Land Capability Assessment...The Land Capability Assessment involved a desktop assessment, field investigation and laboratory analysis of soil samples from soil test pits, and targeted

Appendix HLand Capability Assessment

H

Land Capability A

ssessment

1.

w w w . e c o z . c o m . a u

Land Capability

Assessment:

Noonamah Ridge Estate

Prepared for: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd

Prepared by: EcOz Environmental Consultants

2015

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd ii

Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate

This page has been intentionally left blank

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd iii


Document Control Record

Document Code: EZ14403A-C0301-DA-R-0003

Catalogue Number: 55472

Project Manager: Glen Ewers

Author(s): Helen Dwyer, Justine Shailes

Approved by: Glen Ewers

Approval date: 17 August 2015

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version Issue Date Brief Description Reviewer/Approver

1.A 28 Apr 2015 Report preparation by authors -

1.B 6 May 2015 Internal review Glen Ewers

1.C 11 May 2015 Internal review David van den Hoek

1.D-F 12 May 2015 Update of report post review Helen Dwyer

1.0 14 May 2015 Draft shared internally for comments -

1.1-4 10 Jun 2015 Updated report incorporating comments received Max Shifman, Paul Nicholls & Martin Klopper

1.5 17 Aug 2015 Report complete and ready for inclusion in EIS -

Recipients are responsible for eliminating all superseded documents in their possession.

EcOz Pty Ltd.

ABN: 81 143 989 039

Winlow House, 3rd Floor

75 Woods Street

DARWIN NT 0800

GPO Box 381, Darwin NT 0800

Telephone: +61 8 8981 1100

Facsimile: +61 8 8981 1102

Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.ecoz.com.au

RELIANCE, USES and LIMITATIONS

This report is copyright and is to be used only for its intended purpose by the intended recipient, and is not to be copied or used in any

other way. The report may be relied upon for its intended purpose within the limits of the following disclaimer.

This study, report and analyses have been based on the information available to EcOz Environmental Consultants at the time of

preparation. EcOz Environmental Consultants accepts responsibility for the report and its conclusions to the extent that the information

was sufficient and accurate at the time of preparation. EcOz Environmental Consultants does not take responsibility for errors and

omissions due to incorrect information or information not available to EcOz Environmental Consultants at the time of preparation of the

study, report or analyses.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ecoz.com.au/

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd iv


This page has been intentionally left blank

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd v


Executive Summary

This report investigates potential locations for on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems within the

proposed Noonamah Ridge Estate, located on Section 5827, 507, 5758 and 5761 Hundred of Strangways.

The Land Capability Assessment involved a desktop assessment, field investigation and laboratory analysis

of soil samples from soil test pits, and targeted common and relatively unconstrained land units (i.e. no test

pits were excavated in rocky ridge areas or creek lines). Ten soil test pits were excavated in the north-

western portion of Sections 5827 and 5758 for the purpose of describing and assessing soil types and

characteristics relevant to on-site wastewater management in accordance with in the Guidelines for Land

Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater Management (DoH 2014). Key features including depth, rock

and gravel content, soil texture, structure and colour, and presence of water table were recorded, while

laboratory samples were analysed for key physical and chemical parameters.

Intrapac currently plans to provide a variety of lot sizes and associated infrastructure, and the majority of lots

will be sewered and connected to centralised, communal wastewater treatment systems capable of treating

large volumes of wastewater. Additional to this, there is potential for a number of larger lots to be developed

with individual on-site wastewater management systems. The early stages of development will likely involve

a release of these larger lots in the north-western section of the proposed development. Therefore, the focus

of this LCA was a targeted assessment of the north-western section of the proposed development (which

may include the site of one of the communal wastewater treatment systems), and then an extrapolation of

the results of this assessment into an investigation and identification of the land units within the entire site

that are potentially capable of supporting large-scale systems. As this development will be staged over a

number of decades, accurate locations for rural lots and sites for centralised systems were not available at

the time of reporting. Siting and design of on-site wastewater management systems outside of the

investigation area will require more detailed, site-specific investigations at each location.

The LCA covered ten test pits over six land units – 1c, 2b1, 2b2, 3c, 6a2 and 6b. The site characteristics

and soil test pits identified that:

The site covers a wide range of landforms and land units and necessitated extrapolation of soil test

pit data across the represented land units.

The overall landform and drainage of the project area includes steep, rocky ridge lines in the centre

of the project area with slopes of up to 15 % and rapid drainage. Side slopes and undulating

uplands surround these, before the site flattens into lower slopes and eventually drainage floors

and creek lines. The slopes range from 2-5 % in the side slopes and undulating uplands to 0-2 %

in the lower slopes and drainage floors. Drainage is poor in the drainage floors and creek lines,

and there are a number of seasonally inundated areas. Drainage from the project area is

predominantly west into a tributary of the Elizabeth River, with some drainage toward the Adelaide

River to the east.

There are sufficient unconstrained soils within the sampled land units capable of supporting on-site

wastewater management systems, subject to site-specific designs once locations are finalised.

Soil data indicates that the most appropriate (i.e. unconstrained) of the surveyed land units for

siting of wastewater management systems are 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c.

Test pits within land units 6a2 and 6b indicate low capability due to shallow, sandy soils with high

permeability and high seasonal water tables. Some areas of these land units are seasonally-

inundated and on-site wastewater management systems should not be sited within these land

units.

Test pits within land units 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c indicate gravelly, sandy clay loam to sandy loam

with some occurrences of silty clay loam. Although gravels and coarse fragments were common

the areas surrounding the test pits had no rock outcrop. The soils were well-drained, with no

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd vi


presence of water tables, although some test pits within land unit 1c and 3c had mottling in the

lower profiles (approximately 0.8 m below ground level) indicating potential water ingress.

Laboratory results for soil pH, EC, P-sorption capacity, sodicity and Emerson aggregate classes

indicate high-moderate capability for all analytes, and none of the tested parameters are likely to

pose limitations to on-site wastewater treatment and disposal.

Test pits were located on the lower slope landforms within the respective land units. It should be

noted that the upper slopes and ridge lines within land unit 1c are very rocky and steep. Locations

of wastewater management systems within land unit 1c should be closely assessed to ensure there

is sufficient soil and slope to accommodate the proposed system.

Specific wastewater treatment and land application systems were not assessed as it is understood

Intrapac plan to install specialised treatment systems capable of treating to tertiary quality, which

would allow for any land application system. The sizing and design of these systems will be

undertaken by the installer, who will also maintain the system.

