combined preliminary and detailed site investigation - epa

Creative Thinking | Better Environments gwe.co.nz

ŌMĀHU

COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND

DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION

224 Great South Road

Greenlane, Auckland

CENTAURI MANAGEMENT LIMITED September 2021 | V1

224 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland

Ōmāhu | Combined Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation

Final - Approved for Issue

i

DOCUMENT CONTROL RECORD

Client: Centauri Management Limited

Project Location: 224 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland

Job Number: J3217

Document: Ōmāhu | Combined Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation

Version: V1

Document Status: Final - Approved for Issue

Date: September 2021

Prepared by:

Emily Collings, Environmental Engineer

Reviewed by:

David Slack, Principal Environmental Scientist

Approved by:

Emma Trembath, Technical Director – Environment and Contaminated Land

Filename: W:\Active Projects\COM\Omahu Apartment Development-J2852_J3217\06-

Contam\04-Reports\02_PSI-DSI (Sep 2021)\RENV01v1 FINAL-Ōmāhu-Combined

PSI-DSI.docx

GWE Consulting Engineers

Ground Floor Oceanbridge House 25 Anzac Street Takapuna Auckland 0622

PO Box 32 311 Devonport Auckland 0624

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of GWE Consulting Ltd. Use or copying of this document

in whole or in part without the written permission of GWE constitutes an infringement of copyright.




ii

DOCUMENT STATUS

STATUS DATE DETAILS AUTHORS CHECKED APPROVED

DRAFT 27/09/2021 FIRST ISSUE EJC & DS ET CC

FINAL 07/10/2021 RENV01v1 EJC & DS ET CC




iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Preface.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Proposed Development .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Investigation Objective .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Scope of Works................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Investigation Framework ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.6 Report Certification ........................................................................................................................................... 3

2 PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 4

2.1 Site and Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Site Identification ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Site Description................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.3 Surrounding Landuse ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.4 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.5 Underground Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Historical Information Review ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Historical Aerial Photography Review ........................................................................................................ 6

2.2.2 Certificates of Title ............................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.3 Property File Review ......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.4 Auckland Council Site Contamination Enquiry ....................................................................................... 7

2.2.5 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations ............................................................................ 8

2.3 Site Walkover ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.4.1 Site Development History ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.4.2 Summary of HAIL Activity ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.4.3 Areas of Potential Concern .......................................................................................................................... 11

3 DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................... 12

3.1 Investigation Rationale .................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Investigation Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Investigation Results ....................................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Adopted Acceptance Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.2 Waste Acceptance Classes ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.3 Field Observations ........................................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.4 Soil Analytical Results ..................................................................................................................................... 15

3.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................................................................................... 15




iv

4 TIER 1 RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 16

4.1 Discussion of Analytical Results ................................................................................................................. 16

4.1.1 Zone A (Great South Road) .......................................................................................................................... 16

4.1.2 Zone B (Ōmāhu Road) ................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Conceptual Site Model Summary .............................................................................................................. 17

4.3 Exposure Pathway Assessment ................................................................................................................... 17

5 MATERIAL DISPOSAL AND REUSE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 20

5.1 Anticipated Spoil Volumes ........................................................................................................................... 20

5.2 Offsite Spoil Removal ..................................................................................................................................... 20

5.3 Onsite Re-use of Spoil ................................................................................................................................... 20

6 REGULATORY ASSESSMENT (CONTAMINATED LAND) ............................................... 21

6.1 NES-CS Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 21

6.1.1 NES-CS Applicability ....................................................................................................................................... 21

6.1.2 NES-CS Activity Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 21

6.2 Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part ................................................................................................ 22

7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 23

8 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 24

9 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Detailed Site Investigation Contents Checklist

APPENDIX B Figures

APPENDIX C Analytical Results and 95% UCL Calculations

APPENDIX D Historical Aerial Photography Review

APPENDIX E Certificates of Title Summary

APPENDIX F Asbestos Demolition Survey Summary

APPENDIX G Machine Borehole and Sampling Logs

APPENDIX H Laboratory Documentation

APPENDIX I Waste Acceptance Definitions

APPENDIX J Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)




v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Site Details Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Summary of Surrounding Landuse Activity ............................................................................................ 5

Table 3: Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 4: Summary of HAIL Categories ..................................................................................................................... 10

Table 5: Sample Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 6: Adopted Acceptance Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 14

Table 7: 95% UCL Calculations ................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 8: Exposure Pathway Assessment ................................................................................................................. 18

Table 9: Recommendations for Soil Disposal ....................................................................................................... 20

Table 10: Applicability of the NES-CS ...................................................................................................................... 21

Table 11: NES-CS Permitted Activity Assessment ............................................................................................... 22




1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preface

GWE Consulting Limited (GWE) was engaged by Centauri Management Limited to

prepare a combined Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) and Detailed Site Investigation

(DSI) in support of a proposed residential development of the site currently occupied by

the Laura Fergusson Trust (LFT) Rehabilitation Centre (the site). For the purposes of this

investigation, the site encompasses the properties at 224 Great South Road, 49-51

Ōmāhu Road, 53 Ōmāhu Road, and 53A Ōmāhu Road in Greenlane, Auckland. The site

location is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan1

1 Source: https://geomapspublic.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/viewer/index.html

https://geomapspublic.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/viewer/index.html




2

1.2 Proposed Development

A series of architectural plans prepared by Warren and Mahoney2 have been provided,

indicating the location and extent of the proposed development at the site. The

drawings include site plans, floor plans and elevations (SK-001 to SK-008).

Based on these plans, GWE understands that all existing buildings and site features that

comprise the LFT Rehabilitation Centre are to be demolished and removed.

The proposed development will comprise seven medium-rise residential apartment

buildings (buildings A to G), approximately three to six stories high. The residential

development will also incorporate commercial/hospitality areas and be constructed

around a central park and two pocket parks, all interconnected by laneways and mews.

The main pedestrian and service vehicle entrance will be via Great South Road.

The development will be constructed over a large, single-level basement carpark,

approximately 1 hectare (ha) in size. The proposed basement floor level is RL

75.15-76.3, approximately 3.7–3.85 m below the proposed ground floor level. Access to

the basement carpark will be via Ōmāhu Road.

Earthworks associated with basement formation is likely to exceed a cut volume of

50,000 m3. Given the volume of the material, works timing, limited area available for

stockpiling, and final landform/building layout it is likely that the excavated material will

need to be removed from site.

1.3 Investigation Objective

The key objective of the investigation was to complete a PSI-DSI in support of the

development resource consent application.

Recommendations are to be provide with respect to:

• Off-site soil disposal and materials reuse.

• Contaminated land resource consent requirements.

1.4 Scope of Works

The following scope of works were completed to achieve the investigation objective:

• Review of available desktop study information at the time of writing, including:

- Historical and current aerial photography.

- Available geological mapping.

- Certificates of Title (CoT).

- Previous environmental reporting which included Auckland Council (AC)

contaminated land records and property file information.

- Information pertaining to the site provided by the client.

• Completion of a site investigation, including:

2 Warren and Mahoney, Ōmāhu, Job No. 9242.




3

- Site walkover.

- Collection of soil samples during advancement of machine drilled boreholes

for laboratory analysis of contaminants of potential concern including heavy

metals, organochlorine pesticides (OCP), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAH), and asbestos.

• Preparation of this combined PSI-DSI report.

1.5 Investigation Framework

The PSI-DSI has been developed in general accordance with the following guidelines:

• Ministry for the Environment (MfE), Contaminated Land Management Guidelines

(CLMG) No. 1: Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (MfE, revised

2021).

• MfE, CLMG No. 5 Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils (MfE, revised 2021).

• Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and

Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (the

NES-CS).

• Building Research Advisory Council New Zealand (BRANZ), New Zealand Guidelines

for Managing and Assessing Asbestos in Soil (2017).

This PSI-DSI report has been prepared in generally accordance with the DSI table of

contents guide outlined in the CLMG No 1. A copy of the table of contents guide is

provided in Appendix A.

1.6 Report Certification

This report has been certified by a GWE Suitably Qualified and Experienced Practitioner

(SQEP) with relevant experience and qualifications defined by the NES:CS Users’ Guide3.

3 Ministry for the Environment, Users’ Guide National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil

to Protect Human Health, April 2012.




4

2 PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION

2.1 Site and Environmental Setting

2.1.1 Site Identification

The site comprises four property titles and is irregular in plan shape. The total land area

is approximately 14,686 m2 (1.47 ha). The site is zoned Residential - Terrace Housing and

Apartment Building Zone under the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP).

Specific site details are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Site Details Summary

Attribute Details


Legal description Lot 1 DP 146628, Lot 4 Deeds Reg 308, Lot 5 Deeds Reg 308

Certificate of Title (CoT) number NA87B/952, NA513/265, NA513/268

Coordinates (NZTM) E1759302, N5916468

Current site area 9,235 m2

49-51 Ōmāhu Road, Greenlane, Auckland

Legal description Lot 2 DP 146628

Certificate of Title (CoT) number NA87B/953



53 Ōmāhu Road, Greenlane, Auckland


Certificate of Title (CoT) number NA14D/216


Current site area 981 m2

53A Ōmāhu Road, Greenlane, Auckland


Certificate of Title (CoT) number NA14D/217



2.1.2 Site Description

The site comprises the LFT rehabilitation centre, with treatment facilities, residential

living units, respite care, gym, indoor pool, and car parking. However, the centre closed

in March 2020 and is currently only utilised for patient care in two on-site structures.




5

2.1.3 Surrounding Landuse

A summary of the landuse surrounding the site is provide in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Surrounding Landuse Activity

Direction Surrounding Landuse

North-east A railway line is present directly adjacent to the north-eastern site boundary,

beyond which is the Southern Motorway.

East Ōmāhu Road with residential properties beyond.

South Residential properties. During the site walkover (refer to Section 3.9) the

adjacent property at 232 Great South Road is vacant (the former dwelling

has been removed).

South-west Great South Road with commercial and residential properties beyond.

North/north-west Residential properties.

2.1.4 Environmental Setting

Table 3 presents a summary of the site’s environmental setting.

Table 3: Environmental Setting

Item Description

Topography The site topography is generally flat (RL 80) with a slight increase in elevation

towards the railway on the north-eastern site boundary.

A stormwater overland flow path is noted on the AC’s online GeoMaps to

flow along the south-eastern property boundary at 224 Great South Road in

a south-west direction towards Great South Road.

Geology Mapped Geology: GNS Geology Maps4 indicates the geology at the site and

surrounding land to be Auckland Basalts tuff (Kerikeri Volcanic Group) of

Auckland Volcanic Field. The geology is described as ‘lithic tuff, comprising

comminuted pre-volcanic materials with basaltic fragments, and

unconsolidated ash and lapilli deposits.’

Site Investigations: Geotechnical investigations were undertaken at the site

in 20195 and 20216. Shallow materials comprised either topsoil to 0.2 m

below ground level (bgl), with some underlying fill up to 1.2 m bgl in the

southern portion of 224 Great South Road or hardstand (asphalt/concrete)

generally underlain by gravely basecourse fill to 0.5 m bgl. The shallow

materials were underlain by Auckland Volcanic Field soils (silty clay and clayey

silt with trace basaltic gravel) up to 4.1 m bgl (layer thickness between 0.7

and 2.8 m). Beneath the volcanic soils were alluvial silts and clays of the

Puketoka Formation, underlain by East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF)

comprising predominantly silty clay with layers of clayey silt and silty sand

becoming extremely weak to very weak siltstone and sandstone with depth.

Hydrogeology Previous site investigations encountered groundwater at approximately 2.8 to

3.6 m bgl under summertime conditions.

4 GNS Science Geology Web Maps accessed via: https://data.gns.cri.nz/geology/ 5 ENGEO Limited, 2019. Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, 224 Great South Road, Remuera, Auckland (report ref.

15627.000.000_02), dated 11 January 2019. 6 GWE Consulting Limited, 2021. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Ōmāhu Apartments. 224 Great South Road, Greenlane,

Auckland (draft report).

https://data.gns.cri.nz/geology/




6

Item Description

Sensitive

Ecological

Receptors

As indicated by AC GeoMaps, the site is located within the Ellerslie

stormwater catchment. The receiving environment is the Waiatarua Reserve,

approximately 2.9 kilometres (km) to the east of the site and is the nearest

sensitive ecological receptor.

2.1.5 Underground Utilities

The site is served by and contains reticulated services including stormwater, wastewater

and water supply infrastructure:

• On-site stormwater lines comprise 150, 225, 300, and 375 mm diameter gravity

concrete pipes. There are numerous catchpits and stormwater manholes around the

site.

• The on-site wastewater line comprises 150 and 225 mm diameter gravity vitrified

clay (VC) pipe, installed in July 1917. The services are at a depth of approximately

4 m bgl at the on-site manhole. There are wastewater manholes across the site.

The VC pipe is to be replaced as part of the development of the site.

• The site is connected to the WaterCare reticulated water supply network. Water

supply enters the site at various locations (224 Great South Road, 53 Ōmāhu Road

and 53A Ōmāhu Road). AC GeoMaps and Watercare GIS viewer, identify the

100 mm diameter water supply pipe entering 224 Great South Road to be asbestos

cement (AC). Other pipes are mapped to be 20 mm diameter polyethylene (PE).

A fibre optic cable is present along the eastern site boundary with the railway line.

High voltage power supply enters the site and is controlled at the service room onsite.

A medium pressure gas line is present, visible entering the site on the eastern site

corner.

2.2 Historical Information Review

2.2.1 Historical Aerial Photography Review

A review of available historical aerial photography was undertaken and an annotated

planning map from circa 1931 was sourced and interpreted as part of the review. A

detailed summary and copies of the aerial photography and planning map are provided

in Appendix D.

It appears that the site was originally a mix of residential and horticultural (1931 through

1967) landuse. The horticultural activity appears limited to the northern section of 224

Great South Road and likely included a nursery, sheds, minor storage and greenhouses.

The site was developed for its current landuse, the LFT Rehabilitation Centre, from 1965.

Between 1965 and 2001 the site was expanded upon with new buildings and facilities

developed. Since 2001, no major changes have been visible at the site.




7

2.2.2 Certificates of Title

A summary of all historic CoT reviewed is presented in Appendix E.

The land has been subdivided and amalgamated over time and the site has been owned

and leased by multiple parties.

The original site owner (titles issued in 1928) was The Dilworth Trust Board (DTB), a

body corporate under the provisions of ‘The Religious Charitable and Educational Trust

Board Incorporation Act, 1884’. The DTB leased the land to multiple parties between

approximately 1917 and 1996. The occupations of the parties are not always noted on

the historic leases, however of those that are listed, there are none which relate to

activities on the MfE Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL). Most lessees are

private individuals (except for Challis Properties Limited), until the LFT begin

commenced activity at the site in 1965. LTF purchased all four titles between 1983 and

2012 (53A Ōmāhu Road).

During the period of horticulture on the north of 224 Great South Road (approximately

1931 through1967), the site was owned by Norman Gloag Smith; no occupation is listed

on the CoT. A web search of his name returned online Cenotaph records likely to be the

same Norman Gloag Smith. His training and enlistment in 1942 and 1943 state

Nurseryman/Civilian.

2.2.3 Property File Review

Property files were not obtained as part of this investigation. A property file review is

summarised from the previous environmental investigation at the site (ENGEO Limited

(ENGEO), 2019).

The property file lists a number of building consents and permits. Key findings of

property file review include:

• The site was developed for residential purposes, as early as 1921.

• Construction of the majority of the buildings onsite was completed pre-1980,

therefore asbestos and lead-based paint may be present within the structure and

potentially in a degrading state or having been subject to maintenance.

• The file did not contain an asbestos register.

• The LFT have had a presence at the site since 1965 (leased initially) and began

building the commercial rehabilitation facility on 224 Great South Road in 1968.

2.2.4 Auckland Council Site Contamination Enquiry

An AC Site Contamination Enquiry was made as part of the previous environmental

investigation at the site (ENGEO, 2019). AC Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit

provided information for the site regarding contamination information (22 November

2018).

No pollution incident files were available. No air discharge, industrial/trade process, or

contaminated site discharge consents were recorded against properties at the site, or at

immediately adjacent properties (200 m radius).




8

Two bores are located within a 200 m radius of the site. One bore was drilled pre 1987

and the other, on Patey Street, was used for geotechnical purposes.

The records reviewed as part of the Site Contamination Enquiry did not identify

individual horticultural sites in the region, however it was noted that there is a possibility

that horticultural activities may have occurred at the site.

2.2.5 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations

Asbestos Demolition Surveys (ENGEO, 2018)

ENGEO carried out thirteen Asbestos Demolition Surveys7 for buildings at the site. As

part of this PSI-DSI, GWE were provided with one survey in full (CNU and 53a) and the

remainder were missing appendices, including laboratory results and condition

descriptions of the material.

The scope of the surveys were inspections of all buildings at the site, including all

accessible internal, external, sub-floor and roof spaces. Suspected asbestos containing

material (ACM) was sampled where accessible.

Externally, asbestos was identified in soffits, cement base sheeting, bituminous roof

material, fuse boards and an external hot water cylinder at the site. All identified

asbestos was determined to be of low risk (which included consideration of material

type, condition, whether it is sealed or not, and potential for disturbance). A summary

of the exterior asbestos identified in the ENGEO Asbestos Demolition Surveys is

provided in Appendix F.

Combined PSI and DSI Report (ENGEO, 2019)

In December 2018, ENGEO undertook a soil sampling investigation at the site as part of

a combined PSI-DSI8. The desktop information review identified the horticultural

landuse in the northern portion of 224 Great South Road, as well as the general age of

the site buildings with the potential for ACM and lead based paint to be present.

As part of the DSI, 46 samples were collected from across the entire site adjacent to

buildings and analysed for lead and asbestos (semi-quantitative). Eight additional

samples were also collected from within the former horticultural area, analysed for

heavy metals and OCPs. All samples were collected from shallow depths (topsoil)

between 0.0 and 0.05 m bgl. The location of the samples is presented on Drawing 701

in Appendix B.

The analytical results have been tabulated (refer to Table C1 in Appendix C) and

compared to the relevant soil quality acceptance criteria adopted as part of the current

investigation based on the proposed residential landuse (refer to Section 3.3). In

summary:

7 ENGEO Limited, 2018. Asbestos Demolition Survey reports prepared for Laura Fergusson Trust, issued 6 December 2018

(report references: 15627.000.000). Thirteen reports were issued each covering different buildings at the site. The reports can be

made available on request. 8 ENGEO Limited, 2019. Combined Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation, 224 Great South Road, Greenland, Auckland,

dated 7 February 2019 (Report reference: 15627.000.000_04). The report can be made available on request.




9

• Concentrations of lead were recorded above the upper Background Range in the

majority of samples analysed from the site. Nine exceedances of the AC PA Criteria

for lead were recorded. Elevated concentrations of lead were recorded adjacent to

the older dwellings within the former residential properties at 49 to 51 and

53 Ōmāhu Road, with seven exceedances of the NES-CS (maximum recorded

concentration was 3,700 mg/kg).

• Arsenic was recorded at concentrations slightly above the upper Background Range

in three of the eight samples collected within the former horticultural area.

• Nickel was recorded at a concentration slightly above the AC PA Criteria in one soil

sample.

• OCPs were recorded below the laboratory limit of reporting (LOR) within the former

horticultural area, with the exception of endosulfan I which was recorded at low

concentrations marginally above the LOR in five of the eight samples. The

recorded concentration of endosulfan I was orders of magnitude below the

adopted human health criteria.

