Site Validation Report From URS PDF

a
Report Site Validation Report
04 July 2014
Tui Mine 42092212/R058/D
Remediation Prepared for:
Waikato Regional Council
Prepared by URS New Zealand Limited
NEW
ZE A L A N D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... V

1 SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Phase 1 Design – Underground Mine and Waste Rock............................................................. 1
1.4 Phase 2 Design – Tailings Impoundment Area .......................................................................... 1
1.5 Construction Phase ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Remedial Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.7 Resource Consents ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.8 Conditions of Consent .................................................................................................................. 3
2 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Site Ownership .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Background ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Remedial Context .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Site Environmental Background .................................................................................................. 6
2.4.1 Contaminant Sources ................................................................................................................... 6
3 VALIDATION SAMPLING .............................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Approach to Validation Sampling................................................................................................ 9
3.3 Phase 1 Remedial Works ............................................................................................................ 14
3.4.1 Surface Water Controls .............................................................................................................. 14
3.5 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 14
3.5.1 Sampling Timing/Frequency ...................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Regulatory Compliance .............................................................................................................. 16
4 REMEDIAL GOAL AND DESIGN CRITERIA .............................................................................. 18
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Remedial Goals ........................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Environmental Security .............................................................................................................. 18
4.2.2 Geotechnical Stability ................................................................................................................. 18
4.2.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.4 Manage Potential Environmental Effects ................................................................................. 19
4.2.5 Mining Heritage ........................................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Design Criteria - Phase 1 Remedial Works ............................................................................... 19
4.3.1 Bulkhead and Flooded Mine (Below 550m RL) ........................................................................ 19
4.3.2 Discharge Controls ..................................................................................................................... 19
42092212/R058/D
4.3.3 Upper Mine and Lime Dosing (Above 550m RL) ...................................................................... 19
4.3.4 Waste Rock Stacks ..................................................................................................................... 20
4.4.1 Geotechnical Parameters ........................................................................................................... 20
4.4.2 Geochemical Parameters ........................................................................................................... 20
4.4.3 Foundation Conditions ............................................................................................................... 21
4.4.4 Tailings Deposition in Tunakohoia Catchment ........................................................................ 21
4.4.5 Capping and Imported Materials ............................................................................................... 21
4.4.6 Separation Layer ......................................................................................................................... 22
4.4.7 Surface Water Controls .............................................................................................................. 22
5 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................... 23
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 23
5.2 References for Data .................................................................................................................... 23
6 SITE CHARACTERISATION ........................................................................................................ 24
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 24
6.2 Champion Vein Underground Workings ................................................................................... 24
6.2.1 Unflooded Mine ........................................................................................................................... 24
6.2.2 Flooded Mine ............................................................................................................................... 25
6.2.3 Residual Risk ............................................................................................................................... 25
6.3 Ruakaka Vein Underground Workings ..................................................................................... 27
6.3.1 Residual Risk ............................................................................................................................... 27
6.4 Waste Rock Stacks ..................................................................................................................... 28
6.4.1 Waste Rock Champion Level 4 .................................................................................................. 28
6.4.2 Waste Rock Champion Level 5 .................................................................................................. 28
6.5 Ore Stockpile and Processing Plant ......................................................................................... 28
6.5.1 Residual Risks ............................................................................................................................. 29
6.6 Remediated Tailings Landform.................................................................................................. 29
6.6.1 Treated Tailings ........................................................................................................................... 29
6.6.2 Organic Materials ........................................................................................................................ 30
6.6.3 Residual Risks ............................................................................................................................. 30
6.7 Beached Tailings (Area S) .......................................................................................................... 30
6.7.1 Residual Risks ............................................................................................................................. 31
6.8 Tunakohoia Stream Sediments.................................................................................................. 31
6.8.1 Residual Risk ............................................................................................................................... 31
6.9 Tui Stream Bed ............................................................................................................................ 31
6.9.1 Former Silt Pond Area ................................................................................................................ 32
6.9.2 Residual Risk ............................................................................................................................... 32
6.10 Old Mine Workings ...................................................................................................................... 32
7 VALIDATION ................................................................................................................................ 33
42092212/R058/D
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 33
7.2.1 Champion Level 4 Discharge ..................................................................................................... 33
7.2.2 Champion Level 5 Discharge ..................................................................................................... 34
7.2.3 Combined Discharge .................................................................................................................. 35
7.3.1 Geotechnical Stability of Remediated Tailings Landform ...................................................... 37
7.3.2 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 38
7.3.3 Ground Model and Material Parameters ................................................................................... 38
7.3.4 Stability Analysis......................................................................................................................... 39
7.3.5 Stability Results .......................................................................................................................... 39
7.3.6 Remediated Tailings Mass Geochemical Control .................................................................... 40
7.3.7 Capping and Imported Materials ............................................................................................... 42
7.3.8 Separation Layer and Site Sourced Materials .......................................................................... 44
7.3.9 Toe Drain Discharge ................................................................................................................... 45
7.4 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 46
7.4.1 Tunakohoia Stream ..................................................................................................................... 46
7.4.2 Tui Stream .................................................................................................................................... 56
8 ONGOING SITE MONITORING ................................................................................................... 59
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 59
8.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 59
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 62
9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 62
9.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 62
9.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 63
9.3.1 Potential Further Works ............................................................................................................. 63
10 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 65
11 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 66
TABLES
Table 2-1 Scope of Remedial Works........................................................................................................... 6
Table 3-1 Functional Elements of Remedial Works .................................................................................. 10
Table 3-2 Water Quality Monitoring Sites ................................................................................................. 15
Table 7-1 Combined Discharge Mass Flux ............................................................................................... 36
Table 7-2 Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results ................................................................. 38
Table 7-3 Slope Analysis Result ............................................................................................................... 40
Table 7-4 Tailings Blend Permeability Results .......................................................................................... 41
Table 7-5 Treated Tailings Geochemical Results Summary ..................................................................... 42
42092212/R058/D
Table 7-6 Capping and Imported Material Trace Element Validation ....................................................... 43
Table 7-7 Separation Layer Testing Validation ......................................................................................... 45
Table 7-8 Tunakohoia Stream Water Quality Validation ........................................................................... 47
Table 7-9 Tui Stream Water Quality Validation ......................................................................................... 50
Table 7-10 Summary of Flow Data.............................................................................................................. 56
Table 8-1 Analytical Suites ........................................................................................................................ 59
Table 8-2 Proposed Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 60
FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Location of Tui Mine Pre - Remediation Features ...................................................................... 5
Figure 3-1 Water Quality Sampling Location .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 6-1 Underground Mine Controls ...................................................................................................... 26
Figure 7-1 Water level in the flooded mine workings ................................................................................. 34
Figure 7-2 Geological Setting for Slope Stability Model ............................................................................. 39
Figure 7-3 Mass Balance for Tunakohoia Tributary ................................................................................... 55
Figure 7-4 Mass Balance for Tui Stream .................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES
Appendix A Resource Consents
Appendix B Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP)
Appendix C Soil Background
Appendix D Water Quality Data
Appendix E Water Quality Interpretation
Appendix F Geotechnical Analyses
42092212/R058/D
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This report presents the validation of the Tui Mine Remediation. It is reported as a
requirement of Resource Consent 141042 Condition 31 in general accordance with the
Ministry for the Environment Contaminated Land Management Guideline No 1 Reporting on
Contaminated Site in New Zealand (Revised 2011).
The Tui Mine, located on Mt Te Aroha, is an abandoned heavy metal mine which produced a
range of base metals, including copper, lead and zinc from 1966 to 1973. Over the last 20
years there has been concern over the adverse environmental effects arising from the site,
including water contamination due to trace element leaching from the underground, acid rock
drainage from the ore waste rock stacks, the threat of tailings impoundment failure and the
lack of effective rehabilitation of the site.
The remedial objectives for the work completed in 2013 are to:-
 Provide a sustainable solution for the long term environmental security of the site;
 Provide a geotechnically stable landform;
 Minimise the ongoing environmental effects of the site on water quality;
 Manage any potential effects on the environment and to be considerate of any cultural or
social implications;
 Preserve aspects of the mining heritage of the area where feasible; and,
The long term land use proposed for this area is passive recreational open space as part of
the Conservation Estate. The intention is that the remediated areas would remain open to the
public and that potential human health risks associated with contaminants are mitigated or
managed.
Remediation Completed
Work undertaken to achieve the above goals included:-
 Treatment and reshaping of the high acid generating potential waste rock at Champion
Levels 4 and 5 by limestone amendment and compaction to provide a stable landform
and reduce water and oxygen infiltration and acid rock drainage (ARD).
 Construction of a bulkhead in Champion Level 5 to flood underground mine below

approximately 550 m above sea level to limit ongoing sulphide oxidation and heavy metal
release.
 The injection of limestone slurry into the upper zones of the underground mine between
550 m reduced level and the ridgeline (approximately 700 to 750 m above sea level) to
provide passive alkalinity treatment of the ongoing sources of acid rock drainage.
 Management of clean surface water by permanent diversion around the tailings.

 Installation of a groundwater cut off drain to intercept upgradient groundwater flows and
direct them toward the Tunakohoia Catchment;
42092212/R058/D
 Amendment of the tailings using a combination of in-situ stabilisation with cement and
lime and blending of tailings with ore and waste rock to provide a reshaped stable earth
fill landform, with surface water channels designed to control erosion;
 Materials with high acid generating potential have been neutralised by alkaline
amendments and compacted soil cover has been placed over the remediated tailings
landform to control water and oxygen infiltration into the tailings; and,
 Waste rock, ore and loose fill materials have been incorporated in the compacted
blended tailings product.
Tailings and acid rock drainage products historically deposited in tributaries downstream of the
impoundment and process plant areas are not part of the remedial work.
Validation of Water Quality
The data used to support this validation are from the consent compliance monitoring of
surface water quality.
The performance of the remedial works is assessed by considering the water quality
monitoring in the receiving tributaries of the Tui and Tunakohoia Streams. The trace elements
of concern associated with acid rock drainage include aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, copper,
lead, iron, manganese, mercury, nickel and zinc.
Comparison of pre and post remediation water quality is used to assess remediation
performance. Lower South Branch (SW8) and Ruakaka Tributary of the North Branch
(SW101) of the Tunakohoia are monitored to assess potential adverse effects from
underground mine flooding on adjacent catchments. No statistically significant changes are
observed at these localities.
The changes in drainage paths in the underground have generally resulted in an increase in
concentration and flow at Champion Level 4 (SW4) but a greater reduction in concentration
and flow at Champion Level 5 (SW5). The combined mass load (concentration times flow for
SW4 plus SW5) discharging from the underground mine shows an improvement in cadmium,
copper and zinc and no change in manganese. Lead and iron have increased and passive
treatment is provided to mitigate these parameters.
Within the North Branch of the Tunakohoia improvements in water quality are apparent
downstream of the underground discharges where the Mt Te Aroha access road crosses the
stream (SW100). These improvements are apparent under low and moderate flows however
high flow conditions result in comparable mass loads to average baseline (pre remediation)
conditions.
The results show that along the length of the Tunakohoia Stream, the mass balance of
contaminants of concern is impacted by residual sources of trace elements in the catchment.
The beached tailings area in a tributary of the Tunakohoia between the groundwater cutoff
discharge (SW15) and the Lower Tunakohoia (SW 7) is identified as an additional major
source of some trace elements.
42092212/R058/D
The influence on water quality in the Tunakohoia Stream of the passive treatment works at
Waste Rock Stack 5 has not been assessed as the works were only completed in late 2013.
Monitoring in the Tui Stream immediately below the remediated tailings landform (SW 11)
showed reductions in the concentration and mass flux of contaminants of concern.
Improvements in water quality have surpassed remedial goals for all contaminants of concern
except for cadmium, zinc and manganese which have shown reductions of greater than 70%.
In the Lower Tui Stream (SW 13) the contaminants of concern with the exception of iron all
show a reduction in the mean concentrations with corresponding reductions in average mass
flux. As a result of the improvements in cadmium and manganese concentrations water
quality appears to now meet ANZECC contact recreation standards at this locality.
Validation of the Remediated Tailings Landform
As part of this validation the geotechnical stability of the tailings landform was assessed based
on as built data for treatment zones, foundation improvements and the minimum geotechnical
parameter values from testing of the amended product. The stability analysis showed that the
landform is stable for the static load case and for that cracking may occur in the seismic load
case. The predicted level of deformation is less than 5mm and is well within the acceptance
criteria for deformation.
Elements of the remediated tailings had permeability and mass geochemical controls
requirements validated using the permeability and NPR testing. The permeability of the upper
1.5m of the tailings blend did not reach the target specifications due to the nature of the
materials available for use in tailings blends and EMS. As a result, oxygen and water flux
through this material will potentially be greater than assumed in the design.
The treatment methods adopted for geochemical control of the tailings have achieved the
required specification for all elements of the remediated tailings. On this basis, the potential
for leaching of elevated trace element as a result of acid rock drainage developing within the
remediated landform is considered limited.
The cover on the final tailings landform has performance criteria for permeability of the barrier
layer and soil contaminant limits for all cover components which were achieved. The drainage
layer and barrier layers are comprised fully of offsite soils verified as being of adequate quality.
Materials were utilised in the separation layer including oxidised tailings, partially oxidised
tails, Area L organics and waste rock all met specifications for NPR and trace element with the
exception of arsenic and lead. The slightly elevated arsenic and zinc in the separation layer
are not expected to present an unacceptable risk as the treated material was found to have
low leachability and is isolated from direct contact by overlying barrier, drainage and topsoil
layers of the cover.
There are multiple lines of defence inherent within the design and achievement of the capping
layer permeability and the geochemical criteria (NPR) for the upper 1.5m zone are expected to
enable the overall tailings remedial goals for geochemical control to be achieved.
42092212/R058/D
Conclusion
For the areas within the scope of the remedial works, when considering current and future use
of the area for passive recreation, residual contamination is unlikely to present an
unacceptable risk to human health.
Water quality of the Tui and Tunakohoia Streams is generally showing improvement. The
residual contaminant sources in the stream beds and the beached tailings which potentially
present an unacceptable level of risk for passive recreational use. These areas are generally
limited in extent and difficult to access and as such present a residual risk comparable to other
historically mined areas within the Coromandel region.
Uncertainties remain around other residual sources e.g. other historic mine workings, within
the wider catchments and the effects they will have on water quality in the receiving
environments. These sources are outside the scope of the completed remedial works and
cannot practicably be remediated. These sources are generally minor and should not
preclude the water quality remedial goals from being achieved.
Recommendations
A number of further actions have been identified that will improve the remedial outcomes.
Some of these suggested measures are outside the scope of the current remedial works but
will contribute significantly to achieving the remedial goals for water quality. These are include
further lime dosing, passive treatment of toe drain discharge, improvements to the discharges
at level 5 portal, remedial works for the beached tailings and verify the close works for the
organic material.
Once an adequate water quality data set is available to enable statistical analysis, confidence
limits should be developed for the achievement of the remedial goals along with a probabilistic
predictive tool for water quality outcomes. This will provide a basis for evaluating high and low
flow water quality results with respect to remedial goals.
42092212/R058/D
1 SCOPE OF WORK
1.1 Introduction
The design of the remedial works at the Tui Mine Site is detailed in the Tui Mine Remediation
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Design Reports (URS February 2010 and URS November 2010). The
specifications to the contract documents define performance based requirements for the
remedial components.
1.2 Purpose of Report
This report has been prepared in accordance with Ministry for the Environment Contaminated
Land Management Guideline No 1 Reporting on Contaminated Site in New Zealand (Revised
2011).
The preparation of a site validation report is a requirement of the resource consent (Resource
Consent 121042 Condition 31) for the remedial works.
The purpose of the report is to validate the remedial works against the design and remedial
objectives for the project.
1.3 Phase 1 Design – Underground Mine and Waste Rock
The Phase 1 remedial works completed at the site are as follows:-
 The waste rock stacks have been reshaped to provide stable landforms, with surface
water channels designed to control erosion. Waste rock with high acid generating
potential has been neutralised by limestone amendment and the surface of waste rock
stack 4 has been compacted to reduce water and oxygen infiltration into the waste;
 The underground mine below approximately 550 m above sea level (Champion Level 4)
has been flooded to limit ongoing sulphide oxidation and heavy metal release. This has
been achieved by the construction of a bulkhead in Champion Level 5. The iron floc and
heavy metal rich precipitate within this flooded section of the mine has been stabilised
using limestone in chip bunds and injected as a limestone slurry;
 The upper zones of the underground mine between 550 m reduced level and the
ridgeline (approximately 700 to 750 m above sea level) will continue to provide an
ongoing source of acid rock drainage. The injection of a limestone slurry into the upper
workings to provide passive alkalinity has been implemented to reduce the rate of acid
rock drainage and associated trace element leaching from this upper part of the vein
system.
 Specific ancillary works completed include an upgrade of the Tui Road, and the access
tracks to the underground Champion Levels 4 and 5. It has been necessary to make safe
the adits and crosscuts for personnel access during the remedial work.
1.4 Phase 2 Design – Tailings Impoundment Area
The Phase 2 remedial works completed at the site are as follows:-
42092212/R058/D 1
 Clean stormwater from up catchment has been permanently diverted around the tailings
impoundment area;
 The decant systems providing for surface water discharge from the tailings pond have
been decommissioned and where feasible pipework removed;
 A groundwater cutoff and diversion system has been provided to intercept upgradient
groundwater flows and direct them toward the Tunakohoia Catchment;
 The materials within the tailings impoundment have been amended using a combination
of in-situ stabilisation with cement and lime and blending of tailings with ore and waste
rock to provide a reshaped stable earth fill landform, with surface water channels
designed to control erosion. Materials with high acid generating potential have been
neutralised by alkaline amendments and compacted soil cover has been placed over the
remediated tailings landform to control water and oxygen infiltration into the tailings; and,
 Waste rock, ore and loose fill materials has been incorporated in the compacted blended
tailings product.
Tailings and acid rock drainage products historically deposited in tributaries downstream of the
impoundment and process plant areas are not part of the current scope of remedial work.
Ensuring runoff from the site is alkaline will however minimise the ongoing leaching from these
deposited materials.
1.5 Construction Phase
Construction Supervision and Quality Assurance Completion reports have been prepared for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 by Tonkin and Taylor. These reports document the works completed
and variations to the design and specifications.
1.6 Remedial Objectives
The aims of the Project are as follows:-
 To provide a sustainable solution for the long term environmental security of the site;
 To provide a geotechnically stable landform;
 Minimise the ongoing environmental effects of the site on water quality;
social implications;
 Preserve aspects of the mining heritage of the area where feasible; and,
 Use engineering techniques that will avoid or mitigate potential adverse environmental
effects, including engineered controls to contain and mitigate the effects of previous
mining activity.
The long term land use proposed for this area is passive recreational open space as part of
the Conservation Estate. The intention is that the remediated areas would remain open to the
public and that potential human health risks associated with contaminants are mitigated or
managed. Institutional controls have been used to manage existing risks such as those posed
by unrestricted access to the adits and portals.
42092212/R058/D 2
1.7 Resource Consents
The following consents were granted for the remedial works:-

 Resource Consent No 121071 - To undertake earthworks including soil
disturbance, roading, tracking and vegetation clearance, large scale overburden
disposal and large scale cleanfill disposal all within high risk locations and/or high risk
erosion areas;
 Resource Consent No 121039 - To dam underground water within the mine adits;
 Resource Consent No 121041 - Take and use water from the south branch of the
Tunakohoia Stream;
 Resource Consent No 121040 - Clearance of vegetation on the bed of the northern

tributary of the Tunakohoia Stream and associated bed disturbance; and,
 Resource Consent No 121042 – To discharge contaminants to land and water as
part of the remediation of the Tui Mine.
Matamata-Piako District Council

 Land use Consent 2010.10094 -
– Activities within a known contaminated site in the Kaitiaki Zone
– Alteration to landform, modification to streams and removal of vegetation in the

Kaitiaki Zone
– Structures within the Kaitiaki Zone
– Clean fill activities within the Kaitiaki Zone.
1.8 Conditions of Consent
Resource Consent Nos 121071, 121041 and 121040 were for activities required as part of the
remedial works and had terms of 5 years, 18 months and 5 years respectively.
Resource Consent Nos 121039 and 121042 are for a term of 35 years and cover the
completed remedial works and ongoing discharges from the site. The consent for the
discharge of contaminants to land has conditions of consent around monitoring that are directly
relevant to assessing the remedial outcomes of the project (Refer Appendix A). An
Environmental Monitoring Plan is also required as a condition of consent detailing the biological
and water quality monitoring to be undertaken at the site (refer Appendix B).
The preparation of this site validation report is also a requirement of Resource Consent 121042
(condition 31).
42092212/R058/D 3
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Introduction
The Tui Mine is an abandoned mine site on the western flanks of Mt Te Aroha. The site is
accessed by the Tui Rd from Te Aroha Township which becomes the Mt Te Aroha access
road. Vehicular access to the site is controlled by a locked gate on the lower slopes of the
mountain.
The pre remediation layout of the site is shown in Figure 2-1.
2.2 Site Ownership
The underground workings are located in the upper reaches of the North Branch of the
Tunakohoia Stream on land owned by the Department of Conservation. The Tailings
impoundment area is in part located on land owned by the Matamata Piako District Council.
2.3 Background
The mine produced a range of base metals, including copper, lead and zinc from 1966 to
1973, when it was abandoned by Norpac Mining Co. The site is located within the catchments
of the Tui and Tunakohoia Streams, both of which flow into the Waihou River at the base of Mt
Te Aroha.
The site consists of a number of mine adits, waste rock and ore dumps and stockpiles and
deposited tailings from the ore processing as shown on Figure 1-1. There are various water
discharges from the site including adit drainage, natural catchment drainage and contaminated
underdrainage (low pH, high dissolved metals concentrations) from waste rock and tailings.
Concerns have been expressed over the past 15 to 20 years regarding adverse effects arising
from the site, including water contamination due to acid rock drainage, the threat of tailings
impoundment failure and the lack of effective rehabilitation of the site.
There were a number of rehabilitation initiatives at the site prior to these remedial works, but
none resulted in any effective improvement in water quality discharging from the site and
hence improvements in the receiving water quality. During the 1970’s buttressing of the
tailings embankment was undertaken to reduce the potential physical risks to the downstream
community and properties posed by failure of the tailings impoundment. These works were a
temporary measure and the lack of maintenance together with erosion effects has reduced the
efficacy of the risk mitigation efforts. The buttressing implemented was not adequate to
assure embankment stability.
2.3.1 Remedial Context
It has been recognised since the outset of this project that it is not realistic to expect any
remedial works to completely remediate the site in the short term. Complete remediation of
the site may not be possible even in the long term.
Examples of the factors that complicate remediation include ongoing contamination from the
reactive material that currently lies in and around the water courses, such as waste rock from
the adits that is found along the length of the Tunakahoia Stream.
42092212/R058/D 4
This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT.
Source:
Whilst every care is taken by URS to ensure the accuracy of the digital data, URS makes no representation or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness, suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any expenses,
losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which may be incurred as a result of data being inaccurate in any way for any reason. Electronic files are provided for information only. The data in these files is not controlled or subject to automatic updates for users outside of URS.
TUI MINE REMEDIATION

PRE-REMEDIATION FEATURES
VALIDATION REPORT
-
Figure:
File No: 42092212-K-001.dwg Drawn: Approved: Date: Rev. A A3

Furthermore, it must be noted that prior to mining activities at the Tui Mine Site, the water and
sediment quality in these catchments exhibited some degradation. This was due to naturally
occurring oxidation products contained in the groundwater and surface water flowing through
the mineralised zones in the catchment.
This complexity is increased by the existence of extensive historic workings that occurred
around the end of the nineteenth century when the Hauraki Goldfields were first exploited.
Evidence of these old workings remains in many of the catchments surrounding the Tui Mine
site. This includes the tributaries of the Tui and Tunakahoia Streams and the catchments to
the east that feed into the Wairongomai Stream. Some of these workings are likely to
intercept sections of the Champion and Ruakaka veins along the strike of the Tui Mine site.
Available records suggest that they are not connected to the mine workings from the Norpac
operation, and therefore are not the subject of this remediation.
2.4 Site Environmental Background
The following investigations have been undertaken as part of the Tui Mine Remediation Works
to define the baseline conditions at the site pre remediation:-
 A programme of water quality monitoring within the surface water catchments affected by
the mine site (PDP, 2009);
 A programme of instream ecological monitoring (Brian T Coffey and Associates Ltd,

2009); and,
 A programme of baseline soil sampling (PDP, 2010 and URS 2012).
In addition to the above, water quality monitoring data has been obtained periodically since the
mid 1990’s. Where the data can be verified as reliable we have included this in a baseline
data set against which the remedial outcomes have been assessed. Appendix A provides the
background data set.
2.4.1 Contaminant Sources
Table 2-1 provides a summary of the known contaminant sources in the Tunakohoia and Tui
catchments, rates them in terms of their relative significance, and indicates which sources are
addressed by the proposed remedial works.
Table 2-1 Scope of Remedial Works
Contaminant Source Characteristics Significance Remedial Actions
Champion Vein - Upper levels Minimal intermittent Minor Not part of scope –
– Level 1&2 discharge mitigated in part
during trials pre
Phase 1
Champion Vein (Norpac) Continuous Major Phase 1 Works

Level 3, 4 and 5 discharge at L4 &
L5, with high trace
42092212/R058/D 6
element load
Champion Vein (Norpac) Seepage and Moderate Not part of scope

Level 4 Southern portal surface ore and
waste rock
contributing ARD
and trace elements
in runoff
Ruakaka Vein Upper workings Minimal discharge Minor Not part of scope
(Levels 1&2)
Ruakaka Vein (Norpac) – Discharge to Moderate Phase 1 Works

Level 3, 4 and 5 Champion Vein
Surface workings – Surface ore and Moderate Not part of scope –

Tunakohoia North Branch - waste rock mitigated in part by
above Champion Level 3 contributing ARD Phase 1 works
and trace elements
in runoff
Waste Rock Stack Level 4 Surface ore and Moderate Phase 1 Works
waste rock
contributing ARD
and trace elements
in runoff
Waste Rock Stack Level 5 Surface waste rock Minor Phase 2 Works
contributing trace
elements in runoff
Surface float, floc and Continuous source Moderate Not part of scope
sediments in Streambed – of acidity and trace
Tunakohoia North Branch elements to surface
water
sediments in Streambed – of acidity and trace
Ruakaka Tributary of elements to surface
Tunakohoia North Branch water
42092212/R058/D 7
Ore Stockpile Area Ore chip, surface Major Phase 2 Works

ore and waste rock
contributing ARD
and trace elements
in runoff
Process Plant Surface ore and Minor Phase 2 Works

waste rock
contributing ARD
and trace elements
in runoff
Tailings Impoundment – Now Oxidising Tailings Major Phase 2 Works

Remediated Tailings Landform contributing ARD
and trace elements
to seepage and
runoff
Beached Tailings (Area S) Oxidised, partially Major Not part of scope -

beneath bush south of Mt Te oxidised tailings Ancillary works
Aroha access road and ore chip proposed to
contributing ARD mitigate as part of
and trace elements Phase 2 Works.
in runoff
Organic Material Stockpile – Oxidised and Moderate Not part of scope -

former office area partially oxidised Ancillary works
tailings entrained proposed under
with organic separate contract
material
Old Historic Mine workings Intermittent Minor Not part of scope

discharge
sediments in streambed – Tui of acidity and trace
Stream elements to surface
water
42092212/R058/D 8
3 VALIDATION SAMPLING
3.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the verification and validation sampling undertaken in
accordance with the design reports and construction specifications.
There are also a number of Notices to Contractor (NTC’s) which are documented in the
Construction Supervision and Quality Assurance Completion Report (T&T 2014) that vary the
validation approach from that set out in the design report for certain elements of the work.
3.2 Approach to Validation Sampling
The purpose of validation sampling is to assess whether a remediated site has met the
specific cleanup criteria or remedial goals. The design concept for the remedial works at the
Tui Mine site, as outlined in Section 1, includes containing contaminants in a stable form that
limits their discharge to the receiving environment and mitigates the onsite human health risks
for the intended use as a passive recreational open space.
Validation of the works at Tui is therefore focussed on demonstrating the remedial works
implemented at the site have achieved the objectives as defined in the design report,
specifications or subsequent variations agreed during the contract works (NTC’s).
The method by which individual elements of the remedial works are validated varies. Where
the remedial design requires the construction of engineered controls (assets) the construction
of these works, and the ongoing inspection and maintenance thereof, is documented by the
Construction Supervision and Quality Assurance Completion Reports (Phase 1 and Phase 2
CSQACR, T&T 2014) and the Tui Mine Asset Monitoring Manual (URS 2104). The Phase 1
and Phase 2 CSQACR’s (T&T 2014) verify the works have been constructed in accordance
with the design and provides as built information for the works. The Tui Mine Asset Monitoring
Manual (URS 2014) provides for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of these
components. No further validation is provided in this document. The combined performance
of these works is however validated in considering the water quality monitoring in the receiving
tributaries (Tui and Tunakohoia Streams).
For works that involve treatment or containment of mine wastes or waters (tailings, waste
rock), construction and performance monitoring is specified in the design report and this report
assesses the Phase 1 and Phase 2 CSQACR’s data against these criteria to validate the
adequacy of the works. For example, the reported strengths of the remediated tailings, the as
built locations of the foundation remediation and the final land form have been used as input
data to validate the slope stability of the final landform against the design criteria.
For mine water, seepage water and runoff from the remedial works the combined
effectiveness of the works is assessed on the basis of the water quality monitoring in the
receiving tributaries (Tui and Tunakohoia Streams).
Table 3-1 summarises the functional elements of the remedial works and based on the
approach outlined above how these elements are validated. Enabling works such as the
‘making safe’ of portals and tunnels and pressure testing of injection lines are not included as
they do not directly influence the remedial outcomes.
42092212/R058/D 9
Table 3-1 Functional Elements of Remedial Works
Item No. Functional Element Description Details/Location Design & Advice Notes Works completed Remedial Outcomes Reference documentation Validation Approach
Phase 1 Remedial Works
Upper Mine ‐ Unflooded (Champion Levels 1 to 4, Ruakaka Levels 1 to 3)
This line is the feeder for
Above ground PE injection lines run from Dog injection points in Ruakaka Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
1.1 Lime Slurry Injection Kennel Flat to near Tui Saddle and Champion Vein systems Used for all injections Used for all injections NA Drawing C301 dosing verified by ETC
Water quality in Champion Level 5 Drawing C301, Phase 1 CSQACR Section 2
(SW5) discharge, Lower and App B dwg 18, Table 7‐1 Phase 1
Above ground and underground PE injection Phase 1 CSQACR App F indicates Tunakohoia (SW7) and Tunakohoia Design report, L107 response to NTE13, App Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
1.2 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings Ruakaka Vein Level 2 (IP9) Design dose >17 dry tonnes limestone 17 dry tonnes limestone injected, South Branch (SW8) F of Phase 1 CSQACR dosing verified by ETC
Phase 1 CSQACR App F indicates Water quality in Champion Level 5
11 dry tonnes limestone injected (SW5) discharge, Lower Drawing C301, Table 7‐1 Phase 1 Design
at IP10 before connectivity Tunakohoia North Branch (SW7) report, L107 response to NTE13, Phase 1
Above ground and underground PE injection Design dose 24 dry tonnes limestone, demonstrated and further doing and Tunakohoia South Branch CSQACR Sec 7 App F and App B Phase 1 Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
1.3 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings Ruakaka Vein Level 3 (IP10) depending on connectivity of IP9 via IP9 (SW8) CSQACR dwg 18 dosing verified by ETC
Water quality in Champion Level 4
Above ground and underground PE injection Used in trial, design dose 40 dry tonnes (SW3) discharge and North Branch Drawing C301,c303; Phase 1 CSQACR App B Not verified by ETC as pipe construction part
1.4 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings Champion Vein Level 1 (IP2) limestone, omitted due to poor connectivity. No dosing Tunakohoia (SW100) dwg 18 of early trial.
Above ground and underground PE injection design dose 65 dry tonnes limestone, omitted (SW3) discharge and North Branch Drawing C301,c304; Phase 1 CSQACR App B
1.5 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings Champion Vein Level 2 (IP7) due to poor connectivity Not constructed or dosed Tunakohoia (SW100) dwg 18 N/A
Drawing C301, C305, Table 7‐1 Phase 1
Water quality in Champion Level 4 Design report, L107 response to NTE13,
Above ground and underground PE injection Phase 1 CSQACR, Sect 7 AppF, 85 (SW3) discharge and North Branch Phase 1 CSQACR,App B Phase 1 CSQACR Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
1.6 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings Prospect Drive (IP1A) Design dose 85 tonnes dry tonnes limestone injected Tunakohoia (SW100) dwg 18 ; App F dosing verified by ETC
Drawing C301, L107 response to NTE13,
Phase 1 CSQACR, Sect 7 AppF, 55 Phase 1 CSQACR,App B Phase 1 CSQACR
Design dose 55 dry tonnes limestone (URS L107 dry tonnes limestone injected pre Water quality in Champion Level 4 dwg 18, App F ; Designers Advice Note 13,
Above ground and underground PE injection Champion Vein Level 3 response to NTE 13) and 30 dry tonnes 2012. Additional 30t completed (SW3) discharge and North Branch SIR 064, Engineers notes accompanying Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
1.7 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings Winze(IP1) limestone (Designers Advice Note 13) July 2013. Tunakohoia (SW100) claim No.s 20 and 21. dosing verified by ETC
18 dry tonnes limestone dosed. Water quality in Champion Level 4
Above ground and underground PE injection Champion Vein Level 3 Dosing ceased due to carryover (SW3) discharge and North Branch Designers Advice Note 13, Phase 1 CSQACR
1.8 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings (IP11) Design dose 66 (<80) dry tonnes limestone into Champion Level 4 Tunakohoia (SW100) App B dwg 18 Construction Verified by ETC
Drawing C301, Table 7‐1 Phase 1 Design
report, URS L107 response to NTE13, Phase
Design dose 84 dry tonnes limestone (URS L107 52 dry tonnes limestone dosed pre Water quality in Champion Level 5 1 CSQACR Section 3, App B dwg 18, App F;
Above ground and underground PE injection Champion Vein Level 4 (IP8) response to NTE 13), additional 2x6t dose 2012. 6t additional injected June (SW5) discharge and North Branch Engineers notes accompanying claim no 20
1.9 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings into Raise 3 (email dated 7/6/13) 2013 and 6t injected July 2013. Tunakohoia (SW100) and 21. Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Design dose 20 dry tonnes limestone, further (SW3) discharge, Champion Level 5
Above ground and underground PE injection Champion Vein Level 4 dose 8 dry tonnes recommended (email 20 dry tonnes limestone dosed. (SW5) discharge and North Branch Designer Advice Note 7, Engineers notes Construction and dosing verified by designer
1.10 Lime Slurry Injection lines to injection points within workings South (IP8A) in bye of CD 2 dated7/6/2013) Additional 8t dosed June 2013. Tunakohoia (SW100) accompanying claim no 20 and 21. and ETC
Reduce flow at Champion Level 4
A inlet structure and highway drain pipe has (SW3) discharge and improve
installed to limit overland flow entering Champion Vein Level 3 No lime dosing required, As per Designer water quality in North Branch
1.11 Stormwater Diversion Champion Level 3 Winze Winze(IP1) Advice Note 12 Constructed Tunakohoia (SW100) Designer Advice Note 12, Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Champion Level 4 Works
Drawings C206 rev C and C208 rev D,
Concrete coffer dam in Champion Level 4 Champion Level 4 crosscut Drawing C207 D; Phase 1 CSQACR Section
1.12 Coffer Dam 1 crosscut to direct flow down outlet pipe. in bye of major collapse Section 6.4.3 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed NA 3.1.2; Appendix B dwg 11, 18 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Concrete coffer dam in Champion Level 4 south Champion Level 4 southern (SW3) discharge, North Branch Drawing C206 rev C and C208 rev D,
with overflow to Raise 3 and concrete baffle drive immediately south of Section 6.4.3 of Phase 1 Design Report, Tunakohoia (SW100), Ruakaka Designer Advice Note 7. Phase 1 CSQACR
1.13 Coffer Dam 2 with lime chip polishing for overspill. crosscut Designer Advice Note 7 Constructed Tributary (SW101) Section 3.1.2; Appendix B dwg 11, 18 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Champion Level 4 northern Drawing C206 rev C and C208 rev D; Phase 1
Concrete coffer dam in Champion Level 4 north drive immediately outbye CSQACR Section 3.1.2; Appendix B dwg 11,
1.14 Coffer Dam 3 to direct flow from Raise 3 into outlet pipe. (south) of Raise 3 Section 6.4.3 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed NA 18 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Champion Level 4 northern Drawing C206 rev C and C208 rev D; Phase 1
Concrete coffer dam in Champion Level 4 north drive immediately inbye CSQACR Section 3.1.2; Appendix B dwg 11,
1.15 Coffer Dam 4 to direct flow from Raise 3 into outlet pipe. (north) of Raise 3 Section 6.4.3 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed NA 18 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
A water level probe is installed in Raise 3 to Drawing C214 and C215; Phase 1 CSQACR
1.15 Water Level Monitoring indicate water levels within the flooded mine Champion Level 4 Raise 3 Section 10 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed Monitoring Flooded Mine level section 3.1.8; Appendix B dwg 13 and 14 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Provides a crush proof discharge line for Raise 3
and other discharges from Champion Level 4,
include an inlet immediately inbye of Coffer Dam
1. These oultets controls the maximum head From Raise 3 to Champion Drawing C206 and C207 ; CSQACR, phase 1
1.16 Outlet Pipe that could develop within the flooded mine Level 4 Portal Section 6.4.3 of Phase 1 Design Report, NTC 27 Constructed NA CSQACR Section 3,Appendix B dwg 10 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Drawing C211, C212 and C213 Rev D, NTC
A settling pond is constructed at Champion Level 21,23,37; Phase 1 CSQACR Section 3.1.5,
1.17 Outlet Controls 4 Portal Champion Level 4 Portal Section 6.4.3 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed NA Appendix B dwg 16 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Waste Rock Stack 4
Waste Rock Stack 4 was recontoured to provide
a stream channel with some erosion protection, Section 9 of Phase 1 Design Report, Significant
compaction and limestone amendment of to remove clap cap and revised scope as per Water quality in North Branch Drawing C401, C402, C403 and C406; Phase
Recontour, limestone amendment reworked material, spreading of mulch and Champion Level 4 Waste NTC 9, NTC 14, NTC 21, NTC 38, NTC41, Constructed, No as built survey Tunakohoia (SW100) and Lower 1 CSQACR Section 6, Site Inspection Reports
1.18 and cover regrassing Rock Stack Practical Completion Certificate and NTC 49 data. North Branch Tunakohoia (SW7) Appendix E , as built Appendix B dwg 16 Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
Champion Level 5 Works ‐ Flooded Mine
(SW5) discharge, Tunakohoia
Crosscut between Ruakaka North Branch (SW100), Ruakaka
Large limestone Chip Bunds are installed in and Champion Veins and in tributary (SW101), Lower North
flooded mine to control dissolution of floc and Champion Level 5 Drive Branch Tunakohoia (SW7) and Drawing C209 rev C, Phase 1 CSQACR
1.19 Limestone Chip Bunds resulting adverse water quality. outbye of Raise 6 Section 6.4.2 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed Tunakohoia South Branch (SW8) Section 5.1.3, Appendix B dwg 8 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
(SW5) discharge, Tunakohoia Drawings C202 rev D, C203 rev C, and C204
North Branch (SW100), Ruakaka rev C, Phase 1 CSQACR Section 5.2.2,
Section 5 of Phase 1 Design Report, with tributary (SW101), Lower North Appendix J Code of Compliance Certificate, Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
Grouting of rock mass and construction of a 5m Champion Level 5 Cross cut amendments as per section 5.1.4 of Phase 1 Branch Tunakohoia (SW7) and Appendix G producer Statement from Producer Statement PS4, Appendix G
1.20 Bulkhead long concrete reinforced bulkhead. 128 metres from portal CSQACR Constructed Tunakohoia South Branch (SW8) McDow; NTC 2,15,28, CSQACR
Construction Verified by designer and ETC,
limited effectiveness due to clogging and
Permeable lime chip bunds installed to provide Champion Level 5 Cross cut Water quality in Champion Level 5 Drawing C202 rev D, Phase 1 CSQACR overtopping, alternative passive treatment
1.21 Lime Chip Bunds polishing of tunnel seepage 33 metres from portal Section 6.4.4 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed (SW5) discharge Section 4.2.1,Appendix B dwg 8 installed
(SW3) discharge, Tunakohoia
Blockage in Raise 3 was cleared to flood mine to Champion Level 4 Raise 3 North Branch (SW100) and Lower Phase 1 CSQACR, Section 4.1.7 , Appendix B
1.22 Raise 3 Clearance discharge via outlet control pipework inbye of CD3 Section 6.4.3 of Phase 1 Design Report Constructed Tunakohoia North Branch (SW7) as built drawing dwg 012 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Concrete coffer dam CD5/1 at Champion Level 5
portal with outlet pipe to passive treatment
system. Inbye concrete baffle CD 5/2 with
permeable lime chip base and overspill Constructed, routine inspections Water quality in Champion Level 5
provision. Flocculent return pipework for Designer Advice Note 14, C 404 rev C, C 405 show capture of seepage not (SW5) discharge, Tunakohoia
1.23 Outlet Control cleaning passive treatment pond. Champion Level 5 Portal Rev C, C 406 Rev D effective North Branch (SW100) Designer Advice Note 14 Construction Verified by ETC
Phase 2 Remedial Works
Waste Rock Stack 5
Recountouring of Waste Rock Stack 5 to create
more stable landform and defined channel for Water quality at Tunakohoia North
Tunakohoia Stream and passive treatment Champion Level 5 Waste Designer Advice Note 14, C 404 rev C, C 405 Branch (SW100) and Lower North Designer Advice Note 14, As builts Phase 2
2.1 Recontouring ponds for Champion level 5 discharge. Rock Stack Rev C, C 406 Rev D Constructed Branch Tunakohoia (SW7) CSQACR Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Outlet pipe from Coffer Dam CD5/1 discharges Water quality at Tunakohoia North
through a series of 3 ponds and rock/limestone Champion Level 5 Waste Designer Advice Note 14, C 404 rev C, C 405 Branch (SW100) and Lower North Designer Advice Note 14, As builts Phase 2
2.2 Passive Treatment L5 discharge cascades to remove iron floc. Rock Stack Rev C, C 406 Rev D Constructed Branch Tunakohoia (SW7) CSQACR Construction Verified by designer and ETC

Remediated Tailings Landform Area
Material removed with exception
Removal of unprocessed ore down to natural of Access Road to Level 5, visual Designer advice Note 2, Drawing Nos C558,
ground from the area and use of this material to Ore Stockpile area upslope inspection to confirm natural Water quality in Lower Tunakohoia NTC 22‐23; Phase 2 CSQACR Section 4,
2.3 Ore Stockpile (Area J) blend with tailings. from process plant (Area J) Designer advice note 2. ground. North Branch (SW7) section 6 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
The upstream catchment for the tailings
impoundment is collected by the Ford Drain
which passes through the process plant area and
conveys water under the Mt Te Aroha Access Drawing Nos C556 Rev 1, C571 Rev 1, C572
Upcatchment Surface water controls Road and into a Tributary of the North Branch of Section 10 Tailings Impoundment Remediation Water quality in Lower Tunakohoia rev 1; Phase 2 CSQACR Section 3 and section
2.4 (Ford Drain) the Tunakohoia Stream Process Plant Area Design Report (Phase 2) Constructed North Branch (SW7) 4 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Drawing Nos C536 rev 2, C566 rev 1, C567
Rev 1. Phase 2 CSQACR Section 10,
Perimeter Swale Drains are provided to prevent Section 10 Tailings Impoundment Remediation Appendix B as builts Geometric extent refer
Surface water controls ‐ remediated erosion of the completed landform under Design Report (Phase 2), Designers Advice Note Swale drain as builts Part A,B and C 26 June
2.5 landform extreme storm events. Tailings Impoundment Area 11. Constructed Erosion protection 2013 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Sediment removal pond were decommissioned NTC 214 128. Phase 2 CSQACR Section 10,
Surface water controls ‐ downstream and erosion protection measures installed down Appendix B as builts ‐Geometric extent refer
2.6 channel channel Tailings Impoundment Area NTC124, NTC128 Constructed Erosion protection Swale drain as builts Part A 26 June 2013 Construction Verified by ETC
Make safe of remaining concrete structure Process plant Area (Areas A Section 8.5.2 Tailings Impoundment Safety improvements for public Drawing Nos C542 , C543 , C544, C545,
2.7 Ore Processing Plant Area which have heritage value to I) Remediation Design Report (Phase 2) Refer Section 11 Phase 2 CSQACR. access C546. Phase 2 CSQACR Section 11 . Construction Verified by ETC
Temporary drain installed and Drawing Nos C534 rev 4 (NTC 80), C540 rev
retained. Constructed with Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11 4 (NTC 84). Phase 2 CSQACR Section 10,
Groundwater Cutoff designed to limit Tailings Impoundment Area Section 7.5 Tailings Impoundment Remediation altered alignment and extended and SW13) and Lower North Appendix B as builts ‐As built cut off drain 1
2.8 Groundwater Cutoff groundwater flow into the treated tailings (Area L) Design Report (Phase 2). capture. Branch Tunakohoia Stream (SW7) July 2013 Construction Verified by designer and ETC
Partially oxidised tailings beached in bush South
of Mt Te Aroha Access Rd to be treated by hand Section 7.7.3 Tailings Impoundment Water quality in Lower North
2.9 Tailings Discharge South of Tui Rd spreading limestone. Area S Remediation Design Report (Phase 2). Constructed Branch Tunakohoia Stream (SW7) Drawing No C558 Rev A, Construction Verified by ETC
A seepage collection system is installed in the Drawing Nos C538 rev 3, C569 rev 1, NTC
toe of the remediated landform to enable Remediated Tailings Section 7.8 Tailings Impoundment Remediation Provision for future treatment if 112 and 113, Passive drain as built 3 May
2.10 Toe Drain Seepage Collection collection and treatment of seepage as required Landform Design Report (Phase 2). Constructed required 2013 Phase 2 CSQACR Construction Verified by ETC
Shear key excavation into the foundation soils at Changes to the location and Designer advice note 15, NTC 107, Phase 2

toes of landform is a key requirement for long extent of shear key during Designer advice note 15‐ change in lower slope CSQACR Section 4, Appendix B as builts
2.11 Shear key term stability of the landform construction levels and shapes approved, NTC 107 Constructed Stable landform Tb135 Construction Verified and designer by ETC
Tailings Remediation
Changes to the Designer advice note 6 ‐ additional lower Addressed in SVR ‐ Slope stability validation

configuration of the DSM columns; Designer advice note 9 ‐ Upper slope Designer advice note 6, Designer advice using minimum material parameters
columns in upper and lower columns not required; no further columns are Lower DSM columns completed. note 9; Phase 2 CSQACR Section 8, Appendix (Conservative Approach) and as built
2.11 DSM column requirements Foundation improvements slope required in lower slope area Upper DSM not constructed. Stable landform B DSM 2 and DSM columns As Builts landform and material placement areas
Addressed in SVR ‐ Slope stability validation
using minimum material parameters
Slope stability of remediated tailings Changes in landform geometry were required to Remediated Tailings Designer advice note 15‐ change in lower slope Designer advice note 15; Phase 2 CSQACR (Conservative Approach) and as built
2.12 landform manage the shortfall in tailings volume Landform levels and shapes approved Constructed Stable landform Section 4, Appendix B As built.dxf files landform and material placement areas
22367 m3 placed of tails & rock
treated with Tails Blend method
and varied reagents addition rates
Tailings blending involved the mixing of waste Section 7 and 8 Tailings Impoundment to meet curing time required to
and ore with tailings and amendment with Remediation Design Report (Phase 2). Provides meet construction programme or Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11
alkaline reagents to produce a higher strength Remediated Tailings amendment rate and performance strength requirement in case of and SW13), Human Health risk Phase 2 CSQACR Section 6 Appendix B As Construction Verified by ETC, Permeability,
2.13 Tailings Blending material with limited acid generating potential Landform specification. Estimated 44,250 m3 shear key; NTE 290 mitigated built.dxf files and stabilisation addressed in SVR
Insitu mass stabilisation is based on injecting a
cement, limestone, lime reagent blend into the Section 7 and 8 Tailings Impoundment
tailings to increase the materials strength and Remediation Design Report (Phase 2). Provides Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11
reduce the acid generating potential and Remediated Tailings amendment rate and performance 23,333 m3 placed tails treated and SW13), Human Health risk Phase 2 CSQACR Section 5 , Appendix B As Construction Verified by ETC, Stabilisation
2.14 Insitu Mass Stabilisation thereby trace element leaching Landform specification. Estimated 51,500 m3 using IMS method (NTE 290) mitigated built.dxf files addressed in SVR
Exsitu mass stabilised was used in place of 20208 m3 placed tails treated
tailings blend (EMS1) and in the critical zone using EMS2, further 26,998 m3
(EMS2) where IMS method was unable to deal placed using EMS method and
with ground conditions and EMS method was Remediated Tailings Designer advice note 8‐ revised dosage rate. varied amendment rates. Total Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11 Designer advice note 8, Phase 2 CSQACR Construction Verified by ETC, Permeability,
2.15 Exsitu Mass Stabilisation (EMS) developed. Landform Not allowed for in original design. EMS 47,206 m3.(NTE 290) and SW13) Section 7 , Appendix B As built.dxf files and stabilisation addressed in SVR
Construction of a low permeability soil layer
with overlying, drainage layer and topsoil
provides a barrier which limit water infiltration Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11 Construction Verified by ETC. Soil
and oxygen migration into the tailings thereby Remediated Tailings Section 9 Tailings Impoundment Remediation and SW13), Human Health risk NTC 102, NTC 103; Phase 2 CSQACR Section Concentrations and permeability
2.16 Capping limiting the ongoing oxidation of tailings Landform Design Report (Phase 2). Constructed mitigated 12, Appendix B As built.dxf files specification addressed in SVR
A separation layer comprised of materials other
than unoxidised tailings is intended to create a NTC 115, NTC 117, NTC 123; Phase 2 Construction Verified by ETC, Soil
separation thickness from surface to limit the Remediated Tailings Section 9 Tailings Impoundment Remediation CSQACR Section 12, Appendix B As built.dxf contaminant concentration addressed in
2.17 Separation Layer potential for direct exposure to tailings. Landform Design Report (Phase 2). Constructed Human Health risk mitigated files SVR
Ore and waste rock removed from the
Tunakohoia Stream bed is located in this area. Water quality at Tunakohoia North
Removal as required for tailings blend and Remediated Tailings Recountoured, compacted and Branch (SW100) and Lower North
2.18 Area O Ore and waste rock recontouring. Landform Drawing C 555; Designer advice note 2. 472 m3 removed for tails blend. Branch Tunakohoia (SW7) Drawing C555 Construction Verified by ETC.
Soils clays and organic material contaminated
with tails and/or ore chip that could not be used
a topsoil for landscaping are treated or blended
utilised within the remediated tailings landform, Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11 NTC 114, NTC 117, NTC 102, Phase 2
Process plant (Area L) and ore separation layer or as topsoil depending on the Remediated Tailings 10,108 m3 amended as per NTC's and SW13), Human Health risk CSQACR Section 4, 7, 12, Appendix B Construction Verified by ETC, Stabilisation
2.19 stockpile (Area J) clays and organics product achieved Landform NTC 117, 102 (NTE 290) mitigated org.dwg as built addressed in SVR
Buried organic material and clay within the toe Removed and treated, logs and Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11

shear key area require treatment to limit trace Remediated Tailings tree trunks stockpiled in former and SW13), Human Health risk
2.20 Shear Key Organics element leaching. Landform Designer Advice note 16 workshop area. (Area O) mitigated Phase 2 CSQACR Section 4, NTC 102 Construction Verified by ETC.
Ore chip is present extensively across the
process plant, ore stockpile and remediated
tailings area. Where practical these material are
removed and used in tailings blend, where they
can not be reached without vegetation clearance Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11
they are managed in place by hand spreading Remediated Tailings and SW13), Human Health risk Designer advice note 2 .Phase 2 CSQACR
2.21 Ore Chip Areas limestone. Landform Drawings C553‐558; Designer advice note 2. Constructed mitigated Section 4, 6 Construction Verified by ETC.
3.3 Phase 1 Remedial Works
As outlined in Table 3-1 the majority of the Phase 1 physical works have been verified during
construction. The validation reporting for the Phase 1 works therefore considers the water
quality in the receiving waters as the primary means of validating the remedial outcomes.
Section 3.5 describes the water quality sampling programme to assess the remedial
outcomes.
A number of elements of the remedial works presented in the design report have been varied
during the construction process and the source documentation around these changes is
summarised in Table 3-1.

