consenting design report - whangarei · preliminary geotechnical site investigations have been ......
TRANSCRIPT
Whau Valley WTP AEE
Beca // 18 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-12084254-21 0.21 // page 70
Appendix E
Consenting Design Report
Report
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
Prepared for Whangarei District Council
Prepared by CH2M Beca Ltd
15 February 2016
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page i
Revision History
Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date
A Francesca Nicklin Draft for discussion 01/10/2015
B Francesca Nicklin Issued for review 12/11/2015
C Francesca Nicklin Issued for submission with AEE and NoR 15/02/2015
Document Acceptance
Action Name Signed Date
Prepared by Francesca Nicklin
15/02/2016
Reviewed by Philip La Roche
15/02/2016
Approved by Philip La Roche
15/02/2016
on behalf of CH2M Beca Ltd
© CH2M Beca 2015 (unless CH2M Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).
This report has been prepared by CH2M Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which CH2M Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page ii
Executive Summary
Commencing November 2013 Whangarei District Council (WDC) undertook a review of its existing Whau
Valley Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and compared the cost and benefits of upgrading its existing plant with
the option of building a new plant. It was concluded that a new treatment plant should be pursued rather
than upgrading of the existing, based on the following key considerations:
n Ability to achieve full compliance with Building Code seismic design requirements.
n Increased asset life as a result of the asset renewal.
n Moving away from the constrained current site in an urban area allows arrangements for safe delivery of
bulk chemicals and storage of chlorine gas to be more readily achieved.
n Opportunity to incorporate current best practice process design, providing decreased risk of Drinking
Water Standards for New Zealand non-compliance.
n Cost margin between upgrading and replacement being such that the benefits of replacement are justified
and in the long term interests of Whangarei.
A range of sites were considered, of which three sites for a new WTP were investigated in greater detail.
274 Whau Valley Road was selected as the most appropriate site for a new WTP.
This report presents a concept design for a new WTP at 274 Whau Valley Road in order to inform the Notice
of Requirement and resource consent process.
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page iii
Contents
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Background 5
1.2 Purpose 6
2 Alternative Sites Considered 6
3 Design Basis 10
3.1 Capacity 10
3.2 Treated Water Quality Objectives 10
3.3 Raw Water Quality 12
4 Concept Design 15
4.1 Process 15
4.2 Chemical Dosing 20
4.3 Raw Water and Treated Water Conveyance 21
4.4 Waste Management 22
4.5 Services 23
4.6 Hydraulics 24
5 Site Layout 28
5.1 Survey 28
5.2 Flood Hazard Assessment 29
5.3 Geotechnical Investigations 30
5.4 Bulk Earthworks 32
5.5 National Environmental Standard Study 32
5.6 Traffic Impact, Bridges and Roading 32
5.7 Landscape Design 33
5.8 Future Use of Existing WTP Site 33
6 Consenting and Compliance 34
6.1 Summary of Consenting Process 34
6.2 Operational Noise and Vibration 34
6.3 Ecology 35
6.4 Archaeological and NZ Heritage Assessment 35
6.5 Consultation 35
6.6 Landscape and Visual Assessment 36
7 Concept Construction Methodology 37
7.1 Concept Construction Methodology 37
7.2 Estimated Additional Vehicle Movements 37
7.3 Noise and Vibration 37
7.4 Sedimentation and Erosion Controls 37
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page iv
Appendices
Appendix A
Process Flow Diagram
Appendix B
Site Layout
Appendix C
Site Survey
Appendix D
Geotechnical Factual Report
Appendix E
Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report
Appendix F
NESS
Appendix G
Archaeological Assessment Report
Appendix H
On-site Dewatering Assessment Memo
Appendix I
Flood Hazard Assessment
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 5
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Commencing November 2013 Whangarei District Council (WDC) undertook a review of its existing Whau
Valley Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and compared the cost and benefits of upgrading its existing plant with
the option of building a new plant. It was concluded that a new treatment plant should be pursued rather
than upgrading of the existing, based on the following key considerations:
n Ability to achieve full compliance with Building Code seismic design requirements.
n Increased asset life as a result of the asset renewal.
n Moving away from the constrained current site in an urban area allows arrangements for safe delivery of
bulk chemicals and storage of chlorine gas to be more readily achieved.
n Opportunity to incorporate current best practice process design, providing decreased risk of Drinking
Water Standards for New Zealand non-compliance.
n Cost margin between upgrading and replacement being such that the benefits of replacement are justified
and in the long term interests of Whangarei.
Three sites for a new WTP were investigated and 274 Whau Valley Road was selected as the most
appropriate site for a new WTP. Refer to Section 2 for a detailed summary.
1.1.1 Reference Documents
This report makes reference to the documents in Table 1 issued to WDC by CH2M Beca.
Table 1: Reference documents
Reference document Brief summary of content
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Site Assessment Report by CH2M Beca
July 2015
Purpose of report was to investigate factors that could have a significant impact on the cost or viability of the construction of a new WTP. Three site were investigated:
n 213 Whau Valley Road
n 274 Whau Valley Road
n Dam Southern Abutment
This report recommended that it would be in WDC’s best long term interests to build a new plant and that 274 Whau Valley Road has the most potential for development.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Report by CH2M Beca Ltd.
November 2014
Purpose of report was to investigate alternative sites for a new WTP. It focussed on the WDC owned 213 Whau Valley Road site. The geotechnical conditions at 213 Whau Valley Road were found to be unfavourable so more detailed investigations of other sites was recommended.
Whau Valley New WTP Feasibility Memo by CH2M Beca
March 2014
This memo looked at the feasibility of a new WTP, including process design, layout at 213 Whau Valley Road and a very rough order of cost.
Whau Valley Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Options Assessment Report by CH2M Beca
February 2014
Purpose of report was to investigate and lay out upgrade options for the existing Whau Valley WTP. The investigation work found that the cost to refurbish the existing structures to bring them up to an appropriate level of current building code meant that the cost of a new plant could be feasible.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 6
Reference document Brief summary of content
Whau Valley WTP Asset Condition Assessment Report by CH2M Beca
January 2014
Purpose of report was to provide a structural assessment of the existing Whau Valley WTP and establish the extent of remedial work required to extend the life of the plant by 20 to 30 years. The investigations found that extensive remedial work would be required to address serviceability and seismic issues.
1.2 Purpose
The primary objective of this consenting concept design report is to inform the Notice of Requirement
process for 274 Whau Valley Road.
2 Alternative Sites Considered
2.1.1 Upgrade Existing Plant
Originally WDC intended to upgrade the existing Whau Valley WTP to expand the plant’s capacity, enhance
the treatment process to robustly meet the requirements of the Drinking Water Standards of New Zealand
(DWSNZ) and to extend its life by 20 to 30 years.
A number of plant upgrades were recommended, however the overall cost of these upgrades (largely
influenced by the remedial structural works required to bring the existing plant structures up to an appropriate
level of the building code) was at such a level that WDC has decided to bring forward the construction of a
new WTP forward. Refer to Section 2.1.5 for a summary of estimated costs.
The cost of refurbishing the existing Whau Valley WTP is based upon needing to achieve a minimum of 67%
of the current Building Code seismic requirements. Since this was evaluated in 2013, the New Zealand
Government has updated their policy on the required upgrades to existing structures. The outcome of this is
that WDC (being in a low risk area) would now not need to assess the building seismic strength until 2030,
and would have until 2065 to strengthen the building. However, any significant alteration of the building
would trigger the need to upgrade, and hence the upgrading requirements are not significantly changed
since the previous recommendations were completed.
2.1.2 213 Whau Valley Road
This site is close to the base of the dam and is owned by Whangarei District Council.
Initial consultation has been undertaken with neighbours to this site by Whangarei District Council’s planner.
Initial concerns raised were reasonable and should be able to be managed and mitigated.
Although there is sufficient land area owned at this site for the prosed works, it would be preferable to
purchase one of the two neighbouring properties (either 215 or 227 Whau Valley Road) to enable increased
setback distances and landscaping to mitigate the impact of the plant on the community.
Preliminary geotechnical site investigations have been completed at this site. Ground conditions at this site
are poor, with a large depth to rock (greater than the 30 m depth to which drilling was completed); materials
that are expected to give some settlement and layers with the potential for liquefaction under seismic events.
Allowance for ground improvement works adds an estimated $1.6 million to the cost of developing the 213
Whau Valley Road site. The project cost estimate is expected to be adequate to reduce the risks from long
term settlement and liquefaction settlement to acceptable levels.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 7
2.1.3 274 Whau Valley Road
There is a flat area of a suitable size for a treatment plant in this area. The site is large enough to provide
reasonable setback from the existing residential properties.
Initial consultation has been undertaken with neighbours to this site by Whangarei District Council’s planner.
Initial concerns raised were considered to be reasonable and able to be mitigated through the design
process.
This site has better ground conditions than 213 Whau Valley Road with a shallower depth to rock being
found. It is still expected to require some ground improvement works but of a lesser cost than for 213.
Cost of services (treated water pipeline and sewer in particular) would be lower for this site due to the shorter
distances.
Preliminary geotechnical site investigations have been completed at this site. Ground conditions at this site
are reasonable. Allowance for ground improvement works adds an additional estimated $1.0 million to the
cost of developing the 274 Whau Valley Road site. The project cost estimate is expected to be adequate to
reduce the risks from long term settlement and liquefaction settlement to acceptable levels.
Although close to the flood plain, the plant will be able to be constructed clear of the 1:100 year flood plain.
There is a risk that the site could be inundated under the worst case dam break.
2.1.4 Dam Southern Abutment
The flat area at the south end of the dam embankment has been formed by the excavation of borrow
material for the construction of the dam. At least 10m of overburden has been removed from the majority of
the site, exposing rock for a significant area. Foundation conditions are expected to be good in this area.
Being on a dam complicates building on this site. The auxiliary emergency spillway would need to be
modified to accommodate a treatment plant in this area. Dam safety aspects would also need to be carefully
considered.
The area is currently zoned open public space and has a public amenity value, which would need to be
considered during a consenting process.
Hydraulically this site would be a substantial change, being elevated at least 20m above other sites being
considered. Raw water pumping would be required from the Dam to the treatment plant. There could be the
opportunity to create supply to a higher level zone, including reducing the pumping to Kamo, off setting some
of the additional pumping energy required for operation at this site.
There have not been any specific geotechnical investigations performed at this site.
2.1.5 Estimated Cost
The total estimated cost of the construction of the new Water Treatment Plant is $18.3 million at 213 Whau
Valley Road, $16.3 million at 274 Whau Valley Road and $18.6 million at the Dam Southern Abutment site,
compared to $12.7 million to upgrade the existing plant.
Key exclusions are:
n Council internal and project costs
n Expected land purchase cost for 274 Whau Valley Road is included.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 8
n No allowance is included for the potential (but not essential) need to purchase neighbouring sites at 213
Whau Valley Road if this site was selected.
n Cost of any easements required.
n Removal and treatment of any contaminated materials should they be encountered on the site.
n Legal transfers, stamp duties, insurance and the like.
n Escalation and FOREX provisions. These estimates are based on present day (July 2015 ) rates and
allowances and no allowance has been for future escalation and changes in exchange rates
n No allowance for import duties or tariffs
n Premium rates for accelerated programme
n Future reservoirs are excluded from this estimate
n Demolition of existing WTP
n Potential proceeds from the sale of surplus land
n GST
The cost estimates are based on concept level information and the accuracy should be considered to be
consistent with this level of design information.
The estimated additional cost of UV/Peroxide is $2.1 million. UV disinfection would not be expected to be
necessary in addition to UV/Peroxide and hence the additional cost of this option over and above the base
estimate presented above is a net $1.5 million.
The waste management strategy is based on clarifier sludge being discharged to sewer, backwash wastes
being settled and recycled and filter to waste being recycled to the process. This minimises the total waste
discharge volume and is the lowest total lifecycle cost option based on estimates completed. An optional
cost for on-site dewatering, should this option be favoured, is approximately $1.4 million.
2.1.5.1 New Plant versus Existing Plant Upgrade
Previous studies have been completed evaluating the costs of upgrading the existing plant versus
construction of a new plant. Comparative estimated costs are as follows:
Table 1 - New WTP versus WTP Upgrade
Option Estimated Cost Key Assumptions
Upgrade Existing WTP $12,740,000 n Based on refurbishment of all existing clarifiers and filters.
n Based on achieving 67% of current Building Code seismic
requirements.
n Includes $1.25 million for recoating of structures – this may not be
necessary if a long extended asset life is not required.
New WTP at 213 Whau Valley Road
$18,300,000 n Excludes optional organics removal.
n Ground conditions costs are based on excavation and replacement of
the upper soil layer and soil stabilisation.
n New treated water pipe from new WTP to reservoir (no new raw
water pipe from Hatea River or Whau Valley Dam)
New WTP at 274 Whau Valley Road
$16,300,000 n Excludes optional organics removal.
n Ground conditions costs are based on excavation and replacement of
the upper soil layer and soil stabilisation.
n New treated water pipe from new WTP to reservoir (no new raw
water pipe from Hatea River or Whau Valley Dam)
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 9
Option Estimated Cost Key Assumptions
New WTP at Dam Southern Abutment
$18,600,000 n Includes raw water pumping
n Assumes no significant ground improvements are required
n New treated water pipe from new WTP to reservoir (no new raw
water pipe from Hatea River)
The above estimates are done on a comparable scope basis in terms of the process options included.
We consider that approximately 30% cost premium for the construction of a new plant is justified by the
combined benefits of the following, and hence we consider the option of a new plant to be in WDC’s best
long term interests.
n Lower Cost of Asset Upgrades and Renewals. This could be expected particularly over the next 20 or
so years. An upgraded plant would still be likely to need further upgrades and renewals over time, with
only components that have reached the end of their useful life being renewed, in comparison to a new
plant, designed to incorporate advances in process design and including all new structures and
equipment.
n Reduced Risk from Seismic Events – A new plant would achieve full compliance with current seismic
design codes, whereas an upgraded existing plant can only be feasibly upgraded to achieve 67% of the
current Building Code, and further there remains a residual risk that components in the existing plant
could remain (particularly where inaccessible and/or where records of construction are unclear) which
could have lower strength and have significant risk of being unserviceable following a seismic event.
The cost of refurbishing the existing Whau Valley WTP is based upon needing to achieve 67% of the
current Building Code seismic requirements. Since this was evaluated in 2013, the New Zealand
Government has updated their policy on the required upgrades to existing structures. The outcome of
this is that WDC (being in a low risk area) would now not need to assess the building seismic strength
until 2030, and would have until 2065 to strengthen the building. However, any significant alteration of
the building would trigger the need to upgrade, and hence the upgrading requirements are not
significantly changed since the previous recommendations were completed.
n Plant Location - Moving out of the urban area to a less constrained site enables arrangements for safe
storage of chlorine gas and delivery of bulk chemicals to be more readily achieved, can be designed for
greater accessibility for maintenance and will have greater flexibility to incorporate future process
changes which could be required.
n Process Performance and Compliance – the risk of non-compliance would be expected to be lower
with a new plant in comparison to an existing plant where compromises in design are required to fit within
the constraints of the existing structures.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 10
3 Design Basis
3.1 Capacity
Table 1 - Plant Capacity
Parameter Value Unit Basis
Maximum Treated Water Capacity of Existing Plant
16,800 m3/d WDC RFP document
Proposed Upgrade Treated Water Capacity at New Plant
22,600 m3/d 30% increase in capacity (target value)
WDC strategic direction report.
Minimum Treated Water Capacity of New Plant
2,260 m3/d 10% of maximum design flow as requested by
WDC in email dated 11/09/2015.
Idea is that plant needs to be able to run on low flows (ie during drought).
Expected Raw Water capacity at proposed upgrade treated water capacity
23,950 m3/d 5% allowance for flow variability plus 1% allowance
for waste flow stream
Peak treated water flow 1,256 m3/h 33% allowance for peak flow during filter backwash
– allows for drain down of one filter.
Consented take Whau Valley Dam Unlimited CON19990172502
No restriction
Expires 31 May 2034
Consented take Hatea River 9,000 m3/d CON20030739801
Expires 31 May 2018
Current Average Day Demand 9,600
(400 m3/h)
m3/d
Current Peak Day Demand 13,200 (550 m
3/h)
m3/d
Reservoir A volume 4,500 m3
Reservoir B volume 9,000 m3
3.2 Treated Water Quality Objectives
The treated water quality criteria that the plant must be capable of achieving are:
n DWSNZ 2005 (revised 2008) – compliance with requirements of DWSNZ is to be achieved.
n Grading - Maintain current A1 rating.
n Protozoa and Disinfection – A minimum of 4-log protozoa removal is required (Whau Valley Dam
catchment 3-log, Hatea catchment 4-log). This is expected to be achieved by a combination of
coagulation/clarification/filtration plus UV disinfection. As an operational target, the enhanced filtration
requirements of DWSNZ should be achievable, and as such clarification and filtration alone could meet
the 4 log requirement. The proposed approach is to include UV disinfection and operate to the less
onerous filtered water turbidity requirements for compliance, but operationally targeting 0.1 NTU,
providing a robust buffer between operational limits and compliance. Chlorination should be continued to
provide effective viral reduction and residual disinfection.
n Iron and Manganese – Minimising iron and manganese concentrations in the treated water is
required. Recommended operational targets should be less than 0.05 g/m3 iron and less than 0.02 g/m
3
manganese. These are more stringent than DWSNZ requirements, but utility experience has been that
exceeding these concentrations can result in a higher-than-acceptable frequency of dirty water events. At
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 11
these target concentrations accumulation of deposits and dirty water events can still occur, and hence the
target is to minimise iron and manganese levels.
n Taste & Odour – The process is to include the provision (i.e. space allowance and a plan of how it could
be implemented) to cater for an increase in algae in Hatea River and/or Whau Valley Dam causing algae
toxins and/or taste & odour problems if these occur in future.
n Fluoridation – The upgraded plant is also to have provision (i.e. space allowance and a plan of how it
could be implemented) for the possible addition of fluoride dosing to the process.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 12
3.3 Raw Water Quality
The following table summarises water quality data collected between November 2013 and September 2015, with grab samples taken every few weeks.
A total of 45 samples from both the Hatea River and Whau Valley Dam source have been taken (ie 90 samples in total).
Table 2: Raw water quality data summary
Max Min Median Average 5th Percentile
25th Percentile
75th Percentile
95th Percentile
Hatea River
Turbidity (US EPA) NTU 134 1.64 3.63 8.48 1.88 2.81 6.27 18.34
Alkalinity (Total) g/m3 as CACo3
91.7 12.1 56.5 55.3 28.2 42.7 71.0 78.6
Calcium (Total). g/m3 25 4.6 15.85 15.26 8.38 12.3 18.725 21.91
Iron (Dissolved). g/m3 0.418 0.09 0.215 0.22 0.141 0.19 0.242 0.341
Iron (Total). g/m3 1.13 0.274 0.505 0.54 0.363 0.44225 0.56875 0.8925
Magnesium (Total). g/m3 6.3 1.49 4.3 4.3 2.7255 3.5825 5.0525 5.951
Manganese (Dissolved). g/m3 0.039 0.0016 0.0107 0.0122 0.0052 0.0082 0.0125 0.0300
Manganese (Total). g/m3 0.099 0.0075 0.0159 0.0221 0.0086 0.01325 0.02145 0.0578
Organic Carbon (Dissolved).
g/m3 8.7 1.2 2.5 3.0 1.4 2.1 3.5 5.9
pH 8.1 6.8 7.9 7.7 7.12 7.5 8 8.1
Solids (Suspended) g/m3 37 1 2 4.0 1 1.8 3 12.7
Solids (Total Dissolved) g/m3 193 60 130 128.5 95.3 106.5 149.3 170.6
Ultraviolet Transmission (filtered)
%T 89 52 82.6 79.8 59.1 78.8 85.4 86.9
Colour HU 125 0 15 19 0 5 20 50
Whau Valley
Turbidity (US EPA) NTU 131.4 0.85 2.11 8.91 1.04 1.24 4.05 40.02
Alkalinity (Total) g/m3 as CACo3
51.7 13.6 37.9 36.5 17.7 29.0 45.3 49.7
Calcium (Total). g/m3 21 3.9 10.5 10.6 5.13 7.95 13.05 15.19
Iron (Dissolved). g/m3 0.42 0.02 0.175 0.160 0.038 0.080 0.220 0.284
Iron (Total). g/m3 3.5 0.126 0.315 0.514 0.15475 0.25575 0.426 2.2085
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 13
Max Min Median Average 5th Percentile
25th Percentile
75th Percentile
95th Percentile
Magnesium (Total). g/m3 5.3 1.66 2.975 2.955 1.96 2.5 3.373 3.716
Manganese (Dissolved). g/m3 0.58 0.0005 0.0077 0.0227 0.0007 0.0023 0.0131 0.0452
Manganese (Total). g/m3 0.66 0.0099 0.04 0.0626 0.0147 0.024 0.065 0.1278
Organic Carbon (Dissolved).
g/m3 5.85 1.8 2.85 3.15 2 2.48 3.63 5.18
pH 7.8 6.7 7.3 7.3 6.8 7 7.5 7.68
Solids (Suspended) g/m3 150 1 2 8.2 1 1 2.3 20.4
Solids (Total Dissolved) g/m3 174 82 123 120.7 86.5 98.8 140.8 153.9
Ultraviolet Transmission (filtered)
%T 94.4 51.5 83.4 80.9 66.7 79.8 85.4 87.2
Colour HU 250 0 10 20 0 5 15 58
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 14
3.3.1 Disinfection By Product Formation
Disinfection By Product (DBP’s) formation are a parameter which the existing plant operates at close to the
compliance limits on, and hence consideration should be given to the need for a process that would achieve
improved removal, either as part of the proposed plant construction or for implementation within the life of the
new plant.
DBP’s form when natural organic matter reacts with chlorine. The main approach to reducing the formation
of these by-products is minimising the level of organic matter at the point at which chlorine is dosed.
The toxicity of DBP’s is well established, and hence the need to minimise their formation. There is however
also recognition of the public health benefits from the disinfection provided by chlorine, and acceptance that
the negative impacts from reduced disinfection could substantially outweigh the benefits of reduced DBP
formation should the chlorine disinfection be compromised.
Trihalomethanes (THM’s) and haloacetic acids (HAA’s) are the groups of disinfection by-products typically
present in potable water in the highest concentrations. The following table provides the DWSNZ limits, and
World Health Organisation Limits (WHO), who set guidelines based on the currently available scientific
evidence, and upon which our DWSNZ requirements are largely based.
Table 3: DBP Regulatory Limits
Parameter DWSNZ 2005 (Revised 2008) WHO 2011
Trihalomethanes (THM’s)
Chloroform 0.4 mg/l 0.3 mg/l
Bromoform 0.1 mg/l 0.1 mg/l
Dibromochloromethane 0.15 mg/l 0.1 mg/l
Bromodichloromethane 0.06 mg/l 0.06 mg/l
Total THMs Sum of the Ratio of concentration to its respective MAV must not exceed 1
Haloacetic Acids (HAA’s)
Dichloroacetic Acid 0.05 mg/l 0.05 mg/l
Monochloroacetic Acid 0.02 mg/l 0.02 mg/l
Trichloroacetic Acid 0.2 mg/l 0.2 mg/l
Other
Dibromoacetonitrile 0.08 mg/l 0.07
The DWSNZ requirements for THM’s (the first four parameters in the above table) are the same as the
current WHO guidelines, except that chloroform is more stringent in WHO. This is because DWSNZ was
based on an earlier edition of WHO and has not been updated. Both DWSNZ and WHO have the additional
requirement that the sum of the ratio of concentration to its respective MAV for each THM must not exceed
1. This accounts for the additive toxicity of individual THMs. The Total THM requirement is the more onerous
requirement to meet than the individual limits.
For Haloacetic Acids (the last three parameters in the above table) DWSNZ is consistent with the WHO
requirements. For Dibromoacetonitrile the DWSNZ current limit is slightly below the current WHO standard,
and hence is also at risk of being tightened in future revisions of DWSNZ.
