Newsletter of the New Zealand Coastal Society: a Technical Group of IPENZIssue 31 • March 2006

ISSN 1172-6938

Coastal news

ContentsHindcasting andForecasting OceanConditions aroundNew Zealand 1

New EngineeringGuidelines 3

Managing the Impactsof Living on the Coastthrough Triple BottomLine Assessments 4

Coastal EngineeringAward goes to NewZealanders 5

Tsunamis in theAuckland region:Where? How big?How often? 6

Development of coastalhazard risk indicatorsfor the Bay ofPlenty Region 8

Sandy Bits 12

NZCS ManagementCommittee 12

Changing CoastalValues 13

Word from the Chair 14

News from theRegions 15

Blue Flag Flies High atWesthaven Marina 18

Wet Bits 19

News from the UK 20

Conferences andWorkshops 23

NZCS RegionalCoordinators 23

Undaria pinnatifidaInvestigation inTauranga Harbour 24

www.coastalsociety.org.nz

Drs David Johnson, Peter McComb and BrettBeamsley of MetOcean Solutions Ltd(www.metocean.co.nz) discuss the benefits of anewly available, low cost and yet high-resolutionwind, wave, tide and current hindcasting andforecasting tool for all of New Zealand.

Coastal process management has longbenefited from knowledge of the oceanconditions - particularly in the fields ofdevelopment planning, infrastructure designand hazard management. Prevailing andextreme wave, swell, tidal and storm surgeconditions are a key set of drivers fordecisions in these fields. Historically, muchof the readily available data has been of ashort temporal duration or low spatialresolution, or required to be commissionedfrom consultants on a project-by-projectbasis. Even though the quality and quantityof ocean data has improved significantlyover time, the coastal manager or engineeris still constrained by available data in theirdecision making process. However,

obtaining location specific ocean data doesnot necessarily require costly consultingassignments involving instrumentdeployments. Advanced modelling and theaccessibility of computer processing powerhave allowed MSL to develop a regionalmetocean hindcast / forecast system,providing high-resolution ocean data forany location within New Zealand waters.

New Zealand is a unique location in manyrespects. The ocean dominates our temperateclimate, and NZ straddles the zone betweenthe sub-Tropic and the sub-Antarctic. Themountainous topography causes high spatialvariability in the wind fields, and the coastalcomplexity leads to strong gradients in waveenergy. The west coast is subject to persistentlong period swells, while the northeast coastis typically calm yet sometimes experiencesthe effects of tropical cyclones. The waveclimate is highly dynamic and changeableand at times New Zealand experiencesextreme sea states. There is a tidalamphidrome in Cook Strait, and the tidalcurrent regime varies considerably from

Hindcasting and ForecastingOcean Conditions

around New Zealand

Figure 1: Nesting onsuccessively finer grids givesdetailed resolution of ocean conditions near the coast in areas of interest.

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 312

Figure 2: The forecast/hindcast system generates high-resolution regional and local information.

as GIS and integrated with topographical maps.Relatively routine or low profile coastal planningor hazard management decisions can besupported by immediate access to high quality,local data.

In addition to pre-processed hindcast data, MSLprovides an on-line, web based forecast systemproviding wind and wave forecasts for specificlocations around the New Zealand coastline 7days out. Already in use by commercial users,such as ports and oil companies, as well asrecreational uses (www.swellmap.com), theforecasting system models location specific wind,wave, tide, surge conditions and current flows.By providing all the important forecastinformation in one place, it greatly facilitates pro-active hazard management. Specifically, the modelprovides the complex inputs needed forapplications such as oil spill trajectory simulations,search and rescue, beach safety, and coastal erosion/ overtopping warnings.

As an example of how the MSL system has beenapplied, the wave climate at the entrance to PortTaranaki has been hindcast at spatial scales of 25m, characterising wave transformation in varyingsea states over the tidal cycles and allowingoperational parameters for the shipping channelto be studied in detail. In forecast mode, thesystem runs on a 12-hourly cycle to provideforecasts of wave spectra along the shippingchannel and long wave surging within the harbour

An hourly hindcast time-series of the waves,winds, tides and currents is available for any

location in NZ for an 8 year period (June 1997to date). The data hindcast period will extend

to 25 years by late 2006.

location to location. Oceanic and coastal currentsare forced by the wind, steered by complexbathymetry and modified by geostrophy.

To deal with this complexity, the MSL systemruns numerical models on a series of nestednumerical domains. This allows the oceanprocesses to be resolved at increasingly smallerscales until the local features in areas of interestare properly represented, while ensuring thataccurate boundary conditions apply at each stage.MSL utilises state-of the–art open source modelsthat have been developed within the generalacademic community1, and the open availabilityof these models ensures transparency in terms ofthe scientific methods used. The models havebeen tested, validated and used operationally innumerous other locations, and MSL carries outindependent validation for the New Zealandimplementations.

Historical and forecast boundary conditions areobtained from global model solutions andmeasured satellite data. MSL has created aninfrastructure in which the models are integratedand data post-processed to provide the end userwith easily utilised data products for engineeringdesign, environmental planning, hazardmanagement and even marine based recreation.

It is now economical for national, regional andeven multi-location local hindcasts to be runeffectively en masse and the data stored offline –such as by DVD – for the immediate use by coastalplanners, engineers, students and researchers fora variety of applications. What’s more, data canbe made available in user-friendly formats such1 Ocean waves are simulated using SWAN. Currents andtidal elevations are simulated using an implementation ofthe Princeton Ocean Model (POM) and wind flows aremodelled with MM5.

The MetOcean models have been validatedagainst numerous measurements around NZ

MetOcean forecasts of the waves, winds andcurrents are generated twice per day, andprovide hourly data up to 7 days ahead.

March 2006 3

CoastalNews

7 days ahead, and the data are used to calculateunder keel clearance and assist planning of marineoperations.

Advances in wind, wave and current modelling,combined with the growth of oceanographicknowledge and computing power, are creating anew paradigm in the quantity, detail and accuracy

Figure 3: Forecasts are available to marine operators through an on-line web interface.

of information that is available without the needfor costly instrument deployments. MSL areworking to maximise the potential of theseadvances and deliver high quality, high resolutionand easy to understand information about oceanicconditions to the finger-tips of professionals whoactively manage and work in our coastal andoceanic environment.

The National Committee on Coastal and OceanEngineering has recently published two texts,titled Guidelines For Responding To The Effects OfClimate Change In Coastal And Ocean Engineering- 2004 update and Coastal Engineering GuidelinesFor Working With The Australian Coast In AnEcologically Sustainable Way.

The 75-page climatechange text provides abackground to thescientific debate on thecauses of atmosphericwarming due to theenhanced greenhouseeffect and identifies theprimary climatesensitive factors forvarious types of coastalengineering activities.

It summarises the scenarios provided by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change andoutlines how this may be interpreted for theAustralian coastline and ocean. It further makesrecommendations on how the information can beincorporated into engineering design,demonstrating the principles by example.

New Engineering GuidelinesThe 128-page coastalguidelines text is a moregeneral work aimed atspanning the gamut ofcoastal and oceanengineering activities inAustralia.

The chapter headingsgive an indication of thereport’s depth andcoverage and includecoastal zone policy,ethics, responsibilities and the duty of care, coastalenvironment, coastal development, coastalengineering methodology, standards, codes andquality assurance.

As well, there are supplements on beachreplenishment, marinas, outfalls and constructionmaterials for the marine environment.

Both these books can be ordered from EA Booksfor $22 each (GST included):

www.engaust.com.au/bookshop/location.asp

Courtesy of Engineers Media, Civil EngineersAustralia, October 2005 edition, p50.

CoastalNews

Photo 1: Seawall at BuffaloBeach, Whitianga.(Photo courtesy of Beca.)

Buffalo Beach and Cooks Beach, both located onthe east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula, havesuffered from varying levels of coastal erosionhazard since the areas were developed duringthe late 1800s. Existing information on coastalprocesses of the two beaches suggests that erosionis primarily related to dynamic shorelinefluctuations rather than permanent shorelineretreat. However, past developments involvedthe levelling of dunes and construction ofinfrastructure and properties too close to theshore, resulting in a coastal hazard during periodsof erosion. To date, the primary response of theroad managers and private property owners tocoastal erosion at both beaches has been theplacement of various seawall structures. This adhoc response to erosion hazard detracts from thevision of an ideal coastal community andenvironment.

Environment Waikato and the Thames-Coromandel District Council are jointly addressingthe coastal hazard issue at Buffalo Beach, CooksBeach and other Coromandel beaches by planningfor erosion management over a 25-50 yeartimescale. The two councils commissioned a Becaled team (with Eco Nomos Ltd and Covec assubconsultants) to identify issues and options atBuffalo and Cooks Beach and select the mosttechnically feasible, cost effective and sustainableoption. The study was conducted as a pilot sothat lessons learned could be extrapolated to thewider Waikato Region. The project team consistedof coastal planners, engineers, scientists andenvironmental economists.

