The WOW Vision - Haumoana, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand

A partnership to Save the Cape Coast

“While the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the HB Regional Council Plans are significant consenting hurdles, I am determined to help the community find an agreed position. The coast continues to erode and a decision needs to be made as to whether hard protection can work, gain consent and be funded. The other option of managed retreat equally has some significant issues,” Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule, Bay Buzz, 15 February 2010

The Cape Coast, embracing communities bordered by the Tukituki River in the north and Cape Kidnappers in the south, has unrealised and often unappreciated recreational, scenic and tourist appeal.

Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton, the largest coastal communities in Hawke’s Bay are right on the doorstep — within 15 minutes drive from the town centres of Hastings, Havelock North and Napier, offering the best of everything the wider region boasts to locals and the tourist market.

Cities, towns and small villages privileged to be within a short distance of the coast are at once benefactors and custodians of a major asset of national significance. While there are clearly dangers in coastal living, that too is part of the magic.

We know about tsunami risks, devastating earthquakes and the impact of king tides and storm events but these are few and far between when compared with the magnetic appeal of this coastal area that embraces all the characteristics and qualities that New Zealanders hold dear.

We know never to take to take the ocean for granted and to be prepared for uncertainty. Our pioneering forefathers knew this when they reclaimed the swamps, drained the lands, redirected the course of rivers and shored up the most vulnerable parts of the coastline with walls and groynes.

They built on reclaimed land and flood plains, conscious of the need for ongoing maintenance and diligent awareness in managing this environment. Failure to continue this tradition would have certain consequences with future generations inheriting the challenge to keep coastal communities and those living on the plains safe from flooding, erosion and inundation.

We protect farmlands with stop banks and allow selective communities up and down both New Zealand coastlines to build sea walls and groynes for their protection but WOW and the community it represents wonder why the urgent needs of the Cape Coast have been ignored for so long?

Some say it’s about money. People don’t pay enough rates to justify the investment. WOW can prove money is no longer an obstacle. Some say it can’t be done. WOW, its engineers and even the HBRC engineering team, agree the proposed groyne field solution is feasible; in other words it can be done.

Now the only obstacle is getting through the myriad of reports, peer reviews, paperwork, hearings, consenting processes and bureaucracy that can be used to frustrate this community’s plans to protect itself.

What is at risk here is far more than a few houses falling into the sea in the next big storm but the future of the literal edge of Hawke’s Bay, the security and safety of hundreds of coastal residents and devastation that will take millions of dollars of council money to clean up and result in years of resentment if residents are dispossessed.

Both the Hastings District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council have on several occasions asked the people of Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton to come up with their own plans for resolving the decades old problem of erosion.

Over the past decades a number of approaches have been made to both councils asking for a decisive step forward based on hard engineering to protect the beaches, public assets, private property and these coastal communities.

Several such efforts have exhausted local groups; the Te Awanga Society gave up after spending $100,000 in community money and another group lobbying for hard engineering, after several years of fruitless effort, folded when a consensus could not be reached. Former members of these volunteer groups complain the process and the opposition from local authorities and their ‘experts’ made things so difficult they suffered mental, emotional and financial burnout.

With hazard zones in place and long term strategies formulated that discourage hard engineering, the processes that lead to even the possibility of action can be viewed as laborious and even unreasonable. Complying with the requirements of the National Coastal Policy, the Regional Coastal Policy, the Resource Management Act and the Building Act is certainly daunting.

When highly paid lawyers, planners, engineers, scientists and council officers can prolong the process and keep passing costs on to the applicant, a community’s ability to have a voice in its own future can become extremely costly and complex. When everything is stacked against an outcome that favours the community, it seems contrary to the very goals of the law.

Those who oppose or resist the placement of groynes or hard protection works insist they are trying to comply with central government policies but fail to give due consideration to the flexibility within those policies for ‘last resort’ solutions.

The Cape Coast community is still reeling from decades of this kind of frustration but is now more determined and more organised than ever in its bid for a highly engineered, environmentally sound, groyne field.

Background:
Local community horrified

The WOW proposal is a direct reaction to the Tonks Report delivered to the Cape Coast community in early 2009. This so-called solution to the erosion problem, commissioned by Hastings District Council and Hawkes Bay Regional Council, so incensed residents that a community group was forced to come up with its own more affordable and more practical option

The main option in the Tonks Report, was 13 groynes to do exactly what the community had been asking for but at a cost of $18.5 million, with 90 percent of the cost borne by those living closest to the coast. The other options were ‘managed retreat’ or ‘do nothing’.

The 13 groyne option would cost beachfront home-owners $288,000 to $320,000 each as a lump sum or $26,600-$29,500 per annum for 13 years plus a $5000 charge for maintenance. Alternatively, a lump sum of $2500 per household would be levied if the cost was spread over all homes along the coast.

To top it off another $500,000 was tacked on to the groyne proposal for Resource Consent applications, with the caution that it was unlikely to succeed as ‘hard engineering’ was not permitted unless it was a ‘last resort’.

These numbers horrified the local community when they were announced at a public meeting on 29 April 2009. Equally horrific were the options that those homes most at risk, around 100 or so in the next 5-10-years, would be moved at the owner’s expense to an as yet undetermined location.

Both councils have since admitted that they knew the community could not afford the groyne plan and they had no intention of going ahead with it. It was simply their way of justifying doing nothing and mentally preparing residents for ‘managed retreat’.

However ‘managed retreat’ was also going to be hugely costly, not only to the community but to the councils involved, particularly the Hastings District Council. Apart from the economic cost, the emotional and social costs would be incalculable.