Based on the above and our current understanding of the Ministry of Health’s intentions, we would expect the standards are unlikely to change in the short term, however in the medium to longer term, and certainly within the life of the proposed plant, DBP formation is a parameter which tightening standards are possible to likely.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 15
4 Concept Design
4.1 Process
The proposed water treatment process for the purpose of this report is:
n Raw water take from both Whau Valley Dam and Hatea River
n Retrofit air burst screen washing at the Hatea River Intake
n Inlet flow control (either control valve alone or combined with a pump as a turbine)
n Pre clarification pH correction
n Coagulation
n Flocculation
n Conventional clarification
n Pre-filter chlorine dosing and pH correction
n Media filtration
n Post-filter pH correction
n UV disinfection
n Chlorine dosing
n Treated water storage in Fairway reservoirs
n Overflow storage in dry pond
Future provisions have been allowed for the following processes:
n Enhanced organics removal which may include:
– Second stage of filtration
– UV Peroxide or alternative advanced oxidation process such as ozone
n On site mechanical dewatering
These processes (including future allowances) are shown on the PFD in Appendix A and are included on the
site layout in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Hatea air burst screen washing
The conventional means of backwashing river wedgewire Tee screens of the type installed in the Hatea
River is by an air burst system where compressed air is stored in a receiver and released as a burst into the
screen, dislodging debris and algae.
A new air compressor including receiver would be installed in the Hatea intake pump station. Compressed air
is stored in a receiver, and discharged as a burst either on an operator set frequency and/or low wet well
level. The sudden release of air cleans the wedgewire screen. A pipeline of nominally 100mm diameter
would be required to the intake screen
4.1.2 Inlet flow control
Refer to Section 4.6.2 for a discussion on plant hydraulics and possibility of energy recovery.
4.1.3 Coagulation
Coagulation would be similar to the existing plant, using either aluminium sulphate or polyaluminium chloride.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 16
4.1.4 Clarification
The two main alternative process options for clarification are:
n Conventional clarification process such as Upflow Sludge Blanket Clarification
n Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF).
4.1.4.1 Conventional Clarification
Upflow clarification would be similar to the process at the existing treatment plant, although the configuration
of the process would be changed to achieve more economic construction costs. Flat bottom structures are
now commonly used rather than the deeper pyramid shaped tankage used at the existing plant.
There are a number of variants possible, both sludge blanket and non-sludge blanket. For the purpose of
this concept study an upflow sludge blanket clarifier has been assumed. This type of process has been
proven to be effective on this source water with the existing plant.
Tube settlers or lamella settlers would likely be incorporated, allowing higher loading rates and reducing the
area of the structures by around a third. Overall the capital cost would be reduced. Tube settlers do
however hinder access and do not typically have a design life matching the civil structures. Lamella settlers
are available in more durable stainless steel construction, for an increased capital cost. For the purpose of
this study the larger size and cost option has been assumed, but this issue will be considered in more detail
in the preliminary design.
4.1.4.2 Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) involves mixing a side stream of water supersaturated with air with the
flocculated raw water. The pressure drop causes the air to be released from solution, forming a cloud of
micro air bubbles. These bubbles then attach to the flocculated particles, causing them to rise to the surface.
The process is particularly effective with low density particles, such as the algae dominated Whau Valley
source.
The process is at a higher rate than typical clarification processes and loading rates in the order of four times
higher are possible. DAF is frequently installed as a “DAF over filter” configuration, significantly reducing civil
construction costs. This configuration does not allow chemical dosing between the clarifier and filter, such as
pre filter chlorine or UV/hydrogen peroxide. Hence for this plant it is expected DAF may be used as a
separate unit process.
DAF is a higher energy process than conventional clarification due to the side stream energy requirements.
Overall DAF is expected to be a more compact, slightly lower capital but higher energy cost process. For the
purpose of this concept design we have assumed the conventional clarification option, being more
conservative in terms of the space and capital cost requirements. DAF is however a process suitable for this
source water and could be considered as an alternative at the next design stage.
4.1.4.3 Clarification versus Dissolved Air Flotation Conclusion
For the purpose of this report the larger footprint, higher capital but lower operating cost clarification option
has been assumed. The following table provides the preliminary design basis.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 17
Table 4: Clarifier Concept Design Basis
Parameter Value Basis
Capacity 1,036m3/h 22,600 m
3/d treated water capacity
plus 5% allowance for waste flows and 5% allowance for flow control
ie. 24,860 raw water capacity
Flocculation Hydraulic Retention Time 5 minutes Typical/conservative for similar applications
Flocculation Volume 86 m3
Design Hydraulic Loading Rate 2.5 m/h Conservative/appropriate for water source.
Total Clarifier Area 414m2
Area 420 m2
Dimensions 2 no 14x15m or similar
Nominal Depth 4.5m Typical
A minimum of two clarifiers would be built to allow for planned maintenance with continuity of supply, and up
to four clarifiers may be constructed depending on the final design. Two clarifiers are shown on the layout in
Appendix B.
4.1.5 Iron and Manganese Removal
Iron and manganese removal is a requirement and the existing pre filter chlorination is an effective means of
achieving this. UV/peroxide dosing could also be considered, and this is discussed under enhanced
organics removal in Section 4.1.8.
4.1.6 Filtration
Membrane filtration could be considered as an alternative to conventional rapid gravity media filtration. A
significant benefit of membrane filtration is the high level and consistent particulate removal achieved.
Through the membrane integrity test (MIT) the membrane can be verified on a daily basis that the membrane
is integral, and the risk of non-compliance with the DWSNZ protozoa removal requirements is lower than with
conventional filtration.
Membrane filtration is not as amenable to achieving other process objectives in addition to particulate
removal. For Whau Valley iron and manganese removal and enhanced organics removal are key process
objectives more readily achieved with a conventional process.
There would be a cost premium on both capital and operating costs for a membrane based process in
comparison to a conventional process, particularly once the other process objectives are considered. Hence
conventional media filtration is recommended for the purpose of this concept study.
The following table outlines the filtration design basis.
Table 5: Filtration Design Basis
Parameter Value Basis
Capacity 1,000 m3/h 22,600 m
3/d treated water capacity
plus 1% allowance for waste flows and 5% allowance for flow control
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 18
Parameter Value Basis
Design Hydraulic Loading Rate 12 m/h with one in backwash/out of service
Conservative/appropriate for water source.
Number Filters 4 Expected economic optimum and providing appropriate level of operational flexibility
Area 28 m2
Media:
Sand
Anthracite
450mm 0.5-1.0mm
1000mm 1.25 effective Size
Deep Bed Dual Media Configuration
Nominal Filter Shell Depth 4.8m Allows for plenum floor and proposed media depth plus freeboard
Backwash Volume 150 m3 4 bed volumes plus volume above
media
Backwash Tank Capacity 300 m3 Two backwash volumes
4.1.7 Disinfection
4.1.7.1 UV Disinfection
UV disinfection can provide up to 3 log credits for protozoa removal under DWSNZ. The filtration process
alone can meet the required 4 log credits if operated to the more onerous turbidity compliance requirements.
With a new filtration process meeting best industry practices, compliance could be reasonably achieved
without the addition of UV disinfection. However, consistent with the existing plant, UV disinfection has been
included in the process flow and layout. Should the UV peroxide process be adopted (discussed further in
Section 4.1.8), UV disinfection may not be required.
4.1.7.2 Chlorine Disinfection
Gas chlorine is proposed to be used for residual disinfection, as is used at the existing site; refer to Section
4.2 for a discussion on chemical dosing.
The current chlorine contact time in the reservoirs should be confirmed. Chlorine contact time should be
achievable without modifications to the reservoirs, however scale modelling completed by WDC casts some
doubt and a tracer test is recommended to confirm actual chlorine contact time.
At maximum plant flow approximately 10 minutes of contact time can be achieved in the new treated water
pipeline between the new plant and the existing reservoirs.
4.1.8 Enhanced Organics Removal
Currently disinfection product levels from the existing treatment plant, measured in the distribution system
average around 50% of the DWSNZ maximum acceptable value (MAV) and some exceedances of the MAV
have occurred. The process previously proposed for the new site was based on replacing the existing plant,
like for like, to enable a fair comparison of options to be made.
As discussed in Section 3.3.1, there is a risk that standards could tighten, and it is recommended
consideration be given to options to reduce the formation of DBP’s, for implementation either as part of the
initial development or for future implementation.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 19
A number of approaches are possible to manage disinfection by product formation, including enhanced
treatment to reduce the level of natural organics in the water prior to chlorination, distribution management to
reduce residence time (a review of WDC’s treated water transmission design and operation would need to be
undertaken) and alternatives to free chlorine disinfection. This report is not intended to provide a full review
of options, but does provide an overview of the more likely options to enable WDC to gauge the likely impact
from this enhancement.
Options focus on reduction of natural organics prior to chlorination. The two options considered here are
second stage filtration and UV/Peroxide. Allowances for both are shown on the layout in Appendix B.
4.1.8.1 Two Stage BAC Filtration
Biological filtration relies on biodegradation of organic matter. It will occur in conventional media filtration
with the large surface area available on the media, although with pre-filter chlorine applied as used at Whau
Valley biodegradation will be substantially reduced. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) media provides an
ideal support medium for biodegradation, and when used as the filter media it is referred to as BAC
(biologically activated carbon). After approximately the first 6 to 18 months the carbon’s adsorption capacity
is exceeded, and the media works as a support media for biological activity.
The nature of the organics found in the previous investigations suggests the organics are of a lower
molecular weight, non-humic nature and based on this index could be expected to be more readily
biodegraded and suited to biological filtration. Trials would be recommended to gauge the removal
achievable.
An additional observation that the rate of dissolved oxygen decay in the raw water reservoir appears high
also supports the notion that this water might respond well to biological filtration, although this is only a
general observation rather than an absolute measure.
Some requirements for BAC filtration are:
n Chlorine Free - Chlorine free backwash and feed water.
n Media –GAC media is preferred as a support medium of biological filtration
n Media Depth – An EBCT (empty bed contact time) of 10 minutes is commonly used as a design criteria,
providing adequate media area and time for biodegradation.
n Combined air water scour backwash – With the increased biological activity and absence of chlorine in
the backwash, a combined air water backwash is recommended. Combined simultaneous air scour with
a low rate water backwash at the same time provides a mechanism called collapse pulsing in the filter
bed which is very effective in agitating and cleaning the full bed depth, as opposed to air scour alone
where the greatest effect is confined to the surface of the media. The use of a combined air water scour
effectively prevents the use of support gravels in the filter bed, and hence typically requires the use of
media-retaining nozzles and hence requires a significant upgrade to the existing filter nozzles and floor
system.
4.1.8.2 Advanced Oxidation
Advanced oxidation processes such as ozone or UV combined with hydrogen peroxide can both directly
oxidise and reduce levels of organic matter that is a precursor to formation of DBP’s and break organic
matter down into lower molecular weight compounds, more readily biodegraded.
Ozone is generated using electrical energy and oxygen (either purchased liquid oxygen or concentrated on
site). As it is unstable it is generated on site to meet demand. It is dosed into the water stream followed by a
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 20
contact tank. Ozone works by both direct oxidation by ozone (O3) and by reaction with the highly reactive
hydroxyl radicals that form as ozone degrades.
UV peroxide works by the UV energy causing the breakdown of the hydrogen peroxide to form highly
reactive hydroxyl radicals which oxidise organic matter. UV doses are 10 to 15 times higher than required
for protozoa disinfection. The residual hydrogen peroxide needs to be neutralised. If UV peroxide is applied
post-filter this will significantly increase the chlorine dose required. If applied pre-filter, the hydrogen
peroxide will be neutralised in the filter and hence is an advantage of pre-filter dosing. Applying UV peroxide
pre-filter does increase the UV dose required, however trial results from other applications recently on
clarified water have shown this increase to be small.
UV peroxide is a process which is gaining increasing attention, whereas ozone has been established for a
longer period. Benefits of UV peroxide are bromate is not formed (a regulated by product which forms when
water with bromide present is ozonated), it is a compact process and is generally accepted as a simpler and
more operationally robust process than ozone.
Costs of UV peroxide and ozone are expected to be competitive, although they can vary with the application.
For the purposes of this report we have selected UV peroxide as the preferred option. Should this be
selected for development we would however recommend a closer analysis of the merits of ozone versus UV
peroxide. The increased biodegradability caused by these oxidation processes can potentially cause
negative impacts of increased biofilm formation in the reticulation system, but conversely if applied prior to a
biological filtration stage can improve the overall removal of organics due to their greater assimilability.
Both ozone and UV/peroxide can achieve the dual purpose of protozoa inactivation and organics reduction.
Current DWSNZ requirements are for a turbidity of less than 1 NTU 95% of the time prior to either UV or
ozone disinfection to obtain protozoa credits, which would not be consistently complied with pre-filter. We
consider it reasonable to expect some protozoa credits to be given for a UV/peroxide process which provides
a UV dose 10 to 15 times higher than that required for 3-log protozoa credits at the lower turbidity and some
log credits may be able to be negotiated with a more lenient turbidity limit.
4.1.8.3 Enhanced Organics Removal Recommendations
UV/peroxide prior to a single stage of filtration is likely to be able to achieve significant reduction in natural
organics and hence formation of disinfection by products and also meet the other treatment objectives. This
would be lower capital cost than two stage filtration, and clearly lower cost than UV peroxide plus two stage
filtration. Trialling would be recommended given there is some uncertainty regarding the process
performance. A containerised trial plant is available in New Zealand which would be trialled at the existing
Whau Valley plant treating a flow stream equivalent to one filter.
The site layout has allowed for the inclusion of a future second stage of filtration and UV peroxide should this
be required.
4.2 Chemical Dosing
The following chemicals would be required on site. The quantities estimated are concept estimates, based
on providing at least 30 days storage at maximum flow and typical dose rates, with quantities rounded up.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 21
Table 6: Chemical Requirements
Purpose Chemical Maximum Expected Quantity
Basis
Coagulant Aluminium Sulphate or Poly Aluminium Chloride
30 m3 25 g/m
3 47% w/w Alum
Flocculant Polyelectrolyte 100 kg 0.1 g/m3
pH Correction Caustic Soda 30 m3 15 g/m
3 @ 30%w/w Caustic
Disinfection Chlorine Gas 2 x 920 kg drums Greater than 30 days storage
Diesel Standby generator 200 litres 24 hour nominal running
Fluoride (future allowance) Several chemical options available; we would recommend HFA as can be bulk delivered as liquid
5m3 0.75g/m
3 14% w/w HFA
Facilities include access and turning for B train bulk chemical deliveries within the site boundary and
entrance gate set back from the road so that B train delivery truck can pull completely off the road before
opening the gate.
4.2.1 HSNO
All new chemical areas will need to comply with the hazardous substances and new organisms (HSNO)
regulations. The concept site layout takes into account the separate bunding, chemical delivery bund and
separate chlorine room as required by HSNO and good industry practice.
The chlorine room is proposed to be located near the centre of the site, to provide maximum possible
separation distance from neighbouring properties and will be in excess of the minimum 15m required by the
chlorine standard AS/NZS 2929: 2001.
4.3 Raw Water and Treated Water Conveyance
The 21 inch existing raw water pipeline would be intercepted in Whau Valley Road. The flow would then be
gravity fed to the proposed treatment plant.
The downstream raw water main back to the existing plant would be utilised as a new raw water main to
convey Hatea water to the proposed treatment plant.
A new treated water pipeline (nominally 525mm CLS) would be constructed from the new treatment plant to
the reservoirs at the existing WTP site at Fairway drive.
As an alternative, the existing raw water pipeline could be used for treated water, and a new smaller
diameter main constructed for the Hatea raw water conveyance. This would be a lower cost option. The
option allowed for provides for renewal of the existing main, simplifies commissioning and avoids issues of
cleaning the existing raw water main to a standard suitable for use with treated water. This alternative could
be considered as part of the next design phase.
The following table summarises the pipe lengths and uses.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 22
Table 7: Pipe Lengths
Pipe Estimated Length (m) Size Comment
Raw water: Dam to WTP 1,600 21 inch Use existing raw water pipeline
Raw water: Hatea to WTP 1,000 21 inch Use existing raw water pipeline
Treated water: WTP to existing reservoirs
900 525 CLS New treated water pipeline
4.3.1 On-site Treated Water Storage
A treated water surge tower is proposed to be constructed on site to provide a hydraulic break between the
filter pumping and treated water pipeline. From here the treated water would flow by gravity to the existing
reservoirs.
Table 8: On-site Treated Water Surge Tower
Parameter Value Unit Basis
Storage time 3 minutes Nominal buffer volume
Surge tower volume 50 m3 3 minutes storage at maximum treated water flow (22,600
m3/day)
Surge tower height 9 m 5m static head between plant floor level and treated water reservoirs, estimated 3m in friction losses along treated water pipe plus 1m freeboard.
Refer to Section 4.6 for hydraulic discussion
Surge tower diameter 3 m
No allowance has been made for future treated water reservoirs at the new site. WDC has confirmed that
they are unlikely to require reservoirs at the 274 Whau Valley Road site.
4.4 Waste Management
WDC is to confirm whether discharge of waste is to be directly to sewer or via on site dewatering. Refer to
Appendix H for a memo date 7 September 2015 which compares the costs and benefits of both options. It
recommends that waste is discharged directly to sewer, but that space is allowed in the layout for the future
addition of on-site dewatering; this has been included on the layout in Appendix B.
Discharge of sludge to sewer is assumed (as recommended), with recycle of filter to waste water, and
settlement and recycle of backwash wastewater, minimising volumes discharged to sewer and maximising
the use of the water resource.
The following table summarises the expected discharge flows to sewer. Note these flows would be
significantly less than the existing plant discharge with the proposal to recycle settled backwash waste.
Table 9: Sewer Discharge
Parameter Value Unit Design Basis
Max Plant Capacity 22,600 m3/d
Average Plant Capacity 10,000 m3/d
Total solids per m3 of treated water 13 g/m
3 Allowance for raw water suspended solids
plus coagulant
Percentage solids in clarifier sludge 0.2% 2,000 g/m3 Could design clarifier so that solids were up
to 1% concentration
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 23
Parameter Value Unit Design Basis
Total solids per day with average flow 130,000 g/d
Clarifier and backwash sludge to discharged directly to sewer at average plant flow
65 m3/d
Total solids per day with max flow/average solids 293.8 kg/d
Clarifier and backwash sludge to be discharged directly to sewer at max plant flow
147 m3/d
Peak flow (approximate nominal) 5.1 L/s 3 times estimated peak day/average solids flow
The nearest public sewer is approximately 250m from the 274 Whau Valley site. A gravity waste pipeline
would be constructed from the WTP site to the sewer network outside 264 Whau Valley Road. Here a 150NB
waste pipeline gravitates to an existing sewer pump station south of the one way bridge. The volume of
waste to be discharged to sewer would utilise around 25-50% of the existing 80 NB rising main. Hence
depending on the utilisation of this pump station by the existing catchment, the existing sewer pump station
and rising main may need to be upgraded.
The reliability and risk of failure of the existing sewer pump station will need to be considered in detailed
design. The treatment plant will have an on site generator as a back up to the grid power supply, however
sewer pumps station currently relies on a portable generator for backup. One option to provide for such
events is a sludge / sewer balance tank to mitigate overflow risk at the existing sewer pump station. This
optional tank is shown on the PFD in Appendix A, but is not shown on the site layout as this tank would be
buried and therefore if implemented will not affect the building envelope.
4.5 Services
4.5.1 Power
A preliminary load list has been prepared as below.
Table 10: Preliminary Load List
Item Number Required Rated Motor Size/Power Requirement
Basis
Filtered Water Pumps 4 7.5 kW Capacity with 3 out of 4 filters on line.
Backwash Pump 2 (Duty/standby) 45 kW Based on preliminary filter sizing
Blower 2 (Duty/standby) 30 kW Based on preliminary filter sizing
UV Disinfection 2 (Duty/standby) 8 kW UV disinfection. UV Peroxide power requirements would be higher.
Service Water Pumps 2 (Duty/standby) 2 kW Chlorine eductor water, poly make up and educator water.
Instrument Air 2 (Duty/standby) 3 kW Typical
Misc Process items 5 kW Allowance
Amenities, lighting and small power
5 kW Allowance
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 24
Based on this load list a transformer capacity of up to 200 kVA would be required. Northpower have
confirmed capacity is available in the local network.
4.5.2 Comms
WDC is to confirm available communication networks (broadband, mobile phone reception) at 274 Whau
Valley Road.
4.5.3 Stormwater
The intent is to discharge stormwater to the proposed site pond, which in turn would discharge to the
Waiarohia stream via a new stormwater pipe. The discharge from the pond would be restricted to attenuate
the peak discharge flow. This pond would also receive plant overflows or out of specification water, which
may occur occasionally. This will include during commissioning where the plant would be operated to waste
for a period to prove the water is suitable for putting to supply.
Water discharged to this pond would be treated or partly treated water, and generally of low aquatic toxicity.
Residual chlorine if present would be toxic to aquatic life. Engineering controls will be in place to control the
discharge of chlorinated water such that any chlorinated water discharges would be very short duration, and
would be expected to be <0.2 mg/l at the discharge from the pond. The settled water overflow point will be
designed to be unchlorinated, and controls will be in place such that if the treated water overflowed, chlorine
dosing would be stopped. The volume in this tank is relatively small, and hence the discharge of chlorinated
water to the pond would be of short duration only and substantially diluted by the pond outlet.
4.5.4 Sewer
We proposed to construct a gravity waste pipeline from the WTP site to the sewer network outside 264 Whau
Valley Road. Refer to Section 4.4 for further details.
4.5.5 Service Water
We propose that on-site service water pumps are provided for the process water requirements (poly dosing,
gas chlorine dosing), providing security independent from the reticulation and that water for amenities and
wash down is provided from the local reticulation at the gate, with chlorine contact time provided in the
existing reservoirs.
4.6 Hydraulics
4.6.1 Hydraulic Grade Line
The following table summarises key hydraulic levels.
Table 11: Key Hydraulic Levels
Parameter Value Unit Basis
Dam – Spillway level 107.724 m RL One Tree Point Fundamental Datum from survey September 2014, drawing number T294.
Dam depth at inlet valve tower 18 m On drawing 1893 “Proposed Whau Valley Earth Dam – Typical Cross Sections” spillway noted as 449’ and base of inlet valve tower as 390’; therefore depth is 59’ = 18m
Lowest Intake Level 92.15 m RL RL 398’ (Drawing Valve Tower, 95A-22)
Dam – Floor level at inlet valve tower 89.7 m RL One Tree Point Fundamental Datum. Surveyed Spillway
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 25
Parameter Value Unit Basis
level minus Dam depth at inlet valve tower
Existing WTP Reservoir TWL 85.17 m RL One Tree Point Fundamental Datum from survey November 2013
New site ground level at 274 Whau Valley Road
79 to 81 m RL Site survey August 2015; refer to Section 5.1 and Appendix C for further details
A preliminary assessment of the main hydraulic grade line from the dam, through the treatment plant and into
the existing Whau Valley WTP reservoirs has been estimated.
Table 12: Key Hydraulic Friction and Fitting Losses
Parameter Value Unit Basis
Raw water pipe to 274 Whau Valley Road
4
m H2O Diameter: 525 CLS from WDC’s GIS intramaps
Length: 1600m estimated from WDC’s GIS intramaps
Pipe roughness 0.3 (conservative for raw water pipe)
Assumed fittings: 4 of 45° bends, 3 of 90° bends. Isolation butterfly valve
Rapid Mixing 2 m H2O Allowance for coagulant rapid mixing
Flocculation structure 0.25 m H2O Over and underflow baffle structure
Clarifier floor 0.1 m H2O Pipework sized for minimum loss
Clarifier launders through to filter inlet 0.1 m H2O Pipework sized for minimum loss
Filtration 3 m H2O Allowance for maximum media loss and hydraulic losses
UV disinfection 0.15 m H2O Standard low pressure reactor capable of 3 log removal at peak flow ~550m
3/h
Treated water pipe from existing reservoir to 274 Whau Valley Road
3 m H2O Diameter: 525 CLS assumed same as raw water pipeline
Length:1000 m estimated from WDC’s GIS intramaps
Pipe roughness 0.3 (conservative for treated water pipe).
