DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION

0800 999 333 [email protected] Level 1, 24 Moorhouse Avenue, Addington PO Box 589, Christchurch 8140 www.do.nz Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd

DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION 38546 / 115 MAIN ROAD & 11 WHITE ROAD, HOPE, RICHMOND / ANGE AND JASON MUDGWAY

Detailed Site Investigation 115 Main Road and 11 White Road, Hope, Richmond July 2021 Page 2 of 19

This report may not be read or reproduced except in its entirety.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Title: Detailed Site Investigation: 115 Main Road and 11 White Road, Hope,

Richmond

Client: Ange and Jason Mudgway

File Location: \\donelson\Data\Projects\20000+\38546 - Mudgway J & A\Environmental

Science\004 Report\210722.csb.DSI_38546.docx

Version: 1

Date: 29 July 2021

Project No: 38546

Prepared By: Charlotte Stephen-Brownie Signature:

Engineering Geologist

MSc (Hons), BSc, MEngNZ

Approved By: Warren Sharp Signature:

Technical Director / CEnvP-SC

Detailed Site Investigation 115 Main Road and 11 White Road, Hope, Richmond July 2021 3 of 19


DISCLAIMER

This report has been prepared on the specific instructions of Ange and Jason Mudgway in connection

with an environmental investigation at 115 Main Road and 11 White Road, Hope, Richmond. Only

Ange and Jason Mudgway and the Local and Regional Territorial Authorities are entitled to rely upon

this report. Davis Ogilvie & Partners Limited (Davis Ogilvie) accepts no liability to anyone other than

Ange and Jason Mudgway in any way in relation to this report and the content of it and any direct or

indirect effect this report may have. Davis Ogilvie does not consider anyone else relying on this report

or that it will be used for any other purpose.

Davis Ogilvie did not complete an assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may

exist at the site. Davis Ogilvie has provided an opinion based on information reviewed, site

observations and investigations, and analysis methodologies current at the time of reporting.

Variations in conditions may occur, and there may be conditions onsite which have not been revealed

by the investigation, which have not been taken into account in the report. No warranty is included —

either expressed or implied—that the actual conditions will conform to the assessments contained in

this report. If any unexpected contamination is discovered during any soil disturbance works at the

site, Davis Ogilvie should be notified to assess contamination conditions and possible management

requirements.

Should anyone wish to discuss the content of this report with Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd, they are

welcome to contact us on (03) 366 1653.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKROUND......................................................................... 5

1.1 Scope of Works ................................................................................................................... 6

SITE INFORMATION............................................................................................... 7

2.1 Site Identification ................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Site History .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Landowner Discussion ...................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Geology and Hydrogeology .............................................................................................. 11

SITE CHARACTERISATION ................................................................................... 12

3.1 Land Use and HAIL Activities ........................................................................................... 12

3.2 Potential Contaminants of Concern .................................................................................. 12

3.3 Potentially Relevant Receptors ......................................................................................... 12

3.4 Potential Contaminant Pathways ...................................................................................... 12

SOIL SAMPLING .................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Laboratory Analysis .......................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................. 14

RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 15

5.1 Applicable Soil Contaminant Standards ........................................................................... 15

5.2 Soil Analytical Results ....................................................................................................... 16

5.3 Landfill Gas Results .......................................................................................................... 16

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 16

6.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 17

6.2 Regulatory Considerations ................................................................................................ 17

6.3 Development Considerations ............................................................................................ 17

APPENDIX A – Laboratory Report



INTRODUCTION AND BACKROUND

Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd (Davis Ogilvie) has been engaged by Ange and Jason Mudgway (the

client) to undertake a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) of 115 Main Road and 11 White Road, Hope,

Richmond (the site). The DSI was undertaken as a variation to Davis Ogilvie’s letter of engagement

dated 29 July 2019.

The site currently predominantly comprises a former vineyard which is the process of being removed.

Subdivision of the site for residential purposes is proposed. The site layout and proposed subdivision

is indicated in Figure 1.

The Ministry for the Environment (MfE)’s 2011 Resource Management (National Environmental

Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations

2011 (NESCS1) applies to activities on sites that have, have had, or are more likely than not to have

had an activity on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) carried out.

The site is not specifically listed on TDCs HAIL register; however, it is understood TDC requested

investigation of the site to assess potential migration of contamination from the property to the north of

the site at 111 Main Road, and due to the potential for elevated copper to be present on site as a

result of copper-based sprays. In addition, a preliminary review of site data indicated potential

contamination could be associated with vineyard posts and historic buildings.

Subdivision, soil disturbance and change of land use as required by the proposed development are

activities listed under the NESCS, and HAIL and/or potential HAIL activities have been identified. As

such, investigation of the site was required. The objectives of the investigation were to confirm the

HAIL status of the site and to characterise potential soil contamination associated with identified HAIL

activities, enabling evaluation of NESCS consent requirements and soil management requirements.

1 Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2012). Users’ Guide. National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soils to Protect Human Health. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.