The above conclusions are based on the findings of the investigated sites and are assumed to be

representative of the greater property; however, lot-specific limitations may occur. Additionally, not all land

units within the project area were assessed in this LCA, and there may be additional land units that are

capable (or not) of supporting proposed on-site wastewater management systems. Each lot, or specific

location for centralised wastewater systems, will require assessment from a suitably qualified plumber on the

appropriate system to be installed.

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd vii


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Development details .............................................................................................................................1

1.3 Relevant legislation and guidelines ......................................................................................................3

1.4 Cumulative risk assessment ................................................................................................................3

2 Site Assessment ..........................................................................................................................................5

3 Soils Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Context .............................................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Method .............................................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 12

3.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 14

4 Wastewater Management System ........................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Overview of options ........................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Site constraints and recommended treatment system(s).................................................................. 17

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 19

6 Acronyms and References ....................................................................................................................... 20

Tables

Table 2-1. Summary of site features .................................................................................................................5 Table 3-1. General characteristics of the main soil orders occurring with the Noonamah Ridge Estate ....... 11 Table 3-2. Soil test pits and corresponding land units .................................................................................... 12 Table 3-3. Summary of soil characteristics..................................................................................................... 12 Table 4-1. Treatment and land application systems available (Source: DoH 2014) ...................................... 16 Table 4-2. Common land application systems ............................................................................................... 16 Table 4-3. Land units and recommended treatment and application systems ............................................... 18

Figures

Figure 1-1. Map of Noonamah Ridge Estate project area location ...................................................................4 Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locations and land units ...................................................................................8 Figure 2-2. Map of ground-truthed land units in project area ............................................................................9 Figure 2-3. Map of site drainage ..................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3-1. Photograph of water table in TP1 ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 3-2. Photograph of profile of TP2 – typical of land unit 1c .................................................................. 15 Figure 3-3. Photograph of profile of TP8 – land unit 3c .................................................................................. 15 Figure 3-4. Photograph of topsoil at TP7 – typical of land unit 3c .................................................................. 15

Appendices

Appendix A – Soil Bore Logs Appendix B – Soil Laboratory Results

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 1


1 Introduction

A Land Capability Assessment (LCA) was undertaken at the site of the proposed residential subdivision,

Noonamah Ridge Estate, located 36 km south-east of Darwin. The proponent, Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd

(Intrapac), is required to provide an assessment of the capability of the site to support onsite wastewater

management as part of environmental approvals process, and this report is supplementary to the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The information provided in this LCA will also inform development

planning and design with relation to location and sizing of on-site wastewater treatment and land application

areas.

The Northern Territory Department of Health require LCA’s for all development proposals in un-sewered

areas, including all subdivision proposals for three or more lots. The Environmental Health Guidelines for

Land Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater Management (DoH 2014) stipulate the process for

assessment of land capability of proposed subdivisions and developments to ensure that lots can support

wastewater treatment and land application without impacting surrounding and downstream environments.

The LCA for the Noonamah Ridge Estate followed this process, and involved collection of desktop and field

data to analyse landform, soil characteristics and potential constraints (i.e. rock outcrop/seasonal

waterlogging) to identify land units that are appropriate for siting on-site wastewater management systems.

The proposed subdivision at Noonamah Ridge Estate will involve a variety of lot sizes and associated

infrastructure. The majority of lots will be sewered and connected to centralised, communal wastewater

treatment systems capable of treating large volumes of wastewater. Additional to this, there is potential for a

number of larger lots to be developed with individual on-site wastewater management systems. The early

stages of development will likely involve a release of these larger lots in the north-western section of the

proposed development. Therefore, the focus of this LCA was a targeted assessment of the north-western

section of the proposed development (which may well include the site of one of the communal wastewater

treatment systems), and then an extrapolation of the results of this assessment into an investigation and

identification of the land units within the entire site that are potentially capable of supporting large-scale

systems. As this development will be staged over a number of decades, accurate locations for rural lots and

sites for centralised systems were not available at the time of reporting. Siting and design of on-site

wastewater management systems outside of the investigation area will require more detailed, site-specific

investigations at each location.

1.1 Background

The project site is located in the locality of Lloyd Creek within the South Ward of the Municipality of Litchfield

(see Figure 1-1). The site is 7 km south-east of the township of Humpty Doo and 36 km south-east of the

Darwin Central Business District. It is a greenfield site covering 2,800 hectares.

A Land Suitability Assessment (LSA) was undertaken to assess the suitability of the area for the proposed

land use and to identify any potential environmental constraints requiring management or mitigation

measures during the planning, design and construction phases of the development – see the relevant

appendix of the EIS. Land unit information collated and ground-truthed for the LSA was used as a basis for

LCA investigations and will inform the extrapolation of LCA data to identify areas which are likely to be most

suitable for siting of wastewater treatment and land application systems.

1.2 Development details

Location

The project area is bounded by Redcliffe Road, Townend Road and Mocatto Road along the west, south and

east respectively, and is accessed from several roads adjoining the Stuart Highway, including Elizabeth

Valley Road and Townend Road – see Figure 1-1



Address

The lots over which the project (henceforth referred to as ‘the project area’) covers are:

Section 5827, Hundred of Strangways



Section 5761, Hundred of Strangways.

Owner

The project area is located on freehold land owned as follows:

Koolpinyah Station Pty Ltd

Section 5827

Section 5758

Section 5761

Norama Enterprises Incorporated Section 507

Zoning

Section 5761 is zoned Rural, the remainder are zoned Rural Living.

Existing site land use

The site is currently unoccupied and naturally vegetated. A Telstra tower exists within Section 5761 and

several small tracks traverse the project area. A number of mineral tenements exist within the project area;

these are not currently in use. Two historic gravel pits exist in the north of the project area; these have been

inactive for some time and vegetation regrowth is well established in disturbed areas.

Surrounding land use

Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land, rural lots and subdivisions, mixed use agriculture and

agricultural support industries (e.g. cattle yards, abattoir). Land tenure surrounding the project consists of a

majority of freehold land directly to the north, west and south of the development, with a large area of

perpetual pastoral lease land (Station, NT Koolpinyah portion 4477) neighbouring on the eastern side of the

boundary.

The nearest permanent surface water body is the Elizabeth River, which commences 800 m west of the

project area and drains north-east. A tributary of the Adelaide River commences approximately 820 m east

of the project area, and drains east to the Adelaide River 14 km.

Development permit

A Notice of Intent was submitted to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority (NTEPA) on 22

December 2013 for consideration under the Environmental Assessment Act. The NTEPA determined that

the project should be assessed at the level of an EIS and released the associated Terms of Reference in

December 2014.

The proponent is currently preparing the Environmental Impact Statement for this project.

The development is planned to be undertaken in phases and a development permit will be sought for each

phase as required. There is currently no development permit application.

