In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991, and in the matter
of an application by Kaipara Excavators Limited for a coastal permit to
extract sand from deep water. September 1998.
This legal document has been made available on the Seafriends
web site in order to explain the company's position and the sand extraction
methods in full detail. It enables students of the Resource Management
Act in new Zealand, to explore a complete case study. A contents index
has been added for ease of access, but otherwise the wording of the original
document has not been altered.
1.1 My name is Michael Francis Bedford. I am a Civil Engineer with over
25 years experience in the construction, quarrying and mining industries.
In the last fifteen years I have worked predominantly in the mining sector
with particular emphasis on resource identification and development.
Involvement in Deep Water Sand
Project 1.2 For the past twelve months I have been a consultant to Kaipara
Excavators Limited ('Kaipara') and have been assisting that company to
develop its Deep Water Sand Project ('Project'). In my initial role in
the Project, I was responsible for reviewing the demand of the construction
industry in the Auckland region for construction materials such as sand,
analysing the current 'stores' of material available in terms of unused
licence amounts and predicting demand for new material over the next 30
to 40 years on the basis of various economic and social factors.
1.3 From this exercise, it became clear that a major new construction
resource would need to be obtained or 'opened up' in the short term to
insure that demand for material can be met in the long term. After obtaining
technical and legal feasibility reports from Kaipara's consultants, the
Project was developed and consultation with key stake holders undertaken.
1.4 After incorporating many of the initial reactions to the Project,
an application for a coastal permit was lodged in December last year. Since
lodgement, I have been primarily involved in consultation and liaising
with the various regulatory authorities throughout the consent processing
phase.
Scope of evidence 1.5 The purpose of my evidence is to discuss the application lodged
by Kaipara for the Project. My evidence:
introduces the Project methodology and summarises the key objectives of
the Project;
describes the Project anticipated by the application, how it differs from
other sand extraction operations and how it would be implemented in accordance
with the proposed conditions;
responds to some of the issues raised in submissions; and
confirms Kaipara's support for the ARC officer's positive recommendations
and proposed conditions.
2.
Project methodology and objectives
Sand extraction methodology 2.1 Before discussing the key objectives of the Project, it is important
to have some idea of what is envisaged by the Project.
2.2 The Project, in essence, involves the extraction of sand from the
coastal marine area in the outer Hauraki Gulf, generally in the vicinity
of the Pakiri-Mangawhai coastline. Kaipara, in partnership with Milburn
New Zealand Limited (its co-owner is Coastal Resources Limited) has developed
and presently utilises trailer suction dredging to work the current inshore
licence held by Coastal Resources Limited to win sand from the sea floor
at Pakiri. This system utilises a trailing pipe with a hydraulically driven
pump to provide the suction to lift the sand from the sea floor into a
moving self-propelled barge. The system has been referred to as a large
vacuum cleaner and leaves a trail approximately 100mm deep and 300-500mm
wide on the sea floor. Presently, the trailer suction system is used in
water depths of 7-15m.
2.3 To the extent that similar technology would be utilised, albeit
with some modifications, the Project is no different in its basic methodology
and purpose from this operation and other existing commercial sand extraction
licences presently worked in the vicinity of Pakiri. That is, it is envisaged
that a trailer suction dredge unit would be used to 'suck' sand from the
sea floor into a barge which would then be shipped to the port closest
to the desired point of supply.
2.4 However, the Project does differ significantly from existing extraction
operations in a number of other ways. Most notably these are its location
and minimum extraction depth, the size of the extraction area and the quantity
of the resource sought. Before considering those aspects in more detail,
it is important to understand how the Project evolved. To do that, it is
necessary to consider the key objectives Kaipara had in mind when it first
considered developing this Project.
Security and certainty of supply 2.5 As Mrs Kempthorne has noted, Kaipara is an existing sand producer
in the auckland region and has been involved in sand extraction operations
to supply sand for the regional construction industry for a number of years.
In addition to its 50% stake in the offshore licence ant Pakiri, which
entitles the joint venture company to extract 45,000m3 of sand per year,
Kaipara also has a stake in an on-land sand extraction operation in the
vicinity of Lake Tomarata. This licence entitles the extraction of an average
20,000m3 per year. Kaipara and Coastal Resources Ltd (in which Kaipara
is a shareholder) are therefore presently able to supply 65,000m3 of sand
to the Auckland market.