Table 13: Hydraulic Grade Line
Position HGL Basis
Dam Top Water Level 107.724 Existing – Level from survey October 2014
Dam Lowest Operating Level 92.15 Based on dam construction drawings
Flocculation Inlet Level 84.75 250mm loss to clarifier
Clarifier TWL 84. 8 Floor level RL 80.3 approx. based on survey August 2015 and flood and dam break levels; refer Section 5.2
Filter TWL 84.45
Filter Outlet 81.45 3000mm allowance for losses through filters
WTP Outlet 90.17 HGL to existing reservoir
Reservoir Inlet (existing) 85.17 Existing - Level from survey November 2013
Hence a total pump head of 9m is required for 274 Whau Valley Road (Filter Outlet to WTP Outlet). Note
under typical operating conditions however (ie clean filters, typical flow), the pumping head would be less.
The levels for the new site are based on the following factors:
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 26
n Existing Ground levels.
n Hydraulic Levels – fitting into the hydraulic grade line from the dam to the existing reservoirs, minimising
energy losses.
n Flood levels –Structures at 274 Whau Valley road are proposed to the have floor levels above the 1:100
year flood zone, estimated at between RL 77.4 m – RL 79.6 mfrom the Northland Regional Council’s
flood map and analysis completed (refer to Section 5.2 for further details). Buildings will have a minimum
floor level of 80.3, or at least 400mm above the estimated flood level.
The proposed levels are only nominally at existing natural ground levels (nominally 80.3mRL). Flood levels
limit the ability to reduce the foundation level, which would be desirable from a geotechnical point of view.
Refinement of the flood levels could result in a small adjustment to these levels.
The preferred hydraulic arrangement would be to separate the backwash and treated water surge tanks.
The water would be pumped into the treated water surge tower to match the flow balance/demand. The level
in this tank would be allowed to vary to match the hydraulic grade line. At high demand the level would rise,
and with low demand the level fall. Pumping head will also vary with filter headloss. Hence with this
arrangement energy consumption is minimised.
The backwash tank will need to be refilled following each backwash. Maintaining this as a separate tank will
preserve the required volume for backwashing without compromising the plant hydraulics.
4.6.2 Energy Recovery
With surplus head available under typical operating conditions (ie dam full), potentially energy could be
recovered, reducing plant operating costs. The following is a preliminary assessment of the energy that
could be recovered.
Table 14: Potential Hydro Power Recovery
Parameter Value Basis
Maximum Available Head 17m Dam Top Water Level 107.72
Flocculation Inlet RL 84.75
Total friction losses 6m allowed
Average Flow 115 l/s 10,000 m3/d assumed
Power Output 11.5 kW 60% total pump and motor efficiency assumed
Annual Energy Output 70,500 kWH Assumes 70% utilisation
Value $12,100/annum 18c/kWH assumed. Based on use within the plant. Price for energy sold to the network would be lower.
A simple direct on line pump operating as a turbine arrangement would be the lowest capital cost, with a
basic pump costing around $20,000, or around $60,000 installed, plus building space. A normal end suction
centrifugal pump and induction 3 phase motor would be used, and hence the installation utilises readily
available components. A bypass control valve would be required for operating conditions of lower head (ie
dam level dropping) or higher flow.
Addition of a variable speed drive with an active front end would enable the use of the pump under a wider
range of operating conditions (flow and head), and hence significantly increase the utilisation of the available
energy. This technology is not widely used at this low capacity however and hence further investigation
would be required to determine the cost and viability of this addition.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 27
Some further energy output could be possible by returning excess flow to the stream when the flow was
available, rather than spilling over the spillway.
With a long term outlook and desire to conserve energy the implementation of a turbine could be considered.
Photovoltaic solar energy could also be considered if the council were interested in minimising their energy
use.
Another advantage of installing a turbine instead of a control valve would be a reduction in operating noise; a
pump as a turbine is much quieter than a control valve.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 28
5 Site Layout
The 274 Whau Valley Road site is a flat area that has adequate space for the WTP with at least a 10m
setback to neighbouring residents.
The site layout is included in Appendix B. This includes the following infrastructure:
n Enclosed inlet flow control building (to house either control valve or pump as turbine)
n Clarifier/flocculation structure
n Dual Media Filter structure
n Chemical dosing and delivery bunds
n Double story plant building with space for
– UV units
– Enclosed machinery room for air compressors and air blowers to reduce noise at site boundary
– Enclosed generator room to reduce noise at site boundary (note that generator is operated very
infrequently)
– MCC room on upper level, above the highest Whau Valley Dam break level (refer Section 5.2).
– An amenity area to reflect the use of this plant as WDC’s water operations base, equivalent to the
existing plant. This includes a suitable lunch room, control room, offices, meeting room spaces,
storage, workshops and toilets/showers. The control room is to be located on the upper level to give
operators a view out over the filters and clarifies, as requested by WDC operators.
n Gas chlorine building
n Ring road for chemical deliveries and site access
n 12 car parking spaces
n An off spec water / storm water retention pond at the low point of the site, with discharge to the stream
Future provisions are allowed for:
n Second stage of filtration option to provide enhanced organics removal
n UV peroxide dosing - option to provide enhanced organics removal
n Fluoride dosing with HFA
5.1 Survey
A full topographical survey of the project area was undertaken by Boundary Hunter Ltd in August 2015. The
extent of the survey included:
n All above ground infrastructure such as power poles and below ground infrastructure where visible such
as manholes or culverts (note culvert crossing under driveway on north east boundary) within the area of
survey and up to the extent of survey required.
n Topographic features to be surveyed to an accuracy of +/-50mm, over a grid sufficient to generate an
accurate triangulated surface over the area of interest suitable for 0.2m contours.
n Watercourses, drains and swamps or springs within the Area of Survey, and for 10m downstream of the
culvert crossing.
n Marker stakes and locations of ground investigation boreholes where visible (approx 8No.),
n Edge of seal of road and existing vehicle crossings nominally 100m each direction from site boundary.
n Outline detail of the one-lane bridge structure including adjacent pipe bridge,
n Levels and detail to establish overland flow paths.
n Connection to two existing benchmarks at corner of Fairway Drive and Whau Valley Road.
n Accurate boundary data to +/-0.1m or better and current occupation.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 29
n Survey is to be delivered in terms of Mount Eden 2000, using origin of Coordinates: SS 264 SO 48581
(LINZ Geodetic Code C2NM), and vertical datum One Tree Point 1964.
n All significant (>5m height) trees within survey scope
n Top water level of the Fairway Drive reservoirs
Refer to Appendix C for the survey output. This survey data has been included in the site layout in Appendix
B.
Data from previous site surveys in November 2013 and October 2014 (Dam spillway level, top water level of
Fairway Drive reservoirs) has also been used.
5.2 Flood Hazard Assessment
5.2.1 Flood
The 274 Whau Valley Road is close to the 1:100 flood level, and although shown as clear of the flood plain
on Figure 1, the area is relatively low lying and caution will need to be taken in the development of the site to
avoid flooding risks. The red lines show the approximate site boundary, the yellow square shows the
approximate location of the WTP building and structures, the dark blue in the 1 in 10 year flood mapping and
the light blue is the 1 in 100 year flood mapping.
Figure 1: Northland Regional Council Flood Mapping
The proposed development and any associated bunding will be located away from the flood plain resulting in
minimal change to upstream or downstream flood levels due to the construction of the new water treatment
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 30
plant. The expected flood level across the site is likely to range between RL 77.4 m – RL 79.6 m (refer to
Appendix I for further details . The proposed finished floor level for the water treatment plant is RL 80.3 m,
therefore a minimum freeboard of 0.4 m is provided. A normally dry pond with a flow restricted outlet will be
included in the site development which will buffer stormwater flows from the site such that the risk of
downstream flooding is not increased by this development. Opportunity may also be taken in the
landscaping of the unused and buffer spaces around the site to further reduce the risk of downstream
flooding. During next stage of design, we recommend that an ecologist is consulted for suggested pond
planting.
5.2.2 Whau Valley Dam Break
In the event of a dam break, the worst case peak flood level could inundate the site to a depth of
approximately 5m in the worst case scenario as reported in Whau Valley Dam - Dam Break Flood Hazard Assessment by Opus in September 2010:
n “Sunny day” (non-flood conditions) failures are expected to result in peak levels between 76.5mRL (ie
well below proposed) structure floor levels and 82.7mRL (2.5m above proposed floor level 80.3mRL).
n “Rainy day” (induced by extreme flood) failures are expected to result in peak levels between 79.3mRL
(1m below nominal floor level of 80.3mR) and 85.3mRL (5m above proposed floor level 80.3mRL).
The Opus report notes that the probability of the Whau Valley Dam actually failing in either sunny or rainy
day mode is extremely low. However, possible mitigation to minimise the return to service should this event
occur will be considered during detailed design and is likely to include locating the MCC room above the
highest probable dam break flood level, ie on the upper floor of the amenities building at 85.3mRL.
5.3 Geotechnical Investigations
A geotechnical investigation has been completed at the 274 Whau Valley Road site. The Geotechnical
Factual Report is contained in Appendix D and Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report in Appendix E.
A soft to firm layer of silt and clay was recorded in all the investigation points between approximately 3 and
9.5m deep. In borehole BH1 a floating basalt boulder was encountered at 8 m depth within the silt-clay
deposit which may make piling difficult. Basalt rock was found at depth around 17 m in this borehole.
Settlement analysis has estimated total static load settlements of up to 210mm could occur without ground
improvement and shallow foundations. In addition under a seismic event settlements of 90 to 140mm could
occur. These total settlements and the potential for differential settlement is such that shallow foundations
are not considered appropriate and some form of ground improvement is required.
Options considered for ground improvement at 274 Whau Valley Road are discussed below.
5.3.1 Preloading
Preloading of the site prior to construction could be designed to consolidate the underlying materials and
remove most of the total expected post construction static settlement. The extent of this would depend on the
extent and duration of the preloading works. Improved drainage, such as the installation of vertical wick
drains, into the compressible silt and clay layer would assist with the dissipation of pore pressure and
increase the rate of consolidation settlement (i.e. reduce the preload time). Approximately 3 to 3.5m of
material would be needed to preload the site.
Our initial settlement analysis shows that the majority of the settlement occurs within the first 2.5 years at the
western end of the site and potentially 6 months at the eastern end of the site. A better understanding of the
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 31
permeability and organic content within the silt and clay layer, and the other geological units, would provide a
more accurate indication of the consolidation timeframes. Low permeability and organic rich materials usually
take a longer period of time to consolidate, and this could affect the suitability of preloading. Preloading will
not prevent or reduce the estimated level of liquefaction settlement occurring at depth.
Some of the preload material could be left as additional fill to elevate the site out of the flood hazard zone,
although building structures upon remaining preload material would defeat the purpose of preloading, and
hence the benefit of the additional fill would only be outside of the building foot print.
5.3.2 Dynamic Deep Compaction
This method involves mechanically inducing settlement by dropping a heavy weight onto the ground surface
from a crane. Improvements in geotechnical properties to depths of about 10m are possible. This method is
a faster way of achieving pre-construction consolidation, but is relatively expensive compared with pre-
loading, and is highly disruptive and potentially damaging to neighboring residences. Due to the nature of the
ground and proximity to residential dwellings, this is unlikely to be a viable option.
5.3.3 Soil Stabilization
The bearing properties of soft silts and clays can be improved by mixing cement into the soil. The method
involves using a specialized rig to rotary drill to desired depths (at this site up to 9m) then inject cement grout
(or other chemical additive) as the equipment is retracted. The result is a chemically stabilized column
usually 300 to 800mm diameter. It would not mitigate any liquefaction induced settlement that may occur at
depth, but would limit differential settlement at the surface by providing a ‘rafting’ effect and liquefaction at
depth is likely to be low.
5.3.4 Partial Compensated Foundation
Excavating and embedding structures into the underlying soils can reduce the overall static loads affecting
the soil. Every meter of soil removed from the surface will reduce the overall static loading by approximately
16 - 17kPa. Reduced static loading will reduce the total settlement that could potentially occur at this site.
The scope to lower foundation levels on this site is limited by the flooding issue at this site. There would also
be issues with the increased depth of associated services and decreased constructability (particularly when
below the groundwater level) would need to weighed against reduction in total settlement.
5.3.5 Excavation and replacement of the upper soil
Differential settlement could be partially mitigated by excavating the upper firm-stiff clayey silt layer (Layer 1),
and recompacting this as fill to develop a raft foundation. A raft foundation would reduce the potential for
differential settlement to occur at the surface during static or seismic settlement, thereby reducing the
potential for structural damage. Reinforcement of this fill layer with geogrids can also help mitigate against
differential settlement. Total settlement would need to be mitigated by other means. The practical extent of
this option will be controlled by the groundwater level, as excavation and compaction are difficult below
groundwater.
5.3.6 Recommendation
Our recommended ground improvement option would be to undertake soil stabilisation (cement columns), in
combination with the excavation and recompaction of the upper soil layer (Layer 1) and piling of heavily
loaded structures. These methods would significantly reduce the estimated consolidation settlement that
could occur in the soft silt and clay layer (Layer 2). Liquefaction would still be expected to occur at depth
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-7 0.7 // page 32
under the design earthquake of the structure, however differential settlements will be mitigated by the
‘stabilised’ soils, and the re-compacted soil at the surface (Layer 1) providing a rafting effect.
5.4 Bulk Earthworks
Bulk earthworks will be required for the construction of the proposed works. The current concept design will
require earthworks comprising an approximate total cut of 4,200m3 and an approximate total fill of 4,700m
3.
The bulk earthworks estimates for the key components of the proposed works requiring earthworks are
estimated below. In summary, a net total of approximately 1,500m3 is estimated to need to be disposed of
off-site, assuming that approximately 1,600m3 imported material is used as fill under the structures and for
the ring road.
Table 15: Bulk earthworks
Area Cut (m3) Fill (m
3) Balance (m
3)
Low level landscaping earth bunds (1)
0 900 900
Water treatment plant structures(2)
2400 2400 (4) Up to -1,000 m
(3)(4)
Dry pond (3) 600 100 -500
Relocate existing drain 700 700 0
Roading 500 600 (5)
-500
(1) 400m length of landscaping bunding, average 6m wide and 0.75m high
(2) Assumes excavation and recompaction of the upper soil layer, assumed 1.5 deep
(3) Average 1m deep
(4) Up to 1,000 m3 of this fill material may be imported fill
(5) Approximately 600 m3 imported fill would be used
5.5 National Environmental Standard Study
WDC has undertaken a search of records for 274 Whau Valley Road to determine the indication of current or
previous activities in the area that are included on the current Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL)
and no such activities were found. The report is contained in Appendix F.
5.6 Traffic Impact, Bridges and Roading
5.6.1 Traffic Impact
A preliminary assessment of increased vehicle movements associated with the operation of the WTP is
estimated to be:
n Up to 8 operators and supervisors arriving and departing several times a day as they would be using the
new WTP as a home base.
n Monthly chemical deliveries for four chemicals – could be expected to receive one delivery a week.
n Service staff such as electricians, fitters, sale reps arriving several time per month
n Other WDC staff visits on a weekly basis
n Irregular and infrequent visits from groups such as schools
Refer to Section 7 for estimated construction related traffic.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-7 0.7 // page 33
5.6.2 Single Lane Bridge
Preliminary neighbourhood consultation (refer Section 6.5.1) identified concerns with the safety of the one
way bridge at 254 Whau Valley Road.
WDC’s roading engineers have advised that this bridge is up for replacement within the next 20 years and
may be as early as 2024. However, it is unlikely that this bridge could be upgraded to two lanes with funding
from council/NZTA as most of WDC’s 520 bridges are single lane. For funding from council/NZTA, this
project would need to demonstrate that it is a strategic high volume route with significant safety issues if left
as a single lane bridge.
This bridge is currently unable to support overweight loads. A similar sized WTP is currently being
constructed using an 80 tonne crane, which has a 57 tonne body. This is overweight and the bridge would
need to be rated to HNHO. It could be possible to work within the lower capacity of the existing bridge, but
this would constrain the construction methodology.
The construction of a pedestrian bridge on the southern side of the existing bridge has been proposed, in
order to provide safe pedestrian access. The bridge is proposed to be independent of the existing bridge
structure and on the southern side, avoiding the existing raw water pipe. The bridge would span the river
and hence no structures in the river bed are required.
5.7 Landscape Design
A 10m set back from the site boundary has been proposed and is shown on the site layout. We would expect
that this set back would include the boundary fence, either within the setback, or at the edge. The setback
would also include low level earth bunding.
5.8 Future Use of Existing WTP Site
WDC has advised that the existing site on the corner of Fairway Drive does not have a historical
classification and can be decommissioned and demolished post successful commissioning and stable
operation of a new plant. The existing reservoirs are expected to remain in service for some time yet.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 34
6 Consenting and Compliance
6.1 Summary of Consenting Process
We understand that WDC wish to undertaken the following consenting process for the Project:
n Designate the site via a Notice of Requirement (NoR); and
n Apply for the required regional consents in conjunction with the NoR (bundle the applications),
The above applications shall be submitted to WDC and Northland Regional Council as one comprehensive
application to be processed by Council’s on a fully notified basis.
A number of technical assessment reports shall be prepared to support the application and include:
n Noise Assessment;
n Landscape and Visual Assessment; and
n Ecological Assessment.
A summary of the matters to be considered in the technical assessments is outlined below.
6.2 Operational Noise and Vibration
We would expect that the compressors and backwash blowers to have the highest noise output. Mitigation
such as housing in a machinery room with good sound insulating properties, along with specification of noise
mitigation as part of the compressor and blower packages (ie inlet/outlet silencers and acoustic enclosures)
could be implemented and the project cost estimate has appropriate allowances for this. Measures such as
these would be expected to be adequate to limit noise to levels complying with district plan requirements and
would mitigate impact on the surrounding neighbours.
Should on site sludge dewatering be implemented, centrifuges are likely to be the preferred process
technology for dewatering. Centrifuges have significant noise output which would need to be managed.
Management of noise through sound proofing of buildings and acoustic attenuation of ventilation systems is
feasible, however this is more onerous than other plant equipment given the need to also maintain
reasonable ventilation to maintain a suitable environment within the building.
Standby power generation would output greater noise than the District Plan requirements without significant
acoustic attenuation. Given testing is completed during working hours, use during the more noise sensitive
night period would be rare and leniency is commonly allowed for this use. We would suggest the planning
applications make allowance for more lenient noise levels for emergency generator operation. Mitigation in
the form of both acoustically enclosing the generator set plus housing in a building with substantial
construction (ie concrete/masonry walls and insulated ceiling) can be achieved at reasonable cost and will
substantially reduce the noise output, but would not be expected to achieve full compliance with District Plan
requirements.
The head from the Whau Valley Dam will often need to be broken before entering the flocculation and
clarifiers. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, this could be done using either a control valve or a pump as a
turbine. Of the two options, a control valve is noisier. We propose that either option is enclosed in building
with good sound insulating properties, especially as the location of this building is best located near the
boundary line.
Specialist acoustic engineering advice would be necessary at the detailed design stage to enable
compliance with the district plan requirements to be met.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 35
Refer to Section 7 for construction related noise and vibration.
6.3 Ecology
The site appears not to contain significant indigenous vegetation or terrestrial habitat features within the
potential footprint of development. Ecological considerations will focus on the aquatic environment. The site
contains an unnamed tributary to the Waiarohia Stream. This very small tributary appears to be pastoral and
infilled and is likely to be highly degraded in terms of instream value, if any. It is unlikely to host aquatic life
and appears not to lead to any upstream aquatic habitat. The Waiarohia stream itself joins the Whangarei
Harbour several kilometres to the southwest. The stream is pastoral on its southern and western sides and
largely urbanised on its northern and eastern sides. It is known to hold a wide range of native fish and
probably also invertebrate species. There is unrestricted access for most native fish species to move
between the mid reaches of the stream and the harbour. However the Whau Valley dam in the upper
reaches of the catchment truncates connection to otherwise potentially valuable habitat and also modifies
the hydrological regime in the stream.
The Ecological Assessment will focus on the influence of the project on the unnamed tributary to the extent
that consequential downstream effects on the Waiarohia Stream might occur. Effects areas include
watercourse crossing, sediment generation during the works period and operational discharges that might
occur or be required periodically from the plant. Effects are anticipated to be minor. There are no ecological
or water quality constraints that would need to be factored into the design.
6.4 Archaeological and NZ Heritage Assessment
WDC has commissioned an archaeological assessment of 274 Whau Valley Road; refer to Appendix G for
the full report.
The report found that there are no obvious archaeological features at 274 Whau Valley Road and thus no
archaeological impediment to developing the WTP on the property. However, the level and well-watered site
would have been suitable for Maori horticulture and related archaeological features may be present below
the ground surface. These may be accidentally encountered during the development of the WTP, therefore
the report recommends that WDC apply for an archaeological authority under Section 44 of the Heritage
New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, with associated recommendations for consultation with tangata
whenua, development of archaeological management plan and that the preliminary earthworks are
monitored by an archaeologist. This will be undertaken separate to the NoR / regional consenting process,
and prior to works commencing on the site.
6.5 Consultation
6.5.1 Neighbourhood
WDC has already commenced consultation with surrounding landowners and will continue discussions as
the Project progresses. If the technical assessments identify that there are any adverse effects on
surrounding properties then it will be important to discuss these with any affected landowners and confirm
appropriate mitigation to address these effects.
Concerns raised to date include:
n Visual impact of the treatment plant from the road;
n Impacts on property values;
n Impacts on the look and feel of the rural area;
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 36
n Visual impact of the treatment plant from owners properties;
n Concern that other sites have not been properly considered;
n Concerns about the sufficiency of the landscaping to screen the plant; and
n Safety of the one way bridge and lack of footpath with increased traffic movements
6.5.2 Iwi / Mana Whenua
WDC has undertaken consultation to date. Mana Whenua would like to remain informed.
6.6 Landscape and Visual Assessment
An assessment of landscape and rural character effects, to look at the landscape and character changes
that can be expected will be provided. A landscape integration framework concept will accompany this. It will
be a reasonably schematic and loose diagram to demonstrate what a proposed WTP might look like without
locking down the design in too much detail.
Visualisations can be provided in order to give an indication of the size and bulk of the WTP. These could be
useful for consultation purposes and to accompany the Concept Design Report as a part of the AEE.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 37
7 Concept Construction Methodology
7.1 Concept Construction Methodology
The new WTP is expected to be constructed in a typical fashion; earthworks, followed by foundation
construction, structural work, and mechanical and electrical fit out.
We expect that the work would be carried out during working hours 7:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday and 7:30
to 18:00 Saturday.
7.2 Estimated Additional Vehicle Movements
At the construction peak we expect that there will be in the order of 15 vehicles on site, with other vehicles
making deliveries. On site workers could peak at up to 30.
7.3 Noise and Vibration
Assessment of the existing noise levels are currently being undertaken. While testing and analysis is yet to
be completed, initial indications are that the existing noise environment is very quiet therefore there is likely
to be a strong expectation of acoustic amenity. Because of this high level of expectation, it is considered that
a high level of design should be pursued.
7.4 Sedimentation and Erosion Controls
Erosion and Sediment Control generated by construction activities will be managed in accordance with
Auckland Council’s TP90 standard.
