Agenda of Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

sdclogo

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Minutes of a meeting of Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee held in the Distinction Te Anau Hotel & Villas, 64 Lakefront Drive, Te Anau, on Monday, 4 April 2016 at 10am.

present

Chairperson	Mayor Gary Tong
Deputy Chairperson	Lyall Bailey
Members	Rachel Cockburn
	Mark Deaker
	Shirley Mouat
	Don Mowat
	Allan Youldon
Councillor	Ebel Kremer

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive	Steve Ruru
General Manager Services and Assets	Ian Marshall
Governance Team Leader	Chris Dolan
Committee Advisor	Jenny Labruyère

PUBLIC GALLERY

G Bell, P Hampton, P Hicks, T Loose,J Murrell, A Paton McDonald, A Pearce, L Shaw,

R Shaw, P Smith, E Andrews, S Moran

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

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

4 Public Forum

P Smith

Mr Smith addressed the Committee and referred to his experiences of the process leading up to a consent application that he was involved in. Mr Smith advised what he learnt from the process was that good governance and good legislation provide the framework for the community to seek and find their own solutions. Mr Smith considered that it is a rather blunt instrument approach when a Commissioner or Environment Court judge imposes a decision on a community that leaves a section of that same community feeling disaffected especially when there has been limited community impact into the process. Mr Smith asked that this Committee give real consideration to using a process that arrives at a process acceptable to the majority of the community for the disposal of Te Anau’s wastewater.

A Paton-McDonald

Mr Paton-McDonald made a written presentation to the Committee where he expressed concern that he thought that the Council was genuinely looking at options other than to the discharge of sewer wastewater at the Kepler and felt at this stage no further advances have been made since Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) came on board.

He stated further the Fiordland Sewage Options Inc (FSO) group has spent thousands of dollars employing an expert, a wastewater consultant, to look at other options and assist PDP where possible in arriving at a solution. He stated 90% of Peter Riddell’s work has been ignored and the other 10% has been hacked around to falsify the workings and true costings of his options. He also felt that Council has “stalled” proceedings to a point where the Environmental Court is about to call up the case and proceed to mediation of the Appeal against the Kepler scheme.

Mr Paton-McDonald also expressed concern at the three options to vote on, when all three options are totally unacceptable.

Mr Paton-McDonald referred to the $50,000 the Ministry of the Environment has awarded the FSO group to assist the Society in the Court process. He is concerned that Southland District Council is pushing for this consent now before any decision has been made as to what modifications are to take place at Te Anau to “further treat” and handle the sewer wastewater before it is piped to the Kepler.

Mr Paton-MacDonald asked that the Committee pass a resolution and give Ecogent, Peter Riddell’s, Slee and Smith options the full and due consideration they warrant. He stated Ecogent is prepared to design and build their option/scheme and offer it to Council for a “fixed price” as an indication of its confidence in the environmental and cost advantage it offers.

In conclusion he stated the Committee need to modify resolution three to include the Slee property and call for interaction between the steering group and to allow Ecogent to explain the true costs and advantages with their options.

Ruth Shaw

Mrs Shaw referred to the staff report entitled “Next Steps” that is included on the Agenda for today’s Committee meeting. Issues Mrs Shaw highlighted from the report included;

Page 8 last para; request that the Council confirm that FSO’s statement is correct regarding land designation.

Page 13 fully support the advice recommending that the Council should not abandon the current Kepler option until it has a similar level of certainly in relation to any alternative.

Page 14

e) Add the words “defending the appeals lodged if no prior agreement is reached.”

f) Support

g) Support

h) Support in part

Request that the Council sets a termination date for the contract with PDP.

Page 15

· Support in part Option 3, but request that Council puts forward a fourth Option which allows the Council to hold the existing consent while investigating viable alternatives including the hybrid option.

· Taking all the evidence that has been received the Society believe that the Slee Block should still be considered as a possible option and many of the concerns raised could be put aside.

· Smith Block. PDP favours CPI discharge, which will have a higher possibility of being challenged through the resource consent process, rather than sub-surface irrigation. It would be of great benefit to the Councillors and the members of the Wastewater Committee to have the opportunity to speak directly to Peter Riddell, possibly via video conferencing, to clarify the concerns raised regarding sub-surface irrigation.

Page 17

Together with the appellants the Environment Court could be approached after mediation to state that progress is being made by all parties and therefore a later date for the Environment Court hearing would be appreciated.

It is understood that the Court is concerned with the delays so far, but if the Court can see positive progress is being made it could support this approach.

Pattle Dalemore Partners Report;

2.1 Kepler relocation options; have had legal advice that the proposed changes to Kepler may require additional consents, and that Council should take advice before assuming that no additional consents would be required. As the Council did not appeal the conditions of the existing consent any changes must be within the boundaries set out in those conditions.

2.3.5 If a Heads of Agreement can be reached with Mr Smith that allows the Council to either lease the block or buy only the area of land required, this could be a saving. If the Membrane Filtration (MF) option is adopted then 196 ha will not be required, only the 110 ha as outlined by PDP with 58 ha being utilised for wastewater disposal.

4d) Do not take anything away from all the work PDP has done to date but we cannot agree with their conclusions on sub-surface irrigation given the information available. Have full confidence that the Council and Wastewater Committee will go through the figures and detailed analysis of Peter Riddell’s proposal. His reputation is at stake so believe his work to be thorough and proven.

Costs Estimates

· Smith (or south) Block sub-total C Sale of North Block $1,875,000.00. The retention of the south block must be for the disposal of wastewater from Manapouri. Residents have already made it clear that they do not want their sewerage piped to the south block, therefore strong objections would be made against any resource consent application. We are looking into other options which are more community based.

· We firmly believe that common ground can be found and we can work in co-operation with each other.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved Councillor Bailey, seconded Councillor Kremer

That the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee confirms the minutes of the meeting, held on 16 December 2015.