2.6 It is well known that the growth of the Auckland region is expected
to double the region's population over the next 50 years. The ARC and territorial
authorities have undertaken extensive work on the growth projections. The
demand for sand is directly related to this growth and will need to keep
up with it. This, coupled with Kaipara's own knowledge of the construction
resource market in the region, has led it to conclude that a significant
new construction resource will need to be identified and made available
for the use of the region in the short term, if that industry is to meet
the commercial and community demand for basic construction resources over
the next 30 to 40 years.
2.7 One of the key objectives of the Project, therefore, was to identify
and make available for a sufficient duration a significant construction
resource. In doing so, this would provide some much needed security and
certainty of supply of essential raw materials to meet projected demand
for growth over the next 30 year planning period in the Auckland region.
Flexibility of market use 2.8 The construction industry in the Auckland region demands varying
grades of construction resources. Apart from its well-known use in concrete
production, sand of varying grades and types is also used in reclamations,
general construction fill, high specification drainage layers, sand blasting
and beach replenishment. From sea floor sampling and technical investigations,
it is well-known that varying grades of sand, which are suitable for a
number of different end uses, exist on the sea floor in the proposed extraction
area.
In the past, however, extraction operations have tended to pinpoint a specific
grade and extract that from a specific area. The result, in effect, is
that not all markets have been able to be catered for in the Auckland region
from resources within that region, and not all viable and efficient uses
of resources have been explored.
2.9 Similarly, the quantities of the resource able to be extracted,
have generally been limited by prescribing maximum annual limits on extraction
licences. While such a limitation is appropriate where unlimited extraction
could have potential adverse effects on the environment, for reasons to
be discussed in detail by professor Healy, where the chances of adverse
environmental effects occurring are minimal because of locational factors,
there would appear to be no reasonable need to impose such annual extraction
limits and impact the market this way.
2.10 Moreover, not doing so would enable a generally plentiful mineral
resource lying on the sea floor to be utilised for large scale projects.
2.11 Ensuring flexibility of supply in terms of grade of resource and
quantity has been another key objective of the Project. By having a large
area within which material can be extracted 'to order', and no annual extraction
limits, Kaipara is confident that its preference of allowing to drive efficiency
of resource use, can be achieved, provided of course such use avoids undue
adverse environmental effects.
2.12 As an aside, Kaipara considers that adopting such an approach may
also lead to consequential positive effects. For example, if the resource
is made available on the terms sought, deep sea floor sand would,
for the first time become available as a viable alternative to large scale
reclamation fill for such projects as the Fergusson Container Terminal.
This is a project which could require up to 1.5 million m3 of fill in a
12 month period. Fifty percent of this fill could be marine sand. Not only
would the use of that material mean placing 'like in like'' (I.e. material
from the sea floor in the coastal marine area), thus avoiding potentially
contaminating the coastal marine area with waste fill from on land, but
it would also protect the region's valuable quarry resources from, in essence,
being thrown into the sea.
2.13 Avoiding 50% of an estimated 60 truck movements per hour for 10
hours per day, which would be required during the peak of the construction
period for the Fergusson project, by providing sand for bulk filling by
sea transport, is of obvious potential environmental advantage for that
project.
Minimising effects on the environment 2.14 In addition to its 'market' related objectives, Kaipara was always
committed to ensuring that any project of the type contemplated had no,
or only minor, temporary effects on the environment during its implementation
and after its completion. This desire arose in part from the concerns which
were raised during the first round of applications for sand extraction
permits in 1992-93.
That sand extraction of large volumes from the near-shore area may possibly
lead to erosion of the beach dunes and irreparable damage to the coastal
system, which replenishes the sand on the beaches, was well vocalised during
that round of applications. This concern was also voiced by the tangata
whenua, by the Department of Conservation and by Dr Hilton, a local scientist.
2.15 In order to avoid these concerns and any potential effects on the
inshore sand system, Kaipara has over the past years, developed dredging
equipment which is able to extract sand in commercial quantities from depths
never before worked in New Zealand seas. The application being considered
today, therefore, proposes to extract in water depths of no less than 25m.
