professional experience. Dr Grace would not, under the Code of Conduct be allowed to present evidence at Environment Court on rates of sedimentation because he's not a recognised expert in that field. When it comes to sedimentation and coastal geomorphology, Dr Grace's opinion holds no more weight than Bob the local panelbeater.

[shorebreeze 0]

Fish...it's obvious that you are not a local or you would know the direction of the flow in that part of the estuary.

The link you require, you can get yourself. I suggest yet again that you go to the Whangateau Harbour Care website and see where it says that one can request the raw data.

Anyone can go to the Council offices and read all the documents about the marina proposal from about 2006. Restricting yourself to the documents on the SYCMS website gives one a lop-sided view.

The marina society was warned about the sedimentation risks at the hearings. At the Council offices you can read the document by yet another eminent marine biologist. The society asked it to be tabled. It warned them that the marina basin was a sediment trap almost as if it had been designed as such and yet even after that they did not go out and do the hard testing. Go and do your own research.

And before you part with your money or "believe everything you read," (read Marina Update 27.4.12) may I suggest you read all the paperwork at the Council offices. It’s all public knowledge.

The link is the tunnel and the bridge to the city.

[Fish 0]

Ok, I found the article, after getting slightly distracted by the one on rabbits.

Well what can I say. There is absolutely no technical or scientific merit to that study at all. It looks like an amateur school kids science project. It shows that if you put a piece of PVC pipe in a mud flat, it will, big drum roll.... Fill with mud!

 

There is absolutely no technical link to how this might or might not relate to an excavation the size of a marina. There is no background supporting discussion of the methodology, and wether this is an accepted method of measuring sedimentation rates, which is what I was looking for in the first place. It is right up there with my initial assessment of digging a hole with a garden spade.

 

And more on Doctor Grace. Sounds like a nice guy, slightly misguided. A marine biologist, dedicated conservationist. Done some good work there, got a QSM.

 

Also works as a photographer for Greenpeace, done some tours on their flagship. I hate to say it but Greenpeace are the most reactionary, emotive, illogical, militant protesters you can find (short of Sea Shepperd). Doesn't exactly bode well for a reasoned debate or objective research.

 

Still, very good work getting Auckland Council to waste some time listening to this, and getting such a poorly based story into so many high profile media outlets. There is something in that.

[shorebreeze 0]

A quiet Friday huh? Ok. let's have some fun.

To wheels who knows enough to be dangerous,

I am a breeze that blows from the shore, apart from that you will knot no more.

Rumpelstiltskin is my name, apart from that, no claim to fame.

Who is he whose name shall not be spoken?

is he the guy I saw eloping

with your hard earned deposit in his Plan B pocket?

Dump your sh't upon my lawn, won't this puppy look so forlorn, but

You'll need a permit to confirm it

Please sweet darling handsome oh so heavenly sir,

Please tell me your plan

and I'll even purr

Is it Plan B, I've heard its swell, or is it plan c,d,e or even more?

[shorebreeze 0]

Or is it the shore?

Grovel, grovel, tail wag, beg, beg, smooch, smooch...want more?

Hey...I haven't been abusive yet

Look I'm wagging my tail and being effusive

 

It's not me you've left a hanging

its those poor sods of investors

who should be planning

to scarpa while they can

before all their money goes in the can

along with those who strung them along

they say it won't be long

Why do you call me trouble Maker

Isn't that grumpy of you to abuse the joker