Reference Group - Central Hawke's Bay District · 2019. 4. 4. · A7.2 - Evaluation against statutory provisions (existing discharge) 15/03/19 15/04/19 Aquanet A10 - Wrap up background

Reference Group

Meeting 6

March 2019

Reference Group Agenda

Recap on last meeting

Evaluation criteria

Affordability and external funding sources

Meeting regional council requirements vs community aspirations

Land suitability

Packages

Next step(s)

Work completed behind the scenes

• Funding Stream Options

• HBRC meeting and reporting• Clarify June report expectations

• Criteria development

• Package development

• Technical backing and feasibility

• Iwi engagement and involvement

• Overall Scope development• 45 pieces of individual work

Task Name Start Finish Assigned To % Complete

PROJECT MANAGEMENT 01/12/18 28/06/19 20%

Previous unscoped work

O1 - Project Management - Technical coordination 01/01/19 28/06/19 CHBDC, LEI, Beca

O2 - Consultation Plan 01/12/18 29/03/19 LEI 50%

O2a - Iwi Consultation Strategy LEI?

O3 - Reference Group - TOR CHBDC 100%

O4 - Project Risk Assessment and Management CHBDC

O5 - Consultation - Reference Group and Community Meetings

PHASE A - RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND DATA GATHERING 12/10/18 10/05/19 21%

A0 - General 12/10/18 28/02/19 31%

A0.A - Summary of historical reporting and info and options considered 01/11/18 13/12/18 Beca 60%

A0.B - Scope Statements 16/01/19 28/02/19 LEI 80%

A0 - Design parameter summary - (current and future) 12/10/18 01/02/19 Beca

Population 12/10/18 01/02/19 Beca

I&I 12/10/18 01/02/19 Beca

Treatment 12/10/18 01/02/19 Beca

Discharge 12/10/18 01/02/19 Beca

Water balance 04/02/19 01/03/19 LEI

A1 - Reticulation 12/10/18 28/02/19 24%

A1.1 - Description of current status and proposed changes to sewer reticulation 12/10/18 15/02/19 CHBDC, Beca 50%

A1.2 - Status and imminent changes 12/10/18 28/02/19 Beca

A2 - Treatment 12/10/18 28/02/19

A2.1 - WWTP systems compliance summary 12/10/18 28/02/19 Beca

A3 - Water 01/03/19 29/04/19 13%

A3.1 - Current river impacts 01/03/19 29/03/19 Aquanet 25%

A3.2 - Water opportunities 01/04/19 29/04/19 LEI 0%

A4 - Tangata Whenua 01/03/19 15/04/19 0%

A4.1 - Maori world view (Pre CIA) 01/03/19 15/04/19 Nigel How 0%

A5 - Land 01/03/19 12/04/19 3%

A5.1 - Land treatment opportunities 01/03/19 29/03/19 LEI 0%

A5.2 - Land assimilative capacity 01/04/19 12/04/19 LEI 10%

A6 - Values 16/10/18 29/01/19 70%

A6.1 - Preliminary assessment of values for WW discharge 16/10/18 29/01/19 LEI 70%

A7 - Planning 01/03/19 15/04/19

A7.1 - Planning consderations 01/03/19 29/03/19 Beca

A7.2 - Evaluation against statutory provisions (existing discharge) 15/03/19 15/04/19 Aquanet

A10 - Wrap up background technical reports 30/04/19 10/05/19 LEI, Beca

PHASE B - CONSULTATION AND OPTIONS 16/01/19 28/06/19 6%

B-RG-M.A - Meeting agendas 16/01/19 28/06/19 CHBDC

B-RG-M.M - Meeting minutes 16/01/19 28/06/19 CHBDC

B-RG-M.P - Meeting presentations 16/01/19 28/06/19 CHBDC, LEI, Beca

B.10 - Community survey - summary memo 01/02/19 15/03/19 CHBDC, LEI, Beca 100%

B.11 - Evaluation criteria 01/02/19 06/03/19 LEI, Beca 90%

B.12 - Combining and staging 20/02/19 15/03/19 LEI, Beca 30%

B.13 - Communitry affordability 20/02/19 29/03/19 LEI, Beca 30%

B.13b - External funding alternatives Beca

B.14 - Initial package development 20/02/19 29/03/19 LEI, Beca 30%

Recap on last meeting

What we have learnt

•complex and inter-related

•Need to balance views

Survey results – this group is good gauge

Land use opportunities and limitations

Combined solutions and staging

Affordability

What discharge options are out there

Relative costs of land vs water options

•No to full water

•No to full land with council buying

How to decide – need criteria and score options against

Evaluation criteria

Fixed Criteria

• Fixed criteria are absolute statements or value statements which must be met to achieve regulatory compliance or as bottom-lines for community acceptance. These criteria must be achieved by any package of options which is examined i.e. if the fixed bottom-line criteria are not met then no further consideration of that package will proceed.