Reports

7.1	Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project - Next Steps Record No: R/16/3/4295
	Report by Mr I Evans (Strategic Manager, Water & Waste), outlining suggested next steps to be taken to advance the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project given the findings contained in the draft PDP peer review and the need for Council to determine whether it wishes to defend the appeal to the Environment Court in regard to the Kepler option. 2 Mr Evans advised the Committee was briefed on the findings in the draft PDP report at a two day Workshop held on 9 and 10 February 2016 and was also provided with a range of additional information to assist with narrowing down the range of future investigation work. 3 Mr Evans added the report makes recommendations around the potential alternatives. The assessments included in this report also need to be considered alongside legal and planning advice. This advice recommends that the Council should not abandon the current Kepler option until it has a similar level of certainty in relation to any alternative option that it may wish to consider. 4 Mr Evans added further that given the need for the Council to indicate to the Environment Court by 27 May whether it wishes to continue with the consented option it is important that the Committee make a recommendation on this issue prior to it being formally considered by the Council at its meeting on 27 April. The recommended Hybrid option allows for this to happen while the Committee awaits the development of a proposed investigation programme for the Smith block option and pursues negotiation of a suitable land access agreement with Mr Smith. 1 Mr Evans stated that at the workshop on 9 and 10 February 2016 the Committee were briefed on a number of LGA decision-making, legal, planning and financial matters that are relevant to the decisions that the Committee needs to make. The Committee also undertook site visits to develop a better understanding of the two reasonably practicable alternatives identified by PDP. 2 Mr Evans added on the basis of technical legal and planning advice sought for the workshop, three options for progressing the issue were discussed these being: · Carry on with the current consented option · Abandon the granted consent and start the process again · Hybrid option of carrying on with the appeal while investigating any viable alternative. 3 Mr Evans advised that one of the options identified by PDP (the Slee option) is considered as being a high risk option. At this stage it is therefore recommended that no further work be undertaken in relation to this block of land. PDP do, however, propose that should the Committee be of the view that further investigations should be undertaken into an alternative option then those investigations should be undertaken in relation to the Smith block. 4 The Committee was advised a modified Kepler option is also being considered following a request by a number of Committee members following the workshop. There will potentially be significant advantages associated with this option if it could be undertaken in accordance with the conditions in the current consent. Proposals for a modified Kepler option are provided for information at this stage and will be considered further through the mediation process as the appeal to the current consented option is progressed. 5 In summarising the recommendations of the draft report PDP have highlighted that the Kepler proposal is a viable option with no fundamental flaws. They do, however, highlight an option they believe to be worthy of further investigation, that being what they retitled the Smith Membrane Filtration option. Essentially, this involves enhanced treatment at the oxidation pond and irrigation by centre pivots at the Smith property. 6 Mr Evans stated PDP will be available at the meeting to highlight both the advantages and disadvantages of this option as an alternative. 7 Mr Evans added that it is proposed that PDP be asked to develop a detailed investigation programme including timelines and costings which will be considered by the Committee at a future meeting and which will be presented to Council when requesting further unbudgeted expenditure. 8 The Committee was advised that before committing to any significant expenditure on this potential alternative Council will need some surety around access to the land both for investigation work as well as commitments around long term ownership of or access to the property. This is best managed through a Memorandum of Understanding (or similar) negotiated with Mr Smith. It is important that the Council have a level of certainty around its ability to access the property before it makes a significant investment in further investigations. 9 In regard to legal and statutory requirements it was noted that all decisions of the Committee are subject to the decision-making provisions detailed in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. In broad terms these provisions require that the Committee assess the advantages and disadvantages of each reasonably practicable option. The extent of consideration given should have regard to the level of significance of the proposed decision. 10 In relation to the Resource Management Act 1991 the Committee noted that the Kepler Block disposal site has been granted all necessary resource consents, and designated for treated wastewater disposal by a panel of independent Commissioners. These consents (but not the designation) are subject to an appeal to the Environment Court. To confirm the consents, an agreement needs to be reached with the Appellants, or failing agreement, the Court needs to confirm the grant of consent following a hearing. 11 Mr Evans stated that it is noted that it will not be possible, by 27 May 2016, for the Council to have investigated any alternative disposal scheme in detail let alone seek consent for such an alternative. Given the advice received from counsel it is therefore recommended that the Council indicate to the Environment Court that it wishes to pursue the Kepler consents. 12 Mr Evans commented the steps to do so can commence with Court assisted mediation. During this process the alternative Kepler options identified in the PDP report can be discussed with the appellants. If an agreement cannot be reached, evidence will then need to be finalised and a hearing held. Realistically to get through the Environment Court process is expected to take a year. 13 Mr Evans added that if the consents are confirmed by the Court, this does not commit the Council to constructing the Kepler Scheme. Rather it gives Council the right to do so which does not have to be exercised. Alternatives can continue to be considered if that is the wish of the Council. 14 When considering alternative options it is important to remember that they must demonstrate the same level of minimal environmental effect as demonstrated through the consent for the Kepler proposal. Counsel has also advised that any alternative consent application carries the same level of risk of being appealed. 15 In regard to community views as part of the resource consent process, FSO and others have raised a number of environmental concerns about the Kepler proposal. It is reasonable for the Council to assume that the environmental issues will be appropriately assessed by the Environment Court. Given that the wastewater activity is treated as a district wide activity, and funded accordingly, it is appropriate that the Council also consider the views of other wastewater users and district wide ratepayers in general as they are also required to fund the costs and risks associated with the options chosen by the Council. 16 In referring to costs and funding it was pointed out that the Committee has no authority to expend funds. Any request to do so will therefore need to be recommended to Council for approval. 17 The Committee was informed to date costs associated with the review stand at $236K, which do not include the additional $12K as indicated in PDPs’ communication of 4 March 2016, or any future work they may undertake. As this is essentially unbudgeted expenditure it will require approval by Council, in this case retrospectively given that the expenditure has already been incurred. 18 In regard to the options considered Mr Evans advised there are three options identified. These are to continue with the current consented option at the Kepler (Option 1), to abandon the Kepler option and pursue an alternative (Option 2) or a Hybrid option (Option 3). 19 Under Option 1 the Council would defend the appeal against the Kepler consented option through the Environment Court process and then make a decision on how it moved forward following receipt of a Court decision. It would not investigate any alternative options in the interim. 20 Under Option 2 the Council would abandon the current Kepler consent process and pursue an alternative site. 21 Under Option 3 the Council would continue to pursue the Kepler consent while undertaking investigations into a possible alternative site. The costs associated with the alternative investigations would need to be treated as an operational expense and funded accordingly. 22 At this point an analysis of advantages and disadvantages on the three options were outlined. 23 In regard to the assessment of significance the Committee was advised that any decision to abandon the current Kepler consented option would require the write off of the significant expenditure incurred by Council to date. This includes some $1.3 million of expenditure currently held on the balance sheet for investigations since 2013. This expenditure would need to be written off and funded. In addition the Council would effectively be writing off the investment in the work completed prior to 2010 that have previously been funded. The quantum of this write off would exceed the financial threshold for unbudgeted expenditure in the Significance and Engagement Policy. 24 Mr Evans added a decision to continue with the current consented option (Option 1) would be consistent with the direction that the Council has been pursuing for a number of years and within the Council’s adopted 2015 Long Term Plan. Hence, officers are of the view that a decision to adopt this option would not be significant. 25 The hybrid option (Option 3) would represent a continuation of the current option while also developing an understanding of the costs associated with investigating the Smith option alternative. 26 Mr Evans added if the investigation costs of exploring the Smith block alternative are expected to exceed $500,000 then this would breach the unbudgeted expenditure threshold in the Significance and Engagement Policy. As such a decision to commit to such expenditure, particularly while continuing with the Kepler option would likely constitute a significant decision. 27 The Committee noted that staff suggested Option 3 as the recommended option. It enables the Council to continue with pursuing consent for the Kepler option while receiving further information on a possible investigation programme for the Smith option. At this point a teleconference was held with the consultants Rob Docherty and Dan Garden of Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd. 28 Resolution 29 Moved Councillor Kremer, seconded Member Deaker That Mr Docherty and Mr Garden of Pattle Delamore Partners Limited (PDP), be granted speaking rights. At this point the consultants addressed the Committee on their report headed” Review of Te Anau Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Options Addendum 1: Additional Options” In summarising the report the consultants found that; The Kepler Relocated Option mitigates key concerns which have been raised with the consented Kepler Scheme, minimising the visual impact on the airport and mitigating public health concerns with spray drift. Risk of bird strike is also reduced. On the basis of reducing the size of the pipeline from 300mm to 250mm, and adding solid set sprinklers and storage, the cost of this option is similar to previous cost estimates for the Kepler Option. No changes will be required to the existing consent. The overall risk with this option are considered to be low. The Kepler Relocated MF Option using membrane filtration (MF) disinfection and irrigation as per the Kepler Relocated Option produces very good quality effluent, but it is considered to be cost prohibitive. The Smith MF Option using MF disinfection and centre pivot irrigation at Smiths is likely to satisfy Mr Smith’s concerns regarding impacts to neighbouring properties. Given the significantly shorter length of pipeline to this site (6.0 km versus 18.3 km to Kepler), with MF at the WWTP the odour treatment facility (trickling filter and biofilter) will not be needed at Smiths although a chemical system for contingency odour treatment has been assumed. Opposition from neighbours and the wider public could make this option difficult to consent, but opposition is unlikely to be technically based. This option is a viable long-term treatment and disposal option although detailed site investigations will need to confirm this. A consent term of at least 25 years is likely to be obtainable. The 25-year NPV cost estimate for this option is around $1.5M less than for the Kepler Relocated Option. The Smith IDEAL SDI Option using subsurface drip irrigation at Smiths is a high cost option which is considered to be cost prohibitive. The Wright MF Dual Discharge Option using centre pivot irrigation and rapid infiltration does not appear to be viable as the landowner is not interested in selling or long-term leasing his land to SDC. While the Wright MF RI Option is the lowest cost option, it has a high risk that a long-term consent will not be obtained due to the proximity to the Waiau River and the relatively high nitrogen load discharged to the River. The Slee IDEAL SDI Option has been revisited on the basis of an expanded SDI area (30 ha) and SDC purchase of the Slee farm in order to mitigate adverse effects on the foreshore lakes area. The cost implications of this means that there is no cost advantage compared with other options. The report concluded that; The Kepler Relocated Option is a favourable option which should be considered by the Committee as a basis for discussions and mediation with opponents of the Kepler Scheme; The most favourable alternative option taking risk factors into account is the Smith Membrane Filtration Option. At this point the consultant recommended the following; The Committee discuss and considers the advantages and disadvantages of the Kepler Relocated Option; If the Committee considers it is still worthwhile investigating an alternative option then the Smith MF Option is recommended as the most favourable alternative option. Throughout the consideration of the report the Committee questioned the consultants on many issues outlined in the report including the consultation and recommendations. A lengthy discussion took place on where to from here including further on-site visits, defence of the current appeal, enter into discussion with FSO to explore areas of common interest in regard to the Kepler resource consent prior to a formal Environment Court mediation process.

