Terms of reference – Wastewater
Management Review Committee
Membership
|
Chairperson
|
Ms Lara Burkhardt – Ngā
Pōtiki
|
|
Deputy chairperson
|
Commissioner Bill Wasley –
Tauranga City Council
|
|
Members
|
Commissioner Stephen Selwood
– Tauranga City Council
Commissioner Bill Wasley –
Tauranga City Council
Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston
– Tauranga City Council (alternate member)
Mr Spencer Webster – Ngā Pōtiki
Mr Whitiora McLeod - Ngāi
Te Rangi
Mr Des Heke - Ngāti
Ranginui
Ms Destiny Leaf – Ngāti
Ranginui (alternate member)
|
|
Quorum
|
Four members with at least one
member representing Tauranga City Council and one member representing Ngā
Pōtiki
|
|
Decision-making
|
By consensus where
possible. If consensus cannot be reached, by majority vote.
If there is an equal number of votes, the member who is
chairing the meeting has a casting vote.
|
|
Meeting frequency
|
A minimum of twice yearly
|
|
Meeting venue
|
To alternate between marae and
council venues; or as appropriate to a meeting agreed by the Chairperson and
the Deputy Chairperson.
|
The Committee previously had a membership of eight, four
elected members from Tauranga City Council (TCC) and four iwi. Currently the
membership will be reduced to six, two Commissioners appointed to represent the
TCC and four who are appointed as representatives of iwi, with one member each
from Ngāti Ranginui and Te Runanga o Ngāi Te Rangi Iwi Trust and two
members representing Ngā Pōtiki ā Tamapahore Trust Board.
The Wastewater Management Review Committee is established as
a committee of Council under the Local Government Act 2002 and conditions
imposed on Bay of Plenty Regional Council Coastal Permit # 62878.
Role
·
To ensure Wastewater operations are in
accordance with the Wastewater Management Review Committee Management Plan.
Scope
(a)
To receive reports on the operation of the Wastewater Scheme, including
reports in relation to monitoring and permit compliance, and to make
recommendations to the Permit Holder on the development of Tauranga City
Council’s policies in relation to wastewater management, treatment and
disposal, particularly following the review of wastewater treatment in light of
new technologies and standards addressed in the Monitoring, Upgrade and Technology
Review Report required by Condition 20 of Coastal Permit N0 62878.
(b)
To make decisions about the application of the Environmental Mitigation
and Enhancement Fund established in accordance with Condition 19 of Coastal
Permit N0 62878.
(c)
To make recommendations to the Permit Holder as to physical measures and
initiatives to address or compensate for actual or potential effects of the
Tauranga City Wastewater Scheme (in the broadest environmental sense).
(d)
Without limiting the generality of function (c) above, to make
recommendations to the Permit Holder as to the implementation of the works to
be undertaken in accordance with Permit N0 62881, namely:
(i)
Decommissioning of the Te Maunga Sludge Pond and the future use of the
pond.
(ii)
Conversion of the Te Maunga Oxidation Ponds to wetlands.
(e)
To make recommendations to the Permit Holder in relation to the
independent consultant to be appointed to undertake the Monitoring, Upgrade and
Technology Review Report required by Condition 20 of Coastal Permit N0 62878.
(f)
To make recommendations to the Permit Holder as to enhancing the
involvement of tangata whenua in sampling, testing and monitoring.
(g)
Assessment of the scope and adequacy of sampling and monitoring.
(h)
Notification to appropriate parties of activities that may have adverse
effects.
(i)
To receive, review and recommend action following receipt of wastewater
reports.
(j)
To recommend the commissioning of reports and future Tauranga City
Council actions on wastewater management, treatment and disposal issues and
options, including:
(i)
Development of alternatives to waterborne wastewater systems;
(ii)
Options for further treatments;
(iii)
Options for methods of disposal;
(iv)
Monitoring effects on the environment.
(k)
To co-ordinate and oversee education of the community on wastewater
management, treatment and disposal issues.
(l)
To identify and make recommendations to the Permit Holder as to sources
of funding which may be available to supplement the Environmental Mitigation
and Enhancement Fund established pursuant to Condition 19 of Coastal Permit N0
62878 hereof and to be applied for the purposes specified in that
condition.
(m) To
make recommendations to the Permit Holder as to changes to conditions of these
permits pursuant to section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991, in light of the exercise of the Review
Committee’s functions, including reports received and information
received as a result of monitoring, etc. or to avoid, remedy or mitigate actual
or potential adverse effects associated with the operation of the
Wastewater Scheme.
(n)
To foster robust relationships and dialogue between the Review
Committee, the Permit Holder, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and
Bay of Plenty Regional Council in relation to wastewater management, treatment
and disposal, particularly following the review of wastewater treatment in
light of new technologies.
(o)
To make recommendations to Bay of Plenty Regional Council as to
amendments to the conditions of these permits which could be implemented via a
review under section 128 of the Act in accordance with Condition 22 of Coastal
Permit N0 62878.