Development layout and lot size

The proposed layout currently provides for approximately 4,155 lots of various typologies including urban,

semi-urban and rural residential living, sized from 800 m2

to 8 ha. The first phase of development will

comprise 400 lots sized urban to rural, and development of a village centre, with access from Elizabeth



Valley Road. Intrapac plan to provide for development of schools, shopping precincts and up to two village

centres across the project area.

Headworks

Intrapac plans to service all of the lots with power, the majority with reticulated water (some may have

bores), and to have most of the lots connected to centralised sewerage treatment. Some larger blocks may

have on-site wastewater management. Site drainage will be engineered to ensure lots and developed areas

are well drained and maintain existing preferential water flow-paths (i.e. toward creek systems).

Anticipated wastewater load

A measure of ‘equivalent persons’ (EP) is determined in accordance with land use within the development,

types of dwellings, recreational facilities, commercial establishment etc. As the majority of the land use

within the development will be residential detached dwellings an initial value of 3.5 EP/dwelling has been

adopted to determine the peak EP. The Sewer Code of Australia WSA-02-2002 (NT Supplement) will be

used during details design to calculate the EP values.

With 4,155 lots proposed, the peak capacity will be 14,542 EP and the total wastewater generated will be 2.9

ML/day (assuming generation of 200 L/EP/day in accordance with Australian Standard 1547:2012). The flow

associated with this value will be based on the standard value of 200 L/EP/day as this is a widely accepted

value for wastewater generation in Australia and is based on modern water savings fixtures being used

throughout the development.

1.3 Relevant legislation and guidelines

AS/NZS 1547:2012 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management (Standards Australia / Standards New

Zealand, 2012)

AS/NZS 1546.1 Australian Standard On-site domestic wastewater treatment units: Septic Tanks

(Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand, 2008)

Territory Health Services (1996) Code of Practice for Small On-site Sewage and Sullage Treatment

Systems and the Disposal or Reuse of Sewage Effluent

Department of Health Guidelines for Land Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater

Management (DoH 2014)

1.4 Cumulative risk assessment

The cumulative risks of large-scale on-site wastewater management have been identified and discussed in

Chapter 5 of the EIS, and have not been addressed here.

!

Fogg Dam

Mandorah

Noonamah

Humpty Doo

Koolpinyah

Berry Springs

Howard Springs

Howa

rd Ri

ver

Elizabeth River

Black

more

River

River Annie

Darw

in Riv

er

Manton

River

Adela

ide R

iver

Dalys

Cree

k

Marrakai Creek

Acacia Creek

690000

690000

700000

700000

710000

710000

720000

720000

730000

730000

740000

740000

750000

750000

760000

760000

8580

000

8590

000

8600

000

8610

000

8620

000

8630

000

Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\Figure XX - General Location Map_HD.mxdFigure 1-1. Map of project area location and major surface water catchments

!

O0 10 205

Kilometres

NOONAMAH RIDGE ESTATE

MAP INFORMATIONName: General Location MapProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: IntrapacAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCERoad layers: Geoscience AustraliaWaterways: NTGCatchments: NGSAProject boundary: ClientImagery: ESRI basemap

! TownsMajor watercoursesProject area boundaryMain roadsMinor roadsSecondary RoadDual carriageway

EcOz makes every effort to ensure this map is free of errors but does not warrent the map or its features are either spatiallyor temporally accurate or fit for a particular purpose. EcOz provides this map without any warrenty of anykind whatsoever, either express or implied.

Palmerston

STUART HIGHWAY

ARNHEM HIGHWAY

ADEL

AIDE

RIV

ER

Darwin

DARWIN



2 Site Assessment

A site investigation was undertaken by an EcOz environmental scientist on 13 February 2015 at ten sites

across six land units originally defined in the land Resources of the Greater Darwin area land unit mapping

1:25,000, and ground-truthed by EcOz in the LSA (Figure 2-1). The test sites did not sample all land units

within the project area, and there may be land units that are unconstrained or constrained that were not

investigated as part of this LCA (refer to Figure 2-2). However, sufficient data was collected to allow for

extrapolation of information across similar land units (e.g. all drainage floors/inundated areas can be

assumed to present similar constraints for on-site wastewater management). Further investigations may be

required should plans indicate that wastewater management systems will be located in land units not

investigated as part of this LCA.

Site features were assessed for capability to support on-site wastewater management with reference to the

land capability rating scale provided in the LCA Guidelines (DoH 2014). Desktop and field data was used to

compile key site information in Table 2-1. Field investigations involved excavation of soil test pits up to 1.5 m

deep (or refusal), and recording key site features, soil and landform characteristics and presence of potential

limiting factors or constraints. Samples were taken for laboratory analysis of soil parameters relevant to

wastewater management (refer to Section 3).

Site observations and land unit mapping undertaken for the LSA also informed the land capability rankings

for site features assessed in Table 2-1. The land capability rankings for the site features are based on an

assessment of the entire project area. The size of the project area (2,800 ha) allows for some potential

constraints (e.g. flooding/drainage) to be a allocated a greater capability ranking as there is sufficient well

drained land to justify an overall ranking of (for example) High capability for drainage. This assumes that

centralised wastewater treatment and disposal systems will be located in areas of high capability as the site

provides opportunity to select the most appropriate locations.

Table 2-1. Summary of site features

Aspect Land capability

Climate

The climate for Noonamah is typical of the tropics with a pronounced wet and dry season. Climate data from nearby Middle Point station (number 14041) indicates that there is little fluctuation in minimum and maximum temperatures (14-24ºC and 32-37ºC respectively) throughout the year, but that rainfall and humidity are highly seasonal (BOM 2015). The majority of annual rainfall (averaging ~1400 mm) falls within the summer/wet season months November – April. The average pan evaporation rate is approximately 2400 mm per annum.

Moderate – limited by monsoonal

climate

Exposure

Aspect varies across the project area and is summarised as north/north-easterly and south/south-westerly. Ridges run through the middle of the project area in a north-east/south-west direction and all topography radiates down from this.

Mean solar exposure (in MJ/m2) for the site is 21.5, with a maximum of 24.6 (Oct)

and a minimum of 19 (Feb). The site is well vegetated.

Moderate

Vegetation

Vegetation at the site ranges from open Eucalyptus woodland and Eucalyptus woodland on the ridges, upper slopes, side slopes and uplands, to open Corymbia and Lophostemon forest on the lower slopes and drainage lines. Broad drainage floors are dominated by tall shrubland and open woodland of grevillea and melaleuca species.

Land unit information and vegetation data is summarised in the LSA and Vegetation Assessment at the site (see relevant appendices of the EIS).