The ‘do nothing’ option was just as bad as ‘managed retreat’ with its piecemeal retreat, occurring as inundation made it impossible for people to keep living in the danger zone. In other words a disaster would be declared when the water reached a certain point and people would be forcibly removed from their homes.

The upshot of that public meeting was the formation of the Walking on Water (WOW) group, with members of the public voted on along with representation from the Haumoana Ratepayers Association, the Te Awanga Progressive Association and the Clifton Marine Club.

WOW proposed the staged construction of groynes, starting with protection for the most at-risk properties, costing considerably less than the joint councils originally suggested, placing minimal burden on local or wider Hastings district ratepayers.

The proposal was put forward in written and verbal submissions to the HBRC and HDC 10-year plan with Cape Coast supporters filling both council chambers.

WOW was then asked to join senior members of both councils, along with their planners and engineers, in a Joint Council Working Group, restarting a process that had begun in 2002 and stalled in 2006.

At the first JCWG meeting in August 2009 an official admission was made that the 13-groyne option was never a serious proposal. ‘Managed retreat’ was the preferred option and that was all that was left on the table until the working group agreed to consider the WOW proposal.

The only condition was that WOW prove groynes were the ‘best practicable’ solution. In order to do this we were told we had to give equal time and effort to looking into ‘managed retreat’. In essence a small group from within the volunteer WOW committee took up the challenge largely because it’s proposal for hard engineering would not be given consideration otherwise, neither would its request for councils to share the costs of getting consent.

In doing this the WOW group has discovered very little effort had been made by either council in understanding the physical costing of literally moving the homes in question or the wider economic and social consequences.

WOW went ahead as requested and put hundreds of hours into this task, consulting with electricians, plumbers, builders, house removalists, the power companies. It also worked in closely with the Hastings District Council to verify it numbers and to determine the cost of moving public utilities and roads.

Ultimately WOW determined that managed retreat, based on a selected 40 plus homes and commercial buildings considered most at risk, would cost around $12.7 million (net present value), including re-routing the road to Te Awanga and Clifton, as compared to $4.5 million (unfilled) to $6.7 million (filled) for the first seven groynes.

NB: The reduced cost of metal through a quote from Winstone’s would take the actual cost down to $4.5 million filled.

It would clearly be less invasive and more cost effective to protect the existing coastline, properties, commercial centre, community, public utilities and access roads with a field of groynes than to pursue managed retreat or ‘do nothing’.

Protection saves millions

WOW has determined that the council would save around $4 million on the cost of removing and relocating the main access road and public facilities. It has now been agreed with the Hastings District Council that if the WOW proposal can pass muster, the saving of $4 million would be allocated to the cost of the proposed groyne field.

Half would go to stage one which is currently being readied for resource consent approval, and the balance for the Te Awanga-Clifton project currently being assessed.

A local benefactor has agreed to put up $3 million toward the cost of the first stage of the groyne field, protecting the most vulnerable properties, while arrangements have been made to access metal to fill those groynes at minimal cost. The cost to local ratepayers to protect the coast in stage one of this process is already minimal.

Supporting document#
Local benefactor lawyers letter

Significant community funding has already been invested in an independent, well respected coastal engineer’s plan for groynes, which is now in its fifth version after taking into account all relevant data. Further development, including reports to prove elements of the design and potential impact on the environment are negligible, still need to be commissioned.

WOW, based on the considered research of coastal engineer Steve Moynihan of Moynihan Coastal Consultants (MCC), believes its seven groyne ‘stage one’ proposal is the only logical option to save the Cape Coast from further erosion and inundation. This will also build volume back on our beaches and restore confidence to our communities.

As hard engineering is allowable under Coastal Policy Document and the Resource Management Act as a last resort and when it is the ‘best practicable’ option, WOW submits that this is a provable, practical and prudent course of action that should be pursued with urgency.

In comparison ‘managed retreat’ will be significantly more costly to the community and to Hastings ratepayers than anyone has so far imagined.

The Joint Councils have agreed to fund the initial work by planner and consultant Dave Serjeant director of Merestone Ltd in evaluating WOWs proposals to ensure it meets the resource consent criteria. Mr Serjeant will determine the feasibility of the plan, list work that still needs to be done and outline the costs involved in achieving this.

Hastings District Council has already set aside $100,000 to assist with preparation of this proposal, some of which will be used to pay for Mr Serjeant’s review and cost analysis.

Meanwhile Hastings mayor Lawrence Yule and members of his executive team, in particular John O’Shaunessy, have been working with the WOW technical team. They have indicated the Hastings District Council may be willing to make a significant contribution to the cost of resource consent, if it can be proven the proposal has a reasonable chance of being approved.

Recommendation:

Among other things, this funding will pay for reports form experts required to complete the remaining specific tasks, a peer review of the WOW/HDC proposal, legal costs, the commissioners, submission fees and other work to ensure the case meets the high standards set by the consenting authority.

WOW is also requesting that $30,000 be made available from the $100,000 budget earlier identified as being available from HDC to cover plan adjustments including a risk analysis, and an independent peer review of elements of the Moynihan Coastal Consultants (MCC) ‘crenulate bay theory’ by a highly qualified coastal engineering expert. This will be essential to ensuring our report meets the highest possible standards when it goes before resource consent specialist, Dave Serjeant.

WOW is determined to have as much work done on its proposal before Mr Serjeant evaluates it and makes his recommendation to the Hastings District Council. WOW, having already committed around $20,000 and hundreds of hours into the process, believes that making funding available for several critical reports will be pivotal to its case and that releasing council funds tagged for this very process would be a show of good faith ahead of the final decision being made. Receipts will be provided for all work completed.