(p)
Prior to making any:
(i) Decisions
as to the allocation of the Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Fund in
accordance with Condition 18.3(b) of Coastal Permit N0 62878 hereof
or,
(ii) Recommendations
to the Permit Holder in relation to physical environmental mitigation or
enhancement or mitigation works in accordance with Condition 18.3(c) of Coastal
Permit N0 62878 hereof; -
the Review Committee will
exercise its best endeavours to ascertain the existence of any persons or
bodies who may have a particular interest or stake in the ecological health of
the Tauranga Harbour (particularly the Upper Harbour/Rangataua Bay area) and to
consult with those bodies or persons as to appropriate initiatives and measures
to be so recommended (in accordance with Condition 18.3(b)of Coastal Permit N0
62878) or undertaken (in accordance with Condition 18.3(c)of Coastal
Permit N0 62878). As a minimum, the Review Committee shall consult
with
·
Nga Potiki Kaitiaki Resource Management Unit hapu and iwi of Te
Runanga o Ngaiterangi Iwi Trust, Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga and Te Arawa
and their respective hapu which hold kaitiaki status over the wider Tauranga
Moana district, including any Working Group established by those hapu or iwi;
·
Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Western Bay of Plenty
District Council in relation to issues which may affect those councils in
accordance with their function under Condition 18.3(m) of Coastal Permit N0
62878 hereof.
(q)
Not later than one month following the first anniversary of the
commencement of these permits and on each anniversary thereafter, the
Wastewater Management Review Committee shall forward to the General Manager,
Bay of Plenty Regional Council, a report on the exercise of its activities and
functions, including where appropriate a report on the effectiveness of
measures undertaken pursuant to the Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement
Fund.
(r)
Not less than six months following the first anniversary of this permit
and each fifth anniversary thereafter, the Wastewater Management Review
Committee’s annual report shall contain a review of its activities over
the previous five-year period and recommendations for appropriate initiatives
over the next five-year period, including any recommendations for changes to
conditions of these permits which may be considered necessary or desirable.
This report shall be available at least three months prior to the date on which
Bay of Plenty Regional Council is entitled to review the conditions of these
permits in accordance with Condition 22 of Coastal Permit N0 62878
hereof.
(s)
A copy of this report shall also be provided to the Chief Executive,
Tauranga City Council.
(t)
As set out in Condition 18.1.3 of Coastal Permit N0 62878,
the Wastewater Management Review Committee Management Plan may be amended with
the written approval of the Chief Executive of Bay of Plenty Regional Council
or delegate.
(u)
Confirmation of Committee minutes.
Reporting
The Wastewater Management Review
Committee reports to Council and the Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty
Regional Council.
Chairperson and Deputy
Chairperson acting as Co-Chairs
The
Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Wastewater Management Review
Committee (WWMRC) have a governance role to ensure that the WWMRC meets
regularly and undertakes its role to monitor and provide advice to Tauranga
City Council as the consent holder of Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Coastal Permit # 62878 and ensure wastewater
operations are in accordance with the Wastewater Management Plan.
·
The Chairperson will be appointed by the Tauranga City Council
following a recommendation of the Wastewater Management Review Committee.
·
The Deputy Chairperson will be appointed by the Wastewater
Management Review Committee.
·
While these roles are separately appointed it is the intention
that they act as co-chairs.
○ Only one person can chair a meeting at any one time. The
person chairing the meeting has the powers of the chairperson as set out in
standing orders and has the option to use the casting vote in the case of an
equality of votes.
○ The rotation of the meeting chairs is at the discretion of the
Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and subject to their availability, however
it is expected that they will alternate chairing meetings when possible.
○ When the Deputy Chairperson is chairing the meeting, the Chairperson
will vacate the chair and enable the Deputy Chairperson to chair the
meeting. The Chairperson
will be able stay and participate in the meeting unless they declare a conflict
of interest in an item, in which case they will not participate or vote on that
item.
○ The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will attend pre-agenda
briefings and split any other duties outside of meetings, e.g. spokesperson for
WWMRC.
○ The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will jointly oversee and
co-ordinate all activities of the WWMRC within their specific terms of
reference and delegated authority, providing guidance and direction to all
members and liaising with Council staff in setting the content and priorities
of meeting agendas.
○ The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will be accountable for
ensuring that any recommendations from the WWMRC are considered by the Tauranga
City Council.
Refer to the position description for the Chairperson and
Deputy Chairperson for more details.
|
Wastewater Management Review Committee meeting Agenda
|
11
October 2023
|
9 Business
9.1 Wastewater
Programme Business Case
File
Number: A15085364
Author: Jane
Groves, Stormwater Programme Leader
Authoriser: Nic
Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure
Purpose of the Report
1. This
report provides an update on progress made on the Wastewater Programme Business
Case (PBC) since the last WWMRC meeting on 31st May 2023. It
seeks endorsement of agreed actions following a recent project hui held between
staff and tangata whenua project team members on 13th September
2023. This meeting was held in response to a tangata whenua paper (The Paper)
received on 29th August 2023 which set out outstanding and
additional matters for discussion.
