soil contamination risk stage 2 - detailed site

Malloch Environmental Ltd 801 East Maddisons Road, Rolleston 7614

021 132 0321

[email protected]

Stormwater Solutions • Soil Contamination Investigations • Environmental Planning

Soil Contamination Risk Stage 2 - Detailed Site Investigation

Wilfield Estate West Coast & Weedons Ross Roads, West Melton

November 2014

West Coast & Weedons Ross Roads, West Melton – Wilfield Estate

Malloch Environmental Ltd

CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 Objectives of the Investigation ....................................................................................................... 4 3 Scope of Work Undertaken ............................................................................................................. 4 4 Site Identification ............................................................................................................................ 5 5 Summary of Site Description, History and Surrounding Environment ........................................... 6 6 Geology and Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 7 7 Summary of XRF Screening and Results .......................................................................................... 7

7.1 Former Homestead Site ...................................................................................................... 7 7.2 Sheep Yard Area .................................................................................................................. 8

8 Sampling and Analysis Plan and Sampling Methodology ............................................................... 8 9 Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control .................................................................................. 9 10 Laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control ........................................................................ 9 11 Basis for Guideline Values ............................................................................................................... 9

11.1 Activity Description ............................................................................................................. 9 11.2 Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 9 11.3 Soil Guideline Values ........................................................................................................... 9

12 Results Analysis and Summary ...................................................................................................... 10 12.1 Former Homestead Area ................................................................................................... 10 12.2 Sheep Yard Area ................................................................................................................ 10

13 Site Characterisation and Discussion ............................................................................................ 11 13.1 Former Homestead Area ................................................................................................... 11 13.2 Sheep Yard Area ................................................................................................................ 11

14 Remedial Options and Recommendations ................................................................................... 12 14.1 Homestead Area ............................................................................................................... 12 14.2 Sheep yard area ................................................................................................................ 12

15 Planning Status .............................................................................................................................. 12 16 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 13 17 Limitations..................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDICES

A XRF Sampling Location Plans B XRF Results Table C Subdivision Plan D Lab Sampling Location Plans E Lab Results Table F Remediation Plans G Risk Screening Summary

FIGURES

1. Location Plan 2. Investigation Areas



1 Executive Summary

The subject site is located near the intersection of West Coast and Weedons Ross Roads, West Melton. A proposal to subdivide the land for residential use will change the use of the land and disturb soils. A Preliminary Site Investigation and XRF Screening Report (PSI) was prepared by Malloch Environmental Ltd in June 2014. That investigation found that the site had been predominantly used for the grazing of sheep with some cropping occurring. Two risk areas were identified, around the former homestead buildings and the sheep yard area with a foot rot trough (see photo below) present.

Photo 1 - Foot rot trough and sheep yards A handheld XRF was available at the time of that investigation so screening of the soils for heavy metals in those risk areas was carried out. The XRF screening found an area of zinc and lead contamination in the southern part of the site close to where the original homestead stood. It also found some zinc and arsenic contamination around the sheep yards near the centre of the site. The report recommended that to develop the land for residential use a more detailed investigation of the soils in these risk areas should be carried out with laboratory testing to confirm the extent of the contamination, and to also test for the presence of organochloride pesticides. The remainder of the site was considered to be suitable for residential development without any further investigation. In accordance with the recommendations of the PSI detailed soil sampling and laboratory testing was carried out in the two risk areas. This report details the investigations undertaken, the results of sampling and the remediation proposals. Results showed that organochloride pesticides are present in the soils in the sheep yard area, however levels are below the recreational SGV adopted for this area. The results show that the rural/residential 25% produce soil guideline value (SGV) for lead of was exceeded in the former homestead area and that the recreational SGV for arsenic was exceeded in the sheep yard area.



Remediation of these areas will be required prior to development of the site for its current proposed uses. The use of a portable handheld XRF during site remediation is proposed and will enable the extent of contamination to be confirmed and allow for the volumes of excavated material to be kept to a minimum. The current proposed method of remediation for the homestead area is to mix the contaminated soils with clean soils to dilute lead levels to below SGV. The soils in the sheep yard area are likely to be relocated to within a proposed acoustic bund adjacent to the state highway. Appropriate management of the soils within the bund would be required to protect both the environment and human health. A Remediation Action Plan including appropriate site management procedures in accordance with the CLMG is required to be completed prior to any remediation works taking place. Following remediation, validation sampling and reporting will be carried out, along with the preparation of an ongoing Long Term Management Plan if required. As this investigation has found that soil contamination does exceed the applicable standard in Regulation 7 of the NES, the proposed activities are not considered to be permitted or controlled activities and therefore consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity. Environment Canterbury regional rules are also relevant to the site. Depending on the outcome of remediation and testing a consent for a passive discharge of contaminants to land may be required.

2 Objectives of the Investigation

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Ministry for the Environment’s “Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No 1: Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand”. This report includes all requirements for a Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation report. The objective is to confirm by laboratory testing the results provided by the XRF screening investigation and to also investigate whether organochloride pesticides have affected the soils on the site. From this information, recommendations for remediation options can be provided.

3 Scope of Work Undertaken

The scope of the work undertaken has included:

Summary of PSI Report

Undertake soil sampling

Analysis of results in accordance with MfE Guidelines

Preparation of report in accordance with MfE Guidelines

Recommended remediation options



4 Site Identification

The site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of West Coast and Weedons Ross Roads in West Melton, as shown on the plans in Figure 1 below. The site is legally described as Rural Sections 37783 and 37879 and Lot 2 DP 391578 and is well defined by existing fences, hedges and trees. The subject site is approximately 92 hectares.

Figure 1 – Location Plan



The investigations have been focussed on the two risk areas identified in the PSI report as shown on the plan in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2 – Investigation areas

5 Summary of Site Description, History and Surrounding Environment

The site has a generally flat contour consisting of pasture and cropping land and has only two farm shed buildings on it. Hedges and trees lie around most of the perimeter of the site and there are a number of shelter belts within the site. An open drain runs along the northern boundary of the site, along West Coast Road. High voltage overhead power lines and power pylons run through the middle of the site. There are a number of rural lifestyle blocks adjacent to the site including the Melton Park estate to the east. The residential township of West Melton is to the northwest of the site.

Yards and foot rot trough. Large store shed.

Former homestead area from pre 1941. Existing barn.



The PSI investigations confirmed that the site had been used for mainly sheep farming and pasture related crops for the known history of the site. There is no physical evidence remaining of the former farm homestead. The era of the former homestead buildings is a time when the use of lead paint was commonplace and there is a risk of this having caused soil contamination due to flaking or removal over the years. The existing owner advised that a footrot trough existed on the site and that no deep dipping was carried on the site. This was confirmed during the site visit, with the original sheep yards and shed still in place in the centre of the site. The shed was in use for the storage of hay and machinery. Chemicals used for parasite control in stock can concentrate in the soils through leakage of sealed dip and footbath sites, disposal of excess chemicals to soil and excess chemical dripping onto soil from stock after treatment. The contaminants associated with foot rot chemicals include heavy metals, particularly arsenic, zinc and copper, and organochloride pesticides.

6 Geology and Hydrology

The site is underlain by Eyre shallow sandy loam soils. The site is over the semi confined or unconfined aquifer system and ground water levels in nearby bores indicate water levels are in the order of 20-24m deep. The direction of ground water flow is generally in a south east direction. The closest wells downstream of the site are M35/7747 and M35/18112, both used for domestic water supply and drawing water from 36 to 54m deep. Both bore logs indicate that a layer of clay bound gravels provides a lower permeability layer above the gravel aquifer. The nearest surface water body is an ephemeral farm drain that crosses through the site adjacent to the east side of the sheep yard.

7 Summary of XRF Screening and Results

As a handheld XRF analyser was available at the time of the PSI some initial screening of soils in the two identified areas of risk was carried out to provide some indication of levels of heavy metal contamination, if present. The results for the standard suite of seven heavy metal contaminants were assessed and compared with guideline values. It was noted that a majority of the sample locations tested by XRF gave cadmium results above the residential soil guideline values, with error values sometimes higher than the reading. The soil sampling and laboratory testing undertaken as part of this Detailed Site Investigation have addressed any concerns around this anomaly.