• Asbestos was detected in three surface soil samples adjacent to the buildings

within the former residential properties at 49 to 51, and 53A Ōmāhu Road. Of

these, two samples recorded asbestos concentrations above the BRANZ Guidelines.

No sampling of deeper soils was undertaken so the vertical extent of the contamination

was undefined by the investigation. In addition, further lateral delineation of lead and

asbestos impact adjacent to the older buildings was not completed.

2.3 Site Walkover

A site walkover was completed by a GWE Environmental Engineer on 9 August 2021.

GWE was given access to the entire site area. The walkover focused on exterior spaces

only. Site walkover observations are summarised as follows:

• The site comprised the former LFT head office and rehabilitation centre with

carparking, residential living, respite care, gym, and pool.

• The main LTF building, comprising administration, treatment rooms, gym and

indoor pool, is positioned on the west of 224 Great South Road. The rest of the site

is largely occupied by residential units, with paths in between and interspersed

small-scale gardens and green spaces.

- Residential units are predominantly made from brick and timber.

- Two larger buildings (likely the residential dwellings built in the 1920’s) located

on the east of the site (at 49 to 51 and 53 Ōmāhu Road) are of timber

construction with deteriorating, flaking paint visible.

- Gardens around the site include raised beds (some with railway sleepers),

garden bed covered with shell, rose garden, fruit trees, and lawns.

- Citrus and olive trees were noted onsite. Olive trees were located on the north

of the site, within the area of former plant nursery area and may be remnants

of the former landuse. The citrus trees are located on the east of the site

(outside area of former horticulture).




10

• A large percentage of the site’s surface cover is impervious comprising roofs,

concrete, asphalt, stone, paving, brick, tiles, and some gravel.

• A large timber pole retaining wall is present on the north-eastern site corner,

adjacent to the railway. A block retaining wall is present on the north-western site

boundary.

• A small stockpile of inert materials (tiles, bricks, etc.) was noted in the north of the

site.

• There was no storage of hazardous materials noted at the site.

2.4 Key Findings

2.4.1 Site Development History

The site was originally developed for residential purposes as early as 1921, with

horticultural landuse (plant nursery) also undertaken in the north-eastern portion of the

property at 224 Great South Road from at least the early 1930s until 1968.

From the mid-1960’s the site underwent extensive development for the LFT

rehabilitation centre. The property at 224 Great South Road became the main complex

with the residential properties at 49 to 51 Ōmāhu Road, 53 Ōmāhu Road, and

53A Ōmāhu Road adapted and modified over the years.

2.4.2 Summary of HAIL Activity

Based on the results of the PSI, refer to Table 4 for a summary of HAIL categories

pertinent to the site.

Table 4: Summary of HAIL Categories

Property Area of Potential Concern HAIL Category

224 Great South Road Former horticultural area.

Pre-1970 buildings.

A10 - Persistent pesticide bulk storage

or use including sport turfs, market

gardens, orchards, glass houses or

spray sheds.

224 Great South Road Stormwater overland flow

path.

Pre-1970 buildings.

I - Any other land that has been subject

to the intentional or accidental release

of a hazardous substances in sufficient

quantity that it could be a risk to

human health or the environment.

49 to 51 Ōmāhu Road,

53 Ōmāhu Road,

53A Ōmāhu Road

Pre-1970 buildings.

Near previously identified lead

and asbestos exceedances of

human health criteria.

E1 – Asbestos products manufacture or

disposal including sites with buildings

containing asbestos products known to

be in a deteriorated condition.

I - Any other land that has been subject

to the intentional or accidental release

of a hazardous substances in sufficient

quantity that it could be a risk to

human health or the environment.




11

2.4.3 Areas of Potential Concern

Based on the results of the PSI the site has been divided into two areas of potential

concern (refer to Drawing 701 in Appendix B):

• Zone A (Great South Road), incorporating the property at 224 Great South Road,

which includes the former horticultural area. Key contaminants of concern include

heavy metals.

• Zone B (Ōmāhu Road), incorporating the properties at 49 to 51, 53, and

53A Ōmāhu Road. These properties were originally residential landuse

commencing in the 1920’s and the original dwellings are still present on-site. Key

contaminants of concern include heavy metals and asbestos in soil.




12

3 DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION

3.1 Investigation Rationale

Based on the information review completed as part of the PSI it is evident that shallow

soils at the site have been impacted as a consequence of historical landuse activity.

Contaminants of concern include heavy metals (including lead) and asbestos.

The purpose of the GWE DSI was to confirm soil contaminant concentrations at depth

(commensurate with proposed basement excavation works).

Between 11 and 16 August 2021, six machine drilled boreholes (MH1 through MH6)

were advanced across the general site area. Refer to Drawing 701 in Appendix B, and

Table 5 for a summary of sample locations and rationale.

3.2 Investigation Methodology

Prior to intrusive works underground service identification was undertaken on

9 August 2021 by Underground Service Locators, using ground penetrating radar (GPR)

and a cable avoidance tool (CAT).

During the advancement of the boreholes environmental soil samples were collected by

GWE staff members as detailed below:

• Observed geology was recorded, with soil type classification and descriptions based

on the New Zealand Geotechnical Society Soil and Rock Guidelines (2005). A copy

of the borehole logs is provided in Appendix G.

• A total of twenty-nine soil samples were collected across all investigation locations.

Samples were collected at approximately 0.5 m intervals. A copy of the sample log

is provided in Appendix G.

• Duplicate samples for quality assurance/quality control purposes were collected in

accordance with CLMG No. 5.

• Samples were placed directly into laboratory supplied containers and stored on ice

in a chilled container while onsite and during transit to R J Hill Laboratories Limited

(Hill Laboratories).

• Samples were transported to Hill Laboratories under standard chain of custody

(CoC) procedures. A copy of the CoC is provided in Appendix H.

• To prevent cross contamination, a new pair of disposable nitrile gloves were used

for each soil sample collected.

• Selected soil samples (10 individual samples and one duplicate) were analysed.

Samples not analysed were kept on hold cold by Hill Laboratories. Table 5

summarises the selected sample analysis for a range of contaminants of potential

concern.

• The samples collected from 0.5 and 0.6 m bgl from each borehole were analysed

initially, followed four by deeper samples, up to 2.0 m bgl, to confirm findings.




13

All analysed samples were within the Auckland Volcanic Field soils, except one

sample (MH1(1.5)) which was collected within alluvial silts and clays of the Puketoka

Formation (non-volcanic soil background range).

• Spoil generated during the intrusive works was kept in core boxes to form part of

geotechnical analysis (reported under a separate cover).

Table 5: Sample Analysis

Borehole

ID

Hole

Depth

Sample Depths Analysed

Samples

Laboratory Analysis

MH1 19.5 m 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m,

2.0 m, 3.0 m

MH01, 0.5 Heavy metals, OCPs, PAHs, asbestos.

MH01, 1.5 Heavy metals.

MH2 15 m 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m,

2.0 m, 3.0 m



MH3 15 m 0.5 m (+QC), 1.0 m,

2.0 m, 3.0 m


MH03, QC Heavy metals.

MH4 16.5 m 0.6 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m,

2.0 m, 3.0 m


MH04, 1.0 Heavy metals, PAHs.

MH5 15 m 0.1 m (+QC), 0.5 m,

1.0 m, 2.0 m, 3.0 m



MH6 13.5 m 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m,

2.0 m, 3.0 m


Note: QC = Quality control sample, OCPs = organochlorine pesticides, PAHs = polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons.

3.3 Investigation Results

3.3.1 Adopted Acceptance Criteria

The adopted acceptance criteria for soil quality results have been selected in accordance

with the hierarchy defined by MfE CLMG No.2 Contaminated Land Management

Guidelines (MfE, 2003, revised 2011) and are summarised in Table 6.




14

Table 6: Adopted Acceptance Criteria

Regulations/Guidelines Scenario

Resource Management Act (National

Environmental Standard (NES) for Assessing and

Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect

Human Health) Regulations, 2011. Hereinafter

referred to as the NES-CS.

Soil contaminant standards for health (SCS) for

high-density residential landuse.

National Environmental Protection (Assessment

of Site Contamination) Measure (Australian

Government, 1999 (revised 2013). Hereinafter

referred to as the NEPM-HIL.

Soil Health Investigation Level for high-density

residential landuse (Residential B) for endosulfan

which is not included in the NES-CS but has

previously been recorded above laboratory

limits of reporting.

Building Research Advisory Council New

Zealand (BRANZ), New Zealand Guidelines for

Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil (2017).

Hereinafter referred to as the BRANZ Guidelines.

Soil guideline values for asbestos (w/w) for high-

density residential landuse.

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP)

(Auckland Council, 2016), Permitted Activity Soil

Acceptance Criteria (Table E30.6.1.4.1).

Hereinafter referred to as the AC PA Criteria

Applies to any site.

AUP (Auckland Council, 2016), Background

Ranges of Trace Elements in Auckland Soils

sourced from Table 3 of TP153:2001 Background

Concentrations of Inorganic Elements in Soils

from the Auckland Region (Table E30.6.1.4.2).

Hereinafter referred to as the Background

Ranges.

Volcanic range soil.

3.3.2 Waste Acceptance Classes

In addition to human health risk assessment criteria, waste acceptance criteria were also

considered for the off-site disposal of excavated material associated with the proposed

development. The criteria adopted for the waste classification is generally based on the

waste acceptance classes as defined by the AUPOiP (2021) and WasteMINZ (2016).

These fall into three categories; clean fill, managed fill, and landfill (contaminated). Full

definitions are provided in Appendix I.

3.3.3 Field Observations

The following is a summary of relevant field observations noted during machine

borehole advancement/soil sampling:

• No visual evidence of contamination (i.e., staining, anthropogenic materials) was

observed during borehole advancement.

• No olfactory evidence of contamination was noted throughout the investigation.




15

• Ground conditions encountered during the intrusive investigations generally

comprised hardstand (asphalt/concrete) at surface, followed by gravelly fill,

overlying natural Auckland Volcanic Field soils (silty clay and clayey silt with trace

basaltic gravel) up to 4.1 m bgl (layer thickness between 0.7 and 2.8 m). Beneath

the volcanic soils were alluvial silts and clays of the Puketoka Formation, underlain

by ECBF comprising predominantly silty clay with layers of clayey silt and silty sand

becoming extremely weak to very weak siltstone and sandstone with depth.

Machine borehole logs are included in Appendix F.

3.3.4 Soil Analytical Results

Analytical results from the DSI are presented in Table C1 in Appendix C, along with the

previous analytical results from samples collected in 2018. Laboratory results and CoC

information are presented in Appendix H. Discussion with respect to the ENGEO 2018

results is provided in Section 3.5.1. Discussion with respect to GWE DSI results is

provided below:

• No exceedances of the NES-CS, NEPM-HIL, BRANZ Guidelines, or Background

Ranges were recorded in the samples collected from depths (≥0.5 m bgl).

• Asbestos was not detected in any of the samples.

• OCPs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were all recorded below

laboratory LOR in all samples, except detections of three individual PAH

compounds marginally above LOR in one sample (MH04, 0.6).

• Two minor exceedances of the AC PA Criteria for nickel were recorded (109 and

111 mg/kg compared to the criteria value of 105 mg/kg). However, the samples

were collected from within the volcanic soil layer and therefore concentrations were

within the expected Background Range for such soils.

Additionally, the 95% upper confidence limit of the mean was calculated for nickel

in natural ground and the suggested value was 77.4 mg/kg, which is below the AC

PA Criteria (refer to Appendix C for the calculation summary).

3.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Refer to Appendix J for a summary of the QA/QC results for the GWE DSI, which

includes the relative percentage difference (RPD) tables for duplicate samples analysed.

The data validation procedure used in the assessment of the field and laboratory QA/QC

data indicated that the reported analytical results are representative of soil quality at the

sample locations and that the overall quality of the analytical data produced is

acceptably reliable for the purpose of this investigation.




16

4 TIER 1 RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Discussion of Analytical Results

Two soil investigations have been completed, one by ENGEO in 2018 and one by GWE

in 2021. The ENGEO investigation focussed on the shallow soil profile (topsoil), and the

GWE investigation focussed on the deeper soil profile commensurate with the basement

excavation for the site redevelopment. The following subsections discuss these results

in a holistic fashion.

4.1.1 Zone A (Great South Road)

Shallow soil samples collected from this zone:

• Recorded exceedances of the Background Ranges for lead, the AC PA Criteria for

nickel, and both the Background Ranges and AC PA Criteria for arsenic.

• The 95% upper confidence limit of the mean was calculated for lead, nickel and

arsenic results collected from this Zone (refer Table 7). Lead and arsenic

concentrations returned values in excess of the Background Range (marginal for

arsenic). Nickel returned a value below the AC PA Criteria.

• Recorded concentrations of OCPs at very low levels and orders of magnitude below

relevant human health criteria.

Deeper soil samples collected from this zone are commensurate with the Background

Range and not considered to have been impacted.

Table 7: 95% UCL Calculations

Analyte Number

of

Samples

Minimum

Recorded

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Maximum

Recorded

Concentration

(mg/kg)

95% Upper

Confidence

Limit

(mg/kg)

Background

Range

(mg/kg)*

AC Pa

Criteria

(mg/kg)*

Arsenic 10 5.47 16 13.6 12 100

Lead 33 16 370 145.1 65 250

Nickel 8 5 130 104.2 320 105

Note: *Refer to Table 6 for adopted acceptance criteria.

4.1.2 Zone B (Ōmāhu Road)

Shallow soil samples collected from this zone recorded elevated concentrations of lead

which exceeded the NES-CS adjacent to older residential buildings. Exceedances of the

BRANZ Guidelines were also recorded for asbestos in soil. Further delineation of heavy

metal and asbestos contamination is required within this zone (hotspot delineation).

However, due to the presence of building structures this delineation is recommended

for completion post demolition. Detail with respect to this delineation sampling is

included in the project Remedial Action Plan reported under separate cover.

Deeper soil samples collected from this zone are commensurate with the Background

Range and not considered to have been impacted.




17

4.2 Conceptual Site Model Summary

Based on the review of historic information, including historic soil analytical data, and

the results of the GWE DSI a basic conceptual site model (CSM) has been developed for

the site. In summary:

• The site was developed for residential landuse in the 1920’s, with horticultural

activities (plant nursery) undertaken in the northern portion of the property at

224 Great South Road.

• The commencement of nursery operations is unknown but appears to have been

undertaken since at least the early 1930s and continued until 1968. The nursery

operations included some structures, with the possibility of greenhouses being

present.

• In the mid 1960’s, construction of the existing LFT rehabilitation facility began, with

the main facility complex constructed at 224 Great South Road from 1968. The

properties at 49 to 53 Ōmāhu Road were progressively developed as part of the LFT

facility from the early 1970’s onwards.

• Site ground conditions generally comprise a hardstand/gravel basecourse fill layer

to 0.5 m bgl or a 0.2 m thick topsoil layer, with some underlying fill up to 1.2 m bgl

in the southern portion of 224 Great South Road. Underlying the topsoil/fill layers

are Auckland Volcanic Field soils (silty clay and clayey silt with trace basaltic gravel)

to 2.8 m in thickness. Beneath the volcanic soils are alluvial silts and clays, underlain

by ECBF soils (primarily silty clay) .

• Groundwater has been encountered between approximately 2.8 to 3.6 m bgl under

summertime conditions (generally within the volcanic soil layer).

• Shallow soil materials (topsoil) across the site have been impacted as a

consequence of historical landuse activity. However, significant lead and asbestos

in soil impact is limited to soil materials adjacent to older former residential

buildings within Zone B (Ōmāhu Road).

• The results for the deeper soils underlying the topsoil/hardstand across the site

indicate these soils are representative of natural conditions and not impacted by

historical landuse activities.

4.3 Exposure Pathway Assessment

An exposure pathway refers to the way a receptor can come into contact with a

hazardous substance. There are three basic exposure pathways: inhalation, ingestion, or

direct contact. The degree or extent of exposure is determined by measuring the

amount of the hazardous substance at the point of exposure.

Table 8 presents an exposure pathway assessment based on our understanding of the

CSM and consideration of the proposed residential development which will involve the

excavation and removal of significant soil volumes from the site in order to provide for a

basement carpark.




18

Based on shallow soil analytical results collected from the site several potentially

complete exposure pathways exist. However, it is considered that these can be

adequately managed and mitigated through the implementation of institutional

controls during development.

Table 8: Exposure Pathway Assessment

Potential

Contaminant

Source

Potential

Pathways

Potential

Receptors

Exposure Pathway

Assessment

Discussion

Impacted

surface soil

materials

(lead and

asbestos)

Soil ingestion

Dermal

contact

Inhalation of

contaminated

dust

(including

asbestos

fibres)

Future land

users

(residential)

Potentially

Complete

Exceedances of NES-CS

health derived soil

contaminant standard for

lead and BRANZ

Guidelines for asbestos

have been recorded in

surface soils within Zone B.

Without removal, the

surface soils may present a

health risk to residential

land users. Provision for

target soil removal is

included in the project

specific Remedial Action

Plan (RAP) reported under

separate cover.

Construction

workers

Potentially

Complete

During the proposed

ground disturbance works

site workers and adjacent

land users may be

exposed to impacted soil

dust and asbestos fibres. A

project RAP has been

prepared to mitigate this

risk. The plan will outline

soil management

procedures to ensure the

exposure pathway is

mitigated.

Adjacent

land users

Potentially

Complete

Soil erosion

during

development

Stormwater

water runoff

Receiving

environment

via overland

flow paths or

reticulated

stormwater

networks

Potentially

Complete

Exceedances of AC PA

Criteria have been

recorded in surface soils. A

project RAP has been

prepared to mitigate this

risk. The plan will outline

soil management

procedures to ensure the

exposure pathway is

mitigated.

Leaching/

migration of

contaminants

Surrounding

environment,

including

groundwater

Incomplete There is no evidence to

suggest that soil

contamination at the site

extends to depth and may

present a risk to

groundwater resources.




19

Potential

Contaminant

Source

Potential

Pathways

Potential

Receptors

Exposure Pathway

Assessment

Discussion

Off-site

material

disposal site

Potentially

Complete

The disposal site

excavated materials should

be to a licensed facility

authorised to accept such

materials. The project RAP

includes provisions to

manage this risk pathway.

Note: A complete or potentially complete pathway indicates there is a definitive or potential link through

all four exposure pathway elements; contaminant source → contaminant transport mechanism → point

where a receptor can come in contact with contaminant → route contaminant can enter receptor. An

incomplete pathway indicates a part of the link between contaminant source and a receptor does not

exist and no exposure risk is present.




20

5 MATERIAL DISPOSAL AND REUSE CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Anticipated Spoil Volumes

It is anticipated that the earthworks associated with the proposed development will

exceed 50,000 m3. Given the volume of the material, works timing, limited area available

for stockpiling, and final landform/building layout it is likely that the excavated material

will need to be removed from site.

5.2 Offsite Spoil Removal

Based on the soil analytical results and geological conditions encountered as part of site

investigations a preliminary summary of soil disposal recommendations has been

provided in Table 9. Further lateral delineation of the hot spot areas in Zone B (Ōmāhu

Road) is proposed once the buildings/structures have all been removed.

Each disposal facility has been assigned site specific waste acceptance criteria through

the consenting process and pre-approval will be required from facilities prior to material

acceptance. This may include provision of soil analytical results to allow the facility to

determine whether the soil material meets the facility’s acceptance criteria.