The future growth of the Cape Coast region depends on reliable road access. Protecting the existing infrastructure seems a logical way forward if the council is seeking to grow its rating base and gain the confidence of residents and tourism, hospitality and other businesses

HBRC Group Manager Asset Management Mike Adye says in correspondence with WOW (28 January 2010) that the “technical feasibility” of the groyne option has already been determined. Existing reports and the current thinking of Richard Reinen-Hamill are that such a project is indeed feasible. “I do not think there is any disagreement” on this. Neither is there any basic disagreement on the ‘ball park’ costs of a groyne field.

Public infrastructure including roading, specifically the Beach Rd south, East Rd-Clifton Rd intersection and sections of Clifton Rd north as well as the Te Awanga Hall and public access are currently all at-risk.

Placing the first three groynes would protect the Beach Rd/Clifton Rd/East Rd intersection, existing power poles, water pipes and other utilities as well as the shops and homes across the way from the ‘H21’. They would also build up the beach in front of the Clifton Rd Reserve and mean further protection for a number of homes along Beach Rd south.

The cost of re-routing access to Te Awanga and Clifton if the current access to Haumoana via East Rd or Te Awanga and Clifton via Clifton Rd north was unavailable is significant.

Current estimates range beyond $4 million, a cost that would be incurred by Hastings District ratepayers if the ‘managed retreat’ or ‘do nothing options’ were chosen.

There is also the additional cost of providing access to homes in Beach Rd, off East Rd and Clifton Rd which would no longer be accessible if the current road was damaged.

Improving property values

The proposed staged construction of groynes would bring renewed vision to the community, stabilise and increase house prices and encourage economic growth and confidence.

For example an independent residential valuer’s report (Snow Wilkins, 30 March 2010) states that the value of those homes most at risk along Clifton Rd north has continued to decline as the threat of inundation has become more real.

However if actions to construct the first stage of the WOW groyne field were approved and completed the valuation of those homes would increase 269 percent. As a consequence all homes in the wider at-risk area would benefit from increased valuation and long term security and the entire community is likely to benefit from renewed confidence.

Once the first groynes have proven to be effective and the downstream impact negligible, or mitigated based on adjustments, then work can begin on the next stage of completing the groyne field down to the Tukituki river mouth and planning for protection of homes, properties and public facilities along Clifton Rd south to Te Awanga.

In conjunction with the Hastings District Council, and with a significant financial contribution from local benefactors, WOW believes the groyne field and complimentary protection work can be completed at minimal cost to the community.

WOW believes the business case for hard engineering along this coast is compelling when compared to ‘managed retreat’ or doing nothing.

Keeping up appearances
groynesection

The groynes being proposed by Moynihan Coastal Consultants (MCC) will have far more of a flow and design associated with their construction than the existing groyne at the Tukituki river mouth.

While the final design is a significant part of the funding required for the resource consent preparation, and will show fine detail of exactly how each structure is to be built, the final look will not detract from the natural look and feel of the beaches.

The fact the groynes are designed to capture natural processes in order to rebuild the beaches should be paramount in any consideration of what is constructed, although every effort will be made to ensure the structures do not in any way constitute ‘visual pollution’.

The groynes, which will vary in length according to their required function in protecting the coast and restoring volume back onto the beaches, will take into consideration the natural characteristics of the coast. At the same time they are expected to become a feature, that serves recreational needs.

The construction process will see a row of 1.6 metre cubic concrete blocks placed in line from the beach crest out to their designated length with a width of 5 metres. At the head end the groynes will be a half circle of blocks armoured with 14.4 tonne interlocking X-blocs which will run another 5 metres back down the length for protection.

The circular structure at the end is not only for aesthetics but to enable a crane to work safely in placement of blocks to complete the construction. The central part of the groyne will be a safe path for people to walk out at low tide.

On the southern side once the fillets of gravel have been placed there as fill or as part of the natural movement of gravel there will be little to see. The groynes will fill up and consequently distribute gravel to build up the beach.

On the northern side the wings of the X-blocs will remain visible, although one advantage of this is that a sheltered area safe for swimming will be created in most conditions. Once each groyne is filled, they will encourage surplus metal to flow around the circular armoured tip and after replenishing parts of the eroded shoreline, flow back into the natural system.

The groyne or breakwater structures will be designed, constructed and maintained to withstand the coastal processes and storm events that are know to occur in this location and to be structurally sound and safe at all times.

The current shoreline has a steep gradient, with little or no dune crest from which vegetation can grow. In the past a variety of structures and materials, some placed when the law was more lenient, others in more recent times as desperate measures to protect properties, to combat erosion such as tyres, railway irons, walls and concrete blocks and posts. These have admittedly, contributed to ‘visual pollution’.

After the full effect of the groynes have been realised, there will be less need for these structures and arrangements can be made for their removal. A stable beach and stable crest will provide for an area conducive to vegetation and a full landscaping program enhancing the visual amenity of our community.

NB: Further expert marine, landscape evidence will be commissioned and presented as part of the resource consent process to further underscore the key points here.

Marine life and recreation

The placement of groynes along the Cape Coast, particularly if they’re designed to be an attractive addition to the beach, will have several significant advantages.

They will achieve their prime purpose to build volume back on the beaches and prevent ongoing erosion but also enable people to walk out on a safe path at low tide and sit or fish and not negatively impact on the quality of the water along the Cape Coast in any way.

Currently the stark gravel/sand seabed for many metres from the shoreline is continuously moving through sediment transport and does not allow for the development of an environment that is conducive to marine life, such as algae or shellfish from which a more complex ecosystem can exist.

Lifetime member of the Clifton Marine Club, Neville Bawden, states that, “mussels and algae will grow on and out from the groyne itself providing for a food chain to exist, and will also serve as a hiding place for bait fish and larger fish to congregate…this in turn will ultimately attract recreational fishing from the shore and from the groynes.”