7.1 Former Homestead Site

At the former homestead area, judgemental samples were measured around the existing shed. A systematic approach was used for the former homestead area, with samples screened in an approximate 10m grid pattern. XRF testing around the former homestead site at the southern end of the site showed two areas of concern. Three sample locations returned zinc results which were well above ecological receptor guideline limits, although still within rural / lifestyle block soil guideline limits. The most likely cause for this contamination is from the galvanised roofing iron on the barn.



Secondly an isolated patch of soil was found at sample location 31 with lead concentrations which exceeded the soil guideline values. Further sampling at 250mm depth showed that this contamination was still present but at a reduced level. Although some other sampling locations in the area showed elevated lead results, all were well below the soil guideline limits for rural / lifestyle block use.

7.2 Sheep Yard Area

At the yards, judgemental screening was conducted, including ensuring a number of samples were measured in each yard area, as well as around the foot rot trough and the existing shed. Sampling and testing of the soils around the sheep yards and the foot rot trough was performed and this confirmed that some type of persistent chemical had been used in the area. Sample locations around the centre of the yards showed arsenic results which exceeded the residential soil guideline values, and zinc results which were well above ecological receptor guideline values. Sampling at depth at sample location 48 showed the arsenic contamination to be reduced at 250mm depth and down to background levels at 400mm depth. It was noted that the direct surface soils sometimes had arsenic levels below the limit but if a deeper scraping was removed with the spade a higher level was reported. As arsenic is related to chemicals that were used over 40 years ago it is possible that wind dispersion and animal movement of soils has occurred over the years, covering over the contaminated soils below. Sampling location plans of the areas tested by XRF are shown in Appendix A. The results of the XRF screening and the reported errors are shown in the table in Appendix B. Note that these results tables have been amended to reflect the soil guideline values appropriate to the use indicated by the revised subdivision plan attached in Appendix C.

8 Sampling and Analysis Plan and Sampling Methodology

With the results from the XRF screening showing the areas of most concern, a judgemental sampling plan was undertaken. In the area of the former homestead, samples were taken from around the large hay shed. The XRF results from around the shed indicated high levels of zinc, and the XRF cadmium results were not reliable. Around the former homestead buildings, samples were taken from the XRF location with the highest levels of lead, and then a series of delineation samples further out over the former homestead area. Samples were taken from near surface as well as a series of deeper samples up to 450mm depth at selected locations, which were held cold for later testing if required. Laboratory testing for seven heavy metals was undertaken. Although it was not expected to have been used in the area, one sample was also tested for organochloride pesticides as a precaution. In the sheep yard area the XRF identified the west end of the yards as having the higher levels of arsenic present. Samples for laboratory analysis were taken from the areas with the highest XRF arsenic readings, as well as samples on the outside of each side of the yard area for delineation purposes. Once again the XRF results for cadmium were not reliable in this area. A range of samples were tested for seven heavy metals and organochloride pesticides. As the XRF screening had indicated that cleaner surface soils may have built up over the years, covering the contaminated soils, samples were taken and tested from a number of depths. Some samples were held cold for further analysis once the first round of results were received. Lab sampling location plans are included in Appendix D.



9 Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No 5, Ministry for the Environment was followed for all aspects of the investigation. Field quality control procedures included taking blind replicates and ensuring decontamination procedures were followed. Samples were taken using a stainless steel trowel or fresh disposable nitrile gloves. All equipment was decontaminated between samples using Decon 90 and rinsed with tap water. Samples were collected in laboratory supplied containers and immediately placed in chilled bins. Following sampling, the samples were delivered to Hill Laboratory under chain-of-custody documentation. Analysis of the rinse water samples indicates that decontamination procedures used to maintain the integrity of the samples were successful. Relative percentage difference values (RPD) were calculated for the blind replicate samples and all were less than the accepted values of 30-50%.

10 Laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control

All samples were submitted to Hill Laboratories in Christchurch for analysis. Hill Laboratories hold IANZ accreditation. As part of holding accreditation the laboratory follows appropriate testing and quality control procedures. No quality control issues were identified.

11 Basis for Guideline Values

11.1 Activity Description Since the PSI was carried out the subdivision concept plan has been updated and a copy is attached in Appendix C. This shows that the sheep yard area is now within land proposed to be used for recreation reserve, and that the former homestead area is within land that is proposed to be rural/residential. The current proposed activities for the site are:

Subdivision of the land into residential, rural/residential and reserve lots.

Change of use of the land

Disturbance of the soil

11.2 Zoning The subject site is currently zoned Living 2, Living 2a and Inner Plains.

11.3 Soil Guideline Values Human health soil contaminant standards for a group of 12 priority contaminants were derived under a set of five land-use scenarios, and are legally binding under The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Health) Regulations 2011 (NES). These standards have been applied where applicable. For contaminants other than the 12 priority contaminants, the hierarchy as set out in the Ministry for the Environment Contaminated Land Management Guidelines (CLMG) No 2 has been followed. For soil, guideline values are predominantly risk based, in that they are typically derived using designated exposure scenarios that relate to different land uses. For each exposure scenario, selected pathways of exposure are used to derive guideline values. These



pathways typically include soil ingestion, inhalation and dermal adsorption. The guideline values for the appropriate land use scenario relate to the most critical pathway. The laboratory tested samples taken at the site of the sheep yards have been compared with the values recommended for a recreational use. The laboratory tested samples taken at the former homestead site have been compared with the values recommended for a ‘Rural residential/lifestyle block 25% produce’ use. The 25% produce use was chosen because the proposed lot sizes in this area are likely to be significantly larger than expected for a standard residential household and therefore has a greater likelihood of the land being used for growing produce. All results have been compared with human health and ecological guideline values as well as the background values for the appropriate soil type where available. The table of results attached in Appendix E includes the guideline values used and reference to the documents used.

12 Results Analysis and Summary

12.1 Former Homestead Area The results show that the rural/residential 25% produce soil guideline value (SGV) for lead of 160mg/kg, was exceeded in four sample locations. Further testing of deeper samples at SS5 showed that lead levels reduced to below SGV by 450mm. The locations where XRF results exceeded SGV had levels ranging from 218-304mg/kg. The lab results that exceed SGV range between 178-320mg/kg which is generally in the same order, therefore it can be assumed that the XRF screening results which have delineated the area of contamination can be reasonably relied on. No organochloride pesticides were detected in the one sample tested from the homestead area. Results for heavy metals were compared with background concentrations. This shows that cadmium and zinc levels are elevated above expected background concentrations, with one zinc result above the ecological value.

12.2 Sheep Yard Area The results show that the recreational SGV for arsenic of 80mg/kg, was exceeded at six locations. The results show very high concentrations of arsenic up to 5800mg/kg at the end of the foot rot trough. Deeper samples at the same location were still elevated to 4600mg/kg at 450mm deep. This is consistent with the possibility that the foot rot trough chemicals were drained at this point. Across the remainder of the affected internal yard area levels of arsenic above the recreational SGV ranged from 87-153mg/kg. Testing for organochloride pesticides has confirmed that persistent pesticides were used at the sheep yard area. Dieldrin, Endrin and DDT were all detected. All of the levels are well below the recreational SGV’s which are the applicable guideline values for the current proposed use. It should be noted that if this use was to be changed to residential, that the Dieldrin levels were above residential limits.



To determine the risk to the environment from soils remaining in situ, or being managed on site, SPLP (synthetic precipitation leaching procedure) tests of two samples were carried out. Sample SS13.2 had a leachate value of 9.6mg/l compared with the soil concentration of 5800mg/kg for arsenic. Sample SS19.1 had a leachate value of 0.094mg/l compared with a soil concentration of 118mg/kg for arsenic. It was noted during the initial XRF screening in June that levels of cadmium being indicated by the XRF were unreliable, with the XRF giving cadmium results with errors greater than the reading. The lab results have shown that the cadmium levels are all below the SGV for each area.

13 Site Characterisation and Discussion

The PSI investigation determined that the majority of the site was unlikely to have been used in a manner that would have caused soil contamination, however it identified two areas of risk for further investigation. The XRF screening carried out in June 2014 identified the areas with confirmed contamination and the subsequent laboratory sampling has confirmed this. The CLMG Risk Screening System has been used to assist in assessing the risk to human health, groundwater and surface water bodies and the summary of this is included in Appendix H.