	Resolution Moved Councillor Kremer, seconded Member Youldon That the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee: a) Receives the report titled “Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project - Next Steps” dated 30 March 2016. 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) Recommends to Council retrospective approval of $235,907.12 of unbudgeted expenditure incurred as a result of undertaking the peer review. e) Recommends to Council that it indicates to the Environment Court that it wishes to pursue the Kepler resource consent and therefore will be defending the appeals lodged if no prior agreement is reached. f) Requests the Chief Executive to consult with Pattle Delamore Partners to develop a proposed itinerary and costs so as the Committee can inspect similar type schemes, and report back to the Committee for its consideration. g) Recommends to Council that it enters into discussions with Fiordland Sewerage Options and other appellants to the Kepler resource consent to explore the areas of common interest prior to a formal Environment Court mediation process. h) Recommends that Council approves unbudgeted expenditure of up to $50,000 to enable the Committee to carry-out further investigations and discussion as outlined above. i) Recommends that Council ask the Committee to report back to Council with progress report on the outcomes of its work and a suggested way forward by the Council meeting scheduled for 20 July 2016.

7.2

Updated Management Report to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

Record No: R/16/3/4321

Report by Mr I Evans (Strategic Manager, Water & Waste), updating the Management Report to Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee, was tabled.

Mr Youldon raised the issue relating to 35 Year Discharge to Air Consent Application for the oxidation ponds in regard to increasing the storage at the oxidation ponds, and questioned the response he received on this issue from PDP. It was agreed that staff respond to Mr Youldon’s concerns.

Resolution

Moved Councillor Bailey, seconded Councillor Kremer

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 28 March 2016.

The meeting concluded at 1.35pm. CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee HELD ON 4 APRIL 2016.