Figure 1: Site layout and concept subdivision scheme plan. Site boundary indicated in yellow. From

Davis Ogilvie Scheme Plan Revision A, dated 15 February 2021.

1.1 Scope of Works

The following scope of works was undertaken under the supervision of a Suitably Qualified and

Experienced Practitioner (SQEP):

Desk study comprising review of the Tasman District Council property files and available

historic aerial photographs as well as conversation with current landowners.

Site walkover to identify potential visual soil contamination indicators.

Collection of soil samples on a combination grid and targeted basis across the site.

Excavation of four Test Pits (TP) along the northern boundary of the site and installation

of two temporary gas monitoring wells.

Analysis of all collected soil samples for heavy metals using a X-Ray Fluorescence

analyser (XRF).

Laboratory analysis of selected samples for heavy metals (as QA/QC on XRF).

Assessment of Landfill Gas (LFG) in installed wells.

Preparation of a report reviewed and authorised by a suitably qualified and experienced

practitioner, as required by the NESCS, presenting investigation methodology and results

(this report).



Investigation works were undertaken in general accordance with the staged process defined by

MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5: Site Investigation and Analysis of

Soils) and the findings are presented in accordance with MfE Contaminated Land Management

Guideline No.1: Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand. Both these documents are

incorporated by reference into the NESCS.

SITE INFORMATION

2.1 Site Identification

Details of the properties included in the investigation are provided below. The total area is

3.7191 ha.

Owner: A. J. Mudgway, J. K. Mudgway, E. J. Simpson, R. J. Simpson

Site Address: 115 Main Road

Locality: Hope, Richmond

Legal Description: Part Section 15 Waimea East DIST, Title NL8C/1310

Property Area: 1.7817 ha

Map Reference: -41.351, 173.161 (latitude, longitude)

Owner: A. J. Mudgway, J. K. Mudgway, E. J. Simpson, R. J. Simpson

Site Address: 11 White Road

Locality: Hope, Richmond

Legal Description: Part Section 15 Waimea East DIST, Title NL8C/1310

Property Area: 1.9374 ha

Map Reference: -41.352, 173.160 (latitude, longitude)

2.2 Site Description

The site is located in Hope, approximately 2.5 km southwest of Richmond. An aerial photo of

the site and notable features is provided in Figure 2. The site is on flat lying land, with the base

of the Barnicoat Range approximately 1.5 km east of the site. The Waimea Inlet is located

approximately 3.4 km north-east of the site, and the Waimea River passes approximately 3.5

km west of the site.

The roughly square-shaped site is located at the intersection of Main Road (State Highway 6)

and White Road. It is bordered by existing rural-residential land with vineyards present to the

northwest and southeast of the site.



Figure 2: Annotated recent aerial image showing the subject site area (yellow polygon) and key

features. Aerial image sourced from Google Earth, dated 2020.

Existing structures located on the northern boundary of the site include two residential dwellings

(a 1970s A-frame structure and a modern two-storey rectangular dwelling), a swimming pool

and small shed. The majority of the property is planted in vineyards, although these are in the

process of being removed. At the time of writing, vines have been removed from the eastern

and northern corners of the site. A small citrus orchard is present to the north of the house. A

small ornamental garden mound (topsoil) is located beside the access driveway.

The following was noted during the site walkover:

The grape vines are supported by approximately 72 rows of post and wire fences which

until recently covered the majority of the site. These consist of 200 mm diameter, 1.1 m

deep “strainer” posts at either end of each row, and 125 mm diameter, 0.6 m deep “half-

round” posts spaced approximately every 9 m along each row. It is estimated that until

recently there would have been in the order of 1000 of these treated timber posts on the

site.

100 m (approx.)

N

Existing Dwelling and Sheds

Vegetation Stockpile

Topsoil Mound

Vineyards

Citrus Orchard



Several sheets of ACM Super 8 roofing in good condition were seen on northern side of

property where they had been placed against a fence. It is understood that they were

historically removed from the pool fence. It is therefore likely that additional asbestos-

containing materials are present in the existing dwelling, however inspection of that area

is beyond the scope of this investigation.

An ornamental mound consisting of stockpiled topsoil is present beside the driveway

leading to the house. It is understood that the topsoil was stockpiled in this location after

being removed when the adjacent section of driveway was constructed.

2.3 Site History

The history of the site has been ascertained from a number of sources including historic aerial

photography2, TDC property file records and discussion with the current property owner. The

earliest historic aerial photograph of the site is from 1946, and photographs are available of the

site at approximately 10 year intervals following this date.

The 1946 aerial image (Figure 3) shows the majority of the site as pastoral farmland. A house

with at least three outbuildings is present in the northern corner of the site. A farm shed is

present near the western corner of the site, beside what is now number 1 White Road. The

property to the north of the site, number 111 Main Road, appeared to be used for storage of

various items at this time.

Figure 3: 1946 Aerial Photograph. Site boundary indicated in red. Features indicated in yellow.