The preferred erosion management options foreach beach were determined by considering theeconomic, social, cultural and environmentalissues to achieve triple bottom line outcomes forthe long-term sustainable development of thebeaches. In order to be able to assess the variousmanagement options, a draft strategy vision and

Managing the Impacts of Living on the Coastthrough Triple Bottom Line Assessments

objectives were developed to identify desiredoutcomes for each beach over the next 50 years.The draft vision and objectives were developedso that they could be further canvassed with thecommunity and stakeholders to provide acommon direction for coastal erosion managementof Buffalo and Cooks Beach in the future.

Various options ranging from status quo (donothing) through to hard engineering optionssuch as offshore breakwaters were assessed.Potential options were screened for any ‘fatalflaws’ that made some options technicallyunfeasible. A Cost-Benefit-Analysis (CBA) andMulti-Criteria-Analysis (MCA) were thenundertaken to estimate the costs and benefits ofproposed management options for coastal erosion.

The CBA evaluated the options in terms of theimpacts on beachfront dwellers and the widercommunity. The costs and benefits includedcapital and maintenance costs, property loss andhouse relocation costs. Intangibles such asnaturalness loss and gain were also valued,including natural character, aesthetics, publicaccess and recreational activities. The intangibleswere evaluated using existing New Zealandevaluation studies.

The MCA was a qualitative analysis that involveddeveloping a matrix to assess variousenvironmental, social and economic indicators.Indicators were graded for the type of impact(either positive or negative or both) and the levelof this impact (either low, medium or high).Indicators included matters of national importancein the RMA (e.g. public access, historic heritage,natural character, etc), matters consideredimportant for beachfront property owners (e.g.protection of private property, private capital, etc)and values that may be important to the widercommunity (e.g. beach amenity). MCA is a usefultool, which facilitates consultation with thecommunity, allowing the community to attach

different weightings to identifiedimpacts according to their ownvalues and preferences.

The study found that a backstopwall was the option most likelyto achieve the vision for CooksBeach (i.e. was the option thathad the most positive and theleast negative impacts in thequalitative assessment and thehighest economic benefit over 50years).

Coastal News No. 314

March 2006 5

CoastalNews

The views expressed by the authors of articles published in Coastal News are not necessarily thoseof the New Zealand Coastal Society (NZCS), or those of the Institution of Professional EngineersNew Zealand (IPENZ).

The Coastal News merely provides a forum for discussion. We appreciate all contributions and wouldlike to thank all of the authors in this edition.

If you would like to contribute an article, news item or conference announcement to Coastal News,see the guide for contributors above.

Environment Waikato and the ThamesCoromandel District Council are now about toconsult with the community and key stakeholdersto further refine the coastal erosion managementstrategies for the two beaches.

Cushla Loomb, Senior Planner,Beca Planning

cushla.loomb@beca.com

The premier Australasian award for a paper incoastal engineering, the Kevin Stark MemorialAward, has been won by Craig Stevens, DavidPhew, Stephanie Popinet and David Fredrikssonfor their paper “Mussel farm hydrodynamics”.Stevens and Popinet are from the NationalInstitute for Water and Atmospheric Research.Plew is from the Department of Civil Engineeringat the University of Canterbury. Fredriksson isfrom the department of Ocean Engineering,University of New Hampshire, USA.

This paper discussed flow around shellfish farmsat a range of scales from individual shells towhole aquaculture embayments. The study usedsophisticated dynamic models and field data toarrive at significant conclusions regarding thesupply of nutrients to the shellfish and theremoval of their wastes.

The Kevin Stark Award, and other awards, were

Coastal Engineering Award goesto New Zealanders

made at last month’s Australasian Coasts andPorts Conference in Adelaide.

Courtesy of Engineers Media, Civil EngineersAustralia, October 2005 edition, p50.

Different options were preferred fordifferent sections of Buffalo Beachdepending on the existing level ofdevelopment. Three options scoredhighly for the developed southernend of Buffalo Beach (nearestWhitianga town centre): a groyne andbeach nourishment programme; afrontal seawall plus rezoningbeachfront land to town centre(commercial); and realigning a frontalseawall landward and reducing theroad to one lane. The preferred optionfor the undeveloped mid section ofBuffalo Beach is dune restoration, which scoredsimilarly to status quo in the qualitativeassessment but has a greater economic benefitfor society as a whole in the longer term. Thepreferred option for the developed northern endof Buffalo Beach was to relocate dwellings backfrom the shore and redevelop with a backstopwall.

Photo 2: Erosion prevention at CooksBeach. (Photo courtesy of Beca.)

Seeking Contributions to Coastal News

Your contributions to Coastal News arewelcome. These contributions are importantto keep NZCS members informed aboutcoastal issues in New Zealand and around theworld. Contributions may be in the form ofadvertisements, notification about conferencesor workshops, short news items, or longerarticles of 400-800 words plus photos ordiagrams.

For further information or to submit an ideaplease contact Alex Eagles, Editor Coastal News, on penguins@clear.net.nz.

CoastalNews

6 Coastal News No. 31

record to change opinions.

A look at the historic information first indicatesthat Chile has been the main source of reasonably

large tsunamis overthe last 130 years orso, and in 1868 aSouth Americantsunami ran up nearly3.00 m on GreatBarrier Island. Thereis a hint in thehistorical record,though, thatIndonesia or northernand northwesternsources may be aconcern, with a1.80 m tsunamirecorded as a result ofthe Krakatoa eruptionin 1883.

Important advanceshave been made with

studies of the geological record of prehistorictsunamis. As many as 33 sites have been identifiedin the northern part of the North Island, of which9 are in the Auckland region and 5 have beenstudied in detail. The most significant eventsoccurred around the late 14th and early 15thcenturies (max. run-up to 14 m and under 10 mrespectively). The extensive record of coastal siteshas allowed us to integrate geological data withnumerical models to identify potential sources.This has allowed us to identify new sources anddifferentiate between a suite of known ones.

Putting all these data together, we have producedmagnitude, frequency, and source estimatesindicating that large tsunamis (greater than 5 m)have a frequency of once every 900 years or so,and that they will most likely be sourced eitherlocally (outside the Hauraki Gulf) in associationwith the Tonga–Kermadec Trench–HikurangiTrough, or possibly distantly from the north.

The figure shows a numerical model of a tsunamiapproaching from the east, indicating that the highestwaves will strike the eastern shores of Great BarrierIsland. Once inside Hauraki Gulf, the tsunamipropagates down the coast towards Auckland withdiminishing height, with a large reflected wavearriving at Waiheke Island at about the same timeas the tsunami enters Waitemata Harbour.

There are many pieces of the jigsaw missing, butthe study has served to focus attention on severalkey areas for further work. The need tounderstand tsunami inundation in key coastalareas is the driver. An increasing database ofgeological evidence alongside detailed bathymetryand LIDAR data provides a more detailed and

In the wake of the 26 December 2004 Indian Oceantsunami we have seen an increased awareness oftsunamis, and with this has come the need tolearn more about them.

The coastal marginsof the Aucklandregion are highlydeveloped. It istherefore notsurprising that theAuckland RegionalCouncil wanted anupdate of what wasknown abouttsunamis affectingtheir region. Morespecifically, theywanted to get a feelfor what we know,what we need toknow, and what wecan deduce from theinformation availableto us.

It is all too easy in these circumstances to resortto a simple desktop study. We have seen many ofthese in the past. Go to the library, carry out aquick literature review, combine this with whatyou know already, and come up with a story.Given recent events in the Indian Ocean, however,this was simply not enough. We need to moveforward and confront the issue of tsunami hazardand risk head on.

The development of a study that summarises thetsunami hazard requires some thought. What dowe really need to know? It follows a logicalpathway:

1. What are the potential tsunami sources forthe Auckland region?

2. What is the record of past events – historicand prehistoric?

3. What can we say about the magnitude andfrequency of these events – and from whichsource?

4. What are the most likely damaging sources?

5. As an indication of what this informationmeans to the region, what is a tsunami likelyto do in and around the Hauraki Gulf?

6. What information is missing?

7. Where do we go from here?

The pathway, however, does not simply go from1 to 7. It is an iterative process. We developed alist of potential tsunami sources and cross-checkedthis against the historic and then the prehistoricdata. One of the most compelling findings of thissimple exercise is the power of the prehistoric

Tsunamis in the Auckland region:Where? How big? How often?

Tsunami deposits in Whangapoua Harbour,Great Barrier Island (photo: Scott Nichol)

March 2006 7

CoastalNews

comprehensive data base for model input. Thisapproach of integrating geological groundtruthingand numerical modelling is producing modelsthat can now accurately and realistically predictinundation. It is encouraging to see that such anintegrated approach has also been recognised inthe US. Just before Christmas, the US NationalScience and Technology Council issued a reportentitled "Tsunami Risk Reduction for the UnitedStates: A Framework for Action". It states:"Field surveys are needed to identify past tsunamiimpacts for specific locations and to characterizepotential tsunami sources including offshore faults,submarine landslides and island volcanoes.Geological studies including stratigraphic analyses

of prehistoric tsunami deposits to determine pasttsunami frequency and size, as well ascomprehensive documentation of the coastalimpacts of modern tsunamis areneeded. Improved models of tsunami run up andflooding are needed to determine tsunami impactsand to develop effective countermeasures."

We agree. This is exactly what we are doing.