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

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

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

6 July 2016

sdclogo

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project - Next Steps

Record No: R/16/6/9681

Author: Ian Evans, Strategic Manager Water and Waste

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To enable the Committee to make a recommendation to Council on the next steps to be taken to advance the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project given the findings contained in the draft PDP peer review, further correspondence from Peter Riddell to Fiordland Sewage Options (FSO) and the subsequent PDP response, as well as the Committee visit to Wanaka and the outcome of the Environment Court mediation process.

Executive Summary

2 Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) were engaged to undertake a peer review of the consented Kepler option for the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project. The Committee has received information on the findings of the review through the issue of their draft report in December 2015, a two day Workshop held on 9 and 10 February, and an addendum to the original report released in March 2016.

3 At their meeting of 4 April 2016, the Committee agreed that Council should continue to defend the appeal on the Kepler option while also considering what, if any, further investigation work is needed on the alternative options that the Committee is considering.

4 At its meeting on 27 April 2016, Council approved the unbudgeted expenditure associated with undertaking the peer review to date as well as approving a further sum of $50K for the Committee to undertake further investigation work and/or site visits to assist with its decision-making process. It also agreed to defend the appeal against the Kepler consent.

5 This report provides feedback on the visit to the Project Pure treatment facility at Wanaka as well as providing a suggestion for additional sites that the Committee may wish to visit in order to help make a decision on the way forward. The Committee is asked to provide guidance on whether it wishes to undertake such visits or consider an alternative strategy to narrow down the list of alternatives it believes worthy of further investigation. Any decision made by the Committee will be forwarded to Council for consideration.

6 The report also notes that, following a report back to the Environment Court indicating that all parties agreed to continue the appeal process, a Court assisted mediation process occurred on 20 and 21 June 2016.

7 A key outcome of the mediation is that Council has undertaken to carry out further investigation work into the relative merits or otherwise of sub-surface drip irrigation as a potential disposal option, as compared with centre pivot irrigation, for treated wastewater irrespective of the site chosen. The Committee will be aware that currently the Kepler option and PDP’s highest ranked alternative option both involve disposal by spray irrigation via centre pivots. As a consequence any advice on alternatives needs to be considered carefully not only by expert witnesses for Council but also those representing the appellants.

8 The proposed timeline for receipt of this report is by mid-late September before a reconvened mediation date on 7 October.

9 As a consequence it is recommended that any additional site visits are delayed until after expert witnesses report back through the Court on the outcome of these investigations as this could have a direct influence over which sites the Committee may consider worthy of further visits.

Recommendation

That the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project - Next Steps” dated 28 June 2016.

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) Determines that it does not wish to make a decision as to its preferred option until the information, being developed as part of the Environment Court assisted mediation, on sub-surface as compared to centre pivot irrigation, is available.

e) Recommends to Council any further site visits it wishes to undertake to assist in considering alternative treatment and disposal options but that any such visits are delayed pending production of the expert conferencing report on suitability of sub surface irrigation as an alternative means of disposal.

f) Asks officers to report to Council on 20 July with an update on the position that the Committee has reached in its deliberations.

Content

Background

10 Subject to finalising its report, Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) has largely completed its peer review of the current consented option for the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project. The peer review is intended to provide an independent assessment of the consented option relative to any other reasonably practicable alternatives.

11 The consented option involves removing the current discharge from the Upukerora River and pumping, via a newly constructed pipeline, the treated wastewater to a land treatment/disposal site north of Te Anau Airport Manapouri. Consent for this proposal was granted by independent commissioners in January 2015 and subsequently appealed.

12 PDP has presented its draft report, and an addendum to that report which confirms that the current consented option is viable and does not identify any ‘fatal flaws’. This assessment is consistent with the Commissioners’ decision that the effects of the discharge on the receiving environment would be less than minor.

13 The draft report also identifies a number of alternatives, which PDP note may warrant further investigation as an alternative solution to the consented proposal. It is noted, however, that the initial findings were based on a ‘desktop study’ and that at some point consideration of any alternative would require significant physical investigation work and would have a different risk profile to that associated with the Kepler option.

14 Further evidence provided subsequent to the initial report has highlighted significant risk associated with a number of these potential alternatives, especially around those involving disposal of treated wastewater to the Slee block.

15 Through the peer review process, PDP have identified what it believes is its favoured alternative to the consented Kepler scheme. This alternative involves improved treatment at the oxidation pond site by membrane filtration followed by land disposal via spray irrigation to land at the Smith block on Sinclair Road some 6 km north of the oxidation pond site.

16 The Committee will eventually need to formally consider the findings from the PDP peer review and then make a number of decisions before making a recommendation to the Council as to which direction it should pursue. In the interim the Committee have also recommended that Council should proceed to defend the appeal against the Kepler consent. Following a final report back to the Environment Court an initial mediation was held over two days on 20 and 21 June 2016.

17 At its meeting of 27 April 2016, Council approved the un-budgeted expenditure incurred as a result of undertaking the peer review. At the same meeting, Council also approved further expenditure of upto $50K for the Committee to undertake site visits and further investigations to help come to a view on its recommended pathway forward. The $50K budget would also cover any costs associated with the development of a long term detailed investigation programme including timeline and overall costs. The first stage of this additional work included the visit to the Project Pure wastewater treatment facility at Wanaka, which is briefly summarised in the following section of this report.

Wanaka Wastewater Treatment Plant - Project Pure

18 Committee members visited the Project Pure facility at Wanaka on 17 May 2016.
The purpose of the visit was to provide Committee members with more information on an alternative treatment and disposal option and to also learn about the decision-making processes that have been used in other locations.

19 The visit was hosted by Ulrich Glasner, Chief Engineer at Queenstown Lakes District Council, who was also able to give an insight into some of the issues experienced during the development and construction of the Maketu Wastewater Treatment Plant from a previous role at Western Bay of Plenty District Council. Committee members and Council staff were given a tour of the facilities followed by a presentation on a number of issues that arose and were dealt with during the development and consenting stages of both the Wanaka and Maketu treatment and disposal systems.

20 Construction of the Wanaka plant was via a design/build/operate contract to meet performance standards for the effluent of <30mg/l BOD, <30mg/l Suspended Solids and <10mg/l Total Nitrogen. Following a robust evaluation process United Group were selected as the successful tender.

