sdclogo

 

 

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                       

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Friday, 11 August 2017

10.30am

Council Chambers
First Floor,15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee Agenda

 

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Members

Allan Bickers

 

 

Rachel Cockburn

 

 

Shirley Mouat

 

 

Don Mowat

 

 

Allan Youldon

 

Councillor

Ebel Kremer

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

 

Group Manager Services and Assets

Ian Marshall

 

Manager Water and Waste Services

Ian Evans

 

Committee Advisor

 

 

Community Partnership Leader

Simon Moran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


Terms of Reference for Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

 

The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee shall assist the Southland District Council to progress implementation of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project in accordance with the project scope approved by Council and the Deed of Agreement that it has entered into with Fiordland Sewerage Options.

 

The Committee is required to provide guidance and assistance to the Council as it proceeds with meeting its obligations under the Deed and subsequent implementation of its preferred option.

The specific responsibilities of the Project Committee are to:

a)               Provide advice on how the Council might progress implementation of the Deed of Agreement it has with FSO

b)               Provide advice on how it might undertake the investigation of the Smith Block in accordance with the programme and budget approved by Council

c)               Provide advice on how Council might consult with and communicate with the community, affected parties and other stakeholders in an appropriate manner about the project and the disposal of wastewater generated in Te Anau

d)               Monitor the progress that is being made in progressing the evaluation of the Smith Block given the regulatory and timeframe constraints within which Council needs to operate. These include the need to ensure that Council has a consented wastewater discharge option available at all times

e)               Assist with the development of a robust business case for Council consideration in relation to the treatment and disposal systems which should be developed to meet the needs of the Te Anau community into the future

f)                 Monitor the progress that is made in delivering on the overall project, and any sub-projects, relative to the approved milestones, budgets and project scope and business cases

g)               Provide guidance and where appropriate recommendations to Council, on how any variations between actual and planned delivery might be best addressed

h)               Ensure that appropriate reporting systems are maintained to provide accurate and timely information to the Committee and Council

i)                 Provide advice to Council on the assessment of project risks and appropriate mitigation strategies given the overall scope of the project

j)                 Assist with providing information to the Te Anau Community Board and the Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee on the project

k)               Recommend to Council any changes to the project objectives, timelines, budget and deliverables that the Committee consider might be required

l)                 Ensure that Committee decisions and processes are well documented in accordance with Council policies and its statutory requirements.

 

The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee has delegated authority to provide advice and monitor the progress being made with the project in accordance with the responsibilities outlined above.

 

The Project Committee does not have delegated authority in relation to the following matters:

a)               The expenditure or committal of Council funds

b)               Approval of project timetable(s) and budget(s) within which the different stages of the project need to be progressed

c)               Negotiation and approval of any Land Access, Acquisition or Disposal Agreements

d)               Approval of the final business case and/or decisions in relation to the type of treatment and disposal systems to be developed

e)               Approval of the procurement strategy and/or methods to be used for services and other works which need to be progressed as part of the project

f)                 The approval of any tenders or other expenditure associated with the project

g)               Negotiation, approval or limitation of any other contractual arrangements that Council might have and/or put in place including with its staff.


Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

11 August 2017

sdclogo

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                           PAGE

Procedural

1          Apologies                                                                                                              5

2          Leave of absence                                                                                                  5

3          Conflict of Interest                                                                                                5

4          Public Forum                                                                                                         5

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                 5

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                      5

Reports

7.1       Development of Selection Criteria for Suitable Land                   13

7.2       Updated Management Report to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee                                                        19   


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

Committee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Public Forum

Mrs Ruth Shaw, Fiordland Sewerage Options Incorporated wishes to speak in the public forum section of the meeting.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)    the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)        the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,

(a) that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)         that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)          no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

6.1       Meeting minutes of Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee, held on 21 April 2017.


sdclogo

 

 

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

 

OPEN MINUTES

UNCONFIRMED

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee held in the Distinction Hotel & Villas Te Anau, Mackinnon Room, 64 Lakefront Dr Te Anau on Friday, 21 April 2017 at 10.00am.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Members

Alan Bickers

 

 

Shirley Mouat

 

 

Don Mowat

 

 

Allan Youldon

 

Councillor

Ebel  Kremer

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

 

Group Manager Services and Assets

Ian Marshall

 

Manager Water and Waste Services

Ian Evans

 

Committee Advisor

Jenny Labruyere

 

Community Partnership Leader

Simon Moran

 

 

 


Member Rachel Cockburn joined the meeting via conference call which did allow her voting rights at the meeting.

