Part One examined in detail the public summary of an Application to mine gemstones from Gemstone Beach. Part Two described the public outcry that followed when the Application became known. Part Three looked at the Applicant’s response to this public reaction as reported in two newspaper articles. This Post seeks to clarify current Environment Southland regulations concerning the removal of stones from beaches and how they affect casual fossickers and mining applicants.
ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND’S COASTAL PLAN
I had read in an article on Gemstone Beach in The Guardian last year that: “People are permitted to take stones from the beach within reason. No more than a cubic metre is allowed to be taken and they must be gathered by hand, the regional council Environment Southland said.” I have been trying to find the source of this view that up to one cubic metre of stones can be taken from beaches in Southland. I eventually became aware that Environment Southland has a Regional Coastal Plan, and somewhere in there was likely to be this rule.
The Regional Coastal Plan sets out how Environment Southland will carry out its resource management responsibilities in the Coastal Marine Area (Environment Southland Coastal Plan webpage). The current plan became fully operative in March 2013. The Resource Management Act (1991) requires regional plans to be reviewed every ten years, to ensure they remain relevant to the community and in step with current legislation. So Environment Southland has been conducting a review into its plan prior to up-dating it. According to “Reviewing Southland’s Coastal Plan”, public feedback closed on 7 March this year.
Environment Southland’s 2013 Coastal Plan is the current operative one. It is a 654 page document that can be found here. NOTE: When I refer to page numbers in the following, they are the page numbers of the pdf file, not the chapter page numbers set out at the bottom of the Plan’s pages.
REMOVAL OF SHINGLE
The key section relevant to taking stones from beaches is Section 10.5 “The Removal of Sand, Shingle, Shell, or Other Natural Material” (starting page 327 of pdf). A key consideration here is that coastal erosion be avoided if possible, and any material taken should be at a sustainable rate, that is, should ideally be replaced by natural processes, such as an incoming tide, relatively promptly (Objective 10.5.1 and Policy 10.5.1, page 329 of pdf). “The removal rate of sand, shell, shingle or other natural materials, except precious metals, shall not exceed the rate of natural accumulation” (Policy 10.5.5, page 330 of pdf). Among other statements there worth noting are: “Sand, shell and shingle (or other natural material) removal is dealt with under both the Crown Minerals Act and the Resource Management Act… Shingle is defined as ‘material of gravel or pebble grade accumulated on beaches or off-shore bars'” [pebbles are defined as stones up to 64mm].
NON-MECHANICAL REMOVAL OF UP TO ONE CUBIC METRE AT A TIME
Rule 10.5.1. (page 332 of pdf) defines how much can be taken from a beach without a resource consent being required. The technical wording is as follows:
“Rule 10.5.1 – Non-mechanical removal of sand, shell, shingle or other natural material from the foreshore of the open coast. Except as provided for by Rules 10.5.2, 10.5.4, 10.5.6, 10.5.7 and 10.5.8, the non-mechanical removal of any sand, shell, shingle, or any other natural material (excluding live vegetation) other than boulders or rock from the foreshore of the open coast, including open coastal bays, provided: a) that the volume taken at any time does not exceed one cubic metre; and b) in the case of Horseshoe Bay, the Stewart Island Community Board is informed prior to the removal; is a permitted activity.” (page 332 of pdf)
The Explanation of this Rule defines “non-mechanical removal” as including the “manual shovelling of material” and excludes the use of “any mechanical means such as a digger or suction dredge”. One of the serious problems with Rule 10.5.1 is the vagueness of the phrase “at any time” in “a) that the volume taken at any time does not exceed one cubic metre”. Does it mean per day, per week, per year? Or can it mean per trip to the beach, even if you make five trips in one day? I have seen a communication from Environment Southland that states: “I cannot give you guidance on how to interpret ‘that the volume taken at any time does not exceed one cubic metre’; though I note the explanation to the rule includes ‘If the intensity of such activity is likely to increase to a level that could give rise to problems, or the area is particularly sensitive to the removal of even small amounts of material, this activity could be subject to more stringent controls.’”
This latter sentence comes from the Explanation on page 332 of the pdf, and places potential limits on stone collecting, though there is no clear definition of amounts of stones or numbers of people:
“On open beaches, there will be opportunity for natural replenishment so the removal of small volumes of sand, shell, shingle, or other natural material other than rocks will not have an adverse effect. The number of people that are likely to remove sand is considered to be small. If the intensity of such activity is likely to increase to a level that could give rise to problems, or the area is particularly sensitive to the removal of even small amounts of material, this activity could be subject to more stringent controls.” (page 332 of pdf)
RESOURCE CONSENT FROM ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND NEEDED?
Rule 10.5.2 (page 333 of pdf) states that non-mechanical removal of stones that doesn’t fall under Rule 10.5.1 requires a resource consent approval. I assume this would apply to the removal of MORE THAN one cubic metre at any time. Environment South provides an indication of the kind of information an applicant for a resource consent should provide in “General Information Required in all Applications (where applicable) for Coastal Permits”. And there are two forms an applicant should fill in, “PART A, Application for Resource Consent” and “Application for a Coastal Permit (PART B)”.
NO MENTION OF GEMSTONE BEACH IN COASTAL PLAN
In passing, two other matters in Environment Southland’s Coastal Plan that may be of interest to casual fossickers for beach stones. First, in Section 3.4 “Coastal Values – Te Waewae Bay (Track Burn To Pahia Point)” (pages 70 to 72 of pdf), there is no mention of Gemstone Beach or of stone fossicking. The landscape unit summaries for Orepuki and Te Waewae from the Plan’s Appendices are in the images below. [I found an interesting statement on page 72 as I was not sure how the off-shore currents ran in Te Waewae Bay: “While coastal drift along the Southland coast is generally from west to east, longshore drift in the bay in the vicinity of the Waiau mouth is from east to west. As a result, the coastline east of the Waiau mouth exhibits more erosion than that to the west.”]
SLOPE POINT AND PETRIFIED WOOD
The second matter likely to be of interest to at least some stone fossickers relates to the removal 0f petrified wood in and around Slope Point. Issue 10.5.6 is as follows: “Removal of fossil forest rock along the Curio Bay area could adversely affect the unique natural character of the area” (page 329 of pdf). Rule 10.5.14 (page 336 of pdf) states that “The removal of fossilised Jurassic material from the foreshore or seabed from the area between the Waikawa River mouth and the Toetoes Estuary mouth is a prohibited activity. Explanation – It is envisaged that the removal of fossilised Jurassic material will only be appropriate in exceptional circumstances, or in very small quantities.” There appears to be no further details on this.
5 thoughts on “What is Known About a Mining Application to Remove Gemstones from Gemstone Beach? Part Four: Environment Southland Rules About Removing Stones From Beaches”