As identified in Table 3-1 the following elements of the Phase 2 works are the subject of
this validation report:-
 Slope stability of remediated tailings landform
 Modification of the tailings by blending, insitu mass stabilisation,and exsitu mass

stabilisation
 Capping and imported materials
 Separation layer materials and site source materials used in this layer (oxidised tailings,
Area L and Area J materials)
The design criteria used to validate these components are described in Section 4.
3.4.1 Surface Water Controls
Extensive erosion and surface water management controls were implemented during the
remedial works and these are documented in the Phase 2 CSQACR (T&T, 2014). This
document only considers the permanent surface water control works constructed as part
Phase 2 remediation.
3.5 Water Quality
The Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) (T&T, June 2011) documents the sampling
locations, analytical suite, timing and frequency of monitoring that should be undertaken
during and post remediation.
The monitoring reports have been produced for 2011 (PDP, 2012), 2012 (PDP, 2013) and
2013 (PDP, 2014) in accordance with the EMP.
Sampling methodology, field measurements and quality assurance and control are defined in
the EMP and documented in monitoring reports.
The water quality monitoring sites used to assess the remedial outcomes are described in
Table 3-2 and their locations are shown in Figure 3-1.
42092212/R058/D 14
Table 3-2 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Site Monitored for Site description Monitoring Purpose of

Requirement Monitoring Site
SW3 Water quality Discharge pond - Champion EMP schedule – 3 Overspill point for
Flow Level 4 outlet (discharges to the times per year. flooded
North Branch Tunakohoia underground
Stream above Waste Rock workings following
Stack 4). Phase 1 works.
SW5 Water quality Discharge Pipe - Champion EMP schedule – 3 Flow from seepage
Flow Level 5 outlet (discharges into times per year. around bulkhead.
passive treatment system to
North Branch Tunakohoia
Stream North Branch).
SW7 Water quality In-stream site - Lower EMP schedule – 3 Downstream of all
Flow Tunakohoia Stream North times per year. discharges from
Branch, immediately upstream underground
Biology of south branch confluence and workings, waste rock
downstream of the tailings dam and tailings.
tributary.
SW8 Water quality In-stream site – Lower EMP schedule – 3 Unaffected by Tui
Flow Tunakohoia Stream South times per year. Mine. Monitored to
Branch, immediately upstream confirm not
Biology of confluence with north branch influenced by
and upstream of the town water flooding
supply inlet. underground mine.
SW11 Water quality SW channel - Tailings dam EMP schedule – 3 Tailings Dam
Flow tributary, downstream of the times per year post discharge.
tailings dam. Phase 2 Improvements
expected following
Phase 2 works.
SW13 Water quality In-stream site – Tui Stream EMP schedule – 3 Downstream of the
Flow downstream of the tailings dam times per year post tailings dam
discharge, upstream of the ford Phase 2 discharge.
Biology and culverts. Improvements
expected following
Phase 2 works.
SW15 Water quality Groundwater Diversion Pipe EMP schedule – 3 Groundwater cutoff
Flow Outlet - Tailings dam tributary, times per year post containing upgradient
diverted through a culvert below Phase 2 groundwater and
Tui Road to the Tunakohoia tailings seepage from
Stream North Branch. remediated tailings
landform.
SW17 Water quality In-stream site – tributary of Not routinely Assesses combined
Flow Tunakohoia Stream North sampled catchment from
Branch, below Mt Te Aroha beached tailings,
access road and downstream of SW15 and Ford drain
SW15 and beached tailings. diversion.
SW100 Water quality In-stream site - Tunakohoia EMP schedule – 3 Assess in-stream
Flow Stream north branch, at Mt Te times per year. performance of
Aroha access road and Phase 1 works.
downstream of all Champion
Workings and Waste Rock
Stacks 4 and 5.
SW101 Water quality In-stream site – Ruakaka EMP schedule – 3 Potentially influenced
Flow Tributary of Tunakohoia Stream times per year. by flooding of
north branch, at Mt Te Aroha Ruakaka Vein
access road. working.
42092212/R058/D 15
3.5.1 Sampling Timing/Frequency
The EMP requires water samples to be collected from each site on three occasions each year
that monitoring is required. The three sampling rounds should occur between the months of
September and November inclusive and aim to capture a range of flow conditions (low flow
and elevated flow).
The EMP provides a water quality (and flow) monitoring schedule as follows:
 2011 and 2012 - sampling at the six Tunakohoia Sites only (three sampling occasions
annually) to assess outcomes of Phase 1 works and inform decisions on additional
alkalinity injection.
 Post Phase 2 - sampling at all water quality monitoring sites for three years following
completion of Phase 2 works (Tui and Tunakohoia Stream sites, three sampling
occasions annually). Anticipated to occur from 2013 to 2015.
 Ongoing monitoring - sampling at all water quality monitoring sites on a five yearly basis
(anticipated to commence in 2020, three sampling occasions each year that monitoring is
required).
3.6 Regulatory Compliance
A review of the remedial works undertaken and compliance with the resource consents for the
works have not been undertaken in preparing this report. However, we note that the a
compliance audit was undertaken by the Waikato Regional Council on 24 June 2013 and this
indicated full compliance for the activities covered by the resource consents.
42092212/R058/D 16
N N
W E W E
S S
TUI STREAM
SW12
SITE LOCATION
SW11
REMEDIATED TAILINGS
FORMER PROCESS AREA
LANDFORM
SW15
WASTE ROCK PILES

AD
SW3
O
IR
SW13
TU
SW5
AM
TRE
IA S SW100
K OHO
UNA
HE T
H OF T
R ANC
TH B
NOR WASTE ROCK PILE
SW7 SW101
TOWN SUPPLY INLET
SW8
SO
UT
H
BR
AN
CH
O
F
TH
AKL
E LEGEND
TU
NA SW3 WATER QUALITY MONITORING SITE
KO
This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT.
HO SW7 ECOLOGICAL MONITORING SITE

IA
ST OLD MINE ROAD
REA ROAD
M
STREAM
0 150 300m
Source: Photography supplied by Matamata-Piako District Council
losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which may be incurred as a result of data being inaccurate in any way for any reason. Electronic files are provided for information only. The data in these files is not controlled or subject to automatic updates for users outside of URS. SCALE 1:6000
TUI MINE REMEDIATION

TUI MINE MONITORING LOCATIONS
VALIDATION REPORT
-
Figure:

4 REMEDIAL GOAL AND DESIGN CRITERIA
4.1 Introduction
This section provides the design criteria for each element of the remediation. The remedial
goals are the overarching outcomes that the remedial elements are expected to collectively
achieve.
4.2 Remedial Goals
As stated in Section 1.6, the remedial objectives for the project are:-
 To provide a sustainable solution for the long term environmental security of the site;
 To provide a geotechnically stable landform;
 To minimise the ongoing environmental effects of the site on water quality;

social implications; and,
 Preserve aspects of the mining heritage of the area where feasible.
These remedial objectives are expressed more explicitly as either the design criteria outlined
below or specific remedial goals.
4.2.1 Environmental Security
Environmental security of the site is achieved through creating a geotechnically and

geochemically stable tailings landform in accordance with the design criteria summarised in
Section 4.4, which adopts landfill design concepts in terms of surface water control, capping of
the landform and groundwater cutoffs.
4.2.2 Geotechnical Stability
The geotechnical parameters required to achieve a stable landform are presented in the
CSQAR’s and noted in Section 7-3 of this document.
4.2.3 Water Quality
The remedial goal in terms of water quality is to achieve an order of magnitude reduction, or
better, improvement in water quality in the lower Tui and Tunakohoia Streams, such that water
quality would not pose an unacceptable risk for contact recreation in these lower reaches.
The remedial philosophy looks to control contaminants at source. The accumulated

sediments and precipitates that contain contaminants within the streams are not directly
addressed by the remedial works. Due to contamination in the catchment outside the
remediated area, the works are not expected to have an immediate effect on water quality but
an improvement in water quality is expected overtime.
42092212/R058/D 18
4.2.4 Manage Potential Environmental Effects
The completed works included a number of controls to manage effects during the remedial
works. Long term effects of the site are assessed by an ongoing programme of biological and
water quality monitoring as outlined in Section 3.5.
4.2.5 Mining Heritage
The completed remediation of the process plant area has preserved elements of the mining
heritage while making these areas safe for public access.
4.3 Design Criteria - Phase 1 Remedial Works
4.3.1 Bulkhead and Flooded Mine (Below 550m RL)
The key design approach factors that represent the design criteria are:-
 Redundancy - A factor of safety greater than 1.0 was required with a pressure head of
120m, as such the bulkhead would withstand the water head if all discharge points in
the upper mine (Champion Level 4 and Level 3) become blocked;
 Locality optimisation- a minimum rock cover thickness of 20m was required at the
bulkhead locality;
 Longevity and durability – a bulkhead construction that can withstand the high acidity
and sulphate present in the mine water; and,
 Dam design criteria for low Potential Impact Category structure (PIC).
4.3.2 Discharge Controls
The design requirements for the discharge controls within the underground mine once flooded
are:
 Water pressure within the underground mine can be controlled at an elevation of

approximately 550 m above sea level;
 To provide the ability to lower these water levels within the underground mine if required;
 To stabilise trace elements and iron floc within the flooded section of the underground
mine; and,
 To enable additional alkalinity dosing of the body of water within the underground mine, if
required to control the iron floc present.
4.3.3 Upper Mine and Lime Dosing (Above 550m RL)
The objective of the passive alkalinity injection is to reduce sulphide oxidation that releases
trace elements, by neutralising and armouring the sulphide minerals in ground. Injection of
alkaline water into the upper levels of the mine leading to percolation through the workings
and vein was undertaken to both neutralise acid rock drainage where it is being generated and
to coat acid generating material with neutralisation precipitates (armouring).
42092212/R058/D 19
To effectively achieve an improvement in the minewater discharging at Champion Level 4, the
passive alkalinity injection needs to introduce alkalinity to the upper vein system along the
greatest strike length of the vein that it is cost effective, practical and safe to access.
4.3.4 Waste Rock Stacks
The design criteria for the waste rock stack remediation are as follows:-
Criteria
Design Loads Earth Fill Slope Stability Load Cases
 Static Condition
 Dynamic Condition (seismic) using the GNS Science site specific
Seismic Hazard assessment for the site – Return period 1:500 i.e 0.35g
Stormwater Load Case

Future Storm event return period 1:100 includes the 8% increase based on
MfE guidelines. EW instructions are to use 3 degree temperature rise.
Slope Stability Factors Long Term ≥1.5
of Safety Seismic ≥1.1
4.4.1 Geotechnical Parameters
The criteria used for design are summarised below:-
Earth Fill Slope Stability
Table 4.2 Slope Stability Design Criteria
Condition Description Minimum Factor of Safety

Static Normal long term conditions ≥1.5
Dynamic (Seismic) Using the GNS Science Site- ≥1.2
specific Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the Site –
Return Period 1 : 1,000
Temporary Conditions including ≥1.2
saturated
Temporary conditions including saturated Factor of safety 1.2
4.4.2 Geochemical Parameters
Management of mine waste management will be in accordance with the International Network
for Acid Prevention (INAP) Global Acid Rock Drainage (GARD) Guide methodology
(www.guardguide.com)
Controls on acid generation and trace element leaching are usually based on one or a
combination of the oxidation control, geochemical control and/or hydrological control.
42092212/R058/D 20
Oxidation control
Oxidation control is achieved by controlling of oxygen flux to reactive sulphides, such as by

deposition under water. For the purposes of the Phase 2 Tailings remedial works oxidation
control was specified and thereby design criteria achieved by constructing a barrier layer
-8
component of capping with a permeability of 1 x 10 m/s in conjunction with and overlying
drainage and topsoil layers to maintain the barrier layer at near saturation.
Geochemical control
Geochemical control is achieved by blending rock types or addition of neutralising materials to

control pH and oxidation rates. For the purposes of the tailings remedial works geochemical
control was specified and thereby design criteria achieved as follows:-
1
 In-situ stabilisation was specified to achieve an NPR > 0.8 with 95% confidence,
 Blended tailings were specified to achieve an NPR > 1.0 with 95% confidence and a
-8
permeability of 1 x 10 m/s.
Hydrological control
Placement of low permeability layers, evapotranspiration layers and waste management

structures to control the release rate from the disposal facility. For the purposes of the tailings
remedial works a low permeability cover and groundwater cut-off provide hydrological control
of water movement through the tailings. The groundwater cut-off was design to intercept
3 3
approximately 35 m /d of groundwater and be able to convey up to 200 m /d.
4.4.3 Foundation Conditions
The design report identifies a grid of cement columns through the colluvial soils at the toe of
the earth fill to achieve the desired factors of safety for slope stability. In addition, a shear key
was also constructed into the colluvial soils and back filled with tailings blend.
4.4.4 Tailings Deposition in Tunakohoia Catchment
The tailings distributed in the Tunakohoia Catchment south of the Mt Te Aroha access road
cannot be removed and a surface application of limestone was been developed to mitigate the
effects of this area.
4.4.5 Capping and Imported Materials
The control on the quality of imported material in terms of their trace element composition was
determined by deriving an offsite soil maximum allowable concentration (refer Appendix C).
The compacted soil layer of the cover requires a 300 mm thickness of cohesive soil
-8
compacted to achieve a permeability of 1 x 10 m/s.
1
NPR = Net Potential Ratio is a measure of acid generating potential. NPR>1 is non acid forming.
42092212/R058/D 21
4.4.6 Separation Layer
The separation layer is included in the cover design to achieve a depth separation between
tailings and surface of 1.0 metre to address stakeholder concerns.
The specifications (Specification Clause 13.3.2) for the separation layer require non acid
forming (NPR>1 and NAG pH>4.5) or low sulphides (Total sulphur <0.1%) materials and has
trace elements at concentrations below the greater of soil background levels and the
Proposed National Environmental Soil Guideline Values (this specification was prepared
before the NES for soil contaminants came into effect). The specification also provides for the
use of oxidised tailings provided the trace element leaching is minimal.
4.4.7 Surface Water Controls
Permanent drainage structures in high risk areas are designed to withstand a 1 in 500 year
storm return period. High risk areas are those where severe scouring of the tailings
impoundment could occur if the storm water channels failed. Permanent drains over low risk
areas are designed to withstand a 1 in 100 year return period. Consideration was given to the
effects of climate change in the design. The Ministry for the Environment has published that
temperatures could increase by 2.5 degrees over the next 100 years and rainfall intensities
could increase by 8% for each degree increase in average temperature. The resultant
increase in rainfall intensity could therefore be 20% over 100 years. The application of a factor
of safety relating to climate change in addition to the application of a factor of safety for a 1 in
500 year return period is considered excessive and allowance is made for the higher of the
two factors of safety – and not the addition of both factors together.
Allowance for a 1 in 500 year storm return period is 47% more than for a 1 in 100 year return
period. As this is 2.5 times greater that the proposed allowance for climate change, the larger
allowance for the 1:500 year return period alone, is used in the calculation of design flows.
It should be noted that a failsafe feature is designed into the drainage swale that could collect
overflow from the upper catchment cut off drain. This is located where the drain meets the Mt
Te Aroha access road, and where flows exceeding the 1 in 100 year return period capacity of
the drain at that location, redirect flows to across the access road and away from the high risk
sections of the lower reaches of the tailings impoundment.
42092212/R058/D 22
5 RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
Table 3-1 provides the reference information for each of the remedial components.
This section provides a complete list of the data sources and referencing used in this
report.
5.2 References for Data
In summary the following reports provide the reference data on which this validation report is
based:-
Abbreviation Reference Data

WQ Baseline Tui Remedial Works: Baseline Water quality
Baseline Monitoring, PDP Monitoring
(2010)
EM Baseline Tui Mine remedial Works – Baseline ecological
Instream Ecological Baseline monitoring of the Tui and
Monitoring, Coffey, B (2009) Tunakohoia Streams
Phase 1 CSQACR Tui Mine Remedial Works – Phase 1 works –
Phase 1 Construction Quality Underground works, lime
Assurance Completion injection and waste rock
Report, Tonkin & Taylor stack at Champion Level 4
(June 2011)
Phase 2 CSQACR Tui Mine Remedial Works – Phase 2 works – Tailings
Phase 2 Construction impoundment, surface water
Supervision & Quality controls, ore stockpiles and
Assurance Completion process plant, waste rock
Report, Tonkin & Taylor stack at Champion Level 5
(March 2014) and beached tailings (Area S)
WQMR 2011 Tui Mine Monitoring Report Water Quality data report for
2011 – Water Quality monitoring completed during
Monitoring (After Alkalinity 2011 sampling rounds
Injection), PDP (January
2012)
Monitoring (After Alkalinity 2012 sampling rounds
Injection for Rehabilitation of
Tui Mine), PDP (January
2013)
EMR 2013 Tui Mine: Post Remediation Ecological monitoring of the
Ecological Monitoring 2013, Tui and Tunakohoia Streams
PDP (December 2013)
Monitoring (After 2013 sampling round
Rehabilitation of Tui Mine),
PDP (January 2014)
42092212/R058/D 23
6 SITE CHARACTERISATION
6.1 Introduction
This section provides a characterisation of the residual sources on site and assessment of the
residual risk presented by each of these remedial components. This section should be read in
conjunction with Table 2-1 which indicates the scope of the remedial works and Table 3-1
which identifies the specific functional elements of the works.
Where residual risks are identified, and unless otherwise stated, monitoring and contingency
measures are in place to monitor and assess these potential risks and mitigation measures
have been identified should contingency actions be required. This is documented in the Tui
Mine Remediation Aftercare Plan (URS, 2014).
6.2 Champion Vein Underground Workings
6.2.1 Unflooded Mine
The Champion Vein is driven and/or stoped along 950 metres of its length.
The unflooded section of the mine (above RL 550m) in the upper vein above Champion Level
4 has 750 metres of drive.
Alkalinity injection has direct influence over 90 metres length of the upper vein above Level 3
(609m RL).
Data from Phase 1 remedial works has demonstrated that stope sections are the primary
ongoing source of ARD in the unflooded mine. On the basis of water quality data these stopes
contribute more than 90% of the ARD and trace element source.
Stopes are only present between Level 3 (RL 609m) and Level 4 (RL 550m) of the unflooded
mine which extends along 540 metres length of vein. Of this stoped length of vein:-
 Seepage from the northern 160 metres of stoped vein discharges into the flooded mine
via inner raises (Area F on Figure 6.1). The discharge at Champion Level 5 outlet (SW5)
monitors this while the flooded mine is below the over spill point (552.2m RL) in
Champion Level 4.
 Seepage from the middle 160 metres of stoped vein (inner Raise to Raise 3) discharges
into the flooded mine via Raise 3(Area E on Figure 6.1). A 50 metres section of this
stope is influenced by the lime injection via IP1 (Area D on Figure 6.1). The discharge at
Champion Level 5 outlet (SW5) monitors this while the flooded mine is below the over
spill point in Champion Level 4.
 The 50 metres of stoped vein between Raise 3 and the Level 4 cross cut discharges at
Level 4 (SW3) and is directly influenced by lime injection via Champion Level 3 (IP11)
(Area C on Figure 6.1). The discharge at Champion Level 4 outlet (SW3) monitors this
performance.
 The 90 metres of stoped vein above Level 4 south in bye of CD2 is piped into the flooded
mine (Area B on Figure 6.1). Alkalinity injection is unable to influence this source area
but lime dosing of the ponded discharge in Champion Level 4 South can be achieved via
IP8A. The discharge at Champion Level 5 outlet (SW5) monitors this while the flooded
42092212/R058/D 24
mine is below the over spill point in Champion Level 4. Any over spill at CD2 is monitored
at Champion Level 4 outlet (SW3).
 The 80 metres of southern most stoped vein is not influenced by alkalinity injection or
captured by the remedial works (Area A on Figure 6.1). Any discharge from this section
of stope is diffuse discharge at Champion Level 4 South portal and is assessed by in
stream results.
The net effect of these remedial works is summarised as follows:-
 15% of the unflooded mine stope ARD source is not managed by the remedial works
(Area A on Figure 6.1).
 19% of the unflooded mine stope ARD source is directly influenced by alkalinity injection
and hence can be further treated as required (Areas C and D on Figure 6.1).
 17% of the unflooded mine stope ARD discharge can be treated by alkalinity injection and
hence can be further dosed as required (Area B on Figure 6.1).
 49% of the unflooded mine stope ARD source is discharged to the flooded mine which
can be managed as required by water quality results (Areas E and F on Figure 6.1).
These zones are shown in Figure 6-1.
The diversion of surface water runoff around Champion Level 3 Winze (IP1) is a significant
control of the water volume entering the flooded workings. Maintaining this diversion is key to
controlling the volume of discharge from the underground mine.
6.2.2 Flooded Mine
The flooded mine is controlled by the bulkhead installed in the Champion Level 5 crosscut.
Seepage from the flooded mine discharges into the Champion Level 5 crosscut outbye of the
bulkhead.
Passive treatment of this seepage is provided by the coffer dam at the tunnel portal and the
passive treatment ponds and cascades at the Champion Level 5 waste rock stack.
The flows, water quality and mass load of this discharge (SW5) are assessed in detail in
Section 7.
The overspill point for the flooded mine is the Champion Level 4 outlet (RL552.2m).
Discharge has not occurred via this outlet with an equilibrium water level about 2 metres below
the outlet. Fluctuations in water level could result in periodic discharge via this outlet which
will potentially produce an undesirable water quality outcome.
6.2.3 Residual Risk
The following potential residual risks are presented by the Champion Vein system:-
 The surface water diversion at IP1 is compromised and the volume of discharge from the
untreated mine increases and/or fluctuates unacceptably in response to storm events.
 The bulkhead degrades over time and the bulkhead is unable to safely sustain the
required pressure head
42092212/R058/D 25
Source: Photography supplied by Matamata-Piako District Council
losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which may be incurred as a result of data being inaccurate in any way for any reason. Electronic files are provided for information only. The data in these files is not controlled or subject to automatic updates for users outside of URS.
TUI MINE REMEDIATION TREATMENT ZONES

VALIDATION REPORT FOR UNFLOODED MINE
-
Figure:

 The stope sources within the unflooded mine produce unacceptable ARD and trace
element concentrations.
 Iron floc and associated trace elements within the flooded mine do not stabilise and water
quality deteriorates.
 Excessive accumulation of iron floc compromises the coffer dams or passive treatment
ponds.
 The seepage via the rock mass to surface water results in an unacceptable water quality.
 Intermittent discharge from the outlet structure (Champion Level 4) leads to unacceptable
trace element discharges.
6.3 Ruakaka Vein Underground Workings
There are 500 metres of stoped vein within the unflooded section of the Ruakaka vein.
There is currently no direct surface discharge from the unflooded sections of the Ruakaka
Vein. Any seepage into the vein or through the rock mass into the stoped section of the
Ruakaka vein discharges to the flooded section of the Ruakaka Vein.
The discharge from the flooded section of the Ruakaka vein is currently as seepage through
the limestone chip bund in the cross cut to the Champion vein.
Discharges from the Champion Vein system (SW5 and SW3) therefore provide opportunity to
monitor the effectiveness of the treatment of the Ruakaka vein system.
Surface water monitoring at SW101 assesses the effects of any seepage loss from the flooded
Ruakaka vein into wider groundwater.
The Ruakaka stope (Level 2) (IP9) is an open void that surface water flow is directed across
by a rock bridge aquaduct. Collapse of this structure could lead to significant increases in the
surface water flow entering the flooded mine and create significant fluctuations in head across
the limestone chip bund in the Champion/Ruakaka crosscut.
6.3.1 Residual Risk
The following residual risks are presented by the Ruakaka Vein system:-
 Collapse of the Ruakaka Stope rock bridge (IP9) leads to increased and variable
discharge from the flooded mine.
 The seepage to surface water results in an unacceptable water quality (SW101)
 The lime chip bund becomes clogged or tunnel collapse in the crosscut compromises the
connection between the Ruakaka and Champion vein systems and excessive water
heads accumulate within the Ruakaka vein system.
42092212/R058/D 27
6.4 Waste Rock Stacks
6.4.1 Waste Rock Champion Level 4
The waste rock stack at Champion Level 4 is a potential source of ongoing ARD and trace
element leaching. Recontouring, limestone amendment and compaction of the rock has
mitigated these effects to a degree. However, extreme runoff events and related erosion or
instability of the surface could result in an increase in ARD and trace element leaching.
6.4.2 Waste Rock Champion Level 5
Materials contained within the recontoured waste rock landform at Champion Level 5 do not
present a significant risk as a source of ARD or trace element leaching. With recontouring a
defined channel has been established for the Tunakohoia Stream and overly steep areas have
been removed. Any future instability or erosion would be comparable to natural erosion in
steep terrain of this type.
The established passive treatment ponds and cascades, to treat mine water seepage, require
maintenance to ensure the ponds continue to function and that the accumulation of floc does
not present an unacceptable risk to the catchment.
6.4.2.1 Residual Risks
The following residual risks are presented by the Waste Rock Stacks:-
 Instability or erosion of the waste rock stack at Champion Level 4 presents a potential risk
of increased ARD and trace element leaching.
 Inadequate maintenance of passive treatment ponds could result in release of iron floc to
the Tunakohoia Stream.
6.5 Ore Stockpile and Processing Plant
The waste rock and ore from the ore stockpile area has been removed down to natural
ground.
Residual contaminant sources are therefore:-
 areas of ore chip that could not be reached due to established native vegetation cover,
 residual trace element concentrations in underlying soils which are generally fine grained,
and
 ore and waste rock that remains beneath the access road to Champion Level 5, this is
estimated to represent less than 20% of the ore stockpile area.
These residual contaminant sources are considered to present a low level of risk in terms of
water quality runoff as this area has been topsoiled and vegetated. The implications of the
trace element concentrations in soils in terms of the proposed land use are also likely to be
mitigated by the completed remedial works.
42092212/R058/D 28
6.5.1 Residual Risks
The following residual risks are presented by the ore stockpile and process plant areas:-
 Residual areas of ore chip beneath vegetation or access roads provide a source of
continued trace element leaching.
 Localised elevated trace element concentrations in natural soil beneath ore stockpiles
present an unacceptable risk for the intended land use.
6.6 Remediated Tailings Landform
6.6.1 Treated Tailings
The tailings have been treated to prevent the material from becoming acid producing and to
thereby limit trace element leaching.
In addition, the remediated tailings landform is covered with an engineered cap that consists of
a separation layer, a clay barrier layer, a drainage layer and a subsoil/topsoil layer.
Discharges from the remediated tailings landform are as follows:-
 Seepage from the Toe Drain (captured by monitoring at SW11) is currently less than 0.2
litres per second. This is expected to increase to in excess of 0.5 litres per second as
groundwater conditions within the remediated tailings landform stabilise. This is expected
to represent 50% of the seepage from the remediated tailings landform.
 Seepage from the remediated tailings landform to groundwater is estimated to be at most

0.2 litres per second.
 Groundwater cut-off drain (SW15 monitoring site) which flows at between 3 and 8 litres
per second. This is greater than estimated in the water balance for the site in part due to
changes made during the remedial works.
These discharges will continue to contain slightly elevated concentrations of trace elements
which are expected to reduce over time.
Passive treatment of the toe drain seepage has been identified as a potential requirement.
Based on current chemistry and flow, only minimal polishing of the discharge in the form of
settling and aeration would be required. More comprehensive treatment can be implemented
in the future if required.
The groundwater cut-off drain is designed to intercept upgradient groundwater. The

configuration of the drains constructed is such that the temporary drain intercepts a
component of groundwater that is influenced by tailings. The provision exists to
decommission the temporary drain which will increase piezometric levels in the upper tailings
area and ultimately increase flow in the main groundwater cut-off drain, but intercept less
water influenced by tailings seepage. This is not currently proposed and will be assessed
based on ongoing monitoring of the groundwater cut-off drains (SW15).
Damage or breach of the remediated landform capping as a result of erosion or slope

movement would be identified by site inspections and repaired if required. The design
incorporates multiple lines of defence in that tailings are treated, such that even with a breach
42092212/R058/D 29
of the cover, the rates of ARD and trace element leaching would not be expected to lead to
excessive leaching to surface water. The main risk with a cover breach is the potential human
health risk associated with direct exposure to tailing materials.
The residual discharges to groundwater have a very limited potential for adverse effects. The
residual contaminant plume in groundwater does, however, provide a potential ongoing source
for an extended period. The primary risk around trace element leaching, at unexpectedly high
rates, would therefore be unacceptable water quality in the groundwater cut-off and toe drain
discharges requiring mitigation.
Elevated groundwater levels within the remediated tailings landform could occur from a
number of possible causes. The cover design provides for control of this situation utilising the
drainage layers. The residual risk this presents to water quality is considered extremely
limited as it requires multiple low probability events occurring together (elevated water level,
higher than predicted leaching, cover drainage layer failure and excessive seepage to surface
water) to have a potential effect.
6.6.2 Organic Materials
During the tailings stabilisation process materials such as tree trunks and logs were
encountered within and at the base of the tailings. These materials could not be treated with
the tailings treatment methods and were removed and stockpiled in the former workshop area
where they will be contained within a stable landform. These materials inherently include a
component of tailings and trace elements and thereby represent a potential source of trace
element leaching.
The following residual risks are presented by the remediated tailings landform:-
 Residual discharge from the toe drain requiring treatment;

 Discharge from the groundwater cut-off drain requiring treatment;
 Cover breach that leads to potential for direct human exposure to tailings;
 Residual groundwater contaminant plume has an adverse effect on surface water;

 Seepage breakout from the remediated tailings landform resulting in an adverse effect on
water quality; and,
 Contaminated organic material in the former workshop area is not adequately contained
and acts as an ongoing source of trace element leaching as organic material breaks
down.
6.7 Beached Tailings (Area S)
The tailings beach in the bush area to the south of the Mt Te Aroha access road (Area S)
represents one of the more significant residual contaminant sources at the site.
The area has been treated by hand spreading limestone at a rate of 2 kg per square metre.
The tributary contributing to the area passes through the ford drain area which introduces
42092212/R058/D 30
alkalinity to the run-on to the beached tailings maximising precipitation of trace elements
components at source.
Removal of the material is problematic and further hand spreading of limestone, or alkalinity
addition to upstream (in Ford Drain), therefore represents the principal means of mitigating the
adverse effects of this area if required. Sampling at SW17 provides the data on which to
assess this area.
The following residual risk is presented by the beached tailings area:-
 ARD and trace element leaching at rates that will adversely affect water quality within the
North branch of the Tunakohoia Stream.
6.8 Tunakohoia Stream Sediments
The stream bed within the Tunakohoia Stream contains a combination of waste rock, tailings
and iron floc and associated trace elements precipitated from mine discharges over the past
40 years. These residual contaminants will continue to be released from the stream
sediments over an extended period.
The Tunakohoia North Branch catchment is approximately 105 hectares (reporting to SW7)
and high rainfall events are expected to result in flows in the order 15 cubic metres per second
on a two yearly basis. High runoff events that will lead to flushing of residual contaminants
from within this catchment are expected to occur on a reasonably frequent basis.
6.8.1 Residual Risk
The following residual risks are presented by the Tunakohoia Stream sediments:-
 Trace element release from the stream sediment continues over an extended period
 High runoff events continue to release residual sources of contaminated material from the
stream bed.
Monitoring is in place to assess these potential risks. Mitigation measures have not been
developed to date as they will depend on the nature and source of issues that could arise and
the practical limitations of implementing works.
It should be noted that these sources are outside the scope of the current remedial works but
they do influence the monitored water quality outcomes (refer Table 2-1).
6.9 Tui Stream Bed
The stream bed within the Tui Stream contains a combination of waste rock, tailings and iron
floc and associated trace elements precipitated from mine discharges over the past 40 years.
These residual contaminants will be released from the stream sediments over an extended
period.
The Tui Stream tributary where the Remediated Tailings Landform is located is approximately
6.6 hectares and high rainfall events are expected to result in flows in the order 0.5 cubic
42092212/R058/D 31
metres per second on an annual basis. Due to the limited catchment size that will lead to
ongoing flushing of residual contaminants from within this tributary is not expected to flush
secondary minerals and iron floc as rapidly as in the Tunakohoia North Branch.
The more neutral pH and higher alkalinity of seepage components contributing to runoff in this
catchment will however reduce the rate of trace element release from stream sediments and
may enable precipitated minerals to armour and stabilise.
6.9.1 Former Silt Pond Area
Prior to the Phase 2 remediation the area immediately downstream from the tailings dam
included a silt pond and an extensive area of iron floc accumulated in the stream bed. With
the completion of the remediated tailings landform and revegetation of the landform these
areas became redundant.
The remediation of this area included construction of a new stream channel south of the
previous alignment and removal of floc and sediment and placement along the northern
perimeter of this channel. Seepage from this area is a potential residual contaminant source.
6.9.2 Residual Risk
The following residual risks are presented by the Tui Stream sediments:-
 Trace element release from the stream sediment continues over an extended period.
 High runoff events continue to release residual sources of contaminated material.

 Seepage from material excavated during stream channel remediation leaches trace
elements.
Monitoring is in place to monitor and assess these potential risks. Mitigation measures have
not been developed to date as they will depend on the nature and source of issues that could
arise and the practical limitations of implementing works.
It should be noted that these in-stream sources are outside the scope of the current remedial
works but they do influence the monitored water quality outcomes (refer Table 2-1).
6.10 Old Mine Workings
Mining has taken place in the Tunakohoia Catchment since the late 1800’s. A number of old
workings are present in the area which are not part of the Tui mine site or the remedial scope
(refer Table 2-1). The effect of these sites is reflected in the background and baseline data.
These workings are expected to have a minor influence on the degree of improvement in
water quality that can be achieved within the Tunakohoia catchment in their current condition.
Significant collapses and degradation of these workings could potentially influence water
quality in the catchments. The potential for this to occur at a scale necessary to significantly
influence water quality is considered limited.
42092212/R058/D 32
7 VALIDATION
7.1 Introduction
This section provides an analysis of the testing and monitoring results and evaluation against
the remedial goals and design criteria. This includes consideration of resource consents and
compliance implications.
As discussed in Section 3.3 the water quality at the discharge points and in the receiving
environment is the primary measure used to assess the remedial outcomes. In-stream water
quality results are discussed in Section 7.4
The discrete discharge points for the underground mine are the Champion Level 4 Outlet
(SW3) and the Champion Level 5 Discharge (SW5) to the passive treatment ponds.
The verified dataset for these monitoring sites is presented in Appendix D.
7.2.1 Champion Level 4 Discharge
Appendix E summarises the data for Champion Level 4 discharge (SW3).
Flow Regime
Pre remediation the discharge at Champion Level 4 portal (SW3) was limited to seepage
through the collapse within the Crosscut as water which accumulated behind this collapse
discharged down into Raise 3 to Level 5. The uncontrolled discharge pre remediation was
difficult to measure at this location but is estimated at between 0.06 and 5 litres per second
averaging around 1.4 litres per second.
Remedial works that effect flows were completed in 2012 in accordance with the URS
Designer Advice Note 7.
Post remediation (2013 data) flows at SW3 capture seepage from the unflooded mine, as
discussed in Section 6.2.1. Flows in 2013 varied between 0.5 and 1 litres per second and
averaged 0.8 litres per second.
Water Quality
A greater component of the flow from the upper unflooded mine now discharges at the Level 4
portal (SW3) rather than through Raise 3 into SW5 as occurred pre remediation. Trace
element concentrations in this discharge (SW3) have therefore increased, relative to baseline,
but remain below the pre remediation concentrations measured in the Level 5 discharge
(SW5), with the exception of copper and lead. The concentrations of both remain below the
contact recreation criteria in the Level 4 discharge and therefore only marginally limit the ability
to achieve the instream remedial goal of reducing mass flux of contaminants. Copper and
lead are sourced largely from the Champion Level 4 South and the completed remedial works
are expected to result in an ongoing reduction of these constituents.
42092212/R058/D
7.2.2 Champion Level 5 Discharge
Appendix E summarises the data for Champion Level 5 discharge (SW5).
Flow Regime
Pre remediation the discharge at Champion Level 5 portal (SW5) was the main discharge
point for the mine and also captured flows from the Ruakaka vein system. The uncontrolled
discharge pre remediation was difficult to measure at this location but is estimated at between
5 and 15 litres per second averaging around 9 litres per second.
Post remediation (2013 data) flows at SW5 capture seepage from the rock mass resulting
from the increased the water level, and hence head behind the bulkhead within the flooded
mine. Figure 7-1 indicates the water level data for the flooded mine. Water levels have
fluctuated at a similar level about 2 metres below the overspill point (RL 552.2m) in Champion
Level 4 since late 2012. This suggests an equilibrium has been reached where seepage into
the mine workings from the wider rock mass and unflooded mine is equivalent to seepage out
of the flooded mine via the wider rock mass and around the bulkhead into the Champion Level
5 crosscut out-bye of the bulkhead.
The sampling site at SW5 has been moved during the 2013 data set as a result of the
remedial works at the Level 5 portal and the flow measurements since November 2013 are
expected to be more reliable.
Flows at SW5 since late 2012 varied between 1.5 and 3.3 litres per second and averaged 2.1
litres per second.
Figure 7-1 Water level in the flooded mine workings
42092212/R058/D 34
Water Quality
The trace elements cadmium, copper, lead and zinc are all present at reduced concentrations
in the discharge from the Level 5 portal (SW5).
Increases in iron and manganese concentrations are the result of reduced conditions that
have developed within the flooded mine. Iron levels are expected to change as flooded mine
discharges stabilise as discussed in Section 7.2.3.
7.2.3 Combined Discharge
Appendix E summarises the data for the combined discharges (SW3+SW5) from the
underground.
Flow
The average combined flow discharging from the underground workings has decreased from
approximately 10.4 litres per second pre remediation to 2.9 litres per second post remediation.
This reduction in flow is the result of the following:-
 The diversion of stormwater flow away from the workings at Champion Level 3 (IP1)
 The increased groundwater level in the flooded mine reducing groundwater inflow and
greater flow through the rock mass surrounding the workings.
Mass Load
The average reductions in mass flux of trace elements between the baseline and 2013 data
are cadmium – 95%, copper – 73% and zinc – 90%.
There is no change in the mass flux of manganese.
Lead mass load has increased as a result of the changes in concentration in Champion Level
4, which capture discharge from the unflooded mine. While these discharges meet contact
recreation criteria that would apply in stream, additional limestone slurry dosing is proposed to
mitigate these mass load changes.
Assessment
The receiving water criteria for contact recreation cannot be applied to the SW3 and SW5
discharges as the guidelines are only applicable to in stream values (after reasonable mixing)
not point discharges and in the case of SW5 further treatment occurs through the passive
system prior to discharge to the Tunakohoia Stream.
Table 7-1 therefore summarises the contaminants of concern with respect to the remedial goal
of reducing mass flux.
42092212/R058/D 35
Table 7-1 Combined Discharge Mass Flux
Contaminant of Concern Remedial Goal - Status

Cadmium Achieved 95% mass flux reduction
Copper Improving 73% mass flux reduction -
discharge quality meets contact recreation
criteria
Iron Requires passive treatment
Lead Mass flux increased – Remedial goal not
achieved – discharge quality meets contact
recreation criteria, additional limestone
dosing proposed.
Manganese Requires passive treatment
Zinc Achieved 90% mass flux reduction
The mass flux of iron and manganese are primarily from SW5 prior to passive treatment. The
elevated iron and manganese are expected as a result of the anoxic (oxygen depleted)
conditions created by flooding of the underground workings. The discharge from the
underground mine is still in the early stages of stabilising. The expected changes that will
occur as the flooded mine stabilises are summarised as follows:-
 First Flush phase – secondary minerals that formed as a result of sulphide oxidation pre
remediation are dissolved in the flooded mine water. These minerals are often referred to
as “acid generating salts” and include the iron (floc) oxyhydroxides and sulphate salts that
store large amount of acidity and metals. Discharge during this phase is characterised by
high acidity, sulphate and iron concentrations. The high calcium and moderate alkalinity
that have been detected since the bulkhead was installed, indicate that limestone addition
(chip bunds and limestone slurry) have been effective in mitigating adverse effects of the
first flush to date. Empirical data for mine sites internationally (Wolkersdorfer, 2008)
suggests that the duration of the first flush is between approximately 2 and 5 times the
duration for water level to overspill or rebound. Based on Figure 7-1 the rebound was in
the order of 18 months so the first flush could last between 3 years (end of 2015) and 7
(end of 2019) years from this point.
 Long Term Discharge – Once the first flush has passed water quality typically indicates
exponential decay of contaminant concentrations with the end point for contaminant
release being limited to the ongoing trace element release rates from the residual source
areas and secondary minerals within the flooded mine.
Once the first flush has passed the redox conditions that develop within the mine will have
considerable influence on the remedial outcome. Should conditions become sufficiently
anaerobic and sulphate reducing conditions develop, then high rates of removal can be
expected for the majority of the trace elements that will precipitate as metal sulphides.
Manganese removal is less effective under these conditions and ongoing passive treatment
(aerobic) of the surface discharge will be required. Current trends in water quality suggest
sulphate reducing conditions are likely to develop long term.
The residence time for water within the flooded mine is estimated to between 1 and 4 months
depending on the degree of mixing within the flooded mine.
The current rate which alkalinity is consumed within the flooded mine is assessed as follows:-
42092212/R058/D 36
 Based on the post remediation average mass flux, less the baseline average mass flux,
between 6 tonnes per year of alkalinity is consumed, and discharged via SW5. This does
not take account of seepage loss into the wider rock mass and therefore represents a
lower bound for alkalinity consumption.
 When mine water is saturated with respect to bicarbonate, free carbon dioxide may be
released which is not measurable in the seepage discharge. The change in calcium
mass flux between baseline and post remediation is therefore determined to verify the
alkalinity consumption. This assessment indicates a similar rate (6 tonnes per year) of
limestone consumption.
This alkalinity consumption should be reassessed going forward as it is one of several

indicators required to assess the need for further limestone slurry injection. Iron and to a
lesser extent manganese, rapidly precipitate as floc in the aerated instream environment.
The following elements of the Phase 2 works are addressed by this report:-
 Slope stability of remediated tailings landform
 Tailings blending
 In-situ mass stabilisation
 Ex-situ mass stabilisation
 Capping and imported materials
 Separation layer materials and site source materials used in this layer (oxidised tailings,
Area L and Area J materials)
The design criteria used to validate these components are described in Section 4.
7.3.1 Geotechnical Stability of Remediated Tailings Landform
The construction works of the Tui Mine Remediation (Phase 2) were completed on 3 May
2013 under Contract Number of RCS 2011/12-01. As part of the remedial works, the
stabilisation of the tailings dam landform involved:
 In-situ Mass Stabilisation (IMS) of tailings.
 Ex-situ Mass Stabilisation of tailings in two main forms:
 Tails Blend (TB) consisting of waste rock, tailings and reagent.
 Ex situ cement Mass Stabilisation (EMS) consisting of tailings and reagent.
 Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) cement columns.

 Toe shear key construction.
 Construction of multi-layer landform cap.
Validation of stability of the final landform is required as there were a number of changes to
the landform, tailings treatment, and foundation works that differed from the original detailed
design. In addition, the as built geotechnical strengths of the various treatment areas have
42092212/R058/D 37
been tested and documented. The validation of slope stability is required to ensure that the
design criteria have been met.
7.3.2 Design Criteria
The design criteria for the slope stability design of the remediated tailings landform were
presented in the URS design report (URS 2010) and are summarised in section 4.4.1 of this
report.
Designers advice note 9 (URS 2012) assessed the slope stability of the landform following
initial design changes that were required during construction. It indicated that the original
dynamic design criterion with a factor of safety of 1.2 was arduous. The rehabilitated tailings
slope would not produce a landslide of note in the event of an earthquake, but rather crack. It
was accepted by the peer reviewers that if the level of deformation associated with a dynamic
factor of safety below 1 was in the same order of magnitude ie. 10mm, as that presented in
the original design report, the stability analysis were acceptable.
7.3.3 Ground Model and Material Parameters
A slope analysis model was set up based on information given in the “Phase 2 Construction
Supervision and Quality Assurance Completion Report” dated August 2013 (T&T 2014). A
cross-section along the centreline of the remediated landform was generated from the as-built
surveys of each material layer. The interface between colluvium and weathered andesite was
based on the original geology interpretation in the design report, except that the lower slope
rock level was defined using drillhole log for DSM Column 70. Material types, descriptions and
their properties were obtained from laboratory test records presented in the CSQACR (T&T
2014). The geotechnical properties are summarised in Table 7-2 below. For reasons of
conservatism, the minimum values were adopted for the validation of the slope stability.
Table 7-2 Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
Material Cohesion, c (kPa) Friction Angle, ’ (º)

Type Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
Standard
Tailings 29 80 208 34 38 43
Blend
Tri-Blend
3
75kg/m 72 42
(TB75)
In-situ
Stabilisation 0 30 100 28 43 70
(IMS)
Ex-situ
Mass
4 42 134 40 51 44
Blending
(EMS)
EMS2 26 103 216 30 38 41
Organics
73 145 217 35 37.5 40
Blend
Cement 276 65
42092212/R058/D 38
Material Cohesion, c (kPa) Friction Angle, ’ (º)
Type Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
Columns
(DSM)
7.3.4 Stability Analysis
The detailed ground model was established for the geotechnical assessment of the
constructed profile using the limit equilibrium software Slope/W 2012. The purpose of the
analyses was to check that the final remediated tailings landform meets the design criteria.
The geological section modelled is shown below in Figure 7.2 and is based on the as-built
records presented in the CSQACR.
Figure 7-2 Geological Setting for Slope Stability Model
The analyses adopted the Morgenstern-Price method with interslice half-sine function to
obtain both moment and force factors of safety (FoS). The phreatic line was defined at the
base of treated tailings in long-term static conditions assuming the blends are impermeable.
However, it was defined at the slope surface in dynamic and short-term conditions for the
saturated analyses. The slip surfaces were defined by specifying the entry and exit regions.
Optimised critical slip surfaces were generated for the various conditions mentioned above.
A peak ground acceleration of 0.35g for 1:500 year return period earthquake, where a factor of
0.65 was applied to obtain an “equivalent uniform acceleration” for analyses, i.e. 0.23g, was
adopted for the seismic load case.
Prediction of the deformation to occur as a result of the seismic event was carried out using a
rational approach developed by Makdisi and Seed in 1978. A critical yield acceleration of
0.18g was determined to obtain a FoS of unity.
7.3.5 Stability Results
Table 7-3 below presents stability results achieved for the minimum material parameters and
ground conditions described above.
42092212/R058/D 39
Table 7-3 Slope Analysis Result
Condition Achieved Factor of Safety Acceptability

Static 2.4 > 1.5 - Acceptable
Dynamic 0.9 < 1.2 deformation analysis
(Seismic) adopted
Temporary 2.0 >1.2 - Acceptable
Predicted deformation for the design earthquake is 2mm and this is within accepted limits.
The output of the stability analyses results are presented in Appendix F.
The analyses show that the final constructed landform achieves the design criteria.
7.3.6 Remediated Tailings Mass Geochemical Control
Section 4.3.2 identified the design criteria for the geochemical control of tailings.
There are two zones within the tailings impoundment in terms of geochemical control:-
 The upper layer of tailings blend which is required to meet a permeability specification
and geochemically a NPR of greater than 1. The minimum thickness of this layer is
1.5 metres.
 Insitu stabilised material required to have a NPR of greater than 0.8
Permeability
Tailings blend, oxidised and exsitu mass stabilised materials were placed in the upper 1.5
metre zone where a permeability specification was applied. A test rate of 1 triaxial
3
permeability test per 5000 m was specified and hence for the remediated tailings area a
minimum of 6 tests would be required.
Appendix J and K of the Phase 2 CSQACR provide the QA data which is summarised in Table
7-4.
42092212/R058/D 40
Table 7-4 Tailings Blend Permeability Results
Range Geomean Acceptability

-8
(<1 x 10 m/s)
-5 -8 -7
Tailings Blend (n=18) 1.45 x 10 to 2.8 x 10 m/s 3.17 x 10 m/s Not achieved
-8 -7 -8
EMS (n=10) 8.6 x 10 to 1.2 x 10 m/s 4.2 x 10 m/s Within order of
magnitude
-6 -7 -7
EMS2 (n=14) 3.3 x 10 to 5.9 x 10 m/s 1.6 x 10 m/s Not achieved
Note: n = number of samples
The nature of the materials available for use in tailings blends and EMS prevented the
permeability criteria being consistently achievable. As a result, oxygen and water flux through
this material will potentially be greater than assumed in the design. There are, however,
multiple lines of defence inherent within the design and achievement of the capping layer
permeability and the geochemical criteria (NPR) for the upper 1.5 zone are expected to enable
the overall remedial goals for geochemical control to be achieved.
Geochemical Control
The test frequency specified for tailings blends was based on testing drill core at 0.5 metre
3
intervals with one borehole for every 5000 m of tailings.
3
Based on an IMS volume of 23,333 m of treated tailings assuming an average depth of 4.5
metres across the IMS area 45 samples would be required for IMS testing.
The test frequency for tailings blend, EMS and EMS2 was revised (NTE109) to reflect the
construction method. Three samples are taken based on a 1.5 metre layer thickness. On this
basis the following sample numbers would be required:-
3 3
 Tails blend for 22,367 m would require 5 locations (1 per 5000 m ) at 3 depths. A
total of 15 samples would therefore be required.
3 3
 EMS & EMS2 for 47,206 m would require 10 locations (1 per 5000 m ) at 3 depths. A
combined total of 30 samples would therefore be required.
The NPR criteria is a lower bound that should be exceeded. The testing must therefore show
that the 95% lower confidence limit of the mean is greater than the criteria.
Appendix J and K of the Phase 2 CSQACR provide the QA data for tailings blends which is
summarised in Table 7-5.
42092212/R058/D 41
Table 7-5 Treated Tailings Geochemical Results Summary
Volume Actual NPR Range NPR - 95% Acceptability

Treated Sample No. Lower
(m3) Confidence
Limit of
Mean
Tailings 22,367 27 0.62 to 6.26 1.5 Significantly

Blend exceeded
NPR>1
EMS 26,998 15 0.47 to 2.84 1.04 Achieved

NPR>1
EMS2 20,208 20 0.816 to 4.508 1.67 Significantly

exceeded
NPR>1
IMS 23,333 46 0.27 to 1.88 0.89 Achieved

NPR>0.8
Based on the validation data provided, the treatment methods adopted for geochemical control
of the tailings have achieved the requirements specified in the design. In the case of the
Tailings Blend and EMS2 the criteria are significantly exceeded. On this basis, the potential
for leaching of elevated trace element as a result of acid rock drainage developing within the
remediated landform is considered limited.
Groundwater Cutoff Drain Fill
The area at the eastern most extent of the remediated landform was excavated to construct
the groundwater cutoff drain. Backfilling of this area included clay materials which contained
low level contamination with concentrations of the same order as the onsite soil background
values (Phase 2 CSQACR, Appendix K, Table 16 Area L Clay). The material does not present
an acid rock drainage risk. This material was incorporated within the remediated landform and
covered by the drainage layer and topsoil components of the cover. This eliminates any direct
exposure to this material.
7.3.7 Capping and Imported Materials
As identified in Section 4, the cover has performance criteria for permeability of the barrier
layer and soil contaminant limits for all cover components. Testing requirements are as per
Clause 13.5 of the Specifications.
Test results are provided in Appendices J and K of the Phase 2 CSQACR.
Table 7-6 summarises the trace element results with respect to soil contaminant limits.
42092212/R058/D 42
Soil Contaminant Limits
2
The testing regime for soil contaminants requires 1 test per 2000 m . The completed landform
2
has an area of 17143 m which therefore require 9 samples for each component layer.
The NPR of topsoil, drainage layer and barrier layer clay are all acceptable (NPR>1)
The drainage layer and barrier layers are comprised fully of offsite soils and all meet the
Offsite Soil Acceptance Criteria (OSAC)(Table 3 of URS Letter 6 August 2012). Table 6h of
Appendix J of the Phase 2 CSQACR appears to use the onsite soil background number. It is
our understanding that this is incorrect and the offsite number should be used.
Table 7-6 Capping and Imported Material Trace Element Validation
Topsoil (n=10) Drainage Layer (n=10) Barrier Layer (n=10)
Maximum < OSAC Maximum < OSAC Maximum < OSAC

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead
Maximum < OSAC Maximum < OSAC Maximum above

Nickel OSAC

Zinc
The requirements for soil background (URS Letter 6 August 2012) defines a maximum
concentration and a 95% UCL which is to be used if more than 30% of the samples exceed
the mean soil background values (95%UCL). The nickel results in the clay barrier layer trigger
the need to consider the 95% UCL for this parameter against the background value for nickel
of 14 mg/kg (95%UCL of mean). The 95%UCL for nickel for the completed cover considering
topsoil, drainage layer and clay barrier material is 13.55 mg/kg. The nickel concentrations in
the completed cover are therefore considered acceptable.
Permeability
3
The clay cover layer is comprised of 4800 m of imported material. Specifications require 4
tests of this material. Five permeability results have been determined by triaxial testing of
undisturbed core samples, two of which exceed the specified limit. The geometric mean of the
-9
data indicates a permeability of 3.7 x 10 m/s. On this basis, the permeability of the
compacted cohesive soil layer is considered acceptable.
42092212/R058/D 43
7.3.8 Separation Layer and Site Sourced Materials
Separation Layer
A range of materials were utilised in the separation layer including oxidised tailings, partially
oxidised tails, Area L organics and waste rock. Amendment rates were developed during the
contract works to treat tailings. The total volume of material placed in the separation layer is
3
6,589 m which is made up of the following treatments:-
3
 Oxidised Tails with amendment (622 m );
3
 Area L organics/Partially Oxidised Tailings Blend with amendment (5,182 m );
3
 Waste Rock/ Partially oxidised tailings with amendment (554 m ); and,
3
 Partially oxidised tailings with amendment (231 m ).
2
As noted in Section 7.3.7 the remediated tailings landform has an area of 17,143 m with a
specified thickness of 250 mm the minimum volume of separation layer to meet specification is
3
approximately 4300 m . There are therefore areas of the separation layer that are greater
than the specified minimum thickness of 250 mm.
Appendix J and K of the Phase 2 CSQACR provide the QA data for separation layer testing
which is summarised in Table 7-7 .
Testing of oxidised tails stockpiles indicated that a major component of the material was
partially and not fully oxidised. Addition of alkaline material was therefore required to ensure
the NPR of the material is greater than>1.
Amendment trials on oxidised tailings indicated that leachability of arsenic and lead could be
increased by the use of more caustic amendments (CaO) or addition of these reagents at too
high a rate.
Treatments for partially oxidised tailings and organics or waste rock were therefore a blend of
agricultural limestone (or industrial fine lime [IFL]) and cement with minimal burnt lime
(NTC108, NTC117, NTC118).
Leaching tests (Appendix K, 13 Capping, T6b Reports), indicate that partially oxidised tails
treated in this manner have acceptably low trace element leaching and meet the NPR
requirements.
Validation data for the actual separation layer construction therefore focusses on NPR’s and
trace elements.
42092212/R058/D 44
Table 7-7 Separation Layer Testing Validation
1
Criteria Mean (Range) Acceptability
(n=10)
NPR >1 3.85 (3.28 to 5.63) Achieved

NPR>1
Total Arsenic 100 (pSGV) 186 (158 to 216) Above Criteria
Total Copper 170,000 381 (268.3 to 565.4) Achieved

(pSGV) Below Criteria
Total Lead 4,700 (pSGV) 3,589 (2,197 to 4,678) Achieved

Below Criteria
Total Zinc 1,060 (SB) 1910 (444 to 4,134) Above Criteria
1
Note: Trace element criteria are greater of soil background (SB) and proposed
National Environmental Soil Guideline Values (pSGV).
The slightly elevated arsenic and zinc in the separation layer are not expected to present an
unacceptable risk as the material has low leachability and is isolated from direct contact by
overlying barrier, drainage and topsoil layers of the cover.
7.3.9 Toe Drain Discharge
Seepage from the toe area of the remediated tailings landform discharges via a pipe outlet
upstream of SW11.
This discharge has been assessed in terms of water quality and mass load and the toe drain
discharge in all cases contains lower concentrations and mass loads of trace elements than at
SW11.
In terms of mass loads, arsenic and lead in the toe drain discharge contribute the largest
percentage of the mass load present at SW11. Both of these constituents tend to be primarily
associated with suspended sediment in the discharge and control of the toe drain discharge to
enable settling and aeration is recommended rather than direct discharge to the surface water
channel.
42092212/R058/D 45
7.4 Water Quality
7.4.1 Tunakohoia Stream
The following water quality sites in the Tunakohoia Stream catchment are assessed:-
 SW100 – North Branch of Tunakohoia Stream at Mt Te Aroha Access Road.
 SW101 – Ruakaka tributary of North Branch of Tunakohoia Stream at Mt Te Aroha

Access Road.
 SW15 – Groundwater cutoff drain discharge.
 SW17 – Lower in SW15 tributary downgradient of beach tailings (Area S).
 SW7 – Lower North Branch of Tunakohoia Stream above confluence with south
branch.
 SW8 – Lower South branch Tunakohoia Stream.
Appendix E summarises the data for Mt Te Aroha Ford site in the North Branch of the
Tunakohoia (SW100), the groundwater cutoff (SW15) and the data for lower North Branch of
the Tunakohoia (SW7).
Table 7-8 summarises the current water quality data with respect to the remedial goals for the
Tunakohoia Stream. Table 7-8 includes ANZECC freshwater aquatic criteria for comparative
purposes only as the remedial goals are an order of magnitude reduction in mass load in
upper catchment (SW100) and contact recreation criteria in the lower catchment (SW7).
Flows
Surface water flow distributions have been calculated for the following locations in the
Tunakohoia Catchment:-
 SW7
 SW100
 SW8
These surface water flow distributions are shown in Table 7-10 and provide a basis for
probabilistic prediction of water quality within the catchments.
In the current limited data set the range of flows encountered during post remediation
sampling includes a sampling event in September 2013 that is more than four times (400%)
the maximum flow recorded during baseline sampling at SW100. The flows in the lower
Tunakohoia catchment (SW7) during this event were 30% greater than the maximum recorded
baseline flow.
42092212/R058/D 46
Table 7-8 Tunakohoia Stream Water Quality Validation
Sampling Location Parameter Baseline Condition Post Remediation Remedial Goal Status/Comments
2013 Achieved
Background or Contact Recreation ANZECC Contact Recreation ANZECC
Detection limit Freshwater (90% Freshwater (90%
Level of protection) Level of protection)
SW100 Physiochemical Neutral pH NA NA Neutral pH NA NA Maintained neutral
parameters pH
SW100 Major Cations and Low Alkalinity NA NA Increase in alkalinity NA NA Increase in
Anions Elevated sulphate & calcium alkalinity, calcium.
Decrease in
sulphate
SW100 Trace elements Generally at DL or No GV or No No GV or No No change No GV or No No GV or No Not applicable No Change,
(non CoC) - Sb, Ba, background levels. Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances Discontinue
Be, B, Cr, La, Li, monitoring
Mb, Se, Ag, Sn, U
SW100 Contaminants of
Concern
SW100 Aluminium At Background Meets GV Exceeds GV At Background Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Remove from CoC
contact recreational list/ Reduce
criteria frequency of
Monitoring
SW 100 Arsenic Above Background Meets GV Meets GV Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Remove from CoC
Monitoring
SW 100 Cadmium Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Achieved 77% Continued
Above Background reduction in average improvement/
mass flux. Continue Monitoring
Low flow results
with passive
treatment show
>80% reduction
SW 100 Copper Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
Above Background contact recreational
criteria
SW 100 Lead Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV At Background Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
contact recreational
criteria
SW 100 Iron Above Background Meets GV No GV Below DL & At Meets GV No GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
background contact recreational
criteria
SW 100 Manganese Above Background Exceeds GV Meets GV Above Background Exceeds GV Meets GV Achieved 25% Continue Monitoring
reduction
SW 100 Mercury Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Remove from CoC
Monitoring
SW 100 Nickel Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
42092212/R058/D 47
2013 Achieved
criteria
SW 100 Zinc Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved 70% Continue Monitoring
reduction in average
mass flux.
Low flow results
with passive
treatment show
>80% reduction
SW7 Physiochemical Slightly acidic to NA NA Neutral pH NA NA Neutral pH

parameters Neutral pH
SW7 Major Cations and Low Alkalinity NA NA Not monitored NA NA Unknown Monitor alkalinity
Anions Elevated sulphate and sulphate
SW7 Trace elements Generally at DL or No GV or No No GV or No No change No GV or No No GV or No Not applicable No Change,
(non CoC) - Sb, Ba, background levels. Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances Discontinue
Be, B, Cr, La, Li, monitoring
Mb, Se, Ag, Sn, U
SW7 Contaminants of
Concern
SW7 Aluminium Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV At Background Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Remove from CoC
Monitoring
SW7 Arsenic Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Remove from CoC
Monitoring
SW7 Cadmium Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Achieved 46% Continued
Above Background reduction in average improvement/
mass flux. Continue Monitoring
Low flow results
with passive
treatment show
>70% reduction
SW7 Copper Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
criteria
SW7 Lead Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV At Background Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
criteria
SW7 Iron Above Background Meets GV No GV Below DL & At Meets GV No GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
background contact recreational
criteria
SW7 Manganese Above Background Exceeds GV Meets GV Below baseline & Exceeds GV Meets GV Achieved 24% Continue Monitoring
Above Background reduction in average
42092212/R058/D 48
2013 Achieved
mass flux.
SW7 Mercury Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Remove from CoC
Monitoring
SW7 Nickel Above Background Meets GV Meets GV Below baseline & Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets Continue Monitoring
criteria
SW7 Zinc Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved 45% Continue Monitoring
Above Background reduction in average
mass flux under low
flow.
High flow results no
change.
Note: DL – Detection Limit
GV – Guideline value
CoC – Contaminants of concern
42092212/R058/D 49
Table 7-9 Tui Stream Water Quality Validation
Parameter Baseline Condition Post Remediation 2013 Remedial Goal Achieved Status/Comments
Background or Detection Contact Recreation ANZECC Freshwater Contact Recreation ANZECC Freshwater
limit (90% Level of protection) (90% Level of protection)
SW11 Physiochemical Low pH pH does not meet GV NA Neutral pH Increase in pH NA Maintained neutral pH Continue Monitoring
parameters Elevated Conductivity
SW11 Major Cations and Low Alkalinity Sulphate does not meet NA Not monitored NA NA Unknown Monitor alkalinity and
Anions Elevated sulphate GV sulphate
SW11 Trace elements (non