The potential effects of extracting from this depth are discussed in detail
by Professor Healy and Dr Cole, suffice to say that the company is satisfied
that the Project meets this objective.
Recognising the kaitiaki role of Iwi 2.16 Probably the most interesting aspect of the Project has been meeting
the objective of recognising the kaitiaki role of iwi in terms of their
status as tangata whenua. It has also been the one objective most fraught
with uncertainty for the company and with least guidance from the relevant
statutes or regulatory agencies.
2.17 Having said that, however, it is also that aspect of the Project
which has been the most memorable. The primary reason for that has been
the involvement of Mr Haddon in assisting the company with the development
of the Project and consultation with the iwi of Ngatiwai and tangata whenua
of the area. A strong relationship between the iwi and Kaipara has been
forged over the past year as a result of Mr Haddon's involvement. It is
not envisaged that this will wither quickly. Kaipara is committed to involving
Ngatiwai in the implementation of the Project at a practical level and
enabling that to occur by covering the cost of that involvement. Regular
and ongoing consultation on cultural and environmental matters is also
a key plank of the memorandum of understanding concluded with Ngatiwai,
and the conditions requiring the formation of an Iwi Liaison and Monitoring
Group.
Summary of objectives 2.18 By way of summary, Kaipara had four key objectives in mind when
it proposed and developed this project. These were:
to open up a sufficient resource for a sufficiently large duration to ensure
certainty and security of supply of an essential construction resource
to meet the projected growth of the Auckland region over the next 30 to
40 year period;
to look to obtain rights in respect of a large area to enable extraction
of varying grades of material with no annual limits, thus allowing that
resource to meet the market demands of large projects and different end
users;
to ensure potential environmental effects were avoided to the fullest extent
possible by extracting at significantly deeper depths;
to recognise the status of tangata whenua and involve them in the development
and implementation of the Project.
2.19 I consider that the application under consideration today has achieved
all of these objectives to date, and if granted on the basis of the conditions
proposed, will continue to meet these objectives in the future.
3.
Project description and implementation
3.1 Attached to my evidence as Figure 1 is a map which shows the area
from which Kaipara is seeking a permit to extract, over a 35 year period,
up to 2,000,000m3 of sea floor sediments of differing grades (e.g. coarse
sand, fine sand, shelly gravel lag).
3.2 The area differs somewhat from the area shown in the original application
(see Figure 2). As a result of consultation over the past three months
with iwi, the University of Auckland and scallop fishers, and further sampling
and investigatory work completed in that same period, the area has been
modified to avoid Omaha Bay and Little Barrier Island, increase the barrier
between the proposed extraction area and the Leigh Marine Reserve, and
to include an additional area in deeper water where significant quantities
of resource are considered likely to exist.
3.3 The total area is in the vicinity of 500km2. it is important to
bear in mind, however, that Kaipara has no intention of extracting sand
from every square metre of sea floor within that area. if that were to
occur, it would effectively yield 50,000,000m3 of sand.
3.4 In essence, the extraction of 2,000,000m3 of sand over the term
of the permit proposed would only result in dredging activities occurring
over about 4% of that total area, or about 20km2.
3.5 The large area has been sought primarily to satisfy the objective
of enabling access to the varying grades of resource which are known to
exist over the area.
3.6 The extraction methodology has been summarised above. For this specific
Project, nothing more complicated than that is envisaged. In essence, the
only fundamental difference will be the length of the trailer suction pipe.
Details of how the operation would 'look' in practice, are set out by Mr
Turner who discusses how the existing licence of Coastal Resources is worked.
The fundamental difference between that extraction operation and the one
under consideration is that the latter will occur significantly further
from the coastline. That is, a minimum of about 2km and potentially out
to about 16km (or beyond the horizon and visibility from the shore)
3.7 Bearing in mind the key objectives of the Project, the other fundamental
differences between this application and the operations already taking
place in the inshore area along the Pakiri coastline are:
Size and location of extraction area 3.8 The area proposed by this application is significantly larger than
any area ever sought for sand extraction to date. As discussed above, that
is to enable differing grades of sand to be extracted and also to enable
flexibility of supply for both Auckland and Northland regions. However,
Kaipara has not sought an exclusive occupation permit for that area and,
as such, it is not considered that any other users of the coastal marine
area will suffer any detrimental effects of the extraction operation.