2. This
report requests that the WWRMC endorse b). PBC outputs that were
presented at the 31st May WWMRC meeting for endorsement and c). agreed
actions from the September 2023 hui. If b) and c) are endorsed,
the WWMRC is then asked to endorse d) external engagement and e)
subsequent stages of the PBC commencing.
|
Recommendations
That the Wastewater
Management Review Committee:
(a) Receives the report "Wastewater
Programme Business Case".
(b) Endorse
the PBC outputs (as set out below and in Attachment 1 which were
presented at the 31st May WWMRC meeting for endorsement). Those
items coloured green in the attachment are not confirmed and are addressed
separately in c) below.
· Investment Logic Map: confirms problem statements and
define benefits from investment
· Benefits, KPIs and Measures: baseline and target values
to be confirmed
· Investment Objectives
· Key Service Requirements (KSRs): describe a change
sought, and the degree of change (minimum, intermediate, maximum) the
programme investment is expected to deliver. Subsequent steps of the PBC will
identify responses capable of delivering the respective levels of change for
each KSR. The KSRs are broad, and include growth and geographical coverage,
tangata whenua partnership and values, environmental considerations and
resilience requirements.
· Scope parameters: the scope boundaries for the investment
(based on the KSRs). Only options within the range of minimum, intermediate
and maximum will be assessed.
(c) Endorse
actions as agreed at the 13th September hui:
i. All
reporting to the WWMRC in relation to the PBC will be joint, and as such,
represent the views of the PBC project team as a whole.
ii. Amend
KSR 6 to ‘Promotes opportunities
for strong and enduring partnerships with tangata whenua’ and directly incorporate KSR 8 level/metric and
scope levels as noted below.
iii. Amend
wording for KSR 11 to ‘Actively
seeks practicable alternative options to the two consented overflows from the
WWTPs’. The level/metric has
also been amended to reflect this change. The scope levels remain
unchanged.
iv. Add a new CSF17 ‘Must not disturb additional urupā or
wāhi tapu sites’ (or similar wording), noting that further
discussion will be needed by the project team in order to apply this CSF due
to uncertainty around the wording of ‘disturb’ and
‘additional’. Wording to be agreed once clarification
achieved by the Project Team’.
v. Add long list assessment criteria on
‘Hapū and Iwi Management
Plans’
vi. Amend wording for CSF 10 to ‘Must not discharge wastewater directly to natural
freshwater receiving environments’.
vii. Amend
KSR 12 to ‘Actively seek practicable alternative options to the
discharge of wastewater to seawater’. The metric and scope
levels for this KSR will need to be confirmed with the project team.
viii. Request that the WWMRC ask staff to investigate the
separation of mortuary waste from the wastewater stream for report back at
future WWMRC meetings.
ix. Continue to work together on the
‘Terms of Reference’, paying particular attention to setting out
PBC purpose, decision-making and PBC approval, with a view to finalising
within one month of this meeting.
(d) On the basis of endorsement being given
for recommenations b) and c) i.-ix. gives approval for external engagement to
commence on the PBC (and confirmed outputs); and,
(e) Approves subsequent stages of the PBC commencing,
starting with long-list option identification in October/November 2023.
|
Background
Wastewater Programme Business Case Overview
3. The PBC will
define a ‘preferred way forward’ for future investment in the
wastewater scheme (including the marine outfall) and broader initiatives to
improve environmental performance, strengthen partnerships with tangata whenua
and improve system resilience. Tauranga City Council (TCC) is currently working
on integrating its network and plant strategies to support integrated
investment and the PBC will both reflect and support this integration.
4. A project team
(planning/technical experts, staff and three Tangata Whenua Iwi
representatives) have been working through the initial stages of the PBC
(utilising Treasury’s Better Business Case framework). The Tangata Whenua
representatives were invited to join the project team on the basis of them also
being members of the WWMRC (and thus having a pan-scheme mandate).
5. The PBC process
involves defining key issues with the wastewater scheme, the development of
objectives and service requirements for future investment and proposes possible
options or responses which could be implemented to meet service requirements.
These responses may include both infrastructure and non-infrastructure options
(e.g. educational and policy setting/coverage changes). The PBC will provide a
‘preferred way forward’ and ‘roadmap’ for future
investment across the wastewater scheme as a whole.
6. The
PBC will guide strategic planning for Council’s wastewater activity,
inform future detailed business cases (DBCs), resource consenting process (such
as that for a new marine outfall) and key strategic documents such as the
Long-Term Plan and 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy. It will also set the
scene for wastewater when Tauranga City potentially moves into a new water
services entity, demonstrating a robust decision process has been followed
which is recognised by central government. It provides an opportunity for
Tauranga to show what great looks like in terms of collaborative, long-term
planning.
Progress Following 31st May 2023 WWMRC Meeting
7. This report
provides an update on the PBC since last reporting to the WWMRC on 31st
May 2023. At this meeting the WWMRC were asked to endorse a range of
outputs and make decisions on four outstanding matters. The recommendations, as
put forward in the 31st May report are reproduced in Attachment 2
(for information).
8. At this meeting
tangata whenua members of the project team expressed their disappointment with
the report commenting that it did not represent the views of the project team
as a whole and that it was staff’s perspective on the outstanding matters
only.