No major changes were evident on the site in the 1950s, though the items stored on number

111 Main Road were removed. In the late 1960s excavation was undertaken on number 111

Main Road, and a pit with water in the base is visible. This pit was filled by 1974 (refer Figure 4).

2 Historic aerial images from Retrolens, retrolens.nz and Top of the South maps.



The TDC HAIL register for 111 Main Road indicates the pit was backfilled with sawdust, timber

and sawmill waste.

Figure 4: 1974 Aerial Photograph. Site boundary indicated in red. Fill area on 111 Main Road

visible to top.

The existing A-frame house was constructed in circa 1977, and property file records indicate

that the original house and outbuildings were demolished (apart from one small shed) at this

time. By the 1980s (Figure 5) there was no visible evidence of the original dwellings or farm

shed, and the site to the north (111 Main Road) was smoothed and grassed. In 1988 a kitset

implement shed was constructed beside the A-frame house.

Figure 5: 1980s Aerial Photograph. Site boundary indicated in red.



The next available image is from 2003 (Google Earth), and shows the vineyards across the

majority of the site. By this time 111 Main Road also has established gardens and at least four

sheds or buildings.

In 2016 the kitset implement shed was demolished, and a new secondary dwelling was

constructed in its place on a similar footprint. No significant changes are visible in aerial photos

after this time until circa 2020 when the vines began to be removed.

2.4 Landowner Discussion

Davis Ogilvie conducted a conversation regarding the known history of the property with the

current owner, Jason Mudgway. Mr Mudgway provided the following additional information

regarding the site’s history and land uses:

Prior to use as a vineyard the site was used for stock grazing. Mr Mudgway is not aware

of there having been any sheep dips or similar structures associated on the property.

The property was converted to viticulture approximately 20 – 30 years ago. The vineyard

was originally an organic operation; however, in recent years, copper was applied to the

foliage of the plants.

The posts have begun to be extracted from the ground in recent years as the vines are in

the process of being removed. All removed posts have been taken offsite, apart from a

small number placed in the western corner of the site which have been in place for less

than one month.

Mr Mudgway was unable to provide any additional information regarding the former

buildings on the site.

2.5 Geology and Hydrogeology

The published geology of the site has been identified as Late Pleistocene river deposits

consisting of clay-bound gravels and minor fan deposits3.

Test pits and boreholes were conducted on the site by Davis Ogilvie during geotechnical

investigations in 2018 and 2019. The investigations identified around 0.3 m of gravelly topsoil

overlying silty, sandy gravel to at least 2.0 m below Existing Ground Level (EGL). The two

boreholes confirmed that the gravel deposits continue to at least 10.0 m below EGL, with some

interbedded silt possible between 6.0 – 8.5 m in the eastern corner of the site. Groundwater

was encountered between 1.6 – 1.8 m below EGL.

Onsite observations by Davis Ogilvie for this investigation confirmed the above findings, with

groundwater encountered at 1.5 m below EGL.

3 Heron, D.W. , 2014, Geology Map of New Zealand 1:250 000: GNS Science Geological Map 1. 13 / 1364027



SITE CHARACTERISATION

3.1 Land Use and HAIL Activities

On the basis of the historic information review and site walkover, the primary HAIL / potential

HAIL activities identified for the site are outlined in Table 1.

3.2 Potential Contaminants of Concern

Potential contaminants of concern (CoCs) related to the identified HAIL / potential HAIL

activities include heavy metals, and Landfill Gas (LFG), e.g. methane (CH4), carbon dioxide

(CO2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon monoxide (CO).

3.3 Potentially Relevant Receptors

Given the proposed future residential land use, potential receptors are considered to include

earthworks contractors involved in undertaking the proposed development and construction,

and future residents and maintenance workers on the site.

3.4 Potential Contaminant Pathways

The potential receptors listed above may contact the contaminants through dermal contact,

ingestion and/or inhalation pathways.

Table 1: Potential HAIL Activities Onsite

HAIL Activity Details

A18 - Wood treatment or preservation including bulk storage of treated timber outside.

Approximately 1000 CCA-treated timber posts present across the site due to its history as a vineyard over the last 20 – 30 years.

A1 – agrichemical application. Copper based spray was applied to the vineyard.

H - Land subject to migration of hazardous substances from adjacent land.

The site adjacent to the north is a former gravel pit, which is understood to have been backfilled with sawdust in the early 1970s. It is considered that Landfill Gas (LFG) could be generated by this buried waste, which could impact the site.

I - Hazardous substance in sufficient quantity that it could be a risk to human health and the environment.

Lead-based paint is likely to have been present on the buildings formerly on the site which have since been demolished or removed. Studies of similarly aged buildings have shown that soil surrounding buildings and structures which have or have had lead-based paint products applied are frequently found to contain elevated concentrations of heavy metals, particularly lead, arsenic and zinc.



SOIL SAMPLING

4.1 Methodology

The site investigation at 115 Main Road and 11 White Road was carried out on the 19th and

20th of July 2021, and comprised a site walkover inspection, the collection of soil samples, and

monitoring of LFG. Details are as follows. Sample locations are indicated on site plan DWG

E01A (at end of report).