 

1          Apologies

 

There were no apologies received.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

There were no requests for leave of absence received.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

4          Public Forum

 

Alistair Paton McDonald

 

Mr Paton McDonald made comment on the Smith land and the fact that is now no longer an option for consideration and believed there is now an opening for negotiation of further options including the Slee block and the Stuart block which belongs to Landcorp.

 

Mr Paton McDonald believes further treatment is required at the Te Anau Treatment pond prior to the selection of a location and reiterated that the Fiordland Sewer Options Incorporated are still not in favour of the consented Kepler site.

 

On behalf of the group Mr Paton McDonald also requested that a member of Fiordland Sewer Options be appointed to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee.

 

Ruth Shaw

 

Mrs Shaw also reiterated Mr Paton McDonalds comments and again requested representation from Fiordland Sewer Options Incorporated on the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee believing such representation reflects the communities views.

 

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

 

            There were no minutes to confirm as this was the first meeting of the Committee for the 2016/2019 Triennium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reports

 

 

7.1

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee - Terms of Reference

Record No:         R/17/3/6353

 

1       Report by S Ruru, Chief Executive, briefing the Committee on its revised Terms of Reference, which have been approved by Council at its 15 March 2017 meeting, was tabled.

2       Mr Ruru advised that the Council has executed a Deed of Agreement with Fiordland Sewerage Options which requires Council to assess the viability of the Smith Block, as an alternative to the Kepler Block, for wastewater disposal.

3       Mr Ruru added that the decision to enter into the Deed of Agreement changed the scope of the project which was previously being pursued. In light of these changes Council asked officers to report back with suggested changes to the terms of reference for the Te Anau Wastewater Project Discharge Committee. This report was presented to Council at its 15 March 2017 meeting.

4       Furthermore Mr Ruru provided the Committee with the revised terms of reference which were approved by Council. The changes reflect the change in scope and the work that now needs to be completed prior to Council proceeding into the construction phase of the project.  It is appropriate that the Committee consider how it wishes to work and whether it has any specific information requirements to enable it to meet the terms of reference that have now been approved by Council.

Mr Youldon questioned some wording within the report siting that he believed there to be a negative tone however others of the Committee believe that all parties are working together  for the wider community  with the intent of making the best decision.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Mayor Tong, seconded Member Youldon 

That the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee - Terms of Reference” dated 29 March 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Consider how it wishes to operate to ensure that it fulfils the terms of reference that have been set by Council and provides direction to staff on any specific requirements it has to enable it to perform its functions more effectively.

 

 

7.2

Updated Management Report to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

Record No:         R/17/4/7600

 

Report by I Evans, Strategic Manager Water and Waste, providing an update to Committee members on the progress of works being undertaken within the Te Anau and Manapouri areas that are not necessarily related to the larger discharge consent project, was tabled.

2       Mr Evans advised the status report on ongoing work is up to date as of the week commencing 3 April 2017 cover the following;

3      

·      Discharge Consent Application

·      Designation 80 Process

·      Short Term Discharge Consent Application

·      35 Year Discharge to Air Consent Application (for oxidation ponds)

·      Pond Desludging

·      Inlet Screen Upgrade

·      Caswell Road Stormwater Upgrade

·      Upukerora Flood Defence Work

·      Contact Tanks at Te Anau and Manapouri Water Treatment Plants

·      Finance and Risk

·     Recent Odour Issues

            Odour issues were initially identified on-site on Tuesday, 21 February 2017.  Council responded to this issue by its incumbent Water and Waste Contractor, Downer NZ, monitoring  This testing confirmed the pond’s overall primary oxidation pond performance was declining as average results were stable between the following counts as outlined below:

                     DO 1.0-2.0 g/m3 (around the inlet) with a pH of 7.4-7.6.