Table 9: Recommendations for Soil Disposal

Zone Soil Profile Recommendation

Zone A Topsoil and upper layer of natural

ground (volcanic field soils)):

0.0 – 0.35 m bgl

Clean fill or managed fill

Zone A Natural ground below

0.35 m bgl

Clean fill

Zone B Topsoil and upper layer of natural

ground (volcanic field soils)):

0.0 – 0.35 m bgl

Managed fill or landfill

Zone B Natural ground below

0.35 m bgl

Clean fill

5.3 Onsite Re-use of Spoil

In the event that spoil reuse is nominated as part of the project this should be limited to

natural soils below 0.35 m bgl.




21

6 REGULATORY ASSESSMENT (CONTAMINATED LAND)

To support the proposed development consideration will be needed as to contaminated

land resource consent requirements. A summary of applicable contaminated land

resource consent regulations and rules is provided below.

6.1 NES-CS Regulations

The NES-CS Regulations outline nationally consistent planning controls appropriate for

assessing and managing contaminants in soil in relation to human health. The NES-CS

prevails over the rules within District Plans, except where the rules permit or restrict

effects that are not dealt with in the NES-CS.

6.1.1 NES-CS Applicability

As per NES-CS regulation 5, the NES-CS is applicable when specific activities are

undertaken on a piece of land where a landuse activity described in the HAIL has or is

more likely than not to have occurred. An assessment of the applicability of the NES-CS

is provided in Table 10.

Table 10: Applicability of the NES-CS

NES-CS Assessment Criteria Applicability to the Site

Is/has an activity described by the HAIL currently being undertaken on

the piece of land to which this application applies?

Yes, refer Section 2.4.2

(Category A10, E1 and I)

Is it more likely than not that an activity described on the HAIL is

being or has been undertaken on the piece of land to which this

application applies?

Yes, as above

If Yes to any of the above, the NES-CS applies if any of the following five activities are to be

undertaken:

Propose to undertake removal or replacement of a fuel storage

system (or parts of it)?

No.

Propose to undertake soil sampling? No.

Propose to undertake soil disturbance? Yes

Propose to undertake subdivision of land? No

Propose to undertake change of land-use? Yes

6.1.2 NES-CS Activity Assessment

The permitted activity conditions for the relevant activities related to the proposed

development at the site (the piece of land) are summarised in Table 11.

The proposed development does not meet the Permitted Activity provisions of the

NES-CS. As such, the proposed development requires a NES-CS resource consent as a

Restricted Discretionary Activity (Regulation 10).




22

Table 11: NES-CS Permitted Activity Assessment

Soil Disturbance: NES-CS Permitted Activity Conditions - Regulation 8(3)

A Implementation of controls to minimise exposure of humans to mobilised contaminants.

B The soil must be reinstated to an erosion free state within one month of completing the land

disturbance.

C The volume of the disturbance of the piece of land must be no more than 25 m3 per 500 m2.

Based on a site area of 1.469 ha the permitted volume of soil disturbance is 735 m3. The volume

of ground disturbance as part of the proposed development is anticipated to exceed 50,000 m3,

as such the proposed works do not meet the permitted activity limits.

D The volume of soil removed from the piece of land must be no more than 5 m3 per 500 m2

(unless it is for laboratory testing).

Based on a site area of 1.469 ha the permitted volume of soil removal is 147 m3. The volume of

ground disturbance as part of the proposed development is anticipated to exceed 40,000 m3, as

such the proposed works do not meet the permitted activity limits.

E Soil taken away must be disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility.

F The duration of land disturbance must be no longer than two months.

It is likely the duration of the ground disturbance works will be longer than two months, as such

the proposed works do not meet the permitted activity limits.

G The integrity of a structure designed to contain contaminated soil or other contaminated

materials must not be compromised.

Subdividing or Changing Landuse: NES-CS Permitted Activity Conditions - Regulation 8(4)

A A preliminary site investigation of the land or piece of land must exist.

B The preliminary site investigation report must state that it is highly unlikely that there will be a

risk to human health if the activity is done to the piece of land.

Based on the findings of this PSI-DSI contaminants in surface soils are above applicable human

health standards for lead and asbestos, as such the proposed development does not meet the

permitted activity limits.

6.2 Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part

The AUP sets out rules for the discharge of contaminants during disturbance of

contaminated soil and for ongoing discharge of contaminants from land containing

contaminants under Section E30.

To meet permitted activity conditions the volume of contaminated soil disturbed must

not exceed 200 m3. Additionally, concentrations of soil contaminants must not exceed

the contaminant standards outlined in Section E30.6.1.4.

Given the soil analytical results indicate concentrations of contaminants (lead and

asbestos) are above the AUP PA Criteria in Zone B, and the proposed volumes of soil

disturbance are greater than 200 m3, the proposed development would require resource

consent as a Controlled Activity under AUP rule 30.6.2.1.




23

7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is understood that Centauri Management Limited are currently proposing to develop

the site for residential purposes, incorporating some commercial/hospitality areas.

A combined PSI-DSI was completed in support of the development resource consent

application.

A summary of the PSI-DSI findings is presented below:

• The site was originally developed for residential purposes as early as 1921, with

horticultural landuse (plant nursery) also undertaken in the north-eastern portion of

the property at 224 Great South Road from at least the early 1930s until 1968.

• From the mid-1960’s the site underwent extensive development for the LFT

rehabilitation centre. The property at 224 Great South Road became the main

complex with the residential properties at 49 to 51 Ōmāhu Road, 53 Ōmāhu Road,

and 53A Ōmāhu Road adapted and modified over the years.

• HAIL categories associated with historical site activities include A10, E1, and I.

• Shallow soil materials (topsoil) across the site have been impacted as a

consequence of historical landuse activity. However, significant lead and asbestos

in soil impact is limited to soil materials adjacent to older former residential

buildings within Zone B (Ōmāhu Road).

• The results for the deeper soils underlying the topsoil/hardstand across the site

indicate these soils are representative of natural conditions and not impacted by

historical landuse activities.

• Based on shallow soil analytical results collected from the site several potentially

complete exposure pathways exist. However, it is considered that these can be

adequately managed and mitigated through the implementation of the project RAP

(reported under separate cover).

• Shallow soil materials excavated and removed from the site can be disposed as

clean fill/managed fill (Zone A) or landfill (Zone B). Additional delineation within

Zone B is proposed as part of the RAP. The intention of this sampling would be to

minimise the volume of shallow soil material disposed to landfill.

• Deeper soil materials excavated and removed from the site can be disposed as

clean fill.

• Deeper soil materials can be reused within the development as required.

• A NES-CS Restricted Discretionary consent (Regulation 10) and AUP consent

(Rule 30.6.2.1) is required to be sought in support of the development.




24

8 REFERENCES

Auckland Council, 2016 (Updated 10 September 2021). Auckland Unitary Plan Operative

in Part.

Building Research Advisory Council New Zealand, 2017. New Zealand Guidelines for

Managing and Assessing Asbestos in Soil (referred to as BRANZ Guidelines).

ENGEO Limited, 2018. Asbestos Demolition Survey reports, issued 6 December 2018 (ref:

15627.000.000). Thirteen separate reports covering different buildings at the site: CNU

and 53a; Dining and Recreation Centre; Green House; Maintenance Workshop; Rehab

Centre; Residential Units 1-12, L2, 46; Residential Units 13-25; Residential Units 26-33;

Residential units 34-43, L3; Unit 44 (OT Kitchen) and Unit 45; White House; Wood

Workshop; MCR Farrell.

ENGEO Limited, 2019. Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, 224 Great South Road,

Remuera, Auckland (report ref. 15627.000.000_02), dated 11 January 2019.

ENGEO Limited, 2019. Combined Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation, 224 Great

South Road, Greenland, Auckland (Ref. 15627.000.000_04), dated 7 February 2019.

Ministry for the Environment, 2001 (revised 2021). Contaminated Land Management

Guidelines No. 1. Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand.


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

Values.


Guidelines No. 5. Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils.

Ministry for the Environment, 2011. Methodology for Deriving Standards for

Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health.

Ministry for the Environment, 2011. Resource Management Act (National Environmental

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

Regulations, 2011.

Ministry for the Environment, 2012. User’s Guide, National Environmental Standard for

Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health.

National Environment Protection Council (Australia), 1999 (revised 2013). National

Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. Schedule B1:

Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater (2011).

New Zealand Geotechnical Society Incorporated, 2005. Field Description of Soil and

Rock – Guideline for the Field Classification and Description of Soil and Rock for

Engineering Purposes.

Waste Management Institute New Zealand (WasteMINZ), 2016. Technical Guidelines for

Disposal to Land, published April 2016.




25

9 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of Centauri Management Limited (as

our Client), and their appointed representatives, according to their instructions, for the

specific objectives described herein.

This report is not to be relied upon or used out of context by any other party for any

other objective without reference to GWE Consulting Limited (GWE). The reliance by

other parties on the information or opinions contained in the report shall, without prior

review and agreement in writing, be at such parties’ sole risk.

GWE has relied on information provided by the Centauri Management Limited and by

third parties to produce this document and arrive at its conclusions. GWE has not

verified information provided (unless specifically noted otherwise) and we assume no

responsibility and make no representations with respect to the adequacy, accuracy or

completeness of such information. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in

reporting by the information providers.

From a technical perspective, the subsurface environment at any site may present

substantial uncertainty. It is a heterogeneous, complex environment, in which small

subsurface features or changes in geologic conditions can have substantial impacts on

water, gas, and chemical movement. Uncertainties may also affect source

characterisation, assessment of chemical fate and transport in the environment,

assessment of exposure risks and health effects, and remedial action performance.




APPENDIX A

DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION CONTENTS CHECKLIST

DSI TABLE OF CONTENTS: RESTRICTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES

Note: Regulation 8(2) outlines the requirements for soil sampling to be a permitted activity.

Content Required Required if

Relied On1

CLMG 5

Section

1. Introduction

• investigation objectives 2.1

• site identification (site name, address, legal description,

site boundaries, a map reference and geographic

coordinates)

3.3.1

• proposed site use. 3.3.2

2. Site description

• environmental setting 3.3.3

• site layout 3.3.4

• current site uses 3.3.5

• surrounding land uses 3.3.6

• geophysical surveys 5.1

• site inspection. 3.3.8

3. Historical site use (sufficient to plan investigation)

• summary of site history gained from 3.3.7

• review of existing investigation reports

• review of council information

• review of aerial photographs

• interviews

• review of other historical information

• preliminary sampling (if carried out) 3.3.9

• description (including diagram)

• results

• comparison of results to guidelines.

4. Sampling and analysis plan (could be appended if complex) 4.2

• contaminants of potential concern and/or analyte

selection 4.2.1

• media to be sampled (link to CSM and objectives) 3

• background concentration level (if relevant),

contaminant standard and/or environmental guideline

value calculation2 or selection3

4.2.2 & 4.2.7

1 Any evidence relied upon to form an opinion and/or conclusion must be included in the report. 2 Refer to Methodology for deriving standards for contaminants in soil to protect human health (Ministry for the Environment,

2011d). 3 Refer to Contaminated land management guidelines No 2: Hierarchy and application in New Zealand of environmental

guideline values (Ministry for the Environment, 2011a).


Relied On1

CLMG 5

Section

• sampling design (e.g., targeted or systematic sampling) 4.2.3

• number of samples including justification for number

selected and potential limitations of methodology

adopted in the context of investigation objectives

4.2.4

• sample depth 4.2.5

• composite sampling including number of sub-samples

per sample

4.2.6

• background sampling methodology 4.2.7

• sampling techniques 4.2.8

• field screening techniques 5.4

• quality assurance and quality control. 4.3

5. Sampling results

• summary of works undertaken with rationale for any

departure from, or addition to, sampling and analysis

plan

• field observations (e.g., staining, odour, soil

characteristics) 5.2.1

• evaluation of analytical laboratory results with

comparison to background concentration levels (if

relevant), contaminant standards and/or environmental

guideline values

7

• evaluation of field screening results with comparison to

background concentration levels (if relevant),

contaminant standards and/or environmental guideline

values

• results of field and laboratory sample quality

assurance/quality control

• statistical analysis of results.

6. Disposal documentation

• the transport, disposal and tracking of soil and other

materials taken away in the course of the activity –

regulation 10(3))(e).

7. Risk assessment

• conceptual site model 3

• evaluate the probability contamination exists on the site 3.3.11

• characterise the source through adequate delineation of

contamination horizontally and vertically and

assessment of contaminant concentrations

• identify and characterise potential pathways and

receptors for each exposure area through relevant site

properties (e.g., assessment of geology, hydrogeology,

building construction, site use)

• determine the likelihood the contamination poses a risk

to identified receptors including potential receptors


Relied On1

CLMG 5

Section

• evaluate the magnitude of that risk

pursuant to regulation 10(2)(b):

- the report on the detailed site investigation must

state that the soil contamination exceeds the

applicable standard in regulation 7

pursuant to regulation 10(3)(b):

- recommendation on the suitability of the piece of

land for the proposed activity, given the amount and

kind of soil contamination

• describe any requirements for management methods to

mitigate identified risks (as necessary)

• evaluate the magnitude of any identified risk to other

receptors (e.g., ecological)

• describe the limitations of the data collected and the

assumptions and uncertainties inherent in the data and

models used.

Note: If insufficient information exists to assess risk, then the

DSI should not be accepted for the purposes of determining

compliance with NESCS regulation 10(2). This would then result

in the application defaulting to a discretionary consent.

8. Discussion

9. Conclusions

10. Recommendations (if relevant to report purpose)

11. Report limitations

12. SQEP certification of report

13. References

Appendices: relevant supporting information

SUPPORTING INFORMATION REQUIRED REQUIRED IF

RELIED ON4

Figures

Conceptual site model (if not included in report body)

Land titles

Historical site information relied upon

Previous reports (or relevant sections thereof)

Site photographs

Geological logs

Field sheets

4 Any evidence relied upon to form an opinion/conclusion must be included in report.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION REQUIRED REQUIRED IF

RELIED ON4

Sampling and analysis plan (if not included in body)

Summary tables of sampling results

Laboratory reports and chain of custody documentation

Calibration information for any field screening instruments used

Statistical calculations eg, ProUCL inputs and outputs

Soil cuttings and purge water disposal documentation

Remedial action plan – regulation 10(3)(c)

Site validation report– regulation 10(3)(d)

Ongoing site management plan – regulation 10(3)(c)

Statement of qualification as an SQEP




APPENDIX B

FIGURES

OMAHU ROAD

GREAT SOUTH ROAD

SOUTHERN MOTORWAY

RAILWAY

224

53

49 -

51

MH4

MH6

MH5

MH2

MH1

SS2

SS4

SS3

SS1

SS5

SS6

SS7SS46

SS41 SS35

SS37SS38

SS39

SS40

SS42

SS34

SS33

SS45

SS44

SS31

SS32

SS28SS25

SS27

SS23

SS26

SS22SS24

SS43SS8

SS10

SS11

SS12SS13

SS14 SS15

SS18

SS17

SS19 SS20

SS21

SS16

SS36

SS9

HS08HS03

HS01

HS06

HS07

HS05

HS04

HS02

SS30

SS29MH3

53A

NOTES:

1. DRAWING IS BASED ON DATA FROMAUCKLAND COUNCIL GEOMAPS (ACCESSED:15/09/2021).

2. ENGEO SAMPLES ARE INDICATIVE ONLY(ENGEO PROJECT NO.: 15627.000.000, DATEDDEC-18).

3. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING.

SAMPLING LOCATION PLAN

1:750

J3217 701 0

m0 25m 50m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 750

20m15m10m5m

LEGEND

ENGEO SOIL SAMPLES (2018)- FORMER HORTICULTURAL AREA

- OCPs AND METALS- GENERAL SITE - ASBESTOS AND

LEAD

THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF, AND MAY NOT BEREPRODUCED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF, GWECONSULTING LTD. NO LIABILITY SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR UNAUTHORISED

USE OF THIS DRAWING. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING.

Plot D

ate : 0

4:22 p

m, 21

Sep 2

021

GWE CONSULTING ENGINEERSGRD FLOOR OCEANBRIDGE HOUSE

25 ANZAC STREET TAKAPUNAAUCKLAND 0622P:+64 9 445 8338www.gwe.co.nz

Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852_

J3217

\08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\J28

52 - C

L - DW

G - 7

00.dw

g

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:

APPROX. LOCATION OF GWE SAMPLESAT DEPTH USING MACHINE BORE (2021)

SS1

HS01

MH1

ZONE A

ZONE B

SITE BOUNDARY

CLIENT NAME

CENTAURI MANAGEMENT LTD

PROJECT:224 GREAT SOUTH ROAD

GREENLANE

AUCKLAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

DS

AutoCAD SHX Text

ET

AutoCAD SHX Text

21/09/21

W

OMAHU ROAD

GREAT SOUTH ROAD

SOUTHERN MOTORWAY

RAILWAY

224

53

49 -

51

MH4

MH6

MH5

MH2

MH1

SS2

SS4

SS3

SS1

SS5

SS6

SS7SS46

SS41 SS35

SS37SS38

SS39

SS40

SS42

SS34

SS33

SS45

SS44

SS31

SS32

SS28SS25

SS23

SS26

SS22SS24

SS43

SS9

SS10

SS11 SS15

SS19

SS21

SS36

HS03

HS06

HS07SS30

SS29MH3

HS01

HS04

HS05

HS02

HS08

53A

SS27

SS13

SS14

SS17SS16

SS12

SS18

*SS20*SS8*

NOTES:

1. DRAWING IS BASED ON DATA FROMAUCKLAND COUNCIL GEOMAPS (ACCESSED:15/09/2021).

2. ENGEO SAMPLES ARE INDICATIVE ONLY(ENGEO PROJECT NO.: 15627.000.000, DATEDDEC-18).

3. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING.