Soil Sampling

19 surface (0.0-0.15 m) soil samples were collected on a random grid basis across the

site predominantly to target the use of copper based spray.

12 surface samples were targeted on areas where historic buildings or items of interest

identified during the desk study and site walkover were located.

30 soil samples were collected from soil adjacent to ten (10) former posts in the vineyard,

with concentric samples collected at each location to establish the extent of any

contaminant “halo” surrounding each post.

Four machine-excavated test pits were undertaken along the north-eastern boundary of

the site, where it bounds 111 Main Road. Soil samples were collected at various depths

in each test pit.

The following procedures were adopted during soil sampling works:

All field work was carried out in compliance with project specific hazard identification

procedures.

All works were conducted by trained staff with precautions taken including

implementation of procedures for the appropriate handling of potentially contaminated

material.

Soils encountered during sampling were examined for visual or olfactory evidence of

contamination.

Soil samples were collected using a clean new pair of nitrile gloves per sample and then

placed directly into a new plastic bag.

Sampling implements, if used, were cleaned between samples.

Following field analysis, all soil samples for laboratory analysis were placed directly into

storage and transported under standard Davis Ogilvie chain of custody procedures, to

Analytica Laboratories Limited (Analytica) for analysis.

At each sample location, any remaining soil that was not collected was placed back into

the sampling hole (machine excavated test pits were backfilled).



LFG Monitoring

To provide an indication of whether LFG was present, monitoring was undertaken during

excavation of the four test pits. In addition LFG wells comprising a 1.0 m screen placed above

the water table with blank to the surface were placed in the test pits and the test pits backfilled.

The wells were finished with compression fit gas monitoring caps. LFG monitoring was

undertaken on the wells a few hours post installation, and the following day. All LFG monitoring

was undertaken using a Geotech GA5000 LFG analyser. No LFG samples were collected.

4.2 Laboratory Analysis

All collected soil samples were analysed for heavy metals using an Olympus Vanta C-

Series VCW Model X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyser.

To verify XRF accuracy, 20 selected soil samples were submitted to Analytica

Laboratories Ltd for heavy metals analysis.

Analytical results are discussed in Section 5.0 and summarised in Tables 2 – 4 (at end of

report). Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix A.

4.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

All fieldwork has been conducted under the supervision of a SQEP and the report was reviewed

by a SQEP, as required by the NESCS.

The primary heavy metals analysis methodology for this project was via the use of field portable

XRF. The XRF used was an Olympus Vanta C-Series VCW Model. The manufacturer’s

instructions were followed in the use of the device. The USEPA Method 6200 – Field Portable

X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry for the Determination of Elemental Concentrations in Soil and

Sediment (2007) was used as guidance for the use of the XRF and quality assurance

measures.

The accuracy of the XRF was established with the following methods:

Conducting laboratory duplicate analyses.

Linear regression analysis on the XRF readings and laboratory duplicates.

Manufacturer supplied calibration samples and blank readings were tested prior to, during

and at the end of the day’s field work.

Method 6200 recommends that 5% of XRF tests should be verified through lab testing. 20

(24%) of the samples were laboratory analysed. A linear regression analysis was performed on

the XRF readings and laboratory results. The analysis gave R values of greater than 90% for

copper, lead, nickel and zinc, and 79% for arsenic, which are well above the minimum

acceptable value of 70% set out in Method 6200. Results for chromium indicate relatively poor



correlation with an R value of 0.4; however, the XRF unit utilised is known to be less accurate

for chromium. The results also indicate that, on average, the XRF read about 8% lower than

the laboratory for arsenic and nickel, and between 30% and 50% lower than the laboratory for

copper, lead, zinc and chromium. On the basis of the laboratory QA sample results, the XRF

results were considered acceptable for interpretation; however, arsenic and lead XRF results

(where no laboratory results is available) have been adjusted in the results tables to reflect

regression analysis results. Other compounds are unlikely to present a human health risk and

have not been adjusted.

With regards to laboratory analysis, soil samples were submitted to Analytica Laboratories

Limited. Analytica is a recognised laboratory that is endorsed by International Accreditation New

Zealand (IANZ) which represents New Zealand in the International Laboratory Accreditation

Cooperation (ILAC). The tests were performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation.

RESULTS

5.1 Applicable Soil Contaminant Standards

Background Concentrations

The site is located within the Nelson – Tasman District. Accordingly, background

concentrations for this soil type have been adopted from Landcare Research (2015).

Background Concentrations of trace elements and options for managing soil quality in the

Tasman and Nelson Districts4. Adopted background criteria are presented in the results

tables at the end of the report.

Priority Contaminants: Soil Contaminant Standards

The User’s Guide: National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing

Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health5 details Soil Contaminant Standards

(SCSs) for seven inorganic substances and five organic compounds (or groups of

compounds). The contaminants analysed at this site for which SCSs are available are

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and mercury.