Evaluation criteria

Criteria Explanation

Community involvement in ongoing governance

Can be mandated through consent conditions.

Tangata whenua involvement in ongoing

governance Can be mandated through consent conditions.

Meets PC6, NPS WQ, NES AQ Applies numerical standards. Required to give effect to

regulatory standards.

No direct water discharge during low flow

conditions

Avoids discharge when the receiving waters are most

sensitive to change and impact.

Doesn’t irreversibly compromise a water or

soil body

Requires diligent investigations, design and consent

term monitoring.

Mauri and mana is improved (land and

water)

Options evaluated using Cultural Impact Assessment

over time and provides for an improvement over the current state.

Be a good neighbour to existing land and water users

Able to achieve not more than minor technical and environmental effects beyond the property boundary.

Able to be modified or expanded to match

growth needs (additional capacity) Design requirement.

Able to be modified to match quality

improvement needs Design requirement.

Meets water quality targets - Safe for recreation

Recreational values preserved or enhanced and targets met.

Meets water quality targets - Safe in which to swim

Bacteriological quality targets met.

Meets water quality targets - Safe from which to gather food

Bacteriological quality targets met.

Meets water quality targets - Nutrients

managed to healthy levels

Effect on nitrogen and phosphorus concentration in

waterways acceptable and water quality targets met.

Does not exceed cost ceiling To be determined based on funding models.

Variable Criteria

• Variable criteria can be assessed against a scale, enabling comparison between the packages of options. Potentially a scoring system can be used whereby the preference of individual criteria for an option can be totalled and this serves as the comparison with other options.

Evaluation criteriaTreatment

NIMBY

Quality of treatment

Potential for odour

Potential for energy recovery

StorageNIMBY

Potential for odour

Discharge


Ceasing surface water discharge

Portion of w/w to land treatment

Portion of wastewater to land disposal i.e rapid infiltration, wetland

or similar

Portion of wastewater directly to the river

NIMBY

Potential for odour

Surface water degradation

Overall package

Ease of achieving:

HBRC Plan Change 6 for the Tukituki River Catchment (PC6)

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS

FWM)

National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NES AQ) and

Contaminated Land Management (NES CLM)

Mauri of the waterway can be restored

Can solution be staged?

Loss of productive land is minimised

Opportunities

Affordability

Return from beneficial reuse

Consenting costs

Evaluation criteria

How do you scale and indicate preference?

Score 1 – 10?

• What does a 1 look like?

• What is a 10

Could use traffic light – see memo

• 3 Criteria

• Preferred/suitable (green)

• Possible/possible (orange)

• Restricted/limitations (red)

Evaluation criteria

Compo

nentCriteria Explanation

How achieved/measure of

success/attainment

Preferred/ suitable

(green)

Possible/ possible

(orange)

Restricted/

limitations

(red)

Tre

atm

en

t

NIMBY Potential for localised opposition.

The level of opposition is

measured from support to

significant individual and group

opposition.

No opposition likely Some local oppositionSignificant

opposition


Providing additional treatment

increases opportunities to use the

waster in alternative means, but it

increases the complexity of the

system and its management.

The complexity of the

management and operation of

the treatment system needs to

be considered.

Simple and basic

system with some

plant modifications

A new treatment

system easy to

manage, or more

active management of

a basic system

Complex

treatment

requiring active

management

Potential for odourChanges to the system and new

components may smell.

The potential for odour needs to

be considered.

Occasionally mild

odour at boundary

Mild continuous odour

at boundary

Occasionally

some 1 km away


The treatment process may result

in energy being recovered to

offset the cost of treatment

The extent of return from energy

recovery.