NES-CS AND BRANZEXCEEDANCES

1:750

J3217 702 0

m0 25m 50m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 750

20m15m10m5m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 0

4:22 p

m, 21

Sep 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852_

J3217

\08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\J28

52 - C

L - DW

G - 7

00.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:

NES-CS EXCEEDANCE (LEAD)

BRANZ EXCEEDANCE (ASBESTOS) *ASBESTOS DETECTED

224 GREAT SOUTH ROAD

GREENLANE

AUCKLAND

CLIENT NAME:

CENTAURI MANAGEMENT LTD

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

DS

AutoCAD SHX Text

ET

AutoCAD SHX Text

21/09/21




APPENDIX C

ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND 95% UCL CALCULATIONS

Ōmāhu: 224 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland

Combined PSI-DSI 2021

Table C1:

Soil Analytical Results (2018 and 2021)

Ars

en

ic

Cad

miu

m

Ch

rom

ium

(to

tal)

Co

pp

er

Lead

Merc

ury

(in

org

an

ic)

Nic

kel

Zin

c

Ald

rin

Die

ldri

n

To

tal

DD

T#

En

do

sulf

an

I

Ben

zo

(a)a

nth

racen

e

Ben

zo

[b]f

luo

ran

then

e +

Ben

zo

[j]f

luo

ran

then

e

Ben

zo

(k)f

luo

ran

then

e

Ben

zo

(a)p

yre

ne

Ch

ryse

ne

Dib

en

z(a

,h)a

nth

racen

e

Flu

ora

nth

en

e

Ind

en

o(1

,2,3

-c,d

)pyre

ne

Ben

zo

[a]p

yre

ne

Eq

uiv

ale

ncy

Asb

est

os

Pre

sen

ce /

Ab

sen

ce

Fri

ab

le A

sbest

os

/

Asb

est

os

Fin

es

(%w

/w)

Asb

est

os

Co

nta

inin

g

Mate

rials

(%

w/w

)

12 0.65 125 90 65 0.45 320 1,160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

100 7.5 400 325 250 0.75 105 400 - - 12 - - - - - - - - - 20 - - -

45 230 1,500 >10,000 500 1,000 - - 45 45 240 - - - - - - - - - 24 - - -

- - - - - - 900 60,000 - - - 460 - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.001 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.04

Area of the

SiteSampler

Sample

Reference

Sample

Date

Laboratory

Sample

Reference

Sample

Depth

(m bgl)

HS01 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07178 0.0-0.05 12 < 0.4 80 42 87 0.1 88 160 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 < 0.01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HS02 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07179 0.0-0.05 5.7 < 0.4 93 41 75 0.1 130 110 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 < 0.01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HS03 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07180 0.0-0.05 13 < 0.4 88 62 360 0.2 90 180 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 0.03 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HS04 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07181 0.0-0.05 8.5 < 0.4 85 40 100 0.1 100 140 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HS05 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07182 0.0-0.05 11 < 0.4 71 41 91 0.2 79 170 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HS06 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07183 0.0-0.05 9.2 < 0.4 30 18 19 < 0.1 15 80 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 < 0.01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HS07 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07184 0.0-0.05 15 < 0.4 78 43 90 0.2 76 190 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HS08 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07185 0.0-0.05 16 < 0.4 83 43 230 0.1 83 210 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.06 0.03 - - - - - - - - - - - -

SS1 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07186 0.0-0.05 - - - - 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001

























MH01, 0.5 9-Sep-2021 2679253_1 0.5 2 < 0.1 44 16 7.8 < 0.1 31 42 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.1 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.04 Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001

MH01, 1.5 9-Sep-2021 2679253_3 1.5 < 0.1 53 18 6.5 5 0.11 26 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MH02, 0.5 9-Sep-2021 2679253_6 0.5 2 < 0.1 56 19 7.7 < 0.1 51 69 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.09 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.04 Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001

MH02, 2.0 9-Sep-2021 2679253_9 2.0 0.11 32 31 6.2 3 < 0.1 52 82 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MH03, 0.5 9-Sep-2021 2679253_21 0.5 < 2 < 0.1 56 26 7.7 < 0.1 51 67 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.09 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.04 Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001

MH04, 0.6 9-Sep-2021 2679253_11 0.6 < 2 < 0.1 45 29 13.3 < 0.1 68 66 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.09 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 0.017 < 0.014 < 0.014 0.025 < 0.014 < 0.04 Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001

MH04, 1.0 9-Sep-2021 2679253_12 1.0 < 0.1 57 32 15.7 2 < 0.1 109 92 - - - - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.04 - - -

Table continued on page 2

High-Density Residential

ACM (bonded) (% w/w)


GWE

ENGEO

Organochlorine Pesticides* Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons^ Asbestos

Volcanic Soils

Upper Range

Zone A

(224 Great

South Road)

BRANZ Guidelines6

Auckland Permitted Activity Soil Acceptance Criteria2

Background Concentrations1

NES SCS (health)3

NEPM4

High-Density Residential5

FA and/or AF (% w/w)

All site Users

Adopted Acceptance Criteria

Heavy Metals

Page 1 of 2

Ōmāhu: 224 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland

Combined PSI-DSI 2021

Table C1:

Soil Analytical Results (2018 and 2021)

Ars

en

ic

Cad

miu

m

Ch

rom

ium

(to

tal)

Co

pp

er

Lead

Merc

ury

(in

org

an

ic)

Nic

kel

Zin

c

Ald

rin

Die

ldri

n

To

tal

DD

T#

En

do

sulf

an

I

Ben

zo

(a)a

nth

racen

e

Ben

zo

[b]f

luo

ran

then

e +

Ben

zo

[j]f

luo

ran

then

e

Ben

zo

(k)f

luo

ran

then

e

Ben

zo

(a)p

yre

ne

Ch

ryse

ne

Dib

en

z(a

,h)a

nth

racen

e

Flu

ora

nth

en

e

Ind

en

o(1

,2,3

-c,d

)pyre

ne

Ben

zo

[a]p

yre

ne

Eq

uiv

ale

ncy

Asb

est

os

Pre

sen

ce /

Ab

sen

ce

Fri

ab

le A

sbest

os

/

Asb

est

os

Fin

es

(%w

/w)

Asb

est

os

Co

nta

inin

g

Mate

rials

(%

w/w

)

12 0.65 125 90 65 0.45 320 1,160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

100 7.5 400 325 250 0.75 105 400 - - 12 - - - - - - - - - 20 - - -

45 230 1,500 >10,000 500 1,000 - - 45 45 240 - - - - - - - - - 24 - - -

- - - - - - 900 60,000 - - - 460 - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.001 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.04

Area of the

Site

Sample

Reference

Sample

Date

Laboratory

Sample

Reference

Sample

Depth

(m bgl)

SS8 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07193 0.0-0.05 - - - - 120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Detected 0.0015 < 0.001




SS12 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07197 0.0-0.05 - - - - 3,700 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001






SS18 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07203 0.0-0.05 - - - - 1,100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Detected 0.00047 < 0.001


SS20 6-Dec-2018 K18-De07205 0.0-0.05 - - - - 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Detected < 0.001 0.24









MH05, 0.5 9-Sep-2021 2679253_25 0.5 2 0.1 75 17 13.5 0.15 73 68 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.1 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.016 < 0.04 Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001

MH05, 2.0 9-Sep-2021 2679253_27 2.0 0.15 36 28 5.7 < 2 < 0.1 111 87 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MH06, 0.5 9-Sep-2021 2679253_16 0.5 < 2 < 0.1 12 7 4.9 < 0.1 8 6 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.09 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.04 Not detected < 0.001 < 0.001

NOTES:

* Only selected organochlorine pesticides have been presented, based on compounds with relevant soil quality guideline values or those recorded above laboratory limits of reporting. Refer to laboratory reports in Appendix H for full analytical results.

^ Only PAH compounds used to calculate benzo(a)pyrene potency equivalency factor (PEF) concentrations have been shown (refer to Ministry for the Environment, 2011. Methodology for Deriving Standards for Contaminants in Soil. Table 40). Refer to laboratory reports in Appendix H for full results (almost all were below laboratory limits of reporting).

# Total DDT includes the sum of DDT, DDD, and DDE.

All units measured in mg/kg unless otherwise stated.

m bgl - metres below ground level

- Sample not analysed for compound and/no criteria adopted.

Bolded and/or coloured text represents exceedances of adopted acceptance criteria.

1) Auckland Regional Council, 2001. Technical Publication Background Concentrations of inorganic elements in soils from the Auckland Region. Table 3, Volcanic Range (Auckland Background Concentrations).

2) Auckland Council Unitary Plan Operative in part, 2016 (updated 10 September 2021). Values taken from Table E30.6.1.4.1 Permitted Activity Soil Acceptance Criteria.

3) Ministry for the Environment, 2012. User's Guide National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. Values taken from Appendix B Soil Contaminant Standards, Table B2 and B3.

4) Australian Government, 1999 (revised 2013). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM).

5) Health Investigation Level (HIL) values for soil taken from Schedule B1, Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater, Table 1A(1). Only values for contaminants recorded above laboratory LOR and which are not included as part of the NES SCS have been shown.

6) Building Research Advisory Council New Zealand, 2017. New Zealand Guidelines for Managing and Assessing Asbestos in Soil (referred to as BRANZ Guidelines).

Asbestos

Background Concentrations1

Volcanic Soils

Upper Range

Auckland Permitted Activity Soil Acceptance Criteria2

Organochlorine Pesticides* Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons^

GWE

Zone B

(Ōmāhu Road

Properties)

ENGEO

Adopted Acceptance Criteria

Heavy Metals

NES SCS (health)3 High-Density Residential

NEPM4

High-Density Residential5

BRANZ Guidelines6

FA and/or AF (% w/w)

All site Users

ACM (bonded) (% w/w)


Page 2 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

A B C D E F G H I J K L

From File WorkSheet.xls

Full Precision OFF

Confidence Coefficient 95%

UCL Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets

User Selected Options 8 arsenic results from surface samples (0.0 to 0.05 m bgl) in Zone A (specifically the former horticulutral area)

Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.121/09/2021 2:14:27 pm

General Statistics

Total Number of Observations 8 Number of Distinct Observations 8

Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Zone A - Arsenic at Surface (0.0 to 0.05 m bgl)

Maximum 16 Median 11.5

SD 3.441 Std. Error of Mean 1.216

Number of Missing Observations 0

Minimum 5.7 Mean 11.3

Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use

guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.

For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).

Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1

Coefficient of Variation 0.304 Skewness -0.22

Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.109 Lilliefors GOF Test

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

Normal GOF Test

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.979 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

95% Student's-t UCL 13.6 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 13.2

95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 13.59

Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution

95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)

5% A-D Critical Value 0.715 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

K-S Test Statistic 0.13 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test

Gamma GOF Test

A-D Test Statistic 0.199 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test

Gamma Statistics

k hat (MLE) 10.97 k star (bias corrected MLE) 6.937

5% K-S Critical Value 0.294 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

MLE Mean (bias corrected) 11.3 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 4.29

Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 87.68

Theta hat (MLE) 1.03 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1.629

nu hat (MLE) 175.5 nu star (bias corrected) 111

Assuming Gamma Distribution

95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 14.31 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 15.21

Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0195 Adjusted Chi Square Value 82.44

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93


5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.148 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test

Lognormal GOF Test

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.945 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test

Lognormal Statistics

Minimum of Logged Data 1.74 Mean of logged Data 2.379

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% H-UCL 14.95 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 15.42

Maximum of Logged Data 2.773 SD of logged Data 0.338

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics

Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs

95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 17.27 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 19.84

99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 24.89

95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 13.38 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 13.06

95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 13.13

95% CLT UCL 13.3 95% Jackknife UCL 13.6

95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 13.19 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 13.61

Suggested UCL to Use

95% Student's-t UCL 13.6

90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 14.95 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 16.6

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 18.9 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 23.4

Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be

reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54




Lognormal GOF Test



95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 149.2 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 151





nu hat (MLE) 136 nu star (bias corrected) 125

Gamma Statistics






Gamma GOF Test




Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level





Normal GOF Test


5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.931 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Coefficient of Variation 0.722 Skewness 1.452

Maximum 370 Median 100



Minimum 16 Mean 119.6

General Statistics



Zone A - Lead at Surface (0.0 to 0.05 m bgl)


Full Precision OFF



User Selected Options 33 lead results from surface samples (0.0 to 0.05 m bgl) in Zone A

Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.121/09/2021 2:13:13 pm

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88





When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test

When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL






















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54








nu hat (MLE) 64.23 nu star (bias corrected) 41.48

Gamma Statistics


5% K-S Critical Value 0.295 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

5% A-D Critical Value 0.719 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level


Gamma GOF Test




Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level




5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Normal GOF Test



Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use

guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.

For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).

Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1

Coefficient of Variation 0.39 Skewness -1.126




Minimum 15 Mean 82.63

General Statistics



Zone A - Nickel at Surface (0.0 to 0.05 m bgl)


Full Precision OFF



User Selected Options 8 nickel results from surface samples (0.0 to 0.05 m bgl) in Zone A (specifically the former horticulutral area)

Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.120/09/2021 12:39:51 am

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96


reliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.




Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not be

When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test

When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL




















5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level


Lognormal GOF Test


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54



Full Precision OFF



User Selected Options 10 nickel results from natural soils (≥0.5 m bgl) across the site

Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.120/09/2021 10:01:00 am

General Statistics



Nickel - Natural Ground




Minimum 8 Mean 58

Normal GOF Test



Coefficient of Variation 0.578 Skewness 0.396

Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level





Gamma GOF Test









nu hat (MLE) 50.54 nu star (bias corrected) 36.71

Gamma Statistics



MLE Mean (bias corrected) 58 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 42.81


Lognormal GOF Test






55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85








99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 217











95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 74










APPENDIX D

HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW

Summary of Aerial Photography

Date Source

Site

Within 500m off site 224 Great South Road 49-51 Omahu Road 53 Omahu Road 53A Omahu Road

1931 Planning

Map

The property contains 5 titles. Northern

half of property is listed as ''Nursery''

(horticulture), the south west of the

property is developed with three dwellings

bordering Great South Road. The three

dwellings are noted as wood-built.

The property

contains two titles,

each with a wood-

built property.

The property

contains a one

story residence,

made of wood.

Forms part of other

properties (not

subdivided yet).

Great South Road and Omahu Road

are formed. The trainline borders the

north east of the site. Remuera

Station is present to the north west of

the site. To the north east, Remuera

Tennis Courts, a hockey ground and

private residences are present.

1940 (April) Retrolens The three dwellings have small sheds and

designated gardens, separated with

hedges. Two large and one small shed are

located on the north of the property. The

north of the property appears to be

grassed paddock.

Developed with two

dwellings. The north

west of the property

has a grassed lawn

and shed/container/

lean-to present.

Developed with

one dwelling,

small shed and

gardens.

The property is

undeveloped and forms

the garden of other

properties. It contains

trees and grass.

To the south west of the site, there

are mixed commercial and residential

properties.

1955, 1957,

1958, 1959,

1961

Retrolens

and Auckland

Council

GeoMaps

The entire north of the property contains

horticultural land use. The centre of the

property has some minor storage of items.

Greenhouses or similar have been added

to the north east of the large sheds.

Dwellings remain to the south west.

No major changes

visible.

The shed has been

added to.

No major changes

visible.

No major changes visible.

1967

(December)

Retrolens Horticulture and shed remain on the north

of the property. The middle dwelling has

been extended.

No major changes

visible.

No major changes

visible.

The property has been

created as a title and is

developed with a LFT

building in the centre of

the site. A shed/carport

has also been built.

The Southern motorway has been

built to the north east of the site,

beyond the railway line, this has taken

land from the north. A new overpass

has been built on Omahu Road.

1972, 1977,

1979

Retrolens The property has been developed as the

LFT. It contains numerous buildings/units.

In 1977 another

building has been

added at the site.

The shed/garage

has been extended

at the property.

No major changes

visible.


1996 Auckland

Council

GeoMaps

Two of the original dwellings have been

removed and the LFT Head office building

has been added to the south west of the

property.

No major changes

visible.

No major changes

visible.

No major changes

visible.


2001 Auckland

Council

GeoMaps

The final original dwelling at the site has

been removed and a carpark built.

Two additional

buildings have been

added to the site.

No major changes

visible.

No major changes

visible.


2003/2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010-2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 (Auckland Council GeoMaps and Google Earth Pro) - No major changes visible.

emily

Polyline

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT

HISTORIC AERIALS1940 - RETROLENS

1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:35 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:

SITE BOUNDARY (APPROX.)

1940 - RETROLENSNOTES:

1. IMAGE SOURCED FROMRETROLENS HISTORICAL IMAGERESOURCE.

2. SITE BOUNDARIES AREAPPROXIMATE.

3. DO NOT SCALE FROM THISDRAWING.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT


1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:35 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:






AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT

HISTORIC AERIALS1959 - AUCKLAND COUNCILGEOMAPS

1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:35 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:


1959 - AUCKLANDCOUNCIL GEOMAPS

NOTES:1. IMAGE SOURCED FROM

AUCKLAND COUNCIL GEOMAPS.2. SITE BOUNDARIES ARE

APPROXIMATE.3. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS

DRAWING.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT


1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:35 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:






AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT


1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:36 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:






AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT


1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:36 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:






DRAWING.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT

HISTORIC AERIALS2003 - 2004 - AUCKLANDCOUNCIL GEOMAPS

1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:36 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:


2003 - 2004 -AUCKLAND COUNCIL

GEOMAPSNOTES:

1. IMAGE SOURCED FROMAUCKLAND COUNCIL GEOMAPS.



AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT

HISTORIC AERIALS2005 - GOOGLE EARTH PRO

1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:36 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:


2005 - GOOGLEEARTH PRO




DRAWING.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT


1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:36 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:






DRAWING.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT

HISTORIC AERIALS2010 - 2011 - AUCKLANDCOUNCIL GEOMAPS

1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:36 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:


2010 - 2011 -AUCKLAND COUNCIL

GEOMAPSNOTES:

1. IMAGE SOURCED FROMAUCKLAND COUNCIL GEOMAPS.



AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21

OMAHU APARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT


1:1500

J3217 100 0

URBAN RESORT

75m 100m

A3 SCALE = 1 : 1500

50m0m 10m

LEGEND



Plot D

ate : 1

0:36 a

m, 03

Aug 2

021



Filen

ame :

W:\A

ctive

Proje

cts\C

OM\O

mahu

Apart

ment

Deve

lopme

nt-J2

852\

08-D

rawing

s\01-C

AD\0

1-DW

G\Hi

storic

Aeria

ls.dw

g

PROJECT:

TITLE:

SCALE:

PROJECT No: REV

A3

CLIENT NAME:

DRAWING No:

PLOT STATUS:






DRAWING.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AMENDMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENG

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRST ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EJC

AutoCAD SHX Text

EC

AutoCAD SHX Text

GW

AutoCAD SHX Text

03/08/21




APPENDIX E

CERTIFICATES OF TITLE SUMMARY

Great South Road, Remuera, Auckland

Omahu Apartment Development | Preliminary Site Investigation

Draft – For Comment

CT IDENTIFIER: DETAILS:

NA513/149

issued 30-10-1928

1,294 m2

First owner: The Dilworth Trust Board (a body corporate under the provisions of ‘The Religious

Charitable and Educational Trust Board Incorporation Act, 1884’).