21 The Project Pure treatment plant was tendered in 2007 as part of the wider upgrade of the Wanaka Wastewater system with three main contracts forming the basis of the upgrades.

Contract

07/009 Wastewater Treatment Plant $9552K

07/010 Reticulation $5764K

07/011 Disposal Area $510K.

The annual operating costs are additional to the above capital costs and would need to make an allowance for labour, electricity, sludge disposal, debt servicing and depreciation.

22 The system is designed to have sufficient capacity to treat the wastewater volume and load estimated to be produced by the Wanaka and Albert Town communities by 2021.
Key design parameters are:

· Maximum wastewater flow of 12,860 m³ per day.

· Maximum instantaneous wastewater flow of 232 l/s.

· Maximum daily loading of 2,170 kg BOD per day.

23 The land disposal scheme was designed and constructed under a separate contract.
The rapid infiltration system was originally designed to discharge up to 5,000 m³ per day into a subsurface pipe network covering three hectares, with an ultimate design expansion to12,560 m³/d. The subsoil rapid infiltration system was chosen as the preferred disposal route as dispersal pipes could be located below the lower permeability topsoil within the high permeability sandy gravel subsoil as a rapid infiltration system requiring much less area than would be required for surface irrigation.

24 Groundwater is located 76 metres below the surface of the disposal site so treated wastewater which is discharged into the base of the disposal trenches (ie 2 m underground) will filter through 74 m of silty gravel soils before reaching groundwater. Groundwater flow is to a south easterly direction towards the Clutha River/Mata-au approximately parallel to
State Highway 6 towards Luggate.

25 Given that the discharge is below the pasture root zone there is little uptake of nitrogen from the discharge effluent. In essence, any nitrogen discharged to the field will leach to groundwater, hence the requirement for the advanced SBR plant to limit nitrogen losses by removing at source. This is in comparison to the surface irrigation process where nitrogen uptake will occur during the growing season with losses to groundwater during the rest of the year. Modelling of the rate of flow of treated wastewater down through the soils at a rate of
1.7-2.5 m per day, giving an estimated time of travel of between 30 - 47 days to reach groundwater. Based on this modelling the time of travel to reach groundwater at Te Anau (Slee Block) would be no more than two days due to depth to groundwater being significantly less. This may become a major issue of concern if consent was to be applied for at this location.

Next Steps

26 The visit to Wanaka was an initial visit to give the Committee a greater understanding of other technologies available both for treatment and disposal (as well as understanding any limitations with these technologies) and the decision-making processes used in other locations.

27 Should further visits be required, Council officers along with PDP have identified a number of other sites that could be visited to help the decision-making process. These sites cover the majority of treatment and disposal scenarios that other councils have implemented across the country and that are believed to be appropriate for the scale of the current project.

28 Within close proximity of Taupo are three sites that are similar to the wastewater treatment and disposal options being considered at Te Anau (eg, Kepler/Smith and Slee).
Other similarities include a lake environment and high peak flows over the holiday period. These sites also have similar climate and subsoil conditions (eg, high permeability).
The sites are:

· Taupo - Basic WWTP (primary clarifiers, trickling filters and secondary clarifiers).
treated effluent pipelines to two large scale land treatment systems (cut-and carry pasture). The average daily flow is around 8,000 m³/d (ie, larger than Te Anau).

· Acacia Bay - SBR activated sludge WWTP with RI disposal 300 m from the lakeshore. This WWTP was one of the first SBRs in New Zealand when commissioned. The scheme has recently been re-consented for a 10 year period only, with nitrogen being main area of concern for the Regional Council (even though the WWTP achieves very low N). For the next consent round, the Regional Council has indicated that land treatment needs to be added or the WWTP upgraded further (for future re-consenting TDC is also considering pumping the treated effluent to the Taupo land treatment system). The average daily flow is around 300 m³/d and peak is around 600 m³/d (ie, smaller than Te Anau).

· Kinlock - Very similar to Acacia Bay (SBR and RI close to the lake shore).
Again, through the recent re-consenting process the Regional Council has required improved dispersal of effluent and lower N even though the effects on the lake are quite minor. So despite having an advanced WWTP, the RI system is now being supplemented with 5 ha of subsurface drip irrigation at the Council owned
Golf Course. Kinlock flows are similar to Acacia Bay.

29 In addition, the Maketu Plant is close by and is a potential detour following the Taupo visits. The plant servicing the townships of Maketu and Little Waihi is a small SBR plant similar to the Wanaka plant, but with a sub-surface drip irrigation disposal system. PDP have previously given information relating to some of the issues experienced during the initial commissioning stages, some directly related to the disposal area. These were also expanded on during the Wanaka visit. Some of the issues encountered during the commissioning of the disposal area included blocking drippers, surface ponding due to inadequate depth of burial of pipework and deadspots of grass as a result of chemical dosing installed to prevent blockages.

Further sites in the North Island and specifically referenced (some in detail) through this process include:

· Omaha - Aeration, filtration, disinfection, chemical dosing followed by above ground and sub surface irrigation.

· Tairua/Pauanui - activated sludge, UV disinfection, chemical dosing with sub surface irrigation via rapid infiltration and slow drip irrigation.

· Whangamata - activated sludge, filtration, UV disinfection followed by spray irrigation to forestry.

· Whitianga - activated sludge, filtration, UV disinfection followed by disposal to steam.

30 Other alternative sites worthy of consideration, and closer to the District include:

· Rolleston - activated sludge with UV and centre pivot irrigation.

· Rakaia - biological filtration and centre pivot irrigation.

· Dunedin Airport - membrane treatment and surface water discharge.

· Tiwai Aluminium Smelter - screening/settlement/ continuous chemical dosing and slow rate irrigation.

31 As an alternative, the Committee may wish to endorse the preferred option that PDP have identified through the peer review process, and undertake an initial study to determine whether the scheme would be acceptable to key stakeholders, especially those from surrounding properties. As a reminder this option involves improved treatment at the oxidation ponds with subsequent disposal via spray irrigation to the Smith Block on
Sinclair Road north of Te Anau.

32 In their reports, PDP have also identified a number of other possible options on land around the oxidation ponds (Slee Block) however, they also point out that these options are likely to carry a significantly higher degree of risk and may be unlikely to get a long term consent as a result. The Committee may wish to recommend to Council that one of these options warrants further investigation.