3.9 In addition, the area is located in deep water, with no extraction
proposed in depths less than 25m. Presently, there is no commercial extractor
undertaking extraction at the depths proposed by Kaipara (i.e. up to 50m).
Quantity/ duration /limits 3.10 Existing commercial extractors operating in the Pakiri/ Mangawhai
coastal area are allowed to take a maximum of 165,000m3 of sand per year
from their licensed areas. The term of those permits is 10 years. At their
expiry (i.e. 2003), 1.65 million m3 of sand would have been extracted in
the near shore area over that 10 year period.
3.11 By comparison, the permit sought by Kaipara envisages the extraction
of 2 million m3 of sand spread over up to a 35 year period and across a
larger area further out to sea. The fundamental difference, however, is
that Kaipara has requested no limit on how much it may extract annually.
That is, feasibly it could take 2,000,000m3 of sand in a 12 month period,
or as little as 20,000m3 of sand per year. Kaipara believes that catering
to the year to year real demands of the actual market is the most efficient
way of utilising natural resources, provided environmental and cultural
concerns are reasonably catered for in the actual implementation of the
Project (i.e. as sand is being extracted). If that is possible, there seems
little sense in constraining supply of essential resources, and hence the
demand for continued community growth, by placing arbitrary annual limits
on resource winning. It is certainly not something which usually occurs
in other mining type projects.
Environmental monitoring programme 3.12 The proposed conditions of consent envisage a comprehensive environmental
monitoring regime being undertaken by the company throughout the course
of the Project. This regime is supported by Kaipara which, like the Regional
Council and the Department of Conservation, see significant environmental
as well as commercial benefits in investigating the location of resources
in the coastal marine area and the effects of activities on these resources.
Essentially, the environmental monitoring programme would work as follows:
Draft Environmental Monitoring Management
Plan
Before extracting any sand Kaipara would have to prepare a draft Environmental
Monitoring Management Plan which would have to define the area within which
it wished to take sand and the amount of sand that it wished to take. The
proposed conditions set out a variety of environmental and biological monitoring
objectives which any monitoring plan (and hence the monitoring undertaken)
would have to achieve. The details of the monitoring programme itself would
have to be agreed with the Regional Council prior to any extraction occurring
(although minimum requirements are specified in the conditions). Fundamentally,
the programme would have to be of a scale relative to the sand proposed
to be extracted from that area at that time.
New or reviewed Environmental Monitoring
Management Plans:
At any stage that Kaipara wishes to move its extraction area outside
an area covered by an Environmental Monitoring Management Plan or it wished
to increase the amount of extraction within an area already covered by
such a plan, it would have to prepare a new monitoring plan to deal with
that change. In essence, therefore, the company would be constrained from
extracting all over the extraction area by the requirement to prepare a
monitoring plan to deal with extraction in defined locations. Obviously,
if Kaipara wished to extract from the entire area, the scale and size of
the monitoring programme which would be necessary to address potential
environmental effects would affect the commercial viability of the extraction.
It is considered that the proposed conditions will eventually lead to a
balancing of extraction area and monitoring requirements, with the company
potentially working different areas of the extraction area within the limits
defined by a number of approved monitoring plans.
Environmental Impact Assessment:
Upon the extraction of 500,000m3, 1 million m3, 1.5 million m3 and
2 million m3, Kaipara would have to analyse the results of all of the monitoring
undertaken throughout extraction operations to date and prepare an Environmental
Impact Assessment.
3.13 The company is confident that the proposed monitoring conditions,
linked with the review conditions, etc., will ensure that any adverse effects
being caused by the operation are able to be dealt with swiftly. Other
key conditions require extraction to cease if any areas of high species
diversity are discovered and require the maintenance of differential global
positioning sonar on dredging equipment.
3.14 The conditions will, in time, result in the gathering of significant
and detailed information about the sea floor in the deep water area and
the coastal processes operating therein and this is supported by Kaipara
which sees the area bounded by this application as becoming the future
resource winning area for the Auckland region.
4.
Issues raised by submitters
4.1 Many of the issues raised by submitters have been responded to indirectly
by the evidence I have already given, or will be covered by other witnesses.