Facilities generate

return

Facilities but cost

neutralNo facilities

Evaluation criteria

Compo



success/attainment

Preferred/ suitable

(green)

Possible/ possible

(orange)

Restricted/

limitations

(red)

Sto

rag

e NIMBY Potential for localised opposition.



significant individual to group

opposition.


opposition

Potential for odourStorage facility may generate

odour.


be considered.

Occasionally mild

odour at boundary


at boundary

Occasionally some

1 km away

Evaluation criteria

Compo



success/attainment

Preferred/ suitable

(green)

Possible/ possible

(orange)

Restricted/

limitations

(red)

Sto

rag

e NIMBY Potential for localised opposition.



significant individual to group

opposition.


opposition

Potential for odourStorage facility may generate

odour.


be considered.

Occasionally mild

odour at boundary


at boundary

Occasionally some

1 km away

Compon

entCriteria Explanation


success/attainment

Preferred/ suitable

(green)

Possible/ possible

(orange)

Restricted/

limitations

(red)

Dis

ch

arg

e


The degree of treatment will dictate

the level of flexibility available to mix

and match discharge options and the

ability to realise opportunities that

arise for beneficial reuse of the liquid

and or solids streams.

Ability to remove nutrients and to

disinfect and to present solids in an

easily manageable form.

No restrictions to a

range of end use or

discharge

At least 3 potential end

use or discharge options

Only suitable for 1-2

end use or

discharge options

Ceasing surface water

discharge

Community preference is to have no

surface water discharge.

Complete ceasing of surface water

discharges have to occur over time.Within 5 years Within 15 years More than 15 years

Portion of w/w to land

treatment

Preference is to put as much to land

treatment as possible.Portion going to land treatment >90 % <50 % <20 %

Portion of wastewater to land

disposal i.e rapid infiltration,

wetland or similar

While disposal is via land, it provides

limited additional treatment prior to

the river.

Portion going to land disposal <20 % <50 % >50 %

Portion of wastewater directly

to the river

Community aspirations are for no

discharge to surface water but this

may be prohibitively expensive.

Portion going to the river <20 % >40 % >60 %


The level of opposition is measured

from support to significant individual

to group opposition.


opposition

Potential for odourIrrigation/discharge system may

generate odours

The potential for odour needs to be

considered.

Occasionally mild odour

at boundary

Mild continuous odour at

boundary

Occasionally some 1

km away

Surface water degradationNo aesthetic degradation of water

ways – solids, colour

Avoid solids and colour entering

surface water

No increase in colour

over backgroundOccasional plume Noticeable plume

Evaluation criteriaCompone

ntCriteria Explanation How achieved/measure of success/attainment

Preferred/

suitable

(green)

Possible/ possible

(orange)

Restricted/

limitations

(red)

Ove

rall

pa

ck

ag

e

Ease of achieving:

HBRC Plan Change 6 for the

Tukituki River Catchment (PC6)

National Policy Statement for

Freshwater Management (NPS

FWM)

National Environmental

Standards for Air Quality (NES

AQ) and Contaminated Land

Management (NES CLM)

The Regional Plan change 6 has identified receiving

water quality standards that are different to the

requirement of the regional plan when the consents

were granted.

Cost to consent the new package needs to be considered, as this

will provide an indication of consistency with PC6.

<$800k $800-$1,500 >$1,500k

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater

Management sets direction on how freshwaters are

to be managed. Discharges in and around water

need to give effect to the objectives of the NPS.

Cost to consent is influenced due to the need for investigations to

demonstrate how the NPS FWM has been addressed.

National Environmental Standards must be met to

avoid adverse effects from the activity (treatment

and discharge)

Cost to consent is influenced due to the need for investigations to

demonstrate compliance with these standards

Mauri of the waterway can be restoredSurface water discharge to Maori are abhorrent and

diminish the mauri of water ways.

While no surface water discharge is preferable, the effects may be

able to be mitigated.No SW discharge

Mitigated SW

dischargeSW discharge


It will be difficult to suddenly implement a final

solution, especially for 3 communities, so staging

will be required.

Time to implement 75 % of the final solution (75 % of the

discharge out of the river and treatment plant upgraded to a

minimum of level C)

< 5 years < 10 years > 10 years

Loss of productive land is minimisedHigh value production or residential development

land should not be lost.