9. In response to
these comments, the WWMRC:
(a) Referred the
Wastewater PBC Report back to the project team with a request that the views of
tangata whenua on any areas that required clarification be expressed in
writing.
(b) Requested
the project team to hold a subsequent meeting after receipt of the written
views from tangata whenua with a view to resolving any outstanding matters.
(c) Holds a
further committee meeting to receive the update from the project team.
10. Staff received
‘The Paper’ on behalf of tangata whenua project team members on 29th
August (Attachment 3, Tauranga City Council Wastewater
Programme Business Case, Tangata Whenua Paper, 29 August 2023). On 13th
September all convened at a hui to discuss the matters raised and try and reach
agreement on a way forward. This report outlines the key matters raised and
sets out the agreed position of Council staff and tangata whenua members of the
Project Team. Given the nature of the matters raised, and required WWMRC
reporting timeframes, Council staff are comfortable that the wider Project Team
will be briefed on developments after the 11th October WWMRC
meeting.
11. Reporting
to WWMRC: Following reporting to the 31st May WWMRC, there was a
clear desire for some mechanism of joint reporting to future WWMRC meetings to
ensure that perspective of all was appropriately presented. This was strongly
reiterated in point 5 of ‘The Paper’. It was agreed at the hui that
all reporting going forward to the WWMRC in relation to the PBC would represent
the collective view of the PBC project team.
Agreed
Action: All reporting to the WWMRC in
relation to the PBC will be joint, and as such, represent the views of the PBC
project team as a whole.
12. PBC Scope Regarding Cultural Redress: At the 31st
May meeting, the WWMRC were asked to consider whether a KSR (8) relating to the
extent to which the impact on iwi/hapū from existing arrangements is taken
into account in wastewater decisions should be included in the PBC.
Specifically, whether a) Cultural redress should be included and b) if so, was
the proposed Minimum and Aspirational scope wording presented acceptable.
Refer Attachment 2 for specific wording.
· In relation to the proposed KSR 8, the following comments
were made in the 31st May WWMRC report: The definition to ‘Provide greater equity in
wastewater decision-making’ does not align well with the metric and
scope descriptions which relate to: i) mitigation of effects for cultural
effects of existing wastewater infrastructure, ii) restoring
whenua/wai/taiao; and iii) returning whenua/wai/taiao. Should
the WWMRC decide to include this KSR within the scope of the PBC, staff
recommend renaming this KSR to more clearly reflect its purpose (refer options
for possible wording).
· In
Points 7 and 8 of ‘The Paper’ tangata whenua project team members
describe the intent behind this KSR, namely, to ensure historical and ongoing
effects associated with the taking of Nga Potiki and others lands for public
works infrastructure are taken into account when making decisions. ‘The
Paper’, in point 8a and b categorically states that this should not
be referred to as ‘cultural redress’ and that KSR is not asking
WWMRC or the WWPBC to provide for cultural redress or the return of lands,
rather that the KSR for a future wastewater management system “supports
tangata whenua’s vision to have land returned”. “For
us, this includes meaning that action will not be taken in the WWPBC that would
mean that tangata whenua could not pursue their aspirations in this respect,
and that it is not automatically assumed that wastewater infrastructure would
remain on tangata whenua lands that were taken under public works
legislation”.
· At the hui between Council staff and tangata whenua project
team members on 13th September, and following further clarification
from tangata whenua project team members on intent, reference to
‘cultural redress’ was removed from this KSR, and the intention to
‘promote opportunities for
partnership’ agreed.
· An existing KSR (6) sets out the lenses through which the
wastewater programme is to enable strong and enduring partnerships with tangata
whenua. The ‘extent to which the impact on iwi/hapu from existing
arrangements is taken into account in wastewater decisions’ provides one
such lens, and it was subsequently agreed to
amend existing KSR (6) to ‘Promotes
opportunities for strong and enduring partnerships with tangata whenua’ and to directly
incorporate the KSR 8 metric and levels, as shown
below.
· The
‘Minimum (Critical)’ and 'Maximum (Aspirational)' scope levels, as
written currently provide for iwi and hapū of Tauranga Moana being
supported by Council in their vision for the ‘restoration (minimum
scope)’ and ‘restoration and return (maximum scope)' of
their whenua/wai/taiao. Although it is recognised that these aspects
extend beyond the scope of the WWMRC (and PBC) alone, and that there are other
statutory requirements and processes that Council would be required to step
through, e.g. Local Government Act 1974/2022 (LGA)/ Reserves Act 1977
(depending on land ownership), the Project Team agree that the PBC should
reflect and support this vision and follow/implement as it can any Council-led
direction in this regard.
Agreed Action:
Amend wording of KSR 6 to ‘Promotes opportunities for strong and
enduring partnerships with tangata whenua’, and directly incorporate
the KSR8 level/metric and scope levels as noted below (amended and incorporated
text shown in green).
13. KSR 11 ‘Seek to avoid direct wet weather wastewater
overflows to wai receiving environments’: The WWMRC was asked on 31st
May to consider whether KSR 11 'Seek to avoid direct wet weather wastewater
overflows to wai receiving environments’ should be included as a KSR,
and, if included whether the wording proposed was acceptable.