Given the planned future residential land use, a residential land-use exposure scenario

has been adopted. SCSs adopted for the site are presented in the results tables.

4 Prepared by J. Cavanagh, Landcare Research, for Tasman District Council. 5 Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2012). Users’ Guide. National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soils to Protect Human Health. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.



Other Applicable Human Health Standards

For contaminants of concern that are not listed as priority contaminants, the NESCS

references the Ministry for the Environment’s Contaminated Land Management

Guidelines No. 2: Hierarchy and Application in New Zealand of Environmental Guideline

Values to provide guidance.

For the two heavy metals detected at the site for which SCSs are not available, nickel

and zinc, the Australian National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site

Contamination) Measure (NEPM) (NEPC, 2013) concentrations have been adopted for

screening assessment purposes for a residential land use scenario.

5.2 Soil Analytical Results

Lead concentrations in excess of SCS for residential land use were detected in surface

soils in two areas associated with historic buildings (north and west corners of the site).

Concentrations in excess of background of a variety of other heavy metals are also

associated with these areas.

Concentrations of arsenic in excess of SCS for residential land use were detected in

halos with an estimated average radius of 0.3m associated with each of the post hole

sampling locations.

Concentrations of arsenic in excess of SCS for residential land use were also detected in

two surface sample grid samples (21 and 22), and elevated in other surface samples.

Elevated concentrations (in excess of background) of copper and chromium are also

associated with these samples and as such it is considered likely that these results may

also reflect contamination related to former posts.

Concentrations of copper in excess of background were detected in a number of surface

grid samples.

Concentrations in excess of background of chromium and nickel were also detected in a

number of samples across the site area.

5.3 Landfill Gas Results

Maximum / minimum recorded gas concentrations recorded during LFG monitoring were as

follows:

Methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) were not detected.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) had a maximum recorded concentration of 3.0%

Oxygen (O2) had a minimum recorded concentration of 17.6%.

The maximum flow rate recorded was 0.3 L/hr.

CONCLUSIONS



6.1 Summary

The site is located on land which has been identified as having potentially had the following

HAIL activities on site:

A18: Timber treatment chemicals associated with the presence of vineyard posts.

A1: Agrichemical use associated with vineyard use of copper based spray.

I: Contamination resulting from lead containing paint.

H: potential migration of contamination from the neighbouring former landfill site.

Lead concentrations in excess of SCS for residential land use were detected in surface soils in

two areas associated with historic buildings in the north and west corners of the site.

Concentrations of arsenic in excess of SCS for residential land use were detected in halos

approximately 0.3 m in radius directly associated with former vineyard posts, and also in two

other sampling locations also considered likely to be associated with posts. Concentrations of

variety of heavy metals were detected at concentrations in excess of background over the site

area.

6.2 Regulatory Considerations

Soil concentrations in excess of background were detected and as such Davis Ogilvie consider

that the NESCS regulations do apply. Concentrations in excess of SCS for residential land use

were detected and as such the subdivision, change of land use and associated soil disturbance

and removal will require consent as a restricted discretionary activity under Regulation 10 of the

NESCS.

The detected contamination in excess of SCS for residential land use will require management.

Preparation of a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) detailing proposed remedial methodologies will

be required to support the subdivision consent application and works.

6.3 Development Considerations

Soil Contamination

As indicated in Section 6.2, concentrations in excess of SCS for residential land use were

detected and will require management / remediation. The approximate extent of these areas

are indicated in Figure 6. Undertaking a remediation options assessment is recommended to

determine the most appropriate remedial methodology; however, a preliminary review of options

suggests the following methods are likely to be the most appropriate:

Areas of lead contamination – excavation and either offsite disposal to a licensed facility,

or onsite containment (e.g. in reserve areas).

Arsenic contamination related to post holes – existing information for similar sites

suggests mixing is likely to be a successful remedial option. Such mixing could occur



insitu, or more likely via excavation of impacted topsoils to stockpile, with stockpiled soils

then re-used post confirmatory validation analysis.

The DSI results also indicate other metals present at concentrations in excess of background.

The remedial methodologis suggested above (or similar) are considered likely to also results in

removal or dilution of these metals to below background. The exception could be nickel and

chromium which are also present at depth. It is likely the detected nickel and chromium is

naturally high; in which case further management is unlikely to be required. However,

consultation with TDC to confirm this is recommended.

Figure 6: Samples exceeding residential SCS highlighted in red, with estimated lateral extents shown.

Note that contamination associated with posts is excluded as this is site wide.

Landfill Gas

With reference to British Standard BS 8485; Code of practice for the design of protective

measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings, the maximum gas

concentration and flow rates measured results in a characteristic gas situation of CS1 – Very

low risk. No specific gas mitigation measures are required for Type A (privately owned

residential) buildings for a CS1 scenario.



However, given the limitations of the gas monitoring undertaken, it is recommended that

consideration be given to installation of a boundary pressure relief / vapour interception trench

or similar to provide a factor of safety should LFG conditions change.