James Goff & Roy Walters, NIWAj.goff@niwa.co.nz

r.walters@niwa.co.nz

Jane OlsenAuckland Regional Council

jane.olsen@arc.govt.nz

Tsunami wave from the east striking Great Barrier Island (left) and reflecting from Waiheke Island (right).

Coastal News No. 318

CoastalNews

Why the need for coastal hazard riskindicators?

Just over 74 % of the Bay of Plenty (BOP) coastlineis soft sandy coast and like most open sandycoasts in New Zealand, the BOP is not alone inbeing vulnerable to coastal hazards. The coastalhazard risk is a major issue in the BOP regionbecause of the close proximity of development tothe coast at a number of coastal communities.The coastal hazard risk has been furthercompounded by the recent increasing desire forpeople to live at the coast. This has resulted in achange from the modest low cost kiwi holidaybach to permanent high quality residences.

Environment Bay of Plenty (EBOP) has anOperative Regional Coastal Environment Plan(RCEP) that sets out the coastal hazardmanagement framework. The coastal hazardschapter of the plan has the following objective:“No increase in the total physical risk from coastalhazards”. The key policy that gives effect to thisobjective is the identification of Areas Sensitiveto Coastal Hazards (ASCH). EBOP has identifiedASCH for the entire open coast in the region andthis information has been printed on regionalcoastal plan maps. The purpose of the ASCH isto define areas of open coast where caution shouldbe exercised when city and district councilsconsider subdivision and development proposals.

The plan advocates that relevant city and districtcouncils commission research to identify coastalhazard zones or areas according to standardcriteria set out in the RCEP. The plan does notadvocate any particular methodology as long asthe criteria are met and the methodology isscientifically defensible. The methodologiesgenerally only address the coastal erosion hazardas the RCEP criteria does not address inundationhazards to the open coast which is managedseparately. To date four different methodologieshave been used to identify coastal hazards. This

Development of coastal hazard riskindicators for the Bay of Plenty Region

has resulted in some regional inconsistencies anddifficulties when making comparative analysisof information from the four coastal city anddistrict councils in the region.

Policy implementation methods contained in theplan require EBOP to carry out monitoring of theactive beach system, and changes in the intensityof subdivision and structural development incoastal hazard areas. EBOP has an extensive beachprofile monitoring programme of 56 sites tomeasure the changes on the active beach systemor the “wet side” of the coastal environment. Thismonitoring program has been in place since 1990.

However, since the RCEP became fully operativein 2003, EBOP did not have monitoring tools tomeasure changes in the intensity of subdivisionand development in known coastal hazard areasand overarching monitoring of the plan objective.Therefore, a project was established to developmonitoring tools to address the plan objectivemonitoring requirements.

A commonly acceptedmethod to measurechange is to useindicators and this wasconsidered the bestapproach for measuringchanges in developmentin coastal hazard areas.The Ministry for theEnvironment (MfE) isestablishing a set ofenvironmentalindicators as part of theNZ EnvironmentalPerformance IndicatorsProgramme for state ofthe environment

Figure 1: Coastal development along Papamoa beach– Bay of Plenty

Figure 2: Modern beachfront properties in the Bay of Plenty and old style batches

March 2006 9

CoastalNews

reporting (MfE,1998). The MfEindicators aremainly physicalprocess basedand noindicators havebeen developedthat measurecoastal hazardsor risks.Therefore, EBOPcommissionedplanningconsultants HillYoung CooperLtd and

technical coastal consultant Jim Dahm (EcoNomos), with guidance from EBOP staff, todevelop indicators to measure changes coastalhazard risk.

What approach was used for indicatordevelopment?

The project team explored the concept of totalphysical risk during the indicator developmentprocess and it was reported that total risk includesboth the coastal processes (the forces acting) andthe activity impacted (area acted on). This isrepresented by the conceptual equation A + B =TPR; where A = change in coastal processes ; B =change in the level and management of subdivisionand development of private and public land(including roads and open space); and TPR =change in total physical risk.

The focus of the project is on the landward sideof the coastal environment which is the area

impacted or acted on by coastal hazards. Theindicators are needed to address that part of theequation represented by “B”.

After a review of experiences from NZ and aroundthe world the project team formulated indicatorsand these were reported to EBOP in October 2003.The proposed indicators are subdivided intocategories to show baseline risk information aswell as changes in risk. The first level indicatorsare the foundation that are the “building blocks”for risk management and are yes/no descriptiveindicators, i.e. have coastal hazard zones beenidentified and included on district planning maps.Data for the foundation indicators could beobtained by reviewing the relevant provisions indistrict plans.

The second level of indicators provides a basisfor understanding change over time but didrequired baseline information first. Theseindicators were termed the “baseline” indicatorse.g. Average building set back for residentialdwellings in the “primary” hazard zone from thetoe of the foredune. Information for theseindicators was derived from analysis of cadastralinformation on EBOP GIS system and from aerialphotography GIS databases. However, methodsfor compiling and analysing the data still neededto be developed prior to implementation.

The third level are termed “trend” indicatorswhich focus on measuring changes in themanagement of physical risk by using districtcouncil resource consent approvals and activatesin coastal hazards areas generally requiringresource consents e.g. Number of land useconsents granted in coastal hazard zones withrelocation or setback conditions for residential

Figure 3: Bay of Plenty RegionalCoastal Environment Plan

Figure 1.4 Example of mapped coastal hazard assessments at Papamoa Beach Bay of Plenty.

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3110

dwellings. The project team then sort inputcomments on the indicators from the coastal cityand district councils. This was an importantprocess as some of the data needed for theindicators would be collected from city and districtcouncils. Consultation also helped to identifypotential issues with the proposed set ofindicators.

Can the proposed indicators be practicallyimplemented?

In order to test if the proposed indicators couldbe practically implemented a trial was conductedin 2004 at the 12 coastal communities in the regionthat are considered to be at risk from coastalhazards. The results of the trail have beenpublished in an EBOP report: “Pilot Report ofProposed Coastal Hazard Indicators”,Environmental Publication 2005/21. Copies ofthe report can be downloaded fromwww.envbop.govt.nz.

The trial found that the proposed foundationindicators were relatively easy to implement asthe data could be easily compiled by simplyreviewing the relevant provisions in district plans.Therefore, it was recommended that thefoundation indicators could be implemented in

their present form:

F1 Have coastal hazard zones been identifiedand included on district planning maps?

F2 Are there district rules to support those hazardzones and are these aimed at not increasingphysical risk of coastal hazards (in some areasthis will include “no-subdivision rules” andlarge building setbacks/ coastal reserves)?

F3 Are there administrative or district planpolicies to ensure that any building within thecoastal hazard zones is subject to controls tomitigate risk such as relocatability andrelocation plans?

All of the baseline indicators trialled requiredmethodologies to be developed so that datacollected from the GIS analysis of cadastral andaerial photography could be collected consistentlyand to enable a meaningful regional overview tobe established. However, it was also found thatthe variation in coastal hazard zone methodologiesused by the different city and district councils inthe region made it difficult to formulate acomparative baseline. This was overcome byresolving all the hazards areas/zones used in theregion into a single nomenclature by consideringcommon components of each of the hazard zonesanalysis used across the region.

Figure 1.5 Setback measurements for beachfront lots (1:7500 aerial photo: Ohope Beach)

Figure 1.6: Number of residential lots in the primary and secondary risk zonesfor coastal communities in the Bay of Plenty.

CoastalCommunity

City or DistrictCouncil

“Primary”HazardZone

“Secondary”Hazard Zone

Totals

Waihi Beach Western BOP District 112 201 313

Pukehina Beach Western BOP District 261 87 348

Mt Maunganui Beach Tauranga City 54 14 68

Papamoa Beach Tauranga City 128 4 132

Piripai Beach Whakatane District 5 0 5

Ohope Beach Whakatane District 74 125 199

Bay of PlentyAreas of Concern

634 431 1065

March 2006 11

CoastalNews

Figure 1.8 Average building setbacks for coastal communities withidentified coastal hazard zones in the Bay of Plenty Region.

i

Pukehina Beach54%

Mount Maunganui4%

Papamoa Beach17%

Piripa0%

Ohope0%

Waihi Beach25%

The following baseline indicators were consideredsuitable for implementation:

B1 Average building set back for residentialdwellings in the “primary” hazard zone fromthe toe of the foredune.

B2 Number of residential dwellings in the“primary” and “secondary” hazard zones atthe date of the most recent aerial photography.

B3 Number of residential lots in the “primary”and “secondary” hazard zones from the DCDBat a date close to the aerial photography date.

It was also found that the suitability of trendindicators could not be assessed until the collectionof a second set of data. However, it was foundthat the successful implementation of the trendindicators would require an efficient process ofcollating resource consent information. This couldbe achieved by setting up a specific informationsharing protocol with city and district councils sothat information is collated in a systematic andconsistent manner to enable defensible meaningfulanalysis of the data.

What did the indicator results tell us about themanagement of the coastal erosion hazard risk inthe region and is the coastal plan objective beingachieved?