Moderate




Landform and drainage

The ridge lines, upper slopes and uplands are generally relatively steep or undulating and are rapidly drained to moderately rapidly drained. Side slopes and lower slopes are well drained to imperfectly drained, and the drainage floors and creek lines are seasonally inundated and/or waterlogged (i.e. poorly drained). A map of drainage across the site is provided in Figure 2-3. The LCA targeted the undulating uplands and side slopes of the project area considered most appropriate for wastewater management systems.

High (sufficient available well

drained land to accommodate

systems)

Slope

Slopes vary from 5-15 % along the ridge lines and upland areas, 2-5 % in the side slopes and undulating uplands, and 0-2 % in the lower slope and drainage floors. The LCA focused on the slopes of 1-2 % (although some sites were located on slopes of 0-1 % and 2-3 %). The LCA Guidelines recommend stipulate that slopes of < 5 % are most appropriate for wastewater management systems.

High (assuming all systems are

located on slopes of < 5 %)

Fill

With the exception of two small, isolated gravel pits in the north-west of the project area the site is relatively undisturbed. No fill material was identified in the soil assessment areas.

High

Surface gravel and rock outcrops

The site is characterised by rocky, gravelly ridges and upper slopes which are not considered appropriate for wastewater management under the LCA Guidelines.

Soil survey sites targeted the side slopes and lower slopes, and no rock outcrop was observed at any survey sites. Surface gravels ranged from 5-60 % (average of 35 %), mostly small ferruginous pebbles and laterite gravel.

Moderate

Erosion potential

The site is predominantly undisturbed and no significant erosion was identified in the survey areas. Slopes in the survey area were relatively flat and soils were not sodic/dispersive (Emerson Class numbers 4 and 8). Soil texture is predominantly sandy/sandy loam and sandy clay loam, which is considered less erodible than lighter silt soils.

High

Groundwater

A recent onsite groundwater study (see relevant appendix of the EIS) indicated that at least three types of aquifer underlie the project area – with at least one porous, high yielding sandstone aquifer occurring adjacent to a major fault zone. Seven aquifer ‘zones’ have been described within the project area, indicating that groundwater conditions are highly variable across the site.

Due to the steeply dipping and folded beds and major interruptions by fault lines, aquifers are variable in yield (0.5 – 15 L/s) and limited in extent, forming localised aquifers which may extend offsite in some locations.

Soil investigation pits intercepted shallow (likely seasonal) water tables in two pits; TP1 intercepted water at 0.9 m below ground level (BGL) and TP9 intercepted water at 0.5 m BGL. These sites were located within land units 6a2 and 6b, both of which are seasonally inundated.

High, except for land units 5b1, 6a2 and 6b which are

Low.

Rainfall run-on and seepage

In general the ridges and upper slopes of the site direct rainfall runoff toward the lower-lying areas (e.g. land unit 4c) and eventually to the broad drainage floors and creek lines throughout the site (5b1, 6a2, 6b).

As per the LCA Guidelines, centralised wastewater systems should be located outside of areas that will receive significant run-on. Diversionary structures may be required.

Moderate

Flood potential

Several creek and drainage lines traverse the project area. Flood modelling for 1 %

High (assuming all areas within 1 %




Annual Exceedance Probability (1 in 100 year events) will be undertaken in stages for the entire site to identify flood prone areas. All wastewater systems will be located outside of flood prone areas.

AEP are avoided)

Recommended buffer distances

The project area is sufficiently sized and largely undeveloped such that all setback distances specified in the NT Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater Management (THS 1996) can be accommodated.

High

Available land application area

Centralised land application areas will be sited in appropriately-sized areas to ensure sufficient land is available for absorption and disposal of treated wastewater.

High

")

")

")

")

")

") ")")

")5

98

7

4

3

2

1

10

730000

730000

730500

730500

731000

731000

731500

731500

732000

732000

8599

000

8599

500

8600

000

8600

500

8601

000

8601

500

8602

000

8602

500

8603

000

8603

500

8604

000

Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\LCA\Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locations and land units.mxd

MAP INFORMATIONName: Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locaitonsand land unitsProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: Intrapac Projects Pty LtdAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCELand units: NTG, EcOzSite Data: EcOzImagery: Intrapac Aerial

Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locations and land units

") LCA test pitsWatercourses and Drainage Lines

Stream order 1Stream order 2Project area boundaryCadastral Boundaries

Land unitsRugged terrain

1c - Low scarps, steep slopes, rock outcrop,Open forest to open woodland (Eucalyptus)

Gravelly undulating terrain2a1 - Low hills and upper slopes, surfacegravels, open Eucalyptus woodland2b1 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, gravelly,open woodland (Ironwood and Corymbia)2b2 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, rockoutcrops, open woodland to woodland(Eucalyptus)

Very undulating upland surface3b - Flat to undulating uplands, gravelly,woodland to open forest (Eucalyptus)3c - Flat to undulating uplands, extensivegravels and rock outcrops, open forest to openwoodland (Eucalyptus)

Gentle lower slopes4b - Gentle lower slopes, seasonalwaterlogging, open woodland (Ironwood,Corymbia, Eucalyptus)4c - Gentle lower slopes, seasonalwaterlogging, open mixed forest

Drainage lines within upland terrain5b1 - Drainage lines within uplands, seasonalinundation, open forest to open woodland(Melaleuca, Eucalyptus, Corymbia)

Broad plains6a2 - Broad plains, seasonal inundation, openwoodland to woodland (Corymbia, Ironwood,Eucalytus)6b - Broad drainage floors and creek margins,seasonal inundation, tall shrubland to low openwoodland (Ironwood, Melaleuca, Corymbia)

Disturbed areasGravel pit - disturbed areas

0 0.5 10.25Kilometres

O

EcOz makes every effort to ensure this map is free of errorsbut does not warrant the map or its features as either spatiallyor temporally accurate or fit for a particular use. EcOz provides this map without any warranty of any kind whatsoever, either express or implied.