Limitation is based on the area not used for productive purposes

(eg storage, treatment and disposal).<5 ha <20 ha >20 ha

OpportunitiesThe options provide for additional employment and

commercial ventures

Reuse potential for treated wastewater or change to operational

requirements

New business

opportunities

Enhanced

opportunitiesNo increase

AffordabilityThe proposed changes are affordable to the

community.An increase in rates associated with amortised loan.

<$75/yr per

connection

$75-400/yr

per connection

>$400/yr

per connection

Return from beneficial reuseThe irrigation of wastewater has the potential to

increase growth of irrigated crops.The extent of the return/profit could favour some options.

Productivity gain

produces a financial

return

Productivity gain

equals costs

No productivity

gain

Consenting costsSome options will be complex and require greater

consent costs.

Cost to consent the new package needs to be considered, including

the amount of investigation work e.g. groundwater modelling,

geotechnical investigations, etc that are needed to support a

resource consent application.

<$800k $800-$1,500 >$1,500k

Vulnerability to trade waste

contribution

Does the presence of a trade waste discharge

influence the viability (and affordability) of the

solution.

Will the efficiency of the treatment and discharge system be

impacted if current trade waste water removed or new addedNo impact Some impact Significant impact

Evaluation criteria

Feedback…..

Understandable, what is missing??

Affordability and external funding sources

• Research undertaken to find out what other councils are doing;

• Government funds• Freshwater Improvement Funds• Provincial Growth Funds

• Project financing methods• Public Private Partnerships (PPP)

• Design Build Operate (DBO)

• Community Funding Methods• Targeted rates

• One off charges to non-connected users

• Trade Waste/ Industry Charges

HBRC requirements vs aspirations

We know there are periods of non-compliance of conditions

• Occasional high ammonia (short periods)

• Dissolved inorganic nitrogen (when expressed on annual average)

Current conditions written under old plan

• If written now (PC6) may be different and potentially more compliance

Compliance would require potentially

• Slightly more treatment

• And/or some removal from the river

However, community aspiration is to get it all out of the river

Potential to be compliant may be $1M’s and not $10M’s

How much over and above compliance does community want to pay for aspirations

Land suitability

What is suitable land for land application?

• Close – to what?

• Free draining, but not too free

• Cheap

• Willing user

• Few neighbours

• Productive crop

• Suitable size

Land suitability

Many suitable areas are obvious

Can use existing information to help with search

Lot of good ‘mapping information’

• Drainage

• Permeability

• Soil depth (inc depth to groundwater)

• Slope

• Land use

• Nutrient uptake potential

• Flooding frequency

• Parcel size

Can combine and if good x and good y then better than poor x and poor y

Use GIS – computer generated maps that have ‘spatial’ information and can create rules between then.

Produce a suitability map

Land suitability

Land suitability

Land suitability

Land suitability

Land suitability

Land suitability

Land suitability

Land suitability

Packages – Design Framework

Wastewater management is complex!!!!!

Can break into components:

• community sewer reticulation,

• treatment

• reticulation

• storage

• discharged to the environment.

Options for multiple component groupings are divided into Packages


Components have Options, which are variants of what can be done at each stage

Preferred Options for each Component make a Package


Package A

Component - Community sewer reticulation

•Option 1

•Option 2

Component - Treatment

•Option A

•Option B

•Option C

•Option D

Component – Reticulation

•Option 20

•Option 21

Component – Storage

•Option 40

•Option 41

Component - Discharged to the environment

•Option 50

•Option 51

Package B

Component - Community sewer reticulation

•Option 1

•Option 2

Component - Treatment

•Option A

•Option B

•Option C

•Option D

Component – Reticulation

•Option 20

•Option 21

Component – Storage

•Option 40

•Option 41

Component - Discharged to the environment

•Option 50

•Option 51

Packages – The ProcessGuidance from last meeting

•No river discharge during low flow

•Try and use land treatment

•100 % land treat to expensive

•Use storage

Develop Options for Components

(toolbox of Options)Develop Packages

Apply Options to Packages

Apply timing/staging

Apply evaluation criteria

Determine NPV Apply scoring Preferred Solution

Packages – What are they

• Combine all three WWTPs- treat and land treat

Package A

• Separate upgrade and land treat

Package B

• Combine Waipawa/Waipukurau; Otane separate

Package C

• Combine all three WWTP – land treat and if needed treat upgrade

Package D

Packages – Key Options

• A – v high quality

• brand new centralised plant – very high quality effluent. Only done at single centralised location.