CoC) –
Ba, Sb, Mb Generally at DL or No GV or No No GV or No Increase No GV or No No GV or No Not applicable Continued improvement/

background levels. Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances Continue Monitoring
Be, B, Cr, La, Li, Se, Ag, Generally at DL or No GV or No No GV or No No significant change, or No GV or No No GV or No Not applicable Improvement/ No Change,
Sn, U background levels. Exceedances Exceedances decrease to below DL Exceedances Exceedances Discontinue monitoring
SW11 Contaminants of
Concern
(dissolved metals):
SW11 Aluminium Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV At Background Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Remove from CoC list/
recreational criteria Reduce frequency of
Monitoring
SW11 Arsenic Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
Background recreational criteria
SW11 Cadmium Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Achieved 73% reduction in Continued improvement/
Background average mass flux. Continue Monitoring
SW11 Copper Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW11 Lead Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW11 Iron Above Background Exceeds GV No GV Below baseline & Above Exceeds GV No GV Achieved 94% reduction in Continue Monitoring
Background average mass flux.
SW11 Manganese Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Achieved 79% reduction Continue Monitoring
Background
SW11 Mercury Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring (due
recreational criteria to 2013 increase in Total
Hg compared with
baseline and background
values)
SW11 Nickel Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
recreational criteria
SW11 Zinc Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Achieved 87% reduction in Continue Monitoring
Background average mass flux.
SW13 Physiochemical Neutral pH Meets GV NA Neutral pH Meets GV NA Neutral pH Continue Monitoring

parameters
42092212/R058/D 50
Parameter Baseline Condition Post Remediation 2013 Remedial Goal Achieved Status/Comments
Background or Detection Contact Recreation ANZECC Freshwater Contact Recreation ANZECC Freshwater
limit (90% Level of protection) (90% Level of protection)
SW13
Major Cations and Low Alkalinity Meets GV NA Not monitored NA NA Unknown Monitor alkalinity and
Anions Elevated sulphate sulphate
SW13
Trace elements (non Generally at DL or No GV or No No GV or No No change No GV or No No GV or No Not applicable No Change, Discontinue
CoC) - Sb, Ba, Be, B, background levels. Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances monitoring
Cr, La, Li, Mb, Se, Ag,
Sn, U
SW13
Contaminants of
Concern
SW13
Aluminium Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV At Background Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Remove from CoC list/
Monitoring
SW13
Arsenic At or below DL Meets GV Exceeds GV Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Remove from CoC list/
Monitoring
SW13
Cadmium Above Background Exceeds GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW13
Copper Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV At Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW13
Lead Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW13
Iron Above Background Meets GV No GV At background Meets GV No GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW13
Manganese Above Background Exceeds GV Meets GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW13
Mercury Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Below DL Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Remove from CoC list/
Monitoring
SW13
Nickel Above Background Meets GV Meets GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Meets GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
SW13
Zinc Above Background Meets GV Exceeds GV Below baseline & Above Meets GV Exceeds GV Achieved meets contact Continue Monitoring
42092212/R058/D 51
Water Quality
Water quality monitoring has included an extensive range of parameters which extend beyond
the known contaminants of concern. For the purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the
remedial goals these analytes are considered in the following groups:-
 Physiochemical parameters – (field and lab) pH, conductivity, total suspended solids
 Major anions and cations – calcium, magnesium, total hardness, sodium, potassium,
alkalinity (bicarbonate, carbonate and free CO2), nitrate and nitrite, sulphate, chloride and
silica
 Trace elements (non CoC) – trace elements which are present at background
concentrations (SW12 and SW8), at or below limits of detection and below aquatic criteria
and/or contact recreation criteria. The following parameters are considered in this
category:- antimony, barium, beryllium, boron, chromium, lanthanum, lithium,
molybdenum, selenium, silver, tin, uranium
 Contaminants of concern – trace elements known to be associated with acid rock

drainage and which are above background concentrations, aquatic criteria and/or contact
recreation criteria. The following parameters are assessed individually in Table 7-8:-
aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, iron, manganese, mercury, nickel, zinc
Mass Load
As noted above the September 2013 sampling was undertaken during the highest flow
conditions in the monitoring record. It is notable that while general analytes show a
corresponding dilution the concentrations of the trace elements copper, iron and lead are
comparable to baseline concentrations during this runoff event. This significantly skews the
calculated average mass loads for the 2013 data as the September result has 50 to 100 times
the mass load of the averaged October and November results.
Assessment SW8
As noted in Table 3-2 the SW8 site is effectively the background water quality for the
Tunakohoia catchments. Flooding of the underground mine has the potential to influence
water quality within this catchment. As a result, assessment of baseline versus post
remediation data has been undertaken to determine any changes in water quality. This
assessment indicates that there have been no statistically significant changes in water quality
at this site to date.
Assessment SW101
As noted in Table 3-2 the SW101 site monitors runoff from the catchment in which the
Ruakaka Workings are located. Flooding of the underground mine has the potential to
influence water quality within this catchment. As a result assessment of baseline versus post
remediation data has been undertaken to determine any changes in water quality. This
assessment indicates that there have been no statistically significant changes in water quality
at this site to date.
This catchment represents an ongoing source for elevated concentrations of trace elements
specifically cadmium, lead and zinc.
42092212/R058/D 52
Assessment SW15
Only one round of monitoring is available for SW15 post remediation and detailed
interpretation cannot therefore be completed at present.
Notable changes post remediation, in the available data, are apparent reductions in
aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and iron.
Assessment SW17
SW17 is not sampled routinely however the influence of the beached tailings (Area S) as a
component of the discharge to the north branch of the Tunakohoia Stream was assessed by
sampling this tributary for a limited suite of indicator parameters.
Comparison of the results at SW15 to SW17 indicates that the beached tailings continue to be
a significant source of acid rock drainage and trace elements into this tributary. The mass
load of zinc at SW17 is greater than the mass load at SW100 and comprises more than 15%
of the mass load at SW7.
Assessment SW100
Contaminants of concern in SW100 have, with the exception of manganese which is

unchanged, shown a reduction in concentration of between 21% and 76%. Variable changes
in mass load are observed, as noted above due to the September 2013 high flow conditions.
As shown in Appendix E Figure 4c to 4j, the October and November results for 2013 are
generally consistent with or better than the 2012 post remediation data.
It should also be noted that the outcome of works in the Waste Rock Stack 5 area are only
reflected in the November 2013 results. Going forward data at this location will be more
representative of the Phase 1 remedial outcomes.
Continued improvement in cadmium and zinc mass load are required at this locality to
consistently meet the remedial objective of an order of magnitude reduction in mass load
reduction.
Assessment SW7
With the exception of manganese which is unchanged, contaminants of concern have shown a
reduction in concentration of between 21% and 68%. Variable changes in mass load are
observed, as noted above due to the September 2013 high flow conditions. As shown in
Appendix E Figure 5c to 5j, the October and November results for 2013 are generally
consistent with or better than the 2012 post remediation data.
Reductions are less significant at SW7 than SW100. This is expected given the greater length
of tributary that will provide an ongoing source of trace elements release.
Cadmium and manganese are the trace elements that remain above contact recreation criteria
at the SW7 locality. Based on historic data for changes in water quality between SW7 and the
sampling site downstream at Gilchrist St in Te Aroha township, these constituents would likely
be approaching contact recreation criteria at this locality.
42092212/R058/D 53
Continued improvement in cadmium and zinc mass load is required at this locality to
consistently meet the remedial objective of an order of magnitude reduction in mass load.
A mass balance based on average mass flux for the trace elements cadmium, manganese
and zinc is provided in Figure 7-3. This summarises the main residual sources of these trace
elements within the catchment post remediation.
The following trends are noted from this interpretation:-
 The main residual sources of cadmium within the Tunakohoia north branch are the
stream sediments and accumulated floc in the streambed and to a lesser degree
waste rock stacks between SW3 and SW100. Between SW100 and SW7 the main
additional source is the beached tailings (Area S).
 The main residual source of manganese within the Tunakohoia north branch is the
Champion Level 5 discharge (SW5). Between SW100 and SW7 the beached tailings
(Area S) is a minor additional source.
 The main residual sources of zinc within the Tunakohoia north branch is the
Champion Level 5 discharge (SW5). The reduction between the summed sources
upstream of SW100 and SW100 shows the limited removal of zinc in the passive
treatment system. Between SW100 and SW7 the beached tailings (Area S) is a major
additional source. The release of trace element from stream sediments appears to be
a comparable source for zinc.
42092212/R058/D 54
Figure 7-3 Mass Balance for Tunakohoia Tributary
42092212/R058/D 55
7.4.2 Tui Stream
The following water quality sites in the Tui Stream catchment are assessed:-
 SW11 – Stormwater Channel downstream of remediated tailings landform
 SW13 – Lower Tui Stream
Appendix E summarises the flow, water quality and mass load data for the channel
downstream of remediated tailings landform (SW11) and the data for lower North Tui Stream
(SW13).
Table 7-9 summarises the current water quality data with respect to the remedial goals for the
Tui Stream.
Flows
A surface water flow distribution was calculated from existing flow data for the lower Tui
Catchment (SW13).
This surface water flow distribution is shown in Table 7-10 and provides a basis for
probabilistic prediction of water quality within the catchment.
Table 7-10 Summary of Flow Data
(m3/sec) Geomean Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

Tunakohoia Stream - Mt Te
Aroha Access Road SW100 0.006 0.004 0.01
Lower Tunakohoia Stream SW7 0.029 0.018 0.045
Lower Tui Stream SW13 0.028 0.018 0.031
Water Quality
Water quality monitoring analytes are grouped in the same manner as for the Tunakohoia
Stream. The contaminants of concern are aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, iron,
manganese, mercury, nickel and zinc.
Assessment SW11
The streambed in the vicinity of SW11 has been reformed as part of remedial works and
baseline sampling site was re-established at a similar position in a streambed.
The pH of surface water at SW11 has increased from acidic baseline conditions (pH 2.9 to
3.4) to circum-neutral conditions (pH 6.5 to 8).
With the exception of iron which is at or about the limits of detection, contaminants of concern
(aluminium, cadmium, iron, lead, manganese and zinc) have shown a reduction in mean
concentrations of between 59% and 99.9%. Corresponding reductions in average
contaminant mass flux are between 72% and 99.9%.
42092212/R058/D 56
As a result of the improvement in water quality dissolved aluminium, dissolved copper and
dissolved lead concentrations consistently met ANZECC contact recreation standards at
SW11 in 2013.
Concentrations of cadmium, iron, and manganese have not yet improved sufficiently to not
meet ANZECC contact recreation standards at SW11 in 2013. Zinc concentrations are of the
same order as ANZECC contact recreation standards at SW11 but do not consistently meet
the criteria.
Assessment SW13
The average flow during 2013 sampling events was approximately 40% of the baseline flow.
With the exception of iron which is at or about the limits of detection, contaminants of concern
have shown a reduction in mean concentrations of between 61% and 92%. Corresponding
reductions in average contaminant mass flux are between 79% and 96%.
As a result of the improvements in manganese concentrations the 2013 data consistently meet
ANZECC contact recreation standards at SW13.
Mass Balance
A mass balance based on average mass flux for the trace elements cadmium, manganese
and zinc is provided in Figure 7-4. This summarises the main residual sources of these trace
elements within the Tui catchment post remediation.
The main residual source of cadmium, manganese and zinc within the Tui Stream is the
Remediated Tailings Landform discharge (SW11). Between SW11 and SW13 significant
removal (attenuation) of trace elements occurs.
42092212/R058/D 57
Figure 7-4 Mass Balance for Tui Stream
42092212/R058/D 58
8 ONGOING SITE MONITORING
8.1 Introduction
This section provides the ongoing requirements in terms of water quality monitoring.
Requirements for the site in terms of inspections and monitoring of the assets and
maintenance are documented in the Tui Mine Asset Monitoring Manual (URS 2014) and not
the subject of this report.
8.2 Water Quality
The ongoing monitoring should be rationalised to focus on the key residual sources and
continued performance of the functional elements of the remedial works in the receiving
environment. As such, when the post Phase 2 regime and the “first flush” phase has passed
within the underground mine monitoring should be focussed on the instream sites with a
reduction in sampling frequency and/or the monitoring suite.
Parameters
Based on monitoring data to date the analytical suites listed in Table 8-1 have been
developed. The philosophy behind these two suites of analytes is as follows:-
 Indicators suite which includes key ARD indicator parameters (general and trace
element).
 Full suite includes general analytes and all contaminants of concern (refer Section
7.4). Trace elements analyses are proposed for the dissolved fraction of all trace
elements. The partitioning of trace elements between total and dissolved phases in
water sample data to date suggests that only a limited suite of these trace elements
need to be considered in both total and dissolved phases.
While the contaminants of concern are specific to some sampling sites a single suite is
proposed for all sites to simplify sampling.
Table 8-1 Analytical Suites
Suite General Analytes Trace Elements
Indicator Suite pH, conductivity, acidity, Dissolved - cadmium,

alkalinity, sulphate. manganese, zinc.
Full Suite pH, conductivity, total Dissolved - aluminium,

suspended solids, calcium, arsenic, cadmium,
magnesium, total hardness, manganese, nickel, zinc.
acidity, alkalinity, sulphate.
Total and dissolved - copper,
lead, iron, mercury.
42092212/R058/D 59
Sampling Locations
Table 8-2 summarises the recommended ongoing monitoring requirements (refer Table 3-3 for
description of localities).
Table 8-2 Proposed Monitoring
Site Current Monitoring Recommended Monitoring Recommended Post Phase

Frequency – Post Phase 2 Frequency – Post Phase 2 2 - Analytical Suite
(2013 to 2015) (2013 to 2015) (2013 to 2015)
SW3 EMP schedule – 3 times 3 times per year – flow and water Full Suite
per year. quality
SW5 EMP schedule – 3 times 3 times per year – flow and water Full Suite
per year. quality
SW7 EMP schedule – 3 times 3 times per year – flow and Full Suite
per year. water quality
SW8 EMP schedule – 3 times 1 times per year – flow and Indicator Suite
per year. water quality
per year post Phase 2 water quality
SW15 EMP schedule – 3 times 3 times per year – flow and Indicator Suite
SW17 Not routinely sampled 1 times per year – flow and Full Suite
water quality
SW100 EMP schedule – 3 3 times per year – flow and Full Suite
times per year. water quality
SW101 EMP schedule – 3 1 times per year – flow and Indicator Suite
times per year. water quality
Frequency
Table 8-2 indicates the proposed sampling frequency for each location. The
recommendations are for the post phase 2 sampling from 2013 to 2015.
A reduced frequency is proposed for monitoring sites that are less directly influenced by the
remedial works such as SW101 and SW8.
42092212/R058/D 60
Flow
Flow monitoring requirements are proposed for all sites as part of the post phase 2 monitoring.
42092212/R058/D 61
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Introduction
This section provides a summary of the findings, assumptions, uncertainties, adequacy of the
works in terms of the land use and any limitations and constraints on the future use of the site.
9.2 Conclusions
Remedial Goals
Based on the information summarised in this report, it is considered that the following overall
remedial objectives for the project have been achieved:-
 A sustainable solution for the long term environmental security of the site has been
implemented
 The remediated tailings landform is a geotechnically stable landform
 The ongoing environmental effects of the site on water quality are significantly reduced.
– In the case of the Tui Stream the remedial goal of an order of magnitude reduction in
the lower tributary appears to be achieved for all contaminants of concern.
– In the case of the Tunakohoia Stream the remedial goals of an order of magnitude
reduction in the lower tributary appears to be achieved or close to achieved for
contaminants of concern.
 Aspects of the mining heritage of the area around the process plant have been
preserved.
The adequacy of the engineered elements of the remedial works have been verified through
construction supervision and quality assurance processes documented in the Phase 1 and the
Phase 2 CSQACR’s (T&T, 2014).
For the areas within the scope of the remedial works, when considering current and future use
of the area for passive recreation, residual contamination is unlikely to present an
unacceptable risk to human health. There are however residual sources in the wider area,
such as Area S, which potentially present an unacceptable level of risk for passive recreational
use. These areas are generally limited in extent and difficult to access. As such the level of
risk presented by these residual sources is considered comparable to other historically mine
areas within the Coromandel region.
Water Quality
Uncertainties remain around the residual sources within the catchments and the effects they
will have on water quality in the receiving environments. These sources are generally outside
the scope of the remedial works and cannot practicably be remediated. However, these
sources are generally minor and should not preclude the water quality remedial goals from
being achieved. It is important to note in this regard that high runoff events increase the mass
load contribution of these sources as mass load is a direct function of runoff.
42092212/R058/D 62
The current post remediation data set on which water quality goals are based is limited. A
statistical analysis to validate the frequency with which water quality goals are met cannot
currently be provided.
Reliability of Outcomes
In terms of the main contaminant sources addressed by the scope of the remedial works, the
level of uncertainty around the outcomes are summarised as follows:-
 Remediated tailings landform – the geotechnical and environmental containment of

the remediate tailings landform achieves the remedial objectives with a high level of
certainty and presents very low level of residual risk.
 Process plant and ore stockpile areas - the contaminant sources within these areas
are substantially removed and the remedial objectives are therefore met with a high
level of certainty and present very low level of residual risk.
 Underground mine - the contaminant sources within these areas are controlled and
the remedial outcomes depend on the stabilised conditions that will develop over time.
The remedial measures have reduced the contribution from these sources, however,
ongoing works are potentially required to ensure the remedial goals are consistently
met overtime.
 Waste rock stacks - the contaminant sources within these areas are controlled or
mitigating by the completed works and the remedial objectives are therefore met with
a reasonable certainty and present moderate level of residual risk.
9.3 Recommendations
There are a number of further remedial actions identified in Section 9.3.1 that will improve the
remedial outcomes. Some of these proposed measures are outside the scope of the current
remedial works but will contribute significantly to achieving the remedial goals for water
quality.
It is recommended that once an adequate data set is available to enable statistical analysis
confidence limits will be developed for the achievement of the remedial goals.
Distributions for surface water flow frequency and water quality fluctuations will enable a
probabilistic predictive tool for water quality outcomes. It is recommended that this be
developed once sufficient data is available. This will provide a basis for evaluating high and
low flow water quality results with respect to remedial goals.
9.3.1 Potential Further Works
The following further works are recommended in order to assist with achieving the remedial
goals:-
 Lime dosing – additional lime dosing is recommended for the unflooded mine at IP1
and IP11 locations.
42092212/R058/D 63
 Toe drain – the toe drain discharge from the remediated tailings should be directed to
a settling basin that is located outside of the surface water channel to enable aeration
and settling of contaminants.
 Level 5 Discharge – the controls at the portal should be reviewed to ensure they are
capturing and directing flow through the passive treatment system. During the “first
flush” phase from the underground mine the passive treatment system will require
regular maintenance to ensure its correct functioning.
 Beached tailings (Area S) – this area appears to represent the single most significant
residual source in the catchment and further mitigation of this area should be
undertaken.
 Organic material area – the adequacy of the closure works in this area should be
verified to ensure this does not represent a future source of trace elements and
acidity.
42092212/R058/D 64
10 REFERENCES
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), 2000.
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality .
Coffey, B. 2009. Tui Mine remedial Works – Instream Ecological Baseline Monitoring, Brian T
Coffey and Associates Ltd.
Ministry for the Environment Contaminated Land Management Guideline No 1 Reporting on

Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (Revised 2011).
PDP, 2010. Tui Remedial works: Baseline Monitoring.
PDP, 2011. Tui Mine monitoring report for 2010
T&T 2011. Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP)
T&T 2014. Tui Mine remedial Works- Phase 1 Construction Supervision and Quality
Assurance Completion Ref: 851087.200
T&T 2014. Tui Mine remedial Works- Phase 2 Construction Supervision and Quality
Assurance Completion Ref: 851087.201
URS 2010. Tui Mine Remediation Phase 1 – Underground mine, Access Road and Waste
Rock Stack Remediation Works Design Report Volume 1.
URS 2010. Tui Mine Remediation Tailings Impoundment Remediation Design Report. Phase
2 Volume 1.
URS 2011. Designers Advice Note 2 – Material Description and Handling Requirements
Columns (vs2), Dated 9 December 2011
URS 2011. Designers Advice Note 4 – Phase 1 Level 4 Underground Works, Dated 22
December 2011
URS 2012. Designers Advice Note 6 – Additional DSM Columns, Dated 17 January 2012
URS 2012. Designers Advice Note 7 – Design Statement Supporting Designers Advice Note
4.
URS 2012. Designers Advice Note 8-Amendment rates for IMS Zone, Dated 5 June 2012.
URS 2012. Designers Advice Note 9-DSM Column Requirements, Dated 5 July 2012.
URS 2104. Tui Mine Asset Monitoring Manual
Wolkersdorfer, C. 2008. Water Management at abandoned flooded underground mines.

International Mine Water Association
42092212/R058/D 65
11 LIMITATIONS
URS New Zealand Limited (URS) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care
and thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of Environment Waikato and only
those third parties who have been authorised in writing by URS to rely on this Report.
It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this
Report.
It is prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the contract
dated 25 October 2011
Where this Report indicates that information has been provided to URS by third parties, URS
has made no independent verification of this information except as expressly stated in the
Report. URS assumes no liability for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information.
This Report was prepared between August 2013 and May 2014 and is based on the
conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation. URS disclaims
responsibility for any changes that may have occurred after this time.
This Report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this
report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This Report does not
purport to give legal advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.
Except as required by law, no third party may use or rely on this Report unless otherwise
agreed by URS in writing. Where such agreement is provided, URS will provide a letter of
reliance to the agreed third party in the form required by URS.
To the extent permitted by law, URS expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any loss,
damage, cost or expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the use of,
or reliance on, any information contained in this Report. URS does not admit that any action,
liability or claim may exist or be available to any third party.
Except as specifically stated in this section, URS does not authorise the use of this Report by
any third party.
It is the responsibility of third parties to independently make inquiries or seek advice in relation
to their particular requirements and proposed use of the site.
Any estimates of potential costs which have been provided are presented as estimates only as
at the date of the Report. Any cost estimates that have been provided may therefore vary from
actual costs at the time of expenditure.
42092212/R058/D 66
APPENDIX A RESOURCE CONSENTS
42092212/R058/D
IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER OF applications by the Department of

Conservation for Landuse consent from
Matamata-Piako District Council and Three (3)
Land use permits, One (1) Water permit and
One (1) Discharge permit from the Waikato
Regional Council associated with a proposal to
undertake remediation works at the orphaned
Tui Mine site located on, and within, Mount Te
Aroha
DECISION REPORT OF THE MATAMATA-PIAKO

DISTRICT COUNCIL AND
WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL COMMISSIONER PANEL
1 THE HEARING
Mr William Wasley (Chair) of Tauranga was appointed by the Matamata-Piako District

Council as an Independent Hearing Commissioner in terms of section 34A of the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA) to hear and determine the applications before the District
Council. Separately, the Waikato Regional Council appointed Independent Hearing
Commissioner Mr Nigel Mark-Brown to hear and determine the applications before it.
The Commissioner Panel conducted a hearing at the Matamata-Piako District Council

Chambers in Te Aroha, on Tuesday 3 August 2010 and Wednesday 4 August 2010. It was
agreed prior to the hearing that the Commissioner Panel would hear the applications jointly
but would make separate decisions.
The hearing was adjourned on Wednesday 4 August 2010 after the applicant’s right of
reply. The purpose of the adjournment was to allow the Commissioner Panel to then
determine if it required any further information arising from the site inspection or an
assessment of the evidence presented at the hearing. No further information was required
and the hearing was closed on Tuesday 10 August 2010 and all parties were subsequently
notified of the hearing closure date.
The Panel undertook a site inspection on Monday 2 August 2010. No applicant

representatives, Council reporting officers or submitters were present at the site inspection.
2 THE APPLICATION
The Department of Conservation lodged resource consent applications with Matamata-

Piako District Council to undertake:
 2010.10094
Activities within a known contaminated site in the Kaitiaki (Conservation)
Zone
Alteration to landform, modification to streams and removal of vegetation

inthe Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone
Permanent buildings and structures within the Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone
Cleanfill activities within the Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone
Consent applications lodged with Environment Waikato (Waikato Regional Council) were
as follows:
 121071
To undertake earthworks including soil disturbance, roading, tracking and
vegetation clearance, large scale overburden disposal and cleanfill
disposal, all within high risk locations and/or high risk erosion areas
 121039
To dam underground water within the mine adits
 121041
Temporarily take and use water from the south branch of the Tunakohoia
Stream
 121040
Clearance of vegetation on the bed of the northern tributary of the
Tunakohoia Stream and associated bed disturbance
 121042
To discharge contaminants to land and water as part of the remediation of
the Tui Mine
All applications related to the sites at and in the vicinity of Tui Mine, Tui Road, Te Aroha
(Section 117, Block IX, Aroha Survey District (Owned by MPDC) and Part Te Aroha (Crown
land gazetted as state forest, administered by the Department of Conservation).
The applications were publicly notified in the Piako Post with the closing date for receipt of
submissions being Monday 23 April 2010.
3 SUBMISSIONS
Within the prescribed submission period eight (8) submissions were lodged with the
Matamata-Piako District Council (MPDC) and seven (7) were lodged with Environment
Waikato (Waikato Regional Council- WRC) from the following parties:
 Michael & Judy Barker, submitters to WRC and MPDC

 Gisela Gudrun Ludtke-Faber, submitter to WRC and MPDC
 Wolfgang Goldbach-Faber, submitter to WRC and MPDC
 Matamata-Piako District Council, submitter to WRC and MPDC
 Te Aroha Earthwatch, submitter to WRC and MPDC
 Environmental Futures Inc, submitter to WRC and MPDC
Page 2
 New Zealand Transport Agency, submitter to MPDC
 Te Kupenga O Ngati Hako, submitter to MPDC
 New Zealand Historic Places Trust, submitter to WRC
4 APPEARANCES
 Applicant
Mr Michael Bodie Counsel

Mr Henry Weston Conservator East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservancy-
Department of Conservation
Mr Stuart Taylor Remediation Funds Manager- Ministry for the
Environment
Mr Ghassan Basheer Technical Services Manager and Strategic Projects
Manager- Waikato Regional Council
Mr Ian Jenkins Geologist and Environmental Scientist-URS New
Zealand Ltd
Dr Brian Coffey Scientist- Brian T Coffey and Associates Ltd
Mr Grant Eccles Associate Director of Planning- AECOM New
Zealand Ltd
 Submitters
Ms Pauline Clarkin Te Kupenga O Ngati Hako

Mrs Gisela Ludtke-Faber
Mr Wolfgang Faber
Mrs Mary Hansen Te Aroha Earthwatch
Mr Martin Wallace Environmental Futures Inc
 Matamata-Piako District Council
Mr Marius Rademeyer Independent Consultant

Ms Susanne Frischknecht Roading Activity Manager
 Environment Waikato
Ms Sheryl Roa Senior Resource Officer

Dr Nick Kim Scientist
5 PROPOSAL
Tui Mine is an abandoned mine located at the end of Tui Road on the slopes of Mount Te
Aroha. The proposal before us is to undertake various works associated with the
remediation of this site. We heard that the proposed works are to be undertaken in two
phases with Phase 1 consisting of the following works:
 Construction of a reinforced concrete wall (referred to as the bulkhead) within the Level
5 adit
 Construction of a controlled outlet point to take built-up water, exiting from the Level 4
adit
 Vegetation clearance and in-stream works associated with the construction of the outlet
point
 Limited vegetation removal around the Level 5 adit to enable access
 Vegetation removal to allow access from the tailings dam to the Level 4 adit
 Limited vegetation removal along the access road
 Discharge of lime into the Level 1 and 2 adits
 Liming and capping of existing waste rock stacks located at the Level 4 and 5 adits and
re-vegetation of these stacks
Page 3
 Earthworks at the processing plant area
Phase 2 is to consist of the following:
 Stormwater diversion around the tailings dam

 Groundwater cut-off and diversion to intercept up-gradient groundwater flows and direct
them toward the Tunakohoia catchment
 Decommissioning of the current discharge from the tailings pond
 Mixing of lower tailings with cement
 Removal of upper tailing layer, blending with waste rock, lime and limestone and
replaced and compacted in layers over areas of in-situ stabilised tailings
 Capping of the tailings with clay and topsoil and stabilised
 Removal of the existing dam wall
 Installation of several rows of cement columns into the toe area of the tailings dam
 Installing an engineered buttress anchored to bedrock
 Re-shaping of the tailings impoundment area to provide a stable earth fill landform
Re-vegetation of the area is to occur following the physical works.
Consent is sought from the Matamata-Piako District Council to undertake activities within a
known contaminated site, alterations to landform, modification to streams, removal of
vegetation, construction of structures, and to undertake cleanfill activities; all within the
Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone as defined in the Matamata-Piako District Plan.
Consents being sought from the Waikato Regional Council are associated with the dam
proposed within Level 5 adit; to clear vegetation and undertake works within the bed of the
Tunakohoia Stream associated with the construction of a controlled outlet at Level 4 adit;
and to temporarily take water from the south branch of the Tunakohoia Stream
All of the consents being sought are new consents.
These proposed works are located on land owned by the Department of Conservation and
Matamata-Piako District Council.
As advised at the hearing the proposal for hand application of lime (immediately south of
the tailings impoundment) to mitigate the effects of acid mine drainage does not form part
of this application and is not considered any further. The Commissioner Panel understands
that the applicant will seek a separate consent to authorise this activity, prior to it occurring.
6 EVIDENCE PRESENTED
6.1 Applicant
 Mr M Bodie
In his opening submissions, Mr Bodie outlined the nature of the applications and
background to the mining operation at the Tui site. He detailed the objectives of the
proposal and identified the shared commitment by central and local government, to
remediate the site and identified that the works will not result in an “instant fix” to the water
quality of the streams but that a gradual improvement over time was likely. He also stated
that monitoring is appropriate to record and understand changes to the health of the
environment in the future.
Mr Bodie advised that a Cultural Impact Assessment Report has been commissioned by
the applicant to identify the issues of concern to tangata whenua.
Mr Bodie tabled a copy of the Tailings Impoundment Design Report dated 20 may 2010
and Phase 2 Design – Tailings Impoundment Drawing Volume dated 14 May 2010 which
Page 4
provided further details of the Phase 2 tailings impoundment remediation for consideration
at the hearing.
He identified that the application before the Matamata-Piako District Council was a non-
complying activity and as such the application must pass one or more of the “gateway”
tests (s104D) before any consideration can be made under s104 and 105 of the Act.
Mr Bodie reminded us that the “gateway” test had two “limbs” to which we needed to give
consideration. The application needed to pass at least one of the two “limbs”, failing which
we were precluded by s104D RMA, from granting the District Council consent.
The first “limb” required an assessment of whether the adverse effects of the activity were
minor. Mr Bodie submitted that the positive effects of the remedial works were to be
disregarded when making the determination as to whether the application could meet the
first “limb” of the s104 gateway test. However, he was of the view that the current degraded
state of the site was highly relevant in reaching the conclusion that the adverse effects will
be no more than minor. He identified that this was a conclusion both reporting officers
came to in the s42A report.
The second “limb” required us to assess whether the application was for an activity that will
not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant Plans. Mr Bodie submitted that
the activity is not contrary to the objectives and policies of both the Regional and District
Plans, but rather gives effect to those objectives and policies (e.g. met the second “limb” of
the gateway test).
Mr Bodie reminded us that we needed to have regard to the positive effects of the
applications, when making our determination in respect of the s104(1) matters. He
submitted that the effects of the consents before the Regional and District Councils were all
overwhelmingly positive and any adverse effects were temporary, and as such all consents
should be granted subject to appropriate conditions.
Mr Bodie indicated that the applicant generally supported the conditions recommended in
the s42A report, with the exception of recommended changes to the signage, public access
and landscaping provisions which he outlined to us.
 Mr H Weston
Mr Weston, Conservator East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservancy, Department of

Conservation, provided us with an overview of the role the Department of Conservation has
had as part of the remediation project team; how this project fits with the Bay of Plenty
Conservation Management Strategy; the short and long term roles of the Department for
these works, and its responsibilities under the Conservation Act 1987.
He concluded by stating that the proposed works were necessary to ensure the long term
safety and security of the Tui mine site and of the community downstream of the tailings
dam and that the expected improvement in water quality would result in a reduced risk to
public health and an improved aquatic environment.
 Mr Stuart Taylor
Mr Stuart Taylor, Remediation Funds Manager, Ministry for the Environment, described the
Tui mine site as an “orphan site” and provided us with an overview of the legal
responsibilities for the site. He outlined the role of the Ministry for the Environment and the
Memorandum of Understanding that exists between Central Government (Ministry for the
Environment and Department of Conservation), Waikato Regional Council and the
Matamata-Piako District Council.
Page 5
Mr Taylor also described the phased approach and funding for the project, detailing that the
current funding will allow Phase 1 to start immediately.
 Mr Ghassan Basheer
Mr Basheer, Technical Services and Strategic Projects Manager for the Waikato Regional
Council, provided an overall background to the project. He identified the initial investigative
work undertaken over the 1999 to 2002 period and the options considered from 2002 to
2007 before the establishment of the project management structure in 2007. He described
the management structure and the defined responsibilities of each group to meet the
remediation outcomes.
Mr Basheer provided extensive details of the steps in the project that has led to this option
before the Committee at this hearing. He stated that the contract for Phase 1 has been let,
subject to consents being granted, and that these remediation works can commence as
early as the first week in September. The tendering process for Phase 2 can be
commenced when additional funds are made available.
In summarising the role of the Waikato Regional Council in the management of the project,
Mr Basheer outlined the various activities associated with the operational management of
the remediation project.
Mr Basheer provided a detailed project overview and reiterated the project objectives. He
stated that the scope of the remediation project is to treat the contaminants at the source
and the proposal is not designed to treat the accumulation of contaminants already within
the streams or that is naturally generated within the catchments.
A detailed list of expected outcomes was provided by Mr Basheer with respect to water
quality and stability of the impoundment. Mr Basheer also provided a list of the main
objectives of the monitoring programme being:
 To measure whether the works have reduced ARD (Acid Rock Drainage) and
contaminant trace elements of concern;
 Whether there is any further need for lime slurry injections and maintenance works;
and:
 The extent to which water quality and biological conditions in the waterways improve
over time.
Mr Basheer provided information on the consultation undertaken with Iwi for this project
over the years. He acknowledged the lack of consultation with Ngati Hako during the early
stages of the project and identified the consultation that has been undertaken with Ngati
Hako since notification occurred.
Mr Basheer identified that an Iwi Advisory Team will be set up to ensure Iwi engagement
throughout this process and to progress implementation of the recommendations stated
within the Cultural Impact Assessment Report. He stated that Ngati Hako, along with other
Iwi, will be invited to participate in this team. The terms of reference are to be developed in
liaison with the Iwi groups.
An overview of the consultation with the general public was also provided by Mr Basheer
detailing the communication plan developed to date.
 Mr Ian Jenkins
Mr Jenkins, a Consulting Geologist and Environmental Scientist, detailed the existing

situation at the Tui mine site, previous studies undertaken; alternatives considered and the
basis for the option chosen; details of the Phase 1 and 2 works; predictions of the remedial
outcomes; a description of the remediated landform for the waste rock stacks and tailings
area; and an overview of the environmental controls during the remedial works.
Page 6
Mr Jenkins discussed the outcome of the field trials undertaken last year, which he stated
verified the practicality of injecting the limestone slurry into the workings. He also provided
details of the stormwater diversions to be put in place during the works around the tailings
impoundment.
Mr Jenkins provided details of the completed landform of the tailings impoundment

specifically that the total thickness of the cap is to be approximately one metre and made
up of a series of layers. He stated that the need to maintain the integrity of the cap would
limit the landscaping options. The cap should initially be covered in grass to control erosion
but that over time the low permeability of the tailings will limit the degree to which acid rock
drainage and trace element leaching occurs.
Mr Jenkins detailed the proposed works to achieve the geotechnical stability objective so
that the dam is stable under a 1 in 1000 year return period seismic event. He also provided
details of the proposed controls during the remedial works to reduce the mobilisation of iron
floc, precipitates, and suspended solids within the mine adits.
 Mr Brian Coffey
Mr Brian Coffey, Scientist, provided comprehensive evidence on the baseline ecological

monitoring undertaken in September 2009 for the applicant. In terms of predicting the
improvement to the steams he stated that there was no quantitative basis for predicting the
residual contaminant loads within the streams following the proposed remedial works and
what effect these would have on in-stream community structure, due to the impacted
reaches of the streams downstream of the Tui mine site. Mr Coffey did however, state that
if the works were to proceed then an immediate short term improvement in water quality
was expected, followed by a gradual long term improvement given there is a finite
contamination source to be leached from the site.
 Mr Grant Eccles
Mr Grant Eccles, Associate Director of Planning at AECOM detailed the consents required
from both Councils and the relevant statutory considerations to be assessed. Mr Eccles
stated that the first limb of the 104D analysis had been demonstrated by previous technical
evidence presented and that in his opinion the proposal is not contrary to the relevant
Plans.
In his assessment of environmental effects Mr Eccles directed us to also have regard to the
positive effects of the proposal.
6.2 Submitters
 Ms Pauline Clarkin – Ngati Hako
Ms Clarkin, outlined her description of Mount Te Aroha and the cultural relationship Ngati
Hako has with the “maunga” (mountain), it being a highly valued taonga. She detailed the
tangata whenua world view where values, philosophies, traditions and processes exist for
making decisions when interacting with the environment. She supplied details with respect
to the inextricable link between the physical and spiritual realms and the intrinsic nature of a
natural resource in terms of the relationship between tangata whenua and their
environment.
Ms Clarkin provided information on fundamental Maori values including “mauri” being the
life essence and its maintenance being critical, “mana”, “rangatiratanga”, “wairua”, “tapu”,
“Kaitiakitanga”, and “tikanga”.
Page 7
Ms Clarkin outlined that Ngati Hako’s goal is to sustain and enhance the mauri of
ecosystems, habitats, species and natural resources within their care and that this includes
Mount Te Aroha.
She identified four central goals being: protecting the past; making informed decisions
about the environment; building partnerships; and community awareness. Throughout her
presentation she identified that the project did not address Ngati Hako’s values, partly as a
result of the late inclusion of Ngati Hako into the process. She acknowledged that meetings
held in May and June this year made some progress towards addressing this issue and that
their future inclusion in matters is currently being addressed.
She sought that Ngati Hako be provided with a copy of monitoring and review reports and
the opportunity to make comment. Her main concerns related to the limited options
explored, the lack of cultural balance in the proposal as presented by the applicant, and the
need for a monitoring role for Ngati Hako.
 Mr Wolfgang Faber
Mr Faber raised a number of issues in his submission, including:
 That he felt disadvantaged as a submitter, in the proceedings;

 Disappointed that a formal pre-hearing meeting was not held;
 Requested that a site visit be part of the hearing
 Disappointment at the lack of wider public notice of the applications;
 That the effects will not be minor. For instance, the proposal will lead to further
accumulation of cadmium in the soil arising from lime addition, will involve significant
earthworks, require the storage of fuel with the potential for accidental discharges to the
adjacent streams, and discharge particulate, including PM10 and sulphur dioxide, to air;
and will increase the risk of spreading contaminated groundwater
 Queried the volumes of water to be discharged from the level 5 adit
 The need to stabilise the tailings dam first, given the catastrophic consequences should
the structure fail; he is concerned about the current stability of the tailings dam
 Lack of provision for on-going tangata whenua and local resident involvement;
 Need for a Working Party, which included residents and tangata whenua, to oversee
the implementation of the proposed works;
 Concern at the lack of specifics in the goals for site remediation;
 Need for independent analysis of the monitoring results;
 Costs to the ratepayer, associated with the project;
 A question regarding our ability to grant the District Council consent, if the proposal fell
within the definition of “mining” which, in the District Plan, is a prohibited activity in the
Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone where the site is located.
Mr Faber felt that a Risk Management Plan should be prepared for the proposed activity
and that an independent auditor should be appointed to supervise the implementation of
the project, in accordance with this Plan. He was concerned about a possible conflict of
interest given that the Regional Council was both an advocate for the project and the
regulatory authority, and the District Council was both the land owner and a submitter in
support of the applications. To him, this potential conflict highlights the need for an
independent auditor to oversee the works.
He believed that Mr Basheer should not be project manager and that an independent
person, not affiliated with the Regional Council, be appointed in his place. Mr Faber
supplied email correspondence with the Regional Council regarding this request, to us.
We explained to Mr Faber at the hearing, that we had no jurisdiction over the appointment
of the project’s personnel and that our role was limited to making a decision on the consent
applications, within the framework of the RMA. Therefore, we have not given regard to the
email correspondence presented as part of Mr Faber’s submission.
Page 8
This matter was communicated to Mr Faber at the hearing, and we record it here.
 Mrs Gisela Ludte-Faber
Mrs Faber identified the following issues as relevant to her submission:
 Issues with respect to dust on the wider community and the need for dust monitoring;
 The need for a warning system to alert the community in case of unintended
discharges;
 Concerns regarding the health and safety of the community;
 Preference to return the rock stacks back into the adits;
 Sulphide concentrations;
 Soil contamination;
 Potential for mercury vapour within the town of Te Aroha;
 Concern at the long term stability of the tailings dam;
 Costs associated with the project to the ratepayer;
 Lack of trust in the applicant and local authorities;
 Risk to the town’s water supply.
Mrs Faber sought that we decline the applications. She wanted a more comprehensive
application to be supplied, and re-notified to the wider community, before the proposal is
considered.
 Mr Michael Barker (on behalf of Mr and Mrs Barker)
Mr Michael Barker, the immediate adjacent neighbour to the site, addressed the
Commissioners to reiterate the issues noted in his submission, relating primarily to:
 The effects of increased traffic on Tui Road and the need for safety improvements such
as mirrors where visibility is limited;
 Adequate provision for the disposal of stormwater so as to prevent damage to the road
carriageway;
 Regular monitoring and repair of the road carriageway during implementation, and on
completion of the works;
 The need for permanent road hazard and speed limit signage;
 Need for the traffic management plan to be available to the public
 Adequate methods to deal with security issues at the entrance to the site;
 Zero tolerance to litter disposal at the site and approach road;
 The need to keep neighbours and road users informed of progress and hazards;
 The need to salvage items of historical significance;
 The need to designate safe viewing areas for the public while the works are being
carried out;
 Provision for site visits for educational purposes.
He stated that he supports the proposal and that in his view, the proposal will have overall
positive effects for the community.
 Mrs Mary Hansen
Mrs Mary Hansen on behalf of Te Aroha Earthwatch, gave a presentation in support of the
applications. She provided a community perspective on historical and current use of the
streams. She requested signage at the lower culvert on Tui Road to advise the public of
the existing degraded water quality.
Mrs Hansen stated that the remediation works in general was supported by Te Aroha
Earthwatch but she was concerned that the community will inherit an undesirable outcome.
She requested an outcome that was as close as possible, to the pre-mining environment.
Page 9
She wanted provision to be made for the community to be involved in the implementation of
the project.
 Mr Martin Wallace
Mr Martin Wallace, on behalf of Environmental Futures Ltd, provided a verbal presentation

in support of the project. He gave us his views on the rehabilitation, landscaping and final
form of the site. He wanted us, in reaching our decision, to give the appropriate weighting to
landscape matters which he felt was an important consideration under the District Plan,
given that the site is located in the Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone. In this regard, he wants us
to ensure that the site is planted in native vegetation and that the landform will integrate
with the landscape so that the intent of the District Plan provisions for the Kaitiaki
(Conservation) Zone could be met.
He is concerned that there is no proposed consent condition relating to improvement of

stream water quality.
Mr Wallace provided the Panel with a copy of the recommended consent conditions
presented in the s42A report, with his suggested changes aimed at resolving the issues
raised in his submission. Mr Wallace concluded by providing general support for the works
but requested further thought and community input into the final form and use of the site.
6.3 Section 42A Report
Mr Marius Rademeyer provided an overview of the s42A report in so far as it related to

matters under the jurisdiction of the District Council.
Mr Rademeyer discussed the issue raised by submitters with respect to the remediation
activities being prohibited under the District Plan. He reminded us that the District Plan
definition of mining is:
"Mining and quarrying" means the extraction of materials from the earth and includes
the removal of overburden and the erection, use and maintenance of plant, machinery
and buildings and other works connected with such operations but does not include any
of the foregoing where the material is for use on the same site, for example, the use of
material mined or quarried on a farm for the establishment or maintenance of tracks on
the farm.
He stated that in his opinion the proposed activities do not fit within the definition of mining,
for two reasons:
 The proposed activities do not involve the extraction of materials; and:

 In this instance, materials are not proposed to be removed from the site.
Therefore, it was his view that the prohibited activity rule does not apply to the proposal
before us.
He also provided a summary of the planning analysis undertaken as part of the s42A report
and concluded that the proposed works are consistent with the relevant planning
documents, and that with suitable conditions of consent, the adverse effects, which he
considered to be temporary, can be suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated. Further, the
issue of the end use of the site was not part of the applications before us. In his view the
end use of the site (unless it was a permitted activity in the Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone),
would need to form the subject of a separate resource consent application.
He stated that the landscaping of the site would need to be resolved. He supports the
return of the site to a state that is as natural as possible, but considers that there may be
Page 10
limitations on landscaping due to the need to preserve the integrity of the cap. He is
confident that appropriate landscaping could be ensured as part of the proposed
landscaping plan consent condition which he noted would not be due for 24 months, giving
ample time for the issue to be addressed.
Mr Rademeyer provided advice with respect to the consultation process with submitters,
following notification. He advised us that he, acting on behalf of the District Council,
pursued consultation with Ngati Hako as soon as it became apparent that this iwi had
tangata whenua status over the site.
Ms Susan Frischknecht, Roading Activity Manager for Matamata-Piako District Council,

clarified that the upper end of Tui Road did not have kerb and channel but that the water
table drain adjacent to the road was constructed with rip rap which she considered to be
adequate to mitigate any adverse effects from the discharge of stormwater. She
considered it not viable to provide kerb and channel as there is no public stormwater
system in the general vicinity. She told us that the District Council’s roading contractor
would undertake regular monitoring and repair of road damage during, and upon
completion of the proposed works.
Dr Nick Kim, provided a verbal presentation detailing the issues raised by submitters with
respect to potential adverse effects on air, soil, and water quality resulting from the
proposed works.
In relation to air quality he specifically addressed the Resource Management (National

Environmental Standards Relating To Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, And Other Toxics)
Regulations 2004 (also called the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NESAQ)
stating that in his opinion section 14(2) of the NESAQ indicates that the ambient air quality
standards for particulate matter as PM10 would not apply within the site boundary, and this
has been the approach for other resource consents for discharges to air. He also stated
that the usual interpretation of the phrase in section 14(1(c ) of the NESAQ "where people
are likely to be exposed to the contaminant" is that PM10 standards are not taken to apply to
areas outside a consented boundary in cases where people are not present for a
reasonable proportion of the averaging time for each contaminant identified in the standard.
In the case of PM10 the standard is based on a 24 hour average, and this would usually
mean that the standard would not be taken to apply to a given area if a person was not
present at that location for a reasonable proportion of 24 hours on any given day. Following
this conventional interpretation, this would be taken to mean that the NESAQ PM10
standards would not apply the vegetated areas around the Tui mine and tailing site, where
no one is living.
Dr Kim then commented on the likelihood of significant PM10 being generated at the site,
and the probability that this could cause a measurable increase in PM10 in the town of Te
Aroha. Dr Kim based these comments on his experience with PM10 monitoring of nine
urban Waikato airsheds, along with his understanding that dust generation during the trial
periods was low, with the nearest neighbour reporting no problem in this regard. In his
opinion, the roading and earthworking activities proposed, along with dust control
measures, would bring a very low likelihood of the works causing any more than minor
deterioration of local air quality with regard to PM10, and the level of any such effect would
not be detectable using conventional monitoring equipment in the town of Te Aroha.
In relation to a concern that had been raised about sulphur odours at the Tui tailings site,
and sulphur dioxide and the NESAQ that applies to this contaminant, Dr Kim expressed a
view that sulphur odours are unlikely to be caused by sulphur dioxide, but reduced forms of
sulphur such as mercaptans. The odour of reduced sulphur compounds can be detected
down to very low concentrations. He noted that the NESAQ sets two national
environmental standards for ambient sulphur dioxide in air (with different averaging times),
but there are no national standards for other forms of sulphur in air. In relation to the
probability of sulphur dioxide being a problem, he expressed an opinion that during the
Page 11
works, the main source of sulphur dioxide might be from diesel powered machinery, but that
his would be expected to be no worse than sulphur dioxide emissions experienced from
diesel vehicles in urban areas, and would be very unlikely to cause any issue in relation to
either air guidelines or the national environmental standards.
In relation to a concern raised about the potential for the exothermic reaction between burnt
lime and tailing to cause release of mercury, Dr Kim noted that this potential issue had been
investigated in the trials and was covered in the applicant's AEE. Gastec sampling tubes
had been used to specifically test for mercury emissions, and some effort had been made
to maximise the possibility of detecting mercury by confining the reaction to a sealed
bucket, but in all cases no mercury release had been detected being released to air from
the tailings as a result of exothermic processes. Dr Kim noted that similar monitoring was
proposed for the future works for Occupational Health and Safety reasons, and expressed
an opinion that given no mercury was detected as being released, the likelihood of the
consented activity causing an increase in mercury concentrations in the town of Te Aroha
was negligible. However Dr Kim pointed out that there may be some natural local sources
of mercury to air in the town of Te Aroha, because this is sometimes associated with
geothermal areas and Te Aroha is known as a "spa town."
Dr Kim then provided comment on a submitter's concern about presence of cadmium in

lime that would be injected in to the underground workings. The submitter quoted an
excerpt from a technical report prepared by Dr Kim entitled: Cadmium Accumulation in
Waikato Soils (Environment Waikato Technical Report 2005/51), and expressed concerns
that adding more cadmium to the underground mine workings would be detrimental to the
environment. Dr Kim agreed that lime does contain cadmium, as do other solid
substances. He mentioned that in the context of his technical report, the purpose of
discussing the cadmium content of lime was to enable a comprehensive mass balance to
be carried out to establish the relative significance of different sources of cadmium to
agricultural soils. This analysis showed that lime is not a significant source of cadmium to
Waikato soils, but that instead, most (>95%) of the added cadmium comes from cadmium
in phosphate fertilisers - particularly superphosphate.
In relation to the Tui mine workings, Dr Kim estimated a maximum value for the total mass
of cadmium that could be added as a result of the proposed lime and calcium-based
products and compared this with the mass of cadmium that was already present in the mine
tailings and iron flocs inside the mine workings. The additional cadmium would represent a
maximum of about 5% of the amount that was already present, but could well be lower
depending on the actual cadmium content of the lime used. Dr Kim then explained that in
terms of both cadmium toxicity, and total combined toxicity of all heavy metals, the
beneficial effects of adding lime would heavily outweigh any additional toxicity that could be
caused by addition of small amounts of cadmium in the lime being used. These beneficial
effects come about because (1) the lime raises the pH, which reduces the mobilisation of
cadmium and other heavy metals; (2) the lime adds calcium (or hardness) to the water,
which reduces the toxicity of positively charged heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, lead, zinc,
copper) (guidelines for these elements can be adjusted upwards on the basis of water
hardness); and (3) the lime causes armouring of the sulphide mineral surfaces and reduces
the rate of mobilisation of heavy metals caused by sulphide oxidation.
Dr Kim stated that he did not expect that contamination of soil adjacent to the tailings dam
arising from dust discharges during the remediation work would be significant. He
considered that a round of sampling and analysis of soil adjacent to the tailings dam
earthworks before and after work is carried out would be useful to check on contamination
levels.
Ms Sheryl Roa, Senior Resource Officer for the Waikato Regional Council, identified the
following aspects:
Page 12
 that the proposal before the Regional Council has been assessed as having
discretionary status;
 the engineering aspects of the proposal had not been peer reviewed given the
significant internal peer review processes that already exist within the project
management structure;
 that the proposed community working group requirement (raised by Mr Faber) was not
supported by her;
 she detailed specific recommendations within the Cultural Impact Assessment to be
included within the conditions
 she gave an assessment of Mr Wallace’s revised conditions which she generally did not
support, with the exception of the request for physical delineation of the portions of the
site subject to vegetation destruction and/or removal;
 she suggested wording improvements to the landscaping plan conditions; and inclusion
of a review clause to assess the water quality improvement if required.
Ms Roa also advised us that all Iwi groups identified on the Te Puni Kokiri website as
having an interest in the area were directly notified as part of the notification process.
Overall, she was of the opinion that the consents before the Waikato Regional could and
should be granted subject to the set of revised conditions as presented by staff.
6.4 Statement: Mapuna Turner
Mrs Turner, representing Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu, sought approval to make a statement at
the hearing. Ngati Rahiri Tumumtumu had prepared the Cultural Assessment Report, for
the applicant.
As Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu had not been called as a witness by the applicant, nor were they
a submitter in their own right, the Chair requested comment from the applicant through Mr
Bodie and submitters present, if there were any objection to Mrs Turner providing a
statement in respect of the Cultural Assessment Report.
No objections were expressed and Mrs Turner provided a verbal statement outlining Ngati
Rahiri Tumutumu’s support for the proposal.
6.5 Applicant's Right of Reply
In his right of reply Mr Bodie addressed the following matters:
 Consultation with Ngati Hako was not undertaken prior to the notification occurring. He,
on behalf of the Department of Conservation, publicly apologised for this oversight
occurring;
 Consultation with other Iwi Groups in particular Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu, who the project
group had been advised as being the tangata whenua for the area, occurred
extensively and culminated in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report;
 The Department commits to the implementation of an Iwi Advisory Team to include
Ngati Hako to advise the Governance Group and Project Team;
 He did not consider the requirement for an Iwi Advisory Team, to be required as a
condition of consent;
 He identified that as part of the Iwi Advisory Team, Ngati Hako would receive copies of
all the monitoring reports;
 In lieu of the community working group proposed be some submitters, the Department
of Conservation suggested increased frequency of public meetings during the works –
six monthly was accepted by the applicant;
 The applicant agreed with Dr Nick Kim’s verbal assessment, and accepted of the
additional suggested soil monitoring condition for soil adjacent to the work area at the
tailings dam;
 The applicant clarified the volume of water being discharged from the Level 5 adit
Page 13
 Mr Jenkins advised that the change in the pathways of the discharge of groundwater
from the Level 4 and 5 adits would not cause increased contamination
 Mr Jenkins advised that the remediation approach is risk based and appropriate risk
management will be included in the detailed remediation planning
 The Department of Conservation accepted the revised consent conditions as presented
by the reporting officers, without further comment.
7.1 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL
7.2 Statutory Provisions Considered
The application was lodged on 10 March 2010 with the District Council and on 11 March
2010 with the Regional Council. Therefore the RMA provisions as amended by the
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining Act) 2009 apply.
The respective reporting officers advised that the activity before the Matamata-Piako
District Council was to be assessed as a non-complying activity while we heard that the
activities before the Waikato Regional Council were overall, to be considered under the
discretionary class.
It is noted that the status of the Regional Council consents was not disputed by any party at
the hearing. Mr Faber and Mr Wallace both raised the issue of mining activities within the
Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone potentially being prohibited under the District Plan and
considered that perhaps the granting the land use consent before the Matamata-Piako
District Council on this basis was precluded.
 Matamata-Piako District Council Assessment
Mr Rademeyer stated that while he agreed mining activities within the Kaitiaki
(Conservation) Zone were prohibited under the District Plan, the activities that were being
considered at this hearing do not constitute mining as defined by the District Plan. Having
assessed the District Plan and that advice, it is agreed that the activities cannot be
considered mining as defined by the plan and therefore the status of the activity before the
District is considered to be non-complying. This was not disputed by the applicant.
As the activity before the Matamata-Piako District Council is a non-complying activity,

consideration must be given to whether at least one of the gateway tests set out in s104D
can be satisfied.
The s104D(1)(a) gateway test is that adverse effects of the activity on the environment will
be minor. Having considered all relevant matters, it is considered that any adverse effects
in respect of the proposal, will be minor (refer section 7.3 of this report for this assessment).
The s104D(1)(b) gateway test is that the activity must not be contrary to the objectives and
policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan. This requires an assessment of whether the
activity is opposed to or repugnant to the objectives and policies of the plan as a whole, not
just that it offends one or two policies or objectives. Consideration as to whether the
activity is opposed in respect of the objectives and policies of the plan, having regard to the
overall purpose and scheme of the plan, is required (see for example White v Waitaki
District Council, C66/2006; Elderslie Park Ltd v Timaru District Council, NZRMA 433, 1995).
In this instance the relevant plan is the Matamata-Piako District Plan.
The policies and objectives of the District Plan include: ensuring the retention and
enhancement of the varied landscapes, natural resources and heritage of the District;
minimising hazards for people caused by land instability; managing and/or redeveloping
contaminated sites to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects; the avoidance of
nuisance effects on people; all of which are designed to provide for the community’s social
Page 14
and economic wellbeing. The objectives also include provisions seeking to ensure that
adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. It is found that, subject to appropriate
conditions, the proposal would not be opposed in its nature to the above objectives and
policies.
The policies and objectives within the Plans cover a range of matters relevant to mining
activities, however, this is not a case of assessing an application to undertake mining
activities within the Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone (which would be prohibited under the
current District Plan). The activity is to undertake a series of works designed to over time,
improve the water quality, land form stability and overall amenity value of the mountain and
its surrounds. It is therefore considered that overall the proposal is not inconsistent with the
relevant policies and objectives of the District Plan.
On this basis, it is found that the proposal would not be contrary to, or opposed to the
nature of the objectives and policies of the relevant plan, and that the second gateway test
set out in s104D(1)(b) is also satisfied.
 Waikato Regional Council Assessment
As previously stated the consents before the Regional Council are considered by all parties
to have discretionary status. In accordance with Section 104B after considering an
application for discretionary or non-complying status, a consent authority:
 May grant or refuse the application; and