· The 31st
May paper to the WWMRC indicated that there were some overlap of this KSR with
KSR 10 Enables a reduction in wet weather wastewater overflows, and also
outlined staffs concern around the use of the word ‘avoid’, even
when prefaced with ‘seeks to’. This concern related to staff
considering that seeking to avoid such overflows would, in practice, require
Council to cease use of, and not renew consents for, the City’s only two
consented direct wet weather overflow points (located at each of the WWTPs).
· At the hui on 13th September the following was
agreed:
o Removal of the word ‘seeks’, replacing with
‘where practicable’ to acknowledge that in some circumstances total
avoidance may not be achievable, particularly in the short-term. This is
acknowledged in The Paper, point 10b., which clarifies that there is a wish “to
plan for a future where direct discharge to water is not an option i.e.
emergency wet weather overflows at least go to land based treatment first
before being discharge to any wai receiving environment”, but that
“We do not consider this means TCC needs to cease the use of, or not seek
to renew consents for the 2 consented direct wet weather overflow points as
long as there is a plan to cease this practice”. Discussion at
the hui further clarified that investigations into alternative locations or
further treatment of wastewater prior to discharge was sought.
o That the intent was that this KSR should be directed to the
two consented overflows only. The ‘name’ of the KSR and
‘level/metric’ wording has also therefore been amended to reflect this.
Agreed Action:
Amend wording of KSR 11 to ‘Actively seeks practicable alternative
options to the two consented overflows from the WWTPs’. The
level/metric has also been amended to reflect this change. The scope
levels remain unchanged.
17. Long-List Assessment Criteria (CSF17) ‘Must Not
Disturb Additional Urupā or Wāhi Tapu Sites’: The WWMRC was asked to in May to consider whether (CSF17)
‘Must not disturb additional urupā or wāhi tapu sites’
should be included in the PBC. This would see a given option assessed and
scored against how well it meets this criterion. CSFs are "the must
dos/must not dos", i.e. they are intended to be directive.
· When considering this, a number of matters were raised in
the 31st May report, such as the existence already of requirements
under Sections 6(e) and (f) of the RMA to recognise and provide for the
relationship of tangata whenua with wāhi tapu and for the protection of
historic heritage from inappropriate use and development. A number of
uncertainties regarding interpretation of wording disturb, additional and the
location of these sites were raised. These matters are discussed in
‘The Paper’ at point 11.
· Regardless of these uncertainties and comments, the Project
Team at the 13th September hui agreed to include a new CSF 17, with
wording as noted in the 31st May report (and as below).
· It is also agreed that, in order to apply this CSF, further
discussion will be needed within the project team to clarify the perceived
uncertainties around the wording ‘disturb’and ‘additional',
but that these uncertainties should not preclude the addition of this CSF to
the PBC.
Agreed Action: Include
a new CSF17 ‘Must not disturb
additional urupā or wāhi tapu sites’ (or similar wording),
noting that further discussion will be needed by the project team in order to
apply this CSF due to uncertainty around the wording of ‘disturb’
and ‘additional’. Wording to be agreed once clarification
achieved by the project team’.
18. Long List Assessment Criteria on Hapū and Iwi
Management Plans (HIMPs): The WWMRC in May were asked to consider
whether HIMPs should be added as CSFs within the Long List Option Assessment
Criteria (as above, they are "the must dos/must not dos" and are
directive).
· CSFs
are essential to the successful delivery of the programme and cover a range of
categories. Strategic Fit CSFs consider strategic alignment with
national, regional and local- level legislation, policy and plans to provide
opportunity to reflect the needs of the organisation, tangata whenua and
community through merit/performance-based criteria. Further, "Strategic
Fit" CSFs are assessed for strategic alignment rather than
‘provision by provision/section by section’ compliance.
· In
the 31st May report concerns were raised in relation to adding HIMPs
as CSF. These related to the number and varying and potentially broad
nature of HIMPs across the region, the age of some, and the risk that it would
be unclear which HIMPs need to be assessed.
· Regardless of these concerns, the project team agreed to
include long-list assessment criteria on Hapu and Iwi Management Plans. The
inclusion assumes an assessment of strategic alignment (as will be the case for
assessment of strategic fit with all other documents referenced in the
Strategic Fit CSFs) - not a ‘provision by provision/section by
section’ assessment – this approach is supported in The Paper at
13.c. Further commentary in The Paper also supports their inclusion at
this level “strategic assessment against HIMPs may be an opportunity
to capture whakaaro from iwi/hapu who have yet to engage in the is process or
unable to engage due to resourcing issues”. Further that “issues
of interpretation or whether or not they are up to date (and possibly not be
considered) can be determined by checking with the iwi/hapu who created
it”.
Agreed Action: Include
long list assessment criteria on ‘Hapū and Iwi Management
Plans’
19. Critical
Success Factor 10 ‘Must not discharge treated wastewater directly to natural wetlands, groundwater, rivers, lakes and streams’. ‘The Paper’ at 14b. states that “there
is a preference for the wording below as it allows a wide interpretation
ensuring wider protection of wai receiving environments”. This
amended wording is agreed. The project team will also work together to
confirm a consistent, shared view of the word ‘directly’ in the
context of natural freshwater receiving environments, prior to long list option
assessment.