Section 5758

Section 5827

730000

730000

731000

731000

732000

732000

733000

733000

8595

000

8596

000

8597

000

8598

000

8599

000

8600

000

8601

000

8602

000

8603

000

8604

000

Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\LCA\Figure 2-2. Map of project area land units.mxd

MAP INFORMATIONName: Figure 2-2. Map of ground-truthed land unitsProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: Intrapac Projects Pty LtdAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCELand units: NTG, EcOzSite Data: EcOzImagery: Intrapac Aerial

Figure 2-2. Map of ground-truthed land units in project area

LCA target areaProject area boundaryLand units not assessed in LCA

Land unitsRugged terrain

1c - Low scarps, steep slopes, rock outcrop,Open forest to open woodland (Eucalyptus)

Gravelly undulating terrain2a1 - Low hills and upper slopes, surfacegravels, open Eucalyptus woodland2b1 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, gravelly, openwoodland (Ironwood and Corymbia)2b2 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, rock outcrops,open woodland to woodland (Eucalyptus)

Very undulating upland surface3a - Flat to undulating uplands, minor gravel,open forest (Eualyptus)3b - Flat to undulating uplands, gravelly,woodland to open forest (Eucalyptus)3c - Flat to undulating uplands, extensive gravelsand rock outcrops, open forest to open woodland(Eucalyptus)3d - Undulating uplands, gravelly, minor rockoutcrop, open woodland (Corymbia andEucalyptus)3e - Drainage areas within uplands, slowdrainage, woodland (Eucalyptus, Ironwood,Corymbia)

Gentle lower slopes4b - Gentle lower slopes, seasonal waterlogging,open woodland (Ironwood, Corymbia,Eucalyptus)4c - Gentle lower slopes, seasonal waterlogging,open mixed forest

Drainage lines within upland terrain5b1 - Drainage lines within uplands, seasonalinundation, open forest to open woodland(Melaleuca, Eucalyptus, Corymbia)

Broad plains6a2 - Broad plains, seasonal inundation, openwoodland to woodland (Corymbia, Ironwood,Eucalytus)6b - Broad drainage floors and creek margins,seasonal inundation, tall shrubland to low openwoodland (Ironwood, Melaleuca, Corymbia)

Disturbed areasGravel pit - disturbed areas

0 1 20.5Kilometres

O


")

")

")

")

")

") ")")

")5

987

4

3

2

1

10

730000

730000

731000

731000

732000

732000

733000

733000

8595

000

8596

000

8597

000

8598

000

8599

000

8600

000

8601

000

8602

000

8603

000

8604

000

Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\LCA\Figure 2-3. Map of site drainage.mxd

MAP INFORMATIONName: Figure 2-3. Map of site drainageProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: Intrapac Projects Pty LtdAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCELand units: NTG, EcOzSite Data: EcOzImagery: Intrapac Aerial

Figure 2-3. Map of site drainage

") LCA test pitsProject area boundary

Watercourses and Drainage LinesStream order 1Stream order 2

Site drainageWell drainedModerately well drainedImperfectly drainedPoorly drained

0 1 20.5Kilometres

O


Drainage categories obtained from Land Suitability AssessmentFirst order drainage lines include seasonal drainages and gullies in uplands. Some upland gullies end in overland flow, and hence are non-continuous drainage lines. Second order drainage lines are seasonal creek lines. Broad drainage floors exist within poorly-drainedareas, and may not have distinct drainage lineswithin them.

DARWIN



3 Soils Assessment

3.1 Context

The broad soil types of the project area are summarised in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1. General characteristics of the main soil orders occurring with the Noonamah Ridge Estate

Soil order General characteristics* Association

landform

Hydrosols Defined on the basis of seasonal or permanent wetness. The greater part of the profile is saturated for prolonged periods (2 – 3 months) in most years.

Site drainage patterns are key factor in defining the extent.

These soil types can pose engineering and environmental problems.

Low lands associated with drainage

Kandosols Lack a clear textural B horizon. Not calcareous throughout and the clay content of the massive to weakly-structured B2 horizon exceeds 15 % equivalent to heavy sandy loam.

Soils can be quite deep up to 3 m or more in depth. The clay content can increase to 35 – 50 % by a depth of 0.5 – 1 m. Clay content is dominated by kaolinite.

Red and brown sub-orders are generally permeable and well-drained.

Level plains and lower slopes

Rudosols Consists of material not greatly affected by pedological processes.

Soils feature little of pedological development apart from a minimal A1 horizon or presence of a minor B horizon in the fissures of the parent rock.

The soils are apedal or only weakly structured in the A1 horizon and show no pedological colour changes apart from the darkening of an A1 horizon.

There is little or no texture or colour change with depth unless stratified or buried soils are present.

In Northern Australia these soils types can be shallow gravelly sands formed on siliceous rocks of quartzite or sandstone.

Hills and rugged slopes

*Descriptions taken from McKenzie (1958-2004 CSIRO)

3.2 Method

Ten soil test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 1.5 m across the north-western section of the

project area (Figure 2-1). The test pits targeted this area as it was accessible and presented a number of

land units in close proximity. The target area may also be developed into rural blocks with individual lot

wastewater management systems as part of the early stage developments. Sample sites targeted the most

appropriate landforms and land units for siting of wastewater management systems (i.e. steep, rocky ridges

and upper slopes, and inundated or waterlogged drainage areas were avoided). The ten soil pits were

located across six land units, as multiple sites were located in 3c and 1c; respectively the most appropriate

land unit for wastewater management, and the most dominant (greatest cover) land unit throughout the

project area (see Table 3-2).

The soil horizons in each test pit were described and classified on site in terms of colour, texture, moisture

content, mottling, coarse fragments and structure (refer to soil bore logs in Appendix A). Depth to refusal or

water table was recorded where applicable. Laboratory testing was undertaken on samples of each horizon

to assess characteristics such as pH, electrical conductivity, exchangeable cations and Emerson Aggregate

Class (see Appendix B).



Table 3-2. Soil test pits and corresponding land units

Test pit Land unit Test pit Land unit

TP1 6a2 TP6 6b

TP2 1c TP7 3c

TP3 2b2 TP8 3c

TP4 1c TP9 6b

TP5 2b1 TP10 1c

3.3 Results

The data from the soil test pits can be used to represent approximate capabilities of the land units sampled

(see Table 3-3).

Table 3-3. Summary of soil characteristics

Feature Land capability

Soil depth

Test pits TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP7 TP8 and TP10 were excavated to 1.5 m without meeting refusal

High

Bedrock was encountered in TP9 at 0.5 m. Two attempts were made to dig around TP9 and refusal was met at 0.4-0.5 m both times. TP6 was abandoned as refusal was met at or below the surface on two attempts.

Moderate

Depth to water table

The water table was intercepted in two test pits; TP1 at 0.9 BGL and TP9 at 0.5 m BGL (Figure 3-1). TP1 and TP9 are located within seasonally-inundated land units and the presence of high water tables is consistent with this land unit.

No other pits had signs of high seasonal water tables.

High for all sites except TP1 and TP9, which are

Low

Coarse fragments (%)

Coarse fragments were present in all test pits.

In general, coarse fragments were present in low percentages (2-5 %) in the A horizon of TP1 and TP9 but > 90 % in the B horizons.

Coarse fragments were consistently present in all horizons ranging from approximately 40-60 % in TP2, TP4 and TP10. Coarse fragments were generally highest in the upper B horizons.