Although primary pond dissolved oxygen levels were lower than what was expected, effluent DO has consistently remained stable between 9.0-10.0 g/m3 during this period of time, as did pH and temperature, which is consistent with what you would expect.  This indicated that treatment was being provided by the system and there was no risk of untreated wastewater being discharged.

A sulphurous odour however was noted at site particularly around the primary oxidation pond, as was a change from a typical clarity of green to a misty brown appearance.  Reports of odour were also received beyond the site boundary. 

It was also during this time that septic tank imports were halted.  Downer operators identified, during its routine inspection, a large fluorescent blue discolouration was present around the primary pond inlet at the times in which they were discharging which it is suspected is a contributory factor.  Odour was noticeable particularly to adjacent neighbours of the pond site when a wind direction was travelling in a direction of North East.

In response to the situation, Council and Downer staff undertook a number of remedial steps to help the pond recover, these being:

·        Daily testing of dissolved oxygen across the pond as an indicator of pond health.

·        Introduction of additional aeration, initially by hiring of pumps which were later supplemented with additional aerators brought in from outside the district.

·        Stabilisation of pH in the pond by the bulk dosing of lime.

·        Dosing of the influent with a nutrient rich food source (trade name Ensol 5000) to promote algal regrowth.

·        Pumping across from ponds 2 and 3 into pond 1 to accelerate algal regrowth.

These measures were introduced in a step by step manner with the impact monitored prior to taking the next step.

By the end of the third week, since odour was first reported, monitoring results indicated that the ponds were improving with a marked improvement noted by the end of the following week.  This is typical with any biological system that it will require a period of time to recover.

As further precaution, Council staff also sought the advice from independent experts who agreed that the step by step approach was appropriate and that effectively staff had followed a logical consistent path that they believed appropriate.

Water and Waste staff have also liaised closely with ES staff including meeting out at Te Anau on 3 March 2017.  ES have indicated that they are satisfied with Council’s response to the issue and acknowledged that a full recovery may take some time and that Council’s response should be consistent with that.

As of 30 March 2017 staff are reporting that the pond system is again performing to the level expected for this type of system.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Member Mouat 

That the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Updated Management Report to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee” dated 11 April 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Excluded

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

Resolution

Moved Member Mowat, seconded Member Youldon 

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

 

C8.1    Draft Report to Council on Next Steps for the Development of the Te Anau Wastewater Project for Comment

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Draft Report to Council on Next Steps for the Development of the Te Anau Wastewater Project for Comment

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

 

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.

 

That the staff be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of the items S Ruru, I Marshall, I Evans, J Labruyere, S Moran. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed, is relevant to those matters because of their knowledge on the issues discussed and meeting procedure.

 

The public were excluded at 11.45pm.

 

Resolutions in relation to the confidential items are recorded in the confidential section of these minutes and are not publicly available unless released here.

 

 

The meeting concluded at 1.05pm                CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee HELD ON 21 APRIL 2017.

 

DATE:...................................................................

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

 

 


Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

11 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Development of Selection Criteria for Suitable Land

Record No:         R/17/8/17470

Author:                 Ian Evans, Strategic Manager Water and Waste

Approved by:       Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1          To seek approval of the criteria developed to identify possible alternative disposal sites.

Background

2       At its meeting of 17 May 2017, Council asked officers to proceed with the development of a business case for the Kepler option. This work is underway and will be reported back to this Committee and Council at a later date.  

3       Council also asked that work be progressed to develop a process via which potential alternative sites could be identified and selection criteria that could be used to assess the suitability of potential alternative land discharge sites. This report outlines proposed criteria.

 

Selection Criteria

4          If Council were of a mind to consider pursuing an alternative option(s) then it should only do so if it can be reasonably satisfied that the alternative would meet the following criteria:

·                Likely to be a viable disposal option for at least 35 years with a good prospect of being able to obtain a renewed consent for a similar term beyond the initial term.