Using the Tukituki groyne as a case study, this has attracted algae which grow on the large base stones which are mostly underwater encouraging the growth of mussels. Algae attract whitebait and other small fish which in turn attract large fish and so the feeding chain grows. A similar evolution is expected to occur with the groynes placed along the Cape Coast

In other words the groyne placement is good for the natural environment and the growth of marine life, enhancing the total biodiversity and adding to recreational opportunities.

The placement of the groynes may contribute to additional surf breaks and the launching of pleasure craft and windsurfers that would attract further beach use by locals and visitors. On the northward side of each of the larger groynes where the tidal surge has slowed there would be natural safe swimming areas.

A more sheltered coastline will encourage smaller boat and kayak activity, classic kiwi pastimes for locals and holiday makers to enjoy.

Currently launching boats at Te Awanga is a ‘unique and often difficult task’ due mainly to the steep gradient of the shore, the exposed nature of the coast, and the northern wind which blows boats along the shore. One of the attractions developed over years is the sight of boaties taking their trailers out into the ocean to launch the boats. Building volume back on the beach through a series of groynes will provide for safer and easier launching of boats for locals and visitors alike, this can only have a positive effect on our community’.

Surfer and local businessman, Karl Hannan of Hannah Surf Boards states that the groyne field will have no effect on one of the best natural right-hand breaks on the East coast, at ‘the point’, Te Awanga. The only likely effect is additional breaks at the proposed groynes sites themselves and these would benefit from the addition of an artificial reef built out from them which would better the wave, providing more opportunities for surfers.

Currently swimming at Napier is discouraged because of the dangers of rips and the depth quickly reached by swimmers. Swimming is possible along the Cape Coast but the area is exposed. The area on the leeward side of the proposed groynes will provide a safer, sheltered place for swimming, making it safer and more comfortable for families.

NB: Further expert evidence will be commissioned and presented as part of the resource consent process to further underscore the key point here, including input from local iwi.

Protecting the cycleway

One of the main criteria for the selection of the “Heretaunga Ararau: Land of a Hundred Pathways” cycle way route was that any identified risks could be resolved at reasonable cost and within a reasonable timeframe.

The Hawke’s Bay section of the ‘nationally significant’ cycleway is one of 13 chosen from around the country, runs along some of the most vulnerable parts of the Haumoana and Te Awanga coastline.

Since the March 2010 big waves the risk of inundation, particularly where the crest is now significantly weakened, is greater than it ever has been.

WOW is concerned that not enough is being done, particularly by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, to mitigate existing risks. While the Rotary Pathways Trust and Hastings District Council are engaging in fundraising toward the cost of the cycle track, according to HBRC coastal engineer Neil Daykin there are “no plans to protect low value assets such as the lime sand pathway sections”.

While some of the existing lime sand pathways are occasionally flooded with minimal damage, the clean up and repair is minimal, he says. “We do not envisage any problems with the proposed routes.”

WOW is convinced firm action is required to protect the Cape Coast beaches through hard engineering protection, which in turn will protect the road and cycleway from the likelihood of inundation. If this is not forthcoming Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council risk losing government support for a portion of the $50 million government funding for this section of the national cycleway.

WOW believes the proposed construction of the cycleway is the perfect trigger point to move forward with its protection plan, and for the councils to approve a field of groynes, beach crest strengthening and a beautification programme.

Community wellbeing

The proposed groyne field is not just a solution for restoring the beaches and protecting private and public property but for restoring economic and social health to the Cape Coast.

Currently there is a sense that these coastal communities have been neglected. While protection is provided at Westshore and Waimarama and stop banks protect the rivers from overflowing into the Heretaunga Plains, the people of Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton who have been battling erosion and inundation for decades, feel they have been left off the map.

A secondary submission has been put separately to both the Hastings District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for a programme that presents an opportunity for both councils to actively engage with the Cape Coast.

This is based on a desire within the community to have a voice, to unite under the Cape Coast banner, to encourage community and business growth, to support tourism, accommodation and the creative arts, and to see a programme of beatification undertaken that would coincide with the creation of the National Cycleway segment which will pass along the beachfront.

This document, designed to revitalise the community spirit, outlines a forward looking plan for the Cape Coast community centres around improving the quality of life for locals and broaden the visitor experience. Much of the success of this plan depends on protecting the Cape coast through the groyne field and a programme of beatification. See “A Cape Coast Community Vision” (WOW, April 2010).

The only alternatives, ‘managed retreat’ or ‘do nothing’ would clearly have the opposite effect, essentially being a vote of no confidence in the Cape Coast by local councils, severely impacting the health, welfare, social wellbeing and future aspirations of the community.

Supporting documents # 1 & 2:

WOW submits that a groyne field will protect the coastline from erosion and inundation and protect road access, walkways, cycleways, public and private property and the wellbeing of the Cape Coast community. Such an action is not only within the ambit of the law, but should be seen as being supported by both the RMA and the Coastal Policy document.

The groyne field will comprise structures that are in keeping with the natural look and feel of the Cape Coast beaches and will be visually attractive and functionally double as recreational assets, attracting sightseers, walkers, swimmers, fish and people who like to catch fish.

NB: Further expert evidence will be commissioned and presented as part of the resource consent process to further underscore the key points here. See also the companion submission: A Cape Coast Community Vision (WOW, April 2010).

Impacts and obstacles

One of the major issues at the centre of the ongoing erosion along the Cape Coast is a shortfall in the supply of shingle material to replenish the coastline. In other words the coast loses more shingle through northward drift than is being delivered from Cape Kidnappers cliffs, the circular tidal flow in the wider bay, and the river system.

