Compliance monitoring of a coastal permit for sand extraction, Otamarakau, Bay of Plenty

Report summary

Concerns from residents that erosion of foredunes may be caused by commercial sand extraction led to an investigation of compliance monitoring by the regional council. This report highlights issues concerning: royalties processes; difficulties in managing effects at mean high water; the complexity of coastal processes; and the uncertainty surrounding the sustainability of activities such as commercial sand extraction.

Commissioner's preface

Many people like to live close to the sea. New Zealand with its enormous coastline provides plenty of opportunities. However, coastal living has its risks, particularly when coastal lands are in a dynamic state: rising, falling, receiving deposits or being eroded.

Executive summary

The highest quality sand deposits in the Bay of Plenty are beach sand and are in considerable demand for construction purposes. Sand has been extracted since about 1919 from the beach at Otamarakau. The current consent holding company has been mining sand from this site since 1987 and has been permitted to take 330,000 cubic metres of sand from the beach over the last 10 years.

There has been ongoing concern within the community that the sandmining operation at Otamarakau may be directly or indirectly responsible for the coastal erosion occurring at Pukehina Beach 14 km along the coast to the northwest.

The consent conditions provided a yardstick for compliance monitoring and enforcement activity. In the Otamarakau case, sand volumes seem to exceed permitted levels but not significantly. Other conditions appear to have been met, although often not to deadline.

In the course of this investigation several issues emerged. These included the procedure/ accountability for royalty payments to the Crown, the robustness of the mean high water springs jurisdictional boundary and the community's understanding of what the consent allowed the consent holder to do.

A review of resource rentals for the occupation of coastal space became an amendment to the Resource Management Act in 1997. There would appear to be merit in having sand extraction royalties revised in a similar way.

Findings & recommendations

This has not been a simple coastal permit to monitor.

Overall, it would appear that Environment BOP did adequately monitor the consent that was granted and its monitoring measures were carried out in keeping with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991. However, in monitoring compliance with that consent it may have overlooked impacts on the wider coastal system.

Before Environment BOP can adequately judge the sustainability of mining a very small part of this system, it needs to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the whole coast. Despite several years of research and monitoring there is still insufficient data to conclusively determine the effect of sand removal at Otamarakau on the coastal sand transportation system.

In monitoring the actual permit Environment BOP has been unable to meet all compliance monitoring responsibilities for the following reasons:

No council has the financial or staff resources to monitor all activities of a consent holder, especially over a period of several years on an isolated stretch of the coast.
Under the conditions of the resource consent, measures were not stipulated for verifying the actual amounts of sand extracted, making it difficult for Environment BOP to check that reported volumes were accurate.
There is often a time lapse between receiving and attempting to verify information on consent holder activity. By the time a consent authority is in a position to move towards enforcement, discrepancies between consent conditions and reality may have developed.
Inadequate systems in place (regionally and nationally) to ensure financial conditions have, or are being met.
The conditions of the permit were not reviewed. The review clause in the permit is linked to significant adverse environmental effects occurring. Environment BOP staff do not at this stage, believe there is evidence of large impacts which can be attributed to this consent.

Recommendations

There would appear to be merit in having the sand extraction royalties regime under the RMA revised.
Although all consent information is readily available on request from Environment BOP, the council should consider ways of further communicating its role and responsibilities and those of the consent holder. In future, every effort should be made to secure any bond payment well before commencement of the approved activity.
In projects of this nature, where large volumes of material over long periods of time are involved, more stringent procedures for verifying the amounts taken from the beach should be identified as a condition of the permit.
In the Otamarakau case, most conditions apart from sand volume appear to have been met, although often not to deadline. The issue of frequency of reporting and rigour of monitoring has led the consent holder to believe he was being asked to monitor too much too often.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that this consent holder has been treated any differently by the council than any other operator working on a similar scale in the Bay of Plenty.
Environment BOP needs to explore alternative ways to encourage compliance, including those which offer incentives to consent holders to comply.

Get this report