Background The town of Albany is situated on the West Coast of New Zealand, and it has outgrown its local wastewater treatment infrastructure. In 2010 the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) undertook a major study into the impacts of industrial, agricultural, and residential developments on Albanys harbours. That study showed that waste products from a variety of activities were elevating nutrient levels within the harbours to values that could not be assimilated by the system without leading to adverse effects. Part of the pollutant load entering the harbours was identified as the West Coast Water Authoritys treated domestic sewage from Albany. This treatment plant is in desperate need of an upgrade and West Coast Water Authority has come across some resistance to the development of additional infrastructure. Instructions Students must read the attached case study, choose one Wastewater treatment solution to support, and present at the town-hall debate. There are eleven (11) different stakeholder perspectives students can choose to present from: Department of Conservation

• Whitebait fishers
• Paua divers
• Conservation group
• Ministry for the Environment
• We Care, an Environmental Consulting company
• Surfers
• Albany residents association
• West Coast District Council
• Department of Conservation
• Ngati Kokopu
• Gilmour Construction

Questions will be asked from West Coast Water Authoritys perspective as they are chairing the debate, but all stakeholders will be allowed to ask presenters any follow-up questions. Case Study This case study uses a fictional town located on the West coast of the South Island in New Zealand. Background The town of Albany is situated on the West Coast of New Zealand and is an economic focus for the region. Historically, the regions economy has been dominated by mining, primary production, largely agriculture, and fisheries, and in recent times it has become increasingly dependent on tourism. The natural environment of the Albany district is a major attraction and a reason for migration and visitation. The pristine, often rugged coastline is also prized for its tourism value and the region is marketed as the Wild West Coast. Not surprisingly, Albany residents have high expectations for the quality of their surrounding environment and are thus especially sensitive to any developments that may affect it. In 2010 the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) undertook a major study into the impacts of industrial, agricultural, and residential developments on Albanys harbours. That study showed that waste products from a variety of activities were elevating nutrient levels within the harbours to values that could not be assimilated by the system without leading to adverse effects and consequently, the biotic environment of the harbours was being severely degraded. Part of the pollutant load entering the harbours was identified as the West Coast Water Authoritys treated domestic sewage from Albany. The MFEs study carried out several recommendations, one of which was that the Water Authority should cease outflow from its 50-year-old King Point Treatment Plant (close to Middleton Beach) by 2021 (see Fig.1). At the same time, around 2010, the Water Authority had also realised that continued population growth was placing undue strain on ageing infrastructure and that the time had come for the upgrading of existing waste-water treatment facilities. Fig. 1 Sewerage development at Albany A reticulated sewage collection, treatment and disposal system was first constructed in Albany in the 1960s to alleviate major health hazards. Since then, the system has undergone a series of modifications and expansions to meet the needs of a steadily growing number of users. Around 2010 it consisted of four waste-water treatment plants, each with its own disposal system. The King Point waste-water treatment plant (No. 1) handled the majority (approximately 70%) of Albanys sewage: in mid-2010, this represented 2,900 domestic connections (servicing about 8,700 people). Sewage here underwent primary treatment and treated wastewater was discharged to nearby King George Sound.¹ The Timewell Road waste-water treatment plant (No. 2) treated the bulk of the remaining effluent: in July 2010, this represented 1,150 domestic connections (servicing about 3,450 people), plus the discharge from Masters Dairy (equivalent to that of about 830 people). Secondary treated wastewater from this plant was discharged through a small wetland watercourse into Five Mile Creek, eventually leading to the Southern Ocean through the Torbay Inlet.² The remaining waste-water treatment plants (No. 3 and No. 4) handled small amounts of effluentsewage from 400 and 220 people respectively, in 2010. After treatment with activated sludge, reclaimed wastewater from these plants was disposed of on-site into sandy soils.³ A major internal review of the Albany sewerage system found that the capacity of all plants to expand in response to increasing flows was extremely limited. The review developed and compared seven treatment and disposal options to cater to the increase in demand in the next century. These options covered a variety of waste-water treatments at single or multiple plants, and a range of disposal options including discharge to the ocean, inland watercourses, and land. The reviews final recommendation was that effluent is treated to a secondary level by aerated ponds both at No. 2 wastewater treatment plant and at a new plant to be sited near Cuthbert, No. 5, and then be discharged to the Southern Ocean at a site 700 m west of Sand Patch (see Fig. 15.1). Plants numbers 1, 3 and 4 would be closed. Early in 2010, the Water Authority released the findings of its internal review to the public, in the form of a glossy brochure promoting the cliff-edge discharge option at Sand Patch. The publication of this decision raised considerable opposition from a range of interest groups, including surfers, whitebait fishermen, abalone divers, environment action groups and the general public. Such was the concern that the Water Authority decided to undertake a programme of community consultation to assess the overall community reaction to the proposal. It established a community-based committee under the chairmanship of esteemed Environmental Science Professor Adam Ransfield. The Ransfield Committee was given access to the Water Authoritys internal review. The seven options investigated by the Water Authority included:

• Secondary treatment and dispersal to Sand Patch, Nanarup Beach or Ledge Point (see Fig. 1)
• Tertiary treatment⁴ and dispersal to Sand Patch
• Secondary treatment and dispersal to land within a reasonable radius from Albany

Following several public meetings and the receipt of submissions, the Ransfield Committeewith public supportsuggested that the Water Authority pursue a zero discharge option where fully treated wastewater would be recycled and used again for domestic purposes. This suggestion was essentially an extension of the tertiary treatment option, without the need for a disposal outfall. The Water Authority refused to accept the zero discharge option, believing that it would be too expensive and could not be justified given the relatively small amount of wastewater requiring disposal, and the turbulence of local ocean environments. Towards the end of 2010, opposition became even stronger, as local peoples perceptions of Water Authority stubbornness hardened. It became clear at this point that if the Water Authority continued to pursue secondary treatment and pipeline disposal at Sand Patch then local opponents would fight the decision, possibly in the courts. The local water authority has called for submissions in the form of presentations at a town hall meeting. All relevant stakeholders have been asked to present their views on how the town can address this problem. Department of Conservation The Department of Conservation and Land Management (DOC) is responsible for the management of a National Park close to the Ledge Bay area. The proposed pipeline to Ledge Beach would cross the National Park. This area also contains Declared Rare Flora. Useful A2 resources https://www.newsroom.co.nz/hold-4-monday-our-water-problem-in-15-worrying-charts https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/424295/more-than-100-wastewater-treatment-plants-breaching-consent https://www.learnz.org.nz/water172/bg-standard-f/wastewater https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/wellington/124098301/explainer-understanding-wellingtons-pipes-crisis https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/123672986/sewage-overflows-and-pipe-stench-the-foul-impacts-of-climate-change https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-detail/300019038/the-detail-crumbling-infrastructure-means-big-wastewater-problems-for-councils

Marking schedule

CRITERIA

Criteria Description

0-4

0-9

5

10-11

6-7

12-14

8

15-18

10

19-20

Total

Needs Work

Adequate

Good

Very Good

Exceptional

Justification for the chosen treatment option

How well the group presents and justifies their chosen treatment option. The option is consistent with the likely stakeholder view.

Justification is weak and often falls into being descriptive, with weak or logically inconsistent insights

Somewhat unclear or weak arguments, offering mostly sound insights.

An appropriate treatment option is chosen based on stakeholder the perspective.

A highly appropriate treatment option is chosen based on stakeholder the perspective.

A robust and clear justification that goes beyond being descriptive. A highly appropriate treatment option is chosen based on the stakeholder perspective.

/20

Analytical originality

How well the group analaysed the case study and constructed logical and substantive arguments. Rationally used evidence to produce a persuasive argument for the chosen treatment option

Demonstrates little analytical originality, mostly dependent on arguments and evidence already covered in class

Demonstrates only some analytical originality, often relying on arguments and evidence already covered in class

Demonstrates analytical originality, either in creating new arguments or in relating facts in new ways

Demonstrates very good analytical originality, both in creating new arguments and in relating facts in new ways using mostly class course material!

Demonstrates exceptional analytical originality, both in creating new arguments and in relating facts in new ways ~beyond what is covered in course material!

/10

Understanding of case study

How well the group understood the technical and social dynamics of the case study including stakeholder relationships and treatment options.

Basic understanding of the case study is wrong, incorrect, or substantially incomplete

Conveys and adequate understanding of the case study but misses some key pieces of information

Demonstrates a good understanding of the case study and is comfortable with some nuances in material

Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the case study and is comfortable with nuances in material

Demonstrates superlative mastery of the material

/10

Question and answers

How well the group responds to facilitator and stakeholder questions.

The group does not provide adequate responses to several questions.