The indicator results for the region found thatthere has been progress towards managing coastalerosion hazard risk. However, only two of thefour city and district councils in the region have

identified coastal hazards zones in their districtplans. This means that only four of the 12 coastalcommunities have policy and rules to managecoastal erosion hazard. The four coastalcommunities (Waihi, Pukehina, Mt Maunganuiand Papamoa) that have district plan hazardmanagement provisions are the communitieswhere there is currently the most intensivepressure for coastal development.

It was found that Waihi and Pukehina beachcommunities have the greatest number ofresidential land parcels at risk from coastal erosionhazards. These communities were also found tohave the greatest number of residential dwellingsin the primary risk area and the shortest averagesetback distance from the toe of the foredune.These communities have district plan managementcontrols in place. However, the collation of asecond set of trend indicator information is nowneeded to determine if risk is being managedsufficiently to achieve the RCEPobjective of “Noincrease in the total physical risk from coastalhazards”.

The next stage of the project is to finalise theindicators for implementation and explore thepossibility of an indicator index so that changesin the management of risk can be more easilyquantified, and to an index to incorporate thephysical coastal processes.

What lessons have been learnt from the coastalhazard indicator trial and our experience withregional coastal plan coastal hazard managementpolicy frame work?

As result of the indicator development process itwas found that the range of hazard analysismethods used by the region’s district councils hasresulted in some regional inconsistency, whichhas made it difficult to assemble sensiblecomparative hazard indicator data for the region.This is particularly apparent when hazard zonesare divided according to the level of risk. However,the flexible approach of the RCEP criteria hasprovided for differences in the physicalenvironments and planning contexts across theregion. Secondly, the development of coastalhazard methodologies has been an emerging newscience that is only now starting to grapple withrealities of resource management planning. Thishighlights the need for close collaboration of the

science of hazard zone analysis andhazard management policy-makingto ensure the policy can be coupledwith hazard zone methodology thatis consistent with the realities ofphysical and planningenvironments.

In terms of hazard managementplanning controls, it is clear fromour experience, that the multi-zoneapproach can be advantageouswhen considering coastal hazardrisk in existing areas ofdevelopment.

Figure 1.7: Percentage of residential dwellings in the“Primary hazard zone” for coastal communities with

identified coastal hazard zones in the Bay of Plenty Region.

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3112

This is because specific planning controls can betailored to manage the level of risk. It was foundthat hazard management planning provisions area delicate balance between reasonable use of landas a property right and the management of coastalhazard risk, and many of the managementprovisions such as relocation conditions onresource consents are as yet untested.

It was also found that existing use right provisionsof section 10 of the RMA at the territorial authorityplanning level tend to hinder achieving the RCEP

hazard management objective. However, theintroduction of coast care programmes in the BOPhas not only helped to stabilise and build healthydune systems, it has also helped build communityawareness and understanding that coastal hazardmanagement is needed despite the apparentresistance to hazard management planningcontrols from some sections of the community.

Dougall GordonEnvironment Bay of Plenty

dougall@envbop.govt.nz

Horoirangi Marine Reserve Opens

A new marine reserve near Nelson city came intobeing at the end of 2005. Horoirangi MarineReserve covers 904 hectares and includes extensiveoff-shore boulder reefs, which are distinctive ofthe Boulder Bank, a geologically unique landformof international standing. The marine reserve isthe result of a 1999 marine reserve application bythe Nelson branch of the Royal Forest and BirdProtection Society.

Coastal Protection Critical To WithstandingStorm Damage

In the wake of yet another devastating hurricanein the US, director of the US Global Water PolicyProject Sandra Postel writes in the ChristianScience Monitor: "For the same reason people buyhome insurance and life insurance – to avoidcatastrophic loss – societies need to "buy" disasterinsurance by investing in the protection ofwatersheds, floodplains, and wetlands….We havelittle time to waste….Global warming and itsanticipated effects on the hydrological cycle willmake the robustness and resilience of nature'sway of mitigating disasters all the more important,as tropical storms, seasonal flooding, and droughtsincrease in frequency and intensity." To read thecomplete editorial, go to:

Sandy Bitswww.csmonitor.com/2005/0907/p09s01-coop.html.

EU Launches New Measures To ProtectOceans

Climate change, oil spills and commercial fishinghave put oceans and seas at risk, driving theEuropean Union’s executive branch to launchnew measures to clean up and protect waterssurrounding the EU. The measures to protect andconserve the marine environment, guard againstthe loss of biodiversity, and boost industries thatdepend on clean water, include requirements thatEU member states draw up studies of waterconditions as well as targets for improvementand monitoring programs. The EU Commissionreport said estimates suggest that by 2080, between13 percent and 25 percent of the world‘s coastalwetlands could be lost due to sea level rise alone.Tourism would be severely hit by the degradationof marine ecosystems. The proposals include adraft law that would require the EU’s 25 memberstates to work together and draw up plans toprotect waters like the Baltic Sea, the North-EastAtlantic and the Mediterranean. Furtherinformation:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/index_en.htm.

For any enquiries regarding Coastal News articles or advertising please contactNZCS Editor Alex Eagles (penguins@clear.net.nz).

NZCS Management CommitteeChairperson Lucy Brake (lucy.brake@beca.com)

Deputy Chairperson/ David Phizacklea (davidp@tauranga.govt.nz)Membership Coordinator

Secretary/Treasurer Eric Verstappen (eric.verstappen@tdc.govt.nz)

Regional Coordinator Jenni Fitzgerald (jennifer.fitzgerald@ew.govt.nz)

Website Coordinator John Lumsden (j.lumsden@clear.net.nz)

Doug Ramsay (d.ramsay@niwa.co.nz)David Kennedy (david.kennedy@vuw.ac.nz)Kath Coombes (kath.coombes@arc.govt.nz)Rick Liefting (rliefting@tonkin.co.nz)Vaughan Cooper (VaughanC@nrc.govt.nz)

Conference 2006 Coordinator Justin Cope (justin.cope@ecan.govt.nz)

Administrator Hannah Ruffell (hannah.ruffell@ew.govt.nz)

Website Manager Charles Hendtlass (c.hendtlass@cae.canterbury.ac.nz)

March 2006 13

CoastalNews

As New Zealanders become more affluent many,together with increasing numbers from overseas,aspire to own property near the coast. The demandfor such land has meant that the cost has risendramatically in recent years. While it might beexpected that this will lead to a diminishing poolof potential buyers, people are willing to pay asubstantial premium for coastal land and thedemand remains high.

Inevitably, this places pressures on localauthorities. This not only includes the requirementfor new and replacement infrastructure but alsothe need for proper management of the veryresource that created the demand in the first place.

These are not straightforward matters. AlthoughNew Zealand still has hundreds of kilometres ofunspoiled coastline, there are considerable areasunder development or subject to consentapplications. Insofar as these tend to be“greenfield” developments, and subject to therigours of the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA) as well as council planning policies, it isreasonable to expect they will reflect currentwisdom with respect to environmental impacts.

This includes building setbacks, and considerationof the effects on natural character, tangata whenua,coastal processes, heritage, recreation, ecology,and public access, among other things.

Langs Beach in Northland is an example ofrelatively recent development much of which willhave taken place subject to current environmentallegislation. One can argue that developments likeLangs Beach are elitist and that a beautiful naturalbeach has been spoiled. While this is not anunreasonable point of view, a case can be madefor sensible development and councils have aresponsibility to maintain a balance betweendeveloped and undeveloped coastline.

On the other hand, though, there is a legacy fromthe past that is, in many ways, more problematicand can pose vexing issues for those responsiblefor coastal management. High on the list is thematter of what to do about existing development,particularly where there is an eroding shoreline.The problem is simple enough to define but thesolutions are complex and varied.

Historically, houses were built along the coast at

Changing Coastal Valuesattractive locations. These were often little morethan simple baches. Ease of access was also animportant consideration and, consequently, earlybeach settlements were usually relatively close toestablished urban areas. Many of these, such asSt Clair in Dunedin, Sumner in Christchurch, andMission Bay in Auckland have been absorbedwithin the urban growth of the city although theyoriginally served as holiday areas for people livingin these cities in the early part of last century. Thebaches, of course, have long since disappeared.There are many examples like this and most nowstruggle to maintain a viable beach and many arebacked by a seawall to protect the developmentthat has taken place from the onslaught of the sea.In some cases, like Scarborough Beach at Sumnerwhere there was once a wide sandy beach, thereis now no beach except around low tide.

As the population became more mobile and roadsimproved, beach development spread furtherafield but, still, the buildings were mostly relativelysimple. Not much was known about erosion andhouses close to the shore, if not moved back,sometimes ended up falling into the sea.

This process is still evident today where erosionprocesses continue unhindered. The problem isthat, where once relatively simple housing existedalong the coast, sometimes in reasonable harmonywith nature, these lands have become so valuablethat redevelopment has occurred and the bacheshave been replaced by expensive homes, oftenstill too close to the sea.

This raises a number of critical issues for councilsand may lead to plan changes that involve re-zoning, more restrictive sub-division rules, newconstruction set-backs, and so on. The RMA hasbeen instrumental in establishing a whole industryaround more formal planning procedures oncoastal lands and elsewhere. Where there is muchless guidance, however, is in the area relating tophysical management of the shore including whatto do about coastal hazards.

