Appendix E: Record of CLG and Auckland Council Comments

E1. CLG Comments

An Mt Eden Community and Business Liaison Group (CLG) meeting was held on 11 May to discuss the Mt Eden Main Works and for the CLG to provide comments / feedback on the CEMP and subplans, including this ITA EMP.

No comments were received from the CLG on this ITA EMP.

E2. Auckland Council Comments

The ITA EMP was reviewed by Leon Blackburn, Senior ITA/ Stormwater Specialist. the following comments on the ITA EMP: Leon provided

Section of this ITA EMP

General

1.3

1.4 conditions Comment

Appears written as planning document in terms of tone. The EMP is THE document of structural and procedural controls. i.e ‘documents the procedures to be implemented’ should read as ‘…are implemented’. Understood that EMP live

document as per conditions of consent and implement version will address this as per condition 159.

Cross references to various other plans. Refer 'documents reviewed’ section of this memo regarding cross references and applicability of specific conditions of consent. Example section 1.3 of ITAEMP refers conditions 159 –179. These also overlap with ‘other’ and details of WTP are in the FTMP, an appendix of ESCP.

Understand avoidance of duplication, FTMP has the water quality management required under ITA/Other discharge conditions, not LUC conditions because this is for more than just ‘sediment controls’. Comment more for future reference and

clarity as to location.

161(f) requires drainage plans. Q: Is it correct that in terms of the ITAMP these will be for the ‘technical area’ of CSA 4 and CSA5, with the wider CSA4 plans being in the referenced ESCP? 166: MT Eden is CSA 4 and 5 {note for leon) comment in relation to section 2.2 of ESCP 169: seek clarity –is this saying that there are already minor modifications? Was this the move to the sediment pond for the majority CSA4 and ACZs? Noting CSA5 is tanks according to figure XX in section X.X of this EMP.

Response

The tone and approach is consistent with the overall management plans.

The ITA EMP has included clarification around the relationships between the other plans.

No amendments required.

Drainage plans are included in the ESCP and have not be included to

Page 50

avoid duplication.

Mt Eden Main Works Clarification made in plan that this ITA EMP on relates to CSA 4 and 5. Amended to clarify approvals on if modification made.

1.6

2.1 (page 15)

3 (Table 3.1)

4 170: asbuilts. Section 5.1 of CEMP (to be checked) Oter as-built conditions 36(f), 65, 66. For ITA, must

include cross sections and confirmation of capacities of the treatment system required under 168, specifically that for CSA 4 (Technical area) as

per 171. Note that section 2.3 refers to volumes of 25m3, 450m3

Understand some detail is in ESCP, SSESCP in terms of runoff volumes etc

173: see comment in relation section 8 of FTMP.

174: little confused as to relevance of this requirement being in the FTMP given not requirement of wider ESCP. Detail review in comments on section of FTMP.

Note that part of the annual reporting (and reporting of monitoring should be talking about the results in terms of actual discharge and comparison to ANZEEC and baseline from sampling required (and ongoing) under conditions 152-155. Talks about CSA4 and the activities undertaken here and in the ‘technical area’. Q: Is the ‘technical area’ first row of the table in condition 168. [LJB: Think I consider these two areas to have detailed drainage plans within ITAEMP]. Q: Table is labelled as ‘general activities’. Are these specific to the technical area or both CSA 4 and 5?

Q: Is the WTP referred to only in technical area CSA 4? Is there additional one in CSA 5 and for the remainder of CSA4? (i.e 3 WTPs?) Section 4’site drainage’ refers to appendix H of CEMP for drainage plans. Think for clarity it should

be confirmed which WTP is receiving what.

Appears WTP in technical area of CSA4 will receive discharge from all of CSA4.

[LJB: Need to located larger/clearer plans to those in the figures in section 2]. Without reviewing drawings yet, simple catchment plan for discharges/catchments of each WTP, sediment pond catchment and areas discharging directly to stormwater (with what quality checks on water quality?) As-builts will be provided as part of the ESCP.

Monitoring at the outlet is part of overall FTMP as it relates to discharges from the WTPs.

Analysis of reporting included.

ITA EMP amended to clarify that the technical area is part of CSA4.

Comment added outlining the inclusion of “general activities” within the table.

The WTPs are specified in the ESCP. At present there is one WTP for CSA4 and one for CSA5.

Catchment and drainage plans included in the ESCP. These have not been included to avoid duplication.

Page 51

Mt Eden Main Works

5.2

5.5, 5.6

5.10

7

Appendix B Paragraph ‘ultimately all water will discharge..’ seems to contradict the paragraph above it. So actual flow from the site is 1) WTP, to sediment pond, to SWNetwork or 2) sediment pond to SWNetwork.

Previously states some areas direct to SWNetwork.

All water at least via sediment pond. See comment on section X below in relation to WQS at inlets, outlets and final discharge points.

Q: One discharge point for each CSA?

Confirm that this is about overland flows and preventing them entering CSA5, hence ‘divert beyond’? All runoff from CSA5 via WTP. Think clarifies earlier query re: WTP. Technical area has one WTP, CSA4 (segment storage) has an additional WTP?

Requirement for drawing of each WTP (cross section, capacity calculations etc) [view section 3 of FTMP?] Advocate use of simplified catchment and equipment location plans as part of operative EMP, indicating spill kit locations etc. Comment also relevant to SRP section.

See comments in relation to section 8 of FTMP.

General query: Section 5 refers to spills to stormwater. Don’t all areas go via WTP and then the sediment pond? So for spill to enter SWnetwork needs to have escaped controls in the CSAs and made way to not shutoff sections of stormwater?

Ap B Flow chart

Ap C Bentonite SRP

Ap D Jet grout SRP Mentioned earlier simplified drainage plans, spilkit locations etc. copies for council, signage for site? Something to consider. Q: Will this be structured into flow chart,/simplified procedural steps for training?

Record keeping for drills required. Section 4.2 of CEMP? Or specific to ITAEMP? Q: When will this be developed and provided?

Page 52

Mt Eden Main Works Table added clarifying the approach with low risk areas potentially discharging to stormwater.

Discharge points outlined in the ESCP.

Amended to clarify all runoff is diverted to WTP.

Only one WTP is proposed for CSA 4 including the segment storage.

Catchment plans outlined in ESCP and have not been included to avoid duplication.

Sampling will be undertaken at the outlets of the WTPs. This is detailed in the FTMP.

The controls for the different risks has been clarified in Section 4. There may be spills outside of the ITA high risk areas which may go to SW, as well as the WTPs. The spill response plan also applies to all areas of the site, event those which drain to the WTPs.

The drainage plans are in the ESCP to avoid duplication.

No changes to the plan are proposed at present. This plan has been adopted during works at the Downtown station works and at CSA3.

At present, the use and location of the jet grout plant are not certain. The plan will be developed prior to commissioning.

Ap E Q: Were comments received form CLG? Commentary unclear on whether received or not. No comments reviewed from CLG.

E3. Mana Whenua

The ITA EMP was issued to Mana Whenua in May 2020 for review.

Page 53

Mt Eden Main Works