 If it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.
 S105 and 107 Considerations
Regard has been had to the nature of the discharges and the applicant’s reasons for the
choice of discharge and any other method of discharge as identified within Section 105 of
the RMA.
It is noted from the evidence presented that the water quality in the streams is not currently
capable of supporting aquatic life and therefore none of the effects detailed within s107
RMA are likely to occur as a result of consent being granted to this proposal.
7.3 Relevant Policies and Plans
The relevant policies and plans have been detailed within the s42A report we do not
propose to reiterate those here. Overall, no specific issues with respect to the policies and
plans with this proposal were raised at the hearing by any party that have not been
addressed elsewhere within this report.
7.4 Section104 (1)
 Water Quality Effects
There was no disagreement amongst attendees that with the remediation works there
would be an improvement in water quality. What was disputed by submitters related to
what the level of improvement would be and whether there should be a target set to
achieve this, and further how this improvement is going to be assessed.
In assessing these matters the evidence of Dr Coffey was found to be helpful in explaining
the uncertainty regarding the benefit of improved water quality to aquatic plants and
animals in the impacted reaches of the Tui and Tunakohoia Streams. Overall, it is
considered that with the proposed Environmental Monitoring Plan and associated
conditions, that appropriate monitoring will be carried out to ascertain whether or not an
improvement in water quality is occurring.
Page 15
Given that the overall purpose of the proposed remediation works is to provide a net
environmental benefit, the uncertainty of timing and nature of water quality improvement
indicates that it is not necessary or appropriate to have resource consent conditions
requiring a particular target of improvement in water quality to be set.
The erection of any signage relating to the existing poor water quality of streams is
considered more appropriately dealt with by the District Council or the District Health Board
as part of their public health responsibilities.
 Geotechnical Stability Effects
Again there was generally little disagreement amongst the parties that with the remediation
works an improvement to the stability of the tailings dam would occur. Differences of view
on this matter related to the order of the works (Phase 2 before Phase 1) and the views
held by Mr Faber and Mrs Ludtke-Faber.
Mr Basheer and Mr Jenkins both provided evidence that provided guidance on this matter.
Overall, it is considered that the proposed works will provide for a positive effect on the dam
stability.
We find that it is not appropriate from a resource management perspective for us to require,
via consent conditions, that Phase 2 should be carried out before Phase 1, as requested by
some submitters.
 Cultural Effects
At the hearing we were advised by Ngati Hako that the consultation with this group was not
adequate. The applicant to their credit have accepted that criticism and publicly apologised
to Ngati Hako.
We were advised that extensive consultation for this application with all other Iwi groups
within the area occurred though the Matamata-Piako District Councils Te Mana Whenua
forum. We were also advised that Ngati Hako is not currently a member of this forum. We
are advised that a number of Iwi groups were served notice of the proposal with only Ngati
Hako submitting.
We also note that the options for remediation of the tailings dam that are acceptable to
Ngati Hako such as placing it back into the mountain or removal from the mountain, were
comprehensively considered by the applicant as part of the project background
investigations and option evaluation,
It is considered that the proposed Iwi Advisory Group that the applicant has committed to,
will seek to address the issue of consultation with Ngati Hako for future aspects of the
works associated with this site. It is noted that the applicant has committed to providing
monitoring reports to this group and this request by Ngati Hako can be addressed via the
implementation and on-going use of this group. Ngati Hako’s issue with respect to order of
works is unable to be addressed as that aspect of the works is outside the scope of our
role.
 Amenity, Landscape and Visual Effects
The proposed works are located within an isolated site that is surrounded by vegetation, on
the western flank of Mount Te Aroha. It is noted that the closest neighbour – Mr and Mrs
Barker support the proposal and no other neighbours have submitted on the applications.
Following the site visit it is considered that visual effects will be limited to those people
actually physically on site (given its location) or when observed from aerial, or elevated
Page 16
viewpoint. Therefore, the focus should be on the landscaping aspect of the completed
works so that people visiting/viewing the site are able to enjoy the history, surrounds and
overall mountain environment.
The landscaping plan and whether or not there should be an agreed plan prior to the works
commencing was the debate between the applicant and submitters in support at the
hearing. The submitters were concerned that once granted they would have no further
rights or ability to object with respect to this plan. Whilst it is agreed that no statutory rights
would exist once granted it is noted that there is provision within the recommended
conditions for agreement to be reached on the final form and landscaping of the area. All
submitters that have raised this as an issue have been included in the requirement for
consultation, and the applicant is required to give all parties no less than 20 days to provide
comment on the plan should they chose to do so.
The applicant has accepted this recommended condition. The development of a landscape
plan is likely to assist with the long term development and use of the site incorporating the
many values and ideas that no doubt exist within the Te Aroha community.
It is considered that the landscape mitigation proposed will assist to improve upon the
current outlook associated with the site and that the proposed condition will ensure that due
consideration is given to integrate the site as best as possible (given the technical
limitations) with the natural landscape.
 Traffic Effects
It is considered that the traffic effects can be mitigated by the proposed consent conditions
and note that the proposal has been supported (conditionally) by the New Zealand
Transport Agency (NZTA). It is noted that a consent condition suggested by the NZTA, and
accepted by the applicant, i.e. for a traffic management plan to be prepared in consultation
with NZTA, has been recommended within the conditions presented by the officers. It is
considered that potential adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated by the
implementation of a traffic management plan.
 Construction Effects
Any effects associated with the construction phase of the proposal generally fall into the
following categories of traffic, noise, earthworks and visual.
Traffic effects have previously been addressed.
Given the lack of close neighbours we consider the noise effects can be mitigated by the
implementation of a noise management plan and the requirement that noise shall meet the
limits in the New Zealand Standard: Measurement and Assessment of Noise from
Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work.
Earthworks effects include potential effects on water quality from vehicle fuel spillage,
sediment discharges, together with the effects of dust. A consent condition addresses the
need to prevent or contain spillage of fuel and similar contaminants. Sediment discharges
will be avoided or minimised by implementation of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
The applicant proposes dust mitigation measures during the works and these will be
addressed via the Erosion and Sediment Control and Air Discharge Management Plans,
which have been recommended by the reporting officers and accepted by the applicant.
Issues relating to dust effects raised by Mrs Ludtke-Faber were addressed in evidence
presented by Dr Nick Kim. It is considered that, with the measures proposed by the
applicant to reduce particulate emissions, the locality of the site, and the requirement for an
Air Discharge Management Plan, that any potential adverse effects are suitably avoided,
remedied or mitigated.
Page 17
Any potential effects arising from cadmium in lime to be used on the site and other potential
effects due to discharge of contaminated groundwater are considered to be no more than
existing, or minor, based upon the expert evidence presented.
It is considered that the potential visual effects during construction are acceptable given
that they are within a relatively secluded location and will be of relatively short duration.
 Permitted Baseline
Section 104(2) of the Act permits a consent authority to have regard to the permitted
baseline when considering the applications and to disregard an adverse effect on the
environment if the plans permit an activity with that effect.
When considering the permitted baseline of this activity we accept the information
contained within the reporting officers report. We agree that there is considerable difficulty
in ascertaining the permitted baseline with this proposal and we have therefore not
discounted any potential effects on this basis.
8.0 Part 2: Resource Management Act 1991
The proposal is consistent with the sustainable management purpose of the RMA in that it
manages the use, development and protection of the natural and physical resources of
Mount Te Aroha. The remediation proposal provides for the reasonably foreseeable needs
of future generations while avoiding remedying or mitigating any adverse effects from the
works on the environment.
The proposal will enable people to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing
and health and safety through the improvement to water quality and improvement to the
stability of the tailings dam.
With this proposal it is intended to bring back as much natural character as is practicable
given the history of the site therefore we consider it to be consistent with s6(a) and (b)
matters.
Section 6(e) and 7(a) matters are provided for with the implementation of an Iwi Project
Advisory Group and the overall support from Iwi for the proposal. Further, we consider that
the proposal is an efficient use and development of the site. Potential effects on amenity
values are adequately addressed via the mitigation proposed – the landscaping plan.
In relation to section 8, we note that consultation with Iwi has occurred prior to the
application being notified and with Ngati Hako following receipt of their submission. The
applicant proposes to address consultation with Iwi via an Iwi Project Advisory Group. We
consider this to be an appropriate approach. Conditions of consent have been included
within the schedules that in our opinion, sufficiently address section 8 matters.
This proposal is considered to be consistent with Part 2 of the Act.
9.1 Conclusions
Overall, we have determined individually that there are no matters arising under s104 or in
terms of the Regional or District Plans that dictate that the applications should be declined,
provided that appropriate conditions of consent can be identified.
It is concluded that:
 The remediation works over time, are likely to have a marked improvement on the
environment specifically the water quality of the adjacent waterways
Page 18
 The remediation works at the tailings dam will improve the stability and provide the
community of Te Aroha with a safer environment
 The remediation works are likely to have no more than temporary minor actual or
potential adverse effects on the environment while the physical works are being
undertaken on the site
 The remediation works will improve the appearance of the site and will enable the site
to better integrate with the natural environment.
 The remediation works are not contrary to any National Environmental Standard,
relevant plans or policies (District or Regional)
 The remediation works are consistent with the Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan
 The remediation works are not contrary to the Hauraki Marine Park Act 2002
 The activities are consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource
Management Act 1991
9.2 Duration (Waikato Regional Council Only)
The consent duration(s) requested by the applicant and as recommended by the Waikato
Regional Council reporting officer were accepted in full by the applicant. However it is
noted that Mr Wallace, representing Environmental Futures Ltd, suggested a longer
duration for the water take consent than that being sought by the applicant citing his view
that the temporary water take would be required for longer than that anticipated by the
applicant. No comment was provided by the applicant in the right of reply on this matter,
and therefore it is concluded that the works have been programmed so that such an
eventuality is unlikely to occur.
Mr Wallace also suggested the current term of five years for the land use consent
associated with the earthworks (resource consent number 121071) should be extended to
35 years to accommodate the landscaping plan requirements currently provided for within
the discharge to land permit (resource consent number 121042).
Ms Roa advised us that in her opinion it was more appropriate to have the landscaping plan
requirement within the discharge to land and water permit (resource consent number
121042) given the short duration of the earthworks consent and the long term nature of the
landscaping plan requirements.
It is noted that the applicant has not addressed this issue and stated in their right of reply
that they accepted the revised consent conditions as presented by the reporting officers at
the hearing which included the landscaping requirement within the discharge to land and
water permit (resource consent number 121042). On this basis the landscaping
requirement has been left within the discharge to land and water permit and a consent
period of five years has been granted, as requested by the applicant for the earthworks
consent.
9.3 Overall Broad Judgement
In reaching a decision in relation to these consent applications, we are required to exercise

an overall broad judgement individually as to whether or not the granting of consents would
promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
Our overall broad judgement is therefore that the consents be granted, subject to the suite
of conditions proposed by the respective Council reporting officers at the hearing and
Page 19
accepted by the applicant, with modifications to address the matters we have identified
during the hearing.
Page 20
10.0 MATAMATA-PIAKO DISTRICT COUNCIL DECISION
That pursuant to the requirements of section 104, 104B, 104D and 108 of the
Resource Management Act 1991, the Matamata-Piako District Council grants consent
to the application for land use consent by the Department of Conservation to
undertake remedial works at Tui Mine, Mount Te Aroha subject to the conditions, and
for the reasons outlined, in this decision.
DATED this 30th day of August 2010
William Wasley
Chairperson and Independent Commissioner for the Matamata-Piako District Council
Page 21
11.0 WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL DECISION
That pursuant to the requirements of section 104, 104B, and 108 of the Resource
Management Act 1991, the Waikato Regional Council grants consent to the
applications by the Department of Conservation to undertake remedial works at Tui
Mine, Mount Te Aroha subject to the conditions, and for the reasons outlined, in this
decision.
DATED this 30th day of August 2010
Nigel Mark-Brown
Independent Commissioner for the Waikato Regional Council
Page 22
SCHEDULE OF CONSENTS GRANTED
Page 23
Resource Consent
Schedule A
Resource Consent: 121071
File Number: 61 47 65A
Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waikato Regional Council hereby grants
consent to:
Department of Conservation (East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservancy

Office)
PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
(hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder)
Consent Type: Land use consent
Consent Subtype: Land - disturbance
Activity authorised: To undertake earthworks including soil disturbance, roading, tracking

and vegetation clearance, large scale overburden disposal and large
scale cleanfill disposal all within high risk locations and/or high risk
erosion areas
Location: Tui Road - Te Aroha - Tui Mine Remediation Works
Map Reference: NZMS 260 T13:522-053
Consent Duration: This consent will commence on the date of decision notification, and
expire five years from the date of commencement
Subject to the conditions overleaf:
Page 1
General Conditions
1. The works authorised by this resource consent shall be undertaken in general accordance
with:
(i) The application for this resource consent; and

(ii) The document titled “Tui Mine – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Remedial Works –
Assessment of Environmental Effects” dated 8 March 2010 recorded as document
1646482 on the Waikato Regional Council’s document system unless superseded by
the documents titled “Tailings Impoundment Remediation Design Report” dated
20 May 2010 and “Phase 2 Design – Tailings Impoundment Drawing Volume”
dated 14 May 2010 recorded as documents 1737446 and 1737419 respectively on the
Waikato Regional Council’s document system,
except where inconsistent with the conditions below which shall prevail should any
inconsistencies occur.
2. The consent holder shall ensure contractors are made aware of the conditions of this
resource consent and ensure compliance with those conditions.
Public Access
3. The consent holder shall manage public access to all areas of works as far as is practicable.
Signs shall be erected, and maintained for the duration of the works, at all public access
points detailing, as a minimum, the following:
i) Advice to the public of the hazards that exist on site and warning
against public access;
ii) Details of the works area;
iii) The anticipated/expected date of completion of the works; and
iv) The consent holder and/or contact details for any enquiries and/or
complaints.
Advice Note: In the event of any of these signs being vandalised/ removed compliance with this
condition shall be considered achieved if upon written notice from the Waikato Regional Council the
consent holder replaces the signs within one week.
Construction Works
4. The activities authorised by this consent shall be undertaken within the properties legally
described as Section 117, Block IX, Aroha Survey District and Part Te Aroha.
5. The consent holder shall appoint a representative(s) prior to the exercise of this resource
consent who shall be the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council’s principal
contact person(s) in regard to matters relating to this resource consent. The consent holder
shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council of the representative’s
name and how they can be contacted, prior to this resource consent being exercised. Should
that person(s) change during the term of this resource consent, the consent holder shall
inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council and shall also give written
notice to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Region Council of the new representatives
name and how they can be contacted.
6. The consent holder shall arrange and conduct a pre-construction site meeting and invite, with
a minimum of 5 working days notice, the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional
Council and Iwi representatives prior to any work authorised by this consent commencing on
site.
Advice Note: In the case that any of the invited parties does not attend this meeting, the consent
holder will have complied with this condition, provided the invitation requirement is met.
Page 2
Soil Monitoring
7. The consent holder shall collect no less than 30 soil samples, outside of the subject site and
within the undisturbed profile, in the vicinity of the area surrounding the former mine
processing area and tailing dam, prior to the works occurring and immediately after
completion of the remediation works. The samples shall be tested for heavy metals including
lead, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, nickel, mercury and copper. The results shall be forwarded to
the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council within 30 days of receipt of the last
laboratory results.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
8. The consent holder shall ensure that the release of sediment and other contaminants to the
Tui and Tunakohoia streams are minimised as far as practicable. To this end, earthworks
and erosion and sediment controls shall be implemented in accordance with an overall
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (“ESCP”) for the project.
9. The consent holder shall provide the ESCP to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of activities authorised
by this resource consent.
10. The objectives of the ESCP shall be to:
(i) minimise the extent to which vegetation will be removed within the site;
(ii) minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, dust and sediment generation and erosion
potential;
(iii) minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, any potential adverse environmental
effects that could arise from sediment discharges; and
(iv) incorporate the relevant provisions of Waikato Regional Council’s Technical Report
No.2009/02 "Erosion and Sediment Control: Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities",
January 2009.
(v) incorporate recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed Tui Mine
Restoration Mount Te Aroha: Cultural Impact Assessment Report”, dated March
2010 and recorded as document 1720804 on the Waikato Regional Council’s
document system.
11. The ESCP required by condition 8 shall include as a minimum, the following:
a) Details of all procedures and practices that will be implemented to satisfy the objectives
of the ESCP;
b) The design criteria and dimensions of all key erosion and sediment control structures;
c) A site plan of a suitable scale to identify;

a. The locations of waterways;
b. The extent of soil disturbance and vegetation removal;
c. Any “no go” and/or buffer areas to be maintained undisturbed adjacent to
watercourses;
d. Areas of cut and fill;
e. Locations of any stockpiles;
f. All key erosion and sediment control structures;
g. The boundaries and area of catchments contributing to all stormwater
impoundment structures;
h. The locations of all specific points of discharge to the environment; and
i. Any other relevant site information
Page 3
d) Construction timetable for the erosion and sediment control works and the bulk
earthworks proposed;
e) Timetable and nature of progressive site rehabilitation and re-vegetation proposed;
f) Maintenance, monitoring and reporting procedures;
g) Rainfall response and contingency measures including procedures to minimise adverse

effects in the event of extreme rainfall events and/or the failure of any key erosion and
sediment control structures;
h) Procedures and timing for review and/or amendment to the ESCP; and
i) Identification and contact details of personnel responsible for the activities addressed in
the ESCP.
12. The ESCP required by condition 8 shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced
person who shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional
Council.
13. The ESCP required by condition 8 shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of
the Waikato Regional Council acting in a technical certification capacity prior to any works
authorised by this consent commencing. Should the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council not respond in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the ESCP, either
providing certification of the ESCP or clearly outlining areas of the ESCP that are not
accepted, then the ESCP shall be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.
14. Any changes proposed to the ESCP, shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder and
approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council acting in a
technical certification capacity, prior to the implementation of any changes proposed. Should
the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council not respond in writing within 20
working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the ESCP, either providing certification of
the ESCP or clearly outlining areas of the ESCP that are not accepted, then the ESCP shall
be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.
15. All activities authorised by this consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
ESCP for the duration of this consent.
16. The consent holder shall physically delineate the periphery of the earthworks site including
any proposed vegetation destruction and/or removal.
17. The consent holder shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council in
writing at least 5 working days prior to the commencement of activities of the start date of the
works authorised by this resource consent.
18. During the earthworks, discharges from the work site shall not cause a conspicuous change
in water colour or clarity within the Tui or Tunakohoia streams after reasonable mixing.
19. The consent holder shall ensure that, as far as practicable, all clean water run-off from
stabilised surfaces including catchment areas above the site shall be diverted away from the
exposed areas via a stabilised system to prevent erosion. The consent holder shall also
ensure the outfall(s) of these systems are protected against erosion.
20. The consent holder shall ensure that all sediment laden run-off from the site is treated by
sediment retention structures. These structures are to be fully operational before bulk
earthworks commence and shall be maintained to perform at least at 80% of their operational
capacity.
Page 4
21. All machinery shall be operated in a manner which ensures that spillage of fuel, oil and similar
contaminants are prevented, particularly during refuelling and machinery servicing and
maintenance. Refuelling and lubrication activities shall be carried out away from any water
body such that any spillage can be contained so it does not enter a waterway.
22. As soon as practicable and within a period not exceeding 14 days after the completion of the
works authorised by this resource consent, the consent holder shall fully stabilise any
disturbed areas to limit/prevent sediment runoff and erosion, to the satisfaction of the
Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council acting in a technical certification
capacity.
Remediation Site Management Plan
23. The consent holder shall prepare a Remediation Site Management Plan. This management
plan shall provide:
a. The remedial objectives of the works;

b. A description of the remedial works;
c. Proposed testing to validate that the remedial objectives are being met;
d. Contingency measures and plans to respond to site incidents and manage any
hazardous materials;
e. A description of any monitoring required for compliance with resource consent
conditions;
f. An overview of the operational site management procedures with specific
plans appended to the document to include:
i) Communications plan
ii) Traffic management plan
iii) Noise management plan
iv) Erosion and sediment control plan
v) Air discharge management plan
Advice Note: The various plans to be appended to the Remediation Site Management Plan are to be
prepared and approved (as required) in accordance with the relevant conditions of consent pertaining
to this and other consents for the works.
24. The consent holder shall provide a copy of the Remediation Site Management Plan to the
Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council prior to the commencement of the
remedial works.
25. The consent holder shall implement the Remediation Site Management Plan for the duration
of the site works authorised by this consent.
Complaints
26. If any complaints are received by the consent holder regarding the activities authorised by
this consent, the consent holder shall notify the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional
Council of those complaints as soon as practicable and no longer than five working days
following. When/if complaints are received, the consent holder shall record the following
details in a Complaints Log:
(i) The date, time and duration of the event that resulted in a complaint;
(ii) Name, address and contact phone number of the complainant (if provided);
(iii) The likely cause of the complaint;
(iv) The weather conditions at the time of the complaint; and
(v) The response made by the consent holder including any corrective action undertaken by
the consent holder in response to the complaint.
Page 5
Reviews
27. Within 12 months of the Crown settling any claim made under the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi Act 1975 the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council may, following
service of notice on the consent holder, commence a review of the conditions of this consent
pursuant to section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the purpose of
ensuring that this consent is in alignment with the provisions of any such settled claim.
28. Within the six month period following the first and third anniversary of the commencement of
this consent the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council may, following service
of notice on the consent holder, commence a review of the conditions of this resource
consent under section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following
purposes:
(i) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding or
mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this resource
consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further or
amended resource consent conditions; or
(ii) to review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the consent
holder.
Page 6
Resource Consent
Schedule B
consent to:

Office)
PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
Consent Subtype: Land - disturbance
Activity authorised: To dam underground water within the mine adits
Consent Duration: This consent will commence on the date of decision notification and
expire 35 years from the date of commencement
Page 1
General Conditions
1. The works and dam authorised by this resource consent shall be undertaken in general
accordance with:

Assessment of Environmental Effects” dated 8 March 2010 recorded as
document 1646482 on the Waikato Regional Council’s document system
unless superseded by the documents titled “Tailings Impoundment
Remediation Design Report” dated 20 May 2010 and “Phase 2 Design –
Tailings Impoundment Drawing Volume” dated 14 May 2010 recorded as
documents 1737446 and 1737419 respectively on the Waikato Regional
Council’s document system,
Earthworks – Construction of the Bulkhead
contact person(s) in regard to matters relating to this resource consent. The consent
holder shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council of the
representative’s name and how they can be contacted, prior to this resource consent
being exercised. Should that person(s) change during the term of this resource consent,
the consent holder shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
and shall also give written notice to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Region
Council of the new representatives name and how they can be contacted.
4. The consent holder shall arrange and conduct a pre-construction site meeting and invite,
with a minimum of 5 working days notice, the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council and Iwi representatives prior to any work authorised by this consent
commencing on site.
5. The consent holder shall ensure that the release of sediment and other contaminants from
the construction of the bulkhead is minimised as far as practicable. To this end,
earthworks and erosion and sediment controls shall be implemented in accordance with
an overall Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (“ESCP”) for the project.
Regional Council at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of activities
authorised by this resource consent.
(i) minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, dust and sediment generation and
erosion potential;
(ii) minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, any potential adverse environmental
effects that could arise from sediment discharges; and
(iii) incorporate the relevant provisions of Waikato Regional Council’s Technical Report
No.2009/02 "Erosion and Sediment Control: Guidelines for Soil Disturbing
Activities", January 2009; and
Page 2
(iv) incorporate recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed Tui
Mine Restoration Mount Te Aroha: Cultural Impact Assessment Report”,
dated March 2010 and recorded as document 1720804 on the Waikato Regional
Council’s document system.
of the ESCP;

(i) The locations of waterways;
(ii) The extent of soil disturbance and vegetation removal;
(iii) Any “no go” and/or buffer areas to be maintained undisturbed adjacent to
watercourses;
(iv) Areas of cut and fill;
(v) Locations of any stockpiles;
(vi) All key erosion and sediment control structures;
(vii) The boundaries and area of catchments contributing to all stormwater
(viii) The locations of all specific points of discharge to the environment; and
(ix) Any other relevant site information

the ESCP.
9. The ESCP required by condition 5 shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and

experienced person who shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of the
Waikato Regional Council.
10. The ESCP required by condition 5 shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use
Group of the Waikato Regional Council acting in a technical certification capacity prior to
any works authorised by this consent commencing. Should the Resource Use Group of
the Waikato Regional Council not respond in writing within 20 working days of receipt of
the ESCP, either providing certification of the ESCP or clearly outlining areas of the ESCP
that are not accepted, then the ESCP shall be considered to be approved and this
condition satisfied.
11. Any changes proposed to the ESCP, shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder
and approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
acting in a technical certification capacity, prior to the implementation of any changes
proposed. Should the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council not respond
in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the ESCP, either
Page 3
12. All activities authorised by this consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved ESCP for the duration of this consent.
13. The consent holder shall physically delineate the periphery of the earthworks site
including any proposed vegetation destruction and/or removal.
14. The consent holder shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
in writing at least 5 working days prior to the commencement of activities of the start date
of the works authorised by this resource consent.
15. During the earthworks, discharges from the work site shall not cause a conspicuous
change in water colour or clarity within the any waterway after reasonable mixing.
Certification
16. The consent holder shall construct the bulkhead in accordance with accepted engineering
practices. To this end the consent holder shall, unless otherwise required by the Resource
Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council in writing following consultation with the consent
holder, retain a Chartered Professional Engineer to:
(i) supervise the design and construction of the bulkhead; and

(ii) within three months following completion of construction of the bulkhead provide a
written report to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council detailing
the construction procedures used and the “as-built” details of works associated with
the exercise of this consent. The report shall demonstrate that the works have been
carried out in accordance with accepted engineering practice and are such as to
meet the conditions of this consent.
17. Within three months following completion of construction of the bulkhead the consent holder
shall seek a Code of Compliance from the relevant building consent authority.
Structural Integrity
18. The consent holder shall be responsible for the design, structural integrity and
maintenance of the bulkhead and for any erosion control works that become necessary to
control erosion that results from the exercise of this resource consent.
Note: A separate resource consent may be required as a result of the need to undertake erosion
control works. Any such consent shall be obtained by the consent holder at their sole expense
prior to any works being undertaken.
Reviews
19. Within 12 months of the Crown settling any claim made under the provisions of the Treaty
of Waitangi Act 1975 the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council may,
following service of notice on the consent holder, commence a review of the conditions of
this consent pursuant to section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the
purpose of ensuring that this consent is in alignment with the provisions of any such
settled claim.
20. Within the six month period following the fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth and
thirtieth anniversary of the commencement of this consent the Resource Use Group of the
Waikato Regional Council may, following service of notice on the consent holder,
commence a review of the conditions of this resource consent under section 128(1) of the
Resource Management Act 1991 for the following purposes:
Page 4
(i) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding
or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this
resource consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by
way of further or amended resource consent conditions; or
(ii) to review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the
consent holder.
Page 5
Resource Consent
Schedule C
consent to:

Office)
PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
Consent Type: Water permit
Consent Subtype: Surface water take and use
Activity authorised: Take and use water from the south branch of the Tunakohoia Stream
expire eighteen months from the date of commencement
Page 1
General Condition
1. This consent authorises the taking and use of water from the south branch of the
Tunakohoia Stream.
Rate of Take
2. The maximum rate of take shall not exceed 0.3 litres per second.
Maximum Daily Take
3. The maximum daily take shall not exceed 25 cubic metres per day.
4. The maximum total take authorised via this consent shall not exceed 750 cubic metres.
5. Within eighteen (18) months of the commencement of this consent the consent holder
shall supply details of the days on which this consent was exercised and the volume of
water taken on these days.
Low Flow
6. When the Waihou River 7–day rolling average flow at Te Aroha (Waikato Regional
Council Site Number 1122.34, Map Reference NZMS 260: T13:494-026), as determined
by the Waikato Regional Council, is:
(1) less than 22.14 cubic metres per second for three or more consecutive days, the daily
take volume, when averaged over two consecutive days, shall not exceed (12.5 cubic
metres) cubic metres;
(2) less than 22.14 cubic metres per second seven or more days after 10(1) of this
condition has been implemented, the daily take volume on any day shall not exceed
(6.25 cubic metres per day).
The consent holder shall, prior to the exercise of this resource consent, document and
submit to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council a methodology for
managing the exercise of this resource consent in accordance with this condition.
7. The consent holder shall initiate recommendations 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled
“Proposed Tui Mine Restoration Mount Te Aroha: Cultural Impact Assessment
Report”, dated March 2010 and recorded as document 1720804 on the Waikato Regional
Council’s document system when exercising this consent.
Review
settled claim.
Page 2
Resource Consent
Schedule D
consent to:

Office)
PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
Consent Subtype: Bed - disturbance
Activity authorised: Clearance of vegetation on the bed of the northern tributary of the
Tunakohoia Stream, and associated bed disturbance during the works
expire five years from the date of commencement
Page 1
General Conditions
1. The vegetation clearance and associated bed disturbance authorised by this resource
consent shall be undertaken in general accordance with:

Construction Works
contact person(s) in regard to matters relating to this resource consent. The consent
holder shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council of the
representative’s name and how they can be contacted, prior to this resource consent
being exercised. Should that person(s) change during the term of this resource consent,
the consent holder shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
and shall also give written notice to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Region
Council of the new representatives name and how they can be contacted.
4. The consent holder shall arrange and conduct a pre-construction site meeting and invite,
with a minimum of 5 working days notice, the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council and Iwi representatives prior to any work authorised by this consent
commencing on site.
5. The consent holder shall ensure that the release of sediment and other contaminants to
the Tui and Tunakohoia streams are minimised as far as practicable. To this end,
earthworks and erosion and sediment controls shall be implemented in accordance with
an overall Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (“ESCP”) for the project.
(i) minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, dust and sediment generation and
erosion potential;
(ii) minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, any potential adverse environmental
effects that could arise from sediment discharges;
(iii) incorporate the relevant provisions of Waikato Regional Council’s Technical Report
No.2009/02 "Erosion and Sediment Control: Guidelines for Soil Disturbing
Activities", January 2009; and
Page 2
(iv) incorporate recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed Tui
of the ESCP;

(i) The locations of waterways;
(ii) The extent of soil disturbance and vegetation removal;
(iii) Any “no go” and/or buffer areas to be maintained undisturbed adjacent to
watercourses;
(iv) Areas of cut and fill;
(v) Locations of any stockpiles;
(vi) All key erosion and sediment control structures;
(vii) The boundaries and area of catchments contributing to all stormwater
(viii) The locations of all specific points of discharge to the environment; and
(ix) Any other relevant site information

the ESCP.
9. The ESCP required by condition 5 shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and

10. The ESCP required by condition 5 shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use
the ESCP, either providing certification of the ESCP or clearly outlining areas of the ESCP
that are not accepted, then the ESCP shall be considered to be approved and this
11. Any changes proposed to the ESCP, shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder
in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the ESCP, either
Page 3
12. All activities authorised by this consent shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved ESCP for the duration of this consent.
13. The consent holder shall physically delineate the periphery of the earthworks site
including any proposed vegetation destruction and/or removal.
14. The consent holder shall inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
in writing at least 5 working days prior to the commencement of activities of the start date
of the works authorised by this resource consent.
15. During the earthworks, discharges from the work site shall not cause a conspicuous
change in water colour or clarity within the Tui or Tunakohoia streams after reasonable
mixing.
16. The consent holder shall ensure that, as far as practicable, all clean water run-off from
stabilised surfaces including catchment areas above the site shall be diverted away from
the exposed areas via a stabilised system to prevent erosion. The consent holder shall
also ensure the outfall(s) of these systems are protected against erosion.
17. The consent holder shall ensure that all sediment laden run-off from the site is treated by
sediment retention structures. These structures are to be fully operational before bulk
earthworks commence and shall be maintained to perform at least at 80% of their
operational capacity.
18. All machinery shall be operated in a manner which ensures that spillage of fuel, oil and
similar contaminants are prevented, particularly during refuelling and machinery servicing
and maintenance. Refuelling and lubrication activities shall be carried out away from any
water body such that any spillage can be contained so it does not enter a waterway.
19. As soon as practicable and within a period not exceeding 14 days after the completion of
the works authorised by this resource consent, the consent holder shall fully stabilise any
disturbed areas to limit/prevent sediment runoff and erosion, to the satisfaction of the
Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council acting in a technical certification
capacity.
Reviews
settled claim.
21. Within the six month period following the first and third anniversary of the commencement
of this consent the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council may, following
service of notice on the consent holder, commence a review of the conditions of this
resource consent under section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the
following purposes:
(i) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding
or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this
consent holder.
Page 4
Resource Consent
Schedule E
consent to:

Office)
PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
Consent Type: Discharge permit
Consent Subtype: Discharge to land and water
Activity authorised: Discharge contaminants to land and water in association with

remediation of the Tui Mine
expire thirty five (35) years from the date of commencement
Page 1
General Conditions
1. The discharges authorised by this resource consent shall be undertaken in general

accordance with:

3. The discharges authorised by this consent shall be undertaken within the properties
legally described as Section 117, Block IX, Aroha Survey District and Part Te Aroha.
4. The consent holder shall be responsible for any erosion control works that become
necessary to preserve the integrity and stability of the stream channels and/or to control
erosion as a result of the exercise of this resource consent.
Advice Note: A separate resource consent may be required as a result of the need to undertake
erosion control works. Any such consent shall be obtained by the consent holder at their sole
expense prior to any works being undertaken.
Landscaping Plan
5. Within twenty four (24) months of the commencement of this consent the consent holder
shall in conjunction with Matamata-Piako District Council’s Parks and Reserves Manager
and in consultation with the Project Iwi Advisory Group, provide a final landscaping plan to
the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council designed by a suitably qualified
and experienced person who shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of
the Waikato Regional Council.
6. The objectives of the Landscaping Plan shall be to:
(i) Address the relevant aspects (principally Section 5.1.2) of the Matamata-Piako
District Plan requirements for landscaping at the subject site;
(ii) Detail the process to address the long term use of the site;
(iii) Incorporate recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed
Tui Mine Restoration Mount Te Aroha: Cultural Impact Assessment Report”,
Council’s document system; and
(iv) Preserve the integrity of the cap and ensure that any vegetative layer will be not
compromised.
(v) Detail the design and location of fences, railings and other safety structures to be
erected.
7. The Landscape Plan required by condition 5 shall be submitted to the following parties:
 Environmental Futures Limited

 Te Aroha Earthwatch
Page 2
 Wolfgang Faber
 Gisela Ludke-Faber
 Kordia
 Michael and Judy Baker
These parties shall have no less than 20 working days to provide comments on the
Landscape Plan after which the consent holder shall submit the Landscape Plan and any
comments received to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council.
8. The consent holder’s final landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Resource Use
Group of the Waikato Regional Council for its approval, acting in a technical certification
capacity, prior to its implementation. Should the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council not respond in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the final
landscaping plan, either providing certification of the final landscaping plan or clearly
outlining areas of the landscaping plan that are not accepted, then the landscaping plan
shall be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.
9. The consent holder shall implement the approved Landscape Plan.
Biological and Water Quality Monitoring Plan
10. The consent holder shall undertake an annual biological and water quality sampling
programme of the Tui and Tunakohoia Streams for the first three years of this consent.
There after annual biological and water quality sampling shall occur on a five yearly basis.
Stream biological sampling shall include as a minimum algal (periphyton) and macrophyte
growth, and macroinvertebrate assessment using appropriate metrics.
The design of the sampling programme shall be included in the Environmental Monitoring
Plan prepared in accordance with condition 19 of this consent.
Air Discharge Management Plan
11. As a result of the exercise of this consent there shall be no odour or dust emissions that
cause an objectionable effect beyond the boundary of the property defined in condition 3
above. To this end, measures to minimise discharges to air shall be implemented in
accordance with an overall Air Discharge Management Plan (“ADMP”) for the project.
Advice Note: Chapter 6.4 of the Waikato Regional Plan provides guidance on the assessment of
the effects of odour and dust emissions.
12. The consent holder shall provide the ADMP to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
13. The objectives of the ADMP shall be to:
i. minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, odour and dust generation potential;
ii. minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, any potential adverse environmental
effects that could arise from the discharges; and
iii. incorporate recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed Tui
14. The ADMP required by condition 11 shall include as a minimum, details of all procedures
and practices that will be implemented to satisfy the objectives of the ADMP including:
(i) Short term procedures and practices to satisfy the objectives of the ADMP
including;
Page 3
a. identified vehicle wash down areas for all vehicles leaving
the site; and
b. Details of the location and treatment of discharges from
vehicle wash down areas;
(ii) Long term procedures and practices to satisfy the objectives of the ADMP; and
(iii) entification and contact details of personnel responsible for the activities
addressed in the ADMP.
15. The ADMP required by condition 11 shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and
16. The ADMP required by condition 11 shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use
the ADMP, either providing certification of the ADMP or clearly outlining areas of the
ADMP that are not accepted, then the ADMP shall be considered to be approved and this
17. Any changes proposed to the ADMP, shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder
in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the ADMP, either
providing certification of the ADMP or clearly outlining areas of the ADMP that are not
accepted, then the ADMP shall be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.
18. All discharges to air associated with the exercise of this consent shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved ADMP for the duration of this consent.
Environmental Monitoring Plan
19. The consent holder shall provide a Environmental Monitoring Plan (“EMP”) to the
Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council within six months of the
commencement of this consent.
20. The objectives of the EMP shall be to:

(i) assess whether the habitat, biological and water quality of the Tui and
Tunakohoia Streams are improving over time;
(ii) Measure the effectiveness of the works in reducing ARD (Acid Rock Drainage)
and as a minimum measure the following contaminant trace elements calcium,
iron, manganese, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, lead, copper, and mercury; and
(iii) incorporate recommendations 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed
Tui Mine Restoration Mount Te Aroha: Cultural Impact Assessment
Report”, dated March 2010 and recorded as document 1720804 on the
Waikato Regional Council’s document system.
21. The EMP required by condition 19 shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and
22. The purpose of the EMP is to:
(i) design a sampling programme to achieve the objectives detailed

within condition 20;
(ii) provide all data associated with the sampling programme
including;
Page 4
a. all parameters to be monitored including the rationale for their
selection;
b. all sampling/monitoring locations, including the rationale for
their selection;
c. the methods of sampling and/or measurement that are to be
used, including the rationale for their selection; and
d. the analyses, including statistical analyses, that the data
collected will be subject to, together with an explanation of
how those analyses will enable the effects of the activities
authorised by this consent to be determined and
discriminated from natural variability,
(iii) provide an assessment of whether the objectives detailed within
condition 20 are being achieved;
(iv) Identify the frequency with which reporting of the EMP will occur.
23. The EMP required by condition 19 shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use
the EMP, either providing certification of the EMP or clearly outlining areas of the EMP
that are not accepted, then the EMP shall be considered to be approved and this condition
satisfied.
24. All monitoring activities of the streams shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved EMP for the duration of this consent.
25. Any changes proposed to the EMP required by condition 19 shall be confirmed in writing
by the consent holder and approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council acting in a technical certification capacity, prior to the implementation of
any changes proposed. Should the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
not respond in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the
EMP, either providing certification of the EMP or clearly outlining areas of the EMP that
are not accepted, then the EMP shall be considered to be approved and this condition
satisfied.
Hazardous Material
26. If any drums containing hazardous material (e.g. cyanide) are found then the consent
holder shall immediately inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
of the existence of hazardous material and confirm the intended approach to contain or
remove this material. For cyanide contaminated material a tiered management approach
is to be generally implemented as set out below:
a) material with cyanide concentrations less than 100mg/kg does not require specific
containment and will be incorporated into the general stabilisation of the tailings;
b) material with cyanide concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg and less than 200mg/kg
will be contained on site within a lined containment cell within the tailings;
c) material with cyanide concentrations greater than 2000 mg/kg will require on-site
treatment to reduce containment concentrations or be removed offsite for disposal;
d) any remaining drums containing cyanide shall be taken off site and disposed at a
hazardous waste facility..
Drainage Design Standards
27. The consent holder shall design and construct all permanent drainage structures in
accordance with accepted engineering practices. Permanent stormwater drains over high
risk areas (defined as those areas where a failure of a drainage channel could lead to
severe scouring of the tailings impoundment) will be designed to withstand a 1 in 500 year
Page 5
storm return period. All other permanent drains will be designed to withstand a 1 in 100
year storm return period. Drainage designs will take future climate change into account.
Complaints
28. The consent holder shall maintain a register to record all complaints received by the
consent holder. The register shall be made available to the Resource Use Group of the
Waikato Regional Council on request, and shall record the following:
(a) the date, time and duration of the event;
(b) the name and location of the complainant when the event was detected;
(c) measures taken to verify the event;
(d) the weather conditions and wind direction when the event allegedly occurred;
(e) the possible causes of the event; and
(f) any corrective action taken by the consent holder in response to the complaint.
The consent holder shall advise the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
within 24 hours of the receipt of any complaints by the consent holder.
Downstream Domestic and Municipal Water Supplies
29. The consent holder shall as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the Matamata-Piako
District Council, the Hauraki District Council, and the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council of an event that may in itself, or as a consequence of an event, have a
significant adverse effect on the quality of the water within the south branch of the
Tunakoihoia Stream or the Waihou River at the abstraction points of the Te Aroha
(Tunakohoia Stream take only) and Kerepehi Water Supplies.
The consent holder shall record the reasons why the situation occurred, the actions taken
by the consent holder and an assessment of what measures can be adopted in the future
to minimise such occurrences and upon written request from the Resource Use Group of
the Waikato Regional Council provide a report to the Resource Use group of the Waikato
Regional Council and the Medical Officer of Health addressing this matter.
Public Meetings
30. At six (6), twelve (12) and eighteen 18) months intervals following the commencement of
this consent the consent holder shall initiate a public meeting within Te Aroha, via notice
within the local newspaper. The purpose of each meeting shall be to provide an update to
the general public on the remediation works and any monitoring results undertaken to
date. Future public meetings shall occur within the six month period following the fifth,
tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth and thirtieth anniversary of the commencement of
this consent. The frequency of these public meetings may change with the written
approval of the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council.
Site Validation Reporting
31. In order to demonstrate the condition of the site, upon completion of the remediation
works, the consent holder shall provide to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council a copy of the site validation report and the ongoing monitoring and
management plan prepared in accordance with accepted best practice for reporting on
contaminated sites. As a minimum the report shall demonstrate how the existing
geotechnical and geochemical risks at the site have been addressed.
Reviews
Page 6
settled claim.
mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this
consent holder; or
(iii) review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in achieving an
order of magnitude or better improvement of water quality in the lower Tui
Stream and the main-stem of the Tunakohoia Stream.
Page 7
Advice Notes: In Respect of Resource Consent Numbers 121071,
121039, 121041, 121040, 121042
1. In accordance with section 125 RMA, any consent with a duration greater than five
(5) years shall lapse five (5) years after the date on which it was granted, unless it
has been given effect to before the end of that period.
2. Where a resource consent has been issued in relation to any type of construction,
(e.g. dam, bridge, jetty) this consent does not constitute authority to build and it may
be necessary to apply for a Building Consent from the relevant territorial authority.
3. These resource consents do not give any right of access over private or public
property. Arrangements for access must be made between the consent holder and
the property owner.
4. These resource consents are transferable to another owner or occupier of the land
concerned, upon application, on the same conditions and for the same use as
originally granted (s.134-137 RMA).
5. The consent holder may apply to change the conditions of a resource consent under
s.127 RMA.
6. The costs incurred by the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
arising from the supervision and monitoring of this/these consents or the review of the
conditions of these resource consents or any administrative charges will be borne by
the Waikato Regional Council in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding
agreed in June 2009 between the Ministry for the Environment, Waikato Regional
Council, Matamata-Piako District Council and the Department of Conservation
defining governance arrangements for the Tui Mine Remedial Project.
7. Note that pursuant to s332 of the RMA 1991, enforcement officers may at all
reasonable times go onto the property that is the subject of this consent, for the
purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements or
taking samples.
8. If you intend to replace these consents upon their expiry, please note that an
application for a new consent made at least 6 months prior to each consent's expiry,
gives you the right to continue exercising the consent after it expires in the event that
your application is not processed prior to this consent's expiry.
Matamata-Piako District
Council
Resource Consent
Schedule F
Resource Consent: 2010.10094
Consent Type: Landuse Consent (Non-Complying Activity)
Consent Subtype: Activities on Contaminated Sites/ Structures/ Cleanfill in the

Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone.
Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Matamata-Piako District Council
hereby grants consent to:
Department of Conservation
East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservancy Office
PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
Activities authorised:
 Activities within a known contaminated site in the Kaitiaki
Zone
 Alteration to landform, modification to streams and removal of
vegetation in the Kaitiaki Zone
 Structures within the Kaitiaki Zone
 Cleanfill activities within the Kaitiaki Zone.
Location: At and in the vicinity of Tui Mine, Tui Road, Te Aroha.
Legal Description: Section 117, Block IX, Aroha Survey District (Owned by MPDC)
and Part Te Aroha (Crown land gazetted as state forest,
administered by the Department of Conservation).
Page 1
Generally In Accordance
1. That the activity shall be undertaken:

a) Generally in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the
application (Matamata-Piako District Council Ref: 2010.10094) as recorded in the
AEE by AECOM reference “Tui Mine – Phase 1 and 2 Remedial Works”, Ref:
60042650, dated 8 March 2010 unless superseded by the documents titled “Tailings
Impoundment Remediation Design Report” dated 20 May 2010 and “Phase 2
Design – Tailings Impoundment Drawing Volume” dated 14 May 2010 and:
b) As identified in the resource consent conditions below which shall prevail should any
inconsistencies between the application documentation and the conditions occur.
2. That the Consent Holder shall appoint a representative(s) prior to the exercise of this
resource consent who shall be the Matamata-Piako District Council’s principal contact
person(s) in regard to matters relating to this resource consent. The Consent Holder shall
inform the Matamata-Piako District Council of the representative’s name and how they
can be contacted, prior to this resource consent being exercised. Should that person(s)
change during the exercising of this resource consent, the Consent Holder shall inform
the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager and shall also
give written notice to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services
Manager of the new representatives names and how they can be contacted.
3. That the Consent Holder shall arrange and conduct a pre-construction site meeting and
invite, with a minimum of 5 working days notice, the Matamata-Piako District Council’s
Environmental Services Manager and Iwi representatives prior to any work authorised by
this consent commencing on site.
Advice Note: In the case that any of the invited parties does not attend this meeting, the Consent
Holder will have complied with this condition, provided the invitation requirement is met.
Communications Plan
4. That the Consent Holder shall prepare a Communications Plan that describes the
communications protocols and procedures that will be adopted during the exercising of all
site works associated with this resource consent. The Communications Plan shall
address as a minimum:
a) The roles and responsibilities of the various organisations and contractors involved in
the project;
b) Contact details for a nominated person who will be responsible for receiving and
disseminating communications with interested parties;
c) The process and frequency for distributing information to Tui Road residents and any
other interested parties and the general public about the works schedule, hours of
operation, and progress with completion of the works;
d) Procedures for requesting controlled access to the works site for information or
educational purposes;
e) The release of updated information to the Project Iwi Advisory Group and the
following parties:
 Environmental Futures Limited

 Te Aroha Earthwatch
 Wolfgang Faber
 Gisela Ludke-Faber
 Kordia
 Michael and Judy Barker
Page 2
5. That the Consent Holder shall submit the Communications Plan to the Matamata-Piako
District Council’s Environmental Services Manager at least 10 working days prior to the
site works commencing, for approval as to the requirements referred to above. Any
changes to the Communications Plan shall be confirmed in writing by the Consent Holder
following consultation with the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services
Manager.
6. That the Consent Holder shall implement the requirements of the Communications Plan
as approved pursuant to the condition above, for the duration of the site works authorised
under this resource consent.
Public Access
7. That the Consent Holder shall manage that general public access to all areas of the
works as far as is practicable. Signs shall be erected, and maintained for the duration of
the works, at all public access points detailing, as a minimum, the following:
a) Advice to the public of the hazards that exist on site and warning against public
access;
b) Details of the works area;
c) The anticipated/expected date of completion of the works; and
d) The Consent Holder and/or contact details for any enquiries and/or complaints.
Advice Note: In the event of any of these signs being vandalised/ removed compliance with this
condition shall be considered achieved if upon written notice from the Matamata-Piako District
Council the consent holder replaces the signs within one week.
Landscaping Plan
8. That within twelve (12) months of the commencement of this consent the Consent Holder
shall provide a final landscaping plan to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s
Environmental Services Manager designed by a suitably qualified and experienced
person who shall be approved in writing by the Matamata-Piako District Council’s
Environmental Services Manager.
9. That the objectives of the Landscaping Plan shall be to:

a) Address the relevant aspects (principally Section 5.1.2) of the Matamata-Piako
b) Detail the process to address the long term use of the site;
c) Incorporate recommendations 5, 6 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed Tui
Mine Restoration Mount Te Aroha: Cultural Impact Assessment Report”, dated
March 2010;
d) Preserve the integrity of the cap and ensure that it will not be compromised by any
vegetative layer; and
e) Detail the design and location of fences, railings and other safety structures to be
erected.
10. That at least 20 working days prior to finalising the design of the landscaping plan, the
Consent Holder shall provide the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental
Services Manager, and Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu, Ngati Hako, Environmental Futures
Limited, Te Aroha Earthwatch, Wolfgang and Gisela Faber, Kordia, and Michael and
Judy Baker with an outline of the proposed design, together with an explanation of the
reasons for selecting that particular proposal. The consent holder shall use its best
endeavours to consult with these groups and the Matamata-Piako District Council’s
Environmental Services Manager, prior to finalising the landscaping plan.
Page 3
11. That the Consent Holder’s final landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Matamata-
Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager for its approval, acting in a
technical certification capacity, prior to its implementation. Should the Matamata-Piako
District Council’s Environmental Services Manager not respond in writing within 20
working days of receipt of the final landscaping plan, either providing certification of the
final landscaping plan or clearly outlining areas of the landscaping plan that are not
accepted, then the landscaping plan shall be considered to be approved and this
12. That the Consent Holder shall implement the Landscaping Plan approved pursuant to the
condition above, upon completion of all site works authorised under this resource
consent, and shall maintain the landscaping until established.
Vegetation Removal
13. That the Consent Holder shall, prior to the site inspection referred to in Condition 3
above, clearly demarcate the areas where vegetation is proposed to be removed. The
demarcation shall be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person approved by the
Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager.
14. That as a result of the site works authorised under this resource consent, the Consent
Holder shall not remove any vegetation not demarcated as such, pursuant to the above
condition.
Traffic Management
15. That prior to the commencement of any works authorized by this resource consent, a
Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared by the Consent Holder. The Traffic
Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the New Zealand Transport
Agency’s Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management and shall address, as a
minimum, the following:
a) Traffic management controls to the site including any limitations to general public
access above the golf course on Tui Road, and control procedures for the traffic
control gates on Tui Road;
b) The standard to which the quality of Tui Road will be , including provision for control
of stormwater runoff, for the duration of the site works;
c) Location and details of advisory and hazard signage that will be erected for the
duration of the site works;
d) Methods to advise residents and road users of traffic hazards and peak traffic events;
e) Restrictions on times when heavy vehicle movements are permitted;
f) Requirements for mirrors in appropriate locations along Tui Road where sight
distances are limited;
g) Contact details for a nominated person who will be responsible for receiving and
responding to any communication from the public regarding traffic generated as a
result of the works;
h) Details of the provisions for regular monitoring.
16. That the Traffic Management Plan required by the condition above shall be submitted to
the following parties for comment:
 New Zealand Transport Agency;
 Michael and Judy Barker;
 Kordia;
 Richard Cornes;
 David McNeil (Bush Ventures 2003)
The above parties shall have no less than 10 working days to provide comments on the
Traffic Management Plan after which, the Consent Holder shall submit the Traffic
Page 4
Management Plan and any comments received to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s
Environmental Services Manager for approval as to the above mentioned requirements.
Any changes to the Plan shall be confirmed in writing by the Consent Holder following
consultation with the above mentioned parties and the Matamata-Piako District Council’s
Environmental Services Manager.
17. That the Consent Holder shall implement the requirements of the Traffic Management
Plan approved pursuant to the condition above, for the duration of the site works
authorized under this resource consent.
Lighting
18. That all outside lighting to be used at the work sites shall be directed so as not to cause a
disturbance by way of glare to any adjoining property or adjacent road.
Advice Note: The Consent Holder’s attention is directed to Rule 5.4 of the District Plan, which
limits the permitted added illuminance as a result of lighting on the site.
Vibration
19. That as a result of exercising any activities under this resource consent, vibration
generated shall not exceed the following levels as measured at (or beyond) the boundary
of any site zoned residential or within 20 metres from any rural dwelling:
Time Average Weighted Vibration Level (Wb or

Wd)
Monday to Saturday (7am to 6pm) 45mm/s2
At all other times 15mm/s2
The weighted vibration levels Wb and Wd shall be measured according to BS6841:1987.