DWG E01A

Sampling locations

Lot 1

Part Lot 3

Lot 1

Lot 4

Part Section 15

WH

ITE RO

AD

Test Pit 1

Test Pit 2 + Well

Test Pit 3

Sample 4

Sample 5Sample 7

Post 1

Sample 3

Sample 2

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 1Sample 11

Post 2

Sample 12Sample 13

Sample 26

Post 9

Sample 23

Sample 28

Post 10 Sample 29

Sample 30

Sample 31

Test Pit 4 + Well

Sample 27

Post 8

Sample 22Sample 21

Post 5

Sample 20 Sample 24

Post 7

Post 6

Sample 19

Post 4 Sample 25

Sample 17Sample 18

Sample 16

Sample 15

Sample 14

Post 3

Sample 6

MAIN ROAD

DP 4668Lot 2

DP 4668

DP 14077

DP 20535DP 962

Waimea East DIST

Scale 1:1250

0m 20m 40m 60m 80m 100m 120m

The Test Pits, sample collection and well installation for thisEnvironmental Report were carried out on 19/07/2021 and 20/07/2021.

CAD ref:

contractor to locate all existing services & verify all dimensions before commencing workDisclaimer: This document shall only be reproduced in full with approval from a Davis Ogilvie engineer,

/ date

/ QA check/ drawn/ design

/ file

/ dwg

/ issue/ scale @ A4

Davis Ogilvie & Partners Ltd - Ph. 0800 999 333 AE01

385461:1250 07/21

CSBIZCSB

Hope, Richmond115 Main Road & 11 White Road

Environmental Site Plan210722.38546.Environmentalsciencesiteplan.dwg

Part Section 15 Waimea East DIST

Test and building locations are approximate(scaled and aligned using aerial imagery).Aerial image obtained from Top of SouthMaps. Boundaries are indicative only,obtained from GRIP®. Approximatelocations of former building outlined

TABLES 2 TO 4

Soil Analytical Results

Sample Lab Reference Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc

1 XRF 10 - 130 31 87 - 167 177

2 XRF 8 - 334 30 120 - 114 194

3 XRF 11 - 131 52 186 - 135 207

21-32390-6 10 0.583 144 62 290 0.32 172 282

4 XRF 6 - 268 23 26 - 118 93

5 XRF 9 - 138 39 141 - 145 186

6 XRF 19 - 174 70 452 - 138 299

21-32390-7 10 0.42 156 95.6 614 0.22 161 401

7 XRF 10 - 136 34 116 - 148 193

8 XRF 8 - 251 24 88 - 123 191

9 XRF 18 - 212 45 211 - 166 212

10 XRF 28 - 68 63 203 - 150 232

21-32390-5 24.2 0.33 145 108 207 0.14 166 307

11 XRF 7 - 278 21 24 - 132 77

21-32390-8 7.2 0.23 146 35.2 39.1 0.069 162 105

12 XRF 6 - 190 18 12 - 164 77

21-32390-10 5.9 0.31 170 31.5 16.6 0.055 173 101

13 XRF 6 - 85 22 29 - 141 109

14 XRF 18 - 209 35 48 - 166 126

15 XRF 20 - 227 40 98 - 150 149

16 XRF 10 - 58 36 292 - 129 567

17 XRF 19 - 84 37 459 - 119 305

21-32390-11 9.8 0.583 143 51.9 672 0.17 141 420

18 XRF 15 - 30 46 360 - 136 508

19 XRF 8 - 65 30 21 - 154 92

20 XRF 12 - 176 29 15 - 145 89

21 XRF 23 - 114 33 13 - 82 106

21-32390-12 32 0.23 125 45.5 17.9 0.06 92.4 138

22 XRF 22 - 191 32 17 - 156 94

23 XRF 5 - 142 26 21 - 123 84

24 XRF 11 - 40 28 8 - 115 83

21-32390-13 14.6 0.25 142 39.9 18.4 0.061 147 119

25 XRF 9 - 331 34 24 - 151 92

26 XRF 6 - 277 20 21 - 154 92

27 XRF 7 - 284 30 8 - 134 91

21-32390-14 7.0 0.38 130 40.2 14.7 0.051 144 119

28 XRF 6 - 159 24 14 - 201 89

29 XRF 4 - 224 22 14 - 143 85

30 XRF 5 - 163 25 12 - 122 75

31 XRF 7 - 132 18 7 - 148 76

21-32390-15 5.6 0.19 137 29.1 14.4 0.045 168 93.0

11 0.9 93 / 183 41.6 48.6 - 53 / 274 141

20 3 460 >10 000 210 310 400 7400

mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram

Red: Value exceeds the residential Soil Contaminant Standard

2. NESCS criteria presented are for Chromium (VI)

4. Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua, 2015. Background concentrations of trace elements and options for managing soil quality in the Tasman and Nelson Districts.

1. Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESCS).