It is not so long ago that the common response tocoastal erosion was to build a seawall and oftenthis involved little more than the land-ownerdumping whatever could be found along the

Langs Beach

Scarborough Beach

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3114

beach. This varied from old car bodies to concreterubble and, sometimes, more substantialstructures.

Although many examples of early protection worksstill exist they were often inadequate, quite apartfrom their lack of visual appeal. Society generallyaccepted this along with the consequences sincethese were not well understood. The loss of thebeach was no doubt mourned but landowners feltsecure behind a seawall and, after all, there wereplenty of other beaches.

This is no longer the case. In these moreenlightened times with greater understanding ofcoastal processes, seawalls, not always justifiablyas it happens, receive bad press and there is nowa hierarchy of management options for dealingwith an eroding coast.

Not that this necessarily makes life any simplerfor council staff though as choosing the bestsolution will probably involve considerableinvestigation, consultation and, of course,expense.

Space does not allow discussion of coastalmanagement options and this will have to be leftfor another time. Suffice to say, people arebeginning to realize that beaches, aside from ahost of recognized attributes, may also make avaluable economic contribution to the community,thus making a strong case for preservation.

After all, more people apparently visit the beachesin Florida in any one year than visit all the nationalparks in the USA, and this easily justifies theexpenditure of millions of dollars on beachrenourishment projects.

Perhaps it is not a vain hope that the high valueof coastal property in New Zealand, and theundoubted increase in rating revenue thusgenerated, will encourage councils to directgreater funding towards sustainable coastalmanagement and beach preservation. Thepotential for a significant return on suchexpenditure would seem obvious.

John Lumsden, Christchurchj.lumsden@clear.net.nz

As another year starts we are able to look forward to working together as a group of like-mindedprofessionals with an interest in the coastal environment. 2006 is certainly shaping up to be aninteresting year with lots of exciting projects and investigations being undertaken around thecountry and overseas.

The 2006 NZCS Conference preparations are well underway thanks to the Organising Committeecapably lead by Justin Cope and Brodie Young at Environment Canterbury. The 2006 Conferencewill be held from 15-17 November 2006 in Kaikoura. Details will be provided throughout the yearbut any comments or thoughts are more then welcome to Justin at justinc@crc.govt.nz.

Early preparations are now beginning for the Coastal Society’s turn at hosting the AustralasianCoasts and Ports Conference 2009. This may seem like years away, however the planning andpreparation that goes into this significant event for the society takes considerable work. At thisstage the NZCS Management Committee are working on confirming a venue in Wellington andare seeking a Chairperson for the Organising Committee. Any thoughts, comments and volunteersare welcome.

The NZCS Management Committee is focusing on providing support to the Regional Co-ordinatorsto help them promote the activities of the Coastal Society in the regions – such as support forrunning local workshops and seminars on current coastal issues.

As you may be aware, the new form of corporate membership was approved at the 2005 AGMheld in October at the conference in Tutukaka. We will be promoting the new membershipstructure to our current corporate members and assisting them through the changes that willcome into place in October 2006. We are hopeful of encouraging more corporates to join theCoastal Society. If you would like more information on this please contact David Phizacklea,NZCS Membership Co-ordinator.

It is great to see that Coastal News is once again packed with interesting and thought-provokingarticles. This newsletter really does provide a great opportunity for the NZCS members to readabout what industry people around NZ are involved in and pick up some ideas for their ownwork. I know the NZCS Management Committee and Editor work hard to bring you new anddiverse articles and always welcome contributions.

If you have any comments about the NZCS I would be happy to hear from you directly and aminterested in any thoughts from the members. Otherwise I hope you enjoy the new year.

Lucy Brake, ChairNew Zealand Coastal Society

lucy.brake@beca.com

Word from the Chair

CoastalNews

March 2006 15

and sea) is public open space, with an expectationand right by the public to freely use and accessmost of it. These general rights of public accessand navigation have been confirmed in law by theForeshore and Seabed Act 2004, while themaintenance and enhancement of public access isa matter of national importance under the ResourceManagement Act 1991. Some activities, likemarinas, marine farms, boat sheds, moorings andwharves have rights to privately use parts of thecoastal marine area – sometimes exclusively. Thisis called occupying or occupation. These rights area form of property right over publicly owned land.Each occupation causes some sort of loss to thepublic. It could be a loss in visual character, itmight limit access, be a navigation hazard or issimply the loss of the ability to use the space foranother activity. The level of loss depends on thetype of occupation and the degree of exclusivitythat the owner has.

The question that Environment Bay of Plenty isfacing is: If people occupy public space in thecoastal marine area then should those people paycompensation to the community for occupyingthat space, as they would have to do on land? Mostpeople and businesses who (exclusively) use partsof the coastal marine area don’t pay anything forthe use of that area, except for some administrativefees that are common to all consents whether theyare land or coastal based.

Under the Resource Management Act all regionalcouncils must decide whether or not to introducecoastal occupation charges and, once a decision ismade, change their Regional Coastal Plan to showtheir decision. Regional Coastal Plans set out howthat region’s coastal marine area is managed.Regional councils are required by law to have one.The Resource Management Act says that when aregional council considers any charging system,the public must be involved in the process.

The law says that the regional council must, onbehalf of the public, spend any revenue from coastaloccupation charges on the sustainable managementof the coastal marine area.

The Council has proposed an initial return fromcoastal occupation charges of $1M in its draftLTCCP and has asked for public views aboutwhether the income should be used to offset thegeneral rate (with occupation charge income thegeneral rate could be 10% lower than wouldotherwise be the case) or whether the Councilshould be considering new projects (and if so whatare these).

Responses to the consultation have been variedand complex. Opposition has come from occupiersand some support has come from non-occupiersand interest groups. Many groups indicate a desireto see more action in the coastal area in dealingwith water quality, sea lettuce, sedimentation andproviding additional facilities.

Northland RegionAndré LaBonté, Northland Regional Coordinator

The Spirit of Managwhai Dredges Up New Hopefor Harbour

The Mangawhai Harbour Restoration Societyrecently launched their new dredge, The Spirit ofMangawhai II. This new and improved ten-inchsuction dredge will be used for maintenancedredging of the Mangawhai River channel in theharbour. The dredge may also become availablefor use in other communities for small channelmaintenance and shoreline/beach restorationprojects.

Opposition to Sand Mining Still Strong

In April 2005, the Auckland Regional Councildeclined the applications by Sea-Tow Ltd. andMcCallum Brothers Ltd. to continue nearshoresand mining in the Mangawhai-PakiriEmbayment. The applicants appealed the decisionto the Environment Court and the case began onthe 5th of December, adjourning for the holidayson the 16th of December. It will reconvene on the7th of February 2006. The appellants’ case is beingopposed by the ARC as respondent, along withinterested (s. 274) parties; Friends of Pakiri Beach,University of Auckland, Northland RegionalCouncil, Kaipara District Council, Rodney DistrictCouncil, the Mangawhai Harbour RestorationSociety, the Mangawhai Heads VolunteerLifeguard Services, Te Uri O’Hau Settlement Trust,Moko Trust Board, Ngati Manuhiri, theDepartment of Conservation, Tamarata Residentsand Ratepayers Association, NZ Land Trust andTe Uri O’Hau Joint Venture and severalindividuals.

Marsden Cove Continues to Develop

With the continued fine weather in the area,progress at Hopper Brothers Development atMarsden Cove has continued at pace and is stillon target for civil works to be completed by theend of April 2006. Dredging of the access channelis programmed for the period April to September2006. Tenders have closed for supply andinstallation of the marina with a condition oftender being that the marina is to be in place andready for occupation at the same time as the basinis opened to the Whangarei Harbour. Watch thisspace for notification of the completion party!

Bay Of Plenty Regional NewsAileen Lawrie, Bay Of Plenty Regional Coordinator

Coastal Occupation Charges

Environment Bay of Plenty has recently carriedout preliminary public consultation on theprospect of coastal occupation charges for theregion.

Most of the coastal marine area (beaches, seabed

News from the Regions

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3116

For more information see www.envbop.govt.nzand click on ‘in consultation’.

Tauranga Harbour Integrated ManagementReview

Environment Bay of Plenty, in conjunction withWestern Bay of Plenty District Council andTauranga City Council has recently completedthe Draft Tauranga Harbour IntegratedManagement Review. The report details the issuesthat affect Tauranga Harbour, what is currentlybeing done about the issues and what actionsneed to be taken. The issue of most concern toTauranga residents, interest groups andprofessional is that of increased sedimentation.Other pressures on the harbour are those arisingfrom population growth such as wetland losses,seagrass bed depletions, harbour recreation andthe exponential spread of mangroves. The reportdetails a number of proposed actions to deal withthe issues identified and the major pieces of worklikely to result are a detailed sedimentation reviewand a recreation strategy.

Consultation on the draft was undertaken inDecember and submissions are currently beingreceived. For more information contact AileenLawrie (email Aileen@envbop.govt.nz) or seewww.envbop.govt.nz/Coast/TaurangaHarbour/Tauranga-Harbour.asp. A selection of technicalenvironmental reports are also available on thewebsite.