13.1 Former Homestead Area Elevated levels of lead, above the ‘rural/residential 25% produce’ soil guideline values, are present in the soils at the location of the former homestead area, which is likely to have arisen through the use of lead based paints. The depth of this contamination is limited to approximately the top 300mm of soil over an area of approximately 20m x 18m, with a volume of approximately 108m3 affected. The levels of lead are considered to present a medium risk to human health and a low risk to the environment.

13.2 Sheep Yard Area Highly elevated levels of arsenic are present in the soils directly adjacent to the former foot rot trough and these levels present a high risk to human health and a medium risk to the environment. Further out from the trough, in five sections of the yard area and beyond the yards around the exit gates to the west, arsenic levels are elevated above recreational SGV and are considered to present a medium risk to human health if the site was to be used for a recreational reserve, and a low risk to the environment. It is noted that three of the yard areas to the east have levels of arsenic below background concentrations, as shown by both XRF and lab results and these areas are not considered to be contaminated. It is likely that these yards were used for holding stock prior to foot rot treatments. The depth of contamination directly at the foot rot trough is unknown, with the deepest sample at SS13 taken at 450mm and returning very high levels of arsenic. The free draining soils at the site would have allowed liquid chemicals to have drained down through the soils for a considerable distance, and based on experience at a similar site nearby, the soils could still be affected at 3.5m deep. For the remainder of the affected area the levels of arsenic are generally highest at about 150mm depth, and decreasing to below recreational SGV at about 300mm depth.



14 Remedial Options and Recommendations

For both areas remediation will be required before the site can be developed for its current proposed uses. The use of a portable handheld XRF during site remediation is proposed and will enable the extent of contamination beyond the sheep yards to be confirmed and allow for the volumes of excavated material from both areas to be kept to a minimum. Plans of the proposed remediation areas are included in Appendix F.

14.1 Homestead Area The concentrations of lead in the homestead area are not significantly elevated and can be easily remediated or managed by a number of methods. As the measured lead levels are below the recreational SGV of 880mg/kg, relocating the soil to within a recreational area is an option. The levels are also such that they would be easily diluted to below Rural/Residential 25% Produce SGV through mixing with a similar quantity of clean soil. It is understood that at this stage mixing the soils is the preferred remediation method for this area.

14.2 Sheep yard area For the highly contaminated soils from directly under and adjacent to the foot rot trough, with arsenic levels in the thousands, the SPLP tests indicate that the soils pose a risk to the environment as well as human health and cannot be left in situ or relocated to other parts of the site without appropriate management. It is understood that an acoustic bund will be built at the development site, adjacent to the main highway and that this bund is a likely location for the on-site management of contaminated soils. The soils with very high levels of arsenic, and the foot rot trough concrete, would need to be suitably isolated with impermeable lining/wrapping. This could be achieved with impermeable clay layers or artificial impermeable lining such as polythene. The remaining soils at the site with arsenic levels in the hundreds can likely be relocated to within a bund without any specific measures, other than covering with a clean layer of soils, to protect human health. Alternatively soils could be removed from the site and disposed of at an approved facility. Details of the proposed remediation measures will be discussed with Environment Canterbury, in terms of appropriate protection of the environment, and will need to be confirmed and detailed in a Remediation Action Plan. Due to the likelihood that the depth of contamination directly beneath the foot rot trough could be significant, it is recommended that the goal of remediation is to get to a level that is considered to be low risk to the environment but also provide the appropriate protection to human health. It is expected that excavating the contaminated material to a depth of approximately 1 to 2m would remove the worst of the contaminated soils and give appropriate protection to both the environment and future users of the site. A Remediation Action Plan including appropriate site management procedures in accordance with the CLMG is required to be completed prior to any remediation works taking place. Following remediation, validation sampling and reporting will be carried out, along with the preparation of an ongoing Long Term Management Plan if required.

15 Planning Status

In terms of the NES the land is considered to be covered if:



“5(7)(c) it is more likely than not that an activity or industry described in the HAIL is being or has been undertaken on it.”

The investigation has shown that an activity or industry described in the HAIL has been carried out on two parts of the site now or in the past and on this basis it is considered that the NES does apply to those identified pieces of land. The current proposed activities for the site are:

Subdivision of the land

Change of use of the land

Disturbance of the soil

As this investigation has found that soil contamination does exceed the applicable standard in Regulation 7 of the NES, the activities above are not considered to be permitted or controlled activities and therefore these activities area subject to clause 10 of the NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health, under which consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity. Environment Canterbury regional rules are also relevant to the site. Depending on the outcome of remediation and testing a consent for a passive discharge of contaminants to land may be required.

16 Conclusion

The detailed site sampling has confirmed the presence of lead and arsenic, above the Soil Guideline Values for the proposed uses, in two isolated areas of the site and remediation will be required to be carried out as part of any development works to ensure appropriate protection of human health and the environment. A Remediation Action Plan will need to be prepared prior to any on site remediation works occurring, and following remediation a Site Validation Plan and Ongoing Site management Plan will be required. A resource consent in terms of the NES will also be required prior to any disturbance of soil.

17 Limitations

Malloch Environmental Limited has performed services for this project in accordance with current professional standards for environmental site assessments, and in terms of the client’s financial and technical brief for the work. Any reliance on this report by other parties shall be at such party’s own risk. It does not purport to completely describe all the site characteristics and properties. Where data is supplied by the client or any third party, it has been assumed that the information is correct, unless otherwise stated. Malloch Environmental Limited accepts no responsibility for errors or omissions in the information provided. Should further information become available regarding the conditions at the site, Malloch Environmental Limited reserves the right to review the report in the context of the additional information. Opinions and judgments expressed in this report are based on an understanding and interpretation of regulatory standards at the time of writing and should not be construed as legal opinions. As regulatory standards are constantly changing, conclusions and recommendations considered to be acceptable at the time of writing, may in the future become subject to different regulatory standards which cause them to become unacceptable. This may require further assessment and/or remediation of the site to be suitable for the existing or



proposed land use activities. There is no investigation that is thorough enough to preclude the presence of materials at the site that presently or in the future may be considered hazardous. This report does not attempt to describe all risks or possible outcomes resulting from carrying out remediation works. Any party carrying out remediation works shall be responsible for all such works, including implementing all health and safety precautions as appropriate. Malloch Environmental Limited disclaims all liability whatsoever for any loss or damages, if any, suffered by any party as a result of any remediation works undertaken.

Report written and certified by a suitably qualified and experienced practitioner as prescribed under the NES (soil):

Nicola Peacock, CEnvP Principal Environmental Engineer


Appendix A – XRF Sampling Location Plans

RS 37783

RS 37879

Lot 2 DP 391578

Malloch Environmental Ltd 801 East Maddisons Road, Rolleston

021 132 0321

[email protected]

Scale: NTS

Date: 31 October 2014

Drawing No: 01015 / 2 R1

Wilfield Sheep Yard XRF Sampling Location Plan

Cnr West Coast & Weedons Ross Rds, West Melton

LEGEND

Soil sample location


that exceeds

Recreational SGV

Notes: 1. This plan has been prepared

for soil contamination risk

assessment purposes only.

No liability is accepted if the

plan is used for any other

purposes.

2. Any measurements taken

from this plan which are not

dimensioned on the

electronic copy are at the

risk of the user.

3. Soil sample locations are

approximate only.

Revisions:

1. Drain alignment corrected

and SGV changed to

Recreational

1

1

36

42

35

41

40

37

HEDGE LINE IM

PLE

MEN

T

SHED

DRAIN 38

3 39

3

65 •

57

61

75

66

55

60 •

• 67 56

50 68

48, 69, 72

51 •

44

52, 53 •

49

54

46

47

45 43

74

73

72

64

70, 71

• 59

58

62, 63

76


021 132 0321

[email protected]

Scale: NTS


Drawing No: 01015 / 1 R1

Wilfield Homestead XRF Sampling Location Plan


LEGEND



that exceeds

Rural/Residential

25% Produce SGV






purposes.



dimensioned on the


risk of the user.


approximate only.