• B – significant improvement

• modification of the existing treatment plants (and/or an upgrade of C) - produce a high quality effluent. Can be done at one site or all three.

• C – slight improvement

• modification of the existing treatment plants (an upgrade of D) -produce an improved quality effluent. Can be done at one site or all three.

• D – existing treatment plant

Treatment plant

Packages – Key Options

• River• All flows

• Avoid below ½ median

• Avoid below median

• Only above 3 x median

• Land treatment• Deficit irrigation – only third party land

• Non-deficit – some council land and third party land

• Land disposal• Regional council land – river accretion

• Council land – to be purchased?

Discharges

Packages – What are they


Package A


Package B


Package C


Package D

Packages – Detail


Package A

V Component YR1 - 5 YR6-10 YR11-15 YR16-20 YR21-25 YR26-30

1

Pretreatment Retain existing at all WWTP, excluding tertiary and chemical dosing

- - - - -

Sewer reticulation Double pipe from Waipukurau to Waipawaand from Otane to Waipawa

- - - - -

Treatment To C - From C to B - - -

Effluent reticulation - Common pipe to land disposalPipe to LT areas

Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas

Storage - Storage to enable no discharge at flows <1/2median

- Storage to enable no discharge at flows <median

- -

Discharge To Waipawa River - all flows

Land disposal commencesSet up 25 ha deficit LT -council establishedSet up 25 ha deficit LT -user established

Land disposal - flow controlledAdditional 25 ha non deficit LT - councilAdditional 25 ha deficit -user

Additonal 50 ha deficit -user



PA V1 -centralised treatment-minor then gradual treatment increase-no river dis flow < ½ med then < med-initial disposal then keep adding irrigation

Packages – Detail


Package A


2


- - - - -

Sewer reticulation Double pipe from waipukurau to Waipawa and from Otane to Waipawa

- - - - -

Treatment To B - - - - -

Effluent reticulation Common pipe to land disposal

Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas

Storage Storage to enable no discharge at flows <3xmedian

- - - - -

Discharge Land disposal - flow controlled

Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established

PA V2 –-centralised treatment upgrade-initial significant upgrade-no river dis flow < 3x med-land disposal and if wanted, irrigation

Packages – Detail


Package A


3


- - - - -

Sewer reticulation Double pipe from waipukurau to Waipawa and from Otane to Waipawa

- - - - -


Effluent reticulation Common pipe to land disposalPipe to LT areas


Discharge Surface water discharge above 3xmedianNon-deficit LT - council established

PA V3 –-all in next 5 years-centralised treatment upgrade-initial significant upgrade-river dis flow > 3x med-council establish ND irrigation

Packages – Detail


Package B


1

Pretreatment - - - - - -

Sewer reticulation - - - - - -


Effluent reticulation - Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas

Storage - Storage to enable no discharge at flows <median

Storage to enable no discharge at flows <3xmedian

- - -

Discharge Surface water - all flows Surface water -flows>median50 ha deficit LT - council established

Surface water - flows >3xmedian50 ha deficit LT - user established

50 ha deficit LT - user established



PB V1 -initial significant upgrade-gradually implement more storage for river dis to go from < med to < 3x med-continue with river initially and reduce as gradually implement irrigation-progressively implement for Waipawa->Waipukurau->Otane

Packages – Detail


Package B


2



Treatment To C - - - - -

Effluent reticulation - Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas

Storage - Storage to enable no discharge at flows <median

Storage to enable no discharge at flows <3xmedian

- - -

Discharge Surface water - all flows Surface water -flows>median50 ha deficit LT - council established

Surface water - flows >3xmedian50 ha deficit LT - user established




PB V2 -limited upgrade-gradually implement more storage for river dis to go from < med to < 3x med-continue with river initially and reduce as gradually implement irrigation-progressively implement for Waipawa->Waipukurau->Otane

Packages – Detail


Package C


1

Pretreatment Retain existing at Waipul and Waipawa, excluding tertiary and chemical dosing

- - - - -

Sewer reticulation Double pipe from Waipukurau to Waipawa

- - - - -


Effluent reticulation Common pipe to land disposal

Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas


- - - - -

Discharge Land disposal - flow controlled

Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established Deficit LT - user established