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 38
Appendix A
Process Flow Diagram
Whau Dam
Hatea Intake
Caustic Alum Poly
Flocculation Clarifiers
Caustic
Chlorine
4 Filters
Backwash WasteTank
Filter to Waste Recycle
BackwashClarifier
Poly
Caustic
Chlorine
Sewer
Recycle toRaw Water
Poly
Centrifuge
PolySludge
Thickener
Centrate
To Landfill
FutureFilters
UV
To FairwayDrive Reservoirs
Treated Surge Tower
FUTURE DEWATERINGOPTION
HydrogenPeroxide
UV
Backwash Tank300m3
FUTURE UV PEROXIDEOPTION
FUTURE FILTER OPTION
Future Fluoride
Sludge / SewerBalance Tank
OPTIONAL
No. AppdRevision By Chk Date
Drawing Originator:
DO NOT SCALE
* Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature
Scale (A1)
Scale (A3)Reduced
Dwg Check
Dsg Verifier
Drawn
Original DesignConstruction*
Date
Approved For Client: Project:
IF IN DOUBT ASK.
Title:
Drawing No.
Discipline
Docu
ment
No.
Rev.
Drawing Plotted: 11 Nov 2015 10:15 a.m.
6519
113-
G-01
1.DW
Gw
ww
.ch2
mbe
ca.c
omw
ww
.ch2
mbe
ca.c
om
www.ch2mbeca.comB FEASABILITY STUDY SJB FTN PLR 17.10.14
6519113-G-011 DNEW PLANT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM GENERALWHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL WHAU VALLEY WTPNTS
P. LAROCHE
A OPTIONS ASSESMENT SJB FTN PLR 13.03.14
C ISSUED FOR CONSENTING BSE FTN PLR 25.09.15
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PRELIMINARY
D CONCEPT DESIGN BSE FTN PLR 10.11.15
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 39
Appendix B
Site Layout
No. AppdRevision By Chk Date
Drawing Originator:
DO NOT SCALE
* Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature
Scale (A1)
Scale (A3)Reduced
Dwg Check
Dsg Verifier
Drawn
Original DesignConstruction*
Date
Approved For Client: Project:
IF IN DOUBT ASK.
Title:
Drawing No.
Discipline
Docu
ment
No.
Rev.
Drawing Plotted: 30 Oct 2015 3:49 p.m.
6519
113-
G-01
2.DW
G
6519113-G-012 A
AMENITIES BUILDINGPLAN GENERALWHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL WHAU VALLEY WTPAS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
P. LA ROCHE .10.15C. HILLENAAR .10.15
A ISSUED FOR APPROVAL CPH FTN PLR 30.10.15
FOR APPROVAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 40
Appendix C
Site Survey
OIS IV DP157587
80.18
SSMH
77.75
SSMH
77.55
TELECOM
power pole
TELECOM
power pole
power pole
power pole
BOUNDARY PEG
78.13
powerpole
totara
totara
BOUNDARY PEG
78.52
totara
STAKE
BOREHOLE
STAKE
BOREHOLE
BOREHOLE
BOREHOLE
TROUGH
RL 79.88
(base)
totara
totara
totara
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
c
u
lv
e
rt
cu
lve
rt
m
e
ta
lle
d
fo
rm
a
tio
n
swampy
ground
swampy ground
swampy
ground
o
p
e
n
flo
w
in
g
stre
a
m
o
p
e
n
flo
w
in
g
stre
a
m
Sewerage pump station
footbridge
8
0
°4
0
'2
0
"
(1
8
6
.8
5
)
5
.0
5
3
4
3
°
0
0
'
7
.
5
5
3
1
8
°
1
3
'
1
6
.7
3
2
6
0
°2
2
'
3
.
8
9
2
8
8
°
2
6
'
7
.
0
9
2
9
9
°
4
0
'
256.77
(318.57)
7
5
.6
8
1
6
6
°
1
1
'0
0
"
7
8
.
0
2
1
0
8
°
4
6
'0
0
"
2
2
9
°
4
3
'
0
0
"
(
7
9
.
0
7
)
3
.
0
4
3
1
9
°
4
0
'
W
h
a
u
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
278
149
161
248
250
252
254
258
260
276
159
264
266
276A
274
175
Lot 1
DP 348519
Lot 5
DP 340586
4.8550
Lot 1
DP 405632
Lot 2
DP 348519
Lot 2
DP 340586
Lot 1
DP 340586
Lot 2
DP 195500
Lot 2
DP 207775
Lot 1
DP 207775
Lot 1
DP 41275
Lot 2
DP 41275
Lot 3
DP 41275
Lot 3
DP 199102
Lot 1
DP 38871
Lot 2
DP 51603
Lot 9
DP 157457
culvert
f
e
n
c
e
o
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
OIB 1 DP340586
78.45
power poles
power pole
seale
d fo
rmatio
n
BK BM
REV.
SURVEY
24/08/15
BY DATE
Hz. 1:500 @ A1
Existing Contour Survey
Proposed Whau Valley Water Treatment Plant
Email. [email protected]
Ph. 09 435 5387
Prepared By:
LTDBOUNDARY
09 435 5382
HUNTER
SCALE:
TITLE:
4662
JOB:
CAD FILE REVISION
1
SHEET
1000\4662\4662.dwg
purpose other than originally intended, without the permission of Boundary Hunter Ltd.
This drawing shall not be reproduced or copied in whole or in part,or used for any
CHECKED B Smith 26/08/15
DRAWN
BK 25/08/15
REV.
NOTES:
- Contours are at 0.2m intervals.
- Levels are in terms of LINZ One Tree Point Datum SS264 SO48581 (C2NM) R.L.88.75.
- All underground and above services may not be surveyed or shown on this plan.
Please consult Service Providers before carrying out any excavation or construction.
- Boundary Hunter Ltd accepts no responsibility for services omitted by this survey.
COUNCIL
DISTRICT
WHANGAREI
Prepared for:
Meters
0
15
30
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 41
Appendix D
Geotechnical Factual Report
Report
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Factual Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
Prepared for Whangarei District Council
Prepared by CH2M Beca Ltd
26 June 2015
Conten
1 Introd1.1 O
1.2 S
2 Previ
3 Curre3.1 M
3.2 C
4 Appl
5 Refer
Appen
AppendiFigures
AppendiMachin
AppendiCone P
nts
duction Object and S
Site Location
ious Inve
ent Field Machine Bor
Cone Penetr
icability S
rences
ndices
ix A
s
ix B
ne Borehole
ix C
Penetration T
Scope of Inve
n and Descri
estigation
Investigareholes
ration Tests (
Statemen
Logs and Co
Test Logs
Whau
estigations
ption
ns
ations
(CPT)
nt
ore Photogra
Valley WTP Upgr
aphs
rade Addendum GGeotechnical Factuual Report - 274 W
CH2M B6519113 // NZ
Whau Valley Road
Beca // 26 June 20151-10899613-1 0.1 //
11
1
1
22
3
3
4
d
5 i
2
2
3
3
4
1 Int
CH2M Becageotechnica
This report
1.1 Ob
WDC are asplant (WTP)investigationused for preconstraints
This report conjunction 274 Whau V
CH2M BWhanga
CH2M BWhanga
1.2 Sit
The site is tapproximate
Whau ValleRoad extensite B and liof the Whauflows from t
The site is p200m eleva
The site is a
2 Pr
Previous invReport, Rep
troduct
a Ltd (Beca) al investigatio
is the proper
bject and
ssessing thre). This site an is to recordeparing a Gefor the propo
presents facwith Beca J
Valley Road.
Beca. 2014. Warei District CBeca. 2014. Warei District C
te Locatio
titled 274 Whely 1.4km alo
y is a north eds along theies in a side u Valley. A sthe dam at th
predominantation.
approximatel
revious
vestigations port prepared
tion
has been coons at 274 W
rty of our clie
Scope of
ee sites on Wt 274 Whau d the underlyeotechnical Inosed develop
ctual informatune 2015: W Associated
Whau Valley Council, OctoWhau Valley
Council, Octo
on and De
hau Valley Roong Whau Va
east, south we alluvial plainvalley orientmall unnamehe head of th
ly flat and ha
ly 4.86 hecta
s Invest
are listed in d for Whanga
Whau
ommissionedWhau Valley
ent, WDC and
f Investig
Whau Valley Valley Road
ying ground cnterpretive Rpment of this
tion associatWhau Valley W
reports for th
WTP Upgraber 2014. WTP Upgraber 2014.
escription
oad accordinalley Road. T
west orientedn at the baseed east, wesed creek flowhe Whau Vall
as an elevatio
ares in area.
igations
CH2M Becaarei District C
Valley WTP Upgr
d by WhangaRoad near W
d CH2M Bec
gations
Road for fea is the seconconditions at
Report which s site.
ted with the gWTP Upgradhe previous s
ade – Geotec
ade – Geotec
n
ng to WDC InThe centre o
d valley with e of the vallest approximaws down this ley.
on of approx
s
a. 2014. WhaCouncil, Octo
rade Addendum G
arei District CWhangarei.
ca Ltd.
asibility of cond site to be t two boreholwill assist th
ground invesde Addendumsites are:
chnical Factu
chnical Interp
ntramaps proof this site is a
drainage towey. 274 Whauately 200m w
valley and jo
ximately 80m
au Valley WTober 2014.
Geotechnical Factu
6
Council (WDC
nstructing a investigatedle locations. e geotechnic
stigation. Thism Geotechni
ual Report, R
pretive Repor
operty GIS syapproximate
wards the noru Valley Roa
wide and 550moins the Waia
m, but is surro
TP Upgrade –
ual Report - 274 W
CH2M B6519113 // NZ1-1089
C) to underta
new water tr. The purposThis informacal issues an
s report is tocal Interpret
Report prepar
rt, Report pre
ystem. It is sely 1717378E
rth east. Whad is otherwism long near arohia stream
ounded by hi
– Geotechnic
Whau Valley Road
Beca // 26 June 201599613-1 0.1 // page 1
ake
reatment se of this ation will be nd
o be read in ive Report –
red for
epared for
situated E 6048677N.
au Valley se known as the mouth
m which
lls of up to
cal Factual
d
5 1
3 Cu
Field investlocations arBeca EnginBeca Engin
A list of stan
Table 1 - Sum
Field Proced
Soil and Roc
Standard Pen
3.1 Ma
Machine bosummary of
Table 2 - Sum
BH No.
BH1
BH2
Notes: All su In-situ testin
Standarduncorrec
Machine bobeen loggedbeing transf
The core sadesiccation
Upon comp
urrent F
igations comre presented eering Geoloeering Geolo
ndards used
mmary of Stan
dure
ck logging
netration Test
achine Bo
oreholes weref all machine
mmary of Bore
Location
Western sfield
Eastern sfield
rvey coordina
ng, undertake
d Penetrationcted N-value
orehole logs ad, they were ferred to the
amples will band degrada
pletion, both b
Field In
mmenced on in Figure 1 A
ogist. Unlessogist.
during the fi
ndards used in
ting
oreholes
e drilled by Pe boreholes u
eholes Drilled
E
side of 1
ide of 1
tes given in N
en during dri
n Tests (SPTs are recorde
and core phowrapped in Beca Auckla
e stored for aation of the c
boreholes we
Whau
vestiga
8 June 2015Appendix A. s otherwise s
eld investiga
n this Investiga
Pro-Drill (Aucundertaken is
Easting
1717352
1717407
ZTM
illing of the m
Ts) were typied on the bo
otographs arplastic to redand office at
a period of score samples
ere backfilled
Valley WTP Upgr
ations
5 and were c The machistated, all so
ations are sh
ation
Stan
In geSocie
ASTM
ck) Ltd usings given Table
North
6048
6048
machine bore
ically carriedorehole logs.
re presented duce moistur21 Pitt Stree
six months fos will occur th
d with gravel
rade Addendum G
ompleted byne boreholes
oil and rock lo
own in Table
dard Used
eneral accordaety Guidelines
M D 1586 Rev
an AMS Soe 2.
hing
660
666
eholes comp
out at nomin
in Appendixre loss and pet, Auckland
ollowing delivhrough time
, sand and b
Geotechnical Factu
6
y 15 June 201s were superogging has b
e 1, below:
ance with News (NZGS, 2005
v A, 2008
nic 150hz Ro
R.L. grou(m)
80.5
79.5
rised:
nal 1.5m cen
x B. After theplaced in labefor storage.
very of this refollowing sto
bentonite.
ual Report - 274 W
CH2M B6519113 // NZ1-1089
15. The invervised full-tim
been underta
w Zealand Geo5).
oto-Sonic Dr
und Tota
19.0
11.1
ntres and the
e core samplelled core bo
eport. Someorage.
Whau Valley Road
Beca // 26 June 201599613-1 0.1 // page 2
estigation me by a aken by a
otechnical
rilling Rig. A
al Depth (m)
0
5
e
es had oxes before
e natural
d
5 2
3.2 Co
Static Conemeasure cobelow. TestAppendix C
Table 3 - Sum
CPT No.
CPT1
CPT2
CPT3
CPT4
CPT5
Notes: All su
4 Ap
This report use for the pby any persown risk.
This is a faclocations anlocations arour observaunderlying c
No interpretthe applicabindependen
one Penet
e Penetrationone resistanct records for
C.
mmary of CPT
Loca
See
See
See
See
See
rvey coordina
pplicab
has been prepurpose for w
son contrary
ctual report ond no inferenre made. Fuation of the sconditions.
tation of the bility of this rent investigatio
tration Te
n Tests (CPTce, sleeve friccone resista
T Locations
ation
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
tes given in N
ility Sta
epared by Bewhich it is intto the above
of field investnces about thrthermore loamples reco
investigationreport for the ons to satisfy
Whau
ests (CPT
T’s) were conction and wance, sleeve f
Easting
1717347
1717390
1717393
1717415
1717411
ZTM
atemen
eca on the sptended in ac
e, to which Be
tigations. Thehe nature andgs are provid
overed in the
n results has proposed de
y your needs
Valley WTP Upgr
T)
nducted by Pater pressurefriction, frictio
N
6
6
6
6
6
t
pecific instruccordance wieca has not
e field investd continuity oded presentifieldwork an
been made evelopment ds.
rade Addendum G
ro-Drill (Aucke. CPT test loon ratio, and
Northing
6048684
6048671
6048650
6048651
6048677
uctions of ourth the agreedgiven its prio
tigations havof ground coing descriptiond may not b
in this repordescribed he
Geotechnical Factu
6
k) Ltd using aocations are pore pressu
R.L. g
80
79
79
79
79
r Client. It is d scope of wor written con
ve been undeonditions awaon of the soile truly repres
t. Should yoerein, it is ess
ual Report - 274 W
CH2M B6519113 // NZ1-1089
a model 662summarised
ure are includ
ground (m)
solely for ouwork. Any usensent, is at th
ertaken at disay from the inls and geologsentative of
ou be in any sential that y
Whau Valley Road
Beca // 26 June 201599613-1 0.1 // page 3
22 CPT rig tod in Table 3 ded in
Total Depth (m)
9.6
7.9
12.7
13.8
7.6
ur Client’s e or reliance hat person's
screte nvestigation gy based on the actual
doubt as to you carry out
d
5 3
o
t
5 Re
ASTM. 201Sampling of
CH2M BecaWhangarei
CH2M BecaWhangarei
NZ Geotechdescription
NZ Standar
eferenc
1. D 1586 REf Soils. ASTM
a. 2014. WhaDistrict Coun
a. 2014. WhaDistrict Coun
hnical Societof soil and ro
rd 4402. 1986
ces
EV A StandaM Internation
au Valley WTncil, October
au Valley WTncil, October
ty. 2005. Fielock for engin
6. Methods o
Whau
ard Test Methnal, West Co
TP Upgrade r 2014.
TP Upgrade r 2014.
ld Descriptioneering purpo
of Testing So
Valley WTP Upgr
hod for Stannshohocken
– Geotechni
– Geotechni
on for Soil anoses. Decem
oils for Civil E
rade Addendum G
dard Penetra, PA, 2011.
ical Factual R
ical Interpreti
d Rock - Guimber 2005.
Engineering
Geotechnical Factu
6
ation Test (S
Report, Repo
ive Report, R
ideline for th
Purposes.
ual Report - 274 W
CH2M B6519113 // NZ1-1089
SPT) and Spl
ort prepared
Report prepa
he field classi
Whau Valley Road
Beca // 26 June 201599613-1 0.1 // page 4
lit-Barrel
for
ared for
ification and
d
5 4
Appendix A
Figures
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade - 274 Whau Valley Road, Proposed Layout with Investigation Locations
6519113 Figure 1
Appendix B
Machine Borehole Logs and Core Photographs
CH2M Beca// 17 February 2014 // Page 1 3200000 // NZ1-1439856-CH2M BOREHOLE LOG KEY SHEET (0).doc
Log Key Sheet
CLASSIFICATION Based on USBR Unified Soil Classification System WATER
Water level on date shown METHOD (shows drilling method) OB open barrel Wash wash boring TT triple tube UT thin walled undisturbed tube SPT standard penetration test – open nose sampler SN standard penetration test – solid nose sampler MA machine auger PS piston sample PCT percussion – top drive PCB percussion – bottom drive Conc concentrics Sonic sonic SAMPLES Dx Disturbed sample, number x Bx Bulk sample, number x Ux(d) Undisturbed sample, number x, tube diameter d in mm Wx Water sample, number x MOISTURE D Dry, looks and feels dry M Moist, no free water on hand when remoulding W Wet, free water on hand when remoulding S Saturated, soil below water table
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS Soil and Rock Descriptions are generally as described in the NZ Geotechnical Society “Field Description of Soil and Rock – Guideline for the Field Classification and Description of Soil and Rock for Engineering Purposes”, dated December 2005. Vane Shear Strength measurements in accordance with the NZ Geotechnical Society “Guideline for hand held shear vane test” dated August 2001. INSITU TESTS SV = 40/10 Insitu shear strength and remoulded shear
strength respectively, as measured by Pilcon Shear Vane
= 50/12 Vane shear strength and remoulded vane shear strength respectively, corrected to BS1377
UTP = Unable To Penetrate with Shear Vane N = 15 SPT uncorrected blow count for 300mm
penetration Laboratory Test(s) carried out: AL Atterberg limits UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial PSD Particle size CU Consolidated undrained triaxial CONS Consolidation COMP Compaction UCS Unconfined compression WEATHERING CW Completely weathered HW Highly weathered MW Moderately weathered SW Slightly weathered UW Unweathered
CONSISTENCY Cohesive Soils Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) Non-cohesive Soils SPT – Uncorrected Very soft <12 Very loose 0 to 4 Soft 12 to 25 Loose 4 to 10 Firm 25 to 50 Medium dense 10 to 30 Stiff 50 to 100 Dense 30 to 50 Very stiff 100 to 200 Very dense >50 Hard >200 GRAPHIC LOG (1 or a combination of the following)
Organic material
Mudstone
Gravel
Silt
Sandstone
Limestone
Clay
Siltstone
Shells
Sand
Volcanic Rock
No Core
ORGANIC SOILS Von Post Degree of Hummification H1 Completely unconverted and mud-free peat, when pressed gives clear water and plant structure is visible. H2 Practically unconverted and mud-free peat, when pressed gives almost clear water and plant structure is visible. H3 Very slightly decomposed or very slightly muddy peat, when pressed gives marked muddy water, no peat substance passes through the fingers and plant
structure is less visible. H4 Slightly decomposed or slightly muddy peat, when pressed gives marked muddy water and plant structure is less visible. H5 Moderately decomposed or very muddy peat with growth structure evident but slightly obliterated. H6 Moderately decomposed or very muddy peat with indistinct growth structure. H7 Fairly well decomposed or very muddy peat but the growth structure can just be seen. H8 Well decomposed or very muddy peat with very indistinct growth structure. H9 Practically decomposed or mud-like peat in which almost no growth structure is evident. H10 Completely decomposed or mud peat where no growth structure can be seen, entire substance passes through the fingers when pressed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxx
c c c c
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
v v vv v v
x xx x
9/06
/201
5
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
onic
SP
TS
onic
SP
TS
onic
SP
TS
onic
SP
TS
onic
Very soft clayey SILT with trace organics; dark brown; moist, high plasticity. Organics:rootlets[Topsoil]
Firm silty CLAY; orange brown; moist, high plasticity.Mottled grey.
Soft; light grey.
No recovery. Rods dropped under own weight.
Very soft silty CLAY; grey; wet, high plasticity.
Soft organic SILT; dark greyish brown; moist, low plasticity. Organics: fibrous (Peat:H6)
Very soft clayey SILT minor organics; greyish brown; moist, highly plastic.
Soft organic SILT; dark greyish brown; moist, low plasticity. Organics: fibrous (Peat:H6) thinly interbedded with very soft clayey SILT minor organics; greyish brown; moist,highly plastic.
40mm lens Organics: amorphous
Soft clayey SILT with trace organics; brownish grey; moist, high plasticity.
20mm lens of brown, amorphous organicsGrey speckled black
Loose GRAVEL; black; moist, non plastic. Gravel: vesicular basalt
Dense BOULDERS; black; moist, non plastic. Boulder: up to 300mm, strong, slightlyweathered, vesicular basalt.
Very soft silty CLAY; dark grey speckled black; moist, high plasticity.
Dense BOULDERS; black; moist, non plastic. Boulders: <500mm, strong slightlyweathered; black; vesicular basalt.
To
pso
ilQ
uat
ern
ary
Allu
viu
mK
erik
eri V
olc
anic
Gro
up
121222
N=7
000000
N=0
000000
N=0
000009
N=9
215526
N=18
100
%50
%10
0 %
0 %
100
%10
0 %
100
%10
0 %
100
%10
0 %
10 %
100
%
MWP9/6/158/6/15
EQUIPMENT:DRILL METHOD:DRILL FLUID:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:SHEAR VANE No:
FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SEE KEY SHEETA4 Scale 1:50
DIAMETER/INCLINATION:
DATE FINISHED:DATE STARTED:
AMS Sonic 150hz Roto-SonicPro-Drill (Auck) Ltd
DA
ILY
WA
TE
R L
EV
EL
DRILLING
-/ 90°
SC/Sonic/SPTWater
ME
TH
OD
GR
AP
HIC
LO
G
SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION
DE
PT
H (
m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IN-SITU TESTS
GE
OLO
GIC
AL
UN
IT
R L
(m
)
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
SA
MP
LES
SPT'N'C
OR
E R
EC
OV
ER
Y
RQ
D
CA
SIN
G
FLU
ID L
OS
S
SV (kPa)
COMMENTS:SC = Solid Cone SPT
BE
CA
LIB
1.0
7.1.
GLB
Log
BE
CA
MA
CH
INE
BO
RE
HO
LE 2
74 W
HA
U V
ALL
EY
RO
AD
LO
GS
.GP
J <
<D
raw
ingF
ile>
> 2
7/06
/201
5 15
:24
8.3
0.00
4 D
atge
l Lab
and
In S
itu T
ool -
DG
D |
Lib:
Bec
a 1.
07 2
014-
12-1
6 P
rj: B
eca
1.07
201
4-12
-16
COORDINATE ORIGIN: MAPACCURACY: 5
N 6,048,660 mE 1,717,352 m
BH1
SHEET 1 of 2
JOB NUMBER:PROJECT: Whau Valley WTP Upgrade
CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: 274 Whau Valley Road
6519113
CIRCUIT: NZTM West side of fieldCOORDINATES:
Whangarei District Council
R L: 80.5 mDATUM: MSL
MACHINE BOREHOLE LOG
BOREHOLE No:
BOREHOLE LOCATION:
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
CS
onic
SC
Son
icS
CS
onic
Son
icS
C
Medium dense fine to coarse GRAVEL, some silt, trace cobbles; dark grey; saturated,non plastic. Gravel: vesicular basalt.
Medium dense fine to coarse GRAVEL with minor silt; dark grey; saturated, non plastic.Gravel: vesicular basalt.
Medium dense sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL with trace cobbles, trace silt; darkreddish brown; wet, non plastic. Gravel: vesicular basalt.
Minor cobbles
Trace cobbles
Minor silt
Very dense BOULDERS, some silt, trace gravel, trace sand; dark grey speckled white,moist, non plastic. Boulders: <600mm, slightly weathered, vesicular basalt.