Revisions:

1. SGV criteria added to legend

1

1 32

9

6 5

8

7

19

18

17

31

(34 @ 250mm)

20

21

22

30

25

24

23

29

26

27

28

4

2

(16 @ 100mm)

3

11

10

FORMER

HOMESTEAD

SITE

BARN

12, 13, 14 & 15

In this area

33

SHALLOW

PIT

Malloch Environmental Ltd Page 16

Appendix B – XRF Results Table

Table of XRF Screening Results - Wilfield, Cnr West Coast & Weedons Ross Rds, West Melton - Amended comparison of samples 35-68 for new SGV 7 November 2014Date of testing: 29 May, 2014

Soil Results (XRF)Sample

Number:

Analyte Depth:

Heavy Metals

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 3.8 ± 1.9 0.8 ± 1.8 2.4 ± 2 8 ± 4 1.4 ± 1.9 4 ± 2 3.2 ± 1.8 2.1 ± 1.8 7.1 ± 1.9 1.9 ± 1.9 3.2 ± 1.6 1 ± 3 6.1 ± 1.5 14 ± 5 3.9 ± 1.9 4 ± 2 1.1 ± 1.6

Total Recoverable Cadmium2 mg/kg dry wt 3 ± 5 7 ± 6 7 ± 7 13 ± 6 6 ± 6 8 ± 6 14 ± 5 5 ± 6 5 ± 6 7 ± 6 6 ± 6 7 ± 7 2 ± 6 9 ± 10 3 ± 6 3 ± 6 1 ± 6

Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 10 ± 3 12 ± 4 25 ± 7 20 ± 22 23 ± 6 22 ± 6 12 ± 4 11 ± 5 30 ± 7 16 ± 7 27 ± 6 67 ± 17 13 ± 5 13 ± 47 11 ± 19 24 ± 5 18 ± 5

Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 0 ± 4 6 ± 4 5 ± 4 4 ± 5 3 ± 4 3 ± 4 1 ± 3 7 ± 4 10 ± 4 3 ± 4 4 ± 4 32 ± 10 2 ± 3 49 ± 19 1 ± 5 14 ± 4 6 ± 4

Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 50 ± 3 36 ± 2 31 ± 3 110 ± 5 38 ± 3 76 ± 3 45 ± 2 41 ± 3 25 ± 2 29 ± 3 17 ± 2 44 ± 3 14 ± 2 54 ± 6 12 ± 3 51 ± 3 20 ± 2

Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 4 ± 5 15 ± 6 22 ± 7 8 ± 8 16 ± 6 31 ± 6 10 ± 5 30 ± 6 23 ± 7 35 ± 7 22 ± 6 8 ± 14 19 ± 6 51 ± 28 32 ± 8 13 ± 6 19 ± 6

Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 2364 ± 21 637 ± 9 139 ± 5 293 ± 8 249 ± 6 522 ± 8 269 ± 5 322 ± 6 54 ± 3 51 ± 3 60 ± 3 1954 ± 31 682 ± 9 3886 ± 79 110 ± 5 74 ± 3 34 ± 3


Number:

Analyte Depth:

Heavy Metals

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 1.9 ± 1.6 1.6 ± 1.6 3.4 ± 1.6 4 ± 3 1 ± 3 2 ± 2 0 ± 2 1.1 ± 1.9 2 ± 2 3 ± 2 4.4 ± 1.9 1 ± 2 0 ± 4 1 ± 3 3.3 ± 1.7 10 ± 5

Total Recoverable Cadmium2 mg/kg dry wt 2 ± 6 13 ± 6 9 ± 6 3 ± 6 7 ± 6 6 ± 6 4 ± 6 10 ± 7 6 ± 6 1 ± 6 1 ± 6 10 ± 6 5 ± 6 11 ± 6 2 ± 6 6 ± 8

Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 29 ± 6 17 ± 5 10 ± 5 27 ± 5 30 ± 6 16 ± 5 11 ± 5 20 ± 6 16 ± 5 16 ± 5 21 ± 6 19 ± 5 22 ± 5 21 ± 6 23 ± 6 34 ± 10

Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 5 ± 4 2 ± 4 8 ± 4 10 ± 4 22 ± 4 7 ± 4 2 ± 4 12 ± 4 8 ± 4 10 ± 4 13 ± 4 5 ± 4 10 ± 4 2 ± 4 3 ± 4 0 ± 6

Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 20 ± 2 22 ± 2 23 ± 2 166 ± 4 131 ± 4 54 ± 3 51 ± 3 38 ± 3 66 ± 3 46 ± 3 35 ± 2 72 ± 3 304 ± 6 83 ± 3 16 ± 2 218 ± 7

Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 27 ± 6 23 ± 6 25 ± 6 30 ± 6 31 ± 6 24 ± 6 29 ± 6 33 ± 6 20 ± 6 27 ± 6 48 ± 7 25 ± 6 37 ± 6 16 ± 7 26 ± 7 49 ± 10

Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 34 ± 3 32 ± 2 42 ± 3 87 ± 4 129 ± 4 71 ± 3 79 ± 3 59 ± 3 121 ± 4 71 ± 3 62 ± 3 70 ± 3 115 ± 4 73 ± 4 29 ± 3 63 ± 5


Number:

Analyte Depth:

Heavy Metals

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 3.4 ± 1.6 8.2 ± 1.5 1.5 ± 1.5 0.5 ± 1.5 2.4 ± 1.4 2.2 ± 1.7 10 ± 1.8 0.6 ± 1.6 6.6 ± 1.7 5.3 ± 1.7 3.6 ± 1.8 2.7 ± 1.6 6.3 ± 1.7 61 ± 3 6.2 ± 1.7 18.9 ± 1.8 65 ± 3




Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 14 ± 2 12.6 ± 2 12 ± 2 17 ± 2 8.7 ± 2 18 ± 2 24 ± 2 22 ± 2 17 ± 2 16 ± 2 15 ± 2 19 ± 2 20 ± 2 19 ± 2 12 ± 2 15 ± 2 14 ± 3




Number:

Analyte Depth:

Heavy Metals

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 7 ± 2 30.2 ± 2 7.3 ± 1.7 5.3 ± 1.8 16.4 ± 1.9 13.9 ± 1.8 16.9 ± 1.9 23.9 ± 1.9 25 ± 2 17.6 ± 1.8 10.9 ± 1.7 10.1 ± 1.7 19.1 ± 1.9 21 ± 2 6.4 ± 1.6 41 ± 2 6.4 ± 1.5




Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 15 ± 3 15 ± 2 19 ± 2 23 ± 2 17 ± 2 20 ± 2 19 ± 2 19 ± 2 15 ± 2 16 ± 2 17 ± 2 15 ± 2 20 ± 2 27 ± 2 14 ± 2 22 ± 2 10.2 ± 1.9




Number:

Analyte Depth:

Heavy Metals

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 106 ± 3 6 ± 1.7 4.2 ± 1.8 3.1 ± 2 3 ± 1.8 0.3 ± 1.6 0.7 ± 1.6 1.6 ± 1.6

Total Recoverable Cadmium2 mg/kg dry wt 1 ± 7 5 ± 6 4 ± 7 6 ± 8 1 ± 6 4 ± 6 7 ± 6 6 ± 6

Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 30 ± 6 29 ± 6 35 ± 7 26 ± 9 141 ± 9 21 ± 6 27 ± 6 17 ± 7

Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 10 ± 4 9 ± 4 4 ± 4 4 ± 5 8 ± 4 1 ± 4 2 ± 4 2 ± 4

Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 14 ± 2 23 ± 2 20 ± 2 16 ± 3 23 ± 2 23 ± 2 20 ± 2 26 ± 2

Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 37 ± 7 28 ± 6 29 ± 7 32 ± 9 13 ± 7 20 ± 6 15 ± 6 20 ± 6

Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 86 ± 4 1198 ± 13 418 ± 8 53 ± 4 69 ± 3 51 ± 3 59 ± 3 292 ± 6

NES - National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soils, MfE

NEPM - National Environmental Protection Measures 2013, Formerly NEPC, Australia

EAUK - Soil guideline values for nickel - Environment Agency UK 2009

CCME - Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, CCME (updated 2012)1 Concentrations for "Recent" soil group from Background concentrations of selected trace elements in Canterbury soils, Tonkin and Taylor, July 20072 Cadmium results have a high margin of error, see report for further details

NOTE - These results have not been confirmed with any laboratory testing and are to be used as an indication of contaminant presence only.