Aquaculture Management Area Planning inthe Bay of Plenty

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s AquacultureManagement Areas (AMA) project, which started

in 2002, is nearing completion. Once complete itwill identify opportunities for AMAs based on adetailed picture of the social values and physicalparameters of the Bay of Plenty coastal marinearea.

The social values are being determined by“Offshore Use Maps”. These maps will show theuses and values in the coastal marine area suchas navigation, recreational fishing and culturalsites. Draft versions of the maps are currentlygoing through public consultation, with the finalday for comments being 24 February 2006.

The “Offshore Science Project” is looking at thephysical parameters and has included fieldsurveys of water chemistry, phytoplanktonconcentrations and, sediment characteristics. Itis anticipated that the Offshore Science Projectwill be finalised by May 2006.

For more information contact Ben Lee (emailbenl@envbop.govt.nz) or check out the website and click on ‘in consultation’.

Ohiwa Strategy

Environment Bay of Plenty is in the process offinalising a draft strategy for the Ohiwa Harbourand catchment. The document is designed toformalise the working partnership that hasdeveloped for resource management issuesinvolving the Ohiwa Harbour. Environment Bayof Plenty is "holding the pen" on behalf of OpotikiDistrict Council, Whakatane District Council andthe tangata whenua (Upokorehe, Whakatohea,Ngati Awa and Tuhoe). The process has involvedextensive public consultation and working partieswith government agencies.

Figure 1: An example of the Draft Offshore Use maps

CoastalNews

March 2006 17

The aim is to adopt a set of policies for the harbourand an action plan to address the large numberof issues that were identified by the community(such as sedimentation, mangrove spread and alack of information to manage perceptions aboutthe Harbour).

Every step has involved considering howintegrated management for the harbour can beachieved. Two key issues have been at the coreof the strategy: providing for kaitiakitanga, andaddressing the pressure for subdivision anddevelopment around the harbour margin. Inrelation to the first issue, an iwi planningdocument has been developed that addressesconsultation and the provision of advice forresource management matters.

The issue of development pressure has led to theidentification of actions to evaluate district andregional plans to ensure planning provisions areconsistent and consistently applied across thewhole harbour.

For more information contact Stephen Lamb (e-mail: Stephenl@envbop.govt.nz).

Wellington RegionDavid Kennedy, Wellington Regional Coordinator

Naval Frigate Sinks Off the Wellington Coast

The most exciting event on the Wellington coastin the last few months has been the sinking of theNew Zealand Naval frigate HMNZS Wellingtonon the south coast as a dive attraction in midNovember. The ship lies in 20m water depth inthe marine reserve off Island Bay and has provento be a huge success with local divers flocking tothe area. The ship is a Leader Class Frigate andwas commissioned as the HMS Bacchante to theRoyal Navy in 1969 where it served in the NorthAtlantic during the Cold War. It was thencommissioned to the NZ Navy from 1982 until1999. The SINKF69 trust subsequently bought itfor the princely sum of $1 with the aim of creatinga world class dive attraction in the city that bearsits name. It has proved a very popular attractionwith hundreds of divers visiting the wreck withina month of its sinking. For more information aboutthe ship and some great photos of its sinking logonto www.divewreck.co.nz/F69/

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3118

Westhaven Marina, the largest in the SouthernHemisphere, recently became the first marina orbeach in New Zealand to be awarded the BlueFlag eco-label in recognition of its efforts towardsenvironmental education and management.

The Blue Flag is an exclusive eco-label currentlyawarded to around 3100 beaches and marinas in 35countries across Europe, South Africa, Canada andthe Caribbean.The Blue Flag Campaign is owned and run by theindependent non-profit organisation Foundationfor Environmental Education (FEE).The Blue Flag works towards sustainabledevelopment at beaches and marinas throughstrict criteria dealing with water quality,environmental education and information,environmental management, safety and otherservices. The Blue Flag Campaign includesenvironmental education and information for thepublic, decision makers and tourism operators.

HistoryThe Blue Flag was born in France in 1985 wherethe first French coastal municipalities wereawarded the Blue Flag on the basis of criteriacovering sewage treatment and bathing waterquality.

In 1987 the French concept of the Blue Flag wasdeveloped on a European level to include other areasof environmental management, such as wastemanagement and coastal planning and protection.Besides beaches, marinas also became eligible forthe Blue Flag at that time. As a result the organisationknown as FEEE (Foundation for EnvironmentalEducation in Europe) was formed.By 2001 the developers of the Blue Flag concept haddecided to become a global organisation andconsequently changed their name from FEEE to FEE.

Several organisations and authorities outsideEurope have made applications to FEE, wishingfor co-operation on spreading the Blue FlagCampaign to non-European countries. FEE hasbeen co-operating with UNEP and WTO onextending the Campaign to areas outside Europe.The Blue Flag Campaign has already beenimplemented in the Republic of South Africa,

Blue Flag flies high at Westhaven Marina

Photo 1: Erin Alley, Blue Flag, and Kyla Brookes,Westhaven Marina, with an esteemed blue flag.

Photo 2: The Mayor of Auckland, Dick Hubbard, andMarina Manager, Keith Hogan, raise the flag in a briefceremony at Westhaven Marina.

Canada, Morocco, New Zealand and in fourcountries in the Caribbean region. Chile iscurrently in the pilot phase of the campaign andinterest has also been expressed by the USA,Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, the United ArabEmirates and countries in South East Africa.

It’s OfficialThe Mayor of Auckland, Dick Hubbard, alongwith Marina Manager, Keith Hogan, raised theflag in a brief ceremony at Westhaven Marina onNovember 19 2005 to mark the official awardingof the Blue Flag honour.

“Being awarded this country’s first Blue Flag isevidence that we take our environment seriously.Good environmental management is a normalpart of our operating practice. We see Blue Flagas recognition of our achievements, and it is alsoa daily reminder of our role in educating a widergroup of Westhaven users,” said WesthavenMarina Manager, Keith Hogan.

“Obviously it doesn’t stop here, the commitmentwe have made to Blue Flag and our stakeholderswill be evident in the future as we continue toimprove on the high standards we have setourselves.“

As key users of our coastal waters, recreationalboat owners greatly appreciate the natural beautyand environmental qualities of New Zealand’socean and are therefore encouraged to keep thecoastal water clean through the Blue Flagprogramme. Blue Flag serves both to recogniseand promote further environmentally friendlypractices.

Kyla Brookes, Westhaven Marinakyla@westhaven.co.nzwww.westhaven.co.nz

CoastalNews

March 2006 19

The international focus for World Wetlands Day2006 was the role of wetlands in supporting lifeand sustaining livelihoods. In numerous ways,wetlands are vital lifelines, however the importantrole they play is not always recognised orrespected.

Re-creating Rare Waikato Wetland Ecosystems

A new project aims to re-create two threatenedgiant jointed rush (Sporadanthus ferrugineus)wetlands, one each in the Waikato and Waipadistricts, which will be open to the public. Thewetland ecosystems will be re-created bytransferring seeds and plants from the fewremaining habitats. The project will also raisepublic understanding of the ecological importanceand beauty of this rare wetland type, which oncecovered vast tracts of the Waikato region but isnow limited to three sites.

Ministry for the Environment is the key funder,giving $105,000 from its Sustainable ManagementFund for the project’s first year with contributionsfrom NZ Landcare Trust, Environment Waikato,Waikato District Council and Waipa DistrictCouncil. A recently-published brochure on theproject can be viewed at www.landcare.org.nz/lctdatabases/knowledgeman/pdfs/p825.pdf.

Another part of the project involves developinga Community Wetland Restoration ProjectsDatabase. ‘Community Wetland RestorationProjects: Lessons Learnt’ gives some tips providedby communities working on 20 diverse wetlandprojects throughout New Zealand - seewww.landcare.co.nz/policies/files5007/Wetland%20restoration_Lessons%20Learnt.doc.A further 24 community wetland projects arebeing followed up.

New Wetlands Website

The Coastal CRC Wetlands Web Portalwww.coastal.crc.org.au/wetlands/index.htmlhas a list of current wetland research an extensivelinks page covering information about wetlandsand a conceptual diagram of wetlands reclamation.

Report Urges Action To Protect Wetlands

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority hasreleased a new report detailing the relationshipbetween wetlands and fish stocks on the GreatBarrier Reef. The report has made a number ofrecommendations, including the mapping andinventory of wetlands resources, supporting on-ground actions to conserve and manage wetlands,and protection of remaining wetland areas. Thereport will assist regional Natural ResourceManagement Boards to prioritise on-groundactions for wetland protection and maintenancein the Great Barrier Reef catchment, which is oneof the key strategies in the Reef Water QualityProtection Plan. It identifies the dependence that

Wet Bitsover 70 species of fish have on both marine andfreshwater environments. Download the reportat: www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/wetlands.html#Freshwater. Forinformation contact: Vern Veitch at Sunfish, phone0418 729 496 or Karen Vohland at GBRMPA,phone 07 4750 0737. Related site: 'The WetlandsPolicy of the Commonwealth Government ofAustralia' www.deh.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/policy.html.