For the sake of thoroughness, however, I propose to respond to some key
issues directly.
McCallum Brothers Limited and Sea Tow Limited 4.2 As trade competitors, I understand that it is difficult for the
Committee to have regard to the possibility that these companies may also
seek licences in the area proposed by Kaipara. As noted, however, Kaipara
has not sought an exclusive occupation licence for the area. The Regional
Council is at liberty, therefore, to grant permits to other operators at
a later date, provided that they too can demonstrate that their proposals
will have no undue adverse environmental effects.
Mangawhai Harbour Restoration Society 4.3 The Society has questioned the need for a 35-year term. For reasons
discussed above, that term is needed to ensure certainty and security of
supply. Large projects may not be won and regular extractions of smaller
volumes may occur. Given that there is a maximum extraction limit (2 million
m3) with monitoring linked to that limit, there is no valid reason to reduce
that term. Upon an earlier extraction of the 2 million m3, the permit will
expire.
Northland Regional Council 4.4 Proposed conditions which limit the ability of the Company to extract
in exactly the same spot on the sea floor each day should answer concerns
by the Regional Council that extraction would be concentrated in any one
area.
Scallop fishers 4.5 The scallop fishers who have lodged submissions have essentially
been seeking assurances that sand extraction would not interfere with scallop
dredging activities and spat collection programmes. Through consultation,
amendments have been made to the proposed extraction area and the Company
is presently liaising with the scallop fishers to set up a co-operative
resource use arrangement whereby each party would consult with the other
about proposed fishing and dredging activities in the extraction area.
This will enable those activities to be planned so as to avoid each other.
University of Auckland/ Williams Trust 4.6 These two submitters raise a number of technical concerns with
the Project and its supporting information which are covered more appropriately
by the evidence of Professor Healy and Dr Cole.
4.7 In various discussions with representatives of the University of
Auckland, three primary concerns have been advanced, namely: effects on
biota, extraction area too close to the Leigh Marine Reserve, and extraction
area too close to Pakiri beaches. To address these concerns, it was suggested
that Kaipara amend the application area to avoid the Leigh marine Reserve
by five kilometres, limit extraction depths to 40 metres along the Pakiri
coastline, and implement a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme.
4.8 In response, such a programme has been proposed by the conditions
and the Company has requested the Regional Council to amend the extraction
area to avoid the Leigh marine Reserve by three kilometres. On the advice
of its technical advisors (supported by the Auckland Regional Council officer's
report), the likelihood of significantly reducing any further potential
effects by moving five kilometres away from the reserve and to the 40 metre
depth contour, is extremely small. Making such amendments would also substantially
limit the flexibility of the Project to win identified deposits of sediments
in those areas with no, or no sufficient offsetting of effects or long
term environmental benefits. Accordingly, the Company is reluctant to make
these further amendments. Given that scallop dredgers and fish trawlers
already operate in that same area with arguably greater effects on the
sea floor environment, there seems little scientific basis for the University's
position.
4.9 The University is also keen to obtain the results of the extensive
monitoring which the Company would undertake. To date, however, it has
not accepted the Company's offer of making that information available,
or of entering into a more formal written understanding with it.
Greg Mcdonald, P & J Miller 4.10 These submitters raise a number of environmental concerns, which
by and large, are not sustainable on the basis of the available scientific
evidence. In any event it is considered that the proposed conditions will
ensure that any concerns of adverse effects on the beaches and marine life
are avoided.
5.
Officer's report and proposed conditions
5.1 Kaipara supports the recommendation of the Regional Council staff.
That report recommends that consent be granted subject to a comprehensive
suite of conditions. All of the proposed technical conditions are acceptable
to the Company.
6.
Conclusion
6.1 Kaipara is committed to ensuring that its Deep Water Sand Project
deals effectively with environmental and cultural concerns while at the
same time enabling people and communities of the Auckland region to provide
for their future safety and well-being. This permit, if granted, will allow
the development of a sustainable sand resource within a reasonable distance
of the region's major growth areas. The monitoring conditions proposed
will ensure that environmental and cultural concerns are met. In essence
it has been to answer these concerns directly that Kaipara has made considerable
investment in developing effective technology to dredge in deep water
and devising the Project under consideration today.