Feedback from Court Assisted Mediation

33 Following agreement that Council should continue with the Kepler appeal process, it was agreed that all parties to the appeal would be prepared to enter into Court assisted mediation. Mediation between parties was held on 20 and 21 June in Invercargill.

34 The main outcome from the mediation process was that Council undertook to carry our further investigations into the feasibility of utilising sub surface drip irrigation as a viable alternative to the proposed centre pivot irrigation.

35 Council appointed experts will develop a brief which will be shared with the appellant expert witnesses with a view to developing a report highlighting advantages and disadvantages of each type of disposal technique. The report will consider the overall viability of each disposal option rather than be specific to individual sites. In essence, if an option proves to be viable at one site then it is in all likelihood viable at any alternative site notwithstanding differences in ground conditions, topography etc.

36 The output from this process will be a report that will be used to assist Council with its decision-making on its preferred way forward in respect of the current appeal. It will also be of relevance to any decision-making on alternative sites.

37 It is anticipated that this report and further mediation will resume on 7 October. With this in mind, it is suggested that the Committee may wish to postpone any further site visits and/or consideration of alternative sites until experts have reported back as there should be a degree of further certainty around alternative disposal options.

38 Correspondence from Peter Riddell and Response from PDP

39 Following the previous meeting a paper drafted by Peter Riddell, on behalf of Fiordland Sewage Options, was forwarded to Council from FSO members. This paper refers to a number of matters and issues relating not only to Kepler but also matters raised within the PDP reports. Given that this is essentially a review of PDP work to date they were given the option of response with both reports to be submitted to the Committee at their next meeting. Both documents are included as attachments to this report (attachments A and B).

40 While Mr Riddell indicates that the Slee Block is still worthy of further consideration the response from PDP tends to disagree with a number of the points raised in his report to FSO. In particular, they raise concerns in relation to the hydraulic relationship between lake levels, groundwater levels and the matter of the significant areas of standing water at the bottom of the Slee property, especially after significant rainfall. Overall, PDP still believe there is a significant degree of risk associated with the development of any alternative on the Slee property. PDP recommend a preferred alternative option of enhanced treatment of the oxidation pond effluent by membrane filtration followed by disposal via spray irrigation at Smith’s block on Sinclair Road north of town.

41 Given the risks identified by PDP and their recommendation of a potential suitable alternative (subject to further work) of enhanced treatment and disposal via spray irrigation at the Smith block, the Committee may wish to consider endorsing this recommendation and request that PDP develop the scope for an investigation programme, including timetable and cost estimates.

42 In summarising the recommendations of their draft and addendum reports, PDP have highlighted that the Kepler proposal is a viable option with no fundamental flaws. It does however, highlight an option they believe to be worthy of further investigation, that being what they retitled the Smith Membrane Filtration option. Essentially, this involves enhanced treatment at the oxidation pond and irrigation by centre pivots at the Smith property.

Issues

43 There is a need for the Committee to make a decision about whether they wish to undertake any further site visits prior to making a decision on a preferred way forward for the overall project.

44 With the Environment Court assisted mediation process now on hold until 7 October to enable further technical advice on sub-surface and alternative disposal options to be gathered the Committee may also wish to delay further site visits and/or decision-making until the report into viability of alternative disposal systems is received and more fully understood.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

45 Committee members have previously been briefed on the legal factors that need to be considered under both the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991.

46 In relation to the Local Government Act 2002, it is noted that all decisions of the Committee are subject to the decision-making provisions detailed in Part 6 of the Act. In broad terms these provisions require that the Committee assess the advantages and disadvantages of each reasonably practicable option. The extent of consideration given should have regard to the level of significance of the proposed decision.

47 In relation to the Resource Management Act 1991, it is noted that the Kepler Block disposal site has been granted all necessary resource consents and designated for treated wastewater disposal by a panel of independent Commissioners. These consents (but not the designation) are subject to an appeal to the Environment Court. To confirm the consents, an agreement needs to be reached with the Appellants, or failing agreement, the Court needs to confirm the grant of consent following a hearing.

48 The Committee is reminded that the advice Council has received is that it should not surrender the Kepler consents, until it has in place, and beyond challenge, the consents needed for any alternative scheme that it may choose to pursue.

49 If agreement is reached through mediation, or consents are confirmed by the Court, this does not commit the Council to constructing the Kepler Scheme. Rather it gives Council the right to do so which does not have to be exercised. Alternatives can continue to be considered if that is the wish of the Council.

50 When considering alternative options it is important to remember that they must demonstrate the same level of minimal environmental effect as demonstrated through the consent for the Kepler proposal. Counsel has also advised that any alternative consent application carries the same level of risk of being appealed.

Community Views

51 Under Section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council is required to consider the range of community views that might exist in making any decisions.

52 It is clear that there are a number within the Te Anau and Manapouri communities who are concerned about the current Kepler consented option. The Fiordland Sewage Options Group (FSO) has made it clear that it will actively challenge the Kepler consented option.

53 As part of the resource consent process, FSO and others have raised a number of environmental concerns about the Kepler proposal. It is reasonable for the Council to assume that the environmental issues will be appropriately assessed by the Environment Court.

54 Given that the wastewater activity is treated as a district wide activity, and funded accordingly, it is appropriate that the Council also consider the views of other wastewater users and district wide ratepayers, in general, as they are also required to fund the costs and risks associated with the options chosen by the Council.

55 It is reasonable to expect that, in addition to appropriately addressing the environmental impacts of any proposal, there will be ratepayers who also expect the Council to manage the financial aspects of the project in a prudent and cautious way. Hence, the Council should not, for example, write off the historical investment that has been made in getting to the current point without good reason and should be conscious of the financial costs and risks associated with pursuing an alternative option.

Costs and Funding

56 Under the current Terms of Reference, the Committee has no authority to expend funds.
Any request to do so needs to be approved by Council.

57 It is important to remember that all work on potential alternatives to Kepler, undertaken to date, has been desktop work. To more fully understand the impact of environmental effects it will be necessary to undertake extensive investigation work, particularly if it is to be used as part of a future resource consent process.