Very dense sandy GRAVEL trace cobble, trace silt; dark reddish brown; wet; nonplastic. Gravel: vesicular basalt.
Very dense BOULDERS; dark greyish brown speckled white: moist, non plastic.Boulders: <500mm, slightly weathered, vesicular basalt.
Very dense gravelly COBBLES with some sand, trace silt; dark reddish brown; wet;non plastic. Cobbles: <200mm, strong vesicular basalt.
Very strong to extremely strong, UW, dark grey speckled white vesicular BASALT,homogeneous. Defects: moderately widely spaced, gently-steeply inclined, rough,undulating, clean.
Defects: closely spaced
Defects: moderately widely spaced
No recovery
END OF LOG @ 19.01 m
Ker
iker
i Vo
lcan
ic G
rou
p
15229345
N=21
20 for40mm
Bouncing5 for0mm
N=50+
20 for25mm
Bouncing5 for0mm
N=50+
225 for50mm
Bouncing5 for0mm
N=50+
25 for50mm
Bouncing5 for0mm
N=50+
50 for10mm
Bouncing5 for0mm
N=50+
100
%45
%10
0 %
22 %
100
%0
%10
0 %
0 %
100
%0
%10
0 %
40 %
MWP9/6/158/6/15
EQUIPMENT:DRILL METHOD:DRILL FLUID:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:SHEAR VANE No:
FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SEE KEY SHEETA4 Scale 1:50
DIAMETER/INCLINATION:
DATE FINISHED:DATE STARTED:
AMS Sonic 150hz Roto-SonicPro-Drill (Auck) Ltd
DA
ILY
WA
TE
R L
EV
EL
DRILLING
-/ 90°
SC/Sonic/SPTWater
ME
TH
OD
GR
AP
HIC
LO
G
SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION
DE
PT
H (
m)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
IN-SITU TESTS
GE
OLO
GIC
AL
UN
IT
R L
(m
)
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
SA
MP
LES
SPT'N'C
OR
E R
EC
OV
ER
Y
RQ
D
CA
SIN
G
FLU
ID L
OS
S
SV (kPa)
COMMENTS:SC = Solid Cone SPT
BE
CA
LIB
1.0
7.1.
GLB
Log
BE
CA
MA
CH
INE
BO
RE
HO
LE 2
74 W
HA
U V
ALL
EY
RO
AD
LO
GS
.GP
J <
<D
raw
ingF
ile>
> 2
7/06
/201
5 15
:24
8.3
0.00
4 D
atge
l Lab
and
In S
itu T
ool -
DG
D |
Lib:
Bec
a 1.
07 2
014-
12-1
6 P
rj: B
eca
1.07
201
4-12
-16
COORDINATE ORIGIN: MAPACCURACY: 5
N 6,048,660 mE 1,717,352 m
BH1
SHEET 2 of 2
JOB NUMBER:PROJECT: Whau Valley WTP Upgrade
CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: 274 Whau Valley Road
6519113
CIRCUIT: NZTM West side of fieldCOORDINATES:
Whangarei District Council
R L: 80.5 mDATUM: MSL
MACHINE BOREHOLE LOG
BOREHOLE No:
BOREHOLE LOCATION:
274 Whau Valley Road
BH1
Job number: 6519113 Machine Borehole Photos
BOX: 1 DEPTH: 0.0 to 2.55m
BOX: 2 DEPTH: 2.55 to 6.1m
274 Whau Valley Road
BH1
Job number: 6519113 Machine Borehole Photos
BOX: 3 DEPTH: 6.1 to 8.2m
BOX: 4 DEPTH: 8.2 to 11.15m
274 Whau Valley Road
BH1
Job number: 6519113 Machine Borehole Photos
BOX: 5 DEPTH: 11.15 to 13.75m
BOX: 6 DEPTH: 13.75 to 15.7m
274 Whau Valley Road
BH1
Job number: 6519113 Machine Borehole Photos
BOX: 7 DEPTH: 15.7 to 18.3m
BOX: 8 DEPTH: 18.3 to 19.01m
9/06
/201
5
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
PT
Son
icS
PT
Son
ic
Soft organic clayey SILT; dark brown; wet, high plasticity. Organics: Rootlets[Topsoil]
Stiff silty CLAY, trace organics; orange brown; moist, high plasticity.
No organics
Orange brown mottled grey
Firm clayey SILT, minor fine to medium gravel; grey mottled orange brown; moist; highplasticity. Gravel: subrounded to subangular, greywacke.
Medium dense SILT, minor fine to coarse sand, trace to no clay, trace gravel; greybrown mottled dark grey; moist, non plastic to low plasticity.
Very soft silty ORGANICS with some clay; grey brown/black; moist, high plasticity.Organics: fibrous. (Peat: H7)
Very soft clayey SILT, trace organics: grey brown speckled black; moist, high plasticity.Organics: fibrous.
Very soft organic clayey SILT; grey brown/black; moist, high plasticity. Organics:fibrous. (Peat: H7)
Very soft clayey SILT, trace organics: grey brown speckled black; moist, high plasticity.Organics: amorphous.
Loose fine to coarse SAND, minor silt; black; wet, non plastic. (Angular basalt)
Trace gravel: vesicular basalt
To
pso
ilQ
uat
ern
ary
Allu
viu
m
101122
N=6
445666
N=23
211111
N=4
000001
N=1
000000
N=0
211101
N=3
100
%10
0 %
100
%50
%10
0 %
28 %
100
%10
0 %
100
%10
0 %
100
%10
0 %
100
%
MWP9/6/159/6/15
EQUIPMENT:DRILL METHOD:DRILL FLUID:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:SHEAR VANE No:
FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SEE KEY SHEETA4 Scale 1:50
DIAMETER/INCLINATION:
DATE FINISHED:DATE STARTED:
AMS Sonic 150hz Roto-SonicPro-Drill (Auck) Ltd
DA
ILY
WA
TE
R L
EV
EL
DRILLING
-/ 90°
Sonic/SPTWater
ME
TH
OD
GR
AP
HIC
LO
G
SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION
DE
PT
H (
m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IN-SITU TESTS
GE
OLO
GIC
AL
UN
IT
R L
(m
)
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
SA
MP
LES
SPT'N'C
OR
E R
EC
OV
ER
Y
RQ
D
CA
SIN
G
FLU
ID L
OS
S
SV (kPa)
COMMENTS:
BE
CA
LIB
1.0
7.1.
GLB
Log
BE
CA
MA
CH
INE
BO
RE
HO
LE 2
74 W
HA
U V
ALL
EY
RO
AD
LO
GS
.GP
J <
<D
raw
ingF
ile>
> 2
7/06
/201
5 15
:24
8.3
0.00
4 D
atge
l Lab
and
In S
itu T
ool -
DG
D |
Lib:
Bec
a 1.
07 2
014-
12-1
6 P
rj: B
eca
1.07
201
4-12
-16
COORDINATE ORIGIN: MAPACCURACY: 5
N 6,048,666 mE 1,717,407 m
BH2
SHEET 1 of 2
JOB NUMBER:PROJECT: Whau Valley WTP Upgrade
CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: 274 Whau Valley Road
6519113
CIRCUIT: NZTM East side of fieldCOORDINATES:
Whangarei District Council
R L: 79.5 mDATUM: MSL
MACHINE BOREHOLE LOG
BOREHOLE No:
BOREHOLE LOCATION:
Son
icS
PT
Medium dense fine to medium GRAVEL, minor sand, trace silt; black; wet, non plastic.Gravel: vesicular basalt.
Reddish brown
END OF LOG @ 11.15 m
Ker
iker
i Vo
lcan
ic G
rou
p
322336
N=14
100
%10
0 %
MWP9/6/159/6/15
EQUIPMENT:DRILL METHOD:DRILL FLUID:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:SHEAR VANE No:
FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SEE KEY SHEETA4 Scale 1:50
DIAMETER/INCLINATION:
DATE FINISHED:DATE STARTED:
AMS Sonic 150hz Roto-SonicPro-Drill (Auck) Ltd
DA
ILY
WA
TE
R L
EV
EL
DRILLING
-/ 90°
Sonic/SPTWater
ME
TH
OD
GR
AP
HIC
LO
G
SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION
DE
PT
H (
m)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
IN-SITU TESTS
GE
OLO
GIC
AL
UN
IT
R L
(m
)
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
SA
MP
LES
SPT'N'C
OR
E R
EC
OV
ER
Y
RQ
D
CA
SIN
G
FLU
ID L
OS
S
SV (kPa)
COMMENTS:
BE
CA
LIB
1.0
7.1.
GLB
Log
BE
CA
MA
CH
INE
BO
RE
HO
LE 2
74 W
HA
U V
ALL
EY
RO
AD
LO
GS
.GP
J <
<D
raw
ingF
ile>
> 2
7/06
/201
5 15
:24
8.3
0.00
4 D
atge
l Lab
and
In S
itu T
ool -
DG
D |
Lib:
Bec
a 1.
07 2
014-
12-1
6 P
rj: B
eca
1.07
201
4-12
-16
COORDINATE ORIGIN: MAPACCURACY: 5
N 6,048,666 mE 1,717,407 m
BH2
SHEET 2 of 2
JOB NUMBER:PROJECT: Whau Valley WTP Upgrade
CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: 274 Whau Valley Road
6519113
CIRCUIT: NZTM East side of fieldCOORDINATES:
Whangarei District Council
R L: 79.5 mDATUM: MSL
MACHINE BOREHOLE LOG
BOREHOLE No:
BOREHOLE LOCATION:
274 Whau Valley Road
BH2
Job number: 6519113 Machine Borehole Photos
BOX: 1 DEPTH: 0.0 to 2.3m
BOX: 2 DEPTH: 2.3 to 5.05m
274 Whau Valley Road
BH2
Job number: 6519113 Machine Borehole Photos
BOX: 3 DEPTH: 5.05 to 7.3m
BOX: 4 DEPTH: 7.3 to 9.9m
274 Whau Valley Road
BH2
Job number: 6519113 Machine Borehole Photos
BOX: 5 DEPTH: 9.9 to 11.15m
Appendix C
Cone Penetration Test Logs
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
qc [MPa]
fs [MPa]
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Depth [m]
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
u2 [MPa]
Rf [%]
Test no:
CPT1Project ID:
274WhauValleyRdClient:
BECAProject:
274WhauValleyRd
WL - Collapsed and Dry at 1.5m
Position:
X: 0 m, Y: 0 mLocation:
WhangareiGround level:
0.000Date:
15/06/2015Scale:
1 : 83Page:
1/1Fig:
File: 274WhauValleyRd_CPT1.GEF
U2
Sleeve area [cm2]: 150
Tip area [cm2]: 10
Cone No: S10CFIIP.S14547
Classification by
Robertson 1986
Clay (3)
Sensitive fine grained (1)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
qc [MPa]
fs [MPa]
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Depth [m]
1.8
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
u2 [MPa]
Rf [%]
Test no:
CPT2Project ID:
274WhauValleyRdClient:
BECAProject:
274WhauValleyRd
WL - 1.8m
Position:
X: 0 m, Y: 0 mLocation:
WhangareiGround level:
0.000Date:
15/06/2015Scale:
1 : 83Page:
1/1Fig:
File: 274WhauValleyRd_CPT2.GEF
U2
Sleeve area [cm2]: 150
Tip area [cm2]: 10
Cone No: S10CFIIP.S14547
Classification by
Robertson 1986
Sensitive fine grained (1)
Clay (3)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
qc [MPa]
fs [MPa]
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Depth [m]
2.6
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
u2 [MPa]
Rf [%]
Test no:
CPT3Project ID:
274WhauValleyRdClient:
BECAProject:
274WhauValleyRd
WL - 2.6m
Position:
X: 0 m, Y: 0 mLocation:
WhangareiGround level:
0.000Date:
15/06/2015Scale:
1 : 83Page:
1/1Fig:
File: 274WhauValleyRd_CPT3.GEF
U2
Sleeve area [cm2]: 150
Tip area [cm2]: 10
Cone No: S10CFIIP.S14547
Classification by
Robertson 1986
Clay (3)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
qc [MPa]
fs [MPa]
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Depth [m]
1.1
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
u2 [MPa]
Rf [%]
Test no:
CPT4Project ID:
274WhauValleyRdClient:
BECAProject:
274WhauValleyRd
WL - 1.1m
Position:
X: 0 m, Y: 0 mLocation:
WhangareiGround level:
0.000Date:
15/06/2015Scale:
1 : 83Page:
1/1Fig:
File: 274WhauValleyRd_CPT4.GEF
U2
Sleeve area [cm2]: 150
Tip area [cm2]: 10
Cone No: S10CFIIP.S14547
Classification by
Robertson 1986
Clay (3)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Sensitive fine grained (1)
Clay (3)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
qc [MPa]
fs [MPa]
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Depth [m]
1.1
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
u2 [MPa]
Rf [%]
Test no:
CPT5Project ID:
274WhauValleyRdClient:
BECAProject:
274WhauValleyRd
WL - 1.1m
Position:
X: 0 m, Y: 0 mLocation:
WhangareiGround level:
0.000Date:
15/06/2015Scale:
1 : 83Page:
1/1Fig:
File: 274WhauValleyRd_CPT5.GEF
U2
Sleeve area [cm2]: 150
Tip area [cm2]: 10
Cone No: S10CFIIP.S14547
Classification by
Robertson 1986
Clay (3)
Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)
Clay (3)
Sensitive fine grained (1)
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 42
Appendix E
Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report
Report
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
Prepared for Whangarei District Council
Prepared by CH2M Beca Ltd
3 July 2015
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // i
Revision History
Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date
1 Jacqui Coleman Draft for internal review July 2015
2 Jacqui Coleman Final for issue July 3rd
2015
3
4
5
Document Acceptance
Action Name Signed Date
Prepared by Jacqui Coleman
Reviewed by James Burr
Approved by Philip La Roche
on behalf of CH2M Beca Ltd
© CH2M Beca 2015 (unless CH2M Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).
This report has been prepared by CH2M Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // ii
Executive Summary
CH2M Beca Ltd has been commissioned by Whangarei District Council to undertake a feasibility stage
geotechnical assessment of two vacant sites for development for a new water treatment plant. The new
water treatment plant would comprise a series of large concrete structures, including reservoir tanks, clarifier
tanks and associated buildings.
This is the second site to be investigated for suitability for the proposed development. 274 Whau Valley
Road is otherwise known as site B in the appraisal and lies in a side valley oriented west-east that is
approximately 200m wide and 550m long near the mouth of the Whau Valley and lies within the 1:100 year
flood hazard zone.
A geotechnical investigation was undertaken in June 2015. This comprised two machine boreholes drilled to
19 m and 11 m respectively, and five Cone Penetration Tests (CPT’s) whose maximum depth was 13.9 m
depth.
The geotechnical investigations recorded shallow groundwater and Tauranga Group swamp and alluvial
deposits of variable strength and composition overlying Kerikeri Volcanic Group sands, gravels and basalt
rock at depth. A soft to firm layer of silt and clay was recorded in all the investigation points between
approximately 3 and 9.5m deep. In all the investigation points, the silt and clay layer was underlain by sands
and gravels of the Kerikeri Volcanic Group. In borehole BH1 a floating basalt boulder was encountered at 8
m depth within the silt-clay deposit which may make piling difficult. Basalt rock was found at depth around 17
m in this borehole.
A settlement analysis was undertaken using inferred parameters from the site investigations and relevant
laboratory parameters from the previous site investigated at 213 Whau Valley Road in 2014. We simulated a
30m circular pad foundation loading 50kPa onto the surface of the site. Our analysis estimated total
settlements in the order of 20 to 600 mm at the centre of the structure, and 20 to 300mm at the edge of the
structure. Most of this settlement was occurring in the silt and clay layer from approximately 3 to 9.5m depth.
This layer thins towards the southeast and the estimated settlement reduces as well.
A liquefaction analysis was undertaken for this site. The site was deemed likely to be a Class D – ‘deep soil’
site, and the design peak ground accelerations were quantified as 0.26g for Ultimate Limit State and 0.15g
for Serviceability Limit State. Simulating these seismic accelerations on our ground model showed that the
site will be prone to liquefaction induced settlement. Settlements calculated were in the order of 10 to 90 mm
for the Serviceability Limit State analysis and 10 to 140 mm for the Ultimate Limit State Analysis. Most of this
liquefaction settlement was occurring in the silty sand layers (Layer 2a) from approximately 0.5 m to 6.2 m
depth. This layer thickens towards the south-eastern end of the site.
The key geotechnical consideration for developing this site is mitigation of the static and seismic settlements.
Deep foundations would need to be founded into the basalt gravels and boulders below 9 m depth and may
be economically feasible subject to further investigations. Shallow foundations may also be possible in
combination with ground improvement. Options for this include preloading, dynamic compaction, soil
stabilisation, partially compensated foundation, and excavation and replacement of the upper soil. These
options will limit the potential total and differential settlements, but not eliminate them. A combination of these
methods is likely to be the most effective.
Our recommended ground improvement option would be to undertake soil stabilisation (cement columns), in
combination with the excavation and recompaction of the upper soil layer (Layer 1) and piling of heavily
loaded structures. These methods would significantly reduce the estimated consolidation settlement that
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // iii
could occur in the soft silt and clay layer (Layer 2). Liquefaction may still occur at depth below the basalt, but
differential settlements will be mitigated by the overlying basalt and stabilised/recompacted soils providing a
rafting effect.
Further ground investigation data would be required to develop these options further.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // i
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Proposed Development 1
2 Site Location and Description 1
3 Geotechnical Investigations 2
3.1 Recent Investigations 2
3.2 Previous Investigations 2
4 Geology and Ground Profile 3
4.1 Regional Geology 3
4.2 Faulting 3
4.3 Ground Profile 4
4.4 Groundwater 5
5 Geotechnical Assessment 5
5.1 Slope Stability 5
5.2 Settlement 5
5.3 Seismicity 6
6 Potential Foundation Options 9
6.1 Shallow Foundations 9
6.2 Deep Foundations 10
6.3 General Considerations 10
7 Recommendations 11
8 Applicability 11
9 References 12
Appendices
Appendix A
Figures
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 1
1 Introduction
Whangarei District Council (WDC) is undertaking a feasibility study for upgrading the Whangarei Water
Treatment Plant (WTP). WDC have identified two potential sites that they wish to investigate further for
suitability. This site at 274 Whau Valley Road is the second site to be investigated. CH2M Beca Ltd has
been commissioned by WDC to undertake a feasibility stage geotechnical assessment of this site.
This Addendum Geotechnical Interpretive Report has been prepared to inform WDC of the geotechnical
issues and constraints to the proposed development. We have provided concept foundation and ground
treatment options to mitigate some of the geotechnical issues present at this site, and provide
recommendations for progression of this scheme. This information is aimed at assisting WDC with making
an informed decision on the suitability of this site for the development of a new water treatment plant.
This report is to be read in conjunction with CH2M Beca, 2015 (Whau Valley WTP Upgrade – 274 Whau Valley Road Addendum Geotechnical Factual Report), report prepared for Whangarei District Council.
Associated reports for the previous site are:
n CH2M Beca. 2014. Whau Valley WTP Upgrade – Geotechnical Factual Report, Report prepared for
Whangarei District Council, October 2014.
n CH2M Beca. 2014. Whau Valley WTP Upgrade – Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Report prepared for
Whangarei District Council, October 2014.
This report is the property of our client, WDC and CH2M Beca Ltd.
1.1 Proposed Development
The new water treatment plant will comprise a series of large concrete structures, including two reservoir
tanks, clarifier tanks and associated buildings. Other associated structures include chemical storage, filter
tanks and clarifiers, along with utilities and access roads.
The Preliminary ‘New Plant Site Layout’ plan (Appendix B) indicates the 4000m3 capacity tanks are likely to
be the largest structures proposed at this site. To represent these structures, a 30m diameter circular pad
with 50kPa surcharge was used for the analysis.
2 Site Location and Description
The site is titled 274 Whau Valley Road according to WDC Intramaps property GIS system. It is situated
approximately 1.4km along Whau Valley Road. The centre of this site is approximately 1717378E 6048677N.
Whau Valley is a northeast, southwest oriented valley with drainage towards the northeast. Whau Valley
Road is aligned northeast-southwest along the centre of the valley. 274 Whau Valley Road is otherwise
known as site B and lies in a side valley oriented west-east, and is approximately 200m wide and 550m long
near the mouth of the Whau Valley. The site is some 60m south of a small unnamed creek that flows to the
east and joins the Waiarohia stream which originates from the dam at the head of the Whau Valley.
The site is predominantly flat and has an elevation of approximately RL 80 m, the site is approximately 4.86
hectares in area.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 2
3 Geotechnical Investigations
3.1 Recent Investigations
A ground investigation comprising two machine boreholes and five cone penetration tests (CPTs) was
recently undertaken at the site. The works commenced on 8 June 2015 and were completed 15 June 2015.
The investigation locations have been located using NZTopo 50 1:50,000 topographic map following
completion of the fieldwork in terms of NZTM 2000 and are presented on Figures 1 and 2 (Appendix A). A
summary of the boreholes is shown in Table 3.1 and a summary of CPTs is shown in Table 3.2 below:
Table 3.1 Summary of Boreholes
BH No. Location Easting Northing R.L. (m) Total Depth (m)
BH1 Western side of paddock
1717352 6048660 80.5 19.0
BH2 Eastern side of paddock
1717407 6048666 79.5 11.15
Notes: All coordinates given in NZTM
Table 3.2 Summary of CPTs
CPT No. Location Easting Northing R.L. (m) Total Depth (m)
CPT1
See Figure 1. 1717347 6048684 80 9.6
CPT2
See Figure 1. 1717390 6048671 79.5 7.9
CPT3
See Figure 1. 1717393 6048650 79.5 12.7
CPT4
See Figure 1. 1717415 6048651 79.5 13.8
CPT5
See Figure 1. 1717411 6048677 79.5 7.6
Notes: All coordinates given in NZTM
3.2 Previous Investigations
Previous investigations carried out in the wider Whau Valley area including those previously undertaken at
the Whau Valley Dam are summarised within the CH2M Beca. 2014. Whau Valley WTP Upgrade – Geotechnical Factual Report.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 3
4 Geology and Ground Profile
4.1 Regional Geology
The published 1:25 000 geological map, Geology of the Whangarei Urban Area (White and Perrin, 2009)
indicates that the site lies within a down faulted half graben type feature where the hills to the northwest and
southeast comprise hard greywacke (Waipapa Terrane) that accumulated several hundred million of years
ago (Permian-Jurassic). The site itself is underlain by Tauranga Group Quaternary aged (less than 1.8
Million years old) alluvial and swamp deposits comprising unconsolidated sand, mud and gravel, commonly
interbedded with thin peat beds and sporadic input from the nearby Puhipuhi – Whangarei Volcanic Field.
The mapped geology of the site is presented in Figure 4.1 below.
At the mouth of Whau Valley (approx. 1km southeast of the site) is an unnamed basalt vent that occurs along
the North-South aligned Kamo Fault and is considered to have last erupted in the order of 300,000 years ago
(White and Perrin, 2009). The Whau Valley is said to have been blocked by the volcanic activity associated
with the basalt vent and subsequently filled with swamp and alluvial deposits originating from up the Whau
Valley.
4.2 Faulting
The Kamo Fault located approximately 1 km east of the site is not recorded as ‘active’ in the GNS active
faults database. The Northland region is generally considered to have low earthquake risk and no active
faults are known to exist in the Whangarei Geological Map area (Edbrooke, 2009).
W=Waipapa Terrane
greywacke
kl=Kerikeri Volcanic
Group Basalt
274 Whau Valley
Road
fa=Tauranga Group
Basalt vent
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 4
Figure 4.1: Geology map of the Whau Valley (White and Perrin, 2009)
4.3 Ground Profile
Recent Investigations conducted by CH2M Beca Ltd have enabled us to create the following ground profile
for 274 Whau Valley Road as shown in the Table 4.1 below and are presented in Figures 3 and 4, Appendix
A.