Agreed Action: New
wording for CSF 10 Must not discharge wastewater directly to natural freshwater
receiving environments.
· There was discussion and agreement within the hui that this
new wording/CSF does not encompass direct discharges to seawater, but
that discharge of wastewater to seawater requires further Iwi discussion as
there is a strong desire for it to be phased out. In this regard,
‘The Paper’ at 14c. states that
Tangata Whenua members of the project team “did not have direction on
appropriate receiving environment of treated wastewater post-treatment at the
Te Maunga constructed wetlands and we would need to consider this with iwi
entities” and that “it is questionable as to whether the
constructed wetlands have the qualitites of an actual wetland so that
wastewater is receiving the treatment required from a tangata whenua
perspective. We consider this a significant issue to tangata whenua that
will involve wānanga amongst iwi entities”. On the basis of
these comments, it was subsequently agreed to amend existing KSR 12 to the
following:
Agreed Action:
Amend KSR 12 to ‘Actively seeks practicable alternative options to the
discharge of wastewater to seawater’. The metric and scope
levels have been provided in draft, below, and will be confirmed by the project
team. Within the existing metric and scope levels for this KSR,
‘coast’ is to be replaced with ‘seawater’.
20. Mortuary Waste: The Paper at
14e Long List SWOT Analysis #4 – Tangata Considerations, affirms Tangata
Whenua’s strong preference to separate waste streams, particularly
mortuary waste. This is not reflected in SWOT Analysis #4.
Agreed Action: Request that the WWMRC ask staff to investigate the
separation of mortuary waste from the wastewater stream for report back at
future WWMRC meetings. The commissioning of investigations and reports, such as
this, falls within the terms of reference of the WWMRC.
21. Geographical Scope: Key
Service Requirement 1 – Adequate Geographical Area is Serviced.
The Paper in point 14a states that tangata whenua “do
not support increasing the geographical scope beyond where Te Maunga WWTP
already takes wastewater from. This is based on the premise that Nga
Potiki do not wish to treat wastewater on Nga Potiki whenua from iwi/hapu well
removed from the Nga Potiki rohe”.
Staff
at the hui clarified that scope in the PBC related to geographical areas
being considered for wastewater servicing in some way –
it did not automatically infer that the areas would be serviced specifically by
the Te Maunga WWTP. There was general acceptance by all of the
clarification.
22. Project
Terms of Reference: A draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the PBC (and
project team) was circulated in June 2023 for comment (Attachment 4).
This draft ToR describes the purpose of the project team, scope of work,
membership, responsibilities and decision making processes. This ToR
requires further discussion to agree some elements and remains in draft.
‘The Paper’ (in points 6a.-c.) sets out several matters for
discussion and possible inclusion; clearly stating the purpose of the WWMRC,
clear consensus decision-making process with an independent facilitator and
approval of PBC work’. Whilst the independence of the existing
facilitator was discussed and confirmed at the September 13th hui,
the other aspects raised have not been discussed yet in any detail and it was
agreed at the hui that the project team will continue to work together with a
view to finalising the ToR within one month of this meeting .
Agreed Action: Continue to work together on the Terms of Reference,
paying particular attention to setting out PBC purpose, decision-making and PBC
approval, with a view to finalising within one month of this meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
23. The
WWMRC:
a) Receives the report "Wastewater Programme Business
Case".
b) Endorse the PBC outputs
(below and in Attachment 1 of this report). Those
items coloured green in the attachment are not confirmed and dealt with
separately in c). below. These are those elements that were presented at the
31st May WWMRC meeting for endorsement:
· Investment Logic Map: confirms problem statements and
define benefits from investment
· Benefits, KPIs and Measures: baseline and target values to
be confirmed
· Investment Objectives
· Key Service Requirements (KSRs) and the degree of change
for each (minimum, intermediate, maximum) the programme investment is expected
to deliver. These are broad, and include growth and geographical coverage,
tangata whenua partnership and values, environmental considerations and resilience
requirements.
· Scope parameters: the scope boundaries for the investment
(based on the KSRs). Only options within the range of minimum, intermediate and
maximum will be assessed.
c) Endorse
actions as agreed at the 13th September Hui for:
i. All reporting to the WWMRC in relation to
the PBC will be joint, and as such, represent the views of the PBC project team
as a whole.
ii. Amend wording of KSR 6 to ‘Promotes
opportunities for strong and enduring partnerships with tangata whenua’
and directly incorporate KSR 8 level/metric and scope levels as noted below.
iii. Amend
wording of KSR 11 to ‘Actively seek practicable alternative options to
the two consented overflows from the WWTPs’. The level/metric has
also been amended to reflect this change. The scope levels remain
unchanged.
iv. Add a new CSF17 ‘Must not disturb
additional urupā or wāhi tapu sites’ (or similar wording),
noting that further discussion will be needed by the project team in order to
apply this CSF due to uncertainty around the wording of ‘disturb’
and ‘additional’. Wording to be agreed once clarification
achieved by the project team.
v. Add long list assessment criteria on ‘Hapū
and Iwi Management Plans’
vi. Amend wording for CSF 10 to ‘Must not
discharge wastewater directly to natural freshwater receiving environments’.
vii. Amend KSR 12 to ‘Actively
seek practicable alternative options to the discharge of wastewater to seawater’.