Revive Our Wetlands

Revive our Wetlands is the largest nationalwetlands revival program in Australia establishedby Conservation Volunteers Australia and BHPBilliton. Between 2000 and 2003 $1.5 million offunding assistance, and more than 17,000volunteer days, have contributed to therevitalisation of 100 of Australia’s most significantwetlands. Until 2006 the project will see anadditional $1.5 million and 15,000 volunteer daysinvested at 10 priority locations across remote,regional and urban Australia. The project wonthe Financial Review Magazine’s CorporatePartnership of the Year Award. Visit:www.reviveourwetlands.net/revive/.

Urbanisation Index To Help Protect CoastalWetlands

An index of 'hard' developed surface areas maybecome a guide for urban planners to protect thequality of coastal wetlands. The 'urbanisationindex', measured as a percentage of impervioussurfaces such as roads, buildings and car parksin a catchment, is being developed by CoastalCRC to assess the impacts of urban developmenton wetlands. At this stage, it appears that if morethan 10% of a catchment is covered by impervioussurfaces there will be a marked deterioration inwetland ecosystem structure and function dueto pollution from stormwater run-off and otherdisturbances associated with urban development.

Busselton Wetlands Management Strategy

A conservation and land-use strategy for WesternAustralia’s Busselton wetlands has been launchedafter six years of extended planning andcommunity consultation. The wetlands are hometo tens of thousands of waterbirds, including alarge breeding colony of the state's emblem, theblack swan. Under the new plan, sustainableagricultural land use considered beneficial to thewetlands will be promoted and existing broad-acre farming near the wetlands can continue, butno further clearing of native vegetation foragricultural purposes will be supported. Most ofthe wetlands are listed under the RamsarConvention for Wetlands of InternationalImportance. The Busselton WetlandsConservation Strategy is available at the WAPlanning Commission's website:

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3120

Regulation of UK Offshore Windfarms

The development of renewable energy in the marineenvironment has been a challenge since day one. Theoffshore wind industry tested a new regulatoryframework that required cross-departmental assessmentand based assessments of environmental impactprimarily on predicted risk. Stacey Faire, Adrian Judd,Jon Rees and Piers Larcombe of Cefas provide a briefoverview of the drivers, regulatory framework andassessment tools, and describes some lessons learntfrom the development of the Scroby Sands OffshoreWind Farm (OWF).

Drivers

From the outset, the regulators recognised thatnew approaches were required to meet the newchallenges presented by the new offshore industry. The regulators responded with three key actions:

• Developing guidance for developers preparingEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIAs);

• Identifying gaps in knowledge and, with othergovernment departments, commissioningappropriate scientific research anddevelopment projects;

• Requiring environmental advisors to applyadaptive management tools to link predictionswith monitoring results.

The United Kingdom has the fastest growingrenewable energy sector in Europe. To date, thereare three OWFs generating up to 124 MW ofelectricity (Scroby Sands, North Hoyle and BlythOffshore). There are a further 15 projects awardedand in the early stages of planning, which willamount to a generation capacity of 7.2 GW,potentially contributing electricity to more than4 million households. As described in the EnergyWhite Paper, the rapid development of OWFs isthe UK government’s response to reach renewableenergy targets of 10 per cent of the UK generationcapacity by 2010 and 20% by 2020. Tidal energyis also under consideration around the UK, witha trial tidal device installed off Lynmouth, Devonsince May 2003, which generates 0.3 MW of power,and a pilot scheme recently approved forStrangford Lough, Northern Ireland, which isdesigned to generate up to 1 MW. Monitoring ofthese projects should provide valuable data forother regulators and developers. To date, Scotlandhas one OWF (Robin Rig) and have established ademonstration area for industry to test wave andtidal energy technologies.

Regulatory Framework

When these projects were being initiated, theregulatory framework for offshore developmentswas highly complex, with a large degree of overlapin regulatory powers across a variety ofgovernment departments. For England and Wales,the government response to this complexity wasto streamline the system, by having one

News from the UKgovernment department to co-ordinate thetechnical evaluation of proposed developments. The process is different for the devolvedadministrations of Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The development of OWFs commenced with ademonstration round (Round 1), allocated andmanaged by The Crown Estate, which ownsvirtually the entire seabed out to the 12 nauticalmile territorial limit, and which licences thegeneration of renewable energy on the continentalshelf out to 200 nautical miles. Round 1 included14 OWFs that together are estimated to accountfor 24 % of the world’s renewable energy projects.The process started with the allocation of seabedthrough a tendering procedure. This allocationis primarily a contractual agreement between theseabed owner and the developer and does nothave any influence over the environmentalassessment process. The proposals of Round 2,announced in December 2003, are significantlylarger in scale, with proposed areas to includeup to 270 turbines per site (compared to theRound 1 average of 30) with each project involvingfifteen sites for development. representing 5.4 -7.2 GW of power.

Environmental Impact Assessment

The UK government has a commitment to meetvarious energy-efficiency targets and theevaluation process for renewable energydevelopments has used risk assessment tools andhas relied on adaptive management techniques. This continuous-learning process has requiredclose relationships between all stakeholders. Inparticular, it has required regular liaison withdevelopers, to ensure that sound baseline surveysare completed in order to allow later assessmentof predicted impacts against measured impacts.

Most European countries have applied aprecautionary approach to the development ofOWFs. This approach generally requires theholding of public inquiries, which includes localcommunity participation and open debate aboutsite selection and environmental impacts. Thereis often an extended period betweendevelopments which enables the interpretationof data produced by monitoring programs toinform the next stage of proposed development.

In England and Wales, the approach has been touse lessons from other relevant industries todetermine the potential likelihood ofenvironmental impacts from OWFs. This processhas drawn on experiences of thetelecommunications, cable-laying and maritimeconstruction industries. Transferable experienceincludes knowledge of material impact, avoidingsensitive seasonal periods, using soft-startingtechniques when pile-driving to reduce noiseimpacts and, to some extent, constructiontechniques. However, OWFs bring new potentialimpacts such as electromagnetic fields, altered

CoastalNews

March 2006 21

sediment transport regimes and barrier effects tobirds and bats. These gaps in knowledge arebeing addressed through practical researchinitiatives that will prove very useful, but someof which, by their nature, will take time to deliverevidence through to policymakers and regulators.

Scroby Sands OWF

Cefas were commissioned to complete monitoringof one of the Round 1 OWFs, the site of ScrobySands, located 3 km to the east of Great Yarmouth,Norfolk, on the East Coast of England. Themonitoring was designed to gather evidenceregarding potential hydrodynamic andsedimentary impacts, specifically:

1) To evaluate modelling predictions presentedin the environmental impact statements bythe developers, and;

2) To investigate whether the turbines had anycombined impacts and;

3) To recommended future R&D requirements.

Scroby Sands sandbank is comprised of threesegments, North, Middle and South Scroby Sand(with Corton Sands lying to the South), withswales between them. The bank is aligned N-S,parallel to the coastline, and runs from GreatYarmouth to a point between Winterton-on-Seaand Hemsby. Overall, the sandbank is 12 km inlength, varies between 0.5 and 2.5 km in width,has an average water depth of 6-12 m and someareas which are exposed at low tide. The site issubject to strong tidal currents of up to 1 m/s andwaves dominantly from the NE.

Since June 2005, the site has hosted 30 turbinesthat penetrate the seabed to an average depth of30 m and have a pile diameter of 4.2 m at theseabed. There are a total of 26 km of connectingelectrical cables. Cables enter each monopilethrough j-shaped tubes around 30 cm in diameter,

which have their open ends buried beneath thesand.

Data gathered

Pre-construction data gathering provided aphysical baseline model to compare theconstruction and operation phases of the project.The monitoring programme included deploymentof instruments on the seabed, where Cefas ‘Mini-Landers’ recorded current profiles, wave statisticsand turbidity. Six monthly surveys using side-scan sonar and 100% coverage using swath-bathymetry provided high-quality digitalelevation models which allowed changes in bedelevation to be quantified.

What the issues are for the site?

One of the predicted impacts at Scroby Sands wasthe generation of significant scour featuresassociated with the monopiles. Scour pits up to5 m deep have been observed, and larger areasof lowered topography (‘tails’) extend away fromsome scour pits. One of the objectives was toinvestigate the extent of the scour pits and tailsto determine whether they interacted with featuresgenerated at adjacent monopiles and whetherthere was a demonstrated physical impact on thesediment transport patterns over the sandbank.

What did the data tell us?

To date, over a 2-year period, four surveys havebeen completed at 6-month intervals, and therehas been no overall significant change in sandbankmorphology. Between surveys, changes insediment volume of the entire sandbank havebeen 100,000 - 400,000 m3. The surveysdemonstrate the excavation of approximately5,000 m3 for a typical scour pit and of 5-25,000m3 from each of the sediment tails, although theseoccur on relatively few monopiles. The presentdata indicate that there are no significant changesto the overall sedimentary regime of the sandbankrelated to the presence of the OWF, but the time-series is brief, and there are some aspects thatrequire ongoing monitoring.

What are the lessons for other windfarm sites?

Many of the Round 1 and 2 OWFs are situatedon sandbanks comprising mobile sandy

Figure 1: Scale of the structures

• Tower Height ~ 70 m above mean sea level

• Blade diameter ~ 80 m

• Monopile ~ 5 m diameter

• Gravity Base ~ 30 m diameter

• Piling noise <260 dB

• Pre-fabricated sections

• Installation of ~1 day, with completion in 3 – 4days

• Minimum of 370 m spacing between turbines.