PC V1 – Waipukurau and Waipawa-initial significant upgrade-storage for river dis > 3x med-initially land disposal and then land treatment

Packages – Detail


Package C


2



Treatment - - To B Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areas

Effluent reticulation - - - - - -

Storage - - - Storage to service LT Storage to service LT Storage to service LT

Discharge - - Surface water - all flows 5 ha deficit LT - council established



PC V2 – Otane-initial significant upgrade - later-storage for river dis > 3x med-initially land disposal and then land treatment

Packages – Detail


Package D


1



Treatment Waipuk and Waipawa -current+filter for irrigationOtane - no change

- All to B or C (depends on end user)

Effluent reticulation Pipe to LT areas Pipe to LT areasDouble pipe Waipuk to Waipawa

Storage - Storage combined or at plant to enable no discharge at flows >median

Storage increased to enable no discharge at flows above 3xmedian

Discharge Surface water - all flows when unsuitable for LTWaipawa - deficit LT - 50 ha council est.Waipukurau - deficit LT - 50 h council est.

Surface water - flows >medianWaipawa - deficit 100 ha user est.Waipukurau - deficit 100 ha user est.

Surface water -flows>3xmedianOtane - non deficit 50 ha -council est.

PD V1 -some minor filtration. At later stage add treatment if needed.-gradually implement more storage for river dis to go from < med to < 3x med-river discharge then then land treatment

Treat Storage River LD LT Stage NPV

A Combine all three WWTPs- treat and land treat


*C

*B

*None*150,000 m3

*160,000 m3

*All flows*>1/2 Med

*> Med

*0 ha*4 ha

*9 ha

*0 ha*50 ha D*75 ha D, 25 ha ND*225 ha D, 25 ha ND

Main -10 y

Rest – 25 y

PA V2-centralised treatment upgrade-initial significant upgrade-no river dis flow < 3x med-land disposal and if wanted, irrigation

B *80,000 m3 >3 x Med *10 Ha *0 ha*if user*if user*if user

Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *127,500 m3 >3 x Med *350 ha All 5y

B Separate upgrade and land treat


B *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3

*All flows*> Med*>3 x Med

*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y


C *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y

C Combine Waipawa/ Waipukurau; Otane separate


B *70,000 m3 >3 x Med *10 Ha *0 ha*if user*if user

Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *None*3,000 m3


*0 ha*5 ha*10 ha*15 ha

Main – 15-

Rest – 30 y

D Combine all three WWTP – land treat and if needed treat upgrade


D

C or B

*7,500*67,500 m3

*79,000 m3

*> med*> 3 x med

*100 ha*300 ha*350 ha

Main - 10 y

Rest - 15 y




*C

*B

*None*150,000 m3

*160,000 m3

*All flows*>1/2 Med

*> Med

*0 ha*4 ha

*9 ha


Main -10 y

Rest – 25 y



Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *127,500 m3 >3 x Med *350 ha All 5y



B *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y


C *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y




Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *None*3,000 m3


*0 ha*5 ha*10 ha*15 ha

Main – 15-

Rest – 30 y



D

C or B

*7,500*67,500 m3

*79,000 m3

*> med*> 3 x med

*100 ha*300 ha*350 ha

Main - 10 y

Rest - 15 y




*C

*B

*None*150,000 m3

*160,000 m3

*All flows*>1/2 Med

*> Med

*0 ha*4 ha

*9 ha


Main -10 y

Rest – 25 y



Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *127,500 m3 >3 x Med *350 ha All 5y



B *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y


C *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y




Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *None*3,000 m3


*0 ha*5 ha*10 ha*15 ha

Main – 15-

Rest – 30 y



D

C or B

*7,500*67,500 m3

*79,000 m3

*> med*> 3 x med

*100 ha*300 ha*350 ha

Main - 10 y

Rest - 15 y




*C

*B

*None*150,000 m3

*160,000 m3

*All flows*>1/2 Med

*> Med

*0 ha*4 ha

*9 ha


Main -10 y

Rest – 25 y



Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *127,500 m3 >3 x Med *350 ha All 5y



B *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y


C *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y




Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *None*3,000 m3


*0 ha*5 ha*10 ha*15 ha

Main – 15-

Rest – 30 y



D

C or B

*7,500*67,500 m3

*79,000 m3

*> med*> 3 x med

*100 ha*300 ha*350 ha

Main - 10 y

Rest - 15 y




*C

*B

*None*150,000 m3

*160,000 m3

*All flows*>1/2 Med

*> Med

*0 ha*4 ha

*9 ha


Main -10 y

Rest – 25 y



Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *127,500 m3 >3 x Med *350 ha All 5y



B *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y


C *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y




Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *None*3,000 m3


*0 ha*5 ha*10 ha*15 ha

Main – 15-

Rest – 30 y



D

C or B

*7,500*67,500 m3

*79,000 m3

*> med*> 3 x med

*100 ha*300 ha*350 ha

Main - 10 y

Rest - 15 y

Which package is best?