2 3 4 5 6

34

17 1812 13 14 15 167 8 9 10 11

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

50 5142 43 44 45 46

0 - 50mm

37 38 39 40 41

0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

0 - 50mm0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm0 - 50mm

19 20 21 22 23 24

35 36

0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

Rural LifestyleOutdoor

Worker

0 - 50mm0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

100mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

47 48 49

7,400

70

1,300

6,300

>10,000

3,300

1,800

400,000

17

0.8

290

>10,000

160

130

CCME

11.5

0.18

20.8

18.8

NES

EAUK

NEPM

Ecological

ResidentialReference

300

50

200

CCME

CCME

CCME

Reference

NES

NES

NES

NES

37.4

19

86.5

Guideline values

Guideline values

Guideline values

Ecological

ResidentialReference Background1

17 70 NES 17 CCME 11.5

0.8

Background1

17

10

64

63

CCME

CCME

CCME

>10,000 NES 63

Background1

80 70 NES 17 CCME 11.5

RecreationalOutdoor

WorkerReference Ecological Reference

>10,000 NES 63 CCME

0.18

2700 6,300 NES 64 CCME 20.8

400 1,300 NES 10 CCME

18.8

19

30,000 400,000 NEPM 200 CCME 86.5

230 1,800 EAUK 50 CCME

880 3,300 NES 300 CCME 37.4

>10,000

0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

1,300 NES 10 CCME 0.18

0 - 50mm 250mm Rural LifestyleOutdoor

WorkerReference

20.8

>10,000 CCME 18.8

290 6,300 NES 64 CCME

86.57,400 400,000 NEPM 200 CCME

37.4

130 1,800 EAUK 50 CCME 19

160 3,300 NES 300 CCME

0 - 50mm

Guideline values65 66 67 6860 61 62 63 6455 56 57 58 5952 53 54

0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm75mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mmOutdoor

WorkerReference Ecological Reference Background1Recreational0 - 50mm0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm

11.5

400 1,300 NES 10 CCME 0.18

80 70 NES 17 CCME

20.8

>10,000 >10,000 NES 63 CCME 18.8

2700 6,300 NES 64 CCME

86.530,000 400,000 NEPM 200 CCME

37.4

230 1,800 EAUK 50 CCME 19

880 3,300 NES 300 CCME

400mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm 0 - 50mm250mm 0 - 50mm 100mm

Guideline values72 73 74 75 7669 70 71

Background1

80 70 NES 17 CCME 11.5

RecreationalOutdoor

WorkerReference

Ecological

ResidentialReference

0.18

2700 6,300 NES 64 CCME 20.8

400 1,300 NES 10 CCME

18.8

880 3,300 NES 300 CCME 37.4

>10,000 >10,000 NES 63 CCME

Indicates result exceeds recreational guideline value

Indicates result exceeds ecological guideline value

Indicates result exceeds background value for soil type

19

30,000 400,000 NEPM 200 CCME 86.5

230 1,800 EAUK 50 CCME


Appendix C – Subdivision Plan

Pt Lot 1D.P.50712

6428m²

5053m²

7000m²

4061m²

6541m²

3075m²

7297m²

3764m²

1.0945ha

1.0871ha

1.0578ha

1.4474ha

1.1389ha

1.7796ha

1.8384ha

1.1044ha1.0189ha

3110m²

3109m²

3419m²

3407m²

7329m²

2546m²

2557m²

2753m²

3375m²

Reserve

Lot 1D.P.391578

Lot 1D.P.26732

Lot 2D.P.26732

Lot 3D.P.76196

Lot 3D.P.407139

Lot 4D.P.407139

Lot 2D.P.72036

Lot 1D.P.72036

Farm Buildings

300.

00m

300.00m

300.00m

POWER LINES

PYLON

PYLON

(6.0)

13842

1471.1016ha

+acc 466m²

+acc 320m²

+acc 317m²

1061m²

2307m²

3706m²

+acc 190m²

+acc 190m²

5358m²

2.3160ha

(6.0)

(6.0)

(20.

0)

70

65

7113m²

(18.0)

1001m²

133

127

135

136

134

130

132131

129

126

128

122

121

125124

118

117

119

120

105113

112111

116

115

107

110109

114

108

106

101

103104

98

102

100

97

99

95

96

94

140

137

139

145

34

141

142

29.7

143

144

31

29

30

28 43

41

36

40

3233

38

35

2627

37

39

25 2324 22

9

1021

7

8

20

3

1

12

11

18

19

13

17

15145

16

46

93

79

92

80

81

91

83

9086

84

82

85

87

88

78

68

89

77

69

67

7558

74

76

59

73

5557

45

56

44

50

53

54

47

5248

51

49

6261

60

72

1202m²

71

63

64

66

2

2512m²

2207m²2153m²

2439m²2118m²

2235m²

3368m²2510m²

5207m²

2322m²2549m²

4672m²

2202m²

5068m²

5201m²

5204m²

6005m²

5145m²

2032m²

2250m²

2100m²

5883m²

6514m²

5547m²

2229m²

5679m²5435m²

5209m²5381m²

6146m²5647m²

5182m²5569m²

5421m²5259m²

6456m²

1802m²

2580m²

1456m²

1600m²

1862m²

1853m²

2119m²

1656m²

2091m²

1406m²

2200m²

1101m²

1201m²

1008m²

1238m² 1601m²1540m²

1254m²1002m²

1522m²

1404m²1424m² 1103m²

2209m²950m²

951m²

7335m²

1976m²

2042m²

1637m²

1550m²

1512m²

2041m²

1716m²

1629m²

1756m²

1658m²

2006m²

2507m²2452m²

2014m²1800m²

1804m²1804m²1502m²1506m²

1800m²

1366m²1723m²

1926m²1403m²

1522m² 1900m²

1451m²2015m²

1713m²

1642m²

1547m²

1360m²

1329m²

1614m²

1534m²

1707m²

1717m²

1726m² 1621m²

1309m²

2248m²

2003m²

1737m²

1524m²

1267m²

906m² 914m²

1553m² 1800m²

1264m²

1209m²

2068m² 2051m² 2059m²2209m²

1521m²

1403m²1858m²

2064m²2025m²1920m²

1601m²

1721m²

2367m²2393m²

1901m² 1135m²

1102m²

1053m²

1003m²

1100m²

1503m²

3073m²

461379m²

1.0967ha

+acc 192m²

+acc 184m²

+acc 168m²+acc 172m²

+acc 176m²

+acc 177m²

+acc 365m²

+acc 366m²

+acc 367m²

(20.0)(20.0)

(20.0)

(18.0)

(20.0)

(20.

0)

(20.

0)

(20.0)

(5.0)

(6.0

)

(5.0)

(6.0

)

(18.0)

1043m²1002m²1004m²1002m²

1081m²

+acc 100m²

+acc 353m²

(10.0)

(20.0)

(6.0)

(6.0)

(18.0)

+acc 155m²

(5.0)

(20.0)

+acc 312m²

271m²

311m²

(26.0)

(20.

0)

(18.0)

146

(20.0)

148

150

151

149

155

156

157

158

159

162

163

164

165 166 167

168

154

153

152

172

173

174

175

171

170

169

Reserve

Reserve

Reserve

123

Reserve

Landscape

Drainage

Recreation

Drainage

74.1

67.2

68.0

57.5

57.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

58.5

62.5

60.0

64.0

62.0

73.8

88.9

58.6

63.9

58.4

56.0

64.3

57.1

69.9

114.7

90.0

95.4

8.5

131.9

102.0

63.1

1.8

364.

6

123.2

124.8

156.4

198.