Bold: Value exceeds the adopted background concentration

- XRF detection limits for cadmium and mercury are above concentrations likely to be present onsite.

Note that where two results are provided for a single sample the results provided are on-site XRF tests and subsequent laboratory analysis of the same sample for Quality

Assurance.

Tasman & Nelson District Background Concentrations 4

(mg/kg)

NESCS1 Soil Contaminant Standard for Protection of Human

Health based on a Residential Land Use Scenario (mg/kg)

B1, Health Investigation Levels (HIL) for soil contaminants based on Residential land use. Table 1A (1).

Table 2 - 115 Main Road, Hope - Samples Collected 19-20 July 2021

3. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) (2013). National Environmental Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination) as ammeded in 2013 Schedule

Analyte Concentration - Heavy Metals (mg/kg)Samples collected from 0.05 - 0.15 m. Organic gravelly SILT;

dark brown; moist; with rootlets (TOPSOIL).

Sample Lab Reference Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc

Post 1a XRF 155 - 278 218 289 - 127 321

Post 1b XRF 12 - 144 75 436 - 133 317

Post 1c XRF 10 - 120 88 341 - 137 346

21-32390-9 7.8 0.519 154 108 651 0.11 152 471

Post 2a XRF 53 - 125 48 24 - 169 102

Post 2b XRF 8 - 629 30 23 - 159 88

Post 2c XRF 6 - 145 29 23 - 167 87

Post 3a XRF 57 - 36 92 50 - 141 156

Post 3b XRF 24 - 37 44 37 - 157 115

21-32390-16 29.1 0.31 164 60.3 52.4 0.06 158 149

Post 3c XRF 27 - 129 39 57 - 154 125

Post 3d XRF 212 - 971 638 48 - 164 107

Post 4a XRF 45 - 184 67 23 - 170 123

Post 4b XRF 6 - 69 43 18 - 162 105

Post 4c XRF 8 - 72 48 20 - 150 110

Post 4d XRF 69 - 51 85 14 - 154 120

21-32390-17 78 0.24 193 112 22 0.042 174 164

Post 5a XRF 31 - 31 53 18 - 154 101

Post 5b XRF 13 - 101 50 18 - 139 107

Post 5c XRF 10 - 59 36 18 - 134 87

Post 5d XRF 49 - 73 56 17 - 134 98

Post 6a XRF 73 - 106 72 21 - 112 106

Post 6b XRF 9 - 81 36 17 - 93 96

Post 6c XRF 6 - 166 31 9 - 95 91

21-32390-18 9.4 0.24 115 48.3 18.4 0.042 107 136

Post 7a XRF 169 - 183 183 9 - 146 114

21-32390-19 157 0.28 212 168 14.8 0.039 154 151

Post 7b XRF 12 - 77 49 14 - 140 102

Post 7c XRF 11 - 259 36 15 - 140 93

Post 7d XRF 116 - 174 125 15 - 144 109

Post 8a XRF 29 - 279 56 18 - 151 98

Post 8b XRF 16 - 116 45 14 - 144 85

Post 8c XRF 3 - 102 27 14 - 123 67

Post 8d XRF 86 - 147 97 21 - 179 95

Post 9a XRF 125 - 365 99 8 - 157 101

21-32390-20 239 0.31 305 184 13.4 0.037 161 141

Post 9b XRF 10 - 190 42 12 - 156 93

Post 9c XRF 6 - 68 31 11 - 157 77

Post 10a XRF 22 - 173 32 14 - 134 82

Post 10b XRF 11 - 385 36 12 - 140 123

Post 10c XRF 8 - 619 31 14 - 144 86

11 0.9 93 / 183 41.6 48.6 - 53 / 274 141

20 3 460 >10 000 210 310 400 7400

a)

b)

c)

d)










Samples at Selected Fence Posts. Analyte Concentration - Heavy Metals (mg/kg)

Tasman & Nelson District Background Concentrations 4 (mg/kg)

NESCS1 Soil Contaminant Standard for Protection of Human Health

based on a Residential Land Use Scenario (mg/kg)


Note that where two results are provided for a single sample the results provided are on-site XRF tests and subsequent laboratory analysis of the same sample for Quality Assurance.

Organic gravelly SILT; dark brown; moist; with rootlets (TOPSOIL).

Sample collected adjacent to Fence Post, 0.0 - 0.1m deep.

Sample collected 300 mm from Fence Post, 0.0 - 0.1 m deep.

Sample collected 600 mm from Fence Post, 0.0 - 0.1 m deep.