All pass fixed criteria

Now apply variable criteria

• Takes time and understanding of package

• Some can be subjective interpretation

• Multiple people may need to do

• We did…… what does it look like?

Which package is best – preferred solution?Preferred/ suitable Possible/ possible Restricted/ limitations PA V1 PA V2 PA V3 PB V1 PB V2 PC V1 PC V2 PD V1

(green) (orange) (red)


The level of opposition is measured from

support to significant individual and

group opposition.

No opposition likely Some local opposition Significant opposition

1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1


Providing additional treatment increases

opportunities to use the waster in

alternative means, but it increases the

complexity of the system and its

management.

The complexity of the management and

operation of the treatment system needs

to be considered.

Simple and basic

system with some

plant modifications

A new treatment

system easy to

manage, or more

active management of

a basic system

Complex treatment

requiring active

management

1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1

Potential for odourChanges to the system and new

components may smell.


considered.

Occasionally mild

odour at boundary


at boundary

Occasionally some 1

km away2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2


The treatment process may result in energy

being recovered to offset the cost of

treatment

The extent of return from energy

recovery.

Facilities generate

return

Facilities but cost

neutralNo facilities

3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3



support to significant individual to group

opposition.


2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Potential for odour Storage facility may generate odour.The potential for odour needs to be

considered.

Occasionally mild

odour at boundary


at boundary

Occasionally some 1

km away 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


The degree of treatment will dictate the

level of flexibility available to mix and

match discharge options and the ability to

realise opportunities that arise for

beneficial reuse of the liquid and or solids

streams.

Ability to remove nutrients and to

disinfect and to present solids in an easily

manageable form.

No restrictions to a

range of end use or

discharge

At least 3 potential

end use or discharge

options

Only suitable for 1-2

end use or discharge

options

3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3Ceasing surface water

discharge

Community preference is to have no

surface water discharge.

Complete ceasing of surface water

discharges have to occur over time.Within 5 years Within 15 years More than 15 years

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Portion of w/w to land

treatment

Preference is to put as much to land

treatment as possible.Portion going to land treatment >90 % <50 % <20 %

1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1

Portion of wastewater to land

disposal i.e rapid infiltration,

wetland or similar

While disposal is via land, it provides

limited additional treatment prior to the

river.

Portion going to land disposal <20 % <50 % >50 %

1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1

Portion of wastewater

directly to the river

Community aspirations are for no

discharge to surface water but this may be

prohibitively expensive.

Portion going to the river <20 % >40 % >60 %

3 1 1 3 3 1 3 2



support to significant individual to group

opposition.


2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Potential for odourIrrigation/discharge system may generate

odours


considered.

Occasionally mild

odour at boundary


at boundary

Occasionally some 1

km away 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Surface water degradationNo aesthetic degradation of water ways –

solids, colour

Avoid solids and colour entering surface

water

No increase in colour

over backgroundOccasional plume Noticeable plume

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ease of achieving: 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

· HBRC Plan Change 6 for

the Tukituki River Catchment

(PC6) 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

· National Policy Statement

for Freshwater Management

(NPS FWM)

The National Policy Statement for

Freshwater Management sets direction on

how freshwaters are to be managed.

Discharges in and around water need to

give effect to the objectives of the NPS.

Cost to consent is influenced due to the

need for investigations to demonstrate

how the NPS FWM has been addressed.

2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

· National Environmental

Standards for Air Quality (NES

AQ) and Contaminated Land

Management (NES CLM)

National Environmental Standards must be

met to avoid adverse effects from the

activity (treatment and discharge)

Cost to consent is influenced due to the

need for investigations to demonstrate

compliance with these standards

2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

Mauri of the waterway can be

restored

Surface water discharge to Maori are

abhorrent and diminish the mauri of water

ways.