The average vibration shall be measured over a period not less than 60 seconds and not
longer than 30 minutes. The vibration shall be measured at any point where it is likely to
affect the comfort of amenity of persons occupying an adjacent site.
Noise
20. That noise from all site works authorised under this resource consent shall be measured
in accordance with, and meet the limits recommended in, Table 1 of “NZS 6803P:1984-
Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance, and Demolition
Work”. Adjustments provided in Clause 6.1 of NZS 6803P:1984 shall apply, and
references in the Tables to “NZS 6802”, shall be read as references to Clause 4.2.2 of
“NZS 6802:1991”.
21. That prior to the commencement of any site works associated with this resource consent,
the Consent Holder shall prepare a Noise Management Plan. The Noise Management
Plan shall, as a minimum, address the following matters:
a) Outline the methods to ensure that the activity is conducted in accordance with good
management practice so as to minimise noise emissions;
b) Methods to ensure that vehicles and machinery are operated in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specification;
c) Identification of activities that are likely to generate significant noise;
d) Scheduling of activities that are likely to generate significant noise to suitable times
when noise impacts will be least obtrusive;
e) Identification of parties that are likely to be the affected noise receptors;
f) Identification of practicable noise mitigation measures;
g) Protocols for advising affected noise receptors of peak events;
h) Complaints procedures.
Page 5
22. That the Consent Holder shall submit the Noise Management Plan to the Matamata-
Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager at least 10 working days prior to
site works commencing, for approval as to the requirements referred to above. Any
changes to the Noise Management Plan shall be confirmed in writing by the Consent
Holder following consultation with the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental
Services Manager.
23. That the Consent Holder shall implement the requirements of the Noise Management
Plan as approved pursuant to the condition above, for the duration of the site works
authorised under this resource consent.
Dust Emissions
24. That as a result of the exercise of this consent there shall be no odour or dust emissions
that cause an objectionable effect beyond the boundary of the property legally described
as Section 117, Block IX, Aroha Survey District and Part Te Aroha. To this end,
measures to minimise discharges to air shall be implemented in accordance with an
overall Air Discharge Management Plan for the project.
25. That the Consent Holder shall provide the Air Discharge Management Plan to the
Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, at least 20 working
days prior to the commencement of activities authorised by this resource consent.
26. That the objectives of the Air Discharge Management Plan shall be to:
a) Minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, odour and dust generation potential;
b) Minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, any potential adverse environmental
effects that could arise from the odour and dust discharges; and
c) Incorporate recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Proposed Tui
Mine Restoration Mount Te Aroha: Cultural Impact Assessment Report”, dated
March 2010.
27. That the Air Discharge Management Plan required by the above condition shall include
as a minimum, details of all procedures and practices that will be implemented to satisfy
the objectives of the Air Discharge Management Plan including:
a) Short term procedures and practices to satisfy the objectives of the Air Discharge
Management Plan including;
 Identified vehicle wash down areas for all vehicles leaving the site; and
 Details of the location and treatment of discharges from vehicle wash down areas;
b) Long term procedures and practices to satisfy the objectives of the Air Discharge
Management Plan and
c) Identification and contact details of personnel responsible for the activities addressed
in the Air Discharge Management Plan.
28. That the Air Discharge Management Plan required by the above condition shall be
prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person who shall be approved in writing
by the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager.
29. That the Air Discharge Management Plan shall be approved in writing by the Matamata-
Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, acting in a technical
certification capacity prior to any works authorised by this consent commencing. Should
the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, not respond in
writing within 20 working days of receipt of the Air Discharge Management Plan, either
providing certification of the Air Discharge Management Plan or clearly outlining areas of
Page 6
the Air Discharge Management Plan that are not accepted, then the Air Discharge
Management Plan shall be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.
30. That any changes proposed to the Air Discharge Management Plan, shall be confirmed in
writing by the consent holder and approved in writing by the Matamata-Piako District
Council’s Environmental Services Manager, acting in a technical certification capacity,
prior to the implementation of any changes proposed. Should the Matamata-Piako
District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, not respond in writing within 20
working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the Air Discharge Management Plan,
either providing certification of the Air Discharge Management Plan or clearly outlining
areas of the Air Discharge Management Plan that are not accepted, then the Air
Discharge Management Plan shall be considered to be approved and this condition
satisfied.
31. That all discharges to air associated with the exercise of this consent shall be undertaken
in accordance with the approved Air Discharge Management Plan for the duration of this
consent.
Champion Level 5 Bulkhead
32. That the Consent Holder shall construct the bulkhead in accordance with accepted
engineering practices. To this end the consent holder shall, unless otherwise required by
the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager in writing
following consultation with the Consent Holder, retain a Chartered Professional Engineer
to:
a) Supervise the design and construction of the bulkhead; and
b) Within three months following completion of construction of the bulkhead provide a
written report to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services
Manager detailing the construction procedures used and the “as-built” details of works
associated with the exercise of this consent. The report shall demonstrate that the
works have been carried out in accordance with accepted engineering practice and are
such as to meet the conditions of this consent.
33. Within three months following completion of construction of the bulkhead the Consent
Holder shall seek a Code of Compliance from the relevant building consent authority.
34. The Consent Holder shall be responsible for the design, structural integrity and
maintenance of the bulkhead.
Hazardous Material
holder shall immediately inform the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental
Services Manager of the existence of hazardous material and confirm the intended
approach to contain or remove this material. For cyanide contaminated material a tiered
management approach is to be generally implemented as set out below:
a) material with cyanide concentrations less than 100mg/kg does not require
specific containment and will be incorporated into the general stabilisation of the
tailings;
b) material with cyanide concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg and less than
200mg/kg will be contained on site within a lined containment cell within the
tailings;
treatment to reduce containment concentrations or be removed offsite for
disposal;
Page 7
d) any remaining drums containing cyanide shall be taken off site and disposed at
a hazardous waste facility.
Drainage Design Standards
accordance with accepted engineering practices. Permanent stormwater drains over
high risk areas (defined as those areas where a failure of a drainage channel could lead
to severe scouring of the tailings impoundment) will be designed to withstand a 1 in 500
year storm return period. All other permanent drains will be designed to withstand a 1 in
100 year storm return period. Drainage designs will take future climate change into
account.
Heritage Items
37. That any items of heritage significance uncover during the works associated with this
resource consent be recovered and stored.
38. In the event that any archaeological sites, remains, artefacts, taonga are unearthed,
dislodged, uncovered or otherwise found or discovered during the earthworks, the
Consent Holder shall:
a) advise iwi representatives and the Matamata-Piako-District Council within one

working day of the discovery;
b) Cease works in any part of the site affected by the discovery;
c) Contact the NZ Police, Coroner and Historic Places Trust as appropriate; and
d) Works shall not recommence in the parts of the project site affected by the
discovery until all necessary statutory authorisations or consents have been
obtained and iwi representative protocols for undertaking works have been
observed.
Remediation Site Management Plan
39. The consent holder shall prepare a Remediation Site Management Plan. This management
plan shall provide:
(a) The remedial objectives of the works;

(b) A description of the remedial works;
(c) Proposed testing to validate that the remedial objectives are being met;
(d) Contingency measures and plans to respond to site incidents and manage
any hazardous materials;
(e) A description of any monitoring required for compliance with resource consent
conditions;
(f) An overview of the operational site management procedures with specific
plans appended to the document to include:
ii) Communications plan

iii) Traffic management plan
iv) Noise management plan
v) Erosion and sediment control plan
vi) Air discharge management plan
Advice Note: The various plans to be appended to the Remediation Site Management Plan are
to be prepared and approved (as required) in accordance with the relevant conditions of consent
pertaining to this and other consents for the works.
Page 8
40. The consent holder shall provide a copy of the Remediation Site Management Plan to
the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager prior to the
commencement of the remedial works.
41. The consent holder shall implement the Remediation Site Management Plan for the
duration of the site works authorised by this consent.
Complaints Register
42. That if any complaints are received by the Consent Holder regarding the activities
authorised by this consent, the Consent Holder shall notify the Matamata-Piako District
Council’s Environmental Services Manager of those complaints as soon as practicable
and no longer than five working days following. When/if complaints are received, the
Consent Holder shall record the following details in a Complaints Log:
a) The date, time and duration of the event that resulted in a complaint;
b) Name, address and contact phone number of the complainant (if provided);
c) The likely cause of the complaint;
d) The weather conditions at the time of the complaint; and
e) The response made by the consent holder including any corrective action undertaken
by the consent holder in response to the complaint.
Review
43. That within 12 months of the Crown settling any claim made under the provisions of the
Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Matamata-Piako District Council may, following service
of notice on the Consent Holder, commence a review of the conditions of this consent
pursuant to section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the purpose of
ensuring that this consent is in alignment with the provisions of any such settled claim.
44. That within the six month period following the fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth
and thirtieth anniversary of the commencement of this consent the Matamata-Piako
District Council’s Environmental Services Manager may, following service of notice on the
Consent Holder, commence a review of the conditions of this resource consent under
section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following purposes:
 To review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding or
mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this resource
consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further
or amended resource consent conditions.
Advice Note: Costs associated with any review of the conditions of this resource consent will be
recovered from the consent holder in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the
Resource Management Act 1991.
Public Meetings
within the local newspaper. The purpose of each meeting shall be to provide an update
to the general public on the remediation works and any monitoring results undertaken to
approval of the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager
Page 9
Site Validation Reporting
works, the consent holder shall provide to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s
Environmental Services Manager a copy of the site validation report and the ongoing
monitoring and management plan prepared in accordance with accepted best practice for
reporting on contaminated sites. As a minimum the report shall demonstrate how the
existing geotechnical and geochemical risks at the site have been addressed.
Page 10
APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN (EMP)
42092212/R058/D

ǣ

ǣ
tĂŝŬĂƚŽZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŽƵŶĐŝů͗ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞhƐĞ'ƌŽƵƉ
ǣ
dŽŶŬŝŶΘdĂǇůŽƌ>ƚĚ
ǣ
tĂŝŬĂƚŽZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŽƵŶĐŝů͗ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞhƐĞ'ƌŽƵƉ ϮĐŽƉŝĞƐ
dŽŶŬŝŶΘdĂǇůŽƌ>ƚĚ;&/>Ϳ ϭĐŽƉǇ
ʹͲͳͳ
dΘdZĞĨ͗ϴϱϭϬϴϳ͘ϭϬϮ

ϭ /ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ ϭ
ϭ͘ϭ ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ ϭ
ϭ͘ϭ͘ϭ ^ŝƚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ϭ
ϭ͘ϭ͘Ϯ ^ŝƚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌǇĂŶĚƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƵŵŵĂƌǇ Ϯ
ϭ͘Ϯ DWŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐĂŶĚƐĐŽƉĞ ϯ
ϭ͘ϯ ZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ ϯ
Ϯ >ŝĂŝƐŽŶǁŝƚŚEŐĂƚŝZĂŚŝƌŝdƵŵƵƚƵŵƵ ϰ
ϯ ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰ
ϰ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ϱ
ϰ͘ϭ DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐ ϱ
ϰ͘Ϯ ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐƚŝŵŝŶŐĂŶĚĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ ϲ
ϰ͘ϯ ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐŵĞƚŚŽĚƐ ϲ
ϰ͘ϯ͘ϭ ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽƌĚĞƌ ϲ
ϰ͘ϯ͘Ϯ ^ĂŵƉůĞĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ϳ
ϰ͘ϯ͘ϯ DĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƵƐŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚŵĞƚĞƌƐ ϳ
ϰ͘ϰ YƵĂůŝƚǇĂƐƐƵƌĂŶĐĞͬƋƵĂůŝƚǇĐŽŶƚƌŽů ϳ
ϰ͘ϰ͘ϭ &ŝĞůĚY ϳ
ϰ͘ϰ͘Ϯ >ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇYͬY ϴ
ϰ͘ϱ ĂƚĂĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ ϴ
ϱ ^ƚƌĞĂŵĂŶĚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĨůŽǁ ϴ
ϲ ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ϵ
ϲ͘ϭ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐŝƚĞƐ͕ĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇĂŶĚƚŝŵŝŶŐ ϵ
ϲ͘Ϯ DĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ϵ
ϲ͘ϯ WĞƌŝƉŚǇƚŽŶĂŶĚŵĂĐƌŽƉŚǇƚĞƐ ϭϬ
ϳ ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁ ϭϬ
ϴ ƉƉůŝĐĂďŝůŝƚǇ ϭϮ
ϵ ZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐ ϭϯ

ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗ ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮ
ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗ dƵŝDŝŶĞ/ǁŝĚǀŝƐŽƌǇ'ƌŽƵƉDĞĞƚŝŶŐDŝŶƵƚĞƐ;ϭϵƉƌŝůϮϬϭϭͿ
ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗ DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞƚŽϮϬϮϬ

7XL0LQH5HPHGLDO:RUNV(QYLURQPHQWDO0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ -REQR
:DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLO5HVRXUFH8VH*URXS -XQH

ͳ
dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐĞƚƐŽƵƚĂŶŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐWůĂŶ;DWͿĨŽƌdƵŝDŝŶĞZĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶtŽƌŬƐ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞDWŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŽĨǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂŶĚŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚŝŶŐĞŶĞƌĂůĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨtĂŝŬĂƚŽZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŽƵŶĐŝů;tZͿ
ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮ;ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘ŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƐĞƐƚŚĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞŽĨ
ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐƚŽůĂŶĚĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌŝŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞ͕dĞƌŽŚĂ
ƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞZĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶtŽƌŬƐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞŽŶƐĞŶƚƐǁĞƌĞŝƐƐƵĞĚŝŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϬ͕ƚŚĞ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞWŚĂƐĞϭŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞŵĂŝŶĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ǁŽƌŬƐĂƌĞĚƵĞĨŽƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŝŶDĂǇϮϬϭϭ͕ǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞůŬĂůŝŶŝƚǇŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞ
ĞŶĚŽĨƵŐƵƐƚϮϬϭϭ͘WŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐĂŝŵƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŵŝŶĞ
ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵ͘
WŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚďĞĞŶƐƚĂƌƚĞĚĂƐŝŶŝƚŝĂůůǇƉůĂŶŶĞĚ͕ĂŶĚĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ
ďĞŝŶŐĂůůŽĐĂƚĞĚďǇ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͘WŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐĂŝŵƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞdĂŝůŝŶŐƐŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚĂƌĞĂĂŶĚ
ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐ͘/ƚŝƐĞŶǀŝƐĂŐĞĚƚŚĂƚŝĨ
ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐǁĂƐĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚďǇ:ƵŶĞϮϬϭϭ͕ƚŚĞŶƚŚĞǁŽƌŬǁŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďǇ:ƵŶĞϮϬϭϯ͘
ƵĞƚŽƚŚĞǁĂǇƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞϮǇĞĂƌƚŝŵĞůĂŐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƉŚĂƐĞƐϭĂŶĚϮ͕ƚŚĞ
ůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĐŚĂŶŐĞŝŶǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚďŝŽůŽŐǇĂƌĞŶŽƚĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƐĞĚŽƌŵĞĂƐƵƌĂďůĞ
ƵŶƚŝůĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐ͕ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůǇŝŶƚŚĞdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵ͘dŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚ
ĨŽƌĂĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶϭϬŽĨZϭϮϭϬϰϮƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨƚŚĞĂŶŶƵĂůďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶϭϬǁĂƐŐƌĂŶƚĞĚŽŶϮϲƉƌŝůϮϬϭϭ͘dŚĞĂŵĞŶĚĞĚ
ĐŽŶƐĞŶƚŝƐĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚŽƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶ;ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘
dŚŝƐDWŝƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶϭϵŽĨŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮ͘
dŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŚĂƐƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞďĞĞŶƚĂŝůŽƌĞĚƚŽƐƵŝƚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƉŚĂƐĞƐĂŶĚƚŝŵĞĨƌĂŵĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŽďĞƐƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞDW
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŝŶŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐϭϵƚŽϮϱŽĨZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮ͘
ͳǤͳ
dŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂŶŽǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂŶĚƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ĞƚĂŝůĞĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌǇ͕ŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŝŶƚŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞʹWŚĂƐĞϭΘWŚĂƐĞϮZĞŵĞĚŝĂůtŽƌŬƐ
ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĨĨĞĐƚƐ;KD͕ϮϬϭϬͿ͘
ͳǤͳǤͳ
dŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚĞƌŶĨůĂŶŬŽĨDƚdĞƌŽŚĂǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚƉĞĂŬŽĨ
ƚŚĞ<ĂŝŵĂŝZĂŶŐĞ;ϵϱϮŵĂƐůͿ͘dŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞŝƐƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϭ͘dŚĞdĞƌŽŚĂ
dŽǁŶƐŚŝƉƐŝƚƐĂƚƚŚĞďĂƐĞŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮŬŵƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚŽĨƚŚĞŵŝŶĞ
ĂƌĞĂ͘
dŚĞĂďĂŶĚŽŶĞĚŵŝŶĞĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞƐƚŚƌĞĞŵĂŝŶĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚŽĨƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŵŝŶŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϮĂŶĚĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗
≠ dŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐĐŽŵƉƌŝƐŝŶŐƚǁŽŵĂŝŶŶĞƚǁŽƌŬƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƚǁŽŵŝŶĞƌĂů
ƌŝĐŚǀĞŝŶƐʹƚŚĞZƵĂŬĂŬĂsĞŝŶĂŶĚƚŚĞŚĂŵƉŝŽŶsĞŝŶ͘dŚĞƚǁŽŶĞƚǁŽƌŬƐĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĨŝǀĞ
ůĞǀĞůƐŽĨƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞĂůůůŽĐĂƚĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶϱϬϬŵĂŶĚϳϬϬŵĂƐů͘dŚĞ
ƚǁŽŶĞƚǁŽƌŬƐĂƌĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚďǇĂŶŽƉĞŶƉĂƐƐĂŐĞ;ĐƌŽƐƐĐƵƚͿĂŶĚĐĂŶďĞĂĐĐĞƐƐĞĚǀŝĂĂĚŝƚƐ
ĂƚŚĂŵƉŝŽŶůĞǀĞůƐϰĂŶĚϱ͘
≠ tĂƐƚĞƌŽĐŬƐƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞďĂƐĞŽĨďŽƚŚƚŚĞŚĂŵƉŝŽŶ>ĞǀĞůϰĂŶĚϱĂĚŝƚ
ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͘
7XL0LQH5HPHGLDO:RUNV(QYLURQPHQWDO0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ 7 75HI

≠ dŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐƉůĂŶƚĂŶĚƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚĂƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞ
ĂĐĐĞƐƐƌŽĂĚĂƚĂƌŽƵŶĚϯϱϬŵĂƐů͘dŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂĨŽƌŵĞƌ
ƚƌŝďƵƚĂƌǇŽĨƚŚĞdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵ͘dĂŝůŝŶŐƐĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĨŝŶĞůǇŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƐƚĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵ
ĞǆƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶŽĨŵŝŶĞƌĂůƐĨƌŽŵŵŝŶĞĚŽƌĞ͘
dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚǁŽƐƚƌĞĂŵƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞǀŝĐŝŶŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞŵŝŶĞ͕ƚŚĞdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵĂŶĚƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵ
ǁŚŝĐŚĨůŽǁƉĂƐƚƚŚĞŵŝŶĞ͕ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞƚŽǁŶƐŚŝƉŽĨdĞƌŽŚĂĂŶĚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƚŽƚŚĞtĂŝŚŽƵZŝǀĞƌ͘
dŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƐƚƌĞĂŵƐĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϮ͘dŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶďƌĂŶĐŚŽĨƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ
ƐƚƌĞĂŵƚŚĂƚŝƐƵŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞŵŝŶĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚdĞƌŽŚĂŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůǇ͘
ͳǤͳǤʹ
dŚĞŵĂŝŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŝŵƐƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĂƌĞŚĞĂǀǇŵĞƚĂů
ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨǁĂƚĞƌĐŽƵƌƐĞƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŝĚƌŽĐŬĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ;ZͿĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŚƌĞĂƚŽĨƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐ
ŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚĨĂŝůƵƌĞ͘^ŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨZĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐ͕ǁĂƐƚĞ
ƌŽĐŬƐƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞƐ͕ŽƌĞĂŶĚĐƌƵƐŚĞĚƌŽĐŬĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĂŶĚƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐ
ŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚ͘
ŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚĞƌŶďƌĂŶĐŚŽĨƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵĂƌŝƐĞĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ĂĚŝƚƐ͕ǀŝĂŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞǁĂƐƚĞƌŽĐŬƐƚĂĐŬĂƚŚĂŵƉŝŽŶ>ĞǀĞůϰ͘ŶƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉŝƉĞ
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵŝƐĂůƐŽƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƚŽĚĞůŝǀĞƌĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂĐĂƚĐŚŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞ
ŵĂŝŶĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐŽƵƌĐĞƚŽƚŚĞdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵŽĐĐƵƌƐǀŝĂƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚ͘
ƐƵŝƚĞŽĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŶƐĞŶƚƐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƐŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬƐǁĞƌĞŝƐƐƵĞĚďǇtZ
;ŽŶƐĞŶƚƐϭϮϭϬϳϭ͕ϭϮϭϬϯϵ͕ϭϮϭϬϰϬ͕ϭϮϭϬϰϭĂŶĚϭϮϭϬϰϮͿĂŶĚDĂƚĂŵĂƚĂͲWŝĂŬŽŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŽƵŶĐŝů
;ŽŶƐĞŶƚϮϬϭϬ͘ϭϬϬϵϰͿŝŶůĂƚĞϮϬϭϬ͘/ŶƐƵŵŵĂƌǇƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬƐďƌŽĂĚůǇĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞ͗
ŝ͘ dŚĞƉĂƌƚŝĂůĨůŽŽĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉĂƐƐŝǀĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ;ĂůŬĂůŝŶŝƚǇŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶͿŽĨƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚ
ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐ͘
ŝŝ͘ ZĞͲĐŽŶƚŽƵƌŝŶŐĂŶĚĐĂƉƉŝŶŐŽĨƌŽĐŬĚĞƉŽƐŝƚƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŶĞĂƌŚĂŵƉŝŽŶ>ĞǀĞůϰĂŶĚϱĂĚŝƚƐ͘
ŝŝŝ͘ dŚĞƌĞͲĐŽŶƚŽƵƌŝŶŐ͕ƐƚĂďŝůŝƐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐĂƉƉŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚ͘
/ƚĞŵƐŝĂŶĚŝŝĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƵŶĚĞƌǁĂǇĂƐWŚĂƐĞϭŽĨƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐ͘/ƚĞŵŝŝŝĨŽƌŵƐWŚĂƐĞϮŽĨƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐ
ĂŶĚŝƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚƚŽŽĐĐƵƌŽǀĞƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϭͬϮϬϭϮĂŶĚϮϬϭϮͬϮϬϭϯĞĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬƐƐĞĂƐŽŶƐ͘ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů
ĂůŬĂůŝŶŝƚǇŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶŵĂǇĂůƐŽŽĐĐƵƌĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐŝĨŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĚĂƚĂƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƐƚŚŝƐŝƐ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘
ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŽĨďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁĂƐĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞĚďǇtZŝŶϮϬϬϵƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶ
ǁŽƌŬĐŽŵŵĞŶĐŝŶŐ͘dŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨƚŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁĂƐŝŶƉĂƌƚƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚƌŽďƵƐƚďĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁĂƚĞƌ
ƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐĨƌŽŵǁŚŝĐŚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƐ
ĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽƵůĚďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚ͘
dŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŽƌŬŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ͕ĨůŽǁŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ͕ďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů
ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĂŶĚĚĂƚĂƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚǁĂƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶďǇWĂƚƚůĞĞůĂŵŽƌĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ>ƚĚ͘dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚŚĞ
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂƌĞƐƵŵŵĂƌŝƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞWWƌĞƉŽƌƚĞŶƚŝƚůĞĚdƵŝZĞŵĞĚŝĂůtŽƌŬƐ͗ĂƐĞůŝŶĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ
;WW͕ϮϬϭϬͿ͘
ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĚĂƚĂŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŽŶtZĨŝůĞƐĨŽƌƐŝƚĞƐŽŶƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŝŽĂ
ƐƚƌĞĂŵƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚŽǀĞƌĞĐĞŵďĞƌƚŽ&ĞďƌƵĂƌǇϭϵϵϲƚŽϮϬϬϯ͘ŶŶƵĂůƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĚĂƚĂ;ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
:ĂŶƵĂƌǇĂŶĚDĂƌĐŚͿĨŽƌƚŚĞWŽŚŽŵŝŚŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵŝƐĂůƐŽĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƐŝŶĐĞϮϬϬϰ͘dŚŝƐĚĂƚĂǁŝůůďĞĂĚĚĞĚ
ƚŽƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞĚĂƚĂƐĞƚƚŽĂƐƐŝƐƚǁŝƚŚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨƚĞŵƉŽƌĂůǀĂƌŝĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶ͘

ͳǤʹ
dŚĞŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐŽĨƚŚĞDWĂƌĞƐĞƚŽƵƚŝŶŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶϮϬŽĨŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗
ŝ͘ dŽĂƐƐĞƐƐǁŚĞƚŚĞƌƚŚĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ
^ƚƌĞĂŵƐĂƌĞŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐŽǀĞƌƚŝŵĞ͘
ŝŝ͘ dŽŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƚŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐŝŶƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐZĂŶĚĂƐĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƚŚĞ
ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƚƌĂĐĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĐĂůĐŝƵŵ͕ŝƌŽŶ͕ŵĂŶŐĂŶĞƐĞ͕ǌŝŶĐ͕ĂƌƐĞŶŝĐ͕ĐĂĚŵŝƵŵ͕
ůĞĂĚ͕ĐŽƉƉĞƌ͕ĂŶĚŵĞƌĐƵƌǇ͘
ŝŝŝ͘ dŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐϰ͕ϲ͕ϳ͕ϴĂŶĚϵŽĨƚŚĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƚŝƚůĞĚ͞WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚdƵŝ
DŝŶĞZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDŽƵŶƚdĞƌŽŚĂ͗ƵůƚƵƌĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚZĞƉŽƌƚ͕͟ĚĂƚĞĚDĂƌĐŚϮϬϭϬ
ĂŶĚƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚĂƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚϭϳϮϬϴϬϰŽŶƚŚĞtĂŝŬĂƚŽZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŽƵŶĐŝůĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘
dŚĞƐĐŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞDWŝƐĂŝŵĞĚĂƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐĂŶĚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŝŶ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂůĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐϭϵƚŽϮϱ;DWĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐͿĂŶĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶϭϬ;ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĂŶĚ
tĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐWůĂŶĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶͿŽĨtZŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮ;ƌĞĨĞƌƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘dŚĞ
ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶƚĂŝůŽƌĞĚƚŽƐƵŝƚƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚǁŽƌŬƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ
ƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞ͗
≠ dŚĞďƵůŬŽĨƚŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŽƌŬǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞĚƚŽĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞŽŶĐĞĂůůƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶ
ǁŽƌŬƐ;WŚĂƐĞϭĂŶĚWŚĂƐĞϮͿĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͕ĂŶĚĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŝŵĞ;ƐĂǇϲŵŽŶƚŚƐͿĨŽƌ
ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƐĞƚƚůĞ͘
≠ ^ƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚďĂƐĞůŝŶĞĚĂƚĂŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐĞƉƌĞͲƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚ
ďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂƐƚƌĞĂŵƐ͘EŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŝŶdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝƐĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƵŶƚŝůWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞŶŽŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŝůů
ŽĐĐƵƌŽŶdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵƵŶƚŝůĂĨƚĞƌWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ;ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞŝŶϮϬϭϯͿ͘
≠ /ƚŝƐĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞƚŽĂƐƐĞƐƐƚŚĞŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŽĨWŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐŽŶƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵĂŶĚ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĚĂƚĂƚŽŝŶĨŽƌŵĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐŽŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĂůŬĂůŝŶŝƚǇŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶĨŽƌWŚĂƐĞϮ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ
ǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚĨůŽǁŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĂƚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵĂŶĚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ
ƐŝƚĞƐŽŶůǇĚƵƌŝŶŐϮϬϭϭĂŶĚϮϬϭϮ͘EŽƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƚŽƚŚĞ
dƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚƵŶƚŝůWŚĂƐĞϮ͘
≠ ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽƚĂŬĞůŽŶŐĞƌƚŽƌĞͲĐŽůŽŶŝƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚƐƚƌĞĂŵ
ƌĞĂĐŚĞƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŝŵĞĨƌĂŵĞƐĨŽƌǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘&ŽƌƚŚŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶŶŽ
ďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŶƚŝůWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ;ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞ
ϮϬϭϯͿ͕ĂŐĂŝŶƚŚƌĞĞǇĞĂƌƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĂƚϱǇĞĂƌŝŶƚĞƌǀĂůƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĨƚĞƌ͘
^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĂŶĚƚŝŵŝŶŐǁŝůůĐůŽƐĞůǇĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĂƚƵƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
;WW͕ϮϬϭϬͿƐŽƚŚĂƚĂůůĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĂƌĞĐŽŵƉĂƌĂďůĞĂŶĚĂŶǇŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚ
ĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐĂŶďĞĐůĞĂƌůǇŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͘
ͳǤ͵
<ĞǇĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚŝŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐƚŚŝƐDWŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
≠ tZŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮ;ƌĞĨĞƌƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘
≠ dƵŝZĞŵĞĚŝĂůtŽƌŬƐ͗ĂƐĞůŝŶĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ;WĂƚƚůĞĞůĂŵŽƌĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ>ƚĚ͕ϮϬϭϬͿ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ
ǁĂƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĨŽƌtĂŝŬĂƚŽZĞŐŝŽŶĂůŽƵŶĐŝůĂŶĚĂƐƐĞƐƐĞƐďĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŝŶƚŚĞ
ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂŶĚŝŶƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐĂŶĚďĂƐĞůŝŶĞ
ĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐ͘
≠ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚdƵŝDŝŶĞZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDŽƵŶƚdĞƌŽŚĂ͗ƵůƚƵƌĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚZĞƉŽƌƚ͘
WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďǇEŐĂƚŝZĂŚŝƌŝdƵŵƵƚƵŵƵ;<ĂŝƚŝĂŬŝŽĨDƚdĞƌŽŚĂͿ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐĞƚƐŽƵƚǀĂůƵĞƐŽĨ
ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨ
ƚŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞZĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘

ʹ
ŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚEŐĂƚŝZĂŚŝƌŝdƵŵƵƚƵŵƵŽŶƚŚĞƌĂĨƚDWŚĂƐďĞĞŶƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶ͘dŚĞƌĂĨƚDW
ǁĂƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚŝŶƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞďǇƚŚĞdƵŝDŝŶĞ/ǁŝĚǀŝƐŽƌǇ'ƌŽƵƉĂƚƚŚĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽĨϭϵƉƌŝůϮϬϭϭ;ƐĞĞ
ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŵŝŶƵƚĞƐŝŶƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘
EŐĂƚŝZĂŚŝƌŝdƵŵƵƚƵŵƵƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚŝƐDWĂŶĚŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚ
ǁŚĞŶŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝƐƚŽŽĐĐƵƌ͘/ŶƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌ͗
≠ <ĂƌĂŬŝĂŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌĂůůŶĞǁƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘
≠ EĞǁǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐͬǁŽƌŬĞƌƐƚŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂƌĞƚŽďĞďůĞƐƐĞĚǁŝƚŚŬĂƌĂŬŝĂƉƌŝŽƌƚŽǁŽƌŬĐŽŵŵĞŶĐŝŶŐ͘
͵
^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůůǇĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞ
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝƚŚƐŽŵĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘^ŝƚĞƐƚŽďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ
ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞĨŽƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌĞĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϭĂŶĚƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϮ͘EŽƚĞ
ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞĨŽƌƐŝƚĞƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŝƐƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĚĂƚĂ;ďĂƐĞůŝŶĞ
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐͿĂŶĚĞĂƐĞŽĨĂĐĐĞƐƐ͘
ͳǣǡ
^ŝƚĞ DŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚĨŽƌ ^ŝƚĞĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ZĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞĨŽƌƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ

^tϯ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ĚŝƚϰŽƵƚůĞƚ;ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƚŽdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ tŝůůďĞĐŽŵĞƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌǇĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƉŽŝŶƚ
&ůŽǁ ^ƚƌĞĂŵ͕ŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚͿ͘ ĨŽƌƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ
WŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐ͘
^tϱΎ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ĚŝƚϱŽƵƚůĞƚ;ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƚŽdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ KŶůǇůŝŬĞůǇƚŽďĞĂƌĞƐŝĚƵĂůĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ
&ůŽǁ ^ƚƌĞĂŵŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚͿ͘ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐWŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐ͘
^tϳ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ dƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚ͕ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵ ŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨĂůůĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐĨƌŽŵ

&ůŽǁ ŽĨƐŽƵƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚĐŽŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞĂŶĚ ƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐ͕ǁĂƐƚĞƐƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞƐ
ĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵ͘ ĂŶĚƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐůĞĂĐŚĂƚĞ͘/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ŝŽůŽŐǇ
ĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐWŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐ͘
^tϴ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ dƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐŽƵƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚ͕ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵ dƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚ
&ůŽǁ ŽĨŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚĐŽŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨ ďŝŽůŽŐǇĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐŝƚĞ͘
ƚŚĞƚŽǁŶǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůǇŝŶůĞƚ͘
ŝŽůŽŐǇ
^tϭϭ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ dĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵƚƌŝďƵƚĂƌǇ͕ĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞ dĂŝůŝŶŐƐĂŵĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ͘/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
&ůŽǁ ƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵ͘ ĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐ͘
^tϭϮ ŝŽůŽŐǇ dƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵ dƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵďŝŽůŽŐǇĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐŝƚĞ͘

ŝŶĨůŽǁ͘
^tϭϯ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ dƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵ ŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵ
&ůŽǁ ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ͕ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞĨŽƌĚĂŶĚ ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ͘/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚ
ĐƵůǀĞƌƚƐ͘ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐ͘
ŝŽůŽŐǇ
^tϭϱ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ dĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵƚƌŝďƵƚĂƌǇ͕ĚŝǀĞƌƚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂ tŝůůƌĞŵĂŝŶĂƐŽƵƌĐĞŽĨĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐƚŽ
&ůŽǁ ĐƵůǀĞƌƚďĞůŽǁdƵŝZŽĂĚƚŽƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ ƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚ
^ƚƌĞĂŵŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚ͘ ƵŶƚŝůWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ͘
^tϭϬϬ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ dƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚ͕ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵ /ŵƉĂĐƚĞĚďǇƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐ
&ůŽǁ ŽĨƚŚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƌŽĂĚĂŶĚĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨ^tϯ ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͘/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚ
ĂŶĚƚŚĞǁĂƐƚĞƌŽĐŬƐŝƚĞĂƚĚŝƚϱ͘ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐWŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐ͘

^ŝƚĞ DŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚĨŽƌ ^ŝƚĞĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ZĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞĨŽƌƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ

^tϭϬϭ tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ZƵĂŬĂŬĂĚŝƚƐdƌŝďƵƚĂƌǇ͕ĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞ ZĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐĨƌŽŵZƵĂŬĂŬĂĚŝƚƐ͘
&ůŽǁ ZƵĂŬĂŬĂĚŝƚƐĂŶĚƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐ
ƌŽĂĚĐƵůǀĞƌƚƐ;ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ
^ƚƌĞĂŵŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚͿ
tZ ŝŽůŽŐǇ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƚĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ ŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨĂůůĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͘^ĞůĞĐƚĞĚ
ϭϬϳϲͺϱ dƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵŽĨĨ,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ ƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĚĂƚĂǁŝƚŚǁŚŝĐŚƚŽ
ĂƐƐĞƐƐĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽŶďŝŽůŽŐǇ͘
dƵŝ ŝŽůŽŐǇ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƚĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞdƵŝ ŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨĂůůĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͘^ĞůĞĐƚĞĚ
^ƚƌĞĂŵ ^ƚƌĞĂŵ͘ǆĂĐƚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŽďĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ ƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĚĂƚĂǁŝƚŚǁŚŝĐŚƚŽ
d ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϮϬϭϯďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƵƌǀĞǇ͘ ĂƐƐĞƐƐĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽŶďŝŽůŽŐǇ͘
ΎtĞƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚWŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝŶĨůŽǁƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĚŝƚϱƐŽƵƌĐĞ͘ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ĐŽƵůĚďĞŐŝǀĞŶƚŽƌĞƉůĂĐŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞǁŝƚŚ^tϰŽŶƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵŶŽƌƚŚďƌĂŶĐŚĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨ^tϯďƵƚ
ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞǁĂƐƚĞƌŽĐŬƐŝƚĞĂƚĚŝƚϱ͘
Ͷ
dŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŝƐĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚǁŝůůĐůŽƐĞůǇ
ĨŽůůŽǁŵĞƚŚŽĚƐƵƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌĂŶĚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌ
ϮϬϬϵ͘
ͶǤͳ
WĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞǁŝůůďĞĂƐƉĞƌƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;WW͕ϮϬϭϬͿ͘WĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐƚŽďĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚĂƌĞŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϮ͘
ʹǣ
WĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐ ^ŝƚĞƐ DĞƚŚŽĚ ĞƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ

ůĞǀĞů
WŚǇƐŝĐŽĐŚĞŵŝĐĂů &ŝĞůĚ ůůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ĂůŝďƌĂƚĞĚĨŝĞůĚ Ͳ
dĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞ͕Ɖ,͕ ƐŝƚĞƐ ŵĞƚĞƌͬƐ
ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ͕KZW͕
ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚŽǆǇŐĞŶ͕ƚƵƌďŝĚŝƚǇ
>ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇ ůůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ Ͳ Ͳ
Ɖ,͕ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ͕ƚŽƚĂů ƐŝƚĞƐ
ƐƵƐƉĞŶĚĞĚƐŽůŝĚƐ
ϯ
ǇĂŶŝĚĞ ^tϭϭ͕^tϭϯĂŶĚ dŽƚĂůƌĞĐŽǀĞƌĂďůĞ Ϭ͘ϬϬϭŐͬŵ
^tϭϱ
dŽƚĂůĂŶĚĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ ů͕^ď͕Ɛ͕Ă͕Ğ͕͕Ě͕ ůůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ &ŝĞůĚĨŝůƚĞƌĨŽƌ dƌĂĐĞ
ƚƌĂĐĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ă͕ƌ͕Ƶ͕&Ğ͕Wď͕>Ă͕DŐ͕ ƐŝƚĞƐ ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚŵĞƚĂůƐ
DŶ͕,Ő͕DŽ͕Eŝ͕<͕^Ğ͕Ő͕
EĂ͕^Ŷ͕h͕Ŷ
dŽƚĂůƌĞĐŽǀĞƌĂďůĞ
ŵĞƚĂůƐ
ŶŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ Ă͕DŐ͕ƚŽƚĂůŚĂƌĚŶĞƐƐ͕EĂ͕ ^tϯ͕^tϱ͕^tϭϬϬ͕ &ŝĞůĚĨŝůƚĞƌĞĚ Ͳ
<͕ůŬĂůŝŶŝƚǇĂŶĚ ^tϭϬϭ
ďŝĐĂƌďŽŶĂƚĞ͕ĐĂƌďŽŶĂƚĞ
ĂŶĚĨƌĞĞKϮ͕EKϯ͕EKϮ
^Kϰ͕ů͕ƚŽƚĂůĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ
ƐŝůŝĐĂ͘

dŚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŝƐĂƐ
ĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗
≠ ůůŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚǁĞƌĞƚĞƐƚĞĚĨŽƌŝŶƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞƚŚĂƚ
ǁĂƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶŝŶƉĂƌƚƚŽĞŶĂďůĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƚŽďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ
ƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬƐ͘
≠ dƌĂĐĞůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĐǇĂŶŝĚĞ;ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚůŽǁͿǁĞƌĞĚĞƚĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƐĂŵƉůĞƐĨƌŽŵ^tϭϭ;ƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐ
ŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚƚƌŝďƵƚĂƌǇͿ͘ǇĂŶŝĚĞŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƐŽƚŚĂƚĂŶǇĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĐĂŶďĞ
ĚĞƚĞĐƚĞĚ͘
≠ dŚĞƐĂŵĞŵĞƚĂůƐƐƵŝƚĞŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂƐǁĂƐƵƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞ
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚƐŽŵĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐǁĞƌĞďĞůŽǁĚĞƚĞĐƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞůƐĂƚĂůůƐŝƚĞƐ͘dŚŝƐŝƐĚƵĞ
ƚŽƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵǇŽĨƚĞƐƚŝŶŐĨŽƌĂƐĞƚŵĞƚĂůƐƐƵŝƚĞƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
≠ ŶŝŽŶĂŶĚĐĂƚŝŽŶďĂůĂŶĐĞƐĂƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĂƐĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĂƌĞĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶ
ǁŽƌŬƐ͘ĂƚĂƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŚĞĐŬĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĂůůƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŝŽŶŝĐĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐĂƌĞďĞŝŶŐ
ĂŶĂůǇƐĞĚ͘
ͶǤʹ
tĂƚĞƌƐĂŵƉůĞƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĨƌŽŵĞĂĐŚƐŝƚĞŽŶƚŚƌĞĞŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƐĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌƚŚĂƚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝƐ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘dŚƌĞĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌƚŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨĨůŽǁ
ǀĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚǇŽŶĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚůŽĂĚƐ͘^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐƌŽƵŶĚƐƐŚŽƵůĚŽĐĐƵƌďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞ
ŵŽŶƚŚƐŽĨ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌĂŶĚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ͘^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐĞǀĞŶƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĞǀĞŶůǇƐƉĂĐĞĚŝŶƚĞƌŵƐ
ŽĨƚŝŵŝŶŐǁŚĞƌĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞďƵƚƐŚŽƵůĚĂŝŵƚŽĐĂƉƚƵƌĞĂƌĂŶŐĞŽĨĨůŽǁĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ;ůŽǁĨůŽǁĂŶĚ
ĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚĨůŽǁͿ͘
ƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚǁŽƌŬƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĂƐ
ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͘tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ;ĂŶĚĨůŽǁͿŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗
≠ ϮϬϭϭĂŶĚϮϬϭϮʹƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞƐŝǆdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ŝƚĞƐŽŶůǇ;ƚŚƌĞĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƐ
ĂŶŶƵĂůůǇͿƚŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŽĨWŚĂƐĞϭǁŽƌŬƐĂŶĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐŽŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĂůŬĂůŝŶŝƚǇ
ŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘
≠ WŽƐƚWŚĂƐĞϮʹƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĂƚĂůůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐĨŽƌƚŚƌĞĞǇĞĂƌƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨWŚĂƐĞϮǁŽƌŬƐ;dƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐŝƚĞƐ͕ƚŚƌĞĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƐ
ĂŶŶƵĂůůǇͿ͘ŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽŽĐĐƵƌĨƌŽŵϮϬϭϯƚŽϮϬϭϱ͘
≠ KŶŐŽŝŶŐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐʹƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĂƚĂůůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐŽŶĂĨŝǀĞǇĞĂƌůǇďĂƐŝƐ
;ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞŝŶϮϬϮϬ͕ƚŚƌĞĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƐĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌƚŚĂƚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝƐ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚͿ
ͶǤ͵
ͶǤ͵Ǥͳ
^ĂŵƉůĞƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶĂƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐŽƌĚĞƌŽŶĞĂĐŚƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŵŝŶŝŵŝƐĞ
ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĨŽƌĐƌŽƐƐĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐƐŚŽƵůĚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵƐŝƚĞƐǁŝƚŚ
ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůǇůŽǁĞƌůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůǇŵŽƌĞĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚĞĚƐŝƚĞƐ͘^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐĨƌŽŵ
ĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵƚŽƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵĂůƐŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐǁŽƌŬĚŽĞƐ
ŶŽƚĂĨĨĞĐƚĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŝƚĞƐ͘
dŚĞĞǆĂĐƚŽƌĚĞƌĨŽƌƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐǁŝůůĚĞƉĞŶĚŽŶƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬƐƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐďƵƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚŽŶĞĂĐŚƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶ͘
tĂƚĞƌƐĂŵƉůĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĂƚĞĂĐŚƐŝƚĞďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶǇĨŝĞůĚŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĨůŽǁ
ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ;ƐĞĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϱͿŽƌďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ;^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϲͿƚŽĂǀŽŝĚĂŶǇƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ
ĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞĂĨĨĞĐƚŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌƐĂŵƉůĞƐ͘

ͶǤ͵Ǥʹ
tĂƚĞƌƐĂŵƉůĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŵŝĚͲƐƚƌĞĂŵŝŶƚŚĞŵĂŝŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĨůŽǁĨƌŽŵŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ
ďĞůŽǁƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ͘/ĨĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚŝƌŽŶĨůŽĐŽƌƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĞŶƚĞƌƐƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůĞƚŚĞŶƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůĞ
ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĚŝƐĐĂƌĚĞĚĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂŶĚĂŶĞǁƐĂŵƉůĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶĂŶĞǁƐĂŵƉůĞ
ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌ͘
^ĂŵƉůĞƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞĚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇŝŶƚŽůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƐƵƉƉůŝĞĚ;ĐůĞĂŶͿƐĂŵƉůĞ
ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐ͘/ŶƚŚŝƐƌĞŐĂƌĚĨŝĞůĚĨŝůƚĞƌƐ;Ϭ͘ϰϱђŵͿƐŚĂůůďĞƵƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚŵĞƚĂůƐ͕
ĂŶĚƚŽƚĂůŵĞƚĂůƐƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇŝŶƚŽƐĂŵƉůĞĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚŶŝƚƌŝĐĂĐŝĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝǀĞ͘
^ĂŵƉůĞĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞůĂďĞůůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŶĂŵĞ͕ĚĂƚĞĂŶĚƚŝŵĞŽĨƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ͘^ĂŵƉůĞ
ĚĞƚĂŝůƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚŽŶĐŚĂŝŶŽĨĐƵƐƚŽĚǇĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĂĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůĞƐ͘
ůůƐĂŵƉůĞƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞĂŶĂůǇƐĞĚďǇĂŶĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚŚŽůĚŝŶŐ
ƚŝŵĞƐƐĞƚŽƵƚďǇƚŚĂƚůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇ͘
ͶǤ͵Ǥ͵
ůůĨŝĞůĚŵĞƚĞƌƐƵƐĞĚƚŽĐŽůůĞĐƚĨŝĞůĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĚĂƚĂĂƌĞƚŽďĞĐĂůŝďƌĂƚĞĚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ
ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĞĂĐŚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞͲĐŚĞĐŬĞĚǁŚŝůĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŝƐŝŶƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŽƌĂƚ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘DĞƚĞƌƐĞŶƐŽƌƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞƌŝŶƐĞĚǁŝƚŚĚĞͲŝŽŶŝƐĞĚǁĂƚĞƌ
ďĞƚǁĞĞŶĞĂĐŚƐŝƚĞ͘
ͶǤͶ Ȁ
dŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞŝƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂƐƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ;YͿͬƋƵĂůŝƚǇĐŽŶƚƌŽů;YͿ
ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐŝŶŐĞŶĞƌĂůĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ>ĂŶĚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐEŽ͘ϱ͘
DŝŶŝŵƵŵYͬYƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘
ͶǤͶǤͳ
&ŝĞůĚYƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝŶƉůĂĐĞƚŽŵĂŶĂŐĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĞƌƌŽƌƐ͘&ŝĞůĚYƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚ
ƚŽŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƵŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚǇŝŶƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ͕ŚĂŶĚůŝŶŐĂŶĚůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇĞƌƌŽƌƐ͘dŚĞ
ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĨŝĞůĚYƐĂŵƉůĞƐƚŚĂƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĂƌĞ͗
≠ KŶĞ;ϭͿďůŝŶĚƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞƐĂŵƉůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚĂŶĚƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐĂŵƉůĞƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĂƚ
ĞĂĐŚƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĞǀĞŶƚ͖
≠ KŶĞ;ϭͿƐƉůŝƚƐĂŵƉůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚĂŶĚƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐĂŵƉůĞƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐŽŶĞ
ŽĨƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĞǀĞŶƚƐ;ĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌͿ͖ĂŶĚ
≠ KŶĞ;ϭͿƌŝŶƐĂƚĞďůĂŶŬĨŽƌƚŚĞĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐĂŵƉůĞƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĂƚĞĂĐŚƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ
ĞǀĞŶƚ͘
ďůŝŶĚƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞƐĂŵƉůĞ͕ĂůƐŽƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐĨŝĞůĚĚƵƉůŝĐĂƚĞŽƌƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞ͕ŝŶǀŽůǀĞƐĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŶŐƚǁŽ
ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ;ƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞͿƐĂŵƉůĞƐĨƌŽŵĂƐŝŶŐůĞƐĂŵƉůĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐƚŽƌŝŶŐŝŶƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐĂŶĚ
ƐƵďŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĨŽƌĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƚŽƚŚĞůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇĂƐƚǁŽƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞƐĂŵƉůĞƐ͘dŚĞďůŝŶĚƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞĐĂŶ
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůǀĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚǇŽƌƉƌĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŽĨďŽƚŚƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ĂŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇ͘
^ƉůŝƚƐĂŵƉůĞƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƚŽĐŚĞĐŬŽŶƚŚĞĂŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůƉƌŽĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞ
ŽǀĞƌĂůůǀĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚǇŽƌƉƌĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĂŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇ͘ƐƉůŝƚƐĂŵƉůĞŝƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďǇ
ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌǇůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƚŽƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĂƐĂŵƉůĞďǇƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚŚŽŵŽŐĞŶŝƐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƐĞŶĚŝŶŐ
ĂƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƚŽĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇĨŽƌĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͘
ƌŝŶƐĂƚĞďůĂŶŬƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŝĞůĚĨŝůƚĞƌŬŝƚ͕ĂƚĞĂĐŚƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐĞǀĞŶƚ͘ƌŝŶƐĂƚĞďůĂŶŬ
ŝƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďǇƌƵŶŶŝŶŐĚŝƐƚŝůůĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĨŝůƚĞƌĂŶĚĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŶůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ

ƐĂŵƉůĞĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐ͘dŚĞďůĂŶŬŝƐƚĞƐƚĞĚĨŽƌĂŶǇƌĞƐŝĚƵĂůĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƐƐĞƐƐĞƐƚŚĞ
ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĨŽƌĐƌŽƐƐĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐĂŵƉůĞƐ͘
ͶǤͶǤʹ Ȁ
dŚĞůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚĂŶĚŵƵƐƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚĐŚĞĐŬƐŝŶƉůĂĐĞƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞƚĞƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐŽĨĂŶĂůǇƚĞƐ͘ƐĂ
ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ͕ĞǀĞƌǇďĂƚĐŚŽĨĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
≠ ĂůŝďƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ
≠ ůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇ͚ďůĂŶŬ͛
≠ ZĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞƐ͕ĂƚĂĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇŽĨϭ͗ϭϬƐĂŵƉůĞƐ;ƚŽƐƵŝƚƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇĨŽƌdƵŝŵŝŶĞͿ
KŶůǇĚĂƚĂƚŚĂƚŚĂƐƉĂƐƐĞĚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇYƚĞƐƚƐǁŝůůďĞǀĂůŝĚĨŽƌƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇ͘/ĨƚŚĞůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇŚĂƐĂ͚YĨĂŝůƵƌĞ͛ƚŚĞŶƚŚĞĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŵƵƐƚŶŽƚďĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĨŽƌ
ƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƚŚĞǁŚŽůĞďĂƚĐŚǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞƉĞĂƚĞĚ͘KĐĐĂƐŝŽŶĂůůǇŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĂŶĂůǇƐƚŵĂǇ
ĚĞĐŝĚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŶŽďǀŝŽƵƐǀĂůŝĚƌĞĂƐŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĨĂŝůƵƌĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĂƚĂǁŽƵůĚďĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ
ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘
ůůĂŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůƚĞƐƚŝŶŐƐŚĂůůďĞĂĐĐŽŵƉĂŶŝĞĚďǇƚŚĞůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇYƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘
ͶǤͷ
dŚĞƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨďĂƐĞůŝŶĞĂŶĚƉŽƐƚͲ
ƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶĚĂĨƚĞƌ͕ĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚ;/ͿƐƚƵĚǇĚĞƐŝŐŶ͘
dŚĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨĂĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐŝƚĞǁŝůůĞŶĂďůĞƚŚĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĞĨĨĞĐƚƐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞǁŽƌŬƐĨƌŽŵ
ŶĂƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘
ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐŽĨǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĚĂƚĂƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĨĂĐƚƵĂůĨŽƌϮϬϭϭĂŶĚϮϬϭϮ;WŚĂƐĞϭŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐͿĂŶĚĨŽƌ
ϮϬϭϯĂŶĚϮϬϭϰǁŝƚŚĂŵŽƌĞĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĂĨƚĞƌƚŚƌĞĞǇĞĂƌƐŽĨƉŽƐƚͲ
ƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ;ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞϮϬϭϱͿ͘
&ĂĐƚƵĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƚĞƐƚŽĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐŝƚĞƐ͕ĂĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ
ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚůĞǀĞůƐƚŽEŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĨŽƌĂƋƵĂƚŝĐĞĐŽƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚĂƋƵĂůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ
ĂŐĂŝŶƐƚďĂƐĞůŝŶĞĚĂƚĂĨŽƌŬĞǇĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐ͘
^ƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨǁĂƚĞƌĚĂƚĂƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂĨƚĞƌƚŚƌĞĞǇĞĂƌƐŽĨƉŽƐƚ
ƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂŶĚĂƚĨŝǀĞǇĞĂƌůǇŝŶƚĞƌǀĂůƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĨƚĞƌ͘^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůƚĞƐƚƐ;Ğ͘Ő͘
EKsŽƌƚŝŵĞͲƚƌĞŶĚƐͿƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƵƐĞĚƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞŝĨƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůůǇƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ
ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƚĞƐĂŶĚĨŽƌďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶĚĂĨƚĞƌĚĂƚĂ͘
tĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚWWƐƚĂƚĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƌďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƌĞƉŽƌƚƚŚĂƚĐĂƵƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƵƐĞĚŝŶĂŶǇ
ƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƵƐŝŶŐŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵƐŝƚĞƐ^tϯĂŶĚ^tϭϭ͘dŚŝƐŝƐĚƵĞƚŽĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨĂŶĂĚŝƚ
ĐĂǀĞŝŶĂŶĚĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚĨůŽǁĚŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐƉĂƌƚŝĂůƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬƐƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞůǇ͘
ͷ
&ůŽǁŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂƚĞĂĐŚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞŽŶĞĂĐŚƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƚŽ
ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞŽĨŵĂƐƐĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚůŽĂĚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŵŝŶĞĂĚŝƚƐ͕ƚĂŝůŝŶŐƐĚĂŵ͕dƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵ
ĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵ͘/ƚŝƐůŝŬĞůǇƚŚĂƚĂƌĂŶŐĞŽĨĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞƐǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞ
ƵƐĞĚƚŽŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĨůŽǁĚƵĞƚŽƐŝƚĞůŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ƐĂŶŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞŵĞƚŚŽĚƐƵƐĞĚĨŽƌĞĂĐŚƐŝƚĞŝŶ
ƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐƚƵĚǇĂƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϯ͘