31-3-1917 Lease to Eliza Hall, Sarah Anna Jane Hall and Isabella Stevenson Hall for 50 years

11-2-1941 Transmission of Lease to Sarah Anna Jane Hall and Isabella Stevenson Hall

26-5-1942 Transmission of Lease to Sarah Anna Jane Hall

1-11-1946 Lease to Sarah Anna Jane Hall for 21 years from 31-3-1946

26-5-1950 Transmission of Lease to The New Zealand Insurance Company Limited

26-5-1950 Transfer of Lease to Jeanette Margaret Stevenson Hall (Auckland)

18-10-1962 Transfer of Lease to Geoffrey Harry Davis

23-1-1970 Transfer of Lease to Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

4-7-1977 Transfer of Lease to Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

11-11-1983 Transfer to Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

20-1-1992 Cancelled to NA87B/953

NA513/195

issued 29-11-1928

1,597 m2

First owner: The Dilworth Trust Board

30-9-1920 Lease to Herbert Frederick Owen Twigden for 50 years

Undated Assignment of Lease to Llewellyn Carlaw Miller

7-10-1936 Lease to Llewellyn Carlaw Miller for 21 years from 30-9-1936

5-10-1938 Lease to Frances Ethel Marion Galway (married to Roger Boswell Gibb, Invercargill architect)

24-02-1943 Lease to Isobel Mary Eleanor Galway (married to Ian McKenzie Chambers, Hamilton Public

accountant)

3-8-1943 Transfer of Lease to Alexander Allan

25-11-1957 Lease to Alexander Allan for 21 years from 30-7-1957

12-11-1958 Transmission of Lease to Hans McDonald Allan (executor)

11-04-1980 Lease to John Alexander Allan (Auckland Sales Representative) for 21 years from 30-9-

1978

06-07-1982 Transfer of Lease to Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

26-8-1983 Correction of Name to Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

11-11-1983 Transfer to Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

20-1-1992 Cancelled to NA87B/953

NA513/203

issued 29-11-1928


30-9-1921 Lease to John Millar for 50 years

10-7-1952 Transmission of Lease to James Millar (Auckland, retired) and Harold Ensor (Auckland

Solicitor)

10-7-1952 Transfer of Lease to Charlotte Louisa Millar

9-5-1958 Lease to Charlotte Louisa Millar for 13 years 6 months from 30-3-1958

5-6-1958 Transfer of Lease to John Bruce Wilson (Papakura Army Officer)

4-11-1964 Cancelled to NA4D/271

NA513/197

issued 29-11-1928


(undated) Lease to Andrew Galbraith Johnstone for 50 years from 1-12-1929

(undated) Assignment of Lease to Winifred Bertha MacShane

2-3-1939 Lease to Frederick Stuart Hall for 21 years from 30-11-1938

3-2-1959 Lease to Robert Leslie Redwood (Auckland) for 21 years from 30-11-1959

4-11-1964 Cancelled to NA4D/271

NA513/275

issued 11-12-1928

Lot 1

1,515 m2


31-12-1926 Lease to James Percy Evans for 50 years

11-09-1959 Transfer of lease to Clifford Oswald Bates (Auckland Builder) and Maigely Kate Bates (wife)

14-03-1963 Transfer of lease to David Derwent Wingrove

02-08-1963 Transfer of lease to Walter Brkan (Auckland Shop Assistant)

25-11-1976 cancelled to NA35A/751

NA513/265

issued 11-12-1928

Pt 224 Great South

Road



Undated (approx.1925-1928) Lease to Robert Bunn Scott and Marguerite Augustine Scott

19-3-1957 Transmission of Lease to Dorothy Winifred Friederickson (Remuera executor)





Lot 4 Deeds S116

1,496 m2

29-7-1960 Transfer of Lease to John William Robinson (St. Heliers Bay Contractor)

9-5-1961 Lease to John William Robinson for 15 years from 20-11-1961

23-8-1961 Transfer of Lease to Henry Charles Bethune (Auckland Medical Practitioner)

24-11-1961 Transfer of Lease to Challis Properties Limited

5-5-1976 Lease to Challis Properties Limited for 21 years from 20-11-1975

26-8-1992 Transfer of Lease to Auckland Branch Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

24-8-1995 Transfer to Auckland Branch Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

5-3-1996 Change of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Persons - Auckland Branch

Incorporated

NA513/268

issued 11-12-1928

Pt 224 Great South

Road

Lot 5 Deeds 308

822 m2



Undated Transfer of Lease to Laura Beatrice Watson

11-12-1928 Caveat by the District Land Registrar

6-2-1929 Transfer of Lease to James Percy Evans

26-10-1934 Transfer of Lease to Julia Mary Reed

4-10-1940 Transfer of Lease to Katherine Eliza Clinkard (wife of Alfred Edwin Clinkard of Auckland

‘Leedsman’)

19-9-1955 Lease to Katherine Eliza Clinkard for 20 years from 31-8-1955

27-6-1958 Transfer of Lease to Hilda Lavinia Vincent

23-3-1973 Transfer of Lease to Challis Properties Limited

4-11-1975 Lease in substitution of Lease to Challis Properties Limited for 21 years from 31-08-1975

26-8-1992 Transfer of Lease to Auckland Branch Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

24-8-1995 Transfer to Auckland Branch Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

5-3-1996 Change of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Persons – Auckland Branch

Incorporated

2-5-2005 Change of Name to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Persons (Auckland) Incorporated

12-3-2019 Correction of name to Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

NA513/293

issued 14-12-1928

Lots 2 and 3 DP

S116


31-1-1938 Lease to Norman Gloag Smith for 21 years

18-12-1958 Lease to Norman Gloag Smith for 21 years from 31-1-1959

16-12-1965 Lease to Norman Gloag Smith for 16 years from 31-1-1964

25-6-1968 Transfer of Lease to Laura Fergusson Trust Board

6-2-1969 Cancelled to NA15C/1110

NA588/90

issued 2-6-1936

First owner: His Majesty the King

27-9-1973 cancelled to NA26C/528

NA4D/271

issued 4-11-1964

3,225 m2


4-11-1964 Lease of Lot 1 DP 53665 to John Bruce Wilson for 7 years 6 months from 30-3-1964

4-11-1964 Lease of Lot 2 DP 53665 to Robert Leslie Redwood for 16 years 6 months from 30-5-1964

4-11-1964 Lease of Lot 3 DP 53665 to John Bruce Wilson and Robert Leslie Redwood for 7 years 6

months from 30-3-1964

6-11-1964 Transfer of Lot 2 Lease to Lurline Diana Goldring

9-11-1964 Transfer of Lot 1 Lease to Edith Frances Minnitt

9-11-1964 Transfer of Lot 3 Lease to John Bruce Wilson

Undated (approx. 1965) Transfer of Lot 3 Lease to Alfred Henry Lindon Maddaford

21-6-1966 Transfer of Lot 3 Lease to Colin Strachan and Evon Anita May Strachan

5-7-1966 Transfer of Lot 1 Lease to Terence Frank Cook (Auckland Company Representative) and Betty

Margaret Cook (wife)

18-5-1967 Transfer of Lot 2 Lease to Levienne Annabelle Carroll (married woman)

10-5-1968 Transfer of Lot 3 Lease to Braebur Properties Limited

31-5-1968 Cancelled to NA41D/215, NA41D/216 and NA41D/217

NA14D/217

issued 31-5-1968


4-11-1964 Lease to Braebur Properties Limited for 7 years 6 months commencing 30-3-1964

3-6-1970 Transfer of Lease to Margaret Cheryl Gilbert (married woman)





53A Omahu Road

Lot 3 DP 53665

1,257 m2

23-8-1971 Lease to Margaret Cheryl Gilbert for 21 years from 30-9-1971

11-8-1975 Lease of Flat 1 DP 59970 and 1/3 share fee simple to Keith Scott Caldwell and Margaret

Hazel Caldwell for balance of term of 23-8-1971 lease from 12-6-1975

11-8-1975 Lease of Flat 2 DP 59970 and 1/3 share fee simple to Donald Francis Archer and Roseanne

Mary Archer for balance of term of 23-8-1971 lease from 12-6-1975

11-8-1975 Lease of Flat 3 DP 59970 and 1/3 share fee simple to Anne Greig for balance of term of 23-

8-1971 lease from 12-6-1975

23-12-1993 Lease of Flat 1 DP 59970 and 1/3 share fee simple to Keith Scott Caldwell and Margaret

Hazel Caldwell for 21 years from 30-9-1992

23-12-1993 Lease of Flat 2 DP 59970 and 1/3 share fee simple to Donald Francis Archer and Roseanne

Mary Archer for 21 years from 30-9-1992

23-12-1993 Lease of Flat 3 DP 59970 and 1/3 share fee simple to Anne Greig for 21 years from 30-9-

1992

17-1-2012 Transfer to Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

19-2-2019 Departmental Dealing deleting Flat 1, 2, 3 DP 59970 leases*

* Note: from the Guaranteed Search of NA14D/217 that it is now a fee-simple title, following the lease surrenders and the departmental dealing deleting lease

memorials re Flats 1, 2 and 3 DP 59970

NA14D/216

issued 31-5-1968

53 Omahu Road

Lot 2 DP 53665

981 m2


4-11-1964 Lease to Levienne Anabelle Carroll for 16 years 6 months commencing 30-5-1964

6-4-1973 Transfer of Lease to Peter Graeme Thompson and Shirley Evelyn Thompson

24-11-1980 Renewal of Lease for 21 years from 30-11-1980

13-3-1981 Transfer of Lease to Pamela McDonald

22-3-1984 Transfer of Lease to Bruno Giovanni Cettina (Retail manager) and Jennifer Anne Cettina

(wife)

25-1-1995 Lease to Bruno Giovanni Cettina and Jennifer Anne Cettina for 7 years 6 months from 1-6-

1994

11-3-1996 Transfer of Lease to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Person – Auckland Branch

Incorporated

7-2-2002 Transfer to the Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Persons (Auckland) Incorporated

NA15C/1110

issued 6-2-1969

Lot 1 DP 60239

1,885 m2


16-12-1965 Lease to Laura Fergusson Trust Board for 16 years from 31-1-1964

25-11-1976 title cancelled to NA35A/751

NA26C/528

issued 27-9-1973

First owner: Her Majesty the Queen for Railway Purposes

05-09-1989 cancelled to 75D/490

20-1-1992 Transfer of part to be included in NA87B/952 and NA87B/953 to Laura Fergusson Trust

Incorporated

13-04-1992 cancelled to 89B/347

NA35A/751

issued 25-1-1976


28-7-1959 Lease to Walter Brkan for 21 years from 30-6-1959

16-12-1965 Lease to Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated for 16 years

04-04-1977 Lease to Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

01-09-1976 Lease to Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated for a term of

three years eight months

29-09-1980 Lease in substitution to Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

for a term of 21 years

11-04-1984 Transfer to Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

20-01-1992 cancelled to 87B/952

NA87B/953

issued 20-1-1992

49-51 Omahu

Road

Lot 2 DP 146628

3,213 m2

First owner: Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated

5-3-1996 Change of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Persons – Auckland Branch

Incorporated

2-5-2005 Change of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Persons (Auckland) Incorporated

12-3-2019 Correction of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated





NA87B/952

issued 21-1-1992

Pt 224 Great South

Road

Lot 1 DP 146628

6,918 m2

First owner: Auckland Branch of the Laura Fergusson Trust Board Incorporated

5-3-1996 Change of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled persons – Auckland Branch

Incorporated

2-5-2005 Change of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust for Disabled Persons (Auckland) Incorporated

12-3-2019 Correction of name to The Laura Fergusson Trust Incorporated




APPENDIX F

ASBESTOS DEMOLITION SURVEY SUMMARY

APPENDIX F – ENGEO 2018 ASBESTOS DEMOLITION SURVEY SUMMARY

TITLE ITEM LOCATION CONDITION QUANTITY ASBESTOS TYPE* ENGEO RECOMMENDATION

224 Great South Road Soffits Along roofline of Residential Units 1-33, L2,

46 and Dining and Rec. centre

- 313 m2 - Removal

Cement base

sheeting

Unit 46 ceiling - 0.5 m2 - Removal

Below roof tiles at Residential Units 1-33,

L2, 46

- 28 m2 - Removal

To soffits and canopy ceilings at Residential

Units 13-25 and Dining and Rec. centre

- 160 m2 - Removal

Roof voids at Units 13, 19 and 24 - 30 m2 - Removal

Bituminous

material

Unit 46 canopy roof - 14 m2 - Removal

Fuse boards Serving Residential Units 1-33, L2, 46 - 1.25 m2 - Removal

49-51 Omahu Road Soffits Along roofline of Units 44 and 45 - 20 m2 - Removal

Cement base

sheeting

Below roof tiles at Units 44 and 45 - 2 m2 - Removal

Bituminous

material

Canopy roofs at Residential Units 33-43, L3 - 60 m2 - Removal

Fuse board Wall of Unit 44 - 0.1 m2 - Removal

53 Omahu Road - - - - - -

53A Omahu Road Hot water

cylinder

Timber enclosure to east of 53a unit Good condition 1 Crocidolite (and

Chrysotile)

Removal

Soffits

Along roofline and south entry ceiling of

CNU building

Low damages 20 m2 Crocidolite Removal

* The ENGEO survey does not identify if the asbestos is friable or non-friable in nature.




APPENDIX G

MACHINE BOREHOLE AND SAMPLING LOGS

Sampling Date(s):

J3217

Omahu Apartments

Personnel: EJC

Sample No. Depth (m) Sample Location Soil Description Geology

Surface

Conditions

Evidence of

Contamination

MH1 (0.5) 0.5-0.6

Auckland

Volcanic

Field

No visual or olfactory

evidence.

MH1 (1.0) 1.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH1 (1.5) 1.50Puketoka

Formation


evidence.


Formation


evidence.


Formation


evidence.

MH2 (0.5) 0.5-0.6

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH2 (1.0) 1.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH2 (1.5) 1.50

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH2 (2.0) 2.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.


Formation


evidence.

MH3 (0.5) 0.5-0.6

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH3 (QC) 0.5-0.6

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH3 (1.0) 1.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.


Formation


evidence.


Formation


evidence.

11, 13, 16 August 2021

Silty CLAY; light brown mottled orange.

Inferred firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist to wet.

Silty CLAY; light grey mottled brown. Inferred firm to stiff;

high plasticity; moist to wet.

Clayey SILT; light brown mottled orange. Firm; high

plasticity; moist.

Silty organic CLAY; dark grey. Soft; high plasticity; wet.

224 Great South Road,

within former

horticultural area and

near existing buildings

on site (pre-2000).


plasticity; moist.

Ashphalt


plasticity; moist. Thin bed of cemented SAND (30 mm);

reddish brown.

Silty CLAY (laminated); bluish grey mottled brownish orange.

Inferred firm; moderate to high plasticity; moist; rootlet

inclusions.

Clayey sandy (medium to coarse) SILT; bluish grey mottled

orange. Stiff; low plasticity; moist.


within former



on site (pre-2000).

Clayey SILT, with minor gravel (fine); brownish orange with

brown bands. Inferred stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Ashphalt

SILT, with some clay and sand (fine), with gravel (fine);

brownish orange with brown bands. Inferred firm; low

plasticity; moist.

Sandy (coarse), gravelly (fine to medium) SILT; brownish

orange with brown bands. Stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Silty organic CLAY; dark grey. Stiff; high plasticity; wet.

Project No.:

Project Location:

Sample Logs


within former



on site (pre-2000).

Silty CLAY; brownish orange and grey with occasional dark

brown streaks. Inferred stiff; moderate plasticity; moist;

rootlet inclusions.

Ashphalt

Silty CLAY; brownish orange and grey with occasional dark

brown streaks. Inferred firm; moderate plasticity; moist;

rootlet inclusions.

Silty CLAY (laminated); bluish grey mottled brownish orange.

Stiff; moderate to high plasticity; moist; rootlet inclusions.

Page 1 of 2

Sample No. Depth (m) Sample Location Soil Description Geology

Surface

Conditions

Evidence of

Contamination

MH4 (0.6) 0.6-0.7

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH4 (1.0) 1.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH4 (1.5) 1.50

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH4 (2.0) 2.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.


Formation


evidence.

MH5 (0.1) 0.10

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH5 (QC) 0.10

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH5 (0.5) 0.50

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH5 (1.0) 1.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH5 (2.0) 2.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.


Formation


evidence.

MH6 (0.5) 0.5-0.6

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH6 (1.0) 1.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH6 (1.5) 1.50Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.

MH6 (2.0) 2.00

Auckland

Volcanic

Field


evidence.


Formation


evidence.

Silty CLAY; brownish orange, brown, occasionally grey and

black. Inferred very stiff; moderate plasticity; moist; thin

bands (< 20 mm) of cemented sand; dark orange to red.

Clayey organic SILT; dark grey and black. Firm; moderate

plasticity; moist to wet.

SILT, with some sand (fine to coarse); minor clay; dark

brown/grey. Firm to stiff; moist to wet; low plasticity;

occasional rootlets.Silty CLAY; grey, mottled orange, brownish orange, brown

and greenish brown. Stiff to very stiff; moist; high plasticity;

minor fabric staining and organics.

Concrete

Sample Logs


within former



on site (pre-2000).

Silty CLAY, with minor gravel (fine); brownish orange, brown,

occasionally grey and black. Inferred stiff; moderate

plasticity; moist.

Ashphalt

Silty CLAY; brownish orange, brown, occasionally grey and

black. Inferred very stiff; moderate plasticity; moist; thin

bands (< 20 mm) of cemented sand; dark orange to red.

Silty CLAY; brown. Firm; high plasticity; moist to wet.

Silty CLAY; brown. Firm; high plasticity; moist to wet.


within stormwater

overland flow path and


on site (pre-2000).

Basaltic Lapilli/Tuff; Highly to Completely Weathered: SAND

& GRAVELS; dark grey. Loose; dry; non-plastic; Sand,

medium to coarse; Gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to

angular; occasional vesicular.

Ashphalt

Silty CLAY; brownish orange, mottled light grey and orange.

Stiff to very stiff; moist; high plasticity; occasional silt

pockets; fine rootlets.

Clayey SILT, with coarse silt to medium sand, and intermixed

gravels; dark grey, reddish brown, brownish red and

brownish orange. Very stiff; moist; moderate plasticity;

occasional rootlets and organics.

Silty CLAY; orange brown. Firm; high plasticity; moist to wet.

Clayey SILT, with minor gravel (fine); brownish orange,

brown, occasionally grey and black. Inferred stiff; low

plasticity; moist.

Silty CLAY; thin bed (< 10 mm) of GRAVELS (fine to coarse);

light brown mottled orange. Firm; high plasticity; moist to

wet.

Silty CLAY; with some gravel (fine to coarse); brown. Firm;

high plasticity; moist to wet.

Silty CLAY; grey mottled brown. Firm to stiff; high plasticity;

moist to wet.

53A Omahu Road, near

exsiting buildings on

site (pre-2000) with

positive identification

of Asbestos on the

exterior.

Near ENGEO identified

Lead NES SCS

exceedances.

Page 2 of 2

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

9:3

1 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)

MACHINE DRILLED BOREHOLE LOG

Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Urban ResortClient: Coordinates:

MH01No.:

GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Fraction, colour, structure, strength, moisture, bedding, plasticity, sensitivity,additional.

ROCK:Weathering, colour, fabric, rock name, strength, discontinuities, additional.

Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 4Sheet:

11/08/2021Date:

Project: 224 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland. Surface Conditions: Reduced Level:

Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)

Near level; ashphalt.

Barr

el T

yp

e

Observations / Comments:11/08/2021

Date Started:

11/08/2021Date Finished:

DCN DrillingDriller:

KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:

Trailer-mounted.Type of Rig:

WATERDrilling Fluid:

Casing Depth:6.00m

FIL

LP

uke

toka

Form

atio

n

ASHPHALT.

GRAVEL(fine to coarse, sub-angular, basalt), in a sandy SILT (coarse)matrix; dark brown, black, grey and occasionally reddish brown.Non-plastic; moist.

Silty CLAY; brownish orange and grey with occasional dark brown streaks.Inferred stiff; moderate plasticity; moist; rootlet inclusions.

Silty CLAY (laminated); bluish grey mottled brownish orange.Stiff; moderate to high plasticity; moist; rootlet inclusions.

Clayey sandy (medium to coarse) SILT; bluish grey mottled orange.Stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Silty organic CLAY; grey.Firm; moderate to high plasticity; moist; laminated.

Silty CLAY; grey and orange.Firm; high plasticity; moist; laminated.

Silty CLAY; light grey.Firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist; laminated.

1

2

3

4

5

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

0.7m: Becomes interbedded with clayey SILT, with trace gravel (fine); dark orangeand light grey, speckled black (gravels).Inferred stiff; low plasticity; moist.

1.0m: Inferred firm.


3.3m: Becomes dark greenish grey and brownish orange.Inferred soft.

4.0m: Becomes dark grey; decomposing wood fragments (20 - 100 mm).

4.4m: Inferred soft.

5.2m: Inferred stiff.

DCN DrillingTrailer-mounted.

OPEN

Rota

ry C

ore

d87 / -1253

63 / 131253

24 / 61253

1, 0 / 1, 1,2, 1N=5

0, 1 / 1, 1,1, 1N=4

0, 0 / 0, 0,1, 1N=2

WATER

OP

EN

6

Not M

easu

red

Auck

land V

olc

anic

Fie

ld

79.85 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

9:3

1 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH01No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 4Sheet:

11/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:6.00m

[CONT] Silty CLAY; light grey.Firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist; laminated.