6

320.2

56.2

48.1

5.0

5.0

58.7

58.2

18.0

47.5

44.0

20.1

56.4

118.8

42.1

48.1

30.2

31.8

30.8

32.0

1.00.5

118.2

72.7

136.9

6.2

27.1

53.2

11.2

261.9

33.2

33.1

39.4

113.4

101.3

90.5

87.7

98.4

94.7

92.7

102.3

99.6

85.1

84.6

17.2

83.7

68.6

42.1

28.3

37.2 50.7

79.9

69.0

50.7

58.7

59.9

35.3

5.3

61.3

62.1

59.1

58.7

30.9

33.4

96.6

65.6

64.4

102.1

85.9

82.1

72.130.1

31.6

68.2

70.5

62.9

61.4

56.3

38.3

60.8

39.7

36.7

66.2

27.2

23.3

24.4

67.6

68.8

47.5

37.4

65.0

39.6

38.6

39.7

39.6

34.1

34.6

57.7

53.9

59.8

62.4

57.1

31.4

26.5

24.3

39.7

39.9

44.4

28.9

44.0

28.9

35.9

57.7

19.5

27.8

57.3

52.4

43.0

37.5

35.8

34.5

37.6

75.9

32.0

26.6

17.3

21.025.3

52.5

28.526.2

30.327.9

31.9

47.3

48.0

50.8

50.8

43.1

44.8

48.9

55.8

64.7

65.8

55.9

1.8

40.7

34.1

29.1

31.4

29.2 24.3 1.022.6

39.7

0.1

36.8

36.7

36.3

38.5

49.9

32.2

52.3

60.6

31.1

71.7

36.6

32.617.122.443.3

46.1

54.1

55.4

84.6

1.765.7

31.1

67.1

32.318.7

44.220.9

3.012.0

39.1

26.6

30.0

23.6

7.9

34.4

15.0

24.5

56.8

15.0

20.9

8.8

33.4

52.0

33.3

50.7

42.234.7

47.9

31.9

52.6

31.329.3

44.8

52.1

48.6

52.8

28.3 34.3

48.9

46.147.8

52.4

63.0

55.7

32.6

31.6

33.6

35.3

32.9

10.6

18.529.2

10.7

34.9

38.6

14.7

70.6

55.9

37.5

31.0

45.233.5

11.824.7

55.2

55.6

4.320.9

12.3 28.1

57.3

60.8

28.2

48.5

39.0

32.6

32.4

14.0

21.112.3

46.0

23.8

29.4

61.7

56.2

35.036.9

11.6

55.1

22.0 2.721.1

9.8

26.4

3.2

47.0

11.8

19.8

24.320.4

12.6

14.4

29.4 37.3

37.4

10.2

15.0 20.9

2.1

32.9

55.8

27.2

24.0

18.933.1

55.1

55.2

52.0

5.6

5.6

48.8

30.0

62.0

25.5

27.252.7

63.6

29.1 26.7 40.7

42.0

71.1

41.6

43.8

44.1

35.5

22.7

59.3

24.5

24.6

24.3

22.8

59.3

45.7

25.6 17.8

23.8

3.8

35.5

44.4

48.3

56.3

55.7

25.8

30.5

2.1

57.7

58.6

52.2

30.1

49.6

13.3

44.124.5

19.6

15.0

20.9

30.0

52.8

54.2

57.946.4

27.1

53.9

26.9

55.6

28.2

52.0

48.6

45.8

26.0

22.7 15.7

39.6

24.4

5.07.0

50.750.7 2.0

20.1

20.1

23.0

30.0

9.6

2.0

55.3

7.0

23.4

28.5

64.6

5.4

20.9

4.2

30.6

30.2

68.356.8

29.0

58.3

29.9

55.6

29.0

29.5

11.6

24.6

28.0

30.5

28.2

34.7

6.5

100.7

124.5

61.0

39.7

23.7

53.7

56.8

58.1

58.1

52.2

52.1

41.5

58.1

44.0

58.1

43.8

58.1

39.7

58.1

64.9

51.7

46.7

47.0

48.0

48.0

59.8

47.0

66.2

66.2

68.5

49.5123.6

116.0

182.4

126.4

15.414.6

4.4

65.5

123.7

89.9

6.0

121.2

133.4

107.7

23.0

132.3

4.6

20.6

45.1

79.7

131.1

15.020.638.76.0

81.1

104.

46.8

123.1

84.0

90.9

150.0

66.0

6.5

60.3

65.9

105.4

5.8

5.8

57.5

57.8

111.5

72.8

53.1

79.5

39.0

79.8

60.7

61.2

71.0

18.6

54.4

99.8

261.0

119.8

6.0

10.0

6.2

22.9

27.5

2.0

44.637.5

1441m²

5391m²

5498m²

6248m²

5914m²

2424m²

7305m²

2535m² 2565m²

1.1328ha

1.4940ha

1.0733ha

1.1191ha

1.1262ha

6618m²

3896m²

6880m²

8.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

(20.

0)9.

0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

(20.0)9.0

8.0

9.0

1647m²

29.4

21.4

6.0

40.0

36.319.7

38.6 20.154.2

56.232.5 26.4

60.3

24.8

35.5

62.741.2

13.3

19.3

26.1

10.1

19.7

15.7

36.3

24.1

9.6

43.2

58.4

57.9

46.0

6.0

46.4

39.07.

9

30.4

32.1

23.1

13.0

75.6

7.0 22.626.6

12.315.2

28.6

6.8

17.8

24.0

28.8

39.7

18.314.3

32.721.7

25.4

37.0

23.1

11.0

33.3

30.2

32.322.9

29.4

9.5

25.88.126.4

24.2

8.428.2 18.9 26.0

19.1 29.1

27.1

23.3

26.8

20.5

22.5

5.7

26.7

27.722.628.9

29.1

25.6

19.05.133.8

18.1

24.938.4

105.3

31.5

29.9

31.6

29.0

27.0

4.4

26.2

23.1

12.8

20.6

38.8

41.5

13.0

16.9

37.1

29.9

27.7

26.7

28.5

25.8

9.8

52.042.4

46.2

5.4

23.6

13.3

26.7

24.5

12.5

12.2

25.6

23.9

9.9

15.0

34.56.0

8.726.6

20.1

9.7

28.9

31.9

57.5

49.8

4.4

2.4

7.9

39.2

41.8 15.6 24.6

38.0

41.1

37.6

14.2

14.5

79.5

34.7

9.5

8.8

24.0

28.7

26.3

24.9

9.4

9.9

40.6

32.8

36.5

28.6

45.8

6.0

48.1

15.2

27.3

8.4

13.0

50.3

43.0

41.5

66.2 6.1

83.7

6.8

16.6

108.8

6.256.4

27.8

45.66.0

62.0

14.6

21.8

52.2

14.2

63.2

27.5

45.6

45.0

56.5

48.2

30.4

32.5

24.47.5

32.2

31.8

67.2

13.5

36.7

9.0

20.4

35.0

6.7

25.3

C

E

D

AB

74.5

202

201

203

200

300

211

213

214

212

216

215

4282m²

1.0975ha

1.0531ha

1.9405ha

5548m²

217

301

1.7195ha

8427m²

1.9198ha

Road to Vest inSelwyn District

Council


Council

Road to Vest in Selwyn

District Council


Council


Council


Council

F

G

HI

J

L

K

204

205

ReserveLandscape

ReserveLandscape

9.4

9.4

M

O

Future Road

N

W

V

U

T

S

R

Q

P

4.418.5

17.0

4.2

97.6

18.8

4.5

9.5

4.0

16.250.8

4.116.5

84.9

4.116.5

68.8

60.7

89.4

4.016.4

102.7

4.016.4

109.4

129.9

4.016.5

87.2

4.016.5

94.3

1.0 3.0

3.01.0

1.0 3.0 2.0

22.8233ha400

Balance

Utility Lot

300m²302

X

48.0

42.4

103.7

59.8

3122m²

2931m²

160

161

37.1

63.1

9.0

26.8

11.0

12.3

Water race to be terminated at

boundary

Water race to be terminated at boundary

Water race to rem

ain

Water race to rem

ain

Proposed Subdivision

DESCRIPTIONDATEAMENDMENT

C.18130 R1J:\18130\SALES_PLAN\SALES PLAN_STAGE 1-5_R1.dwg

September 20141:2500@A11:5000@A3

AreaDescription

TenementDominant

Right of way, right todrain water & sewage & to convey water,electric power,telecommunications

Nature Servient TenementPROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF EASEMENTS

Lot No.

Lots 112 &113C111

& computer media

Lot 72A71Lot 71B72

Lots 111& 113D112Lots 111& 112E113

Lot 149F148Lot 148G149

Shown

Comprised in: C.F.R's.367736, CB11A/748

Proposed Subdivision ofLot 2 D.P.391578, RS.37783

(S.O.8333) & RS.37879 (S.O.8404)

Total Area :

& CB549/209

SCHEDULE OF AREAS

1) Areas and dimensions are approximate only and aresubject to final survey and deposit of plans.

2) Service easements to be created as required.

3) This plan has been prepared for subdivision consentpurposes only. No liability is accepted if the plan is usedfor any other purposes.