While much of the problem stems from natural occurrences resulting from the 1931 earthquake, the tectonic shift that occurred at that time and the changing course of the rivers that feed this coast, in the recent decades a major contributor to the problems has been man made.
The Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Group has clearly confirmed, through the work of coastal experts, that the shoreline at Bayview and Westshore is relatively stable with a zero net drift of beach material, although fluctuations in erosion and accretion of the shoreline will continue to occur.
However the shoreline from Clive to Clifton has a net northerly drift of beach material resulting in significant coastal retreat. It claims long term shoreline retreat at Clifton Beach is on average 0.75m per year; Haumoana and Te Awanga 0.30m-0.70m per year.
Steve Moynihan of MCC has produced a carefully worked through model of the projected downstream impact of the proposed groyne field to be built in stages so that the affects can be monitored and the field adjusted, in height and length, to compensate for any detrimental impact.

He does predict, that the Napier foreshore which is accreting year on year, would lose a minimal amount of growth over two years while the fields stabilize. This would seem to be a minor issue, when weighed up against the fact that much of the metal arriving at Awatoto and further north actually originates from the Cape Coast shingle system in the first place.

These communities would be simply holding on to supplies for a little longer while their beaches are replenished.
wow

NB: At $22 per cu m this cost comes down by close to a million dollars

Room for give and take

Meanwhile thousands of cubic metres of shingle have been extracted from the Tukituki above Red Bridge for the reclamation of the seabed between for the new container wharf and cruise ships dock; Herrick No.4 Wharf and Geddis No.3, at the Port of Napier,

While HBRC approved the removal of metal from several sources for the infill at the Ports, the amount moved by Higgins contractors would otherwise have formed part of the natural replenishment of the Cape Coast.

We’re also aware that Winstone Aggregates takes thousands of cubic metres of metal from the Tukituki river at Tennant Rd. We’re not saying that this is a prime cause but we are suggesting that over time, this and other contracts to remove huge amounts of metal from this river have had some downstream impact and deprived areas of the Cape Coast.

The HBRC might argue that most of the gravel coming down the rivers does not reach the coast, as it builds up in riverbed and creates a risk of flooding on the plains and there is an ongoing programme of removing shingle to prevent this. At times this has meant pumping it out and dumping it in the sea which is ironic when it is clear that this could be part of a coastal replenishing programme.

If the groyne field requires backfilling of the fillets, as Rienen-Hamill insists, then WOW submits that as part of this shingle removal that it be provided directly to the Cape Coast and that commercial removal be required to tithe (one in 10 truckloads) to the coast for replenishments or a percentage of the total take allowed.

Its time for an integrated solution to ensure the Cape Coast’s ongoing gravel loss is addressed. WOW was asked to try and quantify the downstream or northern impacts on other areas of the coast if a field of groynes was constructed between East Rd-Clifton Rd down to the Tukituki River outlet.

By that same logic HBRC should be considering the wider impact on ongoing erosion by taking gravel from the rivers that feed into the Cape Coast. HBRC should consider the controversial statement that the ongoing commercial Winstone Aggregates gravel extraction at Awatoto is a contributor to this problem.

Tonkin & Taylor, who’s opinion the council seems to highly respect and use to its advantage wherever possible, has stated clearly that Awatoto extraction does have an impact on the Cape Coast.
“(A report by) Tonkin and Taylor coastal engineer Richard Reinen-Hamill, says the beach between Cape Kidnappers and Napier is losing about 45,000 cubic metres of gravel a year to erosion. Most of that was going to Winstones, which takes gravel from the foreshore at Awatoto.
Winstones takes about 47,800cu.m. a year from Awatoto and Napier City Council and the regional council take about 12,800cu m from Pacific Beach (for renourishment at Westshore), meaning about 15,600 cu.m. of gravel is being supplied to the coast from the Tukituki River and erosion of Cape Kidnappers. Scientific modelling shows "the effect of gravel extraction at Awatoto does extend to the south, potentially as far as Haumoana, but certainly to a point between the Ngaruroro outlet and the Hastings (sewage) outfall," says the report (peer reviewed by coastal expert professor Paul Komar), Gravel firm 'making erosion worse', Marty Sharpe, Dominion Post, 5 April 2005
In the same report regional council environmental manager Murray Buchanan said the council always suspected that gravel extraction from Awatoto was having an effect at Haumoana but proving it had been difficult. The report stated that groynes do work on the coast, but may prevent gravel supply to the north. It also states that re-nourishment of the beach "may provide a solution" but the half million cost made it an unlikely solution.
Inflated cost of metal

WOW is concerned also that the cost of the groyne fields is hugely inflated through the cost of gravel infill. The cost of the actual groynes in the Joint Council proposal put to the community was $370,000 each and the cost of infill was $1.5 million, calculated at $40 cu m. In fact, of the Joint Council ‘proposal’ for 13 groynes at $18.5 million, only $4.8 million would have been for the construction of the actual groynes.
The cost of WOW/MCC groyne field proposal would be $3.65 million without the infill. While ideally the groynes would naturally capture gravel over time and fill themselves, Richard Reinen-Hamill seems intent on suggesting the groynes need filling immediately to prevent loss of metal further northward.

WOW believes the cost of gravel, as suggested by HBRC is exorbitant, and has begun discussion with Winstone Aggregates, who have agreed to provide fill for the groynes at a discounted cost.

Supporting document#
Winstone’s shingle quote
With an additional requirement for those who take metal from the rivers that would normally feed the Cape Coast system to put back a tithe or a token average of one in ten truckloads of metal to help and replenish the groynes when required this cost could be further reduced.
Stopbanks for the coast

While groynes have some downstream impacts and there’s consequently caution about such structures, engineering has moved on and there is now a greater degree of certainty about how to build, manage and mitigate any flow-on effect.