Clayey SILT; light grey mottled orange and brown.Stiff; moderate plasticity; moist; laminated.

Silty CLAY; dark grey and dark brown, occasionally streaked black (organics).

Stiff; high plasticity; moist; wood fragment inclusions (fine, < 20 mm).

6

7

8

9

10

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

6.0m: Becomes light grey, occasionally mottled orange and brown.

7.5m: Occasional black streaks (organics).

8.4m: Becomes orange mottled grey.

8.7m: Becomes dark grey occasionally mottled orange.

9.0m: Becomes light grey and light brown.

9.6m: Organic content (black streaks) decreasing with depth. No more woodfragment inclusions.

10.0m: Becomes orange and light grey.

10.5m: Becomes light grey, occasionally mottled orange.

Rota

ry C

ore

d

68 / 321253

82 / 291253

68 / 401253

77 / 291253

1, 1 / 1, 1,2, 3N=7

1, 1 / 1, 1,1, 2N=5

1, 1 / 1, 1,2, 3N=7

1, 1 / 1, 1,2, 2N=6

OP

EN

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

n

79.85 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

9:3

1 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH01No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 4Sheet:

11/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:6.00m

[CONT] Silty CLAY; dark grey and dark brown, occasionally streaked black(organics).Stiff; high plasticity; moist; wood fragment inclusions (fine, < 20 mm).

Completely weathered sandy SILT, with some clay; dark grey.Stiff to very stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE; dark grey.Thin to moderately thick bedded, sub-horizontal to gently inclined; weak.J1: at 14.60 to E.O.H.: sub-horizontal; undulating and rough; very narrow;moderately widely spaced; sandy infill.J2: at 17.40 m; very steeply inclined; undulating and smooth; very narrow;widely spaced; sandy infill.

12

13

14

15

16

100 -

100 -

87 33

80 60

11.7m: Becomes light grey and orange.

12.5m: Becomes interbedded with completely weathered silty SAND, with some clay;dark grey.Stiff to very stiff; low plasticity; moist.

CW

HW

Rota

ry C

ore

dR

ota

ry C

ore

d

64 / 231253

UTP1253

UTP1253

1, 1 / 1, 2,3, 3N=9

3, 5 / 7, 7,9, 11N=34

4, 7 / 9, 10,10, 11N=40

21, 29 for65mm

OP

EN

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

nP

uke

toka

Form

atio

n

79.85 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

9:3

1 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH01No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

4 of 4Sheet:

11/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:6.00m

[CONT] Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE; dark grey.Thin to moderately thick bedded, sub-horizontal to gently inclined; weak.J1: at 14.60 to E.O.H.: sub-horizontal; undulating and rough; very narrow;moderately widely spaced; sandy infill.J2: at 17.40 m; very steeply inclined; undulating and smooth; very narrow;widely spaced; sandy infill.

EOH: 19.50m

17

18

19

20

21

77 70

90 68

17.2m - 17.3m: Highly fractured zone; gravel (fine to coarse, sub-angular).

17.3m - 17.5m: Thin black bands of SANDSTONE (10 mm).

18.8m - 18.9m: Thin black bands of SANDSTONE (10 mm).

HWR

ota

ry C

ore

d

UTP1253

UTP1253

UTP1253

N=50 for0mm

24, 26 for55mm

N=50 for0mm

28, 22 for45mm

N=50 for0mm

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

79.85 m RL


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH01

Sheet:

1 of 4

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

11/08/2021

Project: 224 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland. Surface Conditions:

Near level; asphalt.

Reduced level:

79.85 m

From 0.00 to 2.65 m below the ground level



Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH01

Sheet:

2 of 4

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

11/08/2021



Reduced level: 79.85 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH01

Sheet:

3 of 4

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

11/08/2021



Reduced level:

79.85 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH01

Sheet:

4 of 4

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

11/08/2021



Reduced level:

79.85 m


Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

9:1

6 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH02No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 3Sheet:

11/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

FIL

L

ASHPHALT.

GRAVEL(fine to coarse, sub-angular, basalt), in a sandy SILT (coarse)matrix; dark grey and black, occasionally brown.Non-plastic; moist.

Clayey SILT, with minor gravel (fine); brownish orange with brown bands.Inferred stiff; low plasticity; moist.

SILT, with some clay and sand (fine), with minor gravel (fine); brownishorange with brown bands.Inferred stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Sandy (coarse), gravelly (fine to medium) SILT; brownish orange with brownbands.Stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Silty organic CLAY; dark grey.Stiff; high plasticity; wet.

Silty CLAY; grey mottled orange.Inferred stiff; high plasticity; moist.

1

2

3

4

5

100 -

100 -

77 -

100 -



1.0m - 1.1m: Gravel content increases.


2.2m - 2.3m: SAND (medium).Inferred loose.

2.4m: Organic content decreasing with depth.Inferred soft.



4.4m: Occasional pink streaks.Inferred firm to stiff.




Open

Rota

ry C

ore

d

84 / 161253

52 / 101253

58 / 161253

1, 0 / 1, 1,2, 3N=7

0, 1 / 1, 1,1, 1N=4

1, 1 / 1, 1,1, 1N=4

WATER

Open

7.5

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

nA

uck

land V

olc

anic

Fie

ld

79.09 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

9:1

6 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH02No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 3Sheet:

11/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

[CONT] Silty CLAY; grey mottled orange.Inferred stiff; high plasticity; moist.

Clayey sandy (fine) SILT; grey mottled orange and pink.Inferred stiff; moderate plasticity; moist.

Completely weathered sandy CLAY; dark grey.Stiff to very stiff; high plasticity; moist.

6

7

8

9

10

100 -

100 -

93 -

100 -

93 57


5.8m: Becomes grey, occasionally mottled orange and pink.

7.6m: Becomes interbedded (10 to 50 mm thick beds) with completely weatheredclayey SAND, with some silt; dark grey.Stiff to very stiff; low plasticity; moist.



9.5m: Occasional thin black bands.


10.5m: Black band (< 20 mm),

Rota

ry C

ore

dR

ota

ry C

ore

d

71 / 321253

123 / 391253

113 / 371253

UTP1253

0, 0 / 1, 0,1, 1N=3

0, 0 / 1, 1,1, 1N=4

2, 3 / 3, 4,4, 5

N=16

7, 8 / 10,14, 20, 6for 5mmN=50 for230mm

Open

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

nP

uke

toka

Form

atio

n

79.09 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

9:1

6 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH02No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 3Sheet:

11/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE; dark grey.Thin to moderately thick bedded, sub-horizontal to gently inclined; weak.J1: at 11.45 m to E.O.H.: sub-horizontal; undulating and rough; very narrow;closely spaced; sandy infill.J2: at 13.80 m; very steeply inclined; undulating and rough; narrow; sandyinfill.

EOH: 15.00m

12

13

14

15

16

93 57

93 88

83 73

11.9m: Thin black bands of SANDSTONE (10 mm).


Rota

ry C

ore

d

UTP1253

UTP1253

UTP1253

22, 28 for45mm

N=50 for0mm

27, 23 for25mm

N=50 for0mm

26, 24 for30mm

N=50 for0mm

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

79.09 m RL


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH02

Sheet:

1 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

11/08/2021



Reduced level:

79.09 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH02

Sheet:

2 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

13/08/2021







Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH02

Sheet:

3 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

13/08/2021



Reduced level:

79.09 m


From 14.7 to 15 m below the ground level

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:2

7 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH03No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:

715401Shear Vane No.:

Tractor-mounted.Type of Rig:


Casing Depth:0.00m

FIL

L

ASHPHALT.

Sandy GRAVEL (fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular, basalt).

Clayey SILT; light brown mottled orange.Firm; high plasticity; moist.

Silty SAND; greyish brown.Firm; moist to wet; friable.

Silty CLAY; light brown mottled orange.Inferred firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist to wet.

1

2

3

4

5

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

85 -

79 -

0.6m - 0.8m: Becomes, with some sand; reddish brown.Three beds of very thin (10 mm) cemented SAND.

1.0m: Thin bed of cemented SAND (30 mm); reddish brown.

1.4m: One cobble-sized fragment of SANDSTONE.

1.9m: Very thin bed (10 mm) of cemented SAND.

2.4m: Becomes brown.

2.5m: Becomes brown mottled grey.

3.0m: Becomes light grey mottled brown.

5.0m: Becomes light brown mottled grey.5.2m: Very thin bed (10 mm) of silty SAND; brown.

DCN DrillingTractor-mounted.

Open

Rota

ry C

ore

d

49 / 23715401

1, 0 / 0, 0,0, 0N=0

1, 0 / 1, 1,1, 1N=4

0, 0 / 0, 1,1, 1N=3

WATER

Open

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

nA

uck

land V

olc

anic

Fie

ld

79.16 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:2

7 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH03No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:0.00m

Clayey SILT, with some sand; grey.Firm, high plasticity; moist to wet.

Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE, with very thin beds of black carbonaceousfossilised wood; light grey.Moderately thick to thickly bedded (0.5 - 1.10 m), fine grained; weak.J1: sub-horizontal; stepped and rough; very closely to closely spaced; dustingof dark grey fine sand and fossilised wood fragments.J2: gently inclined; undulating and rough; extremely closely spaced; dustingof grey, sandy SILT.

6

7

8

9

10

79 -

42 -

100 -

86 82

70 64

75 69

5.7m - 6.5m: Becomes wet.

6.5m: Becomes inferred very stiff.

Rota

ry C

ore

dR

ota

ry C

ore

d

35 / 217154010, 1 / 1, 2,

4, 4N=11

4, 13 / 23,27 for65mm

N=50 for290mm

5, 9 / 11,12, 13, 17

N=50

12, 27 / 23for 30mmN=50 for255mm

Open

HQ

3

Not M

easu

redE

ast

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

79.16 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:2

7 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH03No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:0.00m

[CONT] Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE, with very thin beds of black carbonaceousfossilised wood; light grey.Moderately thick to thickly bedded (0.5 - 1.10 m), fine grained; weak.J1: sub-horizontal; stepped and rough; very closely to closely spaced; dustingof dark grey fine sand and fossilised wood fragments.J2: gently inclined; undulating and rough; extremely closely spaced; dustingof grey, sandy SILT.

EOH: 15.00m

12

13

14

15

16

75 69

87 87

90 82

12.5m: J1 becomes widely spaced.

13.8m: J2 becomes very steeply inclined; undulating and rough; moderately widelyspaced; with a dusting of SAND (fine).

13.9m - 14.4m: Becomes very weak.

Rota

ry C

ore

d

12, 52N=50

10, 50 for55mm

N=50 for230mm

10, 12 / 15,14, 17, 24

N=50

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

79.16 m RL


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH03

Sheet:

1 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

79.16 m

From 0.00 to 2.00 m below ground level



Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH03

Sheet:

2 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

79.16 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH03

Sheet:

3 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

79.16 m



Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:5

5 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH04No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 3Sheet:

13/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:4.50m

FIL

L

ASHPHALT.

GRAVEL(fine to coarse, sub-angular, basalt), in a silty matrix; grey.Non-plastic; moist.

Silty CLAY, with minor gravel (fine); brownish orange, brown, occasionallygrey and black.Inferred stiff; moderate plasticity; moist.

Clayey SILT, with minor gravel (fine); brownish orange, brown, occasionallygrey and black.Inferred stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Silty CLAY; brownish orange, brown, occasionally grey and black.Inferred stiff; moderate plasticity; moist; thin bands (< 20 mm) of cementedsand; dark orange to red.

Sandy (fine) gravelly (fine) SILT, with some clay; light brown, with red andblack specks (gravels).Inferred stiff; low plasticity; moist.

Clayey organic SILT; dark grey and black.Firm; moderate plasticity; moist to wet.

Silty CLAY; bluish grey mottled orange.Inferred firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist.

Silty organic CLAY; bluish green speckled orange and white.Stiff; high plasticity; moist.

1

2

3

4

5

100 -

100 -

83 -

90 -

1.4m:Inferred very stiff.

2.5m - 2.9m: Thin beds (< 20 mm) of cemented sand (fine); dark orange to red.

3.0m: Organic content decreasing.



5.3m: Becomes grey, streaked black (organics).

5.5m: Decomposing wood.


Open

Rota

ry C

ore

dUTP1253

35 / 31253

90 / 451253

1, 2 / 2, 2,2, 2N=8

0, 0 / 1, 0,1, 1N=3

0, 0 / 1, 1,1, 1N=4

WATER

Open

4.5

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

ation

Auck

land V

olc

anic

Fie

ld

78.85 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:5

5 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH04No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 3Sheet:

13/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:4.50m

[CONT] Silty organic CLAY; bluish green speckled orange and white.Stiff; high plasticity; moist.

Silty CLAY; light grey, with occasional black (organic) and brown streaks.Stiff; high plasticity; moist.

Clayey sandy (fine) SILT; grey with black and brown bands (approx. 10 - 20mm thick).Stiff; moderate plasticity; moist.

Silty SAND, with some clay; grey.Inferred medium dense; low plasticity; moist.PP = 2.0.

Silty CLAY; grey.Inferred stiff; high plasticity; moist.

6

7

8

9

10

90 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

5.6m: Inferred soft.5.7m - 5.8m: PEAT (FIBROUS).5.9m - 6.0m: WOOD, partially decomposed.


7.1m - 7.2m: Silty organic CLAY; blue and black with orange streak; rootletinclusions.


7.5m: Rootlet inclusions.

8.1m: Rootlet inclusions and decomposing wood fragment (approx. 50 mm length, 30mm width).


8.5m: Becomes grey mottled orange and black; rootlet inclusions.

10.1m: Inferred very stiff.

10.3m - 10.5m: Silty SAND, with some clay; grey.Inferred medium dense; low plasticity; moist.

Rota

ry C

ore

d

77 / 01253

84 / 391253

52 / 191253

UTP1253

1, 0 / 1, 0,1, 1N=3

0, 0 / 0, 1,1, 1N=3

1, 2 / 2, 2,2, 2N=8

3, 4 / 5, 5,5, 8

N=23

Open

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

n

78.85 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:5

5 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH04No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 3Sheet:

13/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



KMLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:4.50m

[CONT] Silty CLAY; grey.Inferred stiff; high plasticity; moist.

Organic SAND (fine to medium); grey and black.Non-plastic; moist; decomposing wood fragments.

Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE; dark grey.Thin to moderately thick bedded, sub-horizontal to gently inclined; weak.J1: at 13.35 to E.O.H.: sub-horizontal; undulating and rough; very narrow;closely spaced; sandy infill.

EOH: 16.50m

12

13

14

15

16

100 -

100 63

80 67

83 73

11.0m - 11.2m: Silty SAND, with some clay; grey.Inferred medium dense; low plasticity; moist.

11.2m: Becomes dark grey.

12.0m: Becomes SAND (no organic inclusions).


HW

Rota

ry C

ore

dR

ota

ry C

ore

d

UTP1253

UTP1253

UTP1253

UTP1253

9, 12 / 22,26, 2 for

5mmN=50 for230mm

25, 25 for45mmN=50

27, 23 for35mmN=50

21, 29 for65mmN=50

Open

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

nP

uke

toka

Form

atio

n

78.85 m RL


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH04

Sheet:

1 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

13/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.85 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH04

Sheet:

2 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

16/08/2021







Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH04

Sheet:

3 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.85 m



Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:4

6 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH05No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)

Near level; concrete.

Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:7.50m

FIL

L

CONCRETE.

Silty CLAY; brown.Firm; high plasticity; moist to wet.

Silty CLAY; greyish brown.Firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist to wet.

1

2

3

4

5

84 -

84 -

94 -

85 -

83 -

76 -

0.5m: Becomes orange brown.

1.0m: A thin bed (< 10 mm) of GRAVELS (fine to coarse) then becomes light brownmottled orange.

1.6m: Becomes silty CLAY, with some gravel (fine to coarse); brown.

2.3m: Becomes orange.

2.7m: A thin bed (< 10 mm) of GRAVEL (fine to coarse) and black carbonaceousfossilised wood.

3.0m: Becomes grey mottled brown.

4.0m: Becomes light grey mottled brown.


Open

Rota

ry C

ore

d

152 / 49715401

49 / 9715401

61 / 3715401

61 / 27715401

1, 1 / 4, 5,6, 8

N=23

1, 0 / 0, 0,1, 1N=2

WATER

Open

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

nA

uck

land V

olc

anic

Fie

ld

78.98 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:4

6 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH05No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:7.50m

Pu p [CONT] Silty CLAY; greyish brown.

Firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist to wet.

Clayey SILT, with some sand; light grey mottled orange and brown.Stiff; high plasticity; moist to wet.

Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE; grey.Very thin to thickly bedded (0.06 - 0.90 m), fine grained; weak.J1: sub-horizontal to gently inclined; undulating and smooth to rough;moderately wide to widely spaced (0.3 to 0.85 m).

6

7

8

9

10

76 -

73 -

70 62

85 75

84 83

6.0m: Becomes dark grey.

6.2m: Becomes completely weathered; very stiff.

9.5m - 9.6m: J1 becomes very closely spaced.

Rota

ry C

ore

dR

ota

ry C

ore

d

37 / 67154011, 0 / 1, 1,

1, 2N=5

7, 12 / 30,20 for20mm

N=50 for245mm

17, 52N=50

18, 54N=50

Open

HQ

3

Not M

easu

redEast

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

78.98 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:4

6 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH05No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:7.50m

[CONT] Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE; grey.Very thin to thickly bedded (0.06 - 0.90 m), fine grained; weak.J1: sub-horizontal to gently inclined; undulating and smooth to rough;moderately wide to widely spaced (0.3 to 0.85 m).

EOH: 15.00m

12

13

14

15

16

84 83

88 81

80 45

11.9m: J2: gently inclined; undulating and slickenslided; with a dustung of light greySAND (fine).

12.8m: J1 becomes closely spaced and open; very thin beds (< 20 mm) of cementedlight grey SANDSTONE and black carbonaceous fossilised wood.

14.9m - 15.0m: J3: sub-vertical; planar and rough; narrow (< 6 mm).

Rota

ry C

ore

d

36, 14 for10mmN=50

30, 20 for25mmN=50

50 for60mmN=50

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

78.98 m RL


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH05

Sheet:

1 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.98 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH05=5 Sheet:

2 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.98 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH05

Sheet:

3 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.98 m



Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

7:4

8 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH06No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)

Near-level; ashphalt.

Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



MSLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:

Trailer Mounted RigType of Rig:


Casing Depth:7.50m

FIL

L

ASHPHALT.

Basaltic Lapilli/Tuff; Highly to Completely Weathered: SAND & GRAVELS;dark grey.Loose; dry; non-plastic; Sand, medium to coarse; Gravel, fine to coarse, sub-angular to angular; occasional vesicular.

Silty CLAY; brownish orange, mottled light grey and orange.Stiff to very stiff; moist; high plasticity; occasional silt pockets; fine rootlets.

Clayey SILT, with coarse silt to medium sand, and intermixed gravels; darkgrey, reddish brown, brownish red and brownish orange.Very stiff; moist; moderate plasticity; occasional rootlets and organics.

Silty CLAY; grey, mottled orange, brownish orange, brown and greenishbrown.Stiff to very stiff; moist; high plasticity; minor fabric staining and organics.

1

2

3

4

5

100 -

70 -

100 -

0 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

2.0m: Becomes SILT, some sand (fine to coarse), minor clay; dark brown/grey.Firm to stiff; moist to wet; low plasticity; occasional rootlets.

2.5m: Becomes very stiff to hard.



4.5m: Becomes clayey SILT; moderate plasticity.