58 Since July 2013, approximately $1.3M has been spent through the investigation and consenting stages of the project on the Kepler option. There is an estimated $300K further expense required through the appeal process. These costs are currently being treated as a capital expense. Investigations into any alternative, other than Kepler, would need to be treated as an operational expense and funded accordingly.

59 At its meeting on 27 April 2016, Council approved all unbudgeted expenditure associated with the peer review to date. At the same meeting Council also approved a further $50K unbudgeted expenditure to assist the Committee in undertaking site visits and/or investigation work it felt necessary to help with its decision making process.

60 In making a decision on whether to investigate an alternative option, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the costs and benefits (including risks) of pursuing an alternative outweigh the costs and benefits of pursuing the Kepler option. While the Net Present Value assessment included in the draft PDP report contains some level of assessment, it has not been subjected to a comprehensive risk assessment process. It would seem appropriate for this work to be undertaken before a final decision is made into investigation of any alternative.

Policy Implications

61 The longer the consenting process takes, the greater the chance becomes that any new consents will be assessed against new policies and rules. In particular, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 ("NPS") requires Environment Southland to develop freshwater quality limits, and impose conditions to meet those. There is currently uncertainty about when those limits will be finalised, and what they will be via the Water and Land 2020 process.

62 The preference for wastewater to be discharged to land rather than water is a well-known concept within the region. It arises in the operative Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in Policy 5.4, and is duplicated in the proposed RPS at Policy WQUAL.7. In both the operative and proposed RPS, the preference is to be used when discharge to land is practicable, and when the adverse effects are not significant.

63 Council has shown that it is practicable to discharge to land in the Kepler Block scheme, and in its decision to grant resource consent, the Commissioners stated that the proposal would be well within the significant adverse effect threshold under the operative RPS. The key environmental outcome of the proposal is that the discharge is to land, and not to the Upukerora River, which better meets stakeholder expectations and environmental preferences, as identified in both the RPS mentioned above, as well as in the NPS.
Any alternative option would also need to meet these criteria.

64 The District Plan provisions will also apply to any new consent application with that alternative requiring either a land use consent or a designation as is currently in place at Kepler. This would likely require notification and a hearing.

65 The decision on the notification path (ie non/limited/publically notified) will depend on the likely level of effects and whether they extend beyond the broadly adjoining properties.
For example, disposal adjacent to an urban boundary is more likely to be considered as needing to be publically notified whereas the sites further away from the urban boundary would potentially be subject to limited notification.

66 Setbacks outlined in the current and proposed plan will apply around the designation which could further restrict site selection and available land for future expansion, with it being unlikely that these could be reduced by way of consent conditions.

Analysis

Options Considered

67 There are three options identified. These are to endorse the Kepler (Option 1), to pursue the Smith block (Option 2) or to recommend an alternative option that the Committee believes warrants further investigation (Option 3).

68 Under Option 1 the Council would defend the appeal against the Kepler consented option through the Environment Court process and start to develop the business case to undertake the project subject to a favourable Environment Court outcome. It would not investigate any alternative options in the interim.

69 Under Option 2 the Council would continue with the appeal process while further investigating PDP’s highest ranked alternative option ie Smith Block. The costs associated with the alternative investigations would need to be treated as an operational expense and funded accordingly. The Committee may wish to delay agreeing to this alternative subject to the outcome of the mediation report into SDI which is expected in September.

70 Under Option 3 the Council would continue with the appeal process while undertaking investigations into a further alternative site as recommended by the Committee. The costs associated with the alternative investigations would need to be treated as an operational expense and funded accordingly.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Continue with current consented option

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Time and cost of future investigations will not be incurred.

· Subject to outcome of the appeal the Council will have long term certainty on future wastewater discharges.

· The costs of the appeal process will continue to be capitalised.

· Consenting process already well advanced and designation is in place.

· Is consistent with the adopted Long Term Plan.

· Consistent with legal advice.

· A decision will be received within a timeframe that would enable the current timeframes imposed through current Upukeroroa consent to be met.

· Further opposition likely through Environment Court process.

· Risk that it might not constitute the least cost option and that consent may not be confirmed.

Option 2 - Continue with current option through the appeal process while undertaking further investigation at the Smith Block

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Likely to be popular with appellants.

· Provides clarification into suitability of an alternative land within the Te Anau Basin.

· May be a more cost effective alternative.

· Introduces significant uncertainty around getting consent at an alternative site.

· There is risk of an alternative being appealed as with the Kepler proposal.

· Alternative site may not prove to be viable or as having more advantages than the Kepler option.

· Costs incurred in pursuing Smith block investigations would need to be treated as operational expense and funded from rates today.

· Costs associated with Kepler will need to be written off and funded if this option is pursued as preferred option.

· Consenting process will need to start from scratch with associated costs and risks not yet understood.

· Will likely require a further short term extension to current Upukerora discharge consent.

· Possibility that it would not be seen as financially prudent and business like and therefore in breach of the Local Government Act 2002.

Option 3 - Continue with current consented option through the appeal process while investigating a further alternative as recommended by the Committee

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Likely to be popular with appellants.

· Provides a degree of certainty and reduces risks by ensuring that alternative investigations continue while pursuing consent for Kepler option.

· Consenting process for Kepler already well advanced and designation in place.

· Council would still have option of pursuing an alternative scheme even if consent for Kepler option is confirmed.

· Costs of investigation of alternative will need to be treated as operational expense and funded from rates.

· Risk that a suitable alternative may not be found.

· Risk that any alternative investigated option will also be appealed.

· Council will be incurring costs for pursuing two options at once. It could be argued that the financially prudent approach would have been to pursue alternative once it is known whether Kepler consent is confirmed.

· Will likely require a further short term extension to current Upukerora discharge consent.

Assessment of Significance

71 Any decision to abandon the current Kepler consented option would require the write off of the significant expenditure incurred by Council to date. This includes some $1.3 million of expenditure currently held on the balance sheet for investigations since 2013.
This expenditure would need to be written off and funded. In addition, the Council would effectively be writing off the investment in the work completed prior to 2010 that have previously been funded. The quantum of this write off would exceed the financial threshold for unbudgeted expenditure in the Significance and Engagement Policy.

72 Officers are of the view that a decision to abandon the Kepler consent either now, or at some stage in the future, would constitute a significant decision. As such there would be a reasonable argument that the Council should consult on any such proposal particularly given the financial consequences and change in policy that such a decision would represent.