The group handles questions adequately but there are some responses which could be improved

The group provides good responses to questions

The group can respond well to questions and supports responses with some evidence.

The group responds exceptionally to questions and supports responses with appropriate evidence.

/10

Visual Appeal

The visual appeal of the presentation slides. They are free from spelling and grammatical errors and enhance the oral presentation given by the group.

There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides were difficult to read and too much information had been copied onto them. No visual appeal.

There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing

There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. Significant visual appeal.

There are minor errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. In general, the slides are visually appealing/ engaging but could be improved

There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Visually appealing/ engaging.

/10

Structure of argument

How well is the presentation content organised and does it flow? Should include a clear overview, links evidence and theory and closes with a summary Is within the allocated time limit.

No presentation materials are present. There\'s not no a clear connection between visual materials that are used and the presenter\'s speech. Not within the allocated time

Some presentation materials are present, but it is not organized. There is a slight connection to the presenter\'s speech. Time allocation within +/- 2min

Presentation materials are present and somewhat organized. Some of the information can be followed and, there is some connection to the presenter\'s speech. .Time allocation within +/- 2min

The presentation materials are organized, the information can be followed, and there is a connection to the presenter\'s speech. .Time allocation met.

The presentation materials are very well-organized--the information presented is very easy to follow and matches the presenter\'s speech. Time allocation met.

/10

Total

/70

Marking schedule for Presentation skills

CRITERIA

Criteria Description

0-2

2.5

3

4

5

Needs Work

Adequate

Good

Very Good

Exceptional

Poise and demeanor

How well prepared does the presenter appear to be?

The presenter appears to be not prepared and not comfortable presenting.

The presenter is adequately t prepared and a bit uncomfortable presenting.

The presenter is prepared and seems comfortable presenting.

The presenter appears well prepared and comfortable presenting.

The presenter appears to be very well prepared and very comfortable presenting.

/5

Clarity of speech

How clearly does the presenter present his/her ideas?

The presenter does not present his/her ideas clearly.

The presenter presents his/her ideas somewhat clearly and relies heavily on verbal fillers.

The presenter presents his/her ideas clearly but uses verbal fillers.

The presenter presents his/her ideas clearly with a few verbal fillers.

The presenter presents his/her ideas very clearly, with very little verbal fillers (\"ums\").

/5

Use of appropriate vocabulary

How well does the presenter incorporate topically-specific terminology?

The presenter does not use any terms or vocabulary that are specific to the topic.

The presenter uses some terms and vocabulary, and they are not topic-specific.

The presenter uses terms and vocabulary, and the terms used are not necessarily associated with the topic.

The presenter uses terms and vocabulary, but not all of the terms used are associated with the topic matter.

The presenter knows the topic well and uses terms and vocabulary associated with the topic matter.

/5

Use of tone, pacing, and volume

How appropriate are the presenter\'s tone, pace, and volume in presenting the topic?

The presenter\'s tone of voice, pace, and volume did not fit the topic.

The presenter\'s tone of voice, pace, and volume s adequately fit the topic.

The presenter\'s tone of voice, pace, and volume fit the topic.

The presenter\'s tone of voice, pace, and volume fit the topic well.

The presenter\'s tone of voice, pace, and volume fit the topic perfectly.

/5

Persona

How well does the presenter adopt the persona of the stakeholder?

The presenter does not reflect the persona of the chosen stakeholder group at all

The presenter adequately reflects the persona of the chose stakeholder group

The presenter is good at reflecting the persona of the chosen stakeholder group

The presenter is very good at reflecting the persona of the chosen stakeholder group

The presenter is exceptional at reflecting the persona of the chosen stakeholder group

/5

Engagement of the audience

How well does the presenter engage the audience? (both during presentation and discussion sections)

The presenter does not try to engage with the audience.

The presenter looks to the audience and tries to engage with them.

The presenter looks to the audience for feedback. The audience is engaged with the presenter.

The presenter asks questions of the audience. The audience is very engaged with the presenter.

The presenter asks questions and invites audience participation. The audience appears very strongly involved throughout the session

/5

Total

/30

Total

/30

Overall marks

Comments

Presentation content marks

Presenter marks

Total

Presenter 1 marks

/100

Presenter 2 marks

/100

Presenter 3 marks

/100

Presenter 4 marks

/100

Overall comments

Attachments:

BM7202--Asses....docx

BM7202-A2---C....docx