Table 4.1: Soil Profile for 274 Whau Valley Road
Layer Geological
Unit
Description Depth
to top
(m)
Thickness
(m)
SPT N
blows/300
mm
qc
(MPa)
1
Ta
ura
ng
a G
roup
Firm to stiff silty CLAY 0 2-3.5 6-7 1
*2a Medium dense SILT/silty SAND/ clayey SILT
with minor gravel.
0.8-3 0-4.5 4-23 4-12
Typ= 4
2 Soft clayey SILT with peat beds with isolated
basalt boulders
5-5.5 2-6.5 0-1 Typ= 0 0.3-0.9
Typ=
0.6
3a*
Ke
rike
ri V
olc
an
ic
Gro
up
Loose silty Sand 7.8-9 0-6.5 3 2-4
Typ=3
3 Medium dense to very dense basalt
BOULDERS and GRAVELS
9.5-9.8 7.5 18 - 50+
Typ=50+
15-30
4 Very strong UW vesicular BASALT 16.8 2m+ 50+ -
n *Soil layers 2a and 3a were not encountered within borehole BH1 and CPT1.
n Typ=typical values
The properties of Soil layer 2 are interpreted to be similar to the properties of Soil Layer 2 in the CH2M Beca
2014 reports and therefore similar engineering parameters have been used for this layer in the following
sections. The assessed engineering parameters used in the following sections are presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 – Estimated geotechnical parameters for analysis
Layer Description Bulk density (kN/m
3)
Mv (m2/MN) Cv (m
2/yr) Elastic modulus
(MPa) Su (kPa)
1 Firm to stiff silty CLAY 17 0.2 1.5 60
2a Medium dense SILT/silty SAND/ clayey SILT with minor gravel.
17 - - 20
2 Soft clayey SILT with peat beds with isolated basalt boulders
16 0.9 9.5 - 25
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 5
Layer Description Bulk density (kN/m
3)
Mv (m2/MN) Cv (m
2/yr) Elastic modulus
(MPa) Su (kPa)
3a Loose silty SAND 17 - - 20
3 Medium dense to very dense basalt BOULDERS and GRAVELS
18.5 - - 135 -
4 Very strong UW vesicular BASALT
17 n/a n/a n/a
4.4 Groundwater
Ground water was measured within the CPT’s and the machine boreholes straight after drilling. The water
table measured within the CPT’s varied between 1.1 and 2.6 m depth. The boreholes indicated water levels
between 4.5 and 7 m depth, these values are likely to be influenced by the drilling and are therefore not
considered further. A water level of 0.5 m below the ground surface was used for the liquefaction
assessment.
5 Geotechnical Assessment
The key geotechnical considerations for the site are discussed in the following sections:
5.1 Slope Stability
The site occupies a flat area at the centre of the valley. The adjacent side slopes of the valley are moderately
steep and large scale historical landslide features have been identified. The site is considered to be at
sufficient distance from the toe of the adjacent slopes to be at minor risk from landslip debris under normal
conditions. Slope stability therefore has not been considered further.
5.2 Settlement
5.2.1 Settlement Analysis
A settlement analysis was undertaken using the Roc-Science computer programme Settle3D using the soil
profile and estimated material parameters shown in Table 5.1. With limited geotechnical data a number of
assumptions were made. These include:
n Simulated loading from a 30m diameter, circular section water reservoir, applying 50kPa to the ground
surface was used for the analysis.
n The ground profile was assumed to be normally consolidated.
n Immediate settlements are based on the Es (elastic modulus) values.
n Linear consolidation was assumed using the strain based on Mv data based on laboratory testing
undertaken in the CH2M Beca 2014 report.
n Time dependant consolidation was analysed using a Cv value based on laboratory testing undertaken in
the CH2M Beca 2014 report.
n Secondary consolidation was excluded from the analysis.
n The groundwater table was located at approximately 0.5 m below the current ground surface.
n Assumed two way drainage of the silt and clay layer (drainage through top and base).
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 6
The estimated settlements due to static loading are shown in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2 - Estimated static settlement
Analysis Settlement Values BH1 profile Settlement Values BH2 profile
Centre of
structure
Edge of
structure
Centre of
structure
Edge of
structure
Total Settlement 150-600 mm 90-300 mm 45-180 mm 20-80 mm
Consolidation
Settlement
150-600 mm 90-300 mm 40-160 mm 15-70 mm
Immediate Settlement < 5 mm < 5 mm < 25 mm < 5 mm
The analysis showed:
n The large range in estimated settlements is to account for the natural variability in the soils and the limited
data. It is estimated that settlements will be greater in the northwestern end of the site, in the area of
borehole BH1.
n Greater than 80% of the total settlement was consolidation settlement from within the silt and clay layer
(layer 2).
n The ground profile in the eastern part of the site (borehole BH2) indicated a thinner layer of compressible
materials at depth than the area investigated around borehole BH1. It is noted that based on the current
layout most of the infrastructure is in this area.
n A time analysis showed that it would take approximately 2.5 years to undergo 90% of the total settlement
in the area of borehole BH1, and 6 months in the area of borehole BH2.
While only this nominally sized tank has been analysed, it is reasonable to expect that any large or heavily
loaded foundations will result in significant settlements due to the layer of compressible soils underlying the
site. Only small lightly loaded shallow footings are likely to result in settlements within normal tolerances
(25mm).
5.3 Seismicity
5.3.1 Site Subsoil Classification
The seismic design criteria have been assessed for this site using the NZ Standard 1170.5(2004). Based on
the profile, the recommended site subsoil class for this site is ‘Class D – deep soil’. The maximum depth of
the investigations at the site was 19 m. Basalt rock was encountered in the western part of the site but its
depth below the ground surface was observed to highly variable, it is of unknown thickness and is potentially
underlain by more Tauranga Group sediments. Subsoil class C was deemed not appropriate because this
basalt unit does not constitute sound rock/bedrock in terms of NZS1170.5.
The parameters for determining the design peak ground acceleration at ‘Ultimate Limit State’ and
‘Serviceability Limit State’ conditions (NZS1170.0), and the resultant peak ground acceleration values (PGA)
are summarised in Table 5.1. Serviceability Limit State is defined as ‘the structure maintains operational
continuity after the SLS2 earthquake’. Ultimate limit state is defined as ‘states associated with collapse, or
with similar forms of structural failure’ (NZS1170.5).
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 7
Table 5.1 - Seismic Design Parameters
Parameter Ultimate Limit State Serviceability Limit State
Design working life 50 years 50 years
Importance Level 4 4
Spectral shape factor 1.12 (class D site) 1.12 (class D site)
Hazard factor 0.13 0.13
Near fault factor 1 1
Return period factor 1.8 (1 in 2500 year event) 1.0 (1 in 500 year event)
Design PGA (g) 0.26 0.15
These Peak Ground Acceleration values have been used to assess liquefaction and cyclic softening of the
soil layers present at site.
5.3.2 Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated cohesionless soils lose strength under earthquake or other
applied cyclic loading. The loose soil will tend to compact or densify under this loading. When the soils are
saturated, the relatively incompressible pore water around the soil particles does not allow this densification
to occur in the short-term. This causes the pore water pressure to increase significantly and for the effective
stress within the affected soil to correspondingly decrease. Liquefaction occurs where these effective
stresses approach or equal zero, and the soil loses most of its shear strength. This condition will persist until
excess pore water pressures dissipate. Effects may continue after the earthquake shaking has stopped.
The effects of liquefaction can include localised lateral and downslope movements during an earthquake
where the static plus earthquake loads exceed the available strength of the liquefied soil profile. More
substantial lateral movements and widespread failures can occur where the strength loss is sufficiently
greater and the soil profile can no longer sustain static loads alone.
In addition to liquefaction and densification, cyclic strain softening could also affect fine-grained soils on-site
during earthquakes. Cyclic strain softening is the onset of strength loss resulting in significant strains in
saturated silts and clays during earthquakes. The cyclic strain softening causes the shear strength of the soil
to reduce under successive cyclic action. Although softening does not contribute to the settlement, it would
affect the stability of deep foundations, if proposed.
5.3.3 Liquefaction Assessment
Our investigation indicates that some conditions at this site will make it prone to liquefaction during an
earthquake. The high groundwater level, and the relatively low density and granular nature of the underlying
soils of the site are the main contributors to the liquefaction susceptibility.
Idriss and Boulanger (2008) indicate that the soils that are most likely to liquefy are alluvial, fluvial, marine
and deltaic soils that are recently deposited. Therefore at this site only the surficial deposits are considered
to have liquefaction potential and the volcanic deposits such as Layer 3a are considered unlikely to liquefy.
A summary of the susceptibility, based on the generalised ground model presented in Section 4, is provided
in Table 5.2 below.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 8
5.2 - Summary of liquefaction susceptibility of site materials
Soil Layer
Description Assessed liquefaction susceptibility
Comments
1 Stiff silty CLAY Non liquefiable. High clay content. Cohesive.
2a Medium dense SAND/silty SAND/clayey SILT
Liquefaction likely in sandy beds Variable clay content, but low relative density and saturated.
2 Soft silty CLAY Non liquefiable. Generally high clay content. Cohesive.
3a Loose silty SAND and Sand
Unlikely to liquefy due to age and volcanic source
Variable clay content, but low relative density and saturated.
3 Medium dense to very dense BOULDERS and GRAVELS
Non liquefiable.
4 Basalt rock Non liquefiable.
We have undertaken a liquefaction analysis to quantify the estimated amount of liquefaction induced
settlement under ‘ultimate limit state’ and ‘serviceability limit state’ PGA’s. This uses the descriptions, insitu
strength tests and observations recorded from each borehole. The analysis has been based on the methods
in the NCEER Workshop (1997), Tokimatsu and Seed (1987a & b), Olsen and Stark (2003), Boulanger and
Idriss (2006, 2007) and Zhang et al (2007).
The resultant settlement values are presented in Table 5.3:
Table 5.3 - Liquefaction Analysis Results
Analysis Settlement Extent
Serviceability Limit State 10 - 90 mm
Ultimate Limit State 10 – 140 mm
Our analysis indicates:
n The large range in estimated settlements is due to the variable ground profile encountered in the
investigations across the site. It is estimated that liquefaction induced settlements will be greater in the
southeastern end of the site, in the area of borehole BH2.
n The liquefaction induced settlement occurs only within sandy horizons of soil Layer 2a from approximately
0.5 to 6.2 m depth. This unit is thickest in the south-eastern part of the site (refer Figures 3 and 4).
It should be noted that the “rafting” effect of the overlying Layer 1 will reduce the potential for differential
settlements to manifest at the surface across the site. Note that this analysis is for a ‘free field’ scenario, and
the effect of surcharge loading from structures is not taken into account.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 9
6 Potential Foundation Options
6.1 Shallow Foundations
The use of shallow foundations would require some form of ground improvement due to the strong possibility
of high static and seismic induced settlements. The ground improvement may comprise preloading of the site
prior to construction, removal of the upper soils and embedment of the structure, or potentially more
substantial measures such as soil stabilization. To be more effective, a combination of these measures may
also be adopted.
Ground improvement measures would be expected to reduce, but not eliminate, the total and differential
settlements that could occur at this site.
6.1.1 Preloading
Preloading of the site prior to construction could be designed to consolidate the underlying materials and
remove most of the total expected post construction static settlement. The extent of this would depend on the
extent and duration of the preloading works. Improved drainage, such as the installation of vertical wick
drains, into the compressible silt and clay layer would assist with the dissipation of pore pressure and
increase the rate of consolidation settlement (i.e. reduce the preload time).
Our initial settlement analysis shows that the majority of the settlement occurs within the first 2.5 years at the
western end of the site and potentially 6 months at the eastern end of the site. A better understanding of the
permeability and organic content within the silt and clay layer, and the other geological units, would provide a
more accurate indication of the consolidation timeframes. Low permeability and organic rich materials usually
take a longer period of time to consolidate, and this could affect the suitability of preloading. Preloading will
not prevent or reduce the estimated level of liquefaction settlement occurring at depth.
Some of the preload material could be left as additional fill to elevate the site out of the flood hazard zone.
6.1.2 Dynamic Deep Compaction
This method involves mechanically inducing settlement by dropping a heavy weight onto the ground surface
from a crane. Improvements in geotechnical properties to depths of about 10m are possible. This method is
a faster way of achieving pre-construction consolidation, but is relatively expensive compared with pre-
loading, and is highly disruptive and potentially damaging to neighboring residences. Due to the nature of the
ground and proximity to residential dwellings, this is unlikely to be a viable option.
6.1.3 Soil Stabilization
The bearing properties of soft silts and clays can be improved by mixing cement into the soil. The method
involves using a specialized rig to rotary drill to desired depths (at this site up to 9m) then inject cement grout
(or other chemical additive) as the equipment is retracted. The result is a chemically stabilized column
usually 300 to 600mm diameter. It would not mitigate any liquefaction induced settlement that may occur at
depth below the basalt, but would limit differential settlement at the surface by providing a ‘rafting’ effect.
6.1.4 Partial Compensated Foundation
Excavating and embedding structures into the underlying soils can reduce the overall static loads affecting
the soil. Every meter of soil removed from the surface will reduce the overall static loading by approximately
16 - 17kPa. Reduced static loading will reduce the total settlement that could potentially occur at this site.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 10
The scheme designers may need to investigate the viability of embedding some structures below ground to
help mitigate differential settlement. The increased depth of associated services and decreased
constructability (particularly when below the groundwater level) would need to weighed against reduction in
total settlement.
6.1.5 Excavation and replacement of the upper soil
Differential settlement could be partially mitigated by excavating the upper firm-stiff clayey silt layer (Layer 1),
and recompacting this as fill to develop a raft foundation. A raft foundation would reduce the potential for
differential settlement to occur at the surface during static or seismic settlement, thereby reducing the
potential for structural damage. Reinforcement of this fill layer with geogrids can also help mitigate against
differential settlement. Total settlement would need to be mitigated by other means. The practical extent of
this option will be controlled by the groundwater level, as excavation and compaction are difficult below
groundwater. For this option to be considered further we recommend further shallow investigations be
carried out with samples collected for laboratory testing of Soil Layer 1 for compaction parameters.
6.2 Deep Foundations
Piles could be used to support the structures and avoid the risks from both total and differential settlements.
Piles could potentially be founded into the medium dense to dense basalt gravel beds (Soil layers 3 and 3a),
at some 9 m depth assuming the soil layers are of adequate thickness and at a consistent depth across the
site. The CPT’s, CPT3 and CPT4 suggest that the more competent material is deeper in the ground profile
towards the southeast. The floating basalt boulders up to 600 mm observed within borehole BH1, could be
problematic for driven piles, so predrilling may be required or potentially bored piles may be more suitable at
this site. Further deeper investigations would be required to confirm the depth and thickness of the
competent layer and to determine appropriate piling parameters.
6.3 General Considerations
Further considerations for earthworks include the following:
n The topsoil is in the order of 200 to 300 mm thick at this site and will require removal prior to any
earthworks.
n A CBR for the subgrade, based on the CPT results, is estimated to be about 3-4.
n Any preloading of the site and the construction of an engineered fill platform to keep the site above the
flood hazard zone, will need use imported fill from local quarry sources. These local fill sources will need
to be investigated.
n Soil Layer 1 may be suitable for reused if the Partial Compensation Foundation option is used to develop
this site. Further shallow investigations and laboratory testing will need to be carried out to confirm
compaction parameters.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 11
7 Recommendations
Our analysis of this site has shown heavy structures will be prone to significant total and differential
settlement (both static and seismic). The key geotechnical issue for developing this site is mitigating the
impact or the extent of this settlement.
Based on our ground investigation information, piled foundations are potentially an economically viable
option at this site subject to further investigations to confirm piling parameters, depths of piles and an
appropriate method. There is also a range ground improvement methods that can mitigate this settlement
and allow structures to have shallow foundations. The costs of these options would need to be evaluated for
the viability of this site for the water treatment plant.
The recommended option we believe would be most suitable to the conditions at this site would be
undertaking soil stabilisation (cement columns) down through Soil Layers 2 and 2a, in combination with the
excavation and recompaction of all or part of the upper soil layer (Layer 1). Depending on the depth of soil
stabilisation, this method would significantly reduce the estimated consolidation settlement that could occur
in the soft silt and clay layer (Layer 2). Differential settlements will be mitigated by the ‘stabilised’ soils, and
the re-compacted soil at the surface (Layer 1) providing a rafting effect.
Preloading of this site would reduce the expected static consolidation settlement of Layer 2. This option
could provide an opportunity to further optimise the ground improvement approach and potentially reduce the
costs.
The structural design of the shallow foundations would need to allow for significant total settlement that could
occur during a large earthquake and ensure structural tolerances are adequate.
Further ground investigation data would be required to develop both of these options further. Subject to the
preferred layout of the plant and in particular the heavy or settlement sensitive structures, we recommend
that strong consideration should be given to undertaking the following additional geotechnical testing:
n Seismic CPT’s. These would provide information for accurately determining the seismic classification of
the site.
n Three additional machine boreholes drilled in the southeastern part of the site to confirm if there are more
floating basalt boulders and the depth of the basalt. These boreholes would also assist in confirming
potential pile lengths and confirm the material parameters below the current site investigation data
undertaken in this area.
n Shallow investigations in the form of test pits undertaken across the site to confirm subgrade CBR values
and samples collected for laboratory testing to provide compaction parameters.
n A desktop study of local quarries that would be able to provide suitable fill for the plant platform and for
preloading the site.
8 Applicability
This report has been prepared by CH2M Beca Ltd on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which CH2M Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 12
Should you be in any doubt as to the applicability of this report and/or its recommendations for the proposed development as described herein, and/or encounter materials on site that differ from those described herein, it is essential that you discuss these issues with the authors before proceeding with any work based on this document.
9 References
Craig, R. F., 2004. Craig’s Soil Mechanics. Seventh Edition. Spon Press.
Damwatch, 2011. Whau valley Geotechnical Investigation Factual Report
Edbrooke, S.W., Brook, F.J., 2009. Geology of the Whangarei Area 1:250,000 Geological Map. IGNS Map 2.
Idriss, I.M and Boulanger R.W., 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute.
NZGS, 2005. Field Description of Soil and Rock. Guideline for the Field Classification and description of soil
and rock for engineering purposes. NZ Geotechnical Society.
NZS1170.5. 2004. Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New Zealand. Standards New
Zealand.
Tonkin & Taylor. 1968. Whau Valley Water Supply Dam, Design Drawings.
WDC ‘Intramaps’ GIS, accessed 17 September 2011. http://gis.wdc.govt.nz/whangarei/
White, P.J., and Perrin, N.D., 2003. Geology of the Whangarei Urban Area. Part Sheets Q06 and Q07 Scale
1:25,000. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences. Geological Map 26.
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade Addendum Geotechnical Interpretative Report - 274 Whau Valley Road
CH2M Beca // 3 July 2015
6519113 // NZ1-10914614-12 0.12 // page 13
AA
Appendix A
Figures
Whau Valley WTP Upgrade - 274 Whau Valley Road, Proposed Layout with Investigation Locations
6519113 Figure 1
Approximate 1:100 yr Flood Level (WDC)
Site Location
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 43
NE
Appendix F
NESS
Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632
W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]
Report of the outcome of a “Potentially Contaminated Site” Property search under Section 6 of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011.
Application No: PCS150046
Name of Applicant: Whangarei District Council - Policy & Monitoring
Postal Address Private Bag 9023, Whangarei 0148
Contact: [email protected]
Date report compiled: 22/06/2015
Property Search Details:
Address: 274 Whau Valley Rd
Legal Description: LOT 2 DP 195500
LOT 5 DP 340586
LOT 1 DP 405632
PID NO: 103096
The search undertaken on Council records for the property and adjacent area has not identified any indication of current or previous activities in the area of the site that are included on the current version of the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) issued by the Ministry for the Environment.
The following references to Engineers’ reports from the subdivision files on these lots are noted as they indicate descriptions of the sites’ current and known use.
TRIM NO. Detail
15/56199 RC39600 – Richardson Stevens Engineering Suitability report 13.03.2006
07/28140 RC39600 - Richardson Stevens revised Engineering Suitability report 28.03.2007, and
Ecoprojects Consulting Network Ltd – Assessment of Potential Landscape Effects – 10.04.2007
07/33364 Littoralis 30.04.2007 – review of Ecoprojects report
15/56243 Richardson Stevens Engineering report on Flooding and Stormwater 14.06.2006
DISCLAIMER
This Report has been prepared for the purposes of Section 6 of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health)
Regulations 2011 and contains all information known to the Whangarei District Council to be relevant to the
land as described. It is based on a search of Council records only and there may be other information relating to the land which is unknown to Council. The Council has not undertaken any inspection of the land
or any building on it for the purposes of preparing this report.
Caroline Blakeley
Property and Project Assessment Officer
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 45
Appendix G
Archaeological Assessment Report
Archaeological Assessment of the
Whau Valley Proposed Water Treatment Plant Site
28 July 2015
Prepared for:
Whangarei District Council
Private Bag 9023 Whangarei 0148
Prepared by:
Geometria Limited
3/3 Margaret Street Freemans Bay Auckland 1045
Page 2 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
Quality Information
Document: Archaeological Assessment of the Whau Valley Proposed Water Treatment
Plant Site.
Ref: 2015-033
Date: 3 August 2015
Prepared by: Russell Gibb
Revision History
Revision Revision Date Details Authorized
Name
Draft 24 July 2015 Drafted R. Gibb
Minor edits 24 July 2015 Reviewed by J. Carpenter
Client draft 28 July 2015 Distributed R. Gibb
Final 3 August 2015 Minor edits J. Carpenter
© GEOMETRIA Limited 2015
The information contained in this document produced by GEOMETRIA Limited is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and GEOMETRIA Limited undertakes no duty to nor accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.
All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any from without the written permission of GEOMETRIA Limited.
File ref.: 2015_033/WDC/20150727_Whau_Valley_WTP_Final.docx
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 3
Geometria Ltd
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 ................................................................... 4 1.2 The Resource Management Act 1991. ........................................................................................... 4 2.0 Location and Proposed Development ............................................................................................................. 5 3.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Background...................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Physical Environment ..................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Historic Background ....................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 Archaeological and Other Values .................................................................................................................. 20 5.1 Assessment Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 20 6.0 Assessment of Effects .................................................................................................................................... 21 7.0 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 8.0 Recommendations and Mitigation ................................................................................................................ 22 9.0 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 10.0 References ................................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A - Site Record Forms ......................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURES
Figure 1: Location map showing 274 Whau Valley Road. ...................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Footprint of the proposed Water Treatment Plant. Source: Whangarei District Council. ..... 6 Figure 3: ML 29 (1865) titles Plan of a piece of land situated at Ketenikau. Source: Quickmap 2015. . 7 Figure 4: Section of S0 1090 (1887) showing the settlement of Peheawere. ...................................... 8 Figure 5: Whauwhau Block, printed upside down. ................................................................................ 9 Figure 6: Plan SO 761 (1869) showing the subdivision of Whau Valley. .............................................10 Figure 7: Rowdy Town at Whau Valley, 1860s (Florence Keen Collection, Whangarei Museum). The
first flats to be built in Whangarei are on the left of the photograph. ................................11 Figure 8; Announcement of the establishment of the Whau Valley tramway (Daily Southern Cross 6
October 1865). .....................................................................................................................12 Figure 9: Looking up the Whau Valley ca. 1900. Subject property right mid-ground with diagonal
crop lines visible on the property (The Camera in Early Northland. Northern Advocate, 9 November 1974)...................................................................................................................13
Figure 10: Whau Valley in 1922 (Ferrar and Harris 1922). ..................................................................13 Figure 11: Archaeological sites in the vicinity of the subject property (Archsite, accessed 15 July
2015).....................................................................................................................................15 Figure 12: Q06/240 as mapped in 1979. .............................................................................................16 Figure 13: Q06/392 the Whau Valley Coal Mine in 1865. ...................................................................16 Figure 14: Overlay of ML441 showing ‘Old native cultivations’ proximate to the subject property (in
blue)......................................................................................................................................17 Figure 15: Section of SO761 showing ‘Old cultivations – Rich fern flat’ over the subject property,
allotment 61 (in blue). ..........................................................................................................17 Figure 16: View looking west over the subject site from Whau Valley Road. .....................................18 Figure 17: Part of ridgeline where archaeological sites Q06/240, 249, 376, and Q06/392 are located. ..............................................................................................................................................18 Figure 18: Looking south over the subject site from the northern ridgeline ......................................19 TABLES Table 1: Archaeological sites proximate to the subject property ........................................................15
Page 4 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
1.0 Introduction G. Sands of the Whangarei District Council (WDC) commissioned Geometria Ltd to undertake an archaeological assessment of the site for a proposed new water treatment plant (WTP) to be located in the Whau Valley. The new plant would replace an existing water treatment plant located on the corner of Whau Valley Road and Fairway Drive. The Whau Valley has a long history of Maori occupation as evidenced by the archaeological sites recorded in the area, as well as a long European history of farming, horticulture and mining dating back to the 1850s.