Groynes constructed by the HBRC at the Tukituki river mouth and at Clive have been put in place essentially to protect public assets, including the Haumoana reserve, the pump station, the East Clive sewage plant and to keep the river mouth open.

These groynes have recently undergone significant maintenance or are in the process of being upgraded, along with major investment in river stop banks in the region and the cleaning of the Clive River.

The Tukituki river groyne has clearly built up the beach, protected the river and done everything it was established to do.

The HDC and HBRC support the widespread programme of creating and maintaining stop banks to protect the region’s rivers from flooding valuable farmland and orchards. WOW sees the coastal threat in much the same way, requiring similar protection to what might be required to counter a 100-year flood.

Murray Tonks from Environmental Services, in his report Te Awanga – Haumoana Coastal Erosion – Review and Recommendations Environmental states that:

“Existing models are uncertain but suggest a credible risk of downstream erosion resulting from the construction of the groynes. It would be imprudent to proceed with the construction of groynes until more is known about the likely affects. In the meantime it is also unlikely that resource consents would be granted for such a project.”

Tonks recommends nine groynes if the distance from the existing groyne along the Haumoana coastline was to be protected, suggesting a cost of $1.8 million per groyne. The cost is suggested as $16.2 million spread over a number of years although there would most likely be “affects on other parts of the coast that would need to be mitigated”. No cost allowance was made for this.

Steve Moynihan in his report has estimated a cost of $7.1 million, based on the same principles, filling the groyne fillets at a cost of $40/m3.

Mike Adye says there are a number of areas of “fundamental difference” between the various reports and the experts who authored them. Of most concern was the “uncertainty over the likely impacts to other parts of the coast”. He did not believe those differences could be worked out through ongoing discussions between Steve Moynihan of MCC and Richard Rienen-Hamill (Tonkin & Taylor) and claims, it is “impossible to determine at this stage with any degree of certainty a likely cost for any hard engineering option”.

Given that both National and Regional policy currently places hard engineering solutions as the least preferred option to mitigate the impact of coastal erosion, he says “uncertainty is a significant barrier” to WOW’s vision.

“There have been a number of issues associated with the coast worked through the Environment Court over past years. As far as I am aware the debate over coastal processes, rates of coastal erosion, and how they are considered in the light of the mitigation approaches being proposed, are major issues for the majority if not all of these cases. Based on this, any idea that somehow we will be able to be certain about the potential impacts is, in my view unrealistic.”

Supporting document
Costing chart inserted here

The uncertainty principle

Life is uncertain. A turn of events, a favourable set of circumstances and we win Lotto. There are however no points for not trying, and you never win if you don’t buy a ticket or always never ‘wait and see’. Sometimes missed opportunities and failure to act, particularly when there’s clear evidence of a problem, can be disastrous.

WOW would like to argue, as Winston Aggregates Resource and Environment manager Alan Happy did in submissions to the Board of Inquiry into the proposed Coastal Policy Statement and (revision of the Resource Management Act 1991, that ‘adaptive management’ mechanisms are preferable where uncertainty exists, which is the case in the coastal system.

“Taking an adaptive management approach to operations within the Coastal
Marine Area and wider coastal environment where the potential effects of an
activity are not fully understood, in my opinion, forms an important tool in
providing for the social, economic and cultural well being of communities while
at the same time enabling potential or unknown adverse effects that may occur
in the future to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. To not allow for such an
approach would dramatically reduce the potential for New Zealand to benefit
from the coastal environment, and result in the poor management of coastal
resources and the coastal environment.

Happy said “adaptive management” forms an important component of Winstone’s operations within the Kaipara Harbour and at Awatoto being addressed by the relevant resource consents.

This in essence is the approach that Steve Moynihan (MCC) has mapped out for the groyne field along the Cape Coast, to build the first three, monitor, manage and adapt accordingly to ensure there is a greater degree of certainty. This is a far more sound scientific approach to engineering practice than assuming the worst because you don’t have enough data.

Key to the Cape Coast

One of the main reasons for WOW presenting the Prime Minister John Key with the ‘Key to the Cape Coast’ at the public meeting in Havelock North on Friday 19 February 2010 was not only to invite him to sample our local hospitality, but to ask him to look into national policy obstacles that seem to be preventing us from protecting our community

Another important step forward for the WOW Vision to Save the Cape Coast was achieved on 15 April 2010 when WOW invited Hawke’s Bay MPs Craig Foss and Chris Tremain to address a group of local business people.

Neither of the MPs had been aware of the depth of work or the progress WOW had made in refining the ‘hard engineering’ solution to protect the coastal communities and the related public and private assets over the past year.

Both MPs were impressed with the WOW plan and the progress being made in working with the Hastings District Council. If WOW and the HDC can form a partnership to push the groyne field proposal forward the Hawke’s Bay MPs told the meeting they would do all they can to support this and help remove obstacles to approval.

WOW has been working over the past year with both the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Hastings District Council as part of a joint working group tasked with finding a solution to the longstanding erosion problem.

After it was admitted the original joint council proposal for 13 groynes was never expected to be approved, the community was asked again to come up with an alternative. This was the process WOW embarked on, and having invested considerable time and effort in doing so, it finds that one of the parties to this agreement never intended to follow through.

While the Hastings District Council has been supportive, recent correspondence with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council indicates their part in the process is already compromised. Despite claiming that the HBRC cannot support or oppose a proposal, it has now made it plain that it does indeed oppose WOW’s efforts.

WOW is deeply concerned that the HBRC and the Department of Conservation (DOC) may be misusing the Coastal Management Policy Document and the Resource Management Act (RMA) to prevent the Cape Coast community from protecting itself from what is clearly an imminent threat.