TP3 and TP5 generally had coarse fragments present through all horizons, higher in the B horizon than the A horizons.

TP7 and TP8 had 40-75 %coarse fragments in the A horizons and 5-70 % in the B horizons. Coarse fragments were a minimum from 1.4-1.5 m BGL.

Moderate to High

Soil colour and mottling

Soil colours were determined based on Munsell Soil Colour Charts, with damp samples.

Soils in TP1 and TP9 were 7.5YR 4/1-6/2 (i.e. dark grey to pinkish grey), with some 2.5YR 3/2 (red) surface soils in TP1. No mottling was present.

Soils in TP2, TP4 and TP10 were 7.5 2.5/2-3/4 (very dark brown – brown) in the surface horizons, changing to yellow/red soils throughout the profile (Figure 3-2). All B horizon soils were 5YR 4/6-5/8 (more yellow). Soils in TP5 were consistent with this pattern, while TP3 were all 7.5YR 3/3-5/8 (dark brown). No mottles were present except in TP4, which had mottling from 0.56-1.5 m BGL.

Soils in TP7 and TP8 were predominantly 5YR 3/2-6/6 (redder with increasing depth),

High except for TP4, TP7 and TP8 which are

moderate.



Feature Land capability

although some 7.5YR 2.5/2-4/4 (dark brown – brown) was observed in the A horizons of TP8 (Figure 3-3). Mottles were observed from depths of 1-1.5 m BGL in TP7 and 0.75-1.5 m BGL in TP8, indicating ingress of seasonal water tables.

Soil texture and structure

Soils were sand – sandy loam in TP1 and TP6, and mostly structureless.

Soils in TP2, TP4 and TP10 were a weakly-structured sandy loam A1 horizon underlain by weakly-structured clay loam to sandy clay loam. Soils were similar in pits TP3 and TP5; weakly structured sandy loam to sandy clay loam.

Soils in TP7 and TP8 were dominated by a silty clay loam – sandy loam A horizon and sandy loam B horizon, all weakly structured (Figure 3-4).

Not applicable – informs

permeability and DLRs below

Soil permeability and Design Loading Rates (DLR)

Soil permeability is inferred from texture and structure as per Tables 5.2 and L1 in AS/NZS 1547:2012.

In general, structureless sandy soils have a permeability of > 3 Ksat m/d. This refers to soils in TP1 and TP6, and DLRs for these soils are 20-50 mm/day depending on level of treatment. Highly-permeable soils have limited capacity to retain and treat effluent.

Low

Soils that are silty clay loam to sandy clay loam (i.e. some horizons TP2 – 5 and TP10), have a permeability of 0.12-0.5 Ksat m/d and a DLR of 6-20 mm/day depending on level of treatment.

Moderate

The sandy loam in the A1 horizon of TP4 has a permeability of 0.5-0.15 Ksat m/d and DLR of 10-30 mm/day depending on level of treatment. Weakly-structured sandy loams have a permeability of > 3 Ksat m/d and DLR of 20-50 mm/day.

High

pH

The range of soil pH was 5.4-6.4, indicating slight acidity, but soils will not pose issues to plant growth and associated impacts on land application areas.

High-moderate

Electrical conductivity

EC ranged from 2-8 µS/cm demonstrating low salinity and hence there should be no impact on plant growth and/or uptake of nutrients.

High

Sodicity (exchangeable sodium percentage-ESP)

ESP ranged from 1.1-14.8 % with an average of 4 %. Nearly all samples had an ESP below 6 % (the recommended maximum limit for ensuring no soil structural problems exist).

High

Samples TP3 H1, TP4 H2, TP9 H1 and TP10 H1 and H2 all had ESP ranges between 6-14 %, indicating potential for sodicity and dispersion if disturbed in these sampled horizons.

Moderate

Phosphate sorption capacity

P-sorption capacity ranged from < 250 mg/kg to 935 mg/kg. The low P-sorption capacities were measured in sandy/gravelly soils (TP1 H2, TP3 H1 and H2, TP4 H1 and TP9 H1). These are mostly from the sandy surface layer of the profiles, and are not concerning as they are generally a thin layer overlying soils with greater P-sorption capacity, and most land application systems are installed below surface soils. Sample TP3 H4 recorded the highest P-sorption capacity, and was a silty clay loam. Silty clay loams generally had the greatest P-sorption capacity.

Not applicable – use for nutrient

balance

Emerson Aggregate Test

Emerson aggregate classes were either 4 or 8 – indicating no dispersion. High



3.4 Discussion

The detailed soil assessments indicate that there is a range of soils throughout the sampled areas, and that

while some land units are considered constrained, there are sufficient unconstrained land units that appear

to be appropriate for siting on-site wastewater management systems.

In general, sites TP1, TP6 and TP9 represent sites within land units 6a2 and 6b which are low capability due

to the presence of shallow, sandy structure-less soils with high permeability. Water tables were intercepted

at 0.5-0.9 m BGL in pits TP1 and TP9 and the landforms are subject to seasonal inundation (Figure 3-1).

All other test pits were located within land units 1c, 2b1-2b2 and 3c. These soils were generally sandy clay

loam/sandy loam with some occurrences of silty clay loam. Gravels and coarse fragments were present

throughout all soil profiles, and may limit adsorption capacity of the soils (Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-4). Sites

were generally located in areas of little to no rock outcrop, and soils within these land units were all at least

1.5 m deep. Water tables were not encountered and there was little evidence of run-on or drainage issues,

although mottling was observed below 0.5 m in TP4 (land unit 1c) and TP7 and TP8 (land unit 3c) below a

depth of 1 m and 0.76 m respectively. Mottling can indicate high water tables, although the observed

mottling was moderate (i.e. not extensive) in land unit 3c. TP4 was located approximately 50 m from land

unit 6b and the mottling observed through the profile may be a reflection of the proximity to a seasonally

inundated area (i.e. transitional part of the land unit).

The soil data indicates that the most appropriate land units for siting of wastewater management systems are

1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c. It should be noted that only the lower side slopes within land unit 1c are appropriate, as

upper slopes of this land unit are steep and have extensive rock outcrops.

These results can be broadly extrapolated for the entire project area; however, more detailed site-specific

testing will be required when locations for wastewater infrastructure are available.



Figure 3-1. Photograph of water table in TP1

Figure 3-2. Photograph of profile of TP2 – typical of land unit 1c

Figure 3-3. Photograph of profile of TP8 – land unit 3c

Figure 3-4. Photograph of topsoil at TP7 – typical of land unit 3c



4 Wastewater Management System

4.1 Overview of options

This section provides a summary of available wastewater management systems and the most applicable

systems for the LCA test sites (and general land units) represented. The conceptual designs provided here

are indicative only. Detailed design is beyond the scope of this study and should be undertaken by a

suitably-qualified person (i.e. plumber) prior to installing wastewater systems.