·                Likely to be technically and environmentally feasible (ie, has outcomes which are similar to or better than the Kepler).

·                Likely to deliver significant economic and financial benefits, relative to the Kepler option, given additional costs and risks associated with pursuing an alternative.

·                Likely to be culturally acceptable.

·                There is sufficient land of available to provide future expansion of the community.

5          Consideration of an alternative would also be subject to Council being able to secure a further consent for the current Upukerora Discharge and an extension to the lapse date for the Kepler consent.

6          Land that Council acquires for a wastewater treatment and disposal system is subject to the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.  Under the Public Works Act, Council can either acquire land on a ‘willing seller/willing buyer’ basis or using the compulsory acquisition provisions.  Given that Council has already purchased land for the purposed of irrigation of treated wastewater (Kepler) it is unlikely that compulsory acquisition under the Public Works Act would successful.

7          Given that the Council already owns suitable land and has a consent for the Kepler scheme, officers are of the view that it would be difficult for the Council to show that it is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary for it to acquire an alternative piece of land using the compulsory acquisition process.  This combined with the protracted timeframes that can become involved with following the compulsory acquisition process officers are of the view that Council should only consider pursuing an option where there is a ‘willing buyer/seller’ scenario. 

8          When looking at the suitability of any land for discharge of treated wastewater consideration is generally given to the following factors:

(a)     Land availability - there must be sufficient land area available to cater for the long term needs of the activity.

(b)     Soil type - for the purposes of discharge of wastewater these musty be free draining so that ponding is avoided.

(c)     Topography - for the purposes of irrigation the land should be as flat as possible ideally with no slopes being steeper than 5 degrees, and also not allow overland flow across the boundary of the property.

(d)     Location - ideally the land should be suitably distant from sensitive receptors such as residential dwellings.

(e)     District/Regional Plan Zoning - available land should be in a suitably zoned location to allow the activity to be undertaken.

9          The criteria range presented has been developed by officers and external experts with experience in site selection. The criteria are presented in the attachment and take into account the factors mentioned above and quantifies what Council believes to be reasonable separation distances from receptors and ground and surface water.

10        At its meeting on 17 May Council resolved to proceed with development of the business case for the Kepler scheme but that consideration is also given to the selection of criteria Council might consider when looking for any potential suitable alternative sites. It was further resolved to report back through the Committee once selection criteria have been drafted.

Key assumptions

11        When developing the criteria certain key assumptions were modelled around the current Kepler site as detailed in the following paragraphs. This will allow for a more direct comparison on overall suitability.

12        Maximum of 250 hectares available for slow rate irrigation is based on the area of land suitable for irrigation at Kepler as this provides sufficient room for long term expansion.

13        Distance of 18 km from Te Anau is based on the distance from Te Anau to Kepler.

14        Distance of 1 km from nearest residential dwelling is based on the distance to the closest residential property at Kepler.

15        Information on soil suitability and depth to groundwater provided by experts.

16        Land required for rapid infiltration is based on Wanaka and allowing for suitable separation from sensitive receptors.

17        Distance from Te Anau for rapid infiltration is based around the need for a significant upgrade required at Te Anau site therefore a discharge site as close as possible to the upgraded treatment plant is preferable to keep costs down.

Next steps

18        Committee approves selection criteria and recommends that they be advertised locally to determine what level of interest comes forward on a ‘willing seller’ basis for an appropriate area of suitable land to Council.

19        Advertise in local media for a two month period.

20        Concurrent advertisement on Council website and social media and hard copies available at the Te Anau Area office.

21        Evaluation of expressions of interest against these criteria by Council staff.

22        Initial site visits to determine suitability.

23        Narrow down expressions of interest to preferably one alternative.

24        Enter into negotiations with landowner.

 

Recommendation

That the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee:

a)      Receives the report titled “Development of Selection Criteria for Suitable Land” dated 7 August 2017.

b)      Determines that this decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)      Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)      Approves the draft set of selection criteria for land use for the purposes of disposal of treated wastewater.