HBRC officers, throughout the working group process and in separate meetings with WOW, continued to insist WOW did not understand the difficult task ahead or have the resources necessary or expertise to achieve its end.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) Group Manager Asset Management Mike Adye, advised WOW that the council is opposed to any hard engineering, claiming that all New Zealanders want natural beaches.

“The national community wants natural beaches around the New Zealand coastline. The regional community also wants natural beaches along the Hawke’s Bay coastline. These two positions are set out in the National Coastal Policy Statement and the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan respectively,” he says.

“WOW is seeking something that is fundamentally different from what the national and regional communities want. I do not see how a partnership approach to addressing the issue can be achieved when WOW and Council do not share the same vision.”

Meanwhile HBRC allows millions of cubic metres of shingle and metal to be taken from the river system that would naturally help nourish the entire coastline, which is used among other things, for protection work at Westshore and HBRC’s wholly owned interests in the Posts of Napier.

HBRC also allows hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of shingle to be taken at Awatoto, all of which are unnatural activities and result in the downstream flow of shingle form the Cape Coast having to compensate, exacerbating the erosion problem.

Erosion by Conservation

Another disheartening obstacle was raised when members of the WOW technical committee went to visit with the senior DOC manager in Napier recently only to be told that DOC would not support anything that affected the ‘natural character’ of the beach.

Despite arguments that stop banks are used to protect residents of the Heretaunga Plains from floods and the exiting groyne at the Tukituki river mouth was put in place to protect the pump station and sewage works, DOC said groynes in any form were not acceptable as they were not natural formations.

We were informed that nature must be allowed to do what nature does and we must not interfere. It didn’t matter that the community was under threat, people could be moved. And while there has been no major scale ‘managed retreat’ in New Zealand so far, DOC seemed determined that the Cape Coast residents will be the first.

It seems this community is in the way of what the ocean wants to do and therefore people and their homes are perceived as an obstruction to DOC’s mandate and the ocean. Even land that DOC is tasked with protecting for future generations, including wetlands and parklands, don’t weight the argument in favour of protection. DOC it seems is pro-erosion.

Even if WOW were to convince Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to support its plans for protection of the Cape Coast, DOC suggests it would oppose this, based on the National Coastal Policy.

WOW is incensed at the obstacles that can be placed in front of communities determined to protect themselves from the sea, even when there is a clear and present risk of further erosion and inundation. We are concerned that DOC and HBRC policies appear geared to favour non-intervention in natural processes and fail to protect people and private and public property, unless it is in their vested interests.

For example the groyne at the Tukituki River mouth, and those at East Clive, were built by HBRC to protect the pumping station, the sewage station, the reserve and the river mouth.

Inspiration from Wellington

Despite these obstacles, WOW remains determined that New Zealand communities should be able to have a say in their future protection. We also have come across one commonly used term: ‘discretion’. In the absence of specific guidelines it is up to the discretion of each authority how they interpret the law and act on it.

If decisions like this are about prioritising coastal processes and nature over people and property, or only when the number of ratepayers and the value of their assets is sufficiently high to warrant such intervention, then something has gone seriously wrong.

If key people within the Wellington City Council can sit down with those from Wellington Regional Council and agree to repair existing seawalls and build new ones to protect the capital city at a cost of $6 million a year, then there is hope.

This didn’t take years of court proceedings and waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in consents. There was an urgent need and sensible, practical people acted to ensure the right outcome was reached.

Supporting document # 04: Wellington Walls
NB: Hastings Councillor Rod Heaps spoke to the Wellington Council to confirm the process

Without agreed parameters of interpretation different officers within a single authority may have different narrow and prohibitive interpretations on how the laws should be applied. One public body might agree on a path forward, another might be opposed.

WOW also asks why clauses in the law that are weighted against hard engineering are continually raised against us, when as ‘last resort’ and where shown to be ‘practicably’ the best option, hard engineering supports the higher ideals of those laws.

Policy 6 of the HBRC Regional Coastal Policy (as at June 2004) states the policy is “to ensure that structures are only used to mitigate coastal hazards when:
a) It is the best practicable option; and
b) No other non-structural alternative is effective or feasible to reduce coastal hazard risk; and
c) The structure is to serve a use with a functional need for a coastal environment location or is to protect existing network utility operations and development from current erosion risks; and
d) The structure is to be located and designed so as to avoid adverse environmental effects to the greatest extent practicable.

Unless a lot has changed in the past six years the WOW groyne field proposal fits well within those parameters. It is the best practicable option, no other non-structural alternative will work or has been seriously proposed in the interim period by any party responding to the challenge, the groynes will serve a function need and protect network utility operations (power and water and roading) from erosion risks and the groynes will be designed to avoid environment effects.

HBRC’s stance is longstanding and partisan, in other words it has used ‘discretion’ in determining where certain clauses in its policy documents will be applied and where leniency or a different interpretation is allowed.

“Current Council policy is not to undertake any erosion protection work other than at Westshore beach. There has been work undertaken in the vicinity of Haumoana but only because it was needed for the protection to Council's infrastructure assets.” Was the clear statement in 2004.

The HBRC did however allow the community to test its resolve by looking at the various options to mitigate erosion, and while council offered to assist in providing information, the community was warned not to take from this any level of support for whatever proposal might be decided on by the community.

Soft engineering washout

The Resource Management Act defines sustainable management as “managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety, while “avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

HBRC officers insist they are trying to comply with central government policies when they oppose further groynes but fail to give due consideration to the flexibility allowed within those policies for ‘hard engineering’ to proceed.

After a public meeting the council resolved (26 May, 2004) that it could exercise its discretion, that the problem wasn’t significant enough under its ‘adopted policy on significance’, and that it could ultimately make decisions without “conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or who have an interest in the decision”.