Under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA 2014; previously the Historic Places Act 1993, HPA 1993), all archaeological sites are protected from any modification, damage or destruction except by the authority of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.
This survey and assessment uses archaeological techniques to assess archaeological values and does not seek to locate or identify wahi tapu or other places of cultural or spiritual significance to Maori. Such assessments may only be made by Tangata Whenua, who may be approached independently of this report for advice.
1.1 The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
Under the HNZPTA all archaeological sites are protected from any modification, damage or destruction. Section 6 of the HNZPTA defines an archaeological site as:
" any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a building or structure), that—
(i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and
(ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and
(b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1)”
To be protected under the HNZPTA an archaeological site must have physical remains that pre-date 1900 and that can be investigated by scientific archaeological techniques. Sites from 1900 or post-1900 can be declared archaeological under section 43(1) of the Act.
If a development is likely to impact on an archaeological site, an authority to modify or destroy this site can be sought from the local Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga office under section 44 of the Act. Where damage or destruction of archaeological sites is to occur Heritage New Zealand usually requires mitigation. Penalties for modifying a site without an authority include fines of up to $300,000 for destruction of a site.
Most archaeological evidence consists of sub-surface remains and is often not visible on the ground. Indications of an archaeological site are often very subtle and hard to distinguish on the ground surface. Sub-surface excavations on a suspected archaeological site can only take place with an authority issued under Section 56 of the HNZPTA issued by the Heritage New Zealand.
1.2 The Resource Management Act 1991.
Archaeological sites and other historic heritage may also be considered under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The RMA establishes (under Part 2) in the Act’s purpose (Section 5) the matters of national importance (Section 6), and other matters (Section 7) and all decisions by a
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 5
Geometria Ltd
Council are subject to these provisions. Sections 6e and 6f identify historic heritage (which includes archaeological sites) and Maori heritage as matters of national importance.
Councils have a responsibility to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, and other taonga (Section 6e). Councils also have the statutory responsibility to recognise and provide for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development within the context of sustainable management (Section 6f). Responsibilities for managing adverse effects on heritage arise as part of policy and plan preparation and the resource consent processes.
2.0 Location and Proposed Development The proposed site is located is located at 274 Whau Valley Road and comprises an area of 48550m2 flat, fenced pasture fronting Whau Valley Road (Figures 1). The legal description is Lot 5 DP 340586.
The proposed development comprises a new water treatment plant and associated infrastructure although detailed design work has not yet been undertaken (Figure 2).
Figure 1: Location map showing 274 Whau Valley Road.
Page 6 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
Figure 2: Footprint of the proposed Water Treatment Plant. Source: Whangarei District Council.
3.0 Methodology The methods used to assess the presence and state of archaeological remains on the property included both a desktop review and field survey. The desktop survey involved an investigation of written records relating to the history of the property. These included regional archaeological publications and unpublished reports, New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Record Files (NZAA SRF) downloaded via the ArchSite website (www.archsite.org.nz), local histories, aerial photography, local authority heritage lists, the Heritage New Zealand List, and land plans held by Land Information New Zealand.
The field assessment was undertaken on 20 July by Russell from Geometria and was conducted on foot, examining the surface area of the property. Probing but no test pitting was undertaken.
4.0 Background 4.1 Physical Environment
The floor of the Whau Valley comprises Holocene river deposits consisting of unconsolidated to poorly consolidated mud, sand, gravel and peat deposits of alluvial, colluvial and lacustrine origins. There is a smaller area of Pleistocene undifferentiated swamp deposits on the south eastern side of the valley. The higher ground of the hills and ridges are Waipapa group sandstones and siltstones deriving from the weathered greywacke beneath.
4.2 Historic Background
4.2.1 Maori History In early times Whangarei was the territory of the Ngai Tahuhu iwi who built villages and fortifications on or around strategic points on the harbour and surrounding hills, while the outlying flat areas were cultivated. One significant site in Mairtown was Parihaka Pa with an associated large kainga and communal area known
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 7
Geometria Ltd
as Tawatawhiti. The surrounding land was cultivated over an area that stretched from the current CBD, through the suburbs of Regent and Kensington, to the Whau Valley.
In the mid 1700s Ngai Tahuhu were driven out of the area by the Ngapuhi under Te Pouaharakeke and other related chiefs who secured the land from Whangarei to Waipu and Waihonga to Tangihua. One of these chiefs, Ngaoro ki te uru, was given substantial holdings, which included Kamo, Tamaterau, Parihaka and land further north. His people became known as Ngati Kahu, a hapu of Ngapuhi.
A kainga called Ketenikau was located on the western side of Kamo and was associated with extensive cultivations (Johnson 2002:3). Ketenikau is shown on ML 29, dated 1865, but this name probably represents a boundary marker, rather than the actual site of the Ketenikau kainga (Figure 3). This plan also shows the area in cultivation at the time. Another kainga called ‘Peheawere’ is shown on S0 1090 (1887) as a ‘Native Settlement’ to the east side of the junction between the Mangakino and Waitaua Streams (Figure 4).
Figure 3: ML 29 (1865) titles Plan of a piece of land situated at Ketenikau. Source: Quickmap 2015.
Page 8 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
Figure 4: Section of S0 1090 (1887) showing the settlement of Peheawere.
4.2.2 European History The following account is largely provided by Between Two Mountains by Florence Keene, p24, 136-138, and Whangarei: The founding years by Nancy Preece Pickmere, p 56 and 101. This is supplemented with reference to articles in the Northern Advocate. Deed information is provided by H. H. Turton (1877).
In February 1857 the first land sales in the Whangarei north area occurred, with the Kaurihohore Block to the east of Whau Valley. In February 1858, a block of land called Kamo, consisting of 296 acres, was purchased and Whau Whau that same month, followed by Ruatangata in 1861 and Te Tupua Apotu and Hikurangi in 1862.
The Whau Whau Block, which included Whau Valley, was sold on the 23 February 1858 (Figure 5). It was sold by Whare Te Puia, Wiremu Pohe, Manihera Iwitahi, and Hone Poukoura with the sale witnessed by settler John Fifield and Pita Hunia Tetau. The vendors received 100 pounds that day from John Grant Johnson the Government Land Commissioner
The deed states:
“This Deed…is a full and final sale conveyance and surrender by us the Chiefs and People of the Tribe The Parawhau whose names are hereunto subscribed And Witness that on behalf of ourselves our relatives and descendants we have by signing this Deed under the shining sun of this day parted with and for ever transferred unto Victoria Queen of England Her Heirs the Kings and Queens who may succeed Her and Her and Their Assigns for ever in consideration of the sum of One Hundred Pounds (£100.0.0) to us paid by John Grant Johnson on behalf of Queen Victoria…all that piece of our Land situated at Whangarei and named Te Whau Whau the boundaries whereof are set forth at the foot of this Deed and a plan of which Land is annexed thereto with its trees, minerals, waters, rivers, lakes, streams, and all appertaining to the said Land or beneath the surface of the
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 9
Geometria Ltd
said Land and all our right title claim and interest whatsoever thereon To Hold to Queen Victoria Her Heirs and Assigns as a lasting possession absolutely for ever and ever.”
The boundaries appended to the deed state the block comprised the land:
“commencing at Pongatahi thence along the surveyed line to the edge of the lake –thence it ascends the range and descends to the stream Waituia thence it ascends and goes to Paikapakapa thence to Whakatoetoe, where it turns till it joins the boundary of Carruths Grant, thence along the boundary line of Carruths Grant till it reaches the stream of Waiarohia and thence up the course of the Waiarohia to the point of commencement at Pongatahi. The Tapued ground at Tararau is not to be included in these boundaries.”
Figure 5: Whauwhau Block, (printed upside down).
Page 10 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
Some of the early settlers in what was then called Whauwhau Valley were William Hawken and his family, who arrived in 1859, and John MacDonald and his family, in 1860. The MacDonald family was part of the group of people from Nova Scotia who settled in the Whangarei area. The subdivision of the Whauwhau Valley is shown on SO 761, dated 1869 (Figure 6). This plan shows Francis Wood as the owner of allotments 60 and 61 (the subject property) with Joseph Griffin holding allotments 56 and 59 adjacent to the west. Roderick MacDonald is shown as the owner of Allotments 64, 66, 67 and 68 on the south side of Whau Valley Road.
Griffen was growing award-winning citrus and mandarins in particular by the 1880s (‘Citrus Camelia and Winter Fruit Show’, Northern Advocate, 30 July 1887) and Griffin was supplying seedlings from a 30 year old tree in the valley to the townspeople later that year (‘Miscellaneous’, Northern Advocate, 10 September 1887). In 1904 Griffin was offering his farm for sale, which at that time consisted of 159 well-watered and fenced acres including 10 acres of orchards, and a seven room hose and outbuildings (‘Auction Sales’, Northern Advocate, 12 February 1904).
Figure 6: Plan SO 761 (1869) showing the subdivision of Whau Valley.
The discovery of coal in the Whau Valley Stream by Jonny Rake, saw the beginning of coal mining in the Whangarei District. Rake had worked at the coalmines in Thames and when he recognised coal in a tributary of the Ketinikau Stream, he took it to Henry Holman for examination. Holman was running the flaxmill at what is now Mill Road and had some experience with minerals. He didn’t have the money to invest in mining the seam, which extended back into the hill behind the stream, and instead contacted Henry Walton to investigate a joint venture.
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 11
Geometria Ltd
The Whau Valley Coal Mines were opened in 1865 by Henry Walton and William Grahame, who took a 99-year lease on the land. Walton had leased the coalfield in 1862 from the Maori at Ketinikau (west Kamo), with the lease being signed by Chief Te Puia, which was five pounds for every acre of coal baring land.
He had originally tried to buy the land and arranged the survey and attempted to buy 53 acres of coal-baring land through John Grant Johnson, the local Government Land Commissioner, and had Henry Holman’s son Harry do the survey, during which time they discovered a 25 foot high waterfall on the stream composed of an outcropping coal. The Maori ultimately refused to sell outright and both parties opted for a lease.
At around the time Walton and Grahame started the mine operation Francis Wood offered a site for a new school on his land adjoining the coal fields (Daily Southern Cross 30 January 1865). It is not known if this offer was accepted but it appears no school was constructed on Allotment 61. Soon after Wood sold his Whau Valley farm and opened up a general store, which he operated with great success during the early years when the mine was prospering. Wood went on to build a steam-powered flourmill in the centre of Whangarei before retiring in 1884. He died in 1887 (Northern Advocate 12 March 1887).
A miner’s village was established with a butchers shop, bakery, and accommodation for imported Cornish labour and became known as Rowdy Town1 (Figure 7). Walton invested about 20,000 pounds in his venture but ended up shutting it down after three years due to water seepage into the workings. In that time the brought out almost 71,000 tons of coal.
Figure 7: Rowdy Town at Whau Valley, 1860s (Florence Keen Collection, Whangarei Museum). The first flats to be built in Whangarei are on the left of the photograph.
During 1865 a wooden tramway was built from the mine to the Hatea River so coal wagons could be pulled by horses to be loaded onto ships (Figure 9). Horse drawn trucks pulled coal down the tramway and long the
1 In 1933, Joseph Smith, a long-time resident of the area recalling his time spent in the Whau valley, reported that Rowdy Town was located on the farm of Mr Phil Going’s present farm (Auckland Star 26 January 1933). He was involved in gum digging in the area during that time (ca. 1868).
Page 12 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
east side of Kamo Road to a chute at the end of Donald Street, above the Hatea River, from whence it was loaded onto the Auckland coal cutters. The tramway was six feet wide with 4x4 timber bearers of Whau Valley sawn rimu. The full trucks were attached to a wire drum pulley and sent down the hill to a small wharf on the river. By July 1866 coal was shipped from the terminus on the Aquila and Elizabeth with the Daily Southern Cross stating that daily shipments were soon expected. Coal from the Whauwhau mine was advertised locally in 1875 at a rate of 10s. per ton (Daily Southern Cross 18 November 1875), and by 1885 annual output from the mine was 45,359 long tons (46,087t).
In the 1870s Alexander Love arranged a scheme to drain the flooded workings and opened up a mine halfway along Whau Valley Road. He operated for seven years before losing an arm in a winch accident.
The railway line between Kamo and Whangarei, opened in 1882 and to some extent the Kamo and then the Hikurangi Colliery eclipsed the Whau Valley operation, with Walton investing in 400 acres at Hikurangi when coal was discovered there. It wasn’t until 1919 that a siding was built to connect the Whau Valley mine tramway with the main railway line (Northern Advocate 11 June 1910).
Figure 8; Announcement of the establishment of the Whau Valley tramway (Daily Southern Cross 6 October 1865).
There were several subsequent attempts to re-open the Whau Valley coal mine, the last being in the 1940s. In 1944 the land occupied by the abandoned Whauwhau railway was vested in the Crown, the line itself had been managed by the Railway Department since 1895 when it was taken by the state, having been mortgaged to the Crown as security for a debt of £1177 (Auckland Star 22 November 1944). The location of the mines, tramways and roads in 1922 is shown in Figure 10.
Aside from the establishment of the mine and Rowdy Town, European settlement in the Whau Valley was centred on farming and some horticulture. In 1865 only ‘two to three’ homesteads were reported in the Whauwhau Valley (Daily Southern Cross 17 January 1865:2) and even by the turn of the century few buildings had been built on Whau Valley Road (Figure 8). In 1899 the residence of T. Sutton was destroyed by fire (and in 1911 an eight bedroomed house belonging to the McLeod’s2 burnt to the ground (New Zealand Herald 28 January 1911).
2 The McLeod’s owned allotments 71, 72, 74 and 75 on the south side of Whau Valley Road.
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 13
Geometria Ltd
Figure 9: Looking up the Whau Valley ca. 1900. Subject property right mid-ground with diagonal crop lines visible on the property (The Camera in Early Northland. Northern Advocate, 9 November 1974).
Whau Valley also became important as a source of fresh water as Whangarei grew. While Kamo and Maunu were supplied by springs, but there was no such supply available for central Whangarei. Large bush reserves were established in the western/Pukenui Hills to supply a number of small reservoirs. Investigations into the Whau Whau Stream as a possible source of water supply for Whangarei was conducted by the town engineer in 1898 (Northern Advocate 7 May 1898:6) with the Whau Whau found to have great superiority over other sources and the capital cost of works to establish the water supply estimated at £6343. The first Whau Valley reservoir was completed in 1921 but within a few decades was not sufficient, with a larger dam built in the 1960s to supply the growing city.
Figure 10: Whau Valley in 1922 (Ferrar and Harris 1922).
Page 14 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
4.2.3 Archaeological Background There are three pa sites recorded in the immediate vicinity of the subject property (Figure 11). Q06/240 was recorded by the Archaeological Site Recording Group in February 1979. It consisted of a pa or defended site on a knoll on top of the ridgeline north of the subject property, about 100m north of the subject property boundary and 200m north of Whau Valley Road, at approximately 120m above sea level. At that time the site was in good condition, being under native bush and built in an area of rocky soil that hadn’t been cleared, although it was within a farmed paddock. The site was mapped over two days using pace, compass and staff (Figure 12). The site consisted of a terraced knoll with six terraces and a summit platform, with larger level areas either side of the knoll containing storage pits up to 4 x 2 x 1m deep in size. The western side of the knoll was defended by a 4m high scarp while the eastern side was defended by two 1m deep ditches. No middens were noted in association with the site but a piece of ‘flint’ was picked up and local informants suggested other artefacts had been found there.
Q06/376 was recorded by G. Nevin on 17 March 1988. It was a pa on the end of the ridge above the bend in Whau Valley Road at the intersection with the Waiarohia and Waikahikatea Stream, and was contiguous with the features recorded as pa Q06/240. This places it about 200m north east of the nearest boundary of the subject property. The pa was visible in a 1983 aerial photograph but at the time of recording by Nevin, had been bulldozed. No further information is given.
Three hundred metres north of the northwest corner of the subject property is another pa, Q06/249. This site contains at least 12 storage pits up to 6 x 4m in size, on eight terraces and a large summit platform with associated midden deposits and lithic artefacts, and was also recorded in 1979 by the Archaeological Site Surveyors. Another ten sites are recorded between Whau Valley and Fairway Drive to the northeast, attesting to the dense pre- and protohistoric occupation of the area by Maori.
Q06/392, 400m north of the subject property is the site of one of the Whau Valley coal mining operations. While the site position in Archsite is well away from the subject property, the site record reports mining related features and artefacts spread along a kilometre of the Waikahikatea Stream, from the Ketenikau Cemetery to the Waiarohia Stream. The site includes tramway foundations and cuttings on both sides of the valley, collapsed shafts, terraces and platforms and machinery including a large boiler. The centre of Rowdy Town, the Cornish miners village is located 200m north east of the north eastern corner of the subject property (Figure 13).
Three hundred metres east of the subject property, around Huia and Halcyon Streets, several other sites have been recorded. Q06/387 is the site of two sod houses that were demolished prior to the construction of stockyards at 143 Whau Valley Road, to the west of Halcyon place. They were 12 x 10 feet in size with 9-inch thick walls, according to K. Strong who demolished them, and were probably associated with mid-19th century occupation of the area, possibly by Cornish miners. Q06/388 and 389 are the location of kumara storage pits destroyed during housing development on Huia Street, to the east of Halcyon Place. These sites were all recorded by G. Nevin in 1988 during her survey of sites in the Whangarei area, and were based on local informants’ knowledge of the area.
Given the nearby pa and the well-watered alluvial flats that comprise the subject property, it seems likely that some pre or protohistoric Maori activity such as gardening may have occurred in that area in association with the occupation of the higher ground. Plan ML 441 dated 1862, shows ‘old native cultivations’ on the slopes immediately north of the property in the vicinity of pa sites Q06/240 and 249 (Figure 14). Another plan, SO 761 (1869), shows the area including the subject property, as ‘Old Cultivations, Rich fern flat’ suggesting that while the area had previously been traditionally cultivated, it was now in the early stages of successional vegetation regeneration (Figure 15).
The European occupation of the Whau Valley from the early 1860s has also left its mark on the wider landscape and there may be mining or farming related features in the vicinity of the subject property.
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 15
Geometria Ltd
Table 1: Archaeological sites proximate to the subject property
NZAA No. Type/Name Date Recorded Notes Q06/240 Pa 5/2/80 Not revisited since recorded in 1979 Q06/249 Pa 5/2/80 Not revisited since recorded in 1979 Q06/376 Pa 11/1/89 Recorded from aerial photograph –
destroyed Q06/387 Sod Houses 12/1/89 Destroyed Q06/388 Pits 12/1/89 Destroyed Q06/389 Pits 12/1/89 Destroyed Q06/392 Coal Mines 12/1/89 Whau Valley coal mines and associated
features
Figure 11: Archaeological sites in the vicinity of the subject property (Archsite, accessed 15 July 2015).
Page 16 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
Figure 12: Q06/240 as mapped in 1979.
Figure 13: Q06/392 the Whau Valley Coal Mine in 1865.
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 17
Geometria Ltd
Figure 14: Overlay of ML441 showing ‘Old native cultivations’ (red circle) and trail (red arrows) proximate to the subject property (in blue).
Figure 15: Section of SO761 showing ‘Old cultivations – Rich fern flat’ (red circle) over the subject property, allotment 61 (in blue).
Page 18 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
4.2.4 Other Heritage Registers and Listings The Whangarei District Plan Schedule of historic buildings, sites places, trees and sites of significance to Maori, and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga List of historic places and wahi tapu were reviewed and no sites are listed in the vicinity of the subject property.
4.2.5. Site Visit The subject property was visited by Russell Gibb on the 21st July 2015. The site is a flat fenced paddock currently in pasture bounded to the north by the ridgeline where pa sites Q06/240, 249 and 376, and the Whau Valley Mine remains Q06/392 are located (Figure 16-18). There are no apparent surface features on the paddock and probing across the front of the site indicated no obvious subsurface archaeological deposits such as midden, concrete or other detritus that might be expected.
Figure 16: View looking west over the subject site from Whau Valley Road.
Figure 17: Part of ridgeline where archaeological sites Q06/240, 249, 376, and Q06/392 are located.
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 19
Geometria Ltd
Figure 18: Looking south over the subject site from the northern ridgeline
Page 20 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
5.0 Archaeological and Other Values 5.1 Assessment Criteria
The archaeological significance of recorded archaeological sites on a subject property is usually assessed using two sets of criteria based on Heritage New Zealand guidance for significance assessments of archaeological sites.
The first set of criteria assess the potential of the site to provide a better understanding of New Zealand’s past using scientific archaeological methods. These categories are focussed on the intra-site level.
How complete is the site? Are parts of it already damaged or destroyed? A complete, undisturbed site has a high value in this section, a partly destroyed or damaged site has moderate value and a site of which all parts are damaged is of low value.
How diverse are the features to be expected during an archaeological excavation on the site? A site with only one or two known or expected feature types is of low value. A site with some variety in the known or expected features is of moderate value and a site like a defended kainga which can be expected to contain a complete feature set for a given historic/prehistoric period is of high value in this category.
How rare is the site? Rarity can be described in a local, regional and national context. If the site is not rare at all, it has no significance in this category. If the site is rare in a local context only it is of low significance, if the site is rare in a regional context, it has moderate significance and it is of high significance it the site is rare nationwide.
The second set of criteria puts the site into its broader context: inter-site, archaeological landscape and historic/oral traditions.
What is the context of the site within the surrounding archaeological sites? The question here is the part the site plays within the surrounding known archaeological sites. A site, which sits amongst similar surrounding sites without any specific features, is of low value. A site, which occupies a central position within the surrounding sites, is of high value.
What is the context of the site within the landscape? This question is linked to the one above, but focuses onto the position of the site in the landscape. If it is a dominant site with many features still visible it has high value, but if the position in the landscape is ephemeral with little or no features visible it has a low value. This question is also concerned with the amenity value of a site and its potential for on-site education.
What is the context of the site within known historic events or people? This is the question of known cultural association either by tangata whenua or other descendant groups. The closer the site is linked with important historic events or people the higher the significance of the site. This question is also concerned with possible commemorative values of the site.
An overall significance value derives from weighing up the different significance values of each of the six categories.
In the case of the subject property, there are no specific values to assess.
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 21
Geometria Ltd
6.0 Assessment of Effects There are no obvious archaeological features on the property at 274 Whau Valley Road and thus no specific effects of the water treatment plant proposal. However, proto-historic or historic period Maori gardening activity occurred in the vicinity and a historic trail is shown on a survey plan for an adjacent property, which may have transited the subject property. Subsurface archaeological features such as made or anthropogenic garden soils created by the addition of other material to the natural humus, stone garden alignments or mounds, and the bases of earth ovens or hearths, and field shelters may survive below the turf and may be modified by the water treatment plant. Such features are amenable to identification and analysis during preliminary earthworks. 7.0 Discussion There is no surface archaeological evidence on the subject property however archival research suggests the Whau Valley area was gardened by Maori in the early to mid-19th century, prior to European land acquisition.