 

e)      Approves the next steps proposed for advertising the selection criteria.

 

f)       Requests feedback on the selection process following closure of the process.

 

Attachments

a         Selection Criteria    

 


Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

11 August 2017

 


 


Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

11 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Updated Management Report to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

Record No:         R/17/8/17445

Author:                 Ian Evans, Strategic Manager Water and Waste

Approved by:       Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1       The purpose of this report is to keep Committee members updated on the progress of works being undertaken within the Te Anau and Manapouri areas that are not necessarily related to the larger discharge consent project. 

2       The report will be updated and presented at all upcoming Committee meetings.  This information is up to date as of the week commencing 31 July 2017. Issues or projects reported as complete in previous reports have now been removed if there is nothing further to update the Committee on.

Status Report on Ongoing Work

3       Discharge Consent Application

·                  Consent was granted 15 January 2015.

·                  Three appeals were subsequently lodged with the Environment Court (EC).

·                  Both Council and appellants agreed to participate in court appointed mediation.

·                  Response to EC was lodged by Environment Southland (ES) on 29 May 2015 indicating the position of all parties to the appeal.

·                  Further hold until 18 December, with the expectation this will be extended pending the outcome of the peer review.

·                  Council’s legal advisors reviewed the Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) report and provided legal advice on implications of the peer review outcomes.  They also prepared a response to the EC.

·                  Court appointed mediation occurred on 20 and 21 June 2016.  An update of the outcome of the mediation process is included in an additional report on the agenda for 6 July meeting.

·                  Appeal settled December 2016 with execution of Deed of Agreement.

·                  Business case in support of consented proposal is being progressed in parallel with the development of criteria to be considered if alternative discharge locations are identified.

4       Caswell Road Stormwater Upgrade

·                  This project is in no way connected to the sewerage works, it is purely a stormwater upgrade.

·                  Works are all but complete except for the installation of the final sump and reinstatement of the works.

·                  The excess gravel that is not required by Fiordland College will be stockpiled at the ponds for use in future works. 

·                  It is expected that all works will be complete and the Contractor disestablished within a fortnight (weather dependent).

·                  If ground conditions are unsuitable, final grass sowing could take place in the spring.

·                  No further progress on this at present.

5       Upukerora Flood Defence Work

·                  ES is proposing flood defence work both upstream and downstream of the Upukerora Bridge.

·                  ES claims that work is necessary to protect both the bridge and Council’s oxidation ponds should the river deviate from its current course.

·                  ES indicates that any significant deviation could cause oxidation ponds to be inundated in the event of a significant flood.

·                  Any flood event will also increase the risk of the Upukerora Road downstream of the ponds being washed out.

·                  Risk of inundation also arises from not managing gravel levels in the river bed.

·                  Currently there is little demand for gravel and as a consequence, levels have increased over those previously measured.

·                  Meeting on 26 May 2015 discussed proposed works.

·                  As an outcome of the meeting, ES will investigate feasibility and costs of a proposed alternative. 

·                  The alternative proposal has been assessed and a draft with costs provided to Council on 24 July 2015. 

·                  Meeting with senior Council and ES staff agreed to delay the decision until the outcome of the peer review is known and understood as this may have implications for the degree of protection work required.

·                  Stakeholder meeting held at ES in December 2016 where expert parties for ES and the River Committee agreed to review proposed options and confirm viability.

·                  A further meeting of stakeholders was held on 19 May 2017. The main outcome of the meeting were that engineering consultants engaged by Environment Southland and the River Liaison Committee were in agreement on the range of issues and effectiveness of potential solutions, both for further work upstream and downstream of the state highway bridge. It was also agreed that an active gravel management programme was also needed downstream of the bridge to ensure the long term success of the flood defence work.

6       Contact Tanks at Te Anau and Manapouri Water Treatment Plants

·                  Full assessment of the condition and serviceability of the contact tanks at both
Te Anau and Manapouri water treatment plants will be undertaken in the upcoming financial year.

·                  Design work to be undertaken in 2017/18 financial year.