͵ǣ
^ŝƚĞ WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐŵĞƚŚŽĚĨŽƌĨůŽǁŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ
^tϯ sͲŶŽƚĐŚǁĞŝƌ
^tϱ &ůŽǁŐĂƵŐŝŶŐ
^tϳ &ůŽǁŐĂƵŐŝŶŐ
^tϴ &ůŽǁŐĂƵŐŝŶŐ
^tϭϭ &ůŽǁŐĂƵŐŝŶŐͬsŶŽƚĐŚǁĞŝƌ
^tϭϯ &ůŽǁŐĂƵŐŝŶŐ
^tϭϱ sŽůƵŵĞƚƌŝĐ
^tϭϬϬ &ůŽǁŐĂƵŐŝŶŐ
^tϭϬϭ ƵůǀĞƌƚŐƌĂĚŝĞŶƚĂŶĚĚĞƉƚŚĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ
͸
ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨĂůůƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬƐ͘
ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŝƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕ƉĞƌŝƉŚǇƚŽŶŐƌŽǁƚŚĂŶĚ
ŵĂĐƌŽƉŚǇƚĞŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶϭϬŽĨŽŶƐĞŶƚϭϮϭϬϰϮ͘
͸Ǥͳ ǡ
ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĂƚƐŝƚĞƐ^tϳĂŶĚ^tϴŽŶƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵĂŶĚƐŝƚĞƐ
^tϭϮĂŶĚ^tϭϯŽŶƚŚĞdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͘dŚĞƐĞƐŝƚĞƐǁĞƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞ
ƐƵƌǀĞǇ;ŽĨĨĞǇ͕ϮϬϭϬͿ͘dǁŽĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƚĞƐǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵ
ƌĞĂĐŚĞƐŽĨƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵŽƌĞĚĂƚĂǁŝƚŚǁŚŝĐŚƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ
ĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽƌŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƚĞŽŶƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵǁŝůů
ďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚtZ^KƐŝƚĞϭϬϳϲͺϱ͕ĨŽƌǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďĂƐĞůŝŶĞĚĂƚĂ͘dŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐŝƚĞ
ŽŶƚŚĞdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚƉŽƐƚͲƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶƐƵƌǀĞǇ;ϮϬϭϯͿ͘
ŶŶƵĂůƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŝƐƚŽŽĐĐƵƌĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨĂůůƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬƐ;ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞ
ϮϬϭϯͿ͕ŝŶϮϬϭϱĂŶĚƚŚĞŶŝŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĨŝǀĞǇĞĂƌůǇǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚĨůŽǁŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ;ĨƌŽŵ
ϮϬϮϬͿ͘
ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝƐƚŽďĞƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŵŽŶƚŚŽĨ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽďĞ
ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞƐƵƌǀĞǇ͘DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĚƵƌŝŶŐƐƚĂďůĞĨůŽǁ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĂƚůĞĂƐƚƚǁŽǁĞĞŬƐĂĨƚĞƌĂƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽĨ
ƐƚƌĞĂŵďĞĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂů͘
͸Ǥʹ
DĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐŝƐƚŽďĞƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚtZ͛Ɛ͞ZĞŐŝŽŶĂů'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ
ĨŽƌĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐŝŶ&ƌĞƐŚǁĂƚĞƌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƐʹDĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐŝŶ
tĂĚĞĂďůĞ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐ͟;tZ͕ϮϬϬϱͿ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞƋƵĂůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞ
ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƵƉĚĂƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĐŽŵƉƌŝƐŝŶŐ͗
≠ tĞƚƚĞĚǁŝĚƚŚƐĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŶĞůǁŝĚƚŚƐƚŽďĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚĂƚĨŝǀĞƚƌĂŶƐĞĐƚƐĞƋƵĂůůǇƐƉĂĐĞĚĂůŽŶŐ
ƚŚĞƐƚƵĚǇƌĞĂĐŚ͘
≠ dŚĂůǁĞŐĚĞƉƚŚĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚǀĞůŽĐŝƚǇŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚĂƚĞĂĐŚƚƌĂŶƐĞĐƚ͘
≠ ^ƵďƐƚƌĂƚĞƐŝǌĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚƌĂŶƐĞĐƚƐƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞtŽůŵĂŶƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ͘

tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĚĂƚĂ;ƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞ͕ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚŽǆǇŐĞŶ͕Ɖ,ͿǁŝůůďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĂƚĞĂĐŚƐŝƚĞƵƐŝŶŐ
ĐĂůŝďƌĂƚĞĚĨŝĞůĚŵĞƚĞƌƐ͘
&ŽƵƌƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐĂŵƉůĞƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĨƌŽŵĞĂĐŚƐŝƚĞƵƐŝŶŐŬŝĐŬŶĞƚ
ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞƐŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘dŚŝƐůĞǀĞůŽĨƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌĚĞƚĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůůǇƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ
ŝŶĚŝĐĞƐ͘dŚĞŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐĂŵƉůĞƐƐŚĂůůďĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŝĞůĚĨŽƌůĂƚĞƌƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͘^ĂŵƉůĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐŝƐƚŽďĞŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚDĨƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůWϮ;ϮϬϬĨŝǆĞĚĐŽƵŶƚǁŝƚŚĂ
ƐĐĂŶĨŽƌƌĂƌĞƚĂǆĂͿ͘
DĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĚĂƚĂŝƐƚŽďĞĂŶĂůǇƐĞĚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶĚŝĐĞƐůŝƐƚĞĚŝŶtZ;ϮϬϬϱͿŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘ĂƐŝĐ
ƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůƚĞƐƚƐ;Ğ͘Ő͘EKsͿĂƌĞƚŽďĞƵƐĞĚĂƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĂŶǇĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐĂŶĚĚĂƚĞƐ͘ǀĂŝůĂďůĞďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĚĂƚĂŚĞůĚďǇtZĨŽƌƐŝƚĞƐŽŶ
ƚŚĞdƵŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵ;^ŝƚĞ^tϴͿ͕ƚŚĞdƵŶĂŬŽŚŝŽĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵ;tZZĞĨ͘ϭϬϳϲͺϱͿĂŶĚƚŚĞWŽŚŽŵŝŚŝ^ƚƌĞĂŵ
;tZZĞĨ͘ϳϴϭͺϮͿǁŝůůďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƚŽŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚƚĞŵƉŽƌĂůǀĂƌŝĂƚŝŽŶŝŶ
ŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶ͘
͸Ǥ͵
WĞƌŝƉŚǇƚŽŶĂŶĚŵĂĐƌŽƉŚǇƚĞĐŽǀĞƌŝƐƚŽďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĂƚĞĂĐŚƐŝƚĞŽŶĞĂĐŚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶŝŶ
ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĂƉŝĚĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŝŶtZ͛Ɛ͞ZĞŐŝŽŶĂů'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĨŽƌ
ĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐŝŶ&ƌĞƐŚǁĂƚĞƌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƐ͗ƋƵĂƚŝĐWůĂŶƚŽǀĞƌŝŶtĂĚĞĂďůĞ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐ͟
;tZ͕ϮϬϬϳͿ͘ĂƚĂƐŚĞĞƚƐĨŽƌĞĂĐŚƌĂƉŝĚĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƚǇƉĞĂƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĂƐĂƉƉĞŶĚŝĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞtZ
;ϮϬϬϳͿŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘
͹
ƌĞƉŽƌƚĚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨĂůůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŽƌŬƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶŝƐƚŽďĞƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌƚŚĂƚ
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŽĐĐƵƌƐ͘ŽƉŝĞƐŽĨĂůůƌĞƉŽƌƚƐĂƌĞĂůƐŽƚŽďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽEŐĂƚŝZĂŚŝƌŝdƵŵƵƚƵŵƵ͘
ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐŽĨǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ͕ĨůŽǁĂŶĚďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĚĂƚĂƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĨĂĐƚƵĂůƵŶƚŝůƚŚƌĞĞǇĞĂƌƐ
ŽĨƉŽƐƚͲƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘&ĂĐƚƵĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƐŚĂůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽtZǁŝƚŚŝŶϲϬĚĂǇƐŽĨ
ƚŚĞƌĞĐĞŝƉƚŽĨƚŚĞĨŝŶĂůĂŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
≠ &ŝĞůĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐYͬYƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ͘
≠ >ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐYͬYƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ͘
≠ dŚĞĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŽĨĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘
≠ ŶĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞůĞǀĞůƐ͘
≠ ŶĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨŵĂƐƐůŽĂĚƐŽĨĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞdƵŝĂŶĚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ƚƌĞĂŵƐ͘
dŚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚƌĞĞǇĞĂƌƐŽĨƉŽƐƚƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂďĞŝŶŐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͕ĂŶĚĂƚĨŝǀĞ
ǇĞĂƌůǇŝŶƚĞƌǀĂůƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĨƚĞƌ͕ƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞ͗
≠ ^ƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĚĂƚĂƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞŝĨŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ĂŶĚ
ǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐŽǀĞƌƚŝŵĞĂŶĚŝŶƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƌĞŵĞĚŝĂůǁŽƌŬƐ͘
≠ ƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞDWĂŶĚĂŶǇƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ
ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞ͘dŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƐŚĂůůďĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŶĚĐŽǀĞƌŝƚĞŵƐƐƵĐŚĂƐ͗
0 dŚĞƐĐŽƉĞĨŽƌĂƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝŶŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇĂŶĚͬŽƌŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐŝƚĞƐ͘
0 dŚĞƐĐŽƉĞĨŽƌƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐƚĞƐƚĞĚĨŽƌ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ŽŶůǇƚĞƐƚŝŶŐŬĞǇ
ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐŽĨĐŽŶĐĞƌŶͿ͘
0 dŚĞϮϬϭϱƌĞǀŝĞǁǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŵŽƌĞĨƌĞƋƵĞŶƚďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ
ƉŽƐƚͲƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚŝŽŶƚŽĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƚŚĞƌĂƚĞĂŶĚƚĞŵƉŽƌĂůĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇŽĨ
ŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƌĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ;ĂƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇŽůůŝĞƌ;ϮϬϭϭͿͿ͘

0 dŚĞϮϬϮϬƌĞǀŝĞǁǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĨŝŶĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐĂŶĚ
ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚŽĨŵĞƚĂůůĞǀĞůƐŝŶƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƐŝĨǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŚĂƐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚďƵƚƚŚĞƌĞ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶŶŽĐŽŶĐŽŵŝƚĂŶƚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŝŶďĞŶƚŚŝĐŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ
;ĂƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇŽůůŝĞƌ;ϮϬϭϭͿͿ͘
dŚĞĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚƌĞƉŽƌƚƐŚĂůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽtZǁŝƚŚŝŶƐŝǆŵŽŶƚŚƐŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐĞŝƉƚŽĨƚŚĞĨŝŶĂů
ĂŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůƌĞƐƵůƚƐ͘

ͻ
KD͕ϮϬϭϬ͘dƵŝDŝŶĞʹWŚĂƐĞϭΘWŚĂƐĞϮZĞŵĞĚŝĂůtŽƌŬƐ͗ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů
ĨĨĞĐƚƐ͘
ŽĨĨĞǇ͕͘d͘ϮϬϬϵ͘ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚtĂŝŬĂƚŽŽŶƚƌĂĐƚZ^ϮϬϬϵͬϭϬͲϬ͗dƵŝDŝŶĞZĞŵĞĚŝĂůtŽƌŬƐͲ
/ŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĂƐĞůŝŶĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘
ŽůůŝĞƌ͕<͘ϮϬϭϭ͘DĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵĨƌŽŵƌ<ĞǀŝŶŽůůŝĞƌ;tZͿƚŽ^ŚĞƌǇůZŽĂ;tZͿĚĂƚĞĚϮϱDĂǇ
ϮϬϭϭ͘ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶdƵŝDŝŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐWůĂŶʹŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘
EŐĂƚŝZĂŚŝƌŝdƵŵƵƚƵŵƵ͕ϮϬϭϬ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚdƵŝDŝŶĞZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDŽƵŶƚdĞƌŽŚĂ͗ƵůƚƵƌĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ
ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚZĞƉŽƌƚ͘
WĂƚƚůĞĞůĂŵŽƌĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ>ƚĚ͘ϮϬϭϬ͘dƵŝZĞŵĞĚŝĂůtŽƌŬƐ͗ĂƐĞůŝŶĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘ZĞƉŽƌƚƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ
ĨŽƌŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚtĂŝŬĂƚŽ͘
TE AROHA TOWNSHIP
LOCATION MAP
SITE LOCATION
SITE LOCATION PLAN

SCALE 1:50,000
Tonkin & Taylor

Environmental and Engineering Consultants
Level 1, 9 Clifton Road, Hamilton
www.tonkin.co.nz
SW100
SW101
F02 11/05/2011 8:29:16 a.m.
:\851087\851087.102\WorkingMaterial\CAD\851087.102-F02.dwg
SW
SW
Tonkin & Taylor

Environmental and Engineering Consultants
Level 1, 9 Clifton Road, Hamilton
ki

ǣ ͳʹͳͲͶʹ

5HVRXUFH&RQVHQW
&HUWLILFDWH
Resource Consent : 121042
File Number : 61 47 65A
3XUVXDQWWRWKH5HVRXUFH0DQDJHPHQW$FWWKH:DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLO
KHUHE\JUDQWVFRQVHQWWR

Office)
PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH&RQVHQW+ROGHU
Consen t Type: Discharge permit
Consen t Subtype: Discharge to land and water
Activity aut horised: Discharge contaminants to land and water in association with
remediation of the Tui Mine
Loca tion: Tui Road - Te Aroha - Tui Mine Remediation Works
Consen t Duration: This consent will commence on the date of decision notification and
expire thirty five (35) years from the date of commencement
Subject to t he cond itions overl eaf:

121042
&21',7,216
1. The discharges authorised by this resource consent shall be undertaken in general

accordance with:

(ii) The document titled “T ui Mine – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Remedi al Work s –
Assessment of Enviro nment al Effects” dated 8 March 2010 recorded as
unless superseded by the documents titled “T ailings Impoundm ent
Remedi ation Desi gn Report ” dated 20 May 2010 and “Phase 2 Desi gn –
Tailings Impound ment Drawing Volume” dated 14 May 2010 recorded as
3. The discharges authorised by this consent shall be undertaken within the properties
legally described as Section 117, Block IX, Aroha Survey District and Part Te Aroha.
4. The consent holder shall be responsible for any erosion control works that become
necessary to preserve the integrity and stability of the stream channels and/or to control
erosion as a result of the exercise of this resource consent.
Advice Note: A separate resource consent may be required as a result of the need to undertake
erosion control works. Any such consent shall be obtained by the consent holder at their sole
expense prior to any works being undertaken.
Landscapi ng Plan
5. Within twenty four (24) months of the commencement of this consent the consent holder
shall in conjunction with Matamata-Piako District Council’s Parks and Reserves Manager
and in consultation with the Project Iwi Advisory Group, provide a final landscaping plan to
the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council designed by a suitably qualified
and experienced person who shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of
the Waikato Regional Council.
6. The objectives of the Landscaping Plan shall be to:
(i) Address the relevant aspects (principally Section 5.1.2) of the Matamata-Piako
(ii) Detail the process to address the long term use of the site;
(iii) Incorporate recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “ Proposed
Tui Mine Rest oration Mount Te Aroha: Cul tural Impact Assessmen t Report ” ,
Council’s document system; and
(iv) Preserve the integrity of the cap and ensure that any vegetative layer will be not
compromised.
(v) Detail the design and location of fences, railings and other safety structures to be
erected.
Doc # 1767845 Page 2

121042
7. The Landscape Plan required by condition 5 shall be submitted to the following parties:
Environmental Futures Limited

Te Aroha Earthwatch
Wolfgang Faber
Gisela Ludke-Faber
Kordia
Michael and Judy Baker
These parties shall have no less than 20 working days to provide comments on the
Landscape Plan after which the consent holder shall submit the Landscape Plan and any
comments received to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council.
8. The consent holder’s final landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Resource Use
Group of the Waikato Regional Council for its approval, acting in a technical certification
capacity, prior to its implementation. Should the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council not respond in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the final
landscaping plan, either providing certification of the final landscaping plan or clearly
outlining areas of the landscaping plan that are not accepted, then the landscaping plan
shall be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.
9. The consent holder shall implement the approved Landscape Plan.
Bi ol ogi cal and Wat er Qual it y Moni toring Plan
10. The consent holder shall undertake an annual biological and water quality sampling
programme of the Tui and Tunakohoia Streams for the first three years of this consent.
There after annual biological and water quality sampling shall occur on a five yearly basis.
26/4/11 Stream biological sampling shall include as a minimum algal (periphyton) and macrophyte
growth, and macroinvertebrate assessment using appropriate metrics.
The design of the sampling programme shall be included in the Environmental Monitoring
Plan prepared in accordance with condition 19 of this consent.
Air Discharge Management Plan
11. As a result of the exercise of this consent there shall be no odour or dust emissions that
cause an objectionable effect beyond the boundary of the property defined in condition 3
above. To this end, measures to minimise discharges to air shall be implemented in
accordance with an overall Air Discharge Management Plan (“ADMP”) for the project.
12. The consent holder shall provide the ADMP to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
13. The objectives of the ADMP shall be to:
i. minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, odour and dust generation potential;
ii. minimise, to the greatest extent practicable, any potential adverse environmental
effects that could arise from the discharges; and
iii. incorporate recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Pro posed Tui
Mine Rest oration Mount Te Aroha: Cul tural Impact Assessment Report ” ,
Doc # 1767845 Page 3
121042
14. The ADMP required by condition 11 shall include as a minimum, details of all procedures
and practices that will be implemented to satisfy the objectives of the ADMP including:
(i) Short term procedures and practices to satisfy the objectives of the ADMP
including;
a. identified vehicle wash down areas for all vehicles leaving
the site; and
b. Details of the location and treatment of discharges from
vehicle wash down areas;
(ii) Long term procedures and practices to satisfy the objectives of the ADMP; and
(iii) Identification and contact details of personnel responsible for the activities
addressed in the ADMP.
15. The ADMP required by condition 11 shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and
16. The ADMP required by condition 11 shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use
the ADMP, either providing certification of the ADMP or clearly outlining areas of the
ADMP that are not accepted, then the ADMP shall be considered to be approved and this
17. Any changes proposed to the ADMP, shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder
in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the ADMP, either
providing certification of the ADMP or clearly outlining areas of the ADMP that are not
accepted, then the ADMP shall be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.
18. All discharges to air associated with the exercise of this consent shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved ADMP for the duration of this consent.
Environment al Monitoring Plan
19. The consent holder shall provide a Environmental Monitoring Plan (“EMP”) to the
Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council within six months of the
commencement of this consent.
20. The objectives of the EMP shall be to:

(i) assess whether the habitat, biological and water quality of the Tui and
Tunakohoia Streams are improving over time;
(ii) Measure the effectiveness of the works in reducing ARD (Acid Rock Drainage)
and as a minimum measure the following contaminant trace elements calcium,
iron, manganese, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, lead, copper, and mercury; and
(iii) incorporate recommendations 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the document titled “Pro posed
Tui Mine Rest orat ion Mount Te Aroha: Cul tural Impac t Asse ssmen t
Report ” , dated March 2010 and recorded as document 1720804 on the
Waikato Regional Council’s document system.
21. The EMP required by condition 19 shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and
Doc # 1767845 Page 4

121042
22. The purpose of the EMP is to:
(i) design a sampling programme to achieve the objectives detailed

within condition 20;
(ii) provide all data associated with the sampling programme
including;
a. all parameters to be monitored including the rationale for their
selection;
b. all sampling/monitoring locations, including the rationale for
their selection;
c. the methods of sampling and/or measurement that are to be
used, including the rationale for their selection; and
d. the analyses, including statistical analyses, that the data
collected will be subject to, together with an explanation of
how those analyses will enable the effects of the activities
authorised by this consent to be determined and
discriminated from natural variability,
(iii) provide an assessment of whether the objectives detailed within
condition 20 are being achieved;
(iv) Identify the frequency with which reporting of the EMP will occur.
23. The EMP required by condition 19 shall be approved in writing by the Resource Use
the EMP, either providing certification of the EMP or clearly outlining areas of the EMP
that are not accepted, then the EMP shall be considered to be approved and this condition
satisfied.
24. All monitoring activities of the streams shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved EMP for the duration of this consent.
25. Any changes proposed to the EMP required by condition 19 shall be confirmed in writing
by the consent holder and approved in writing by the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council acting in a technical certification capacity, prior to the implementation of
any changes proposed. Should the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
not respond in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the proposed changes to the
EMP, either providing certification of the EMP or clearly outlining areas of the EMP that
are not accepted, then the EMP shall be considered to be approved and this condition
satisfied.
Hazardous M aterial
holder shall immediately inform the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
of the existence of hazardous material and confirm the intended approach to contain or
remove this material. For cyanide contaminated material a tiered management approach
is to be generally implemented as set out below:
a) material with cyanide concentrations less than 100mg/kg does not require specific
containment and will be incorporated into the general stabilisation of the tailings;
b) material with cyanide concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg and less than 200mg/kg
will be contained on site within a lined containment cell within the tailings;
treatment to reduce containment concentrations or be removed offsite for disposal;
d) any remaining drums containing cyanide shall be taken off site and disposed at a
hazardous waste facility..
Doc # 1767845 Page 5
121042
Drai nage Design Standards
accordance with accepted engineering practices. Permanent stormwater drains over high
risk areas (defined as those areas where a failure of a drainage channel could lead to
severe scouring of the tailings impoundment) will be designed to withstand a 1 in 500 year
storm return period. All other permanent drains will be designed to withstand a 1 in 100
year storm return period. Drainage designs will take future climate change into account.
Comp laints
28. The consent holder shall maintain a register to record all complaints received by the
consent holder. The register shall be made available to the Resource Use Group of the
Waikato Regional Council on request, and shall record the following:
(a) the date, time and duration of the event;
(b) the name and location of the complainant when the event was detected;
(c) measures taken to verify the event;
(d) the weather conditions and wind direction when the event allegedly occurred;
(e) the possible causes of the event; and
(f) any corrective action taken by the consent holder in response to the complaint.
The consent holder shall advise the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council
within 24 hours of the receipt of any complaints by the consent holder.
Downstream Domest ic and Munici pal Water Suppl ies
29. The consent holder shall as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the Matamata-Piako
District Council, the Hauraki District Council, and the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council of an event that may in itself, or as a consequence of an event, have a
significant adverse effect on the quality of the water within the south branch of the
Tunakoihoia Stream or the Waihou River at the abstraction points of the Te Aroha
(Tunakohoia Stream take only) and Kerepehi Water Supplies.
The consent holder shall record the reasons why the situation occurred, the actions taken
by the consent holder and an assessment of what measures can be adopted in the future
to minimise such occurrences and upon written request from the Resource Use Group of
the Waikato Regional Council provide a report to the Resource Use group of the Waikato
Regional Council and the Medical Officer of Health addressing this matter.
Publ ic Meetings
within the local newspaper. The purpose of each meeting shall be to provide an update to
the general public on the remediation works and any monitoring results undertaken to
approval of the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council.
Site Validation Report ing
works, the consent holder shall provide to the Resource Use Group of the Waikato
Regional Council a copy of the site validation report and the ongoing monitoring and
management plan prepared in accordance with accepted best practice for reporting on
Doc # 1767845 Page 6

121042
contaminated sites. As a minimum the report shall demonstrate how the existing
geotechnical and geochemical risks at the site have been addressed.
Revi ews
settled claim.
mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this
consent holder; or
(iii) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in achieving
an order of magnitude or better improvement of water quality in the lower Tui
Stream and the main-stem of the Tunakohoia Stream.
In terms of s116 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent commences on 22nd
September 2010
'DWHGDW+DPLOWRQWKLVUGGD\RI6HSWHPEHU
)RUDQGRQEHKDOIRIWKH
:DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLO

Doc # 1767845 Page 7

121042
Advice Notes: In Respect of Resource Consent Number s 121071,

121039, 121041, 121040, 121042
1. In accordance with section 125 RMA, any consent with a duration greater than five (5)
years shall lapse five (5) years after the date on which it was granted, unless it has been
given effect to before the end of that period.
2. Where a resource consent has been issued in relation to any type of construction, (e.g.
dam, bridge, jetty) this consent does not constitute authority to build and it may be
necessary to apply for a Building Consent from the relevant territorial authority.
3. These resource consents do not give any right of access over private or public property.
Arrangements for access must be made between the consent holder and the property
owner.
4. These resource consents are transferable to another owner or occupier of the land
concerned, upon application, on the same conditions and for the same use as originally
granted (s.134-137 RMA).
5. The consent holder may apply to change the conditions of a resource consent under s.127
RMA.
6. The costs incurred by the Resource Use Group of the Waikato Regional Council arising
from the supervision and monitoring of this/these consents or the review of the conditions of
these resource consents or any administrative charges will be borne by the Waikato
Regional Council in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding agreed in June
2009 between the Ministry for the Environment, Waikato Regional Council, Matamata-Piako
District Council and the Department of Conservation defining governance arrangements for
the Tui Mine Remedial Project.
7. Note that pursuant to s332 of the RMA 1991, enforcement officers may at all reasonable
times go onto the property that is the subject of this consent, for the purpose of carrying out
inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements or taking samples.
8. If you intend to replace these consents upon their expiry, please note that an application for
a new consent made at least 6 months prior to each consent's expiry, gives you the right to
continue exercising the consent after it expires in the event that your application is not
processed prior to this consent's expiry.
Doc # 1767845 Page 8

In reply please quote: 61 47 65A
Doc #
Enquiries to: Ruth Hutchinson
23rd September 2009
Department of Conservation (East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservancy Office

PO Box 1146
Rotorua 3040
Dear Sir/Madam
RESOURCE CONSENT NUMBER 121042
Please find enclosed the certificate detailing the terms and conditions of your resource consent
recently granted by the Waikato Regional Council. Please keep this important document in a safe
place for easy reference during the term of the consent.
Please note the following:
(i) Only the holder of the consent or their agent may exercise this consent, and then only for the
purpose specifically authorised by the consent.
(ii) Those exercising the consent must comply with the conditions of the consent at all times.
(iii) The majority of consent holders will incur annual charges for holding consents, and may also
incur costs associated with monitoring, inspecting and reporting on the exercise of this consent.
(iv) This consent will expi re on the date specified on the certificate. If unexercised, the consent will
lapse on the date specified in the consent, or if no date is specifed, within 5 years from the
date of commencement, unless approval has been obtained from Environment Waikato to
extend the lapse period.
(v) Should you no longer wish to perform the activities authorised by the consent, you may wish to
apply to surrender the consent, giving reasons for the surrender. In addition should you sell
the property or the operation to which this consent applies, you may wish to transfer the
consent to the new owner. If you wish to undertake either of these actions, please forward the
resource consent certificate to this office with advice of the action you require to be taken.
Should you have any further queries on these matters, or any other issues relating to the exercise of
this resource consent, please do not hesitate to contact the Hamilton office toll-free on 0800 800 402
quoting the above reference.
Yours faithfully
Ruth Hutchinson
Business Suppo rt – Resour ce Use
Doc # 1767845 Page 9

ǣ

ȋͳͻʹͲͳͳȌ

7XL0LQH,ZL$GYLVRU\*URXS
0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV

WK
7XHV $SULOSP:DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLO'HSRW7HUPLQXV6W
7H$URKD

0LQXWHWDNHU5RE*ULIILWKV'2&
)DFLOLWDWRU&KDLUSHUVRQ+HOHQ1HDOH'2&

3UHVHQW3HQQ\:DNHOLQ:DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLO3DXOLQH&ODUNLQ1JDWL+DNR
0HJDQ1REOH1JDWL+DNR0DSXQD7XUQHU5DKLUL7XPXWXPX&DURO+HQU\
:DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLO

3URFHHGLQJV
$SRORJLHV±$QGUHZ%DXFNH'2&.DWULQD.QLOO'2&*KDVVDQ%DVKHHU
:DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLO6XVDQ7XWXNL5DKLUL7XPXWXPX

0DWWHUDULVLQJIURPSUHYLRXVPHHWLQJ
≠ $SSRLQWHGUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI5DKXUL7XPXWXPXLVVWLOORXWVWDQGLQJWRWKH
DGYLVRU\JURXS±+XLRQVW0D\WKDWVKRXOGUHVROYHWKLVLVVXH&RQILUPDWLRQ
E\OHWWHUUHTXLUHG
≠ 'LGQRWKDYHWZRDSSRLQWHGUHSVSUHVHQWVRFRXOGQRWKDYHIRUPDOPHHWLQJ
+RZHYHUVRPHLQIRUPDOGLVFXVVLRQKHOGDVIROORZV

$GGLWLRQDODJHQGDLWHPUHTXHVWV
≠ ,ZLQHZVOHWWHU
≠ (&+2ZDONLQJIHVWLYDOHYHQWWR7XL0LQH

6LWHYLVLWUHTXLUHPHQWV
≠ /LNHWRGRDVLWHYLVLWDIWHUWKHPHHWLQJ±&DUROWRLQYHVWLJDWH,WZRXOGDSSHDU
WKDWWKLVZRXOGEHEHVWLILWZDVSUHDUUDQJHGVRVLWHPDQDJHULVRUJDQLVHGHWF

&XOWXUDOPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPPH
≠ *URXSPHHWLQJZLWK&DURODIWHUPHHWLQJWRFRQVLGHUFXOWXUDOPRQLWRULQJSODQ

5HSRUWEDFNIURP6WHHULQJ RU*RYHUQDQFH*URXSPHHWLQJV
≠ 1HZ028LVVXHVUHUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVVWLOOWREHUHVROYHGE\*RYHUQDQFH
*URXS
≠ (:SURFHHGLQJZLWKWHQGHUIRUSKDVHWZR±(:DQG03'&DUHFRQWULEXWLQJ
IXQGVWRSURMHFW$QWLFLSDWHGWKDWUHPDLQGHURIIXQGLQJFRXOGEHFRQILUPHGLQ
0D\
≠ 1RLZLUHSUHVHQWDWLYHDWODVWVWHHULQJJURXS

2SHUDWLRQDOXSGDWH
D 3URJUHVVUHSRUWWRGDWH±3URMHFW0DQDJHU
≠ 3KDVH2QH%XONKHDGFRPSOHWH0F'RZHOOVGHPRELOLVLQJVLWH/LPH
LQMHFWLRQZRUNWREHFRPSOHWHGHQGRI$XJXVW/HYHOIRXUZDVWHURFN
VWDFNZRUNWREHFRPSOHWHGLQ0D\LQFOXGLQJK\GURVHHGLQJ
≠ )LQDOLQVSHFWLRQRIWKHZRUNVIRUSKDVHRQH±DVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOHWLRQ
FHUWWREHLVVXHG±\UZDUUDQW\RQZRUNVLQIUDVWUXFWXUH
≠ 3KDVH7ZR±5)7IRUWKLVFORVH-XQH

(QYLURQPHQWDOPRQLWRULQJSODQ±&RPPHQWVRQSODQ
≠ 6DPSOLQJWLPLQJDQGIUHTXHQF\±3DXOLQHZRXOGOLNHWRVHHPRUH
WHVWLQJVDPSOLQJXVLQJDVHDVRQDOFXOWXUDODSSURDFKWRWHVWLQJ3HQQ\
FRPPHQWHGWKDWWKHFXUUHQWSODQWPHHWVWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHUHVRXUFH
FRQVHQW&DQEHUHYLHZHGDQGLQFOXGHPRUH3DXOLQHKDSS\WRDFFHSW
PRQLWRULQJSODQLQSULQFLSOHZLWKSODQIRUEHWWHUOLQNDJHVEHWZHHQWKLVDQGWKH
FXOWXUDOPRQLWRULQJSODQ

3URSRVHGDPHQGPHQWWRFRQVHQWFRQGLWLRQ
≠ :DLNDWR5HJLRQDO&RXQFLOKDVUHFRPPHQGHGDFKDQJHWRFRQVHQWFRQGLWLRQ
IRUELRORJLFDOPRQLWRULQJ7KLVPRQLWRULQJWRPRYHWRD\HDUSHULRGVWDUWLQJ
DIWHUWKHWKUHH\HDUPRQLWRULQJSKDVH%DVHLQIRUPDWLRQLVHQFDSVXODWHGLQWKH
$((GRFXPHQW3DXOLQHQRWFRPIRUWDEOHZLWKWKLVSUHIHUHQFHWRUHPDLQDVLV
EXWQRWREMHFWLQJ

3URMHFW3ODQUHYLHZ±FRYHUHGDERYH

$SSRLQWPHQWVIRUXSFRPLQJPHHWLQJV
≠ ,ZL$GYLVRU\*URXSUHSUHVHQWDWLYHDW6WHHULQJ*URXS$SULOWK 0D\WK
±3DXOLQH&ODUNLQWRDWWHQGDQGFLUFXODWHPLQXWHV

8QGHUJURXQGVLWHYLVLW
≠ /RRNDWEXONKHDGDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH±WK$SULO±DP±ZLOOFRQILUPYLD
HPDLO.H\VWDNHKROGHUV,ZL'2&,QYLWDWLRQVWRJRRXW1HHGQXPEHUVIRU
VDIHW\JHDUHWF+XLDWWKH3DZDVVXJJHVWHGE\0DSXQD&DUROWRZRUNZLWK
0DSXQD 3HQQ\IRUDSODQIRUWKHGD\

(&+2:DONVHYHQWWR7XL0LQH
≠ %URFKXUHWKHUHLVZDONWRWKHPLQH,WLVEHOLHYHGWKDWWKLVLVOHDGE\'2&,V
WKHUHDFXOWXUDOFRPSRQHQW":LOOORRNLQWRLWDQGUHSRUWEDFN

,ZLXSGDWHUHSRUW
≠ ,ZLDGYLVRU\JURXSZRXOGOLNHWKHQHZVOHWWHUFLUFXODWHGWKDWZHQWWRIRUXPLQ
)HEUXDU\7KLVZLOOQHHGWREHXSGDWHGVRLWLVDSSURSULDWHIRUFLUFXODWLRQ±
3HQQ\WRIROORZXSZLWK*KDVVDQ

1H[WPHHWLQJ7XHV0D\QRRQ(:'HSRW7HUPLQXV6W7H$URKD

ǣ ʹͲʹͲ
≠ ʹͲͳͳ

dƵŝDŝŶĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ
DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ &ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇĂŶĚƚŝŵŝŶŐ ϮϬϭϭ ϮϬϭϮ ϮϬϭϯ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϮϬ
tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇͬĨůŽǁĂƚdƵŶĂŬŽŚŽŝĂ^ŝƚĞƐ;^tϯ͕ dŚƌĞĞŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌĂŶĚ
^tϱ͕^tϳ͕^tϴ͕^tϭϬϬĂŶĚ^tϭϬϭͿ EŽǀĞŵďĞƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ
dŚƌĞĞŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌĂŶĚ
tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚĨůŽǁĂƚĂůůƐŝƚĞƐ
EŽǀĞŵďĞƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ
ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ KŶĞŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ
ĞƚĂŝůĞĚ ĞƚĂŝůĞĚ
ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŶŶƵĂůůǇǁŚĞŶŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŚĂƐŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚ &ĂĐƚƵĂů &ĂĐƚƵĂů &ĂĐƚƵĂů &ĂĐƚƵĂů ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ
DWƌĞǀŝĞǁ DWƌĞǀŝĞǁ
APPENDIX C SOIL BACKGROUND
42092212/R058/D
6 August 2012
Project No. 42092212

Private Bag 3038
Waikato Mail Centre
Hamilton, 3240
Attention: Ghassan Basheer

Special Project Manager
Dear Ghassan,
Subject: Tui Mine Site Soil Background Levels
1 Introduction
The purpose of this letter is to provide the derivation of soil background levels for the Tui Mine site.
We have reviewed the soil background data provided by PDP in their letter dated 9 December
2011. We have used only the raw data set provided by PDP and not the composited sample
analyses.
2 Raw Data
We have derived a mean and standard deviation of this data set as shown in Table 1. It should be
noted that the data set is highly skewed with the mean of the data exceeding the 75th percentile for
a number of analytes (arsenic, cadmium and zinc).
Table 1 – Soil Background Summary (mg/kg)
Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Arsenic 14 11 4 70
Cadmium 1.5 0.62 0.1 8.6
Chromium 24 24 5 60
Copper 35 27 7 111
Lead 159 79 13.4 670
Nickel 8.4 6 2 25
Zinc 194 102 12 1060
3 Statistical Analysis
The data is not normally or log normally distributed and statistically a number of the results would
be considered outliers. However the grouped sampling indicates that multiple samples at each
URS New Zealand Limited

URS Centre, 13-15 College Hill
Auckland 1011
PO Box 821, Auckland 1140
New Zealand
T: 64 9 355 1300
F: 64 9 355 1333
J:\Jobs\42092212\4 Comms\L025 - Background soils v2.docx
Ghassan Basheer
Special Project Manager
6 August 2012
Page 2
sampling locality can have elevated concentrations. No manipulation of the raw data set has been
under taken. Non parametric statistics have therefore been used to define percentiles.
Results have been analysed using ProUCL and we have determined the following:-
1. The 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of the mean for soil background data provided in
Table 2. The remedial outcomes require the completed capping and cover to tailings
impoundment area to having a 95% UCL mean soil concentrations that is below the
concentrations in Table 2.
2. The 95% upper confidence limit for the 95 percentile for soil background data. These
values are to be used as the maximum concentrations allowable in soils accepted from
offsite. This is required to provide confidence that the mean 95% UCL defined in Table 2
is met for the complete soil cover which will include a combination of onsite and offsite
soils. With the exception of cadmium these values are rounded down to the nearest 10
mg/kg.
These offsite soil acceptance criteria are shown in Table 3.
Table 2 – Mean Background Soil Concentration (95% Upper Confidence Limit)
Mean Background Soil

Concentration
95% UCL of Mean
Trace Elements (mg/kg)
Arsenic 25
Cadmium 4
Chromium 30
Copper 44
Lead 280
Nickel 14
Zinc 290
4 Derivation of Soil Background

The background values derived are considered consistent with levels in soils across the wider
Coromandel area. As noted above the background soils values cannot be used to accept or reject
onsite soils for use.
The acceptance criteria for use of soils on site should be evaluated as follows:-
1. Onsite Soils – Soils sourced from the site should be assessed against the maximum value
column in Table 1 to determine there suitability for use. If the onsite soil is less than the
maximum concentration in Table 1 it is acceptable for use. These soils samples need only
be assessed for arsenic, copper, lead and zinc.
J:\Jobs\42092212\4 Comms\L025 - Background soils v2.docx

27 June 2013
Ghassan Basher
Programme Manager
Environment Waikato
P O Box 4010
HAMILTON EAST 3247
Dear Ghassan
TUI MINE SOIL SAMPLING – POST-REMEDIAL WORKS
Pattle Delamore Partners Limited (PDP) was engaged by Environment Waikato (EW) to soil samples at five locations
around, and downstream of, the former mine processing area and tailings dam following the completion of remedial
D
works. The samples were collected and analysed for the purpose of comparing the chemical concentrations in the R
soils at these locations, prior and post the remedial works occurring at the site as required by Resource Consent
issued by Waikato Regional Council. (Sampling carried out prior to the remedial works is described in PDP 2010).
A
This report describes the sample locations, outlines the sampling methodology and presents the results of the
F
laboratory analysis of the samples. T
1.0 Sampling Methodology
Sampling was undertaken on the 23 May 2013. Following the preferred procedure outlined in PDP 2010, PDP
collected composite samples at five sampling locations selected by EW (see Figure 1 and Table 1). To assess any
impact of the remediation on the surrounding soil, where possible the same sampling locations used in the baseline
soil sampling study were used. However, as a result of the remediation works, two of the original sampling locations
(SS2 and SS3) were destroyed. Two new sampling locations were created in undisturbed ground as close as possible
to the original sites. A GPS location measurement was obtained at each of the two new sampling locations.
Table 1: Sampling locations and number of samples
Site name Location description Number of samples Northing Easting

(NZTM) (NZTM)
SS1 Above processing plant 7 discrete plus 1 composite 5843799 1841451
SS2 Carpark by tailings dam 7 discrete plus 1 composite 5843867 1841112
SS3 Near pond downstream of 7 discrete plus 1 composite 5843933 1841000

tailings dam
SS4 Near gate on Tui access road 3 discrete plus 1 composite 5843850 1840597
SS5 Base of Mountain 3 discrete plus 1 composite 5843618 1839837
J:\A02200_A02299\A02277 Tui Mine\A02277101 Tui Soil Sampling Post Remediation\L_Letters\A02277101 L001 .Docx, 27/06/2013
PATTLE DELAMORE PARTNERS LIMITED 2
All of the samples were collected by hand using a steel trowel to collect a 0-100 mm soil profile at each sample point.
At the sampling locations where 7 discrete samples were collected to form a composite (i.e. at sites SS1, SS2 and
SS3), samples were collected on a hexagon sampling pattern. One sample was collected from the centre point of the
hexagon, and then 6 samples were collected at each of the vertices, at a distance of 5m from the central sample.
At sampling locations where 3 discrete samples were collected to form a composite (at sites SS4 and SS5), a
triangular sampling pattern was used with each of the samples being collected at the vertices of the triangle, with each
vertex being 5 m from the central point.
To make sure that the sampling locations were representative of undistributed, natural soils, the samples were
collected in the natural soils at least 3 m away from the edge of any roadways, or areas where hard-fill material, mine
tailings material or crushed ore has been stockpiled or placed. As mentioned above, sample site SS2 and SS3
required relocation as these sites have been disturbed by earthworks undertaken as part of the remedial works and
therefore were not suitable as to be used as reference sites. All sampling equipment was decontaminated between
samples in accordance with PDP field procedures, to prevent the possibility of cross contamination.
To ensure that there were enough samples to make a representative composite sample and to undertake analysis on
each of the discrete soil samples, approximately 500 g of soil was collected from each of the discrete sampling points,
across the 100 mm soil profile. All soil samples were sent to RJ Hill Laboratories in Hamilton for analysis for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc. Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc were selected
for testing because the tailings material contains highly elevated concentrations of these elements. Chromium and D
nickel were included as they form part of the Hill Laboratories analytical suite for heavy metals.
R
For each sampling location, all of the discrete samples were combined to create a composite sample for a 10 g
digestion macro. In the baseline soil sampling study (PDP, 2010) a 10 g digestion macro using composite samples
A
was found to provide the most representative values. Three replicates of each composite sample were analysed for F
quality assurance / quality control purposes.
T
Each composite sample for each sample location was prepared separately with equal proportions (approximately 100
g) being composited together. The samples were then air dried and sieved to remove all particles greater than 2 mm
in diameter.
All samples were then digested using the digestion procedure outlined US EPA method 200.2, and analysed using an
ICP-MS for the contaminants of concern.
The samples collected post-remediation were compared to the 10 g digestion macro of composite samples presented
in the baseline monitoring report (PDP, 2010).
2.0 Results
A copy of the laboratory results is attached to this letter report. The individual results for each composite sample are
presented on the lab report. A summary of the results for the composite samples at each sampling location is
presented in Table 2 as a mean, geometric mean, standard deviation and percentage relative standard deviation
(%RSD) for each metal. A %RSD of greater than 100% indicates that there is a high degree of variability in the results,
while a %RSD of less than 30% is generally considered acceptable for a normally distributed data set.
For most samples, the %RSD is generally low (<10%), however, at location SS1 near the main processing plant,
cadmium, lead and zinc have %RSD values of ~44 to 48% indicating a degree of heterogeneity in the sample. This is
in agreement with findings reported in the baseline monitoring report (PDP, 2010). There is also a large degree of
variability in arsenic concentration at location SS4 as indicated by a %RSD of ~62%. The highest concentration of
arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc is found at location SS1. In particular copper, lead and zinc are significantly
J:\A02200_A02299\A02277 Tui Mine\A02277101 Tui Soil Sampling Post remediation\L_Letters\A02277101 L001 .docx,
enriched in samples from location SS1 relative to the other locations. The highest concentration of nickel and
chromium is at SS4, near the site access gate.
In order to compare soil metal concentrations before and after remediation, box and whisker plots of soil metal
concentrations before and after remediation at each sampling site were constructed for each metal analysed for. The
10 g digestion macro samples collected at each sampling location during the baseline monitoring (PDP, 2010) were
used to represent the pre-remediation conditions. These results are presented in Table 3. The box and whisker plots
are presented in Figure 2 to Figure 9.
Box and whisker plots allow a graphical comparison of the results and help define any changes in soil metal
concentrations at each sampling location. Changes in soil metal concentrations are considered by metal and are
discussed below.
Due to the inherent heterogeneity of the site, it is important to determine if differences in soil metal concentrations are
significant changes related to the remediation works, or are simply the result of the randomness of the samples. In
order to determine the significance of any changes in soil metal concentrations, an increase or decrease in
concentration by three times the pre-remediation concentration is defined as significant.
Based upon the sampling results and the box and whisker plots (Figures 2 to 9) it appears that arsenic, cadmium,
copper, lead and mercury are elevated in the post-remediation samples. Cadmium, lead and zinc concentrations show
considerable variation in samples collected post-remediation at location SS1, with %RSD values of 45 to 47%. These D
variations are presumably due to nuggets of galena and sphalerite crystals being incorporated into the composite
samples. The variability in the zinc results in particular (due to possible nugget effects) means it is not possible to R
definitively determine if there has been a significant increase zinc at this site or not.
A
The mercury concentrations at location SS1 have only increased by approximately 1 to 2 mg/kg, so while the increase
of mercury concentration at location SS1 may be statistically significant, the magnitude of the increase in the mercury
F
concentration is not very large. T
At sampling location SS3 and SS4 cadmium, lead and zinc concentrations appear to be slightly elevated in the post
remediation samples compared to the pre remediation samples. However, the relative magnitude in the increase of
the concentration of the elements is not large (generally less than a factor of 2). Consequently these differences may
be related to the natural heterogeneity in the soil.
3.0 Conclusions
• The only soil metal concentrations that have changed significantly following remediation works are arsenic,
cadmium, copper and lead at SS1.
• Cadmium, lead and zinc concentrations at SS1 may be the result of a small amount of mineralised galena or
sphalerite being present in the samples, rather than the remedial works.
• At sampling locations SS3 and SS4 there may be a small increase in the concentration of cadmium, lead
and zinc but the magnitude of the increase of these elements is less than a factor of two.
• Based upon the results from the analysis of 10 g composite samples collected post-remediation, and
comparison of these results with 10 g composite samples collected pre-remediation, there is no significant
change in soil metal concentration as a result of the remedial works at the rest of the monitoring locations.
4.0 Limitations
The assessment in this letter report is based on a limited number of soil samples from sampling locations that have
been selected in accordance with Environment Waikato instructions. Subsurface conditions, including the soil
chemical concentrations, can vary in time and distance so that conditions found at any specific point of sampling
might not be representative of subsurface conditions that could occur away from the specific point of sampling.
PDP has sampled and tested for those chemicals only that are described in this report. The presence or absence of
other chemicals at the site is not considered in this report.
This letter report has been prepared for Environment Waikato, according to their instructions, for the particular
objectives described in the letter report. The information contained in the letter report should not be used or relied
upon by anyone else or for any other purposes.
5.0 References
Pattle Delamore Partners Limited, PDP (2010) Tui Mine Baseline Soil Sampling – Pre-remedial Works: Prepared for
Environment Waikato
Yours faithfully
PATTLE DELAMORE PARTNERS LIMITED
D
R
James Conway Andrew Rumsby Keith Delamore
A
Geologist Environmental Chemist Director
F
T
SITE
SH26
Te Aroha
SITE LOCATION
SS3 Tailings Dam

SS3 Tui Mine Former Process Area
SS2
SS4 SS4
SS2
SS1 Waste Rock Piles
SS1
D
A
O
R
I
SS5
U
T
Waste Rock Piles

SS5
Town Supply Inlet
KEY
SS1 Soil Sample Location
(Pre-Remediation)
SS1 Soil Sample Location
(Post-Remediation)
Old Mine Road
Road
Stream
0 100 200 300 400 500m
SCALE 1:10 000 (A3)
Figure 1 : SITE PLAN AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS

D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
D
R
A
F
T
Table 2: Composite Soil Sample Results (10 g Macro digestion) - Pre-remediation

Soil Samples Collected at SS1 - near main processing plant
Sample Name Replicate 1, 10g Replicate 2, 10g Replicate 3, 10g Mean Geometric Standard %RSD
Laboratory Reference 839826.28 839826.29 839826.3 mean dev.
Arsenic 14 13 13 13.3333 13 0.6 4.3%
Cadmium 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.3 0.2 4.88%
Chromium 32 30 29 30 30 2 5.04%
Copper 67 65 68 67 67 2 2.29%
Lead 320 310 320 317 317 6 1.82%
Mercury 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.01 2.79%
Nickel 14 14 14 14 14 0.0 0.00%
Zinc 510 570 510 530 529 35 6.54%
Soil Samples Collected at SS2 - near car park by Tailings Dam
Arsenic 7 7 7 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.00%
Cadmium 0.71 0.67 0.7 0.69 0.69 0.02 3.00%
Chromium 4 4 4 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.00%
Copper 19 19 19 19 19 0 0.00%
Lead 88 86 92 89 89 3 3.45%
Mercury 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.01 3.23%
Nickel <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 NC NC
Zinc 77 75 74 75 75 2 2.03%
Soil Samples Collected at SS3 - near pond below Tailings dam D
Sample Name Replicate 1, 10g Replicate 2,1 0g Replicate 3,1 0g Mean Geometric Standard %RSD
Laboratory Reference
Arsenic
839826.34
12
839826.35
12
839826.36
12 12
mean
12
dev.
0.0 0.00%
R
Cadmium
Chromium
0.13
23
0.12
22
0.16
23
0.14
23
0.14
23
0.02
1
15.23%
2.55%
A
Copper
Lead
27
75
26
70
28
110
27
85
27
83
1.0
22
3.70%
25.64%
F
Mercury
Nickel
0.16
5
0.25
5
0.19
5
0.20
5
0.20
5
0.05
0
23.36%
0.00% T
Zinc 47 47 54 49 49 4 8.19%
Soil Samples Collected at SS4 - near site access gate
Arsenic 24 24 25 24 24 0.6 2.37%
Cadmium 1.42 1.43 1.48 1.4 1.4 0.03 2.23%
Chromium 27 28 29 28 28 1 3.57%
Copper 37 39 39 38 38 1.2 3.01%
Lead 240 250 250 247 247 6 2.34%
Mercury 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.01 4.03%
Nickel 15 16 16 16 16 1 3.69%
Zinc 270 270 280 273 273 6 2.11%
Soil Samples Collected at SS5 - base of mountain
Arsenic 22 21 21 21 21 0.6 2.71%
Cadmium 0.49 0.46 0.52 0.49 0.49 0.03 6.12%
Chromium 31 30 31 31 31 1 1.88%
Copper 49 47 48 48 48 1.0 2.08%
Lead 210 200 210 207 207 6 2.79%
Mercury 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.03 11.48%
Nickel 14 14 14 14 14 0 0.00%
Zinc 135 135 136 135 135 1 0.43%
Note:
1. All results are presented as Total Recoverable Metals, and are in mg/kg.
2. %RSD (percent Relative Standard Deviation) = standard deviation divided by the mean express as a percentage.
3. NC = Not Calculated due to insufficient number of samples above the detection limit
Table 3: Composite Soil Sample Results (10 g Macro digestion) - Post-remediation

Soil Samples Collected at SS1 - near main processing plant
Arsenic 45 44 44 44.3 44 0.6 1.3%
Cadmium 12.6 7.9 5.1 8.53 8.0 3.8 44.41%
Chromium 36 36 36 36 36 0 0.00%
Copper 145 144 149 146 146 3 1.81%
Lead 1,240 1,110 2,500 1617 1510 768 47.49%
Mercury 1.42 1.21 2.3 1.6 1.6 0.6 35.19%
Nickel 14 15 15 15 15 0.6 3.94%
Zinc 1,580 870 650 1033 963 486 47.04%
Soil Samples Collected at SS2 - near car park by Tailings Dam
Arsenic 10 11 11 10.7 10.7 0.6 5.41%
Cadmium 0.96 0.88 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.04 4.69%
Chromium 6 7 7 6.7 6.6 0.6 8.66%
Copper 25 26 26 26 26 1 2.25%
Lead 170 178 181 176 176 6 3.22%
Mercury 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.01 1.59%
Nickel <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 NC NC
Zinc 146 134 133 138 138 7 5.25%
Soil Samples Collected at SS3 - near pond below Tailings dam
Sample Name
Laboratory Reference
Replicate 1, 10g
1138992.34
Replicate 2, 10g
1138992.35
Replicate 3, 10g
1138992.36
Mean Geometric
mean
Standard
dev.
%RSD
D
Arsenic
Cadmium
17
0.79
19
0.82
19
0.92
18
0.84
18
0.84
1.2
0.07
6.30%
8.07%
R
Chromium
Copper
14
44
12
44
13
45
13
44
13
44
1
0.6
7.69%
1.30% A
Lead
Mercury
350
0.43
330
0.44
310
0.44
330
0.44
330
0.44
20
0.01
6.06%
1.32% F
Nickel 3 3 3 3 3 0 0.00%
Zinc 140 149 160 150 149 10 6.69% T
Soil Samples Collected at SS4 - near site access gate
Arsenic 12 32 12 19 17 11.5 61.86%
Cadmium 2.4 3.1 2.3 2.6 2.6 0.44 16.76%
Chromium 38 38 34 37 37 2 6.30%
Copper 54 54 53 54 54 0.6 1.08%
Lead 390 430 450 423 423 31 7.22%
Mercury 0.31 0.47 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.08 22.11%
Nickel 21 20 19 20 20 1 5.00%
Zinc 370 450 360 393 391 49 12.54%
Soil Samples Collected at SS5 - base of mountain
Arsenic 20 20 19 20 20 0.6 2.94%
Cadmium 0.53 0.58 0.6 0.57 0.57 0.03606 6.33%
Chromium 27 28 27 27 27 1 2.11%
Copper 26 26 25 26 26 0.6 2.25%
Lead 107 108 112 109 109 3 2.43%
Mercury 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.01 13.11%
Nickel 12 13 13 13 13 1 4.56%
Zinc 141 143 148 144 144 4 2.50%
Note:
1. All results are presented as Total Recoverable Metals, and are in mg/kg.
2. %RSD (percent Relative Standard Deviation) = standard deviation divided by the mean express as a percentage.
3. NC = Not Calculated due to insufficient number of samples above the detection limit
R J Hill Laboratories Limited Tel +64 7 858 2000
1 Clyde Street Fax +64 7 858 2001
Private Bag 3205 Email mail@hill-labs.co.nz
Hamilton 3240, New Zealand Web www.hill-labs.co.nz
ANALYSIS REPORT Page 1 of 2
Client: Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd Lab No: 1138992 SPv2