73 A decision to continue with the current consented option (Option 1) would be consistent with the direction that the Council has been pursuing for a number of years and with the Council’s adopted 2015 Long Term Plan. Hence, officers are of the view that a decision to adopt this option would not be significant.

74 If the investigation costs of exploring options 2 or 3 are expected to exceed $500,000 then this would breach the unbudgeted expenditure threshold in the Significance and Engagement Policy. As such a decision to commit to such expenditure, particularly while continuing with the Kepler option would likely constitute a significant decision.

75 The Committee is not, however, being asked to recommend the incurrence of such a level of investigation works at this stage. This is a decision that will need to be made, following consideration of a future report, once the costs that might be associated with investigating an alternative can be more fully scoped.

Recommended Option

76 In summarising the recommendations of the PDP’s peer review they have highlighted that the Kepler proposal is a viable option with no fundamental flaws. They do, however, highlight an option that they believe to be worthy of further investigation, that being the Smith Membrane Filtration option with disposal via centre pivot irrigation. Through mediation, Council has also agreed to undertake further investigation work with expert witnesses for Council and appellants to determine the suitability of alternative sub-surface disposal systems. The outcome from this work will also be of relevance to decision-making around the Smith option.

77 At this stage the Committee are being asked to consider all three options based on information received to date. There is a need for the Committee to determine whether its decision-making process would be assisted by undertaking further site visits for the provision of further information.

78 If the Committee is of the view that its deliberations would benefit from further site visits then this would apply irrespective of the relative merits of each alternative option. Given that the feedback received from the further technical work being undertake on sub-surface irrigation (SDI) will be beneficial to the options to be considered there is an argument to say that further deliberation on each of the alternatives and/or further site visits should be delayed until after this work has been completed. At this stage this work will be available in September to assist with the mediation process, which is to be reconvened in early October.

79 It is recommended that the Committee delay making a decision on its preferred option until after the further information on sub-surface (SDI) irrigation is made available in September. The outcome of this work will be of relevance to all of the options under consideration.

80 The Committee is required to report back to Council by 20 July. It is also recommended that the Committee report back to Council noting that the work that has been completed with the site visit to Wanaka and that it is awaiting the further technical work on the merits of sub-surface irrigation prior to making a decision on its preferred option.

Next Steps

81 Officers will prepare a report on the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations for consideration by Council at its 20 July meeting.

82 The work, agreed to as part of the mediation process on evaluating the merits of sub-surface irrigation will be completed and referred back to the Committee as well as being used in the mediation process.

Attachments

a Ecogent - Kepler Review letter to Committee MR View

b Response from Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd on the Ecogent Review of the Kepler Block document View

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

6 July 2016

sdclogo

Updated Management Report to the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

Record No: R/16/6/9669

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. It is to provide information to Committee members so they may be able to deal with enquiries from ratepayers.

2 The report will be updated and presented at all upcoming Committee meetings. This information is up to date as of the week commencing 20 June 2016.

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 have 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 will review the PDP report and provide legal advice on implications of the peer review outcomes. They will also prepare response to the Environment Court.

· Court appointed mediation set aside for 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.

4 Designation 80 Process

· Council approved Commissioners’ recommendation to grant designation on 8 April 2015.

· One appeal was received but rejected by the EC.

· Council planning maps will be updated to show the designation.

· No further work required around this item at present.

5 Short Term Discharge Consent Application

· Application lodged with ES on March 2014.

· Additional information provided as requested.

· Affected parties identified and written approvals provided to ES.

· Draft conditions have been accepted by Council.

· Draft conditions have been discussed with ES on 17 August.

· Further information in support of the application has been supplied to
Environment Southland. Draft conditions have been agreed and awaiting further feedback.

· Short term consent was granted November 2015.

· No appeals received within statutory period hence this item deemed complete.

6 35 Year Discharge to Air Consent Application (for oxidation ponds)

· ES requested that discharge to air element of oxidation pond be separated.

· Consent for 35 years is being applied for.

· An Odour Management Plan has been drafted and will be submitted as part of the application.

· Meeting with ES has been scheduled for 17 August 2015 to agree processing times, draft conditions etc.

· The consent is likely to be processed on a non-notified basis subject to affected party approvals being sought.

· Unable to secure all identified written approval so the consent was processed on a limited notified basis to the one party who would not provide written approval.
One submission was received opposing the application as it stands citing issues relating to duration and operational issues around when the screens were installed and desludging was undertaken.

· A pre-hearing meeting was held on 23 March 2016 and while agreement was not reached, staff will undertake further work to help overcome concerns held by the submitter. If agreement cannot be reached the application is likely to proceed to a hearing.

· A further meeting was held with Mr Slee on 24 May 2016 where he provided written approval to the consent application.

· Twenty-five year consent was granted on 2 June 2016.

7 Pond Desludging

· This work is required irrespective of the outcome of either appeal process.

· Hydra-Care established on the site and completed the initial sludge survey and sampling of the three ponds.

· They constructed the dewatering bund.

· The bund has been constructed and fully lined.

· The desludging itself was carried out mid/late August which is slightly delayed from the previous report.

· Further delays to the desludging of the Winton pond delayed the start date in Te Anau until early September.

· Hydra-Care have completed work on the large pond and disestablished from site. They will return in the new year to complete the remaining two smaller ponds.
Council staff currently in discussion with Hydra-Care around potential reinstallation.

· Hydra-Care re-established to site on 19 May 2016 to complete desludging of ponds two and three. Work is now substantially complete.

8 Inlet Screen Upgrade

· Work required irrespective of the outcome of either appeal process.

· Te Anau Earthworks is undertaking the installation of the inlet screen.

· Earthworks commenced week commencing 18 May 2015.

· Installation is now fully complete with electrical and telemetry connections and some pipework modifications now the only items of outstanding work.

· Final installation and commissioning have been undertaken and screen is now fully operational.

· No further action required to date.

9 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.

10 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. A further meeting will be scheduled by ES.

· 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.

· No further progress at present.

11 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 2016/17 financial year.

12 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.

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 27 June 2016.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Chief Executive		Steve Ruru
Group Manager Services and Assets		Ian Marshall
Team Leader Governance		Chris Dolan
Manager Water and Waste Services		Ian Evans
Committee Advisor		Jenny Labruyere
	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