HW

DCN DrillingTrailer Mounted Rig

MSHQT3

Rota

ry C

ore

d

113 / 551253

139 / 361253

UTP1253

77 / 191253

1, 1 / 2, 2,2, 2N=8

1, 0 / 0, 0,0, 0N=0

0, 0 / 1, 0,1, 1N=3

WATER

HQ

T3

7.5

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

ation

Auck

land V

olc

anic

Fie

ld

78.36 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

7:4

8 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH06No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



MSLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

Pup

[CONT] Silty CLAY; grey, mottled orange, brownish orange, brown andgreenish brown.Stiff to very stiff; moist; high plasticity; minor fabric staining and organics.

Residual soil: Inter-layered sandy SILT & laminated clayey SILT; dark grey.Very stiff to hard; moist; low plasticity to moderate plasticity.

Slightly Weathered; Interbedded SANDSTONE & MUDSTONE; dark grey;weak.Moderately thin to moderately thick bedding; sub-horizontal bedding;occasional very thin beds of plant remains.D1: Widely spaced; undulating & rough; very steeply inclined; narrow (8.2-13.0 m).D2: Moderately widely spaced; undulating & rough; sub-horizontal to gentlyinclined; narrow (9.5-13.2 m).

6

7

8

9

10

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 -

100 50

100 -

100 50

5.5m: Becomes moist to wet; trace fine sand.

5.8m: Brownish orange mottling.

6.7m: Becomes completely weathered.

EW

SW

Rota

ry C

ore

d

29 / 61253

UTP1253

0, 1 / 1, 2,2, 2N=7

4, 6 / 8, 10,12, 17N=47

19, 31 for70mmN=50

25, 25 for65mmN=50

HQ

T3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

78.36 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

7:4

8 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH06No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 3Sheet:

16/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



MSLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

[CONT] Slightly Weathered; Interbedded SANDSTONE & MUDSTONE; darkgrey; weak.Moderately thin to moderately thick bedding; sub-horizontal bedding;occasional very thin beds of plant remains.J1: Widely spaced; undulating & rough; very steeply inclined; narrow (8.2-13.0 m).J2: Moderately widely spaced; undulating & rough; sub-horizontal to gentlyinclined; narrow (9.5-13.2 m).

EOH: 13.50m

12

13

14

15

16

100 50

100 -

100 50

12.0m: Discontinuity/Joint spacing increases.

SW

Rota

ry C

ore

d

29, 21 for65mmN=50

22, 28 for70mmN=50

HQ

T3

Not M

easu

red

78.36 m RL


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH06

Sheet:

1 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.36 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH06

Sheet:

2 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

16/08/2021







Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH06

Sheet:

3 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates: Date:

16/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.36 m


Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

7:5

8 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH07No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 3Sheet:

17/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:7.50m

FIL

LA

VF

ASHPHALT.

GRAVEL (fine, sub-angular, basalt).

Silty CLAY, with some sand and gravel (fine to coarse); brownish orangemottled brown.Firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist to wet.

Silty CLAY; orange brown mottled orange.Firm to stiff; high plasticity; moist.

Clayey sandy SILT; grey mottled dark grey and orange.Soft; low plasticity; moist to wet.

1

2

3

4

5

44 -

100 -

100 -

15 -

72 -

67 -

0.6m: Becomes orange brown.

0.7m: Becomes brown with orange mottles.

1.0m: Becomes greyish brown mottled orange.

1.5m: Becomes orange mottled grey and black.

3.0m: Becomes grey mottled orange and red.

3.9m - 4.1m: Trace SAND (fine); orange.

4.4m: Becomes orange mottled pink.



Open

Rota

ry C

ore

d52 / 0715401

1, 1 / 1, 1,1, 2N=5

1, 1 / 1, 1,2, 2N=6

0, 0 / 0, 1,1, 2N=4

WATER

Open

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

n

80.63 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

7:5

8 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH07No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 3Sheet:

17/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:7.50m

Pup

[CONT] Clayey sandy SILT; grey mottled dark grey and orange.Soft; low plasticity; moist to wet.

Clayey sandy SILT; dark grey.Soft to firm; low plasticity; moist to wet.

Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE, with occasional very thin to moderately thinbeds of black carbonaceous fossilised wood; grey.Very thin to thcikly bedded; fine grained; weak.J1: sub-horizontal to gently inclined; stepped and rough; closely tomoderately widely spaced (0.09 - 0.25 m); moderately narrow to moderatelywide; infilled with sand.J2: sub-vertical; planar and rough; very widely spaced (2.6 m); narrow to verynarrow; infilled with sand (fine).

6

7

8

9

10

67 -

23 -

63 40

95 70

87 66

5.8m: Becomes orange.

8.5m - 8.6m: J1 is extremely closely spaced (< 20 mm).

CW

HW

Rota

ry C

ore

dR

ota

ry C

ore

d

1, 2 / 2, 2,4, 4

N=12

4, 5 / 11,17, 21, 24

N=50

25, 25 for10mmN=50

17, 33 for65mmN=50

Open

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

80.63 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

7:5

8 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH07No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 3Sheet:

17/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



EJCLogged By:




Casing Depth:7.50m

[CONT] Highly weathered East Coast Bays Formation (Mwe); interbeddedSANDSTONE and SILTSTONE, with occasional very thin to moderately thinbeds of black carbonaceous fossilised wood; grey.Very thin to thcikly bedded; fine grained; weak.J1: sub-horizontal to gently inclined; stepped and rough; closely tomoderately widely spaced (0.09 - 0.25 m); moderately narrow to moderatelywide; infilled with sand.J2: sub-vertical; planar and rough; very widely spaced (2.6 m); narrow to verynarrow; infilled with sand (fine).

EOH: 15.00m

12

13

14

15

16

87 66

90 68

85 82

13.1m - 13.5m: J1 is extremely closely spaced (< 20 mm).

HW

Rota

ry C

ore

d

10, 25 / 30N=50

17, 33 for60mmN=50

27, 23 for25mmN=50

HQ

3

Not M

easu

red

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

80.63 m RL


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH07

Sheet:

1 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

17/08/2021



Reduced level:

80.63 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH07=5 Sheet:

2 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

17/08/2021



Reduced level:

80.63 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH07

Sheet:

3 of 3

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

17/08/2021



Reduced level:

80.63 m


Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:1

7 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH08No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

1 of 3Sheet:

17/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



MSLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

FIL

LA

uck

land V

olc

anic

Fie

ld

Hydro excavation; assumed surface fill (concrete) into natural ground (AVFsoils).

Silty CLAY, with pockets of silt and fine to medium sand; grey, mottled brown,orange and red.Stiff; moist; high plasticity.

Partially welded TUFF & LAPILLI; SAND, some gravels, trace silt; darkreddish brown, mottled red and grey.Hard (or very weak rock); moist; low plasticity; sand, fine to coarse.

Gravelly SAND, minor silt; dark grey.Firm; wet; non-plastic; dilatant.

Organic CLAY, with PEAT; dark grey/brown and black.Firm; moist to wet; high plasticity.

Silty CLAY, mottled minor fibrous peat; brownish orange, grey, mottled blackand greenish grey.Firm to stiff; moist; high plasticity.

1

2

3

4

5

0 -

0 -

50 -

50 -

45 -

30 -

60 -

2.7m: Becomes some silt; dark grey, greenish grey and brown.


DCN DrillingTrailer Mounted Rig

MSOpen

Rota

ry C

ore

UTP1253

32 / 81253

1, 1 / 1, 1,1, 1N=4

2, 3 / 3, 1,1, 1N=5

1, 1 / 1, 2,2, 2N=7

WATER

Open

7.5

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

n

78.14 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:1

7 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH08No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

2 of 3Sheet:

17/08/2021Date:


Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



MSLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

[CONT] Silty CLAY, mottled minor fibrous peat; brownish orange, grey,mottled black and greenish grey.Firm to stiff; moist; high plasticity.

Clayey SILT, minor sand, and occasional gravels; grey, brown, mottledgreenish grey and brown.Firm to stiff; moist; low plasticity.

Residual soil; inter-layered Sandy SILT & laminated clayey SILT; dark grey.Very stiff to hard; moist; low to moderate plasticity.

Highly Weathered; Interbedded SANDSTONE & MUDSTONE; dark grey;very weak.Thin bedding; sub-horizontal bedding.J1: Widely spaced; undulating & rough; gently inclined; narrow.

Moderately Weathered; Interbedded SANDSTONE & MUDSTONE; darkgrey; very weak.Moderately thin to moderately thick bedding; sub-horizontal bedding;occasional very thin beds of plant remains; widely spaced; sub-horizontal.J1: Widely spaced; undulating & rough; gently inclined; narrow.

6

7

8

9

10

60 -

100 -

100 -

80 -

80 -

100 0

100 20

100 60

100 50


8.0m: Becomes completely weathered.

EW

HW

MW

Rota

ry C

ore

Rota

ry C

ore

45 / 131253

40 / 61253

UTP1253

0, 0 / 1, 0,1, 1N=3

1, 2 / 3, 5,5, 7

N=20

7, 14 / 22,28 for70mm

N=50 for295mm

21, 32 for70mmN=50

Open

HQ

T3

Not M

easu

red

Puke

toka

Form

atio

nE

ast

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n

78.14 m RL

Genera

ted w

ith C

OR

E-G

S b

y G

ero

c -

Mach

ine D

rille

d B

ore

hole

Log -

8/0

9/2

021 1

1:3

8:1

7 a

m

Installation

Co

re R

eco

very

(%)

RQ

D(%

)

Dep

th (

m)


Dri

llin

g M

eth

od

Gro

un

dw

ate

r


MH08No.:


SOIL:

Str

ati

gra

ph

y

FR

SW

MW

HW

EW

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Weath

eri

ng

SP

T

J3217Job No.:

3 of 3Sheet:

17/08/2021Date:


78.14 m RLReduced Level:

Sh

ear

Str

en

gth

(kP

a)


Barr

el T

yp

e


Date Started:



MSLogged By:

1253Shear Vane No.:



Casing Depth:7.50m

[CONT] Moderately Weathered; Interbedded SANDSTONE & MUDSTONE;dark grey; very weak.Moderately thin to moderately thick bedding; sub-horizontal bedding;occasional very thin beds of plant remains; widely spaced; sub-horizontal.J1: Widely spaced; undulating & rough; gently inclined; narrow.

EOH: 15.00m

12

13

14

15

16

100 50

100 50

100 50

100 50

100 50

MW

Not M

easu

red

Rota

ry C

ore

30, 20 for35mmN=50

22, 28 for70mmN=50

28, 22 for25mmN=50

HQ

T3

East

Coast

Bays

Form

atio

n


Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH08

Sheet:

1 of 2

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

17/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.14 m




Job No.:

J3217

No.:

MH08=5 Sheet:

2 of 2

Client:

Urban Resort

Coordinates:

Date:

17/08/2021



Reduced level:

78.14 m


No core photo





APPENDIX H

LABORATORY DOCUMENTATION

R J Hill Laboratories Limited28 Duke Street Frankton 3204Private Bag 3205Hamilton 3240 New Zealand

0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)+64 7 858 [email protected]

TTEW

This Laboratory is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which representsNew Zealand in the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILACMutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC-MRA) this accreditation is internationally recognised.The tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation, with theexception of tests marked * or any comments and interpretations, which are not accredited.

Certificate of Analysis Page 1 of 4

Client:Contact: Ed Collings

C/- GWE Consulting LimitedPO Box 32 311DevonportAuckland 0624

GWE Consulting Limited Lab No:Date Received:Date Reported:Quote No:Order No:Client Reference:Submitted By:

267925317-Aug-202115-Sep-2021102650

J3217Ed Collings

SPv4

(Amended)

Sample Type: SoilSample Name:

Lab Number:MH01, 0.5 MH01, 1.5 MH02, 2.0 MH04, 0.6

2679253.1 2679253.3 2679253.6 2679253.9 2679253.11

MH02, 0.5

Individual Tests

g/100g as rcvd 64 - 69 - 71Dry Matter

Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level

mg/kg dry wt 2 5 2 3 < 2Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.11 < 0.10Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 44 53 56 32 45Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 16 18 19 31 29Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 7.8 6.5 7.7 6.2 13.3Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.11 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Total Recoverable Mercurymg/kg dry wt 31 26 51 52 68Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 42 23 69 82 66Total Recoverable Zinc

Organochlorine Pesticides Screening in Soil

mg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Aldrinmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014alpha-BHCmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014beta-BHCmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014delta-BHCmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014cis-Chlordanemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014trans-Chlordanemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0142,4'-DDDmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0144,4'-DDDmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0142,4'-DDEmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0144,4'-DDEmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0142,4'-DDTmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0144,4'-DDTmg/kg dry wt < 0.10 - < 0.09 - < 0.09Total DDT Isomersmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Dieldrinmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Endosulfan Img/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Endosulfan IImg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Endosulfan sulphatemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Endrinmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Endrin aldehydemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Endrin ketonemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Heptachlormg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Hexachlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Methoxychlor



2679253.1 2679253.3 2679253.6 2679253.9 2679253.11

MH02, 0.5

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil*

mg/kg dry wt < 0.4 - < 0.4 - < 0.4Total of Reported PAHs in Soilmg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0141-Methylnaphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.0142-Methylnaphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Acenaphthylenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Acenaphthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Benzo[a]anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - 0.017Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP)mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 - < 0.04 - < 0.04Benzo[a]pyrene Potency

Equivalency Factor (PEF) NES*mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 - < 0.04 - < 0.04Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic

Equivalence (TEF)*mg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]

fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Benzo[e]pyrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Benzo[g,h,i]perylenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Chrysenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - 0.025Fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Fluorenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.08 - < 0.07 - < 0.07Naphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Perylenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - < 0.014Phenanthrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.016 - < 0.014 - 0.026Pyrene

Sample Name:Lab Number:

MH04, 1.0 MH06, 0.5 MH05, 0.5 MH05, 2.0

2679253.12 2679253.16 2679253.21 2679253.25 2679253.27

MH03, 0.5

Individual Tests

g/100g as rcvd 71 71 71 63 -Dry MatterHeavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level

mg/kg dry wt 2 < 2 < 2 2 < 2Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.10 0.15Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 57 12 56 75 36Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 32 7 26 17 28Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 15.7 4.9 7.7 13.5 5.7Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.15 < 0.10Total Recoverable Mercurymg/kg dry wt 109 8 51 73 111Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 92 6 67 68 87Total Recoverable Zinc


mg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Aldrinmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -alpha-BHCmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -beta-BHCmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -delta-BHCmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -cis-Chlordanemg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -trans-Chlordanemg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -2,4'-DDDmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -4,4'-DDDmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -2,4'-DDEmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -4,4'-DDEmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -2,4'-DDTmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -4,4'-DDTmg/kg dry wt - < 0.09 < 0.09 < 0.10 -Total DDT Isomersmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Dieldrin

Lab No: 2679253-SPv4 Hill Laboratories Page 2 of 4



2679253.12 2679253.16 2679253.21 2679253.25 2679253.27

MH03, 0.5


mg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Endosulfan Img/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Endosulfan IImg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Endosulfan sulphatemg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Endrinmg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Endrin aldehydemg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Endrin ketonemg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Heptachlormg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Hexachlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Methoxychlor

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil*

mg/kg dry wt < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 -Total of Reported PAHs in Soilmg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -1-Methylnaphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Acenaphthylenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Acenaphthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Benzo[a]anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP)mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 -Benzo[a]pyrene Potency

Equivalency Factor (PEF) NES*mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 -Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic

Equivalence (TEF)*mg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]

fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Benzo[e]pyrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Benzo[g,h,i]perylenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Chrysenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Fluorenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.08 -Naphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Perylenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Phenanthrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.014 < 0.016 -Pyrene

Sample Name:Lab Number:

MH3 (QC)

2679253.30


mg/kg dry wt < 2 - - - -Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt < 0.10 - - - -Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 54 - - - -Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 25 - - - -Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 7.5 - - - -Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt 0.15 - - - -Total Recoverable Mercurymg/kg dry wt 55 - - - -Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 65 - - - -Total Recoverable Zinc


Analyst's CommentsAmended Report: This certificate of analysis replaces report '2679253-SPv3' issued on 31-Aug-2021 at 4:13 pm.Reason for amendment: Metals testing added.

The following table(s) gives a brief description of the methods used to conduct the analyses for this job. The detection limits given below are those attainable in a relatively simple matrix.Detection limits may be higher for individual samples should insufficient sample be available, or if the matrix requires that dilutions be performed during analysis. A detection limit rangeindicates the lowest and highest detection limits in the associated suite of analytes. A full listing of compounds and detection limits are available from the laboratory upon request.Unless otherwise indicated, analyses were performed at Hill Laboratories, 28 Duke Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204.

Summary of Methods

Sample Type: SoilTest Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No

1, 3, 6, 9,11-12, 16,21, 25, 27,

30

Environmental Solids Sample Drying* Air dried at 35°CUsed for sample preparation.May contain a residual moisture content of 2-5%.

-

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Total of Reported PAHs in Soil Sonication extraction, GC-MS analysis. In-house based on USEPA 8270.

0.03 mg/kg dry wt

1, 3, 6, 9,11-12, 16,21, 25, 27,

30

Heavy Metals with Mercury, ScreenLevel

Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric aciddigestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations. ICP-MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic EnergyDiscrimination if required.

0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11, 16,21, 25

Organochlorine Pesticides Screening inSoil

Sonication extraction, GC-ECD analysis. Tested on as receivedsample. In-house based on US EPA 8081.

0.010 - 0.06 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsScreening in Soil*

Sonication extraction, GC-MS analysis. Tested on as receivedsample. In-house based on US EPA 8270.

0.002 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than airdry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soilobjects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed).US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Benzo[a]pyrene Potency EquivalencyFactor (PEF) NES*

BaP Potency Equivalence calculated from; Benzo(a)anthracenex 0.1 + Benzo(b)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(j)fluoranthene x 0.1+ Benzo(k)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(a)pyrene x 1.0 +Chrysene x 0.01 + Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene x 1.0 + Fluoranthenex 0.01 + Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene x 0.1. Ministry for theEnvironment. 2011. Methodology for Deriving Standards forContaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. Wellington:Ministry for the Environment.

0.002 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence(TEF)*

Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence (TEF) calculated from;Benzo[a]pyrene x 1.0 + Benzo(a)anthracene x 0.1 + Benzo(b)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(k)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Chrysene x0.01 + Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene x 1.0 + Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrenex 0.1. Guidelines for assessing and managing contaminatedgasworks sites in New Zealand (GMG) (MfE, 1997).

0.002 mg/kg dry wt


Ara Heron BSc (Tech)Client Services Manager - Environmental

These samples were collected by yourselves (or your agent) and analysed as received at the laboratory.

Testing was completed between 24-Aug-2021 and 15-Sep-2021. For completion dates of individual analyses please contact the laboratory.

Samples are held at the laboratory after reporting for a length of time based on the stability of the samples and analytes being tested (considering anypreservation used), and the storage space available. Once the storage period is completed, the samples are discarded unless otherwise agreed withthe customer. Extended storage times may incur additional charges.

This certificate of analysis must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the signatory.