7       Finance and Risk

·                  Financial estimates and risk registers have been developed and will be presented to the Committee at future meetings once they have been aligned to Council’s Risk Management Policy.

·                  These issues will form part of the business case approach that Council are using to progress the project.

8       Recent Odour Issues

·                  Odour issues were initially identified on-site on Tuesday, 21 February 2017.  Council responded to this issue by its incumbent Water and Waste Contractor, Downer NZ, monitoring  This testing confirmed the pond’s overall primary oxidation pond performance was declining as average results were stable between the following counts as outlined below:

                     DO 1.0-2.0 g/m3 (around the inlet) with a pH of 7.4-7.6.

9       Although primary pond dissolved oxygen levels were lower than what was expected, effluent DO has consistently remained stable between 9.0-10.0 g/m3 during this period of time, as did pH and temperature, which is consistent with what you would expect.  This indicated that treatment was being provided by the system and there was no risk of untreated wastewater being discharged.

10     A sulphurous odour however was noted at site particularly around the primary oxidation pond, as was a change from a typical clarity of green to a misty brown appearance. 
Reports of odour were also received beyond the site boundary. 

11     It was also during this time that septic tank imports were halted.  Downer operators identified, during its routine inspection, a large fluorescent blue discolouration was present around the primary pond inlet at the times in which they were discharging which it is suspected is a contributory factor.  Odour was noticeable particularly to adjacent neighbours of the pond site when a wind direction was travelling in a direction of North East.

12     In response to the situation, Council and Downer staff undertook a number of remedial steps to help the pond recover, these being:

·                  Daily testing of dissolved oxygen across the pond as an indicator of pond health.

·                  Introduction of additional aeration, initially by hiring of pumps which were later supplemented with additional aerators brought in from outside the district.

·                  Stabilisation of pH in the pond by the bulk dosing of lime.

·                  Dosing of the influent with a nutrient rich food source (trade name Ensol 5000) to promote algal regrowth.

·                  Pumping across from ponds 2 and 3 into pond 1 to accelerate algal regrowth.

13     These measures were introduced in a step by step manner with the impact monitored prior to taking the next step.

14     By the end of the third week, since odour was first reported, monitoring results indicated that the ponds were improving with a marked improvement noted by the end of the following week.  This is typical with any biological system that it will require a period of time to recover.

15     As further precaution, Council staff also sought the advice from independent experts who agreed that the step by step approach was appropriate and that effectively staff had followed a logical consistent path that they believed appropriate.


 

16     Water and Waste staff have also liaised closely with ES staff including meeting out at
Te Anau on 3 March 2017.  ES have indicated that they are satisfied with Council’s response to the issue and acknowledged that a full recovery may take some time and that Council’s response should be consistent with that.

17     As of 30 March 2017 staff are reporting that the pond system is again performing to the level expected for this type of system.

18     As of July 2017 there has been no further reported issues in relation to this event. Council are waiting further feedback from Environment Southland as to what if any further action might be required.

Development of Business Case

19        Regardless of which option Council decides to pursue a Detailed Business Case will need to be developed.  The business case would:

·          Outline the strategic goals and overall intent of the proposal

·          Outline the preferred option and provide an analysis of the costs, benefits and risks of the short-listed options

·          Detail a suggested approach to procurement and seek approval to proceed to the next stage of development

·          Detail the proposed funding arrangements

·          Outline the proposed management arrangements for delivery of the project

·          Identify the range of stakeholders who need to be kept informed during the implementation of the project.

 

20        The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee has a role to assist with the development of the business case.  The business case, the project budgets and decisions on how the project are to proceed are, however, ultimately decisions for the Council to make.

21        Elements of the business case are currently being drafted and will be presented to the Committee for approval in due course.

22        The approach to using a business case has originated from Treasury and been adopted by a number of organisations to enable justification of large scale infrastructure projects.  This is a relatively new approach to both staff and elected members.  As such it is felt there is merit in holding a workshop for members of the Committee to help develop the understanding around the business case approach and the key elements of what should be included in a business case.

 

Recommendation

That the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Updated Management Report to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee” dated 7 August 2017.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.