HBRC also stated there was a lack of data to make any firm decisions, “all beaches are exposed to erosion risk and sea level rise, and erosion trends will be able to be more accurately quantified as more data becomes available.” Regardless the HBRC agreed staff would assist the affected community in assessing options which were likely to comply with the Regional Coastal Plan and resource consent.

However, the only complying option seemed to be soft engineering, building up and planting the crest area alongside the beach in key at-risk areas. Funds were put aside for such work.

Over a number of years ‘soft engineering’, basically minor replenishment, placement of rocks, creation of gardens and planting the crest has been tried both at the Haumoana end and at the Te Awanga surf break car park.

Within months those ‘soft’ approaches were washed into the sea. It was a pointless exercise. Hard engineering must precede soft engineering and beautification.

NB: A full report on previous costs and soft engineering efforts is being prepared as further evidence

A staged plan to protect the communities of Haumoana, te Awanga and Clifton from erosion, inundation and sea level rises over the next 50-years.

Step One. Move with urgency to establish the first three groynes, including a small control groyne adjacent to the most at-risk homes or ‘H21’, the shops, road, utilities and adjacent properties along Clifton Rd/Beach Rd. The cost of this work has been underwritten by a community benefactor.

NB: Letter from bank confirming funds attached.

Step Two. Complete the next four groynes down to the Tukituki river mouth, with graduated placement based on observed impact, with each groyne adjusted to mitigate any perceived downstream effects, based on the best engineering assessments,

Stage Two:

Establish a second and third stage protection plan, possibly including a mix of groynes, an artificial reef and beach crest strengthening between the H21 homes at Clifton Rd north and the Clifton Motor Camp.

NB: Based on ongoing research and community consultation but part of staged consent, conditional on the success of each previous stage

Stage Three:

Establish a plan of protective coastal stop banks at the most vulnerable places where high seas are likely to break through, as part of the infill, protection and beautification regime concurrently with stage one of the groyne construction process.

NB: Refer to ‘A Cape Coast Community Vision’, part two of the WOW submission for detailed community building that includes beautification, strengthening the crest and promotion of the Cape Coast and the proposed National Cycle Track

Ancillary recommendations:

WOW submits that an ‘adaptive management’ approach to deal with uncertainty can be applied to monitor and adjust construction based on observable outcomes over a 3-5 year period as up to seven groynes are put in place.
WOW recommends the joint councils back a proposal for those taking metal from within a reasonable distance of the Tukituki river mouth to deliver an agreed number of truckloads to the groynes over a specified timeframe, to assist with the initial filling and whenever it is perceived the groyne’s need refilling.

The Cape Coast is now in a situation of last resort. Natural defenses are failing, ‘managed retreat’ is far more costly than anyone so far had imagined leaving hard engineering as the only ‘practicable option’ left.

Allowing the ocean to progressively erode the coastline and edge closer to reserves, wetlands, roads, power lines and ultimately private property, including around 200 homes plus vineyards and farmland, does not seem to be in keeping with the primary objective of the Coastal Policy Statement.

The Resource Management Act has clear provision for “social, economic and cultural wellbeing”. WOW believes that allowing erosion to continue to threaten the wellbeing of residents, businesses and ratepayers of the Cape Coast and the recreational and social wellbeing of people from Hawke’s Bay is not in keeping with those provisions.

WOW believes it has shown that it will be significantly less invasive and more cost effective to protect the existing coastline, properties, commercial centre, community, public utilities and access roads with a field of groynes than to pursue managed retreat or to ‘do nothing’.

Stage one of the WOW plan for seven groynes is now an urgent next step to protect and restore the coastline and beach crest. Once protection is in place beautification can begin in earnest. Soft approaches are futile unless protection is first afforded.

In fact the use of hard protection structures may well be an appropriate and prudent resource management response by preserving the land resource for future generations, and protecting public safety.

Despite the difficulty of the process so far, WOW remains willing and determined to work with the HDC, HBRC and DOC to ensure the best possible outcome for all concerned.

We believe the economic and social wellbeing of this community and continued access to our beaches and tourist attractions, is reason enough to move ahead with urgency. If successful, the coastline will be secured, the beach protected for future generations and the community will have a restored sense of security and be ready and willing for future growth and development.

In taking the lead in supporting the hard engineering proposal Hastings District Council would be taking responsible and forward looking action, resolving a known threat to the community, avoiding the high risk of a civil emergency, and helping residents envision a positive future.

However WOW wish to state that this community does not have the luxury of years for a decision to be made, we need to be thinking in terms of months before construction begins or an extraordinary last resort opportunity could be lost.

Michelle Wade, oral interview with Neville Bawden, 29 April 2010

Maree Bawden, Te Awanga Progressive Association oral interview with Michelle Wade, 29 April 2010

Neville Bawden, Lifetime member Clifton Marine Club, oral interview, Michelle Wade, 29 April 2010

Oral interview with Karl Hannah by Michelle Wade, 29th April 2010

Neville Bawden, oral interview with Michelle Wade, 29th April 2010

http://www.cdemhawkesbay.govt.nz/Presentation/Presentation1.aspx?ID=1840

Discussion with senior engineer at Ports of Auckland

Every 12-years – Moynihan 21-01-2010

Statement of Alan Happy for Winstone Aggregates, 8 October 2008, Ref: A08074-010 20080930

Email, copied to HBRC management team on 15 March 2010

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Asset management and Biosecurity Committee, 19 May 2004, page 4

WOW (Walking on Water)
For further information see www.capecoast.co.nz
or contact chairperson: Ann Redstone: Cell: 027-3867907
Email: agoodin@slingshot.co.nz or spokesperson Keith Newman 06-8750116