The exact form of this gardening, described as ‘Old Cultivations’ or “Old native cultivations” by European surveyors on their land plans, remains unknown. Typically, archaeological features associated with Maori horticulture elsewhere in Northland include stone rows, mounds, large complexes of garden rows and structures based on the use of stone in the inland Bay of Islands, slope trenches and garden boundaries, and the extensive ditch systems of Awanui, Oruru, Motutangi Taumatawhana and Matakohe-Limestone Island. Gardening evidence is concentrated around the coast, around inland areas where fertile volcanic soils are present and on the islands. Storage pits are widespread, reflecting that much of Northland provided suitable conditions for growing crops, and such pits are present on the pa sites recorded above the subject property.
Subsurface archaeological evidence of Maori gardening can include areas of burning or fires from initial vegetation clearance as forest is cleared and gardens are established and maintained (Johnson 2002: 35), ‘made’ or anthropogenic soils whereby sand, shell, charcoal, shingle, subsoil or other ‘mulch’ is added to or mixed through otherwise less than suitable soils to improve fertility, drainage, soil temperature or other growing conditions, or the soil is artificially deepened for similar reasons (Furey 2006: 46).
Structures associated with Maori horticulture and which may be present below the modern and otherwise modified existing ground surface include the bases of stone garden mounds (which may be simple clearance piles or more complex piles of stone and soil that were gardened upon), walls and alignments used to delineate garden plots and paths, hearths or earth ovens used for warmth or cooking meals while working in the gardens, and structural features associated with field shelters erected to provide shelter while working in the gardens and consisting of postholes for posts, drains and stone windbreaks. Such features have been found in other parts of Whangarei where surface archaeological features have not been present but Maori gardening was known from historic sources, such as around the State Highway 1 Kamo Bypass, where subsurface archaeological features were recorded during the first stage by Johnson (2001), and during the second stage by Shakles and Phear (2011). Fire scoops recorded by Phear near the new Kamo Road/State Highway 1 intersection redeveloped in 2010 have provided the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Whangarei area.
Page 22 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
It is possible that evidence of European horticulture may also be present, associated with the late 19th century occupation of the area and its use as a farm or orchard by Joseph Griffin. This might include subsurface remains of farm fences and outbuildings.
8.0 Recommendations and Mitigation 1) Whangarei District Council should apply for an archaeological authority under Section 44 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.
2) Whangarei District Council should consult with the Tangata Whenua as part of the archaeological authority application process.
3) An archaeological management plan and on-call procedures to manage accidental discoveries should be prepared to manage the archaeological effects of the development.
4) Preliminary earthworks i.e. the removal of turf and topsoil prior to the development of the site should be monitored by an archaeologist.
9.0 Summary Geometria Ltd was commissioned by G. Sands of the Whangarei District Council to undertake an archaeological survey and assessment of the proposed new water treatment plant at 274 Whau Valley Road, Whangarei.
There is no archaeological impediment to developing the water treatment plant on the property. No Maori archaeological features were observed on the property, although two pa sites are recorded on the ridge to the north and it is adjacent to two areas of gardens attested to in historic land plans, to the south west and north and probably associated with the nearby pa. It is also adjacent to historic archaeological features associated with the Whau Valley coal mine.
The property is level and well-watered and would have been suitable for Maori horticulture. Related archaeological features may be present below the ground surface but are not amenable to pre-emptive testing or identification. These may be accidentally encountered during the development of the water treatment plant and a recommendation has been made to apply for an archaeological authority under Section 44 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, with associated recommendations for consultation with tangata whenua, management plan, and monitoring preliminary earthworks.
Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant - Page 23
Geometria Ltd
10.0 References Furey, L., 2006. Maori Gardening: An Archaeological Perspective. Department of Conservation,
Wellington.
Johnson, L., 2002. Archaeological Monitoring of the Kamo Bypass and Investigation of Site Q06/486. Unpublished report for Opus International Consultants by Northern Archaeological Research, Auckland.
Keene, F., 1966. Between Two Mountains. A History of Whangarei. Whitcombe and Tombs, Auckland.
Pickmere, N. 1986. Whangarei: The Founding Years 1820-1880. Nancy Preece Pickmere, Whangarei.
Shakle, R and S. Phear, 2011. Archaeological Monitoring of the Kamo Bypass Stage 2 Works, Kamo, Northland: Recording and Investigation of Sites Q06/581, Q06/607 AND Q06/616. Unpublished report for the NZ Transport Agency, Clough and Associates, Auckland.
Turton, H. H., 1877A. Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand: Volume One. George Didsbury, Government Printer. Wellington.
Turton, H. H., 1877B. Plans of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand. Volume One: Province of Auckland. George Didsbury, Government Printer. Wellington.
Page 24 - Whangarei District Council Water Treatment Plant
Geometria Ltd
Appendix A - Site Record Forms
SITE COORDINATES (NZTM) Easting: Northing:1717281 6048882 Source: CINZAS
Finding aids to the location of the site
Scale 1:2,500
IMPERIAL SITE NUMBER: METRIC SITE NUMBER:N20/103 Q06/240
Brief description
PA
Q06/240NZAA SITE NUMBER:
SITE TYPE:
SITE NAME(s):
Pa
DATE RECORDED:
Site Record Form
Recorded features
Other sites associated with this site
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
1 of 6
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Statement of condition
Site description
Condition of the site
Current land use:
Threats:
Q06/240NZAA SITE NUMBER:SITE RECORD HISTORY
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
2 of 6
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Q06/240NZAA SITE NUMBER:SITE RECORD INVENTORY
Supporting documentation held in ArchSite
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
3 of 6
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
4 of 6
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
5 of 6
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
6 of 6
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
SITE COORDINATES (NZTM) Easting: Northing:1717482 6048783 Source: CINZAS
Finding aids to the location of the site
Scale 1:2,500
IMPERIAL SITE NUMBER: METRIC SITE NUMBER:N20/348 Q06/376
Brief description
PA
Q06/376NZAA SITE NUMBER:
SITE TYPE:
SITE NAME(s):
Pa
DATE RECORDED:
Site Record Form
Recorded features
Other sites associated with this site
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
1 of 3
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Statement of condition
Site description
Condition of the site
Current land use:
Threats:
Q06/376NZAA SITE NUMBER:SITE RECORD HISTORY
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
2 of 3
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Q06/376NZAA SITE NUMBER:SITE RECORD INVENTORY
Supporting documentation held in ArchSite
09/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
3 of 3
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
SITE COORDINATES (NZTM) Easting: Northing:1716881 6049181 Source: CINZAS
Finding aids to the location of the site
Scale 1:2,500
IMPERIAL SITE NUMBER: METRIC SITE NUMBER:N20/366 Q06/392
Brief description
COAL MINES
Q06/392NZAA SITE NUMBER:
SITE TYPE:
SITE NAME(s):
Mining - coal
Whau Valley Mines
DATE RECORDED:
Site Record Form
Recorded features
Mine
Other sites associated with this site
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
1 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Statement of condition
Site description
Updated 15/07/2015 (other), submitted by jonocarpenter Grid reference (E1716881 / N6049181)
Name added from SRF - 6/2/2014, Rick McGovern-Wilson
Condition of the site
Current land use:
Threats:
Q06/392NZAA SITE NUMBER:SITE RECORD HISTORY
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
2 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Q06/392NZAA SITE NUMBER:SITE RECORD INVENTORY
Supporting documentation held in ArchSite
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
3 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
4 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
5 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
6 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
7 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
8 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
17/07/2015Printed by: jonocarpenter
9 of 9
NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 47
Appendix H
On-site Dewatering Assessment Memo
CH2M Beca // 7 September 2015 // Page 1
6519113 // NZ1-11278458-5 0.5
Memorandum To: Mark Shaw Date: 7 September 2015
From: Philip La Roche Our Ref: 6519113
Subject: 274 Whau Valley Rd - On site dewatering assessment
1 Introduction
Whangarei District Council (WDC) is proposing to build a new water treatment plant (WTP) 274
Whau Valley Rd.
The feasibility study of 274 Whau Valley Rd has proposed to recycle filter to waste, recycle filter
backwash following settlement, in order to maximise the treated water produced, due to the limited
raw water resource available, as well as minimising waste stream disposal issues. The clarifier and
backwash sludge waste stream will need to be managed and residual solids disposed.
It is proposed to enable discharge of plant overflows or off spec water to the river, via a buffer pond.
The purpose of this memo is to compare the costs and benefits of discharging waste directly to
sewer versus on site dewatering.
2 Discharge to Sewer
The process design assumes filter to waste is recycled, filter backwash is recycled following
settlement and clarifier and settled backwash sludge is discharged to sewer.
The following table summarises the expected discharge flows to sewer. Note these flows would be
significantly less than the existing plant discharge with the proposal to recycle settled backwash
waste.
Table 1: Sewer discharge
Parameter Value Unit Design Basis
Max Plant Capacity 22,600 m3/d
Average Plant Capacity 10,000 m3/d
Total solids per m3 of treated water 13 g/m
3 Allowance for raw water suspended
solids plus coagulant
Percentage solids in clarifier sludge 0.2%
2,000 g/m3 Could design clarifier so that solids
were up to 1% concentration
Total solids per day with average flow 130,000 g/d
Clarifier and backwash sludge to discharged directly to sewer at average plant flow
65 m3/d
Total solids per day with max flow/average solids
293.8 kg/d
Clarifier and backwash sludge to be 147 m3/d
Memorandum
CH2M Beca // 7 September 2015 // Page 2
6519113 // NZ1-11278458-5 0.5
Parameter Value Unit Design Basis
discharged directly to sewer at max plant flow
Peak flow (approximate nominal) 5.1 L/s 3 times estimated peak day/average solids flow
The nearest public sewer is approximately 250m from the 274 Whau Valley site. A gravity waste
pipeline would be constructed from the WTP site to the sewer network outside 264 Whau Valley
Road. Here a 150NB waste pipeline gravitates to an existing sewer pump station south of the one
way bridge. The volume of waste to be discharged to sewer would utilise around 25-50% of the
existing 80 NB rising main. Hence depending on the utilisation of this pump station by the existing
catchment, the existing sewer pump station and rising main may need to be upgraded. The cost
estimates presented in section 4 allow for these upgrades.
Issues with disposal to sewer include:
n Increased risk of sewer fouling – this is particularly a risk with high doses of polyelectrolyte
and high sludge concentration. Discharge of clarifier sludge, as opposed to thickening this
sludge, is expected to make sewer fouling risks manageable.
n Phosphate Precipitation – a positive benefit of disposal of alum sludge to sewer is phosphate
removed will be improved, with lower levels of this nutrient being discharged with the liquid
effluent stream from the wastewater treatment process. Hence disposal of sludge to sewer, with
the volume minimised, is environmentally beneficial. WDC’s trade waste policy allows for
“Incentive rebates for discharging materials beneficial to the council sewerage system”. This
may be a case where the WTP could argue a justification for a rebate on the trade waste costs.
n Reliance on Sewer Operation – the disposal is reliant on the sewer pumping and conveyance
system being operational. In the event of failure (including power outage) a contingency such as
storage, discharge to the site pond and/or improved reliability of power supply to the waste pump
station may be needed.
3 On Site Dewatering
As with the discharge to sewer option, filter to waste would be directly recycled, filter backwash
would be recycled following settlement, however clarifier and settled backwash sludge would be
dewatered to produce a sludge that can be handled as a solid material. Dewatering would consist of
a gravity sludge thickener followed by centrifuge dewatering. Centrifuge centrate would be
recommended to be discharged to sewer and thickener supernatant water recycled. The centrifuge
centrate would be discharged to the existing sewer network as described in section 2, however
given the smaller volume of waste discharged, the existing sewer pump station and rising main
would not be expected to need upgrading.
Table 2: On site dewatering
Parameter Value Unit Design Basis
Max Plant Capacity 22,600 m3/d
Average Plant Capacity 10,000 m3/d
Total solids per m3 of treated water 13 g/m
3 Allowance for raw water suspended
solids plus coagulant
Percentage solids in settled backwash sludge 2%
20,000 g/m3
Memorandum
CH2M Beca // 7 September 2015 // Page 3
6519113 // NZ1-11278458-5 0.5
Parameter Value Unit Design Basis
Percentage solids in centrifuge sludge 16%
160,000 g/m3
Total solids per day with average flow 130 kg/d
Sludge to centrifuge at 2% solids at average flow
6.5 m3/d
Solid sludge to waste at 16% solids at average plant flow
0.8 m3/d
Centrate to sewer at average plant flow 5.7 m3/d
Total solids per day with max flow 293.8 kg/d
Sludge to centrifuge at 2% solids at max flow
14.7 m3/d
Solid sludge to waste at 16% solids at max plant flow
1.8 m3/d
Centrate to sewer at max plant flow 12.9 m3/d
Peak flow 0.5 L/s Assumes 8 hours/d dewatering
Issues with on-site dewatering include:
n Noise – centrifuges are noisy, and the control to very low levels will be necessary in the
residential area where the plant is located, and as the sludge plant would inevitably be located
close to a boundary. Noise control is complicated with a sludge plant by the desire to maintain
good ventilation and keep condensation down.
n Odour – probably a lesser issue than noise, but water treatment plant sludge, particularly during
periods of high algal activity can have a mild odour, and due to the location in a residential area
any significant odour could create complaints.
n Recycled Water Quality Risks – the risks from recycling such as elevated soluble manganese,
taste and pathogens are increased from recycling of sludge supernatant. Centrifuge centrate is
assumed to still go to sewer due to the low quality of this stream.
n Increased Operator Input – Dewatering processes typically require significant operator input,
significantly increasing the manning requirements for the plant.
n Waste to Sewer – the smaller volume of waste discharged to sewer means upgrading of the
sewer system is unlikely to be required.
Memorandum
CH2M Beca // 7 September 2015 // Page 4
6519113 // NZ1-11278458-5 0.5
4 Cost Comparison
Capital and operating cost estimates are presented in the table below. Note that these are based on
concept level information and are comparative costs only. The costs below do not allow for 250m of
new sewer pipework to connect the WTP to the existing network as this pipework is common to
both options.
Table 3: Capital and operating cost comparison
Item Cost Basis
Discharge to sewer
Capital Cost
Allowance to upgrade existing sewer pump station by one way bridge
$50,000 May not be required; can be determined during detailed design.
Allowance to upgrade 80 PE sewer rising main
$100,000 430m of sewer rising main.
May not be required; can be determined during detailed design.
Opex Cost
Trade Waste Charges
Volume $28,000 24,000m3/year at $1.17/m
3
Solids $25,000 48t/year at $0.51/kg
Labour – 0.5 hour per day $13,400 $75/h including overheads
Maintenance $2,000 2% of capital cost
Total Capital Cost $150,000
Total Operational Cost $68,300
NPV Cost (25 year, 5% disc rate) $1,099,370
On site dewatering
Capital Cost
Dewatering Plant $1,020,000 Sludge thickener and centrifuge dewatering
Opex Cost
Sludge to landfill $4,000 45t/year at 16% solids at $75/tonne
Trade Waste Charges
Volume $6,000 5,000m3/year at $1.17/m
3
Solids $2,000 2.4t/year at $0.51/kg
Polyelectrolyte Note that both discharge to sewer and on site dewatering will use poly in the proposed backwash clarifier, but as this cost is applicable to both options, it is not included in this comparison table.
Thickener $120 0.5g/m3 of poly added to thickener
at 24,000m3/year of flow to
Memorandum
CH2M Beca // 7 September 2015 // Page 5
6519113 // NZ1-11278458-5 0.5
Item Cost Basis
thickener at $10/kg
Centrifuge $3,000 5kg of poly added to centrifuge per tonne of solids in centrifuge at $10/kg
Labour – 2.5 hours per day $67,000 $75/hour including overheads
Maintenance cost $20,000 2% of capital cost
Total Capital Cost $1,020,000
Total Operational Cost $102,120
NPV Cost (25 year, 5% disc cost)
$2,439,468
The capital cost of on-site dewatering is high and estimated operational costs also higher than
disposal to sewer.
Memorandum
CH2M Beca // 7 September 2015 // Page 6
6519113 // NZ1-11278458-5 0.5
5 Summary and Recommendation
The following table summarises the key costs, benefits and risks of the two options.
Table 4: Summary
Discharge to sewer On-site dewatering
Capital cost $150,000 (if sewer upgrade required) $1,020,000
Operating cost $68,300 $102,120
Noise Sewer pump station – low noise risk in comparison to centrifuge dewatering
Higher noise risk, but could be managed with an acoustically designed dewatering building
Odour Sludge transferred immediately to sewer, removing source of odour from site
Sludge pile before collection by truck could produce odour – typically mild but may increase with algal blooms
Recycled water quality stream
Lower risk Some risk of iron, manganese and algal by-products in thickener supernatant
Water lost 24,000 m3/annum estimated
(0.65% of plant production)
2,100 m3/annum estimated
(0.06% of plant production)
Discharging to sewer is recommended as when compared to on-site dewatering it has:
n Significantly lower capital cost and operating costs
n Less risk of impact on the neighbourhood from noise in particular
n Simplified plant operation
n Positive benefit of reduced phosphorous in the wastewater treatment plant treated effluent.
We support WDC’s requirement to allow for space for the future addition of an on-site dewatering
system should drivers change and this be justified in the future.
Philip La Roche
Technical Director - Water Engineering Direct Dial: +64-9-308 4888 Email: [email protected]
Whau Valley New Water Treatment Plant - 274 Whau Valley Road Consenting Design Report
CH2M Beca // 15 February 2016
6519113 // NZ1-11649715-4 0.4 // page 49
Appendix I
Flood Hazard Assessment
21 Pitt Street PO Box 6345, Auckland 1141, New Zealand T: +64 9 300 9000 // F: +64 9 300 9300 E: [email protected] // www.beca.com
Our Ref: 6519113
NZ1-12077409-2 0.2
Whangarei District Council
Private Bag 9023
Whangarei 0148
New Zealand
Attention: Andrew Venmore
15 February 2016
Dear Andrew
274 Whau Valley Road Flood Assessment
Whangarei District Council is proposing to construct a new water treatment plant at 274 Whau Valley Road.
The extent of the site is shown in Figure 1 outlined in red with the green square representing the approximate
location of the water treatment plant building and structures. The purpose of this letter is to review the
proposed development with respect to flooding risks to determine both the risk of flooding to the proposed
treatment plant and whether the development could increase the flood hazard to any other properties in the
catchment.
The site is located in a sub catchment of the Waiarohia stream. An unnamed tributary of the Waiarohia
crosses the northern part of the site and this tributary drains a catchment of approximately 47.5 Ha to a
culvert located on the eastern boundary of the site that conveys flows beneath a local access road.
Northland Regional Council (NRC) have undertaken flood modelling of the catchment. Figure 1 shows the
extent of flooding represented by the NRC model in both the 10 year and 100 year ARI storm events. This
information has been sourced from the NRC Flood Map. The dark blue represents the flood extents in a 1 in
10 year ARI storm event with the light blue representing the flood extents in a 1 in 100 year ARI storm event.
The locations where the levels are shown represent the flood model results received from NRC for a 100
year ARI design storm and includes and allowance for climate change. The modelled flood levels range from
RL 77.2 m to RL 80.1 m across the proposed site.
Page 2 15 February 2016
Our Ref: 6519113
NZ1-12077409-2 0.2
Figure 1: Northland Regional Council Flood Mapping
Information presented by Whangarei District Council (WDC) GIS Mapping shows that part of the site has a
flood susceptible area variation proposed on (Figure 2). We understand this variation has not yet been
accepted by WDC and therefore the Flood Susceptible Area rules do not apply.
Page 3 15 February 2016
Our Ref: 6519113
NZ1-12077409-2 0.2
Figure 2. Flood Susceptible Area (Variation) represented on the Whangarei District Council GIS
Flood Assessment
A preliminary analysis has been undertaken to review the 100 year peak flow from the catchment and flood
levels on the site as indicated by the flood modelling undertaken by NRC. Survey data for this analysis is
based on a survey undertaken on the 24th August 2015 by Boundary Hunter Ltd on behalf of Whangarei
District Council.
An estimation of the 100 year peak catchment runoff to the culvert beneath the access road at the eastern
extent of the site, was determined based on the method outlined by the Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research (1989), ‘Flood Frequency in New Zealand’ giving a peak flow rate of 6.6 m3/s. This
compares well with the peak flow of 6.4 m3/s obtained from the flood modelling undertaken by NRC for the
same catchment.
An assessment of the backwater effects upstream of the 1500 mm diameter culvert at the eastern extent of
the site was undertaken to confirm the flood level at the proposed site of the water treatment plant upstream.
A headwater level was first determined at the inlet to the culvert which was calculated as RL 77.4 m. The
stream through the site has a fairly regular section with grass coverage and the flood plain area adjacent to
the site is pasture land with relatively short grass. Therefore, a mannings ‘n’ value of 0.05 has been adopted
in the calculation. Considering the channel and the vegetation in this area, such a mannings ‘n’ value would
Page 4 15 February 2016
Our Ref: 6519113
NZ1-12077409-2 0.2
be considered relatively conservative. Four channel cross sections through the site were analysed as shown
in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Locations of Channel Cross sections included in the Flood Assessment
The flood level at cross section 3 was determined as RL 78.6 m and at cross section 4 at the western side of
the site was determined as RL 79.6 m. A sensitivity check was undertaken to understand the potential effect
on the flood level should the values adopted for mannings be different or if the flow is underestimated. For a
flow of 6.4 m3/s with a mannings ‘n’ value of 0.04 the flood level at section 4 would be RL 79.5 m. In the
event that the flow is underestimated and a flow of 7.0 m3/s be adopted with a mannings ‘n’ value of 0.05 the
flood level at section 4 would be RL 79.7 m.
These flood levels are typically less than those taken from the NRC flood model. The analysis undertaken as
part of this review is relatively simplistic and the NRC model is more detailed. Different survey information
was also used. Across the site, the 100 year ARI flood levels are not dissimilar and reasonably reflect the
flood extents represented on the NRC flood map shown in Figure 1.
Page 5 15 February 2016
Our Ref: 6519113
NZ1-12077409-2 0.2
1.1 Stormwater Runoff from the Site
Stormwater runoff from the development on the site, an area of 0.65Ha, will be contained within the site by a
low bund approx. 0.75m in height and will be collected in the proposed stormwater / water retention pond,
prior to being discharged to the stormwater network via a new connection. The proposed retention pond is
required to have a minimum capacity of 60 – 120m3, however a larger volume is proposed to be provided to
allow additional attenuation, and cater for process flow discharges from the treatment plant. The pond will be
designed in general accordance with Auckland Council’s Technical Publication 10 - Stormwater Treatment
Devices Design Guideline Manual (TP10), which is currently recognised as industry best practice in
stormwater treatment device design. The pond will provide treatment and flow attenuation storage, resulting
in minimal change to the existing downstream flow as the discharge of peak flows will be delayed mitigating
against any increase in flood levels or additional flow downstream during large storm events.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposed development and any associated bunding will be located away from the flood plain
resulting in minimal change to upstream or downstream flood levels due to the construction of the new water
treatment plant. The expected flood level across the site is likely to range between RL 77.2 m – RL 80.1 m.
The proposed finished floor level for the water treatment plant is RL 80.3 m, therefore a minimum freeboard
of 0.4 m is provided adjacent to the building. Runoff from the site will be attenuated by means of a
stormwater pond and will be released slowly and conveyed by a new pipe along the northern side of Whau
Valley road to be discharged at the Wairarohia bridge on Whau Valley road.
Yours sincerely
Eilis Byrne
Civil Engineer on behalf of
CH2M Beca Ltd
Direct Dial: +64 9 300 9709 Email: [email protected]
Copy
Anna Lewis, Beca