Common treatment and land application systems are summarised in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 below, and are

based on information contained in the NT Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (THS

1996) and the Australian/New Zealand Standards for Onsite Domestic Wastewater Management (AS/NZS

1547:2012).

Table 4-1. Treatment and land application systems available (Source: DoH 2014)

Level of treatment

Treatment system examples Land application and reuse system

Primary Septic tank

Greywater diversion device

Waterless composting toilet

Composting toilet

Sub-surface absorption system

Evapo-transpiration beds

Amended soil and Wisconsin mounds

Burial (for composting toilets)

Secondary Aerated wastewater treatment system (AWTS)

Biological filter

Greywater treatment system

Septic tank and fabric filter, sand/peat filter or sand mound

Subsurface irrigation

Surface spray or drip irrigation

Other disposal systems appropriate for primary-treated effluent as above

Tertiary Membrane system

Greywater treatment with disinfection

Secondary treatment with additional disinfection (UV irradiation, chlorination etc.)

Restricted non-potable reuse (e.g. toilet flushing, outdoor use)

Other disposal systems as above

Table 4-2. Common land application systems

System Considerations

Mounds Beneficial for shallow soils or high water tables

Requires an above-ground mound for effluent absorption that contains imported sand

Treatment will not be limited by soil absorption capacity

Sub-surface irrigation

Secondary treatment is required prior to irrigation

Suitable for areas of high exposure with high evaporation rates (limited during wet season)

Suitable for sites with shallow soils

Not suitable for areas that are seasonally inundated or waterlogged

Conventional trench

Only requires primary effluent treatment

Cheaper to install than other methods

Treatment by absorption trench may be impeded due to high % of coarse fragments

Soil supplementation may be an option to improve absorptive capacity

Ideal for sites with little to no constraints in terms of soil depth, rock content, waterlogging, inundation or shallow water tables



The proposed wastewater management system for the Noonamah Ridge Estate will likely involve developing

a number of relatively large-scale, centralised systems which are capable of treating large volumes of

wastewater. The treatment of wastewater to tertiary quality provides options for recycling and reusing water,

such as for non-potable household use (e.g. toilet flushing). All standard land application areas (e.g. sub-

surface irrigation) can also be used. In the monsoon tropics, surface irrigation is not commonly

recommended as evaporation is low, and rainfall and runoff are high during the wet season, which restricts

absorption of wastewater. However, tertiary treatment may reduce the potential limitations of this.

Where individual lot sizes are suitably large, individual treatment systems may be used instead.

4.2 Site constraints and recommended treatment system(s)

The LCA targeted the most common and most appropriate land units for siting of wastewater treatment and

land application systems, and was also undertaken in an area which may be developed into lots that will

have individual wastewater treatment. The site constraints identified through the LCA and site assessment

are summarised below, and potential treatment systems and land application systems are provided in Table

4-3. These recommendations are based on specific test pit data that has been extrapolated to represent the

land units within which assessment sites were located. It should be noted that there is variation within land

units and only sections of certain land units may be appropriate (e.g. lower slopes of 1c).

The recommendations provided below are conceptual and aim to provide insight into available standard

treatment and land application systems. The development’s treatment systems will be designed for the

particular land application site. General recommendations for the most appropriate land units for these

systems are provided below. This information may also be used for individual lot systems, although specific

locations will need to be assessed for each system.

Sizing of land application areas has not been undertaken for this LCA as the design wastewater loads are

currently unknown. Additionally, the potential systems outlined in Table 4-3 do not include the KEWT

system. This system treats water to a tertiary quality, and land application systems are therefore not limited

by wastewater quality; any land application system would be appropriate depending on site characteristics

such as rock outcrops, soil depth and slopes. The scale of the systems will require detailed site-specific

design and it is assumed that potential site constraints will be addressed through this process.



Table 4-3. Land units and recommended treatment and application systems

Land unit*

Representative test sites

Area of project area

Design considerations/constraints Applicable treatment

system Appropriate land application system

1c TP2, TP4, TP10 1207.5 ha Well-drained soils

High gravel content

Areas of significant rock outcrop in upper slopes/ridges

Primary treatment systems are appropriate (i.e. septic tank)

Conventional absorption trenches or beds are suitable in areas with no steep slopes or rock outcrops.

Mounds may be appropriate in rocky areas.

2b1, 2b2 TP3, TP5 210.7 ha Well-drained soils

High gravel content

Some horizons are highly permeable

Some areas of rock outcrop

Primary treatment systems are appropriate (i.e. septic tank)

Conventional absorption trenches or beds are suitable.

Mounds may be appropriate in rocky areas.

3c TP7, TP8 256.4 ha Well-drained soils

High gravel content

Mottling at depths of 0.76-1 m BGL.

Primary or secondary treatment (AWTS) appropriate

Subsurface irrigation is appropriate if secondary treatment is undertaken.

Conventional beds and trenches may be appropriate depending on depth of mottling.

6a2-6b TP1, TP9, TP6 298.1 ha Shallow, sandy soils

Seasonally inundated

Highly-permeable soils

High seasonal water table

Treatment systems should not be located within this land unit.

It is recommended that no land application is done within these land units.

* Other land units present within the project area have not been assessed in this LCA and as such will require further assessment if wastewater systems are to be sited within them. Additionally, natural

variation occurs within each land unit and as such site-specific investigations should be undertaken when siting systems.



5 Conclusions and Recommendations

The LCA covered ten test pits over six land units – 1c, 2b1, 2b2, 3c, 6a2 and 6b. An assessment of the site

characteristics and soil test pits identified that:

The site covers a wide range of landforms and land units and necessitated extrapolation of soil test

pit data across the represented land units.

The overall landform and drainage of the project area includes steep, rocky ridge lines in the centre

of the project area with slopes of up to 15 % and rapid drainage. Side slopes and undulating

uplands surround these, before the site flattens into lower slopes and eventually drainage floors

and creek lines. The slopes range from 2-5 % in the side slopes and undulating uplands to 0-2 %

in the lower slopes and drainage floors. Drainage is poor in the drainage floors and creek lines,

and there are a number of seasonally inundated areas. Drainage from the project area is

predominantly west into a tributary of the Elizabeth River, with some drainage toward the Adelaide

River to the east.

There are sufficient unconstrained soils within the sampled land units capable of supporting on-site

wastewater management systems, subject to site-specific designs once locations are finalised.