Contact: A Rumsby Date Registered: 25-May-2013
C/- Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd Date Reported: 07-Jun-2013
PO Box 9528 Quote No: 55117
Newmarket Order No:
AUCKLAND 1149 Client Reference: A02277101
Submitted By: A Rumsby
Sample Type: Soil

Sample Name: Composite of Composite of Composite of Composite of Composite of
SS1h - SS1n SS1h - SS1n SS1h - SS1n SS2h - SS2n SS2h - SS2n
(Replicate 1,10g (Replicate 2,10g (Replicate 3,10g (Replicate 1,10g (Replicate 2,10g
macro) macro) macro) macro) macro)
Lab Number: 1138992.28 1138992.29 1138992.30 1138992.31 1138992.32
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 1.42 1.21 2.3 0.37 0.36
Heavy metals, MacroDig, screen, As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 45 44 44 10 11
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 12.6 7.9 5.1 0.96 0.88
Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 36 36 36 6 7
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 145 144 149 25 26
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 1,240 1,110 2,500 170 178
Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 14 15 15 <2 <2
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 1,580 870 650 146 134

SS2h - SS2n SS3h - SS3n SS3h - SS3n SS3h - SS3n SS4d - SS4f
Lab Number: 1138992.33 1138992.34 1138992.35 1138992.36 1138992.37
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 181 350 330 310 390
Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt <2 3 3 3 21
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 133 140 149 160 370

SS4d - SS4f SS4d - SS4f SS5d - SS5f SS5d - SS5f SS5d - SS5f
Lab Number: 1138992.38 1138992.39 1138992.40 1138992.41 1138992.42
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 430 450 107 108 112
This Laboratory is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which represents New Zealand in the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC-MRA) this accreditation is
internationally recognised.
The tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation, with the exception of tests marked *, which
are not accredited.
Sample Type: Soil
Composite of
Sample Name: Composite of Composite of Composite of Composite of
SS4d - SS4f SS4d - SS4f SS5d - SS5f SS5d - SS5f SS5d - SS5f
Lab Number: 1138992.38 1138992.39 1138992.40 1138992.41 1138992.42
Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 20 19 12 13 13
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 450 360 141 143 148
Analyst's Comments
Supplement to test report issued 6/6/2013
SUMMARY OF METHODS
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 clean 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.
Sample Type: Soil

Test Method Description Default Detection Limit Samples
Environmental Solids Sample Air dried at 35°C. - 28-42
Preparation
Heavy metals, MacroDig, screen, Dried sample, Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion, ICP-MS, - 28-42
As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn screen level.
Total Recoverable Mercury Dried sample, Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion, ICP-MS, trace 0.010 mg/kg dry wt 28-42
level.
Macro Total Recoverable digestion Nitric / hydrochloric acid digestion. US EPA 200.2. - 28-42
Composite Environmental Solid Individual sample fractions mixed together to form a composite - 1-27
Samples* fraction.
These samples were collected by yourselves (or your agent) and analysed as received at the laboratory.
Samples are held at the laboratory after reporting for a length of time depending on the preservation used and the stability of
the analytes being tested. Once the storage period is completed the samples are discarded unless otherwise advised by the
client.
This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the signatory.
Martin Cowell - BSc (Chem)

Client Services Manager - Environmental Division
Lab No: 1138992 v 2 Hill Laboratories Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY DATA
42092212/R058/D
Tui Mine Monitoring Report 2013 - Water Quality Monitoring (After Rehabilitation of Tui Mine)
Table B1: Water Quality Results for Tui Mine Monitoring at SW3
Sample Location Level 4 Adit (SW3) ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sample No. ADIT4 ADIT4 ADIT4 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampled By Sharplin Sharplin Sharplin PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP PDP
Sampling date 30/01/07 3/05/07 27/07/07 17/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 6/09/11 11/10/11 8/11/11 15/08/12 6/09/12 17/10/12 15/11/12 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Laboratory Number 728224.1 734195.1 744474.1 930978.1 943005.1 951502.1 1036699.3 1044859.1 1060297.1 1070611.6 1185572.1 1193690.1 1203456.1
Flow Rate L/s 0.253 0.81 0.573 - - - 0.6875 3.13 1.40 1.70 1.50 0.80 0.41 0.76 0.76 1.06
Flow Rate m3/sec 0.0003 0.0008 0.0006 0.0002 0.0021 0.0004 0.0007 0.0031 0.0033 0.0017 0.0015 0.0008 0.0004 0.0008 0.0008 0.0011
Field:
Temperature (ºC) 11.3 11 10.6 10.36 10.17 10.97 10.23 9.87 10.22 12.32 12.9 10.5 11 10.9 10.9 10.9 15-33 10.17 11.3
pH pH units 6.79 6.92 7.05 7.84 6.76 7.42 6.84 6.66 6.81 6.8 7.2 7.4 7.18 7.32 7.53 7.69 5.0-9.0 6.76 7.84
Conductivity mS/m 89.8 74.4 68.4 92.09 65.08 10.8 41.0 16.5 28.1 14.5 10.5 11.5 26.1 11.4 18.9 12.9 NGV 10.8 92.09
ORP mV - - - 176 301 258 270 212 280 -9 212 216.6 201 120.3 96.7 158 NGV 176 301
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 8.47 7.6 - 10.64 10.15 9.1 9.91 11.08 9.32 8.38 9.11 9.19 9.27 10.7 9.28 9.53 >6.5 7.6 10.64
Turbidity NTU - - - <5 <5 0.9 17.1 2.3 4.0 <5 <5 8.7 10.0 1.8 4.6 28.4 NGV 0.9 0.9
Laboratory:
pH pH units - - - 6.7 7.8 6.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 6 6.6 7.0 7.4 6.7 7.1 6.6 5.0-9.0 6.6 7.8
Conductivity mS/m - - - 11.7 8.6 11.2 34.5 15.4 35.1 24.5 34.2 15.2 25.1 11.1 22.5 14.6 NGV 8.6 88
Total Suspended Solids g/m3 - - - < 3.0 < 3.0 < 3.0 7 <3 6 - 6 <3 3 <3 <3 <3 NGV 5 5
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - - - 13 12 12 11.5 8 10.3 - 10.2 9.7 10.9 11.9 11.1 9.4 NGV 12 13
Anions meq - - - 1.1 0.78 1.2 3.6 1.51 3.6 2.5 3.6 1.53 3.2 1.02 2.2 1.44 NGV 0.78 1.2
Cations meq - - - 1.1 0.77 1 4.3 1.46 3.8 2.3 3.5 1.55 2.6 1 2.1 1.31 NGV 0.77 1.1
Alkalinity g/m3 as CaCO3 11 17 8 17 11 16 23 16.9 16.2 10 23 26 58 14 46 28 NGV 8 23
Acidity g/m3 as CaCO3 - - - - - - - - - 54 -
Bicarbonate g/m3 at 25°C 18.8 26.3 12.2 21 14 19 28 21 19.7 12.2 28 32 71 17.1 56 34 NGV 12.2 26.3
Total Hardness g/m3 as CaCO3 - - - 36 23 33 107 40 87 47 88 54 101 30 82 47 500 23 36
Calcium g/m3 11 8.72 7 10 6.7 9.9 28 11.2 23 #1 12.5 24 16.2 #1 31 #1 8.8 27 14.4 NGV 5.71 11.9
Magnesium g/m3 3.08 1.84 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.1 8.7 #1 3 7.1 #1 3.9 6.6 #1 3.3 5.6 #1 1.83 4.7 2.6 NGV 1.42 3.08
Potassium g/m3 0.5 0.42 0.4 0.51 0.41 0.47 0.58
#1
0.45 0.57
#1
<1.0 0.55
#1
0.41 0.57
#1
0.35 0.48 0.39 NGV 0.4 0.61
Sodium g/m3 7.61 7.4 7 7.9 6.8 7.3 7.3 #1 6.4 7.5 #1 6.1 6.8 6.1 #1 7.3 #1 5.7 6.5 6.7 300 6.8 7.9
Chloride g/m3 10.3 9.72 9 10 10 9.9 9.3 9.2 9.8 8.3 9.0 8.1 8.0 8 8 7.4 400 9 10.3
Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - < 0.0020 < 0.0020 < 0.0020 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 <0.002 < 0.002 <0.002 1 0 0
Nitrate-N g/m3 - - - 0.14 0.17 0.16 0.127 0.38 0.146 0.194 0.145 0.147 0.038 0.197 0.125 0.182 10 0.122 0.17
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - 0.14 0.17 0.16 0.127 0.38 0.146 0.194 0.146 0.147 0.038 0.197 0.125 0.182 NGV 0.14 0.17
3
Sulphate g/m 26.4 17.6 12 20 12 28 136 42 146 96 139 37 88 24 53 32 400 12 28
Metals:
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.0032 0.016 < 0.0032 0.006 0.052 0.007 - 0.006 0.021 0.008 0.014 0.005 0.01 0.2 <0.0032 0.016
3
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m - - - 0.0072 0.0046 < 0.0032 0.59 0.159 0.48 - 0.33 0.069 0.064 0.044 0.025 0.0193 0.2 <0.0032 0.0072
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.0004 < 0.0002 0.0003 - 0.0005 0.0003 0.0004 < 0.0002 0.0003 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.00046 < 0.00021 0.00053 - 0.00055 0.00031 0.00053 < 0.00021 0.00035 0.00023 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 <d.l. <d.l. <d.l. < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 - < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.05 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m3 <d.l. 0.001 <d.l. < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.0015 < 0.0011 0.0015 - <0.0053 < 0.0011 0.0014 <0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.05 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Barium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.0068 0.0044 0.0063 0.028 0.0174 0.024 - 0.027 #1 0.0182 0.028 0.0091 0.023 0.0156 1 0.0044 0.0068
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.0071 0.0047 0.0067 0.028 0.0177 0.024 - 0.024 #1 0.0187 0.028 0.0089 0.024 0.0157 1 0.0044 0.0071
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 - < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Boron Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.012 0.011 0.012 0.011 #1 0.01 0.0110 - 0.010 0.009 0.011
#1
0.009 0.010
#1
0.010
#1
1 0.011 0.012
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.011 0.0099 0.011 0.0094 #1 0.0102 0.011 - 0.0103 0.0095 0.0104
#1
0.0103 0.0099
#1
0.0090
#1
1 0.0099 0.011
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 0.005 0.003 0.0025 0.0036 0.0016 0.0038 0.42 0.078 0.37 0.25 0.36
#1
0.040 0.053 0.032 0.027 0.02 0.005 0.0016 0.0103
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.005 0.004 0.00251 0.0038 0.0015 0.004 0.42 0.084 0.37 - 0.31
#1
0.043 0.053 0.03 0.029 0.02 0.005 0.0015 0.0106
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 9.8 6.7 9.9 28 11.2 23
#1
12.5 24 16.2
#1
31
#1
8.8 26 14.5
#1
NGV 5.71 9.9
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 9.7 6.6 9.7 30 11.8 22
#1
- 24 14.7
#1
30
#1
8.9 27 14.4
#1
NGV 6.6 9.7
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 - < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.05 <0.00053 <0.00053
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.05 <0.00053 <0.00053
Copper Dissolved g/m3 0.004 0.001 0.00089 0.0019 0.00096 0.0013 0.66 0.176 0.77 - 0.58 0.079 0.067 0.080 0.031 0.036 1 0.00089 0.0059
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 0.004 0.038 0.00107 0.0029 0.0012 0.016 1.06 0.25 1.02 - 0.91 0.149 0.175 0.104 0.072 0.058 1 0.00107 0.038
Iron Dissolved g/m3 0.016 0.016 0.00446 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 0.02 0.13 0.15 <0.4 0.06 0.06 <0.02 0.040 < 0.02 0.03 0.3 < 0.02 0.016
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.029 0.417 0.526 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 1.19 0.41 1.47 1.46 1.25 0.57 0.91 0.21 0.6 0.26 0.3 < 0.021 1.27
Lanthanum Dissolved g/m4 - - - - - - 0.00041 0.00037 0.00043 - 0.00036 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV - -
Lanthanum Total Recoverable g/m5 - - - - - - 0.00061 0.00047 0.00055 - 0.00047 0.00013 <0.00011 <0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV - -
Lead Dissolved g/m3 <d.l. <d.l. <d.l. 0.00058 0.00049 0.00093 0.0177 0.104 0.025 - 0.0157 0.033 0.0075 0.055 0.018 0.046 0.05 0.00049 0.0013
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 0.003 0.008 0.00553 0.0013 0.0008 0.0011 0.157 0.169 0.185 - 0.165 0.163 0.126 0.096 0.135 0.123 0.05 0.0008 0.0697
Lithium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.002 0.0017 0.0019 0.0078 #1 0.0022 0.0067
#1
- 0.0057 0.0027
#1
0.0051
#1
0.0014 0.0035 0.002 NGV 0.0017 0.002
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.0021 0.0016 0.0019 0.0075 0.0027 0.0060
#1
- 0.0058 0.0026
#1
0.0048
#1
0.00136 0.0038 0.0021 NGV 0.0016 0.0021
Magnesium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 2.3 1.6 2.2 8.7 #1 3 7.1
#1
3.9 6.6
#1
3.3
#1
5.6
#1
1.83 4.3 2.6 NGV 1.42 2.3
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 2.3 1.5 2 8.4 3.1 6.6
#1
- 6.4
#1
3.0
#1
5.5
#1
1.89 4.7 2.6 NGV 1.5 2.3
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 0.003 0.0006 0.00041 0.0024 < 0.00053 0.00086 0.94 0.186 0.84 #1 0.44 0.73 #1 0.170 #1 0.31 0.071 0.22 0.088 #1 0.1 <0.00053 0.003
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 0.003 0.006 0.00077 0.0024 0.0007 0.00077 0.96 0.21 0.76 #1 - 0.70 #1 0.160 #1 0.31 0.07 0.23 0.085 #1 0.1 0.0007 0.006
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 - < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.00008 < 0.00008
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 - < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.00008 < 0.00008
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 - < 0.0002 < 0.0002 0.0003 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.00025 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 - < 0.00021 0.00021 0.00047 < 0.00021 0.00025 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Nickel Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.0097 0.0028 0.0084 - 0.0083 #1 0.0011 0.0017 #1 0.0007 0.0015 #1 0.0008 #1 0.1 < 0.0005 < 0.00053
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.01 0.0026 0.0084 - 0.0080 #1 0.00139 0.00142 #1 0.00078 0.00123 #1 < 0.00053 0.1 < 0.0005 < 0.00053
3
Potassium Dissolved g/m - - - 0.46 0.41 0.43 0.58 #1 0.45 0.57
#1
- 0.55 #1 0.41 0.57 #1 0.35 0.48 0.39 NGV 0.41 0.46
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.47 0.41 0.44 0.55 0.47 0.49 #1 - 0.54 #1 0.42 0.55 #1 0.36 0.48 0.46 NGV 0.41 0.47
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.003 #1 < 0.0010 0.002 - <0.005 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.0029 #1 < 0.0011 0.0023 - 0.0055 #2 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Silver Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 - < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Silver Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.0047 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.05 <0.0011 0.0047
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 7.2 6.6 7.3 7.3 #1 6.4 7.5
#1
- 6.8 6.1
#1
7.3
#1
5.7 6.5 5.9 300 6.6 7.3
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 7.2 6.3 7.5 6.9 6.6 6.6 #1 - 7.1 6.0 #1 6.8 #1 5.9 6.5 6.7 300 6.3 7.5
Tin Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 - < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 - < 0.00053 <0.00053 <0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 - < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 0.595 0.306 0.18499 0.41 0.18 0.43 58 #1 11.1 53 #1 33 45 #1 5.9 #1 7.4 #1 4.5#1 4.9 #1 2.9 5 0.18 1.26
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 0.572 0.376 0.18564 0.39 0.18 0.42 54 11.6 47
#1
- 44
#1
5.6
#1
7.0
#1
4.2
#1
4.4
#1
2.9 5 0.18 1.2
Notes:
"-" Parameter not measured
#1
It has been noted that the result for the dissolved fraction was greater than that for the total fraction, but within analytical variation of the methods.
#2
Result may be incorrect due to analytical interences caused by high zinc results
NGV: No guideline value
Value exceeds ANZECC Guideline values
PDP A02277802_Report Tables 2013.xls PATTLE DELAMORE PARTNERS LTD

Sample Location Level 5 Adit (SW5) ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sample No. O4 A810 A964 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 SW5 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampled By URS URS URS URS PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP2011 PDP 2012 PDP2012 PDP2012 PDP2012 PDP 2013 PDP 2013 PDP2013
Sampling date 6/12/00 19/12/00 22/02/01 15/12/01 17/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 6/09/11 11/10/2011 8/11/2011 15/8/2012 6/09/2012 17/10/2012 15/11/2012 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Laboratory Number 154963/4 155596/5 158764/5 728224.3 734195.3 744474.2 930978.2 943005.2 951502.2 1036699.3 1044859.4 1060297.2 1070611.7 1185572.2 1193690.2 1203456.2
Flow Rate L/s - - - - - - - 0.65 0.68 0.81 1.7 1.8 2.09 2.62 1.50 1.86 1.55
Flow rate m3/sec - - - 0.0100 0.0057 0.0102 0.0081 0.0007 0.0007 0.0008 0.0017 0.0018 0.0021 0.0026 0.0015 0.0019 0.0016
Field:
Temperature (ºC) - - - - 14.35 12.92 13.98 12.15 12.27 12.14 12.32 13.1 13 13 13 13.2 13.5 15-33 12.92 15.47
pH pH units - - - - 7.63 6.31 7.29 7.33 7.05 7.12 6.8 7.42 7.04 6.89 6.71 6.86 6.85 5.0-9.0 6.31 7.63
Conductivity mS/m - - - - 56.29 46.55 61.4 123 132 111 145 199 195.4 217 189.2 191.7 194 NGV 45.5 61.4
ORP mV - - - - 194 225 297 55 8 87 -9 30.6 -10.8 0.2 -18.7 12.5 56 NGV 194 297
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - - - - 9.66 9.47 9.91 9.28 10.15 9.84 8.38 8.99 7.53 8.05 8.79 7.13 7.72 >6.5 8.62 9.91
Turbidity NTU - - - - <5 <5 19 0.7 3.8 6.1 <5 5.1 39.7 38.5 22.7 21.2 36 NGV <5 19
Laboratory:
pH (pH units) pH units 7.1 7.3 6.9 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.5 6.9 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.7 5.0-9.0 6.9 7.3
Conductivity mS/m 66.1 69 62.5 56 65.7 54.6 62.8 123.8 130.2 135.8 169.9 188.6 183.0 214 182.8 119 1887 NGV 54.6 69
Total Suspended Solids g/m3 15 16 13 13 14 14 14 8 7 9 - 26 28 32 35 41 39 NGV 11 16
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - - - - 17 17 16 24 23 23 - 22 24 22 22 23 21 NGV 16 17
Total Cyanide g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05 - -
Anions meq - - - - 7.4 5.6 #2 7.5 15.3 15.9 17.3 24 27 27 29 25 27 26 NGV 5.6 7.5
#2
Cations meq - - - - 6.5 4.9 6.8 15.1 16.6 16.7 24 26 26 30 23 25 23 NGV 4.9 6.8
3
Alkalinity g/m as CaCO3 68 74 57 49 68 43 64 110 113 111 114 117 116 114 116 119 128 NGV 38 74
3
Acidity g/m as CaCO3 37 -
Bicarbonate g/m3 at 25°C - - - - 83 52 78 134 138 135 139.5 143 142 139 141 145 156 NGV 46 83
Total Hardness g/m3 as CaCO3 - - - - 290 220 300 670 740 750 1080 1170 1190 1360 1050 1120 1070 500 190 300
Calcium g/m3 89.1 87.6 80.4 61.5 88 64 91 220 240 240 350 390
#1
380 450
#1
350 370 350 NGV 56 91
Magnesium g/m3 17.7 17.9 16.4 11.9 18 14 18 33 35 34 50 50 55
#1
58
#1
45 53 47 NGV 11.9 18
Potassium g/m3 1.26 1.23 1.21 1.3 0.93 1.3 1.41
#1
1.39 1.47
#1
1.70 1.82 1.68 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.46 NGV 0.84 1.4
Sodium g/m3 14.8 14.4 14.6 - 15 12 15 20
#1
21 23
#1
25 26 27 32
#1
26 26 21 300 11 15
Chloride g/m3 10.9 10.9 10.3 - 10 11 10 10.2 9.7 10.2 9.7 9.7 9.5 9.4 10.3 9.5 8.8 400 10 11
Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - < 0.0020 < 0.0020 < 0.0020 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.008 <0.002 <0.010 <0.02 0.006 0.003 <0.02 1 < 0.0020 < 0.0020
Nitrate-N g/m3 0.03 0.019 0.036 0.024 0.062 0.033 0.019 0.013 0.015 0.006 0.010 0.013 <0.02 0.005 0.005 0.020 10 0.019 0.068
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - 0.025 0.063 0.033 0.02 0.014 0.017 0.014 0.012 0.013 <0.02 0.011 0.007
#3
0.03 NGV 0.025 0.068
Sulphate g/m3 280 281 268 235 270 210 280 620 640 710 1010 1160 1190 1270 1060 1150 1130 400 210 292
Metals:
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 0.0046 0.0083 0.0044 < 0.003 < 0.006 < 0.003 <0.006 < 0.006 <0.015 < 0.003 < 0.006 < 0.003 0.2 0.0044 0.0083
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 0.26 0.44 0.26 0.0038 0.0091 < 0.0063 - <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.016 0.0057 < 0.0063 < 0.0032 0.2 0.26 0.44
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 0.00063 0.00037 0.00061 0.0002 < 0.0004 < 0.0002 - <0.0004 < 0.0004 <0.0010 < 0.0002 < 0.0004 < 0.0002 NGV 0.00037 0.00063
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 0.001 0.00073 0.001 0.00023 < 0.00042 0.00031 - < 0.00042 < 0.00042 <0.0011 < 0.00021 < 0.00042 < 0.00021 NGV 0.00073 0.001
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 0.001 0.001 0.001 - < 0.0021 < 0.0053 0.0014 0.0015
#1
0.002 0.002 - 0.009 0.009 0.012 0.028 0.025 0.023 0.05 < 0.0053 0.0015
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m3 0.005 0.006 0.005 - 0.0052 0.0038 0.0048 0.0014
#1
0.0026 < 0.0021 - 0.0143 0.0146 0.0174 0.03 0.027 0.029 0.05 0.003 0.006
Barium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 0.024 0.022 0.026 0.081
#1
0.082 0.079
#1
- 0.062
#1
0.052 0.053 0.042 0.043 0.044 1 <0.0010 0.026
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 0.024 0.023 0.027 0.079
#1
0.083 0.074
#1
- 0.057
#1
0.056 0.054 0.043 0.043 0.044 1 0.023 0.027
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.0002 < 0.00010 - <0.0002 < 0.0002 <0.0005 < 0.00010 < 0.0002 < 0.00010 NGV <0.00011 <0.00011
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00021 < 0.00011 - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 <0.00053 < 0.00011 < 0.00021 < 0.00011 NGV <0.00011 <0.00011
Boron Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 0.024 0.019 0.027 0.029
#1
0.029 0.030 - 0.040 0.048 0.05 0.042
#1
0.04 0.041
#1
1 0.014 0.027
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 0.023 0.022 0.026 0.028
#1
0.04 0.033 - 0.050 0.049 0.053 0.038
#1
0.044 0.039
#1
1 0.022 0.026
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 0.107 0.103 0.189 0.133 0.13 0.19 0.12 0.045 0.054 0.045 - 0.023 0.024 0.030
#1
0.0104 0.0114 0.0122 0.005 0.033 0.21
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.116 0.114 0.19 0.144 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.046 0.053 0.047 0.0141 0.023 0.028 0.029
#1
0.0108 0.0121 0.0131 0.005 0.108 0.21
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 61.5 86 58 84 220 240 240 - 390
#1
380 450
#1
350 370 350 NGV 58 86
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 85 63 89 220 250 240 350 380 410 440
#1
350 370 360 NGV 63 89
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0010 < 0.0005 - <0.0010 < 0.0010 <0.003 < 0.0005 < 0.0010 < 0.0005 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - < 0.00053 0.00058 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.0011 < 0.00053 - <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0027 < 0.00053 < 0.0011 < 0.00053 0.05 <0.00053 <0.00058
Copper Dissolved g/m3 0.0064 0.0051 0.0162 0.0145 0.0085 0.043 0.0093 0.0023 < 0.0010 < 0.0005 - <0.0010 0.0019
#1
0.003 < 0.0005 < 0.0010 < 0.0005 1 0.005 0.073
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 0.175 0.167 0.283 0.222 0.2 0.49 0.21 0.0025 < 0.0011 0.0052 - <0.0011 <0.0011
#1
0.0033 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.00053 1 0.099 0.49
Iron Dissolved g/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 0.27 1.33 1.59 - 11.1 11.4 14.8 18.7 18.6 17.1 0.3 <0.002 0.457
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 4.22 4.85 3.47 3.03 4.7 4.4 4.2 1.35 2.6 2.9 9.9 13.7 14.7 18.8 18.8 19.8 21 0.3 2.46 4.85
Lanthanum Dissolved g/m4 - - - - - - - < 0.00010 <0.0002 < 0.00010 12.5 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0005 < 0.00010 < 0.0002 < 0.00010 NGV - -
Lanthanum Total Recoverable g/m5 - - - - - - - < 0.00011 <0.00021 < 0.00011 - <0.00021 <0.00021 <0.00053 0.00025 < 0.00021 0.00023 NGV - -
Lead Dissolved g/m3 0.0013 0.0028 0.001 0.0009 0.00025 0.00077 0.00026 < 0.00010 < 0.0002 < 0.00010 - < 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0005 0.00015 < 0.0002 0.0001 0.05 0.00025 0.0028
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0878 0.0771 0.0953 0.0979 0.072 0.15 0.077 0.0028 0.0036 0.0040 - 0.00136 0.00141 0.00175 0.00290 0.00330 0.00151 0.05 0.03 0.15
Lithium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 0.02 0.015 0.021 0.03 0.033 0.036
#1
- 0.039 0.043 0.049
#1
0.042
#1
0.045 0.044 NGV 0.015 0.021
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 0.019 0.015 0.02 0.03 0.043 0.032
#1
- 0.044 0.045 0.046
#1
0.037
#1
0.045 0.046 NGV 0.015 0.02
Magnesium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 11.9 18 13 18 33 35 34 - 50 55
#1
58
#1
45
#1
51 47 NGV 11.9 18
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 18 14 19 31 37 34 50 54 52
#1
57
#1
40
#1
53 50 NGV 14 19
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 1.9 1.5 1.7 3.1 4.2 4.3
#1
- 6.0 6.2 6.9 6.5
#1
6.6 6.5 0.1 0.364 1.9
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 1.8 1.6 1.7 3.2 4.3 4.0
#1
5.5 6.2 6.2 7.2 6.1
#1
6.7 6.8 0.1 1.388 1.8
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 - - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 - < 0.00008 < 0.00008 <0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 - < 0.00008 < 0.00008 <0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 0.00058 0.00027 0.00043 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 - <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0010 0.0004
#1
< 0.0004 0.0003 NGV 0.00027 0.00058
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 0.00059 0.00036 0.00046 0.00083 0.0007 0.00060 - <0.00042 <0.00042 <0.0011 0.00034
#1
0.00051 0.00035 NGV 0.00036 0.00059
Nickel Dissolved g/m3 0.0223 0.0233 0.0212 0.0186 0.025 0.021 0.023 0.036 0.044 0.042 - 0.059 0.058 0.074 0.051 0.053 0.053 0.1 0.0186 0.025
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0215 0.0236 0.0217 0.0195 0.025 0.021 0.023 0.039 0.044 0.044 - 0.065 0.064 0.074 0.057 0.057 0.055 0.1 0.0195 0.025
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 1.1 0.85 1.2 1.41
#1
1.39 1.47
#1
- 1.82 1.68 1.8 1.69 1.75 1.46 NGV 0.85 1.2
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 1.1 0.94 1.1 1.36
#1
1.54 1.27
#1
- 1.88 1.85 1.85 1.76 1.82 2.1 NGV 0.94 1.1
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - < 0.0021 < 0.0053 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.002 < 0.002 - <0.002 < 0.002 <0.005 < 0.0010 < 0.002 0.001 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0053
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - < 0.0021 0.0029 < 0.0021 < 0.0011 < 0.0021 < 0.0021 - < 0.0021 < 0.0021 <0.0053 < 0.0021 < 0.0021 0.0012 0.01 < 0.0021 0.0029
Silver Dissolved g/m3 - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.0002 < 0.00010 - <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0005 < 0.00010 < 0.0002 < 0.00010 0.05 <0.0001 <0.0002
Silver Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.0003 < 0.00011 < 0.00022 < 0.00011 - < 0.00022 <0.0011
#2
<0.00053 < 0.00011 < 0.00022 < 0.00011 0.05 <0.0001 0.0003
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - 13 11 15 20
#1
21 23
#1
- 26 27 32
#1
26 26 21 300 11 15
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - 13 11 14 19.8
#1
23 20
#1
- 30 28 29
#1
27 26 30 300 11 14
Tin Dissolved g/m3 - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0010 < 0.0005 - <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.003 < 0.0005 < 0.0010 < 0.0005 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0011 < 0.00053 - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 <0.0027 < 0.00053 < 0.0011 < 0.00053 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 0.00004 #1 < 0.00004 0.00003 - <0.000042 < 0.00004 <0.00010 < 0.00002 < 0.00004 < 0.00002 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 0.000028 #1 < 0.000042 0.000031 - < 0.000042 < 0.000042 <0.00011 < 0.000021 < 0.000042 < 0.000021 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 15.9 15.9 23.7 17.4 20 27 19 18.7 21 18.4 - 14.3 15.0 17.9 9.3 9.4 9 5 14.6 30
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 18.5 18.7 26.4 19.4 22 30 22 19.5 21 18.4 12.9 16.1 16.3 18.1 10.7 9.9 9.8 5 16.8 30
-
Notes:
#1
#2
Anion/cation balanced outside DQOs
#3

Sample Location Tunakohoia N Branch, Downstream (SW7) ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sample No. TK2 TK2 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 SW7 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampled By URS Sharplin Sharplin PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP 2012 PDP 2012 PDP 2012 PDP 2013 PDP 2013 PDP 2013
Sampling date 25/03/98 3/05/07 27/07/07 17/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 6/09/11 11/10/11 8/11/11 6/09/12 17/10/12 15/11/12 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Laboratory Number 728224.5 734195.5 744474.15 930978.3 943005.4 951502.3 1044859.2 1060297.3 1070611.1 1185572.3 1193690.3 1203456.3
Flow Rate L/s - 53.4 27 - - - - - - - - -
Flow rate m3/sec - 0.0534 0.0270 0.0179 0.1089 0.0198 0.0072 0.0471 0.0139 0.0392 0.0231 0.0131 0.1379 0.0244 0.0262 0.0179 0.1089
Field:
Temperature (ºC) - 13.1 10.3 11.89 10.27 11.36 9.19 12.22 11.31 10.7 10.5 11.5 11.9 11.4 10.9 15-33 10.27 13.1
pH pH units - 5.98 6.95 6.97 6.57 6.39 7.10 5.76 5.81 7.29 7.33 7.02 7.14 7.49 6.87 5.0-9.0 5.98 6.97
Conductivity mS/m - 27.6 19.1 30.07 15.68 34.6 29.9 21.4 25.2 32.0 39.8 49.1 17.9 38.7 36.1 NGV 15.68 34.6
ORP mV - - - 233 589 330 259 286 392 308 226.8 200.8 180.1 139 302 NGV 233 589
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - 10.1 8.55 10.77 11.08 10.45 11.92 12.14 11.15 10.91 9.39 11.59 11.31 11 10.26 >6.5 8.55 11.08
Turbidity NTU - - - <5 <5 5.4 <5 2.7 <5 <5 <5 <5 4.6 6.0 5.8 NGV <5 5.4
Laboratory:
pH pH units 7.2 - - 7.3 7.4 7 7.5 7 6.8 7.1 6.9 6.8 7 7.1 7 5.0-9.0 6.8 7.4
Conductivity mS/m 36.5 - - 36.7 20.8 35.8 30.4 20.9 31.2 31.5 40.1 49.9 18 39.1 36.2 NGV 20.8 47.8
Total Suspended Solids g/m3 <3 - - < 3.0 < 3.0 < 3.0 <3 4 <3 <3 <3 <3 3 <3 <3 NGV <3 4
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
3
Total Cyanide g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05 - -
Anions meq - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -

Cations meq - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Alkalinity g/m3 as CaCO3 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 16 32
Bicarbonate g/m3 at 25°C - 29.9 17.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 17.2 29.9
Total Hardness g/m3 as CaCO3 - - - - - - 107 72 113 118 154 230 55 150 138 500 - -
3
Calcium g/m 38.1 36.6 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 20.8 51.7
Magnesium g/m3 10.3 11 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 6.4 14.2
Potassium g/m3 1 0.91 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 0.6 1.18
Sodium g/m3 11.2 11.2 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - 300 11 12.8
Chloride g/m3 11 11.1 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - 400 10.6 11.9
Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
Nitrate-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 0.013 0.099
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Sulphate g/m3 133 133 102.72 - - - - - - - - - - - - 400 80.6 189
Metals;
3
Aluminium Dissolved g/m - - - 0.16 0.084 0.055 0.05 0.189 0.110 0.087 0.082 0.080 0.088 0.043 0.055 0.2 0.055 0.16
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.38 0.29 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.189 0.27 0.164 0.22 0.145 0.091 0.092 0.2 0.29 0.38
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.00022 < 0.00021 0.00074 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 0.00074
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.00027 0.00027 0.0013 < 0.00021 0.00024 0.00025 <0.00021 <0.00021 0.00024 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV 0.00027 0.0013
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 - <d.l. 0.000676 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 <0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.05 <0.001 0.000676
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m3 - <d.l. 0.00464 < 0.0011 0.0041 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.05 <0.001 0.00464
Barium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.024 0.021 0.025 0.026 0.022 0.029
#1
0.026
#1
0.026 0.033 0.0167 0.024 0.025
#1
1 0.021 0.025
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.024 0.023 0.025 0.027 0.024 0.028
#1
0.025
#1
0.028 0.034 0.0168 0.026 0.024
#1
1 0.023 0.025
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Boron Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.015 0.013 0.015 0.015 #1 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.016 0.019
#1
0.013 0.016
#1
0.015
#1
1 0.013 0.015
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.0129 #1 0.0148 0.0150 0.0149 0.0164 0.0167
#1
0.0132 0.0147
#1
0.0133
#1
1 0.014 0.017
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 0.0522 0.027 0.045 0.046 0.028 0.049 0.035 0.029 0.042
#1
0.027 0.023 0.028 0.0119
#1
0.0146 0.0158 0.005 0.027 0.0639
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.027 0.0458 0.048 0.029 0.049 0.035 0.031 0.039
#1
0.027 0.025 0.028 0.0113
#1
0.0157 0.016 0.005 0.027 0.0614
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 36 18 36 27 19 30
#1
32 43 64
#1
14.3
#1
42 39 NGV 18 36
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 37 19 36 28 19.7 29
#1
33 44 60
#1
14.2
#1
43 40 NGV 19 37
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Copper Dissolved g/m3 0.0123 0.008 0.0015 0.021 0.02 0.0099 0.0117 0.027 0.0139 0.0105 0.0073 0.0074 0.0081 0.0033 0.0049 1 0.0015 0.021
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.02 0.06185 0.041 0.065 0.042 0.023 0.048 0.0190 0.0198 0.0104 0.0119 0.0138 0.0064 0.0061 1 0.0176 0.0651
Iron Dissolved g/m3 <0.05 0.02 0.03268 0.16 0.037 < 0.021 < 0.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.06 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.3 0.02 0.16
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.299 0.841 0.41 0.41 0.55 0.025 0.167 0.021 0.084 0.058 0.038 0.2 0.46 0.05 0.3 0.11 0.841
Lanthanum Dissolved g/m4 - - - - - - 0.00081 0.00079 0.00065 0.00048 0.00042 0.00051 0.00017 0.00016 0.00028 NGV - -
Lanthanum Total Recoverable g/m5 - - - - - - 0.00129 0.00128 0.00081 0.00074 0.00064 0.00084 0.00028 0.00035 0.00035 NGV - -
Lead Dissolved g/m3 0.0077 0.003 0.00249 0.014 0.012 0.0036 0.0059 0.023 0.0117 0.0067 0.0040 0.0029 0.0137 0.00109 0.0029 0.05 0.00249 0.014
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.01 0.02983 0.033 0.1 0.036 0.023 0.059 0.0184 0.022 0.0131 0.0127 0.034 0.0108 0.0063 0.05 0.01 0.1
Lithium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.0095 0.0047 0.0092 0.0072 #1 0.0047 0.0064 0.0058 0.0066 0.0093
#1
0.0037
#1
0.0065 0.006 NGV 0.0047 0.0095
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.0097 0.005 0.0098 0.0070 #1 0.0057 0.0065 0.0065 0.0072 0.0079
#1
0.0034
#1
0.0069 0.0 NGV 0.005 0.0098
Magnesium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 11 5.5 10 9.8 6 9.0 9.0 11.2 16.0
#1
4.8
#1
11.2 9.6 NGV 5.5 11
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 11 5.6 11 10 6 9.2 9.7 11.2 15.1
#1
4.7
#1
11.2 10.1 NGV 5.6 11
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 - 0.471 0.368 0.55 0.23 0.55 0.32 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.36
#1
0.093 0.2 0.180
#1
0.1 0.23 0.55
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.441 0.365 0.57 0.24 0.63 0.35 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.35
#1
0.104 0.22 0.179
#1
0.1 0.24 0.63
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00021 0.0045 < 0.00021 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 0.0045
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00021 0.005 0.00023 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.00023 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 0.005
Nickel Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.011 0.0046 0.0094 0.0068 0.0053 0.0068
#1
0.0063
#1
0.0062 0.0078 0.0027 0.0051 0.0051
#1
0.1 0.0046 0.0123
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.011 0.005 0.01 0.0073 0.0055 0.0066
#1
0.0062
#1
0.0072 0.0081 0.003 0.0058 0.0047
#1
0.1 0.005 0.0126
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 0.99 1.6 0.94 0.95 #1 0.87 0.92
#1
1.02 0.97 1.21 0.92 1.02
#1
0.9 NGV 0.94 1.6
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 1 1.8 1 0.93 #1 0.95 0.83
#1
1.05 1.09 1.21 0.94 0.99
#1
1.04 NGV 1 1.8
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.0012 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.01 < 0.0011 0.0012
Silver Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Silver Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.05 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 - - - 11 9.5 12 11.7 #1 8.6 11.2
#1
10.5 11.3 14.7
#1
9.3 12.4
#1
11 300 9.5 12
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 11 9.6 12 11.1 #1 9.1 10.6
#1
11.4 11.5 13.9
#1
9.4 11.7
#1
12.8 300 9.6 12
Tin Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.00057 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV < 0.00053 0.00057
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 5.29 6.02 6.155 6.6 3.9 6.8 5.2 #1 4.2 5.9
#1
4.0 3.3 4.0
#1
1.72
#1
2.4
#1
2.3 5 3.9 7.79
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 - 6.31 6.314 7 4.1 7.2 4.9 #1 4.2 5.4 #1 4.0 3.6 3.8 #1 1.71 #1 2.3 #1 2.3 5 4.1 8.04
Notes:
#1

Sample Location ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sample No. SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 SW8 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampled By PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP 2012 PDP 2012 PDP 2012 PDP 2013 PDP 2013 PDP 2013
Sampling date 17/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 6/09/11 11/10/11 8/11/11 6/09/12 17/10/12 15/11/12 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Laboratory Number 728224.7 734195.7 744474.16 930978.4 943005.5 951502.4 1044859.3 1060297.4 1070611.2 1185572.4 1193690.4 1203456.4
Flow Rate L/s 14.9
Flow rate m3/sec 0.0250 0.1237 0.0382 0.0149 0.1078 0.0301 0.0077 0.0070 0.0116 0.1260 0.0312 0.0259 0.0250 0.1237
Field:
Temperature (ºC) 11.28 8.62 11.42 10.12 11.81 11.03 9.7 9.7 11 11.3 10.7 11.5 15-33 8.62 11.42
pH pH units 7.3 7.93 6.06 7.63 6.11 6.35 7.26 7.02 6.63 7.77 7.23 7.5 5.0-9.0 6.06 7.93
Conductivity mS/m 8.4 6 9 17.5 7.2 7.1 8.5 8.9 9.48 7.9 9.1 9.3 NGV 6 9
ORP mV 242 796 350 216 195 304 202 234.6 216.3 152.2 153.8 285 NGV 242 796
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 10.7 11.42 12.4 10.37 13.74 11.48 11.9 9.74 11.57 10.41 10.71 10.52 >6.5 10.7 12.4
Turbidity NTU <5 <5 1.6 <5 3.7 <5 2.0 <5 <5 2.7 2.4 5.2 NGV <5 1.6
Laboratory:
pH pH units 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.8 7.3 7.3 7.4 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 5.0-9.0 6.8 7.7
Conductivity mS/m 10.4 8.3 9.2 10.2 6.9 8.9 8.4 8.7 10.6 7.9 9.1 9.3 NGV 8.3 10.9
3
Total Suspended Solids g/m < 3.0 < 3.0 < 3.0 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 3 NGV <3 <3
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Total Cyanide g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05 - -
Anions meq - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -

Cations meq - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Alkalinity g/m3 as CaCO3 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 12 18
Bicarbonate g/m3 at 25°C - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Total Hardness g/m3 as CaCO3 - - - 28 17.9 24 23 23 31 17.8 23 25 500 - -
3
Calcium g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 5.07 7.38
Magnesium g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 1.89 2.66
Potassium g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV 0.4 0.54
3
Sodium g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - 300 6.6 7.65
Chloride g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 400 10.3 10.7
Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
Nitrate-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 - -
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Sulphate g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 400 10.7 17
Metals:
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 0.016 0.051 0.03 0.024 0.103 0.031 0.039 0.020 0.020 0.064 0.017 0.016 0.2 0.016 0.051
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.03 0.074 0.048 0.028 0.183 0.054 0.078 0.053 0.047 0.109 0.071 0.052 0.2 0.03 0.074
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.00027 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 0.00027
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.00066 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 0.00066
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.05 <0.001 < 0.0011
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.05 <0.002 < 0.0012
Barium Dissolved g/m3 0.0061 0.0054 0.0058 0.006 0.0051 0.0056 0.0052 0.0050 0.0066 0.0053 0.0055 0.0062
#1
1 0.0054 0.0061
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0063 0.0063 0.0061 0.0061 0.0059 0.0057 0.0052 0.0059 0.0070 0.0055 0.0062 0.0059
#1
1 0.0061 0.0063
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Boron Dissolved g/m3 0.0094 0.0095 0.01 0.010 #1 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011
#1
0.010
#1
1 0.0094 0.01
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0099 0.011 0.0087 0.0086 #1 0.0103 0.0105 0.0092 0.0096 0.0104 0.0105 0.0082
#1
0.0086
#1
1 0.0087 0.011
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 0.005 <0.00005 0.00024
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 < 0.000053 0.005 <0.00005 < 0.000053
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 6.6 5.1 6.4 6.8 4.5 6.1
#1
5.4 5.9 7.9
#1
4.4 5.7 6.4 NGV 5.07 6.6
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m3 6.9 5.5 6 7.3 4.9 5.9
#1
5.5 6.2 7.4
#1
4.6 5.9 6.4 NGV 5.5 6.9
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.05 < 0.000053 < 0.000053
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.05 < 0.000053 < 0.000053
Copper Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.00063 < 0.0005 0.0008 < 0.0005 0.0006 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 1 < 0.00053 0.0011
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00053 0.0006 0.00076 < 0.00053 0.00099 0.00065 0.00058 0.00056 < 0.00053 0.00056 0.00054 < 0.00053 1 < 0.00053 0.0012
Iron Dissolved g/m3 < 0.021 0.026 0.029 < 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.3 <0.00005 0.029
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.025 0.036 0.052 < 0.021 0.142 0.045 0.058 0.053 <0.21 0.095 0.077 0.055 0.3 <0.00005 0.06
Lanthanum Dissolved g/m4 - - - < 0.00010 0.00021 < 0.00010 0.00012 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV - -
Lanthanum Total Recoverable g/m5 - - - < 0.00011 0.0003 0.00021 0.00014 0.00012 < 0.00011 0.00013 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV - -
Lead Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 0.00027 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.00014 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 < 0.00011 0.0011
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00011 0.00036 0.00041 < 0.00011 0.0008 0.00017 0.00016 0.00022 < 0.00011 0.00032 0.00016 0.00013 0.05 < 0.00011 0.0021
Lithium Dissolved g/m3 0.00051 0.0007 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006
#1
0.0006 0.0006 0.0007
#1
0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 NGV 0.0005 0.0007
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.00059 0.00079 0.00059 0.00055 0.00086 0.00055
#1
0.00070 0.00067 0.00062
#1
0.00077 0.00069 0.00065 NGV 0.00059 0.00079
Magnesium Dissolved g/m3 2.6 2 2.3 2.6 1.6 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.8
#1
1.64 2.1 2.2 NGV 1.89 2.6
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 2.7 2.1 2 2.6 1.76 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.5
#1
1.73 2.2 2.2 NGV 2 2.7
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00053 0.0014 0.0011 0.0006 0.0018 0.0009 0.0026 0.0014 0.0012 0.0012 0.0014 0.0009 0.1 < 0.00053 0.0014
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0014 0.0028 0.0019 0.00118 0.0065 0.0025 0.0042 0.0036 0.0035 0.005 0.0044 0.0035 0.1 0.0014 0.0028
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Nickel Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.1 <0.00005 < 0.000053
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.00056 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.1 <0.0005 0.0009
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 0.51 0.45 0.46 0.47 #1 0.48 0.46
#1
0.55 0.42 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.44 NGV 0.45 0.51
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.46 #1 0.53 0.42
#1
0.56 0.53 0.56 0.5 0.45 0.52 NGV 0.45 0.53
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Silver Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Silver Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 7.9 7 7.8 8.1 #1 5.9 7.2
#1
7.2 6.7 8.9
#1
7.1 7.4
#1
7.4 300 7 7.9
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 8.1 7.3 7.2 7.7 #1 6.3 6.8
#1
7.3 7.0 8.1
#1
7.3 7.2
#1
8.5 300 7.2 8.1
Tin Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 0.0017 #1 0.0015 <0.0011 0.0016 #1 0.0019 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0015 0.0011
#1
0.0016
#1
5 0.0015 0.017
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0013 #1 < 0.0011 0.0024 0.0014 #1 0.0063 0.0012 <0.0011 0.0045 <0.0011 0.0022 < 0.0011 #1 0.0012 #1 5 0.001 0.01
Notes:
#1

Table B-5: Water Quality Results for Tui Mine Monitoring at SW11
Sample Location Tailings Drainage, Tui Tributary (SW11)
Sample No. 06 A814 A969 F240 TD2 TD2 TD2 SW11 SW11 SW11 SW11 SW11 SW11 ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sampled By URS URS URS URS URS URS Sharplin Sharplin Sharplin PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2013 PDP 2013 PDP 2013 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampling date 25/03/98 20/05/98 6/12/00 19/12/00 22/02/01 15/12/01 30/01/07 3/05/07 27/07/07 18/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Laboratory Number 154963/6 155596/9 158764/9 728224.9 734195.9 744474.5 1185572.5 1193690.5 1203456.5
0.163 0.141 5.27 0.0775
Flow rate m3/sec 0.000163 0.000141 0.00527 0.0012 0.002 0.00111006 0.0029 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000775 0.002886181
Field:
Temperature (ºC) - - - - - - 16.3 14.9 11.1 12.37 11.70 13.95 12.6 13.00 14.3 15-33 11.1 16.3
pH pH units - - - - - - 3.38 3.27 2.91 3.29 3.04 3.36 6.5 7.95 6.83 5.0-9.0 2.91 3.38
Conductivity mS/m - - - - - - 107 104 101 52.9 61.8 69.3 50.9 1.88 71 NGV 52.9 107
ORP mV - - - - - - - - - 496 516 477 92.4 182 62 NGV 477 516
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - - - - - - 3.25 2.29 5.95 10.31 9.33 10.84 8.76 8.5 7.47 >6.5 2.29 10.84
Turbidity NTU - - - - - - - - - <5 <5 5 11.3 35.2 35 NGV 5 5
Laboratory:
pH pH units 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.9 - - - 3.2 3.2 3.3 6.3 6.6 6.8 5.0-9.0 3.2 3.3
Conductivity mS/m 42.5 49 52 56.5 58.4 - - - - 72.2 82.1 71.9 48.9 72.8 68.7 NGV 71.9 82.1
3
Total Suspended Solids g/m 4 8 4 4 5 8 - - - 24 11 25 24 32 26 NGV 11 25
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
3
Total Cyanide g/m - - - - - - - - - 0.0022 0.0025 0.0026 0.0024 0.005 - 0.05 0.0022 0.005
Anions meq - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -

Cations meq - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - - - - NGV - -
Bicarbonate (mg/L as CaCO3) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) - - - - - - - - - - - - 186 260 250 500 - -
3
Calcium g/m 22 26.4 28 27.3 29.7 21.1 42.7 43 42 - - - - - - NGV - -
Magnesium g/m3 10.2 12.5 14.5 14.4 15.4 8.64 30.4 30 30 - - - - - - NGV - -
3
Potassium g/m 1.2 1.6 1.48 1.44 1.62 - 2.7 2.5 2.6 - - - - - - NGV - -
3
Sodium g/m 10.5 10.1 10.8 10.6 11.8 - 10.4 10 10 - - - - - - 300 - -
Chloride g/m3 12 11.9 14.1 12.5 12.5 - 10.5 11 11 - - - - - - 400 - -
3
Nitrite-N g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
Nitrate-N g/m3 - - 0.34 0.3 0.31 - - - - - - 10 - -
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Sulphate g/m3 158 184 242 227 239 153 731 661 703 - - - - - - 400 - -
Metals
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 10 14 10 0.012 0.016 0.012 0.2 10 14

Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 10 14 12 1.53 1.78 0.96 0.2 10 14
3
Antimony Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - 0.00044 0.00072 0.00039 0.0022 0.0012 0.0009 NGV 0.00039 0.00072
3
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - 0.00055 0.00077 0.00041 0.0033 0.00131 0.00104 NGV 0.00041 0.00077
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 - - 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.018 0.026 0.012 0.005 0.0166 0.0135 0.05 0.012 0.11
3
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m - - 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.16 0.133 0.03 0.023 0.028 0.014 0.018 0.031 0.022 0.05 0.014 0.16
3 #1 #1
Barium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - 0.03 0.031 0.033 0.050 0.071 0.071 1 0.03 0.033
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.031 0.03 0.031 0.049 #1 0.072 0.068 #1 1 0.03 0.031
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.00062 0.0008 0.00067 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV 0.00062 0.0008
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.00058 0.00072 0.0007 0.00017 0.00019 < 0.00011 NGV 0.00058 0.00072
Boron Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.018 #1 0.018 #1 1 0.012 0.013
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.0146 0.0162 #1 0.0160 #1 1 0.011 0.014
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 0.0367 0.0428 0.0708 0.0692 0.0709 0.0338 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.076 #1 0.024 0.026 0.005 0.11 0.2
3 #1
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m - - 0.0688 0.0695 0.0649 0.0325 0.15 0.17 0.2 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.074 0.063 0.034 0.005 0.11 0.2
3
Calcium Dissolved g/m - - - - - 21.1 - - - 26 24 25 54 77 77 NGV 24 26
3
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - 25 23 26 55 78 78 NGV 23 26
3
Chromium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - 0.0028 0.0037 0.003 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.05 0.0028 0.0037
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.0027 0.0037 0.003 0.00092 0.00056 < 0.00053 0.05 0.0027 0.0037
3
Copper Dissolved g/m 0.222 0.234 0.403 0.419 0.342 0.245 0.78 0.9 4 0.96 1.7 0.97 0.136 0.0035 0.0054 1 0.78 4
3
Copper Total Recoverable g/m - - 0.415 0.426 0.347 0.252 0.78 0.9 4.4 1 1.6 0.99 0.54 0.29 0.146 1 0.78 4.4
Iron Dissolved g/m3 2.07 2.82 1.25 1 1.97 1.72 104 114 77 20 26 17 4.9 9.6 4.3 0.3 17 114
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 - - 2.39 1.67 3.11 3.73 103 119 78 22 26 19 8.3 12 7.1 0.3 19 119
4
Lanthanum Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0021 0.00122 0.00028 NGV 0 0
5
Lanthanum Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0039 0.0048 0.0024 NGV 0 0
3
Lead Dissolved g/m 0.293 0.354 0.302 0.418 0.405 0.187 2.7 2.2 1.4 0.71 0.89 0.87 0.0057 0.0039 0.00144 0.05 0.71 2.7
3
Lead Total Recoverable g/m - - 0.314 0.406 0.428 0.219 2.8 2.2 1.7 0.77 0.91 0.87 0.165 0.32 0.192 0.05 0.77 2.8
3
Lithium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - 0.017 0.022 0.021 0.0096 #1 0.0192 0.0175 #1 NGV 0.017 0.022
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.016 0.021 0.021 0.0089 #1 0.0196 0.0171 #1 NGV 0.016 0.021
Magnesium Dissolved g/m3 10.2 12.5 14.5 14.4 15.4 8.64 - - - 13 15 14 12.3 16 14.5 NGV 13 15
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 13 15 15 12.4 16.6 15.1 NGV 13 15
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - 18 17 10 5.4 6.9 5.9 2.7 #1 3.6 3.1 0.1 5.4 18
3 #1
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - 19 18 11 5.5 6.7 6.1 2.6 3.7 3.1 0.1 5.5 19
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 0 0
3
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 0.00024 0.00074 0.00055 0.001 0 0
3
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.0061 0.031 0.035 NGV 0 0
3
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 0.0104 0.038 0.037 NGV 0 0
3
Nickel Dissolved g/m - - 0.0444 0.0451 0.0478 0.0176 - - - 0.054 0.066 0.053 0.032 0.063 0.051 0.1 0.053 0.066
3
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m - - 0.0439 0.0453 0.0473 0.0178 - - - 0.054 0.065 0.054 0.033 0.068 0.053 0.1 0.054 0.065
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.5 1.5 3.6 10.9 #1 10.5 NGV 1.4 1.5
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.4 1.5 3.7 10.7 #1 12 NGV 1.4 1.5
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.0022 < 0.0053 < 0.0021 0.0013 0.0017 < 0.0010 0.01 0.0022 0.0022
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.0022 < 0.0053 0.0024 0.0014 0.0019 0.0016 0.01 0.0022 0.0024
Silver Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 0 0
3
Silver Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.00012 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.05 0 0
3
Sodium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - 9.3 9.4 11 11.7 21 18.6 300 9.3 11
3
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - 9 8.9 11 11.9 21 21 300 8.9 11
Tin Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.00079 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 NGV 0.00079 0.00079
3
Tin Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV 0 0
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - 0.00018 0.00023 0.00023 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 0.00002 NGV 0.00018 0.00023
3
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - 0.0002 0.00024 0.00022 0.000153 0.000044 0.000042 NGV 0.0002 0.00024
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 6.58 9.82 14.3 13.4 14.7 6.58 44 46 46 19 25 20 7.7 6.4 4.2 5 19 46
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 - - 13.9 14.3 14.4 6.66 44 46 47 19 25 20 7.7 7.2 4.6 5 19 47
Notes:
1. "-" Parameter not measured
2. Anion/cation balanced outside DQOs
#1
EC reading outside of DQO. Field measurements appears to be to low based on calculated EC of dissolved metals.
Sample Location Tui Stream (SW13)
Sample No. 09 A815 A970 SW13 TUI2 TUI2 TUI2 TUI2 SW13 SW13 SW13 SW13 SW13 SW13 ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sampled By URS URS URS URS URS URS 2002 Sharplin Sharplin Sharplin Sharplin PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2013 PDP 2013 PDP 2013 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampling date 25/03/98 20/05/98 6/12/00 19/12/00 22/02/01 15/12/01 30/01/07 3/05/07 27/07/07 3/11/07 17/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Laboratory Number 154963/9 155596/10 158764/10 728224.11 734195.11 744474.6 1185572.6 1193690.6 1203456.6
20.5 11.3 136.7 33.6
Flow rate m3/sec 0.0205 0.0113 0.1367 0.0336 0.0178 0.0886 0.0229 0.02 0.0224 0.0166 0.0000 0.0000
Field:
Temperature (ºC) - - - - - - 16.1 9.71 12.1 12 12.15 10.53 11.76 12 12.9 11.79 15-33 6.71 6.71
pH pH units - - - - - - 6.71 6.57 6.5 6.51 6.99 7.05 6.99 7.38 7.45 7.07 5.0-9.0 12.7 12.7
Conductivity mS/m - - - - - - 12.7 12 9.2 11.6 13.8 8.96 15.3 11.1 13.9 13.1 NGV 0 0
ORP mV - - - - - - - - - - 206 548 312 33.2 180.4 281 NGV 6.25 6.25
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - - - - - - 6.25 9.86 11.3 10.07 10.28 10.96 10.98 10.52 11.04 10.55 >6.5 0 0
Turbidity NTU - - - - - - - - - - <5 <5 3.7 6.98 1.12 6.8 NGV <5 1.6
Laboratory:
pH pH units 6.9 7.1 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.8 - - - - 6.6 6.5 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.3 5.0-9.0 6.7 7.1
Conductivity mS/m 17.6 17.2 17.5 19.4 16.4 16 - - - - 16.1 12.2 15.8 11.1 14 13.3 NGV 16 19.4
3
Total Suspended Solids g/m <3 <3 <3 <3 3 - - - - - < 3.0 5.2 < 3.0 6 <3 10 NGV <3 <3
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Total Cyanide g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 - 0.05 - -
Anions meq - - - - - - NGV - -