4) Roading details are indicative only.

5) Water races plotted from SDC records

Lot 169H168Lot 168I169

Lots 171& 172J170Lots 170& 172K171Lots 170& 171L172

GranteeRight todrain sewage

in gross Selwyn District Council

K,M,N171O124

Grantee

TranspowerRight to convey

electricity in gross

144146147148168169170171

PQRSTUV

K,N,M,W

GW Wilfield Ltd

2.6239ha

54.7267haResidential Lots - ( Lots 1 - 175 )

Reserves to Vest in Selwyn District Council ( Lots 200 - 205)

4570m²Right of Ways & Access

8.8817haRoad to Vest in Selwyn District Council ( Lots 211- 216)

1.7195haLot 3008427m²Lot 301

1061m²Lot 217

22.8233haLot 400 (Balance)

(92.2195ha) 92.2109ha

Right to convey waterand electricity in gross X400

300m²Lot 302


Appendix D – Lab Sampling Location Plans

SS30


021 132 0321

[email protected]

Scale: NTS

Date: 14 October, 2014

Drawing No: 01015 / 4

Wilfield Sheep Yard Lab Sampling Location Plan


LEGEND



that exceeds

Recreational SGV for

arsenic






purposes.



dimensioned on the


risk of the user.


approximate only.

1

1

SS21

SS18

HEDGE LINE IM

PLE

MEN

T

SHED

DRAIN

SS26

SS14 SS16

SS13

SS20

SS22

SS24

SS23

SS19

SS17

SS15

SS25

SS35

SS33

SS34


021 132 0321

[email protected]

Scale: NTS

Date: 14 October, 2014


Wilfield Homestead Lab Sampling Location Plan


LEGEND



that exceeds

Rural/Residential

25% Produce SGV for

lead






purposes.



dimensioned on the


risk of the user.


approximate only.

1

1

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS12 SS5

SS7

SS6

SS11

SS10

SS4

FORMER

HOMESTEAD

SITE

BARN

SS9

SS8


Appendix E – Lab Results Table

Table of Results - Wilfield Estates, Weedons Ross Road, West MeltonDate of testing: 2 October, 2014

Homestead Area

Analyte Sample Name: SS1.1 SS2.1 SS3.1 SS4.1 SS5.1 SS5.2 SS5.3 SS6.1 SS7.1 SS8.1 SS8.2 SS9.1 SS10.1 SS11.1 SS12.1 SS12.2BR RPD value

Soil Results Lab Number: 1334437.1 1334437.3 1334437.5 1334437.7 1334437.9 1334437.10 1334437.11 1334437.12 1334437.14 1334437.16 1334437.17 1334437.18 1334437.20 1334437.21 1334437.22 1334437.23Depth: 100mm 100mm 100mm 100mm 100mm 300mm 450mm 100mm 100mm 100mm 300mm 100mm 150mm 150mm 150mm 150mm

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 3 3 3 4 3 - - 3 3 3 - 3 3 3 2 2 0% 17 NES 17 CCME 3.4 - 11.5

Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.27 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.16 - - 0.14 0.14 0.22 - 0.25 0.14 0.19 0.15 0.15 0% 0.8 NES 10 CCME 0.06 - 0.18

Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 12 11 10 12 11 - - 11 11 12 - 11 11 13 11 10 10% 290 NES 64 CCME 11.0 - 20.8

Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 7 8 5 4 10 - - 11 8 13 - 12 8 18 6 6 0% >10,000 NES 63 CCME 7.1 - 18.8

Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 48 21 11.5 14.7 320 172 63 210 107 290 75 178 75 60 27 26 4% 160 NES 300 CCME 18.7 - 37.4

Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 7 7 8 7 8 - - 8 8 8 - 8 8 9 7 7 0% 130 EAUK 50 CCME 8.7 - 19

Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 114 50 50 490 124 - - 129 96 160 - 191 84 111 67 68 1% 7,400 NEPM 200 CCME 50.7 - 86.5

Organochlorine Pesticides Screening was performed on sample SS4.1 and no contamination was found above detectable limits.

RW1 RW2

Aqueous Results (Rinse Water) 1334437.24 1334437.49

< 0.0010 0.0025

< 0.00005 < 0.00005

0.0005 0.0012

0.029 0.0047

0.00084 0.0013

< 0.0005 < 0.00050.0125 0.043




CCME - Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, CCME (updated 2012)

1 The range of concentrations for "Recent", "Yellow Brown Sandy" and "Yellow Brown Stony" soils group from Background concentrations of selected trace elements in Canterbury soils, Tonkin and Taylor, July 2007

BR Blind replicate for statistical QA purposes

Guideline values

g/m³

g/m³

Reference

Ecological

receptors Reference Background1

Heavy Metals

Rural /

Lifestyle 25%

Indicates result exceeds soil guideline value

Lead g/m³

Analyte

Heavy Metals

Arsenic

g/m³ Indicates result exceeds background value for soil type

Indicates result exceeds ecological guideline value

Zinc

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Nickelg/m³

Sample Name:

Lab Number:

g/m³

g/m³

Table of Results - Wilfield Estates, Weedons Ross Road, West MeltonDate of testing: 2 & 17 October, 2014

Sheep Yard Area

Analyte Sample Name: SS13.1 SS13.2 SS13.3 SS14.1 SS14.2 SS15.1 SS15.2 SS16.1 SS16.2 SS17.1 SS18.1 SS19.1 SS19.2 SS19.3

Soil Results Lab Number: 1334437.25 1334437.26 1334437.27 1334437.28 1334437.29 1334437.30 1334437.31 1334437.32 1334437.33 1334437.34 1334437.35 1334437.36 1334437.37 1334437.38Depth: 100mm 300mm 450mm 100mm 300mm 100mm 300mm 100mm 300mm 150mm 150mm 100mm 300mm 450mm

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 1560 5800 4600 15 57 74 26 13 6 9 5 118 153 87 80 NES 17 CCME 11.5

Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 2 1.83 - < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10 0.16 0.13 0.17 < 0.10 - 400 NES 10 CCME 0.18

Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 14 14 - 11 12 17 - 16 12 12 15 14 13 - 2,700 NES 64 CCME 20.8

Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 410 1910 - 9 12 61 - 9 6 6 9 25 10 - >10,000 NES 63 CCME 18.8

Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 65 40 - 13.7 15.3 16.3 - 14.8 12.2 13.9 13.6 23 14.5 - 880 NES 300 CCME 37.4

Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 9 9 - 9 9 9 - 10 10 8 9 8 9 - 230 EAUK 50 CCME 19

Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 480 550 - 102 80 62 - 53 41 61 93 133 89 - 30,000 NEPM 200 CCME 86.5

Total arsenic SPLP mg/l - 9.6 - - - - - - - - - 0.094 - - - - - - -

Organochlorine Pesticides Screening in Soil

Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

cis-Chlordane mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

trans-Chlordane mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Total Chlordane [(cis+trans)*100/42] mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 < 0.04 - - - - - < 0.04 < 0.04 - - < 0.04 < 0.04 - - -

2,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 0.015 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

2,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt 0.051 0.041 - - - - - 0.014 < 0.010 - - 0.65 0.143 - - -

2,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 0.015 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - 0.083 0.012 - - -

4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt 0.036 0.056 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - 0.23 0.029 - - -

Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt 3.4 4.4 - - - - - 0.034 < 0.010 - - 0.2 0.074 - 70 NES

Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Endrin mg/kg dry wt 0.048 0.086 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Endrin aldehyde mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt 0.081 0.131 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Methoxychlor mg/kg dry wt < 0.010 < 0.010 - - - - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - < 0.010 < 0.010 - - -

Total DDT mg/kg dry wt 0.087 0.112 - - - - - 0.014 0 - - 0.88 0.172 - 400 NES

Analyte Sample Name: SS20.1 SS21.1 SS21.2BR SS22.1 SS23.1 SS24.1 SS25.1 SS26.1 SS27.1 SS27.2BR SS27.3 SS27.4 RPD value RPD value

Soil Results Lab Number: 1334437.39 1334437.40 1334437.41 1334437.42 1334437.43 1334437.44 1334437.45 1334437.46 1334437.47 1334437.48 1340615.1 1340615.2Depth: 150mm 100mm 100mm 150mm 150mm 150mm 150mm 100mm 150mm 150mm 300mm 450mm