While no surface water discharge is

preferable, the effects may be able to be

mitigated.

No SW dischargeMitigated SW

dischargeSW discharge

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2


It will be difficult to suddenly implement a

final solution, especially for 3 communities,

so staging will be required.

Time to implement 75 % of the final

solution (75 % of the discharge out of the

river and treatment plant upgraded to a

minimum of level C)

< 5 years < 10 years > 10 years

3 2 1 2 2 3 2 1

Loss of productive land is

minimised

High value production or residential

development land should not be lost.

Limitation is based on the area not used

for productive purposes (eg storage,

treatment and disposal).

<5 ha <20 ha >20 ha

1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

OpportunitiesThe options provide for additional

employment and commercial ventures

Reuse potential for treated wastewater

or change to operational requirements

New business

opportunities

Enhanced

opportunitiesNo increase

2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

AffordabilityThe proposed changes are affordable to the

community.

An increase in rates associated with

amortised loan.<$75/yr per connection

$75-400/yr per

connection

>$400/yr per

connection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Return from beneficial reuse

The irrigation of wastewater has the

potential to increase growth of irrigated

crops.

The extent of the return/profit could

favour some options.

Productivity gain

produces a financial

return

Productivity gain

equals costsNo productivity gain

2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

Consenting costsSome options will be complex and require

greater consent costs.

Cost to consent the new package needs

to be considered, including the amount

of investigation work e.g. groundwater

modelling, geotechnical investigations,

etc that are needed to support a resource

consent application.

<$800k $800-$1,500 >$1,500k

2 1 1 3 3 2 3 2

Vulnerability to trade waste

contribution

Does the presence of a trade waste

discharge influence the viability (and

affordability) of the solution.

Will the efficiency of the treatment and

discharge system be impacted if current

trade waste water removed or new added

No impact Some impact Significant impact

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

46 42 37 47 47 48 51 44

All green 25 4 2 1 5 5 7 8 3

All orange 50

All red 75 46 42 37 47 47 49.5 49.5 44

4 2 1 5 5 7 7 3

4 2 1 5 5 7 7 3

Cost to consent the new package needs

to be considered, as this will provide an

indication of consistency with PC6.

<$800k $800-$1,500 >$1,500k

Component Criteria ExplanationHow achieved/measure of

success/attainment

Tre

atm

en

tSt

ora

geD

isch

arge

Ove

rall

pac

kage

The Regional Plan change 6 has identified

receiving water quality standards that are

different to the requirement of the regional

plan when the consents were granted.




*C

*B

*None*150,000 m3

*160,000 m3

*All flows*>1/2 Med

*> Med

*0 ha*4 ha

*9 ha


Main -10 y

Rest – 25 y



Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *127,500 m3 >3 x Med *350 ha All 5y



B *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y


C *None*40,000 m3

*80,000 m3


*0 ha*50 ha*150 ha*230 ha*310 ha

Main – 10

Rest – 25 y




Main -5 y

Rest – 25 y


B *None*3,000 m3


*0 ha*5 ha*10 ha*15 ha

Main – 15-

Rest – 30 y



D

C or B

*7,500*67,500 m3

*79,000 m3

*> med*> 3 x med

*100 ha*300 ha*350 ha

Main - 10 y

Rest - 15 y

4

2

1

5

5

7

7

3


Costs

•NPV – what is it

•CAPEX

•OPEX


Which package is best – key questions

Concepts

• Combined treatment plants?

• Stage over time?

Is treatment upgrade needed?

• What standard?

• Use/flexibility dependent?

Can there be river discharge?

• All flows

• Avoid below ½ median

• Avoid below median

• Only above 3 x median

Land treatment

• Deficit irrigation

• Non-deficit

• What land use

• Use HBRC land?

Land disposal

• All year (allowing for drainage)

• Part of year (no drainage)


Can we apply a ranking?

Are all criteria equal….. Should some count for more e.g. costs?

Or do we have gut feel for what we want?

Are there Packages you want us to modify?

Are there Options you want us to consider/tweak?

Next meeting

When

Focus

Home work required?

Reference Group - Central Hawke's Bay District · 2019. 4. 4. · A7.2 - Evaluation against statutory provisions (existing discharge) 15/03/19 15/04/19 Aquanet A10 - Wrap up background

Documents