Cations meq - - - - - - NGV - -
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 13 14 15 18 15 - - 6 5 - - - - - - - NGV 13 18
Bicarbonate (mg/L as CaCO3) - - - - - - - 12.8 11.3 - - - - - - - NGV - -
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 500 - -
Calcium g/m3 13 13.8 13 14 12.3 - 11.4 10.7 9 - - - - - - - NGV 11.4 14
Magnesium g/m3 4.89 5.59 4.99 5.31 4.69 - 5.56 3.85 3.5 - - - - - - - NGV 4.69 5.59
Potassium g/m3 0.7 0.8 0.88 0.87 0.83 - 0.78 0.79 0.7 - - - - - - - NGV 0.7 0.88
3
Sodium g/m 9.6 9.6 9.79 10.1 10.1 - 9.31 9.54 9.5 - - - - - - - 300 9.31 10.1
Chloride g/m3 10.5 10.1 11.5 10.7 10.7 - 10.9 10.7 10.5 - - - - - - - 400 10.1 11.5
3
Nitrite-N g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
Nitrate-N g/m3 - - <0.02 0.003 0.028 - - - - - - - - - - - 10 - -
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NGV - -
Sulphate g/m3 50 49 48.1 53.6 40.8 - 42.4 39.2 29 37 - - - - - - 400 40.8 53.6
Metals
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.067 0.051 0.099 0.058 0.013 0.013 0.2 0.051 0.099
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.49 0.39 0.46 0.195 0.023 0.104 0.2 0.39 0.49
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 - - <0.001 <0.001 0.001 - <d.l. <d.l. <d.l. <d.l. < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.05 < 0.0011 0.001
3
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m - - - <0.001 0.002 - <d.l. <d.l. 0.013192 0.0006 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.05 <0.001 0.002
3
Barium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - - 0.0092 0.0075 0.0095 0.0073 0.0081 0.0081 1 0.0075 0.0095
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.0098 0.0081 0.0097 0.0086 0.0085 0.0085 1 0.0081 0.0098
3
Beryllium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Boron Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.012 #1 1 0.012 0.013
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.011 0.011 0.013 0.0121 0.0115 0.0107 #1 1 0.011 0.013
3
Cadmium Dissolved g/m 0.0059 0.00432 0.00487 0.00456 0.00399 0.00573 0.001 0.002 0.00574 0.0039 0.0045 0.0037 0.0054 0.00131 0.0007 0.00054 0.005 0.001 0.0059
3
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m - - - 0.00488 0.00399 0.00573 0.003 0.002 0.0054 0.0039 0.0048 0.0038 0.0054 0.00132 0.00076 0.00062 0.005 0.002 0.00573
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 11 7.8 12 7.3 9.9 #1 10.0 #1 NGV 7.8 12
3 #1 #1
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - - 11 7.8 12 7.3 9.8 9.8 NGV 7.8 12
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.00065 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Copper Dissolved g/m3 0.0075 0.0043 0.0067 0.0076 0.0053 0.008 0.001 0.003 0.00845 0.0054 0.0081 0.0075 0.011 0.0028 0.0018 0.0013 1 0.001 0.008
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.0183 0.0113 0.0342 0.006 0.007 0.09865 0.019 0.027 0.026 0.027 0.0075 0.00191 0.0031 1 0.006 0.0342
3
Iron Dissolved g/m <0.05 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.06 0.009 0.015 0.0221 <0.020 < 0.021 0.022 0.024 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.3 <0.02 0.06
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.08 0.09 0.53 0.08 0.117 3.686 0.29 0.21 0.26 0.15 0.3 0.026 0.196 0.3 0.08 0.53
Lanthanium Dissolved g/m3 0.0001 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV - -
Lanthanium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0003 < 0.00011 0.00018 NGV - -
Lead Dissolved g/m3 0.0023 0.002 0.0016 0.0028 0.0019 0.0025 <d.l. <d.l. 0.00209 0.0014 0.0038 0.0023 0.0061 0.00158 0.00095 0.00032 0.05 0.0014 0.0028
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.0126 0.0107 0.031 0.016 0.005 0.21708 0.024 0.026 0.022 0.025 0.0089 0.00165 0.0068 0.05 0.005 0.031
3 #1
Lithium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - - 0.0031 0.0026 0.0033 0.0019 0.0021 0.0019 NGV 0.0026 0.0033
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.0032 0.0024 0.0034 0.00192 0.0020 #1 0.0021 NGV 0.0024 0.0034
3
Magnesium Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - - 4.7 3.4 4.7 2.6 3.5 3.4 NGV 3.4 4.7
3
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - - 4.7 3.2 4.7 2.7 3.5 3.5 NGV 3.2 4.7
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - 0.113 0.165 0.189 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.25 0.036 0.0071 0.0028 0.1 0.113 0.25
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - 0.107 0.18 0.231 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.25 0.047 0.0089 0.0159 0.1 0.107 0.25
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
3
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
3 #1 #1
Nickel Dissolved g/m - - 0.0044 0.0045 0.0037 0.004 - - - - 0.0041 0.0026 0.004 0.0014 0.0012 0.0010 0.1 0.0026 0.0045
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.0047 0.0037 0.0041 - - - - 0.0042 0.0029 0.004 0.00157 0.00116 #1 0.00070 #1 0.1 0.0029 0.0047
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.78 0.7 0.75 0.87 0.84 #1 0.71 NGV 0.7 0.78
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.81 0.72 0.78 0.87 0.83 #1 0.92 NGV 0.72 0.81
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
3
Silver Dissolved g/m - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
3
Silver Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 9.5 8.2 10 8.5 #1 9.6 #1 8.4 300 8.2 10
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - 9.5 8.4 10 8.4 #1 9.3 #1 10.4 300 8.4 10
Tin Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
3
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m - - - - - - - - - - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 1.34 0.992 0.83 0.755 0.76 1.11 0.5 0.5 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.62 0.92 0.177 0.119 #1 0.089 5 0.5 1.34
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 - - - 0.818 0.813 1.18 0.563 0.563 1 0.81 0.85 0.67 0.98 0.185 0.108 #1 0.101 5 0.563 1.18
Notes:
2. Anion/cation balanced outside DQOs
#1

Sample Location Tailings Drainage, Tkha trib, SW15
Sample No. SW15 SW15 SW15 SW15 ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sampled By PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2013 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampling date 18/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 26/09/13
Laboratory Number 728224.13 734195.7 744474.11 1185572.7
Flow rate m3/sec 0.002 0.010 0.002 0.008 0.0017 0.0103

Field:
Temperature (ºC) 12.52 12.39 12.87 12.6 15-33 12.4 12.9
pH pH units 5.67 5.19 5.86 6.51 5.0-9.0 5.2 5.9
Conductivity mS/m 7.91 18.1 21 22.5 NGV 7.9 21.0
ORP mV 190 217 270 142.1 NGV 190 270
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 9.93 9.42 11.31 8.51 >6.5 9.4 11.3
Turbidity NTU <5 <5 0.3 0.27 NGV 0.3 0.3
Laboratory:
pH pH units 6.3 6 6.2 6.5 5.0-9.0 6.0 6.3
Conductivity mS/m 22.1 23.4 22.1 22.5 NGV 22.1 23.4
Total Suspended Solids g/m3 < 3.0 3 < 3.0 <3 NGV 3.0 3.0
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - - - - NGV - -
Total Cyanide g/m3 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.05 0.0 0.0
Anions meq - - - - NGV - -

Cations meq - - - - NGV - -
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) - - - - NGV - -
Bicarbonate (mg/L as CaCO3) - - - - NGV - -
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) - - - - 500 - -
Calcium g/m3 - - - 18.5 NGV - -
Magnesium g/m3 - - - 6.6 NGV - -
Potassium g/m3 - - - 1.19 NGV - -
Sodium g/m3 - - - 11.6 300 - -
Chloride g/m3 - - - - 400 - -
Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - 1 - -
Nitrate-N g/m3 - - - - 10 - -
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 - - - - NGV - -
Sulphate g/m3 - - - - 400 - -
Metals
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 0.03 0.17 0.019 < 0.003 0.2 0.0 0.2
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.032 0.23 0.019 0.028 0.2 0.0 0.2
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.0002 NGV 0.0 0.0
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00021 0.00044 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV 0.0 0.0
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 0.0039 0.021 0.0022 < 0.0010 0.05 0.0 0.0
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0046 0.024 0.003 < 0.0011 0.05 0.0 0.0
Barium Dissolved g/m3 0.02 0.028 0.024 0.020 #1 1 0.0 0.0
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.021 0.028 0.021 0.0197 #1 1 0.0 0.0
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 NGV 0.0 0.0
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV 0.0 0.0
Boron Dissolved g/m3 0.013 0.012 0.015 0.014 #1 1 0.0 0.0
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.0136 #1 1 0.0 0.0
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 0.0094 0.018 0.012 0.0066 #1 0.005 0.0 0.0
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0093 0.018 0.01 0.0059 #1 0.005 0.0 0.0
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 17 19 20 19.1 #1 NGV 17.0 20.0
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m3 17 20 19 18.5 #1 NGV 17.0 20.0
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 0.05 0.0 0.0
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00053 0.00075 < 0.00053 0.00071 0.05 0.0 0.0
Copper Dissolved g/m3 0.038 0.17 0.029 0.0077 1 0.0 0.2
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 0.039 0.17 0.028 0.0077 1 0.0 0.2
Iron Dissolved g/m3 0.22 1.1 0.12 < 0.02 0.3 0.1 1.1
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.23 1.1 0.12 0.022 0.3 0.1 1.1
Lanthanium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00010 NGV 0.0 0.0
Lanthanium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00011 NGV 0.0 0.0
Lead Dissolved g/m3 0.065 0.24 0.089 0.00071 0.05 0.1 0.2
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 0.067 0.24 0.079 0.00079 0.05 0.1 0.2
Lithium Dissolved g/m3 0.0057 0.0059 0.0059 0.0057 #1 NGV 0.0 0.0
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0057 0.0059 0.0062 0.0054 #1 NGV 0.0 0.0
3
Magnesium Dissolved g/m 6.6 7.1 7.1 6.6 NGV 6.6 7.1
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 6.7 7.1 7.2 6.6 NGV 6.7 7.2
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 0.02 0.099 0.032 0.021 #1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 0.02 0.094 0.033 0.0195 #1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 0.001 0.0 0.0
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 0.001 0.0 0.0
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00021 0.00098 < 0.00021 0.0006 NGV 0.0 0.0
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00021 0.001 < 0.00021 0.00071 NGV 0.0 0.0
Nickel Dissolved g/m3 0.0022 0.0032 0.0024 0.002 0.1 0.0 0.0
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0022 0.0033 0.0022 0.002 0.1 0.0 0.0
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 0.98 1.1 1 1.20 #1 NGV 1.0 1.1
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.97 1.1 1 1.19 #1 NGV 1.0 1.1
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.0010 0.01 0.0 0.0
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.0011 0.01 0.0 0.0
Silver Dissolved g/m3 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.00010 0.05 0.0 0.0
Silver Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.0011 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.00011 0.05 0.0 0.0
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 10 9.9 11 11.3 300 9.9 11.0
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 11 11 12 11.6 300 11.0 12.0
Tin Dissolved g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 NGV 0.0 0.0
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV 0.0 0.0
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.00002 NGV 0.0 0.0
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m3 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 NGV 0.0 0.0
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 1.6 2.8 1.8 1.13 #1 5 1.6 2.8
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 1.6 2.8 1.7 1.06 #1 5 1.6 2.8
Notes:
2. <d.l. = less than detection limit
#1
NGV = No Guideline value
Sample Location Tunakohoia N Branch, Access Road (SW100) ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sample No. SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 SW100 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampled By URS PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP2012 PDP2012 PDP2012 PDP2013 PDP2013 PDP2013
Sampling date 19/08/09 17/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 6/09/11 11/10/11 8/11/11 6/09/12 17/10/12 15/11/12 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Flow Rate L/s -
Flow rate m3/sec - 0.0021 0.0103 0.0017 0.0014 0.012 0.0046 0.0064 0.0095 0.0045 0.0421 0.0063 0.0071 0.0017 0.0103
Field: -
Temperature (ºC) - 14.1 10.66 12.37 9.69 12.64 11.46 10.4 10.3 13 10.9 12.6 14.9 15-33 10.66 17.13
pH pH units - 7.58 6.73 6.97 6.85 6.32 6.53 6.74 7.46 5.43 7.06 7.66 6.69 5.0-9.0 6.35 7.58
Conductivity mS/m - 44.9 19.92 47 45.9 24.5 31.9 51.5 69.3 87.7 23.2 70.1 58.1 NGV 19.92 47
ORP mV - 189 342 317 329 260 347 276 178.6 235.4 127.7 111.2 186 NGV 189 342
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - 9.91 10.39 10.82 12.82 14.24 11.70 10.58 9.53 10.15 10.93 9.89 9.59 >6.5 8 10.82
Turbidity NTU - <5 <5 12.8 <5 1.4 <5 2.8 4.2 119.0 3.1 - 9.2 NGV <5 12.8
Laboratory:
pH pH units 7.6 7.2 6.9 7.6 7 6.9 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.1 6.7 7.2 7.2 5.0-9.0 6.35 7.6
Conductivity mS/m 6.5 52.6 27.9 48.4 46.4 22.9 39.1 49.9 64.8 86.4 23.2 55.9 58.1 NGV 6.5 62.2
Total Suspended Solids g/m3 <7.5 10 3.2 7.7 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 18 <3 10 <3 NGV 3.2 28
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - 16 14 15 14 10.4 12.2 12.5 14.0 13.8 11.6 14.4 12.8 NGV 14 16
3
Total Cyanide g/m - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05 - -
Anions meq 0.54 5.8 2.9 5.6 5.1 2.2 3.8 5.4 7.7 10.0 2.2 7.7 6.0 NGV 0.54 5.8
Cations meq 0.54 4.9 2.4 4.5 4.6 2.1 3.9 5.2 7.3 9.8 2.1 7.2 5.9 NGV 0.54 4.9
Alkalinity g/m3 as CaCO3 4.9 49 20 44 32 14.4 21 29 32 36 13.5 46 37 NGV 4.9 62
Bicarbonate g/m3 at 25°C 5.9 59 24 54 39 17.5 26 35 39 44 16.4 56 45 NGV 5.9 59
Total Hardness g/m3 as CaCO3 11 220 96 200 184 79 155 220 320 440 80 320 260 500 11 220
Calcium g/m3 2.5 64 27 59 8.4 23 47 #1 69 #1 100 135 #1 24 102 83 NGV 2.5 79
Magnesium g/m3 1.2 13 7 12 3.1 #1 5 9.5 #1 12.2 17.7 #1 25 #1 4.8 16.5 13.4 NGV 1.2 16.5
Potassium g/m3 0.29 1.1 0.67 0.99 0.71 #1 0.62 0.77 #1 0.78 0.82 1.14 0.66 0.9 1.03 NGV 0.29 1.18
Sodium g/m3 6.6 13 9.5 12 8.7 #1 7.4 10.2 #1 11.3 13.5 #1 16.8 #1 7.9 12.7 13.6 300 6.6 13.8
Chloride g/m3 10 11 11 10 9.8 9.3 9.7 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 8.9 400 10 11
Nitrite-N g/m3 <0.002 0.004 < 0.0020 0.0052 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 <0.02 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 1 < 0.0020 0.0052
Nitrate-N g/m3 0.055 0.049 0.13 0.061 0.127 0.4 0.171 0.171 0.111 0.066 0.22 0.109 0.126 10 0.036 0.13
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 0.056 0.053 0.13 0.066 0.128 0.4 0.172 0.171 0.111 0.066 0.22 0.11 0.126 NGV 0.053 0.13
Sulphate g/m3 7.1 220 110 210 200 75 150 220 320 430 80 310 240 400 7.1 252
Metals:
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 0.091 < 0.0032 0.014 < 0.0032 0.007 0.025 0.011 0.004 <0.003 <0.003 0.019 < 0.003 0.004 0.2 < 0.0032 0.091
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.1 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.026 0.087 0.037 0.029 0.0118 0.065 0.056 0.0105 0.0095 0.2 0.1 0.15
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 - 0.00068 < 0.00021 0.00049 0.0003 < 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 #1 0.0002 0.0003 < 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 0.00068
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.00096 0.0005 0.00076 0.00025 < 0.00021 0.00026 < 0.00021 #1 0.00022 0.00033 < 0.00021 0.00023 0.00027 NGV 0.0005 0.00096
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 <0.001 < 0.0011 < 0.0021 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 <0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.05 <0.001 0.000516
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m3 <0.0011 0.0028 < 0.0021 0.002 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.0047 < 0.0011 0.0026 < 0.0011 0.05 <0.0011 0.006
Barium Dissolved g/m3 - 0.025 0.019 0.026 0.043 0.025 0.032 0.031 #1 0.030 0.038 0.0181 #1 0.027 0.028 1 0.019 0.026
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.026 0.021 0.027 0.044 0.026 0.032 0.029 #1 0.032 0.038 0.0179 #1 0.029 0.029 1 0.021 0.027
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 <0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 <0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Boron Dissolved g/m3 0.0072 0.018 0.014 0.024 0.014 0.011 0.014 #1 0.016 #1 0.020 #1 0.023 #1 0.013 #1 0.018 0.018 #1 1 0.0072 0.024
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0055 0.021 0.015 0.019 0.0143 0.0138 0.0131 #1 0.0152 #1 0.0184 #1 0.020 #1 0.0124 #1 0.021 0.0157 #1 1 0.0055 0.021
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 <0.00005 0.098 0.077 0.088 0.102 0.045 0.082 0.059#1 0.032 0.035 0.024 #1 0.021 0.023 0.005 <0.00005 0.122
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m3 <0.000053 0.11 0.083 0.099 0.102 0.044 0.082 0.057 #1 0.035 0.040 0.023 #1 0.023 0.023 0.005 <0.000053 0.121
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 - 62 26 61 55 23 47 #1 69 #1 100 135 #1 24 102 84 #1 NGV 26 62
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 65 27 60 57 25 44 #1 66 #1 101 127 #1 24 107 83 #1 NGV 27 65
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 <0.0005 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 <0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 <0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Copper Dissolved g/m3 <0.0005 0.0076 0.033 0.0085 0.048 0.044 0.052 0.0139 0.0046 0.0062 0.022 0.0016 0.004 1 <0.0005 0.033
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 <0.00053 0.12 0.17 0.1 0.063 0.072 0.077 0.056 0.0188 0.038 0.031 0.0092 0.0105 1 <0.00053 0.198
Iron Dissolved g/m3 0.077 < 0.021 0.033 < 0.021 < 0.02 0.03 < 0.02 <0.02 < 0.02 <0.02 0.19 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.3 <0.02 0.987
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.096 2.4 1.2 2.1 0.05 0.15 0.110 0.52 0.92 4.8 0.3 2.2 0.7 0.3 0.096 3.73
Lanthanum Dissolved g/m4 - - - - 0.00022 0.00018 0.00015 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV - -
Lanthanum Total Recoverable g/m5 - - - - 0.00023 0.00027 0.00020 0.00017 0.00020 0.00057 0.00016 0.00020 0.00026 NGV - -
Lead Dissolved g/m3 0.00012 0.0042 0.005 0.0028 0.037 0.033 0.024 0.0041 0.00184 0.00135 0.03 0.0005 0.0026 #1 0.05 0.00012 0.01
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 0.00013 0.054 0.075 0.053 0.051 0.066 0.046 0.044 0.039 0.088 0.048 0.026 0.024 #1 0.05 0.00013 0.174
Lithium Dissolved g/m3 - 0.014 0.0074 0.015 0.0087 #1 0.004 0.0075 #1 0.0078 0.0116 #1 0.0129 #1 0.0043 #1 0.0115 0.0091 #1 NGV 0.0074 0.015
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.016 0.0069 0.014 0.0083 #1 0.0051 0.0071 #1 0.0082 0.0103 #1 0.0120 #1 0.0040 #1 0.0129 0.0090 #1 NGV 0.0069 0.016
Magnesium Dissolved g/m3 - 13 6.5 14 11.5 #1 5 9.5 #1 12.2 17.7 #1 25 #1 4.8 16.5 13.4 NGV 6.5 14
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 15 6.9 12 11.4 #1 5.4 9.0 #1 13.1 16.6 #1 23 #1 4.9 17.3 13.4 NGV 6.9 15
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 0.0064 1.1 0.49 1.1 0.28 0.102 0.31 #1 0.54 0.83 #1 0.97 #1 0.23 1.11 #1 0.52 0.1 0.0064 1.1
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0061 1.2 0.52 1 0.3 0.116 0.30 #1 0.55 0.81 #1 0.92 #1 0.23 1.10 #1 0.52 0.1 0.0061 1.2
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 <0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 <0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 - 0.00033 < 0.00021 0.00032 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 <0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 0.00033
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.00033 < 0.00021 0.00031 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 <0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 0.00033
Nickel Dissolved g/m3 <0.00050 0.02 0.0091 0.017 0.0116 #1 0.0051 0.0081 0.0104 0.0131 0.0167 #1 0.0045 0.0146 #1 0.0101 0.1 <0.00050 0.02
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 <0.00053 0.019 0.0091 0.016 0.0115 #1 0.0052 0.0083 0.0106 0.0136 0.0164 #1 0.0047 0.0144 #1 0.0101 0.1 <0.00053 0.019
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 - 0.92 0.62 0.97 0.80 #1 0.62 0.77 #1 0.78 0.82 1.14 0.66 0.9 0.84 NGV 0.62 0.97
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 1 0.67 0.95 0.79 #1 0.71 0.71 #1 0.79 0.87 1.16 0.69 0.91 1.03 NGV 0.67 1
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.0021 < 0.0021 < 0.0011 0.001 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 <0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0021
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.0011 < 0.0021 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 <0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0021
Silver Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Silver Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 <0.000011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 - 12 8.4 13 10.9 #1 7.4 10.2 #1 10.6 13.5 #1 16.8 #1 7.9 12.7 #1 11.3 300 8.4 13
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 12 8.7 13 10.5 #1 8 9.4 #1 11.3 12.9 #1 16.2 #1 8.1 12.5 #1 13.6 300 8.7 13
Tin Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 <0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 <0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 <0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 <0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 0.0039 13 11 13 15.1 #1 6.5 #1 11.5 #1 8.7 5.8 6.3 3.8 #1 4.2 3.6 5 0.0039 15.2
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 0.0013 15 12 14 14.0 #1 6.1 #1 10.8 #1 8.8 6.1 7.5 3.7 #1 4.4 3.7 5 0.0013 16.9
Notes:
#1

Sample Location Ruakaka Tributary (SW101) ANZECC Guidelines Baseline Data
Sample No. SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 SW101 Contact Recreational Minimum Maximum
Sampled By URS PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2009 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP 2011 PDP2012 PDP2012 PDP2012 PDP2013 PDP2013 PDP2013
Sampling date 19/08/2009 17/09/09 8/10/09 17/11/09 6/09/11 11/10/11 8/11/11 6/09/12 17/10/12 15/11/12 26/09/13 17/10/13 13/11/13
Flow rate m3/sec - 0.0007 0.0251 0.0013 0.0005 0.0055 0.0018 0.0009 0.0014 0.0001 0.0100 0.0020 0.0026 0.0007 0.0251
Field:
Temperature (ºC) - 11.57 9.55 10.73 9.34 11.37 10.40 9.90 9.70 10.60 10.90 14.00 11.40 15-33 9.55 11.57
pH pH units - 7.23 6.57 6.57 6.72 6.15 6.91 7.58 7.5 7.24 7.18 7.2 6.57 5.0-9.0 6.57 7.23
Conductivity mS/m - 10.5 7.05 11.3 11.9 11.0 9.1 10.0 11.2 11.5 8.7 11.5 11.1 NGV 7.05 11.3
ORP mV - 207 379 306 297 259 341 302 206 176 151.4 157.8 271 NGV 207 379
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - 10.49 10.64 11.29 11.79 11.98 11.07 10.17 9.28 10.24 12.4 11.2 10.37 >6.5 10.49 11.29
Turbidity NTU - <5 <5 0.5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 1.0 1.0 5.9 NGV <5 0.5
Laboratory:
pH (pH units) pH units 7 7.2 7 7.5 7.2 6.9 7.1 7.3 6.5 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.2 5.0-9.0 7 7.5
Conductivity mS/m 36.5 12.7 9.6 30 12.7 9.8 11.2 9.9 11.1 11.4 8.7 11.5 11 NGV 9.6 36.5
Total Suspended Solids g/m3 <7.5 < 3.0 < 3.0 < 3.0 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 NGV <3.0 <3.0
Total Dissolved Silica g/m3 - 14 12 12 14.1 9.3 11.2 10.8 12 11.5 10.7 12.6 - NGV 12 14
Total Cyanide g/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05 - -
Anions meq 2.8 1.2 0.88 #2 1.2 1.27 0.95 1.06 0.94 1.03 1.05 0.87 1.05 1.11 NGV 0.88 2.8
Cations meq 2.6 1.0 0.71 #2 0.98 1.13 0.89 1.01 0.90 0.91 1.05 0.77 0.99 0.94 NGV 0.71 2.6
3
Alkalinity g/m as CaCO3 18 10 10 9.8 11 11.3 10.7 12.3 11.5 11.2 12.6 12.6 17.2 NGV 9.8 18
Bicarbonate g/m3 at 25°C 22 12 12 12 13.4 13.8 13.0 15.0 14.0 13.6 15.3 15.3 21.0 NGV 12 22
Total Hardness g/m3 as CaCO3 92 33 19 30 34 24 28 24 26 30 18.5 27 27 500 19 92
3 #1 #1 #1
Calcium g/m 26 8.7 4.8 7.6 55 5.8 7.0 6.2 6.7 7.8 4.5 6.7 6.7 NGV 4.8 26
Magnesium g/m3 6.4 2.7 1.7 2.7 12.0 #1 2.2 2.5 #1 2.2 2.3 2.7 #1 1.76 2.5 2.5 NGV 1.7 6.4
Potassium g/m3 0.65 0.73 0.54 0.72 0.82 0.74 0.74 #1 0.63 #1 0.55 0.81 #1 0.67 0.68 0.77 NGV 0.54 0.73
Sodium g/m3 8.5 8.5 7.1 8.5 10.8 #1 7.2 8.4 #1 7.7 7.4 8.5 #1 7.5 8.1 9.4 300 7.1 8.5
Chloride g/m3 10 12 12 12 10.7 10.7 11.3 10.2 10.1 9.6 10.9 11 10.2 400 12 12
Nitrite-N g/m3 <0.002 < 0.0020 < 0.0020 < 0.0020 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 1 < 0.0020 < 0.0020
Nitrate-N g/m3 0.14 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.176 0.2 0.159 0.171 0.155 0.112 0.23 0.143 0.161 10 0.14 0.25
Nitrate-N+Nitrite-N g/m3 0.15 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.176 0.2 0.159 0.172 0.155 0.113 0.23 0.143 0.161 NGV 0.14 0.25
Sulphate g/m3 100 30 16 32 36 19.5 25 19.0 24 26 14 23 22 400 16 100
Metals:
Aluminium Dissolved g/m3 0.015 0.0053 0.012 0.0065 0.005 0.035 0.008 0.013 0.005 0.015 0.02 0.005 0.006 0.2 0.0053 0.015
Aluminium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.14 0.013 0.018 0.008 0.0073 0.046 0.0102 0.0153 0.0067 0.0199 0.026 0.0071 0.0062 0.2 0.008 0.14
Antimony Dissolved g/m3 - 0.00046 < 0.00021 0.00037 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 NGV < 0.00021 0.00046
Antimony Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.00051 0.00036 0.00047 0.00039 0.00027 0.00036 0.00028 0.00034 0.00030 0.00025 0.00034 0.00033 NGV 0.00036 0.00051
Arsenic Dissolved g/m3 <0.001 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 <0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.05 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Arsenic Total Recoverable g/m3 <0.0021 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 <0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.05 < 0.0021 < 0.0011
Barium Dissolved g/m3 - 0.018 0.015 0.017 0.0184 0.0158 0.0176 0.0165 #1 0.0159 0.0166#1 0.0139 #1 0.0172 0.0168 #1 1 0.015 0.018
Barium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.019 0.015 0.018 0.02 0.0162 0.0176 0.0147 #1 0.0171 0.0163 #1 0.0135 #1 0.0179 0.0166 #1 1 0.015 0.019
Beryllium Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Beryllium Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Boron Dissolved g/m3 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.013 #1 0.012 0.012 0.011 #1 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.014 #1 0.012 #1 1 0.011 0.013
Boron Total Recoverable g/m3 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.0101 #1 0.0138 0.0126 0.0110 #1 0.0117 0.0128 0.012 0.0124 #1 0.0117 #1 1 0.011 0.013
Cadmium Dissolved g/m3 0.084 0.015 0.014 0.016 0.0175 #1 0.021 0.0185 #1 0.0153 #1 0.0150 0.0130 #1 0.0145 #1 0.0173 0.0157 0.005 0.014 0.084
Cadmium Total Recoverable g/m3 0.087 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.0166 #1 0.02 0.0176 #1 0.0147 #1 0.0160 0.0119 #1 0.0133 #1 0.0176 0.0157 0.005 0.014 0.087
Calcium Dissolved g/m3 - 8 5.6 7.6 8.4 5.8 7.0 #1 6.2 #1 6.7 7.8 #1 4.5 6.7 6.8 #1 NGV 5.6 8
Calcium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 8.2 5.5 7.3 8.5 5.8 6.7 #1 6.1 #1 7.1 7.4 #1 4.6 7.1 6.7 #1 NGV 5.5 8.2
Chromium Dissolved g/m3 <0.00050 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 <0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Chromium Total Recoverable g/m3 <0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 <0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 0.05 < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Copper Dissolved g/m3 0.041 0.0046 0.0073 0.0057 0.0049 0.0181 0.0074 0.0074 0.0051 0.0101 0.009 0.0056 0.0053 1 0.0046 0.041
Copper Total Recoverable g/m3 0.19 0.0051 0.0073 0.0057 0.0053 0.0181 0.0079 0.0080 0.0053 0.0108 0.0102 0.006 0.0053 1 0.0051 0.19
Iron Dissolved g/m3 0.03 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.020 < 0.02 <0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.3 <0.021 0.03
Iron Total Recoverable g/m3 1.1 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 <0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 < 0.021 0.3 <0.021 1.1
Lanthanum Dissolved g/m4 - - - < 0.00010 0.00012 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.00013 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 NGV - -
Lanthanum Total Recoverable g/m5 - - - < 0.00011 0.00014 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.00014 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 NGV - -
Lead Dissolved g/m3 0.0046 0.2 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.188 0.149 0.145 0.194 0.127 0.161 0.155 0.05 0.0046 0.21
Lead Total Recoverable g/m3 0.073 0.23 0.17 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.192 0.153 0.161 0.195 0.142 0.17 0.157 0.05 0.073 0.23
Lithium Dissolved g/m3 - 0.0022 0.0015 0.0022 #1 0.0024 #1 0.0015 0.0023 #1 0.0016 0.0017 0.0023 #1 0.0015 #1 0.002 0.0019 NGV 0.0015 0.0022
Lithium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.0023 0.0015 0.0021 #1 0.0022 #1 0.00189 0.0021 #1 0.00173 0.0021 0.0021 #1 0.00142 #1 0.0022 0.00196 NGV 0.0015 0.0023
Magnesium Dissolved g/m3 - 3 2.1 2.7 #1 3.1 #1 2.2 2.5 #1 2.2 2.3 2.7 #1 1.76 2.5 2.5 NGV 2.1 3
Magnesium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 3.1 2.2 2.5 #1 2.9 #1 2.1 2.4 #1 2.2 2.5 2.4 #1 1.78 2.6 2.5 NGV 2.2 3.1
Manganese Dissolved g/m3 0.5 0.0018 0.003 0.0014 #1 0.0011 0.0072 0.0015 #1 0.0016 0.0011 0.0013 0.0031 0.0009 0.001 0.1 0.0018 0.5
Manganese Total Recoverable g/m3 0.53 0.0021 0.0035 0.0013 #1 0.00124 0.0077 0.00149 #1 0.00184 0.00122 0.00165 0.0037 0.0011 0.00114 0.1 0.0021 0.53
Mercury Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Mercury Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.000080 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.001 < 0.000080 < 0.000080
Molybdenum Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Molybdenum Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 < 0.00021 NGV < 0.00021 < 0.00021
Nickel Dissolved g/m3 0.0092 0.0014 0.0011 0.0012 #1 0.0014 0.0012 0.0014 #1 0.0011 #1 0.0011 0.0012 0.0009 0.0013 #1 0.0011 #1 0.1 0.0011 0.0092
Nickel Total Recoverable g/m3 0.009 0.0015 0.0012 0.0011 #1 0.00164 0.00127 0.00126 #1 0.00101 #1 0.00113 0.00122 0.00101 0.00124 #1 0.00079 #1 0.1 0.0012 0.009
Potassium Dissolved g/m3 - 0.68 0.61 0.67 0.71 #1 0.74 0.74 #1 0.63 #1 0.55 0.81 #1 0.67 #1 0.68 #1 0.59 NGV 0.61 0.68
Potassium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 0.7 0.6 0.68 0.67 #1 0.77 0.69 #1 0.62 #1 0.66 0.78 #1 0.66 #1 0.66 #1 0.77 NGV 0.6 0.7
Selenium Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 <0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Selenium Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 <0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 < 0.0011 0.01 < 0.0011 < 0.0011
Silver Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.00010 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Silver Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 < 0.00011 0.05 < 0.00011 < 0.00011
Sodium Dissolved g/m3 - 8 7.6 8.4 8.7 #1 7.2 8.4 #1 7.7 7.4 8.5 #1 7.5 8.3 #1 7.4 300 7.6 8.4
Sodium Total Recoverable g/m3 - 8.2 7.7 8.6 8.4 #1 7.3 8.0 #1 8.0 7.9 7.5 #1 7.5 8.1 #1 9.4 300 7.7 8.6
Tin Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Tin Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 < 0.00053 NGV < 0.00053 < 0.00053
Uranium Dissolved g/m3 - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Uranium Total Recoverable g/m3 - < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 < 0.000021 NGV < 0.000021 < 0.000021
Zinc Dissolved g/m3 12 1.7 1.6 1.8 #1 1.93 #1 2.7 #1 2.2 #1 1.83 #1 1.76 1.50 #1 1.65 #1 2.2 #1 1.87 #1 5 1.6 12
Zinc Total Recoverable g/m3 13 1.7 1.6 1.7 #1 1.85 #1 2.4 #1 1.97 #1 1.75 #1 1.82 1.38 #1 1.57 #1 1.93 #1 1.71 #1 5 1.6 13
Notes:
#1
#2
Anion/cation balanced outside DQOs

SW17
Sample Name: SW17 26‐Sep‐2013 SW17 17‐Oct‐2013 SW17 13‐Nov‐2013
Lab Number: 1185572.8 1193690.7 1203456.12
Flow (m3/s) 0.015
pH pH Units 6.7 3.8 3.8
Total Acidity (pH 8.3) g/m3 as CaCO3 7.9 66
Total Alkalinity g/m3 as CaCO3 14.9
Bicarbonate g/m3 at 25°C ‐
Electrical Conductivity (EC) mS/m 22.6 55.9 50.7
Total Suspended Solids g/m3 ‐
Dissolved Iron g/m3 < 0.02
Sulphate g/m3 67 250 230
Drinking water metals suite, dissolved, trace
Dissolved Iron g/m3 ‐ 0.13 0.13
Dissolved Zinc g/m3 2.5 11.6
Total Arsenic g/m3 0.022 < 0.0021 < 0.0011
Total Cadmium g/m3 0.0178 0.065 0.059
Total Copper g/m3 0.147 0.29 0.21
Total Iron g/m3 ‐
Total Lead g/m3 0.69 0.199 0.054
Total Zinc g/m3 2.9 10.9 10.1
Toe Drain
Concentration
21‐May‐13 5‐Jul‐13 19‐Aug‐13
Flow (l/s) 0.10 0.11 0.15
pH pH Units 7.3 8.4 8.5
Acidity (pH 3.7) g/m3 as CaCO3 1 1 1
Total Alkalinity g/m3 as CaCO3 78 220 144
Electrical Conductivity (EC) mS/m 55.1 61.1 62.1
Total Arsenic g/m3 0.021 0.021 0.021
Total Cadmium g/m3 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
Total Copper g/m3 0.011 0.011 0.011
Dissolved Iron g/m3 0.4 0.4 0.6
Total Lead g/m3 0.0025 0.0023 0.0025
Total Zinc g/m3 0.021 0.021 0.021
Sulphate g/m3 172 190 177
APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY INTERPRETATION
42092212/R058/D
Champion Level 4 Portal Discharge (SW3) - Summary of Water Quality
Baseline Post Remediation 2013 Average Mass Flux

Post Rem Post Rem
Parameter Units Mean Min Max Count Mean Min Max Count Baseline 2012 2013 Comment
(concentration x volume )
Decrease in flow as Southern Level 4 discharges down Raise 3

Flows (m3/s) 0.0014 0.00006 0.005 6 0.0008 0.0005 0.0011 4 0.0014 0.0006 0.0008 to Level 5
General Indicators (Kg/d) (Kg/d) (Kg/d)

pH 7.0 6.6 7.8 5 7.435 7.2 7.69 4 NA NA
Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 14 8 23 8 34 14 49 4 1.4 1.9 2.2 Slight increase due to alkalinity added to Southern Level 4
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 30 23 36 2 60 30 82 4 2.4 3.7 3.8 Slight increase due to alkalinity added to Southern Level 4
Concentration and mass flux increase due to upper mine water
Sulphate (mg/L) 18 12 27 8 41 24 54 4 1.8 2.8 2.6 discharging via Level 4.
Metals - dissolved
Dissolved Cadmium
(mg/L) 0.004 0.002 0.010 8 0.033 0.020 0.054 4 0.0003 0.0023 0.0020 discharging via Level 4.
Dissolved Copper
Dissolved Iron
Dissolved Lead
Dissolved Manganese
Dissolved Zinc
Figure 1a - Level 4 Mass Load Figure 1b - Level 4 Concentration

1.000000 10.000000
Mean Concentration
Mass Load (Kg/d)
0.100000 1.000000
0.010000 0.100000
0.001000 0.010000
0.000100 Baseline 0.001000
Baseline
0.000010 Post Rem 2012 0.000100
Post Rem 2013
Post Rem 2013
Parameter Parameter
Note: Mass load and concentration are plotted on log scale, one log cycle reflects an order of magnitude change as per remedial goals
J:\AKL\42092212\5 Works\PHASE 1 works\Water Quality Monitoring Post Remediation - Baseline Locked.xls3/07/2014

Champion Level 5 Portal Discharge (SW5) - Summary of Water Quality
Baseline Post Remediation 2013 Average Mass Flux

Post Remed Post Remed
Parameter Units Mean Min Max Count Mean Min Max Count Baseline 2012 2013 Comment
Flows (m3/s) 0.009 0.005 0.014 8 0.0021 0.0015 0.0033 4 0.009 0.002 0.002 Reduction in flow due to bulkhead installation
General Indicators (Kg/d) (Kg/d) (Kg/d)

pH (pH units) 7.1 6.3 7.6 13 6.8 6.7 6.9 4 NA NA NA
Increase in alkalinity concentration indicates control on
Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 60 43 74 7 121 116 128 4 4.35 23 21 flooded mine alkalinity effective to date.
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 270 220 300 3 1130 1050 1280 4 137 261 206 Increase in hardness expected from alkalinity dosing
Concentration increase expected until conditions in flooded
Sulphate (mg/L) 263 210 292 12 1230 1060 1580 4 210 251 231 mine stabilise.
Metals - dissolved
Dissolved Cadmium (mg/L) 0.13 0.03 0.19 11 0.01 0.01 0.02 4 0.10 0.006 0.003 Concentration and mass flux reduction.
Dissolved Copper (mg/L) 0.014 0.005 0.043 11 0.0007 0.0005 0.001 3 0.01 0.0005 0.0001 Concentration and mass flux reduction.
Concentration increase due to mine flooding expected as
Dissolved Iron
(mg/L) 0.06 0.003 0.46 11 17.7 16.2 18.7 4 0.07 2.70 3.08 conditions stabilise
Dissolved Lead (mg/L) 0.0008 0.0001 0.0028 11 0.00015 0.0001 0.0002 3 0.0004 0.00007 0.00002 Concentration and mass flux reduction
Concentration increase due to mine flooding expected as
Dissolved Manganese
(mg/L) 1.45 0.36 1.90 7 6.8 6.5 7.5 4 1 1.3 1.2 conditions stabilise
Dissolved Zinc (mg/L) 19 15 27 11 11 9 16 4 16 3.4 1.3 Concentration and mass flux reduction.
Figure 2a - Level 5 Mass Load Figure 2b - Level 5 Concentration

100.000000 100.000000
Mean Concentration (g/m3)

10.000000 10.000000
Mass Load (Kg/d)
1.000000
1.000000
0.100000
0.100000
0.010000
0.010000
0.001000 Baseline
Baseline
0.000100 Post Rem 2012 0.001000
Post Rem 2013
0.000010 Post Rem 2013 0.000100
Parameter Parameter

Champion Levels 4 and 5 Portal Discharges - Combined of Mass Load
Average Baseline Post Remediation 2012 Post Remediation 2013 Comment

Parameter SW3 SW5 Combined SW3 SW5 Combined SW3 SW5 Combined Change
Reduction in flow due to flooded mine intercepting less
groundwater, with diffuse attenuated seepage of water.
3
Flows (m /s) 0.001 0.009 0.010 0.001 0.0021 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.003 -0.008 Low flow condition post remediation runoff also effecting
General Indicators (Kg/d) (Kg/d) (Kg/d) SW3 SW5 Combined SW3 SW5 Combined (Kg/d)
Total Alkalinity 1.4 4 6 1.9 23 25 2.2 21 23.462 18 Increase in mass load
Total Hardness 2.4 137 139 3.7 261 265 3.8 206 209.869 71 Increase in mass load
Sulphate 1.8 210 211 3 251 254 2.6 231 233.581 22 Mass load comparable
Metals - dissolved
Dissolved Cadmium 0.0003 0.100 0.101 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.0020 0.003 0.005 -0.096 Reduction in mass load
Dissolved Copper 0.0004 0.01 0.014 0.0039 0.0005 0.0044 0.0035 0.0001 0.004 -0.010 Reduction in mass load
Increase due to SW5 discharge of mine water under
Dissolved Iron
0.002 0.07 0.072 0.0024 2.704 2.71 0.0022 3.08 3.083 3.010 reduced conditions.
Dissolved Lead 0.00010 0.0004 0.00045 0.0013 0.00007 0.0013 0.0030 0.00002 0.0030 0.003 Increase due to Level 4 upper mine contribution
Dissolved Manganese 0.00007 1.1 1.1 0.01 1.3408 1.35 0.0099 1.23 1.238 0.090 No change
Dissolved Zinc 0.03 16 16 0.3 3.3803 3.72 0.3039 1.31 1.611 -14.457 Reduction in mass load
Figure 3 - Combined Level 4 & 5 Mass

Load
100.000000
Mass Load (Kg/d)
10.000000
1.000000
0.100000
0.010000
0.001000 Baseline
0.000100
Post Rem 2012
Post Rem 2013
Parameter

Mt Te Aroha Access Road Ford (SW100)
Baseline Post Remediation 2013 Average Mass Flux Comment

Post Remed Post Remed
Parameter Units Mean Min Max Count Mean Min Max Count Baseline 2012 2013
Reduction in surface water flow. High flow regime
Flows (m3/s) 0.011 0.002 0.033 7 0.0185 0.0063 0.0421 3 0.011 0.007 0.0185 in Sept 2013.
(Kg/d) (Kg/d) (Kg/d)
pH (pH units) 7.0 6.4 7.6 11 7.1 6.7 7.7 3.0 NA NA NA No change expected or observed
Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 32 0 62 11 32 14 46 3 21 20 32 No change in concentration
Increase in hardness expected due to alkalinity
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 152 92 220 4 220 80 320 3 52 217 208 addition
Concentration increase expected from SW5
Sulphate (mg/L) 174 100 252 11 210 80 310 3 157 215 202 change.
Metals - dissolved#1
Average values skewed by high flow Sept 2013
Dissolved Cadmium result (refer Figure 4e). Reduction in concentration
(mg/L) 0.089 0.057 0.122 11 0.023 0.021 0.024 3.000 0.085 0.020 0.038 and mass load under normal flow
Dissolved Copper result (refer Figure 4f). Reduction in concentration
Dissolved Iron result (refer Figure 4g). Reduction in concentration
Dissolved Lead result (refer Figure 4h). Reduction in concentration
Dissolved Manganese (mg/L) 0.780 0.490 1.100 8 0.620 0.230 1.110 3.000 0.70 0.53 0.59 No change in concentration
Dissolved Zinc (mg/L) 12.1 9.4 15.2 11 2.9 0.8 4.2 3.0 11.4 3.6 2.5 Reduction in concentration and mass load
Figure 4a - Instream Results (SW100) Figure 4b - Instream Results (SW100)

100.000000 100.000000
Mean Concentration (g/m3)

Average Mass Load (Kg/d)
10.000000 10.000000
1.000000 1.000000
0.100000 Baseline 0.100000

Baseline
Post Rem 2012
0.010000 0.010000 Post Rem 2013
Post Rem 2013
0.001000 0.001000
J:\AKL\42092212\5 Works\PHASE 1 works\Water Quality Monitoring SW100.xls3/07/2014

Figure 4c - SW100 - Al Mass Load Figure 4d - SW100 - As Mass Load
0.08 0.004
0.07 0.0035
Mass Load (Kg/d)
Mass Load (Kg/d)

0.06 0.003
0.05 0.0025
0.04 0.002
0.03 Actual (mean) 0.0015 Actual(Mean)
0.02 0.001
Minimum Minimum
0.01 0.0005
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
Figure 4e - Figure SW100 - Cd Mass Load Figure 4f - SW100 - Cu Mass Load

0.35 0.09
0.3 0.08
Mass Load (Kg/d)

Mass Load (Kg/d)
0.07
0.25 0.06
0.2 0.05
0.15 0.04
Actual(Mean) 0.03 Mean
0.1
0.02
0.05 Minimum Minimum
0.01
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
Figure 4g - SW100 - Fe Mass Load Figure 4h - SW100 - Pb Mass Load

0.8 0.12
0.7 0.1
Mass Load (Kg/d)
Mass Load (Kg/d)
0.6
0.5 0.08
0.4 0.06
0.3 Actual(Mean) 0.04 Mean
0.2
0.1 Minimum 0.02 Minimum
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
Figure 4i - SW100 - Mn Mass Load Figure 4j - SW100 - Zn Mass Load

2.5 45
40
Mass Load (Kg/d)
Mass Load (Kg/d)
2 35
30
1.5 25
1 20
Mean 15 Mean
0.5 Minimum 10 Minimum
5
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
Tunakahoia North Branch (SW7)
Baseline Post Remediation 2013 Average Mass Flux Comment

Post Post
Remediation Remediation
Parameter Units Mean Min Max Count Mean Min Max Count Baseline 2012 2013
Different flow regimes during baseline and post
Flows (m3/s) 0.045 0.018 0.109 5 0.063 0.024 0.138 3 0.045 0.018 0.063 remediation sampling.
(Kg/d) (Kg/d)
pH (pH units) 6.6 6.0 7.0 5 7.0 7.0 7.1 3.0 NA NA NA No change expected or observed
Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 24 0 62 11
Sulphate (mg/L) 133 81 189 7
Metals - dissolved#1
Dissolved Cadmium result (refer Figure 5e). Reduction in concentration
(mg/L) 0.044 0.027 0.064 9 0.014 0.012 0.016 3 0.1296 0.039 0.069 and mass load under normal flow
Dissolved Copper result (refer Figure 5f). Reduction in concentration
Dissolved Iron result (refer Figure 5g). Reduction in concentration
Dissolved Lead result (refer Figure 5h). Reduction in concentration
Dissolved Manganese result (refer Figure 5i). Reduction in concentration
result (refer Figure 5j). Reduction in concentration
Dissolved Zinc (mg/L) 6.2 3.9 7.8 9 2.140 1.720 2.400 3 10.2 5.6 10.25 and mass load under normal flow
Figure 5a - Instream Results (SW7) Figure 5b - Instream Results (SW7)

100.000000 10.000000
10.000000
Concentration (g/m3)
1.000000
Mass Load (Kg/d)
1.000000
0.100000
0.100000 Baseline
Baseline
Post Rem 2012
0.010000
0.010000 Post Rem 2013
Post Rem 2013
0.001000 0.001000
J:\AKL\42092212\5 Works\Water Quality\Water Quality Monitoring SW7.xlsm3/07/2014

Figure 5c - SW7 - Al Mass Load Figure 5d - SW7 - As Mass Load
1.2 0.014
1 0.012
Mass Load (Kg/d)
Mass Load (Kg/d)

0.8 0.01
0.008
0.6
Actual (mean) 0.006
0.4 Actual(Mean)
0.004
0.2 Minimum Minimum
0.002
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
Figure 5e - Figure SW7 - Cd Mass Load Figure 5f - SW7 - Cu Mass Load

0.3 0.2
Mass Load (Kg/d)

Mass Load (Kg/d)
0.25
0.15
0.2
0.15 0.1
0.1 Actual(Mean) Mean
0.05
0.05 Minimum Minimum
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
Figure 5g - SW7 - Fe Mass Load Figure 5h - SW7 - Pb Mass Load

0.8 0.18
0.7 0.16
Mass Load (Kg/d)
Mass Load (Kg/d)
0.6 0.14
0.5 0.12
0.1
0.4
0.08
0.3 Actual(Mean) 0.06 Mean
0.2 0.04
0.1 Minimum Minimum
0.02
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
Figure 5i - SW7 - Mn Mass Load Figure 5j - SW7 - Zn Mass Load

2.5 40
35
Mass Load (Kg/d)
Mass Load (Kg/d)
2 30
1.5 25
20
1 Mean 15 Mean
0.5 10
Minimum Minimum
5
0 Maximum 0 Maximum
Date Date
APPENDIX F GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES
42092212/R058/D
GOVERNMENT OIL & GAS INFRASTRUCTURE POWER INDUSTRIAL
URS is a leading provider of engineering, construction, technical and environmental URS New Zealand Limited
services for public agencies and private sector companies around the world. We offer URS Centre, 13-15 College
a full range of program management; planning, design and engineering; systems Hill
engineering and technical assistance; construction and construction management; Auckland 1011
operations and maintenance; and decommissioning and closure services for power, PO Box 821, Auckland 1140
infrastructure, industrial and commercial, and government projects and programs. New Zealand
T: +64 9 355 1300

F: +64 9 355 1333
© 2014 URS
www.urscorp.co.nz
73

Site Validation Report From URS PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Site Validation Report From URS PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

a

Report Site Validation Report

Prepared by URS New Zealand Limited

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... V

 Provide a geotechnically stable landform;

 Minimise the ongoing environmental effects of the site on water quality;

Work undertaken to achieve the above goals included:-

 Construction of a bulkhead in Champion Level 5 to flood underground mine below

 Management of clean surface water by permanent diversion around the tailings.

Validation of Water Quality

Validation of the Remediated Tailings Landform

1.2 Purpose of Report

1.3 Phase 1 Design – Underground Mine and Waste Rock

The Phase 1 remedial works completed at the site are as follows:-

1.4 Phase 2 Design – Tailings Impoundment Area

The Phase 2 remedial works completed at the site are as follows:-

1.5 Construction Phase

1.6 Remedial Objectives

The aims of the Project are as follows:-

 To provide a geotechnically stable landform;

 Minimise the ongoing environmental effects of the site on water quality;

The following consents were granted for the remedial works:-

Waikato Regional Council

 Resource Consent No 121040 - Clearance of vegetation on the bed of the northern

Matamata-Piako District Council

– Activities within a known contaminated site in the Kaitiaki Zone

– Alteration to landform, modification to streams and removal of vegetation in the

– Structures within the Kaitiaki Zone

– Clean fill activities within the Kaitiaki Zone.

1.8 Conditions of Consent

The pre remediation layout of the site is shown in Figure 2-1.

2.2 Site Ownership

2.3.1 Remedial Context

TUI MINE REMEDIATION

File No: 42092212-K-001.dwg Drawn: Approved: Date: Rev. A A3

2.4 Site Environmental Background

 A programme of instream ecological monitoring (Brian T Coffey and Associates Ltd,

 A programme of baseline soil sampling (PDP, 2010 and URS 2012).

2.4.1 Contaminant Sources

Table 2-1 Scope of Remedial Works

Contaminant Source Characteristics Significance Remedial Actions

Champion Vein (Norpac) Continuous Major Phase 1 Works

Champion Vein (Norpac) Seepage and Moderate Not part of scope

Ruakaka Vein (Norpac) – Discharge to Moderate Phase 1 Works

Surface workings – Surface ore and Moderate Not part of scope –

Ore Stockpile Area Ore chip, surface Major Phase 2 Works

Process Plant Surface ore and Minor Phase 2 Works

Tailings Impoundment – Now Oxidising Tailings Major Phase 2 Works

Beached Tailings (Area S) Oxidised, partially Major Not part of scope -

Organic Material Stockpile – Oxidised and Moderate Not part of scope -

Old Historic Mine workings Intermittent Minor Not part of scope

3.2 Approach to Validation Sampling

Item No. Functional Element Description Details/Location Design & Advice Notes Works completed Remedial Outcomes Reference documentation Validation Approach

Item No. Functional Element Description Details/Location Design & Advice Notes Works completed Remedial Outcomes Reference documentation Validation Approach

Item No. Functional Element Description Details/Location Design & Advice Notes Works completed Remedial Outcomes Reference documentation Validation Approach

Shear key excavation into the foundation soils at Changes to the location and Designer advice note 15, NTC 107, Phase 2

Changes to the Designer advice note 6 ‐ additional lower Addressed in SVR ‐ Slope stability validation

Item No. Functional Element Description Details/Location Design & Advice Notes Works completed Remedial Outcomes Reference documentation Validation Approach

Buried organic material and clay within the toe Removed and treated, logs and Water quality in Tui Stream (SW11

3.4 Phase 2 Remedial Works

 Slope stability of remediated tailings landform

 Modification of the tailings by blending, insitu mass stabilisation,and exsitu mass

 Capping and imported materials