Soil data indicates that the most appropriate (i.e. unconstrained) of the surveyed land units for

siting of wastewater management systems are 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c.

Test pits within land units 6a2 and 6b indicate low capability due to shallow, sandy soils with high

permeability and high seasonal water tables. Some areas of these land units are seasonally-

inundated and on-site wastewater management systems should not be sited within these land

units.

Test pits within land units 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c indicate gravelly, sandy clay loam to sandy loam

with some occurrences of silty clay loam. Although gravels and coarse fragments were common

the areas surrounding the test pits had no rock outcrop. The soils were well-drained, with no

presence of water tables, although some test pits within land unit 1c and 3c had mottling in the

lower profiles (approximately 0.8 m below ground level) indicating potential water ingress.

Laboratory results for soil pH, EC, P-sorption capacity, sodicity and Emerson aggregate classes

indicate high-moderate capability for all analytes, and none of the tested parameters are likely to

pose limitations to on-site wastewater treatment and disposal.

Test pits were located on the lower slope landforms within the respective land units. It should be

noted that the upper slopes and ridge lines within land unit 1c are very rocky and steep. Locations

of wastewater management systems within land unit 1c should be closely assessed to ensure there

is sufficient soil and slope to accommodate the proposed system.

Specific wastewater treatment and land application systems were not assessed as it is understood

Intrapac plan to install specialised treatment systems capable of treating to tertiary quality, which

would allow for any land application system. The sizing and design of these systems will be

undertaken by the installer, who will also maintain the system.

The above conclusions are based on the findings of the investigated sites and are assumed to be

representative of the greater property; however, lot-specific limitations may occur. Additionally, not all land

units within the project area were assessed in this LCA, and there may be additional land units that are

capable (or not) of supporting proposed on-site wastewater management systems. Each lot, or specific

location for centralised wastewater systems, will require assessment from a suitably qualified plumber on the

appropriate system to be installed.



6 Acronyms and References

AWTS Aerated wastewater treatment system

BGL Below ground level

BoM Bureau of Meteorology

DLR Design Loading Rate

DLRM Department of Land Resource Management

EC Electrical conductivity

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

LCA Land Capability Assessment

LSA Land Suitability Assessment

P-sorption Phosphate sorption

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) 2015, Climate Data Online: Middle Point Station, Australian Government,

viewed 280/4/2015, < http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/>

Department of Health (DoH) 2014, Guidelines for Land Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater

Management, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT.

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment (DIPE) 2004, Priority Environmental Management

Areas – Litchfield Shire, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT.

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment (DIPE) 2002, Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land

Use Objectives, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT

Department of Land Resource Management (DLRM) 2014, Natural Resource Maps, online mapping and

data service, Northern Territory Government, viewed 13 April 2015, http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/nrmapsnt

McKenzie, N 1958-2004 Australian soils and landscapes: an illustrated Compendium, CSIRO, Collingwood,

Victoria.

Munsell 2009, Munsell Soil-Color Charts, Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.

Natural Resources Division (NRD) 2004, Hydrogeological Map of Darwin 1:250 000, Department of

Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT.

Standards Australia 2012, AS:NZS 1547:2012 On-site Domestic-Wastewater Management, Standards

Australia Limited, NSW, Australia.

Territory Health Services (THS) 1996, Code of Practice for Small On-Site Sewage and Sullage Treatment

Systems and the Disposal or Reuse of Sewage Effluent, Territory Health Services, Darwin, NT.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/nrmapsnt

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate

Appendix A – Soil Bore Logs

Client Pit No. Test Pit 1Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator

Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A10.2 A20.3 A20.4 A20.5 A2 35% <2mm0.6 B0.7 B0.8 B0.9 B <10% <2mm1.0 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B

>3.0

>3.0

Wet >3.0

Moist

>3.0

None

>90% 20-60mm Large pebbles

<10% <2mm

60% 20-60mm Large pebbles

>90% 6-20mm Medium pebbles

5% 2-6mm Small pebbles

Sand Structureless

H3

H4

2.5 3/2H1 Sandy loam Weak

H2 7.5YR 6/2

7.5YR 5.6

7.5YR 4/6

Soil Bore LogIntrapac

Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

Notes: Co-ordinates 52 L 730251, 8600419, no rock outcrop, water table encountered at 0.9m. On land unit boundary of 4b and 6a2.


Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A1

0.25 A10.26 A20.4 A20.5 A2

0.65 A2

0.66B

60% 6-20mm Medium pebbles

0.8 B 40% <2mm0.9 B1.0 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B

Moist

Wet

Moist

>3.0

>3.0

>3.0

>3.0

None




40% <2mm

Weak

Structureless

7.5YR 2.5/2

7.5YR 4/4

7.5YR 4/6

5YR 4/6

H1

H2

H3

H4

Sandy Loam

Sand

Notes: Co-ordinates 52 L 730261, 8600936. Within 1c.


Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015


Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)

0.1A1

40% 6-20mm Medium gravel

0.2 A1 60% <2mm

0.3A2


0.4A2

20% 60-200mm Cobbles

0.55 A3 30% <2mm0.56 B0.7 B0.8 B0.9 B 40% <2mm1 B

1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B

7.5YR 4/6

None

>3.0

0.5

>3.0

Moist


60% <2mm


7.5YR 3/3

7.5YR 5/4

7.5YR 5.8

H4

Sandy loam

Sandy clay loam

Sandy loam

Weak

Weak

Weak

H1

H2

H3


Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

Notes: Co-ordinates 52 L 730169, 8601435, no rock outcrop, water table not encountered. Within land unit 2b2.


Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A1

1.15 A10.16 A20.3 A20.4 A3

0.55 A30.56 B0.7 B0.8 B0.9 B 50% <2mm1 B

1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B 50% <2mm

10% 20-60mm Coarse gravel

Moist >3.0

40% 2-10mm Fine gravel

30% <2mm




H1

H2

H3

H4

Sandy loam

Sandy clay loam Weak

7.5YR 4/6

7.5YR 5/8

5YR 5/8

None

Streaks of yellow and grey

Streaks of yellow and grey

Weak 7.5YR 3/4


Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

Notes: Site co-ordinates: 52 L 730210, 8601724, no rock outcrop, no water encountered. Within land unit 1c.



0.1 A125% 6-20mm

Medium pebbles

0.2 A125% 2-6mm Small

pebbles

0.3 A210% 20-60mm Large pebbles

0.4 A230% 6-20mm

Medium pebbles0.5 A20.6 A20.7 B0.8 B0.9 B1 B

1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B

TP6 abandoned due to interception of bedrock on two attempts.

Moist

0.12 - 0.5

>3.0

60% <2mm


5% <2mm



Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

H1 7.