Job Information Summary Page 1 of 2

Client:

Contact: Ed Collings

C/- GWE Consulting Limited

PO Box 32 311

Devonport

Auckland 0624

GWE Consulting Limited Lab No:

Date Registered:Priority:

Quote No:

Order No:Client Reference:

Submitted By:

2679253

18-Aug-2021 11:59 amHigh

102650

J3217

Ed Collings

Charge To: GWE Consulting Limited

R J Hill Laboratories Limited28 Duke Street Frankton 3204

Private Bag 3205

Hamilton 3240 New Zealand

0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]

www.hill-laboratories.com

TT

E

W

Add. Client Ref:

Target Date: 15-Sep-2021 4:30 pm

No Sample Name Sample Type Containers Tests Requested

Samples

1 MH01, 0.5 Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Organochlorine Pesticides Screening in Soil; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

2 MH01, 1.0 Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Hold Cold

3 MH01, 1.5 Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level









12 MH04, 1.0 Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

















29 MH05 (0.1) Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Hold Cold

Lab No: 2679253 Hill Laboratories Page 1 of 2


Samples

30 MH3 (QC) Soil GSoil300 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level

31 MH5 (QC) Soil GSoil300 Hold Cold



Summary of Methods

Sample Type: Soil

Test Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No

1, 3, 6, 9,11-12, 16,21, 25, 27,

30

Environmental Solids Sample Drying Air dried at 35°CUsed for sample preparation.May contain a residual moisture content of 2-5%.

-

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Total of Reported PAHs in Soil Sonication extraction, GC-MS analysis. In-house based on US EPA 8270.

0.03 mg/kg dry wt

1, 3, 6, 9,11-12, 16,21, 25, 27,

30


Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations. ICP-MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic Energy Discrimination if required.

0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11, 16,21, 25


Sonication extraction, GC-ECD analysis. Tested on as received sample. In-house based on US EPA 8081.

0.010 - 0.06 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

Sonication extraction, GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample. In-house based on US EPA 8270.

0.002 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soil objects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed). US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Benzo[a]pyrene Potency Equivalency Factor (PEF) NES

BaP Potency Equivalence calculated from; Benzo(a)anthracene x 0.1 + Benzo(b)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(j)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(k)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(a)pyrene x 1.0 + Chrysene x 0.01 + Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene x 1.0 + Fluoranthene x 0.01 + Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene x 0.1. Ministry for the Environment. 2011. Methodology for Deriving Standards for Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

0.002 mg/kg dry wt

1, 6, 11-12,16, 21, 25

Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence (TEF)

Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence (TEF) calculated from; Benzo[a]pyrene x 1.0 + Benzo(a)anthracene x 0.1 + Benzo(b)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(k)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Chrysene x 0.01 + Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene x 1.0 + Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene x 0.1. Guidelines for assessing and managing contaminated gasworks sites in New Zealand (GMG) (MfE, 1997).

0.002 mg/kg dry wt

R J Hill Laboratories LimitedGround Fl, 28 Heather StreetParnellAuckland 1052 New Zealand

0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)+64 7 858 [email protected]

TTEW

This Laboratory is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which representsNew Zealand in the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILACMutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC-MRA) this accreditation is internationally recognised.The tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation, with theexception of tests marked * or any comments and interpretations, which are not accredited.

Certificate of Analysis Page 1 of 3

Client:Contact: Ed Collings

C/- GWE Consulting LimitedPO Box 32 311DevonportAuckland 0624

GWE Consulting Limited Lab No:Date Received:Date Reported:Quote No:Order No:Client Reference:Submitted By:

267944317-Aug-202101-Sep-2021102650

J3217Ed Collings

A2Pv1


Lab Number:

MH01, 0.511-Aug-2021

MH02, 0.513-Aug-2021

MH06, 0.517-Aug-2021

MH03, 0.516-Aug-2021

2679443.1 2679443.2 2679443.3 2679443.4 2679443.5

MH04, 0.6

Asbestos NOTdetected.





Asbestos Presence / Absence

- - - - -Description of Asbestos Form% w/w < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001Asbestos in ACM as % of Total

Sample*% w/w < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001Combined Fibrous Asbestos +

Asbestos Fines as % of Total Sample*% w/w < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001Asbestos as Fibrous Asbestos as % of

Total Sample*% w/w < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001Asbestos as Asbestos Fines as % of

Total Sample*g 557.2 424.7 493.2 477.0 770.6As Received Weightg 413.8 299.8 368.2 360.1 623.0Dry Weight

% 26 29 25 25 19Moisture

g dry wt 16.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 23.4Sample Fraction >10mm*g dry wt 122.9 85.3 83.8 141.4 232.3Sample Fraction <10mm to >2mm*g dry wt 273.3 213.6 283.8 217.8 366.8Sample Fraction <2mm*g dry wt 50.2 50.3 50.8 50.1 50.9<2mm Subsample Weight*g dry wt < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001Weight of Asbestos in ACM (Non-

Friable)g dry wt < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001Weight of Asbestos as Fibrous

Asbestos (Friable)*g dry wt < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001Weight of Asbestos as Asbestos

Fines (Friable)*

Sample Name:

Lab Number:

MH05, 0.517-Aug-20212679443.6


- - - -Asbestos Presence / Absence

- - - - -Description of Asbestos Form% w/w < 0.001 - - - -Asbestos in ACM as % of Total

Sample*% w/w < 0.001 - - - -Combined Fibrous Asbestos +

Asbestos Fines as % of Total Sample*% w/w < 0.001 - - - -Asbestos as Fibrous Asbestos as % of

Total Sample*% w/w < 0.001 - - - -Asbestos as Asbestos Fines as % of

Total Sample*g 738.0 - - - -As Received Weightg 524.3 - - - -Dry Weight

% 29 - - - -Moisture


Lab Number:

MH05, 0.517-Aug-20212679443.6

g dry wt 7.1 - - - -Sample Fraction >10mm*g dry wt 132.4 - - - -Sample Fraction <10mm to >2mm*g dry wt 384.3 - - - -Sample Fraction <2mm*g dry wt 51.6 - - - -<2mm Subsample Weight*g dry wt < 0.00001 - - - -Weight of Asbestos in ACM (Non-

Friable)g dry wt < 0.00001 - - - -Weight of Asbestos as Fibrous

Asbestos (Friable)*g dry wt < 0.00001 - - - -Weight of Asbestos as Asbestos

Fines (Friable)*

Glossary of Terms• Loose fibres (Minor) - One or two fibres/fibre bundles identified during analysis by stereo microscope/PLM.• Loose fibres (Major) - Three or more fibres/fibre bundles identified during analysis by stereo microscope/PLM.• ACM Debris (Minor) - One or two small (<2mm) pieces of material attached to fibres identified during analysis by stereo microscope/PLM.• ACM Debris (Major) - Large (>2mm) piece, or more than three small (<2mm) pieces of material attached to fibres identified during analysisby stereo microscope/PLM.• Unknown Mineral Fibres - Mineral fibres of unknown type detected by polarised light microscopy including dispersion staining. The fibresdetected may or may not be asbestos fibres. To confirm the identities, another independent analytical technique may be required.• Trace - Trace levels of asbestos, as defined by AS4964-2004.For further details, please contact the Asbestos Team.

Please refer to the BRANZ New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil.https://www.branz.co.nz/asbestos

The following assumptions have been made:

1. Asbestos Fines in the <2mm fraction, after homogenisation, is evenly distributed throughout the fraction2. The weight of asbestos in the sample is unaffected by the ashing process.

Results are representative of the sample provided to Hill Laboratories only.

Lab No: 2679443-A2Pv1 Hill Laboratories Page 2 of 3


Summary of Methods

Sample Type: SoilTest Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample NoNew Zealand Guidelines Semi Quantitative Asbestos in Soil

1-6As Received Weight Measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at HillLaboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g

1-6Dry Weight Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, measurement on balance.Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street,Auckland.

0.1 g

1-6Moisture Sample dried at 100 to 105°C. Calculation = (As receivedweight - Dry weight) / as received weight x 100.

1 %

1-6Sample Fraction >10mm* Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, 10mm sieve, measurement onanalytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g dry wt

1-6Sample Fraction <10mm to >2mm* Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, 10mm and 2mm sieve,measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at HillLaboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g dry wt

1-6Sample Fraction <2mm* Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, 2mm sieve, measurement onanalytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g dry wt

1-6Asbestos Presence / Absence Examination using Low Powered Stereomicroscopy followed by'Polarised Light Microscopy' including 'Dispersion StainingTechniques'. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28Heather Street, Auckland. AS 4964 (2004) - Method for theQualitative Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples.

0.01%

1-6Description of Asbestos Form Description of asbestos form and/or shape if present. Analysedat Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

-

1-6Weight of Asbestos in ACM (Non-Friable)

Measurement on analytical balance, from the >10mm Fraction.Weight of asbestos based on assessment of ACM form.Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street,Auckland. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and ManagingAsbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.00001 g dry wt

Sample Type: SoilTest Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No

1-6Asbestos in ACM as % of TotalSample*

Calculated from weight of asbestos in ACM and sample dryweight. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and ManagingAsbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w

1-6Weight of Asbestos as FibrousAsbestos (Friable)*

Measurement on analytical balance, from the >10mm Fraction.Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street,Auckland. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and ManagingAsbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.00001 g dry wt

1-6Asbestos as Fibrous Asbestos as % ofTotal Sample*

Calculated from weight of fibrous asbestos and sample dryweight. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and ManagingAsbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w

1-6Weight of Asbestos as Asbestos Fines(Friable)*

Measurement on analytical balance, from the <10mm Fractions.Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street,Auckland. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and ManagingAsbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.00001 g dry wt

1-6Asbestos as Asbestos Fines as % ofTotal Sample*

Calculated from weight of asbestos fines and sample dry weight.New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestosin Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w

1-6Combined Fibrous Asbestos +Asbestos Fines as % of Total Sample*

Calculated from weight of fibrous asbestos plus asbestos finesand sample dry weight. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessingand Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w

Lab No: 2679443-A2Pv1 Hill Laboratories Page 3 of 3

Ashleigh TealSection Manager - Asbestos

These samples were collected by yourselves (or your agent) and analysed as received at the laboratory.

Testing was completed on 01-Sep-2021. For completion dates of individual analyses please contact the laboratory.

Samples are held at the laboratory after reporting for a length of time based on the stability of the samples and analytes being tested (considering anypreservation used), and the storage space available. Once the storage period is completed, the samples are discarded unless otherwise agreed withthe customer. Extended storage times may incur additional charges.

This certificate of analysis must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the signatory.

Job Information Summary Page 1 of 2

Client:

Contact: Ed Collings

C/- GWE Consulting Limited

PO Box 32 311

Devonport

Auckland 0624

GWE Consulting Limited Lab No:

Date Registered:Priority:

Quote No:

Order No:Client Reference:

Submitted By:

2679443

17-Aug-2021 2:13 pmHigh

102650

J3217

Ed Collings

Charge To: GWE Consulting Limited

R J Hill Laboratories Limited28 Duke Street Frankton 3204

Private Bag 3205

Hamilton 3240 New Zealand

0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]

www.hill-laboratories.com

TT

E

W

Add. Client Ref:

Target Date: 24-Aug-2021 4:30 pm


Samples

1 MH01, 0.5 11-Aug-2021 Soil PSoil500Asb New Zealand Guidelines Semi Quantitative Asbestos in Soil


3 MH04, 0.6 Soil PSoil500Asb New Zealand Guidelines Semi Quantitative Asbestos in Soil






Summary of Methods

Sample Type: Soil


New Zealand Guidelines Semi Quantitative Asbestos in Soil

1-6As Received Weight Measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g

1-6Dry Weight Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, measurement on balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g

1-6Moisture Sample dried at 100 to 105°C. Calculation = (As received weight - Dry weight) / as received weight x 100.

1 %

1-6Sample Fraction >10mm Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, 10mm sieve, measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g dry wt

1-6Sample Fraction <10mm to >2mm Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, 10mm and 2mm sieve, measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g dry wt

1-6Sample Fraction <2mm Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, 2mm sieve, measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

0.1 g dry wt

1-6Asbestos Presence / Absence Examination using Low Powered Stereomicroscopy followed by 'Polarised Light Microscopy' including 'Dispersion Staining Techniques'. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland. AS 4964 (2004) - Method for the Qualitative Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples.

0.01%

1-6Description of Asbestos Form Description of asbestos form and/or shape if present. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland.

-

Sample Type: Soil


1-6Weight of Asbestos in ACM (Non-Friable)

Measurement on analytical balance, from the >10mm Fraction. Weight of asbestos based on assessment of ACM form. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.00001 g dry wt

1-6Asbestos in ACM as % of Total Sample

Calculated from weight of asbestos in ACM and sample dry weight. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w

1-6Weight of Asbestos as Fibrous Asbestos (Friable)

Measurement on analytical balance, from the >10mm Fraction. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.00001 g dry wt

1-6Asbestos as Fibrous Asbestos as % of Total Sample

Calculated from weight of fibrous asbestos and sample dry weight. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w

1-6Weight of Asbestos as Asbestos Fines (Friable)

Measurement on analytical balance, from the <10mm Fractions. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 28 Heather Street, Auckland. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.00001 g dry wt

1-6Asbestos as Asbestos Fines as % of Total Sample

Calculated from weight of asbestos fines and sample dry weight. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w

1-6Combined Fibrous Asbestos + Asbestos Fines as % of Total Sample

Calculated from weight of fibrous asbestos plus asbestos fines and sample dry weight. New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil, November 2017.

0.001 % w/w





APPENDIX I

WASTE ACCEPTANCE DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX I – FILL DEFINITIONS

The criteria adopted for the waste classification is generally based on the waste acceptance

classes as defined by the AUPOiP (2021) and WasteMINZ (2016). These fall into three categories;

cleanfill, managed fill, and landfill (contaminated), as defined below.

Table iv: AUPOiP Fill Definitions

FILL TYPE DEFINITION

Cleanfill Material: Means natural material such as clay, gravel, sand, soil and rock which has been

excavated or quarried from areas that are not contaminated with manufactured chemicals or

chemical residues as a result of industrial, commercial, mining or agricultural activities.

Excludes:

• hazardous substances and material (such as municipal solid waste) likely to create

leachate by means of biological breakdown;

• product and materials derived from hazardous waste treatment, stabilisation and

disposal practices;

• materials such as medical and veterinary waste, asbestos, and radioactive substances;

• soil and fill material which contain any trace element specified in Table E30.6.1.4.2 at a

concentration greater than the background concentration in Auckland soils specified;

• sulfidic ores and soils;

• combustible components;

• more than 5% by volume of inert manufactured materials (e.g. concrete, brick, tiles); and

• more than 2% by volume of attached biodegradable material (e.g. vegetation).

Facility: Facility where cleanfill material is accepted for deposit. Excludes:

• storage and use of cleanfill material within an earthworks site for the purpose of

engineering contours for specific activities;

• placement of cleanfill material associated with road construction and road maintenance

activities; and

• onsite storage and use of overburden or aggregate by-product that is cleanfill material

associated with mineral extraction activities.

Managed Fill Material: Managed fill material is:

• contaminated soil and other contaminated materials;

• natural materials such as clay, gravel, sand, soil, rock; or

• inert manufactured materials such as concrete and brick: and

That does not contain:

• hazardous substances or materials (such as municipal solid waste) likely to create

• leachate by means of biological breakdown;

• products or materials derived from hazardous waste treatment stabilisation or disposal

practices;

• materials such as medical and veterinary waste, asbestos, or radioactive substances;

• combustible components; or

• more than 2 per cent by volume of incidental or attached biodegradable materials (e.g.

vegetation).

Facility: Facility where managed fill material is accepted for deposit.

Landfill

(Contaminated)

Material: -

Facility: Facility where household, commercial, municipal, industrial and hazardous, or

industrial waste is accepted for disposal.

Table v: WasteMINZ Fill Definitions

FILL TYPE DEFINITION

Cleanfill Material: Virgin excavated natural materials (VENM) such as clay, soil and

rock that are free of:

• combustible, putrescible, degradable or leachable components;

• hazardous substances or materials (such as municipal solid waste) likely to create

leachate by means of biological breakdown;

• products or materials derived from hazardous waste treatment, stabilisation or disposal

practices;

• materials such as medical and veterinary waste, asbestos, or radioactive substances that

may present a risk to human health if excavated;

• contaminated soil and other contaminated materials; and

• liquid waste.

When discharged to the environment, clean fill material will not have a detectable effect

relative to the background.

Facility: A Class 5 landfill. Accepts only clean fill material, including clean excavated natural

materials.

Managed Fill Material: Predominantly clean fill material and controlled fill material that may also contain

material with contaminant concentrations in excess of controlled fill limits where site specific

management controls are in place to manage discharges to the environment.

Facility: A Class 3 landfill. Accepts only clean fill material, controlled fill material and managed

fill material.

Landfill

(Contaminated)

Material: Soil from contaminated land as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991

(RMA).

Facility: A waste disposal site used for the controlled deposit of solid wastes onto or into land.




APPENDIX J

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)

APPENDIX J – QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS

The data validation procedure employed in the assessment of the field and laboratory QA/QC has

indicated that the reported analytical results are representative of conditions at the sample

locations and that the overall quality of the analytical data produced is acceptably reliable for the

purpose of this investigation.

Soil Sampling Investigation

Field Quality QA/QC requirements and Data Quality Objectives for the soil sampling investigation

are summarised in the tables below.

Table i: Field Quality Control

FIELD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY OF WORKS COMPLETED

Use of standard operating procedures for

sampling.

GWE standard operating procedures were followed.

Use new pair of disposable nitrile gloves for

each soil sample collected.

A new pair of disposable nitrile gloves was used for each soil

sample collected.

Decontamination of field equipment. N/A

Use of laboratory prepared and supplied

sampling containers appropriate for each

contaminant investigated.

Laboratory prepared sampling containers, supplied by Hill

Laboratories, were used for sample collection.

Use of appropriate sample Chain of Custody

(CoC) documentation.

Laboratory supplied CoC documentation was used. A copy

of the CoC is presented in Appendix H.

Collection of one duplicate soil sample for

every ten soil samples collected.

Laboratory duplicate analysis was carried out on one soil

sample meeting the

Table ii: Data Quality Objectives

DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE SUMMARY OF WORKS COMPLETED

Samples submitted for TPH, VOC and PAH

analysis are to be received at the laboratory at

a temperature below 15 ºC.

Samples were received at the laboratory at a temperature of

16ºC (refer to Appendix H) – one or more arbitrarily chosen

samples. While the recorded temperature on receipt of the

samples by the lab was 1 degree over the target

temperature it is not considered that this would have had a

significant impact on the analytical results or the conclusions

drawn in this investigation.

Samples to be analysed within acceptable

holding times for the contaminant of potential

concern. The maximum acceptable sample

holding times for organic analyses are 14 days

and 30 days for inorganic analysis.

Samples were analysed within acceptable holding times.

Samples to be appropriately preserved and

handled by the laboratory.

Samples were appropriately preserved and handled by Hill

Laboratories. No analyst comments were provided on the

laboratory reports.

Laboratory limits of reporting (LOR) are to be

less than the adopted acceptance criteria for

the project.

The laboratory LOR for contaminants of concern for the

project are less than the acceptance criteria.

Relative percentage difference (RPD) values

recorded for the duplicate soil samples are to

be less than 50%.

RPD values ranged between 0 and 40%. Refer relative

percentage difference (RPD) results table below.

Table iii: Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) Results

LAB NUMBER RFD ACCEPTANCE DUPLICATE

MH03, 0.5 MH3 (QC) RPD

Arsenic 50% 2 2 0%

Cadmium 50% 0.1 0.1 0%

Chromium (total) 50% 56 54 3.64%

Copper 50% 26 25 3.92%

Lead 50% 7.7 7.5 2.63%

Mercury (inorganic) 50% <0.1 0.15 40%

Nickel 50% 51 55 7.55%

Zinc 50% 67 65 3.03%

combined preliminary and detailed site investigation - epa

Documents