British Crown Copyright 2006. Reproducedwith permission of Cefas, Lowestoft

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3122

sediments, and thus the intra-array cable routesare subject to significant sediment transport issues. Scour occurs around cables, bedform migrationmay result in free-spans in the cables acrossbedform troughs, and cables may be liable tovibration where the cable is exposed at the seabed,near the j-tube opening. The power export cablealso has to cross areas that would normally beavoided by cable operators because of the strongcurrents and fields of mobile sandwaves. In somelocations, on the East Coast, export cables alsohave to traverse areas of chalk, requiring largerploughs and hence potential for impacts fromchalky turbid plumes.

Lessons learnt

Useful lessons from comparable impacts can betaken from the experiences of other industries. Asdiscussed above, such lessons are mainlymitigation measures, which are designed to avoidsensitive periods of fish spawning or reduceimpacts of noise on marine mammals.Nonetheless, there still are unanswered questionsthat require additional evidence to be gathered,assessed and reported to regulators andpolicymakers for implementing in decisionmaking. Key challenges include understandingthe impacts of electromagnetic fields, thesignificance of noise impacts and the barrier effectsof OWFs to birds and bats. The proposed Round2 OWF’s will require improved understanding ofsediment transport, particularly because of thesignificantly larger and more complex structureswhich are being considered as turbine foundations,including tripods and gravity-based structures. Whilst practitioners throughout Europe aresharing relevant knowledge, there are inevitabletime lags between construction, operation andthe generation of long-term monitoring datarelated to OWFs, so that some of the lessons maynot become apparent for some time to come.

At present, OWFs require a subsidy from the UKgovernment for electricity companies to buy theenergy they generate. The Energy White Paper

supports thedevelopment ofrenewable energysources, but alsorecommends the needfor substantial

investment in energy efficiency and explorationof other low-carbon energy options. There aregood opportunities across Europe for countriesto continue to learn from one another regardingthe options for renewable energy development. Whatever mix of options is selected by variouscountries, they need to be fit for purpose and tosupport the over-riding aim of encouraging asustainable low carbon economy.

If you will like an more information about theregulatory assessment of OWF developmentsplease feel free to use the weblinks below or emailStacey Faire s.o.faire@cefas.co.uk or Adrian Judda.judd@cefas.co.uk.

Figure 2: Seabedaround the turbines

British Crown Copyright 2006. Reproducedwith permission of Cefas, Lowestoft

Weblinks

The Centre for Environment, Fisheries andAquaculture Sciencewww.cefas.co.uk/renewables/Default.htm

Defra Sustainable Energy websitewww.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/index.htm

DTI Strategic Environmental Assessment onoffshore wind farm developmentwww.og.dti.gov.uk/offshore-wind-sea/process/envreport.htm

Crown Estate Wind Farms Websitewww.crownestate.co.uk/estates/marine/windfarms.shtml

British Wind Energy Association - Offshorewind farms websitewww.offshorewindfarms.co.uk

All-Energy Electronic news letter and websitewww.all-energy.co.uk/news.php

Stingray project - Tidal energy generationwww.engb.com

Chamber of Shipping view of windfarmswww.british-shipping.org/news/windfarms/wind_farms overview.htm

CoastalNews

March 2006 23

Community Participation in Coastal HazardMitigation26 April, 2006, Wellington, NZ.

A one day workshop on community participationin coastal hazard mitigation will be aimed at localauthorities who interact with community groupson coastal issues.

The workshop will explore the interactionsbetween stakeholders, technical experts andregulatory authorities in managing coastalhazards, using a series of case studies andexperiences brought to the workshop byparticipants.

This will lead to an analysis and identification ofwhat drives 'good' versus 'bad' outcomes andhow community groups can be best empoweredto address coastal hazards through informedchoice.

For more information contact Julia Becker,j.becker@gns.cri.nz, 04 570 4795, or Terry Hume,t.hume@niwa.co.nz, 07 856 1729.

Coast to Coast 2006: Australia's NationalCoastal ConferenceMay 22-25, 2006 Melbourne, Australia.

Australia’s biennial national coastal conferencewill focus debate across a full range of coastal andmarine issues including the need for sustainablecoastal and marine use, planning and managementregarding increasing natural disasters, higherdemand to live on the coast, more certainty inclimate change research, continuous battles withweeds, new marine pests, and dwindling fishpopulations.

Conferences and WorkshopsFor more information visitwww.iceaustralia.com/coasttocoast2006/.

Coastal Zone Asia Pacific 2006August 29-September 2, 2006, Batam Island,Kepulauan Riau Province, Indonesia (near Singapore)

This international conference aims to review thestate of coastal management in the Asia-Pacificregion.

Themes of the conference are tsunamirehabilitation and reconstruction, the state ofcoral reef management, coastal fishing andcommunity empowerment, marine conservationand MPA networks, sea partnership and policy,small island management, and coastal and oceangovernance.

For further information contact: Sapta Putraczap06@dkp.go.id or visitwww.coastal.crc.org.au/czap04

International Coastal SymposiumApril 16-20, 2007, Gold Coast, Queensland , Australia.

ICS2007 will bring together coastal scientists,managers, planners and engineers from aroundthe world to discuss issues and activities relatingto the coastal region.

The ICS2007 Organising Committee invites youto submit an abstract using the details found onwww.griffith.edu.au/school/eng/ics2007

The ICS2007 proceedings will be published in aspecial issue of the Journal of Coastal Research.

For further information please visit the ICS2007WWW site and/orcontact ICS2007@griffith.edu.au.

NZCS Regional CoordinatorsEvery region in the country has a NZCS Regional Coordinator who is available to help you withany queries about NZCS activities or coastal issues in your local area.

North IslandNorthland André Labonté labonte@xtra.co.nzAuckland Scott Nichol s.nichol@auckland.ac.nzWaikato Jenni Fitzgerald jennifer.fitzgerald@ew.govt.nzBay of Plenty Aileen Lawrie aileen@envbop.govt.nzHawkes Bay Gary Clode garyc@hbrc.govt.nzTaranaki Peter Atkinson dwk.newplymouth@duffillwatts.comManawatu/Wanganui Johanna Rosier d.j.rosier@massey.ac.nzWellington David Kennedy david.kennedy@vuw.ac.nz

South IslandUpper South Island Eric Verstappen eric.verstappen@tdc.govt.nzCanterbury Justin Cope justin.cope@ecan.govt.nzOtago Mike Hilton mjh@geography.otago.ac.nz

Paul Pope poppa185@student.otago.ac.nz or popey@xtra.co.nz

Southland Ken Murray kmurray@doc.govt.nz

CoastalNews

Coastal News No. 3124

Keith Gregor reports on a preliminary survey forJapanese kelp (Undaria pinnatifida) in TaurangaHarbour conducted for Environment Bay of Plenty bythe Marine Studies Department of the Bay of PlentyPolytechnic.

Japanese kelp is a highly invasive laminarian kelp,indigenous to the temperate regions of Japan,China and Korea that has spread to many locationsaround the world, including New Zealand, viainternational shipping.

It was first detected in New Zealand in WellingtonHarbour in 1987 and concerns have been raisedabout the possible impacts of Undaria on NewZealand marine biota following its spread to avariety of areas around the country. Although thekelp, known as wakame, has been used as a fooddish for centuries and forms the basis of a thrivingaquaculture business in Japan it is listed as anunwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act,1993 in New Zealand.

After reports of Undaria plants at the mouth ofthe Tauranga Harbour in November 2005, subtidalsurveys were conducted by the Bay of PlentyPolytechnic Marine Studies department, duringDecember 2005, in collaboration with EnvironmentBay of Plenty.

The survey confirmed the presence of Undaria at

Pilot Bay Reef at a depth of between 5 and 10metres with no plants found deeper than 11.5metres. Undaria was not found on the rockysubstratum but chiefly found attached totubeworm cases or on shell debris and was easilydislodged from the substratum. A range of plantsizes was recorded from 60mm to just over800mm. The Undaria plants were scattered buttwo beds of approximately 2m2 and 4m2 wererecorded within the entire survey area. A rangeof samples were taken and preserved in isopropylalcohol for future analysis. No Undaria wasrecorded on any buoyage, the pier or marinaprotection walls.

Collaborative work is now underway withEnvironment Bay of Plenty and the MarineStudies Department to extend the survey area toascertain whether Undaria is present at other sitesin the harbour or open coast. An action plan isalso being drafted to respond to the presence ofthe invasive seaweed with a range of actionsbeing considered from eradication to regularmonitoring.

For more information contact Keith Gregor,Marine Studies Department, Bay of Plenty

Undaria pinnatifida Investigation inTauranga Harbour

Photo 3: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic survey diverssurfacing with specimens of Undaria pinnatifida.

Photo 1: A mature Undaria pinnatifida can easily bydistinguished from NZ native kelps by the presenceof the frilly sporophyll (spore producing structure)on the stipe, the presence of a pronounced central midriband divided fronds in the mature specimens.

Photo 2: Mature Undaria sporophyte showing frillysporophyll (spore bearing structure).