The metric and scope levels for this KSR will need to be confirmed with the
project team.
viii. Request that the WWMRC ask staff to
investigate the separation of mortuary waste from the wastewater stream for
report back at future WWMRC meetings.
ix. Continue to work together on the ‘Terms of
Reference’, paying particular attention to setting out PBC purpose,
decision-making and PBC approval, with a view to finalising within a month of
this meeting.
d) On the basis of endorsement being given for recommenations
b. and c i.-ix. gives approval for external engagement to commence on the PBC
(and confirmed outputs); and,
e) Approves subsequent stages of the PBC commencing, starting
with long-list option identification in October/November 2023.
Strategic / Statutory Context
24. The key
obligations for Council, in respect to engaging with Tangata Whenua in the
context of the PBC process, arise under:
(a) the
LGA;
(b) future
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) consenting processes (whereby any assessment
of alternatives and cultural effects of an activity will be assessed by the
decision-maker); and
(c) the
terms of reference and scope of the WWMRC.
25. Statutory
obligations will also likely be strengthened further through the wider
legislative reforms (e.g. the RMA, 3 waters reform) and the Te Mana o Te Wai
requirements under the NPSFM 2020.
26. The PBC process
itself, ‘sets the scene' for the more detailed assessment of options and
will feed into future processes under the RMA. However, it is important that
some of the statutory obligations on Council are borne in mind in the context
of this process. In particular, there are a range of LGA obligations in
relation to Tangata Whenua. For example, S77 of the LGA imposes an
obligation on a local authority when making a significant decision in relation
to land or a body of water:
77
Requirements in relation to decisions: A local authority
must, in the course of the decision-making process,—
(a) seek to identify all
reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a
decision; and
(b) assess the options in
terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
(c) if any
of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision
in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of
Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water,
sites, wahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.
27. For
Council to be able to 'take into account' those Māori-related matters,
Council must engage with appropriate tangata whenua groups to fully understand
what that relationship is. It is only tangata whenua that can articulate
"the relationship of Māori and their culture/traditions" with a
particular site or taonga, and what impact a particular proposed activity may
have on that relationship.
28. The need for
Council to have a clear understanding of these matters is also related to the
Treaty principle of informed decision-making.
Options Analysis
29. There are no options proposed in this report.
Significance
30. The
Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of
matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some
instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of
importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.
31. In
making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and
consequences for:
(a) the
current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural
well-being of the district/region.
(b) any
persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the
decision.
(c) the
capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and
other costs of doing so.
32. In
accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the
policy, it is considered that the decision is of high significance as it
affects the Tauranga City wastewater scheme as a whole and looks at potential
future servicing within the Western Bay of Plenty district. The populations,
stakeholders and Tangata Whenua Iwi and Hapū groups potentially impacted
by the outcomes of the PBC and decisions to be made through this report are
wide ranging and extensive.
Engagement
33. Taking
into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high
significance and the information contained within the Strategic / Statutory
Context section above, the following comments regarding
consultation/engagement on the PBC are noted:
· The
PBC project team comprises planning/technical experts, staff and Tangata Whenua
Iwi representatives (who are also members of the WWMRC). These Iwi members
represent the cultural interests of their respective Iwi/Hapū and the
WWMRC by reporting to/back from these groups and providing cultural feedback on
PBC deliverables. The PBC, and makeup of the project team serve, in the lead up
to a new Water Services Entity operating, to lay the foundations for a genuine,
collaborative, partnership approach (that provides for co-design, and
co-governance).
· Annika
Lane (Principal, Beca) has been engaged to assist with the broader engagement
approach for the PBC. Meetings with relevant staff have been completed to
inform a draft Engagement Plan for the project - this is on hold pending inputs
from TCC Communications staff, but on completion will inform the nature of
stakeholder engagement which would commence when approval to do so is provided
by the WWMRC.
· Tangata
Whenua project team members have been asked to provide a scope of work relating
to a cultural engagement plan. This would inform the parties, nature of, and
timing for additional engagement with relevant Iwi and Hapū both within
Tauranga City and Western BOP. This work is still ongoing with progress to
be reported to future WWMRC meetings.
Next Steps
34. On the basis of
the WWMRC endorsing recommendations a – e, the following is proposed:
(a) A full project team meeting to discuss any still
outstanding matters, and progress/agree the Terms of Reference, likely late
October/early November.
(b) Two workshops (est. October - December 2023) to carry out
long-list option identification - both infrastructure and non-infrastructure
options that can potentially meet the investment objectives and deliver the
KSRs. To assist in this task, the project team will be provided with a starter
set of long-list options for discussion and will be asked to consider
alternative/additional options for tabling at the workshop.
(c) As per the programme (last slide Attachment 1), the
assessment of confirmed long-list options will not occur until early 2024,
enabling any required investigations to be completed (these will inform the
assessment process). Short-listing, programme road-map development and drafting
of the PBC will then occur over subsquent months concluding in late mid 2024.
Given the volume of material to be covered, complexity, rate of progress and
feedback/input from stakeholder engagement, programme timing and completion of
the PBC is indicative only.
(d) Continue to link with other TCC initiatives to maximise
alignment and leverage any mutually required activities and effort (e.g. the
Sub-Regional Wastewater Study ‘Our Water Futures’).
Attachments
1. 2023
May 31 Wastewater Management Review Committee - Wastewater Programme Business
Case Attachment 1 PDF (A14691634) (A14691639) - A15086651 ⇩ 
2. 2023
May 31 Wastewater Management Review Committee - Wastewater Programme Business
Case Recommendations - A14691639 ⇩
3. 2023
August 29 Tangata Whenua Paper - WWPBC - A15086707 ⇩
4. 2023 June Draft PBC
Terms of Reference - A15086699 ⇩
|
Wastewater
Management Review Committee meeting Agenda
|
11
October 2023
|
9.2 WWMRC
Activity Report
File
Number: A15131521
Author: Jim
Summers, Consents Officer
Authoriser: Nic
Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure
Purpose of the Report
1. To provide information
to the Wastewater Management Review Committee on the status of wastewater
network and associated projects.
|
Recommendations
That the Wastewater
Management Review Committee:
(a) Receives the report
"WWMRC Activity Report".
|
discussion
RC62878 – Te Maunga Outfall Discharge Consent
2. All required sampling
within consent limits.
RC62882, RC62883,
RC62885 – Overflow Emergency Discharge (Chapel Street & Te Maunga)
3. Seepage into the harbour
is being measured monthly. All results have been within consent limits with no
significant changes since desludging began.
4. No emergency discharges
from Chapel or Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) since the previous
committee meeting in June 2023.
Wastewater Overflows
5. Since the previous
committee meeting in June 2023 there have been 23 blockages that have been
notified to council. 18 did not leave the network and were contained to land.
Two discharged to the stormwater system, and three potentially made the
receiving environment. These were all notified to BoPRC, Toi Te Ora and local
hapu/iwi RMA reps. Water quality sampling was undertaken, and warning signage
placed in the relevant areas until results indicated no further impacts on
water quality.
RC62722 & RC62723
- Te Maunga & Chapel Street Odour
6. No odour complaints
received for Te Maunga or Chapel Street since the last WWMRC meeting.
Inflow and
Infiltration (I&I)
7. When stormwater and
groundwater enters the wastewater network this can provide a number of issues
to the functionality of the wastewater network. The effects are wide ranging
but mainly reduce the capacity within the wastewater network from unwanted
inputs.
8. TCC’s engineer
will provide an update on TCC’s I&I strategy, and what the next steps
are.
Desludging Pond 1
9. The contractor has
removed over 6000 dry tonnes of sludge from Pond 1 since the start of the
desludging.
10. The desludging programme is
currently on schedule with Conhur working 24-hour shifts.
11. Two sludge cells on Tip Lane
landfill are filled and stabilised with saw dust.
12. BoPRC attended site on July 2023
and were satisfied with compliance with the consent.
Clarifier 3
13. Construction contract has been
awarded to HEB and construction has commenced.
14. To date works completed are topsoil
stripping, site establishment, sheet piles and installation of a dewatering
system.
15. Bulk excavation is due to commence
late September 2023.
16. Nga Potiki has been commissioned to
provide monitoring service during excavation.
Bioreactor Two
17. Construction of the internal grid
CFA piles is complete. Piles are being tested and checked for compliance with
the specification. Defective piles will be repaired in due course.
18. Perimeter wall remedial works are
in the planning phase with work expected to commence early October 2023.
19. Delays have occurred, pushing the
completion date of the ground improvement works to March 2024.
20. Balance of works Contract
(above ground works) is scheduled to commence in April 24 and take 15 months to
complete.
Landward Section of
Outfall
21. This project has been completed.
Marine Section of
Outfall
22. The marine outfall has been cleared
of debris (pieces of grout) and inspected by CCTV.
23. The CCTV inspection data is being
reviewed to assess the condition of the pipeline. Results are expected in about
6-9 weeks’ time
New Inlet Works
24. Work has commenced on the
decommissioning of the existing odour bed and replacement with new technology
with a smaller footprint. This will be completed in the 3rd quarter of 2024.
25. Work is progressing with the
assessment of concept options for the New Inlet Works. Once a preferred option
is selected, procurement of mechanical plant will commence.
26. Preliminary design of the NIW will
commence in the 3rd quarter of 2024, after the mechanical plant supply contracts
have been awarded.
Site Investigations
27. Site investigations (geotechnical,
groundwater, environmental) will commence later this year for Bioreactor 3 and
Picket Fence Thickener 3.
Environmental Mitigation & Enhancement Fund (EMEF)
28. Next steps are for the appointment
panel (made up of committee members) to assess and appoint the independent
panel members. Once the panel is in place applications to the fund can
reopen.
Attachments
Nil