Sample collected from inside post cavity (where accessible)

Sample (Depth) Description Lab Reference Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc

TP1 (0.0 - 0.2) Organic gravelly SILT; dark brown; moist; with rootlets (TOPSOIL). XRF 9 - 76 165 54 - 121 154

TP1 (0.5 - 0.7) Silty, sandy GRAVEL with some clay; brown; moist. XRF 6 - 371 36 8 - 440 69

21-32390-1 8.8 0.099 190 37.4 18.6 0.059 335 94.6


TP1 (1.1 - 1.2) Sandy GRAVEL with some silt and clay; grey; moist. XRF 5 - 167 32 9 - 256 56



21-32390-2 8.2 1.64 155 52.1 223 0.11 174 2,270







21-32390-3 7 0.078 152 41.3 11.1 0.045 265 87







21-32390-4 5.8 0.068 186 39.3 10.7 0.042 259 83.9

11 0.9 93 / 183 41.6 48.6 - 53 / 274 141

20 3 460 >10 000 210 310 400 7400






Samples from Machine Excavated Test Pits 1 - 4 Analyte Concentration - Heavy Metals (mg/kg)

Tasman & Nelson District Background Concentrations 4 (mg/kg)

NESCS1 Soil Contaminant Standard for Protection of Human Health based on a Residential Land Use

Scenario (mg/kg)

Note that where two results are provided for a single sample the results provided are on-site XRF tests and subsequent laboratory analysis of the same sample for Quality Assurance.






APPENDIX A

Laboratory Report

All tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the laboratory's scope of accreditation with the exception of tests marked *, which are not accredited. This test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written permission of Analytica Laboratories.

Report ID 21-32390-[R00] Page 1 of 2 Report Date 27/07/2021

Davis OgilvieLevel 1 The Ricoh Building, 24 Moorhouse AveChristchurch 8011

Attention: Charlotte Stephen-Brownie

Phone: 366 1653

Email: [email protected]

Lab Reference: 21-32390

Submitted by: CSBDate Received: 22/07/2021Testing Initiated: 23/07/2021Date Completed: 27/07/2021

Order Number:

Reference: 38546

Sampling Site: Mudgway, Hope

Report CommentsSamples were collected by yourselves (or your agent) and analysed as received at Analytica Laboratories. Samples were in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted on this report.Specific testing dates are available on request.

Heavy Metals in Soil

Client Sample IDTP1 0.5-0.7

0.5-0.7TP2 0.1-0.2

0.1-0.2TP3 0.8-0.9

0.8-0.9TP4 1.4-1.5

1.4-1.510

0.0-0.15

Date Sampled 19/07/2021 19/07/2021 19/07/2021 19/07/2021 19/07/2021

Analyte UnitReporting

Limit21-32390-1 21-32390-2 21-32390-3 21-32390-4 21-32390-5

Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 0.125 8.8 8.2 7.0 5.8 24.2

Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.005 0.099 1.64 0.078 0.068 0.33

Chromium mg/kg dry wt 0.125 190 155 152 186 145

Copper mg/kg dry wt 0.075 37.4 52.1 41.3 39.3 108

Lead mg/kg dry wt 0.25 18.6 223 11.1 10.7 207

Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.025 0.059 0.11 0.045 0.042 0.14

Nickel mg/kg dry wt 0.05 335 174 265 259 166

Zinc mg/kg dry wt 0.05 94.6 2,270 87.0 83.9 307


Client Sample ID3

6

11

P1 c

12

Date Sampled 19/07/2021 19/07/2021 19/07/2021 19/07/2021 20/07/2021


Limit21-32390-6 21-32390-7 21-32390-8 21-32390-9 21-32390-10

Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 0.125 10 10 7.2 7.8 5.9



Copper mg/kg dry wt 0.075 62.0 95.6 35.2 108 31.5

Lead mg/kg dry wt 0.25 290 614 39.1 651 16.6



Zinc mg/kg dry wt 0.05 282 401 105 471 101

Report ID 21-32390-[R00] Page 2 of 2 Report Date 27/07/2021

This test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written permission of Analytica Laboratories


Client Sample ID17

21

24

27

31

Date Sampled 20/07/2021 20/07/2021 20/07/2021 20/07/2021 20/07/2021


Limit21-32390-11 21-32390-12 21-32390-13 21-32390-14 21-32390-15

Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 0.125 9.8 32.0 14.6 7.0 5.6



Copper mg/kg dry wt 0.075 51.9 45.5 39.9 40.2 29.1

Lead mg/kg dry wt 0.25 672 17.9 18.4 14.7 14.4


Nickel mg/kg dry wt 0.05 141 92.4 147 144 168

Zinc mg/kg dry wt 0.05 420 138 119 119 93.0


Client Sample IDP3 b

P4 d

P6 c

P7 a

P9 a

Date Sampled 20/07/2021 20/07/2021 20/07/2021 20/07/2021 20/07/2021


Limit21-32390-16 21-32390-17 21-32390-18 21-32390-19 21-32390-20

Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 0.125 29.1 78.0 9.4 157 239



Copper mg/kg dry wt 0.075 60.3 112 48.3 168 184

Lead mg/kg dry wt 0.25 52.4 22.0 18.4 14.8 13.4



Zinc mg/kg dry wt 0.05 149 164 136 151 141

Method Summary

Elements in Soil Samples dried and passed through a 2 mm sieve followed by acid digestion and analysis by ICP-MS. In accordance with in-house procedure based on US EPA method 200.8.

DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION

Documents