Two of New Zealand's best surfing breaks could be put in jeopardy if Port Otago is allowed to go ahead with plans to dump increased amounts of spoil from Otago Harbour, the Surfbreak Protection Society says.
The comments were made at an Otago Regional Council hearing of Port Otago's application for a three-year renewal of its consent to dispose of 450,000cu m of spoil a year from maintenance and incremental capital dredging of the harbour to sites at Heyward Point, Aramoana Spit and Shelly Beach, which is being heard by an independent panel in Dunedin this week.
Specialists from Port Otago said on Monday dumping up to 350,000cu m at Heyward Point and 50,000cu m at Aramoana would not negatively affect the surfing breaks at Aramoana and Whareakeake.
Surfbreak Protection Society (SPS) vice-president David Sorck disagreed, saying yesterday the port had ''produced no evidence that the proposed activities will not adversely affect the surf breaks''.
The council had a legal obligation under the Resource Management Act and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) to protect surf breaks of national significance, Mr Sorck said.
The surf breaks at Aramoana and Whareakeake - which were among 17 surf breaks of ''national significance'' included in the NZCPS - brought both national and international tourists to Dunedin, he said.
Before any consent was granted, a three-year ''baseline study'' was needed so any potential adverse effects from the dumping could be monitored. During those three years, no dumping should be carried out.
If the council approved the dumping plan as it stood now, it would be breaking New Zealand law, he said.
This was because the NZCPS stated that a ''precautionary approach'' must be taken if the effects on the coast line were ''uncertain, unknown, or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse''.
Monitoring after the event - as proposed by Port Otago - did not qualify as a ''precautionary approach'', he said.
The monitoring the port had proposed also would not adequately show whether there had been any adverse effects on the quality of the surf breaks.
Mr Sorck's submission was backed up by eCoast Ltd director Dr Jose Carlos Borrero, who presented evidence on behalf of eCoast Ltd managing director Dr Shaw Mead, who could not attend the meeting.
A statement by Dr Mead, read out by Dr Borrero, said he was concerned about Port Otago's proposal.
''I am a firm proponent of sustainable development and reiterate from my initial opinion that there is no doubt that maintenance and expansion of the port's operations are very important to the city of Dunedin. However, this should not come at the expense of nationally significant surfing breaks,'' Dr Mead said.
Without a baseline study, it would not be possible to judge the effects of dumping, he said.
Dumping the maximum 50,000cu m at Aramoana and 350,000cu m at Heyward Point would represent two-fold and seven-fold increases respectively, over the average amount being dumped at the sites and the port had failed to adequately look into the possible effects.
Anecdotal evidence from surfers and a surfing wave dynamic report suggested the effects had the ''potential to be negative''.
Earlier in the day, local surfer Nicola Reeves, who is involved with the Big Rock Boardriders and South Coast Boardriders and is the South Island representative of the Surfbreak Protection Society, said local surfers had noticed that dumping had already had a negative effect on wave quality at Aramoana.
A bridge of sand had formed between the mound of material dumped by the port and the shore, she said.
South Coast Boardriders member Roderick Rust, who has been surfing in the Dunedin area since 1972, said local surfers were ''very afraid'' over the possible effects of the dumping.