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 8 5 5 7 6 5 5 10 103 106 36 12 0% 3% 80 NES 17 CCME 11.5

Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.2 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 0.15 0.2 < 0.10 0.13 0.1 - - - 30% 400 NES 10 CCME 0.18

Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 13 15 16 14 12 13 15 15 14 14 - - 6% 0% 2,700 NES 64 CCME 20.8

Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 13 4 4 7 5 6 7 6 22 21 - - 0% 5% >10,000 NES 63 CCME 18.8

Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 17 15.4 16.1 15.2 12.7 14.3 14.6 15.9 14.2 14 - - 4% 1% 880 NES 300 CCME 37.4

Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 8 9 9 8 8 9 9 10 9 9 - - 0% 0% 230 EAUK 50 CCME 19

Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 98 61 62 85 48 58 59 58 92 89 - - 2% 3% 30,000 NEPM 200 CCME 86.5

Analyte Sample Name: SS28.1 SS28.2 SS29.1 SS29.2 SS30.1 SS30.2 SS30.3BR SS31.1 SS32.1 SS33.1 SS34.1 SS35.1 RPD value

Soil Results Lab Number: 1340615.3 1340615.4 1340615.5 1340615.6 1340615.7 1340615.8 1340615.9 1340615.10 1340615.11 1340615.12 1340615.13 1340615.14Depth: 150mm 300mm 150mm 300mm 150mm 300mm 300mm 150mm 150mm 150mm 150mm 150mm

Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 158 85 57 33 19 10 12 122 82 7 6 5 17% 80 NES 17 CCME 11.5

RW1 RW2 RW3

Aqueous Results (Rinse Water) 1334437.24 1334437.49 1340615.15

< 0.0010 0.0025 < 0.0010

< 0.00005 < 0.00005 0.0003

0.0005 0.0012 0.0007

0.0290 0.0047 0.0188

0.00084 0.00130 0.00084

< 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.00070.0125 0.0430 0.0200




CCME - Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, CCME (updated 2012)

1 Concentrations for "Recent" soil group from Background concentrations of selected trace elements in Canterbury soils, Tonkin and Taylor, July 2007

BR Blind replicate for statistical QA purposes

Guideline values

Recreational

Limits Reference

Ecological


Heavy Metals

Analyte Sample Name:

Lab Number:

Heavy Metals

Guideline values

SS21 SS27 Recreational

Limits

Chromium g/m³

Indicates result exceeds soil guideline value

Arsenic g/m³

Cadmium g/m³ Indicates result exceeds ecological guideline value

Guideline values

Nickel g/m³Zinc g/m³

Copper g/m³ Indicates result exceeds background value for soil type

Lead g/m³

Reference

Ecological


Heavy Metals

Reference Background1

Heavy Metals

SS30 Recreational

Limits Reference

Ecological

receptors


Appendix F – Remediation Plans


021 132 0321

[email protected]

Scale: NTS



Wilfield Sheep Yard Remediation Plan


LEGEND

Soil sample lab tested and

exceeds Recreational SGV

Soil sample tested in-situ

by XRF that exceeds

Recreational SGV

Soil sample tested in-situ

by XRF with elevated levels

of arsenic

Extent of remediation area

Remediation extent to be

delineated during

remediation by XRF

Notes: 1. This plan has been prepared for

soil contamination risk

assessment purposes only. No

liability is accepted if the plan is

used for any other purposes.

2. Any measurements taken from

this plan which are not

dimensioned on the electronic

copy are at the risk of the user.


approximate only.

1

SS1

HEDGE LINE IM

PLE

MEN

T

SHED

DRAIN

65 • 60 •

• 67

48

51 •

52 •

• 59

SS32 SS27

SS28

SS31

SS13

SS19

Note – All readings for arsenic,

both XRF and lab results, in these

yard areas were below

background levels

• 1


021 132 0321

[email protected]

Scale: NTS



Wilfield Homestead Remediation Plan


LEGEND



that exceeds

Rural/Residential

25% Produce SGV

Extent of

remediation area

Remediation extent

to be delineated

during remediation

by XRF






purposes.



dimensioned on the


risk of the user.


approximate only.

1

1

31 SS5

BARN

SS6

SS8 SS7

17

22

23

30

SS7

32


Appendix G – Risk Screening Analysis

Site: PATHWAY RISK:

NOTES

Site Type (HAIL): SITE RISK:

Comments: High >0.4 to 1

Medium >0.02 to <0.4

Low 0 to <0.02

Date:

Assessor: Aquifer Type:

Toxicity Value Comments Toxicity Value Comments Toxicity Value Comments

0.2 = Low

0.6 = Med

1 = High

na = bypass substance

0.2 = Low

0.6 = Med

1 = High


1.0.2 = Low

0.6 = Med

1 = High


Extent/Quantity Extent/Quantity Extent/Quantity

0.4 = Small

0.7 = Medium

1 = Large


0.4 = Small

0.7 = Medium

1 = Large


0.70.4 = Small

0.7 = Medium

1 = Large


Mobility, when released Mobility, when released Mobility, when released

0.3 = Low

0.7 = Medium

1 = High


0.3 = Low

0.7 = Medium

1 = High


0.10.3 = Low

0.7 = Medium

1 = High or at surface


Containment Containment Containment

0.2 = Full

0.7 = Medium

1 = None

0.2 = Full

0.7 = Medium

1 = None 1.0.2 = Full

0.7 = Medium

1 = None

Direct or Sediment Runoff/Flood Potential Thickness of low permeability layer over aquifer Surface Cover

0.2 = Low

0.6 = Medium

1 = High

0.4 = >15m low perm.

0.7 = 5m low perm.

1 = Unconfined 0.50.3 = No access/paved

0.8 = Limited access

1 = No limit to access

Distance to user/aquifer type Soil permeability

Coarse sand/sandy gravel

0.3 = 1,000m

0.6 = 500m

1 = <350m

0.40.3 = Low, e.g. clay

0.8 = Medium

1 = High, e.g. silty sand

Depth to Hazard

0.5 = >3m

0.8 = 2m

1 = <1m

Water use Water use Land use

1.

Surface Water Risk: Groundwater Risk: LOW Direct Contact Risk:

Score: Score: n/a

Direct Contact Exposure Pathway - MEDIUMGroundwater Exposure Pathway - LOWSurface Water Exposure Pathway - LOW

LOW - LOW - MEDIUM

surface water - groundwater - direct contact

MEDIUM

MEDIUM

1.

1.

1.

1.

0.7

n/a

0.1

0.20.2 not used

0.3 significant waterway

0.7 irrigation

0.7 stockwater

1 domestic / potable

0.20.2 parks, recreation

0.4 maintenance workers

0.5 industrial / commercial

0.5 secondary schools

1 agricultural

1 residential

1 pre-/primary schools.

1.

1.

LOW

n/a

1.

Score:

20 m thick layer of claybound

gravels at well M35/18112 7m

thick layer at M35/7747

Nearest well is 770m away and

36m deep

PA

TH

WA

Y

PA

TH

WA

Y

0.1

0.2 not used / industrial

0.7 irrigation

0.7 stockwater

0.7 significant waterway

1 contact recreation

1 domestic

Livestock dip or spray race operations

Nicola Peacock

31/10/2014

1.

0.7

Template for Risk Screening System

-

-

-

-

-

-

RSS Document should be consulted prior to using this template

To manually calculate the Site Risk, multiply each parameter for the individual receptor

pathways.

This template will not calculate the Risk until "Site" information is entered

Place a 'tick' in the small boxes if information is not known.

Links to assistance for calculating toxicity and mobility parameters are listed on the

"References" worksheet

'na' against any of Toxicity, Quantity or Mobility will result in all these values being

bypassed in that pathway in calculating the score. A numerical value of the score is

returned as a "Special Case" for comparing sites of similar types. A ranking is not

calculated.

Ranges for risk ranking

Proposed Use

Wilfield Sheep Yard

Coarse sand or Sandy gravel

Assessment Type:

HA

ZA

RD

PA

TH

WA

YR

EC

EP

TO

R

HA

ZA

RD

PA

TH

WA

YR

EC

EP

TO

R

RE

CE

PT

OR

RE

CE

PT

OR

HA

ZA

RD

HA

ZA

RD

soil contamination risk stage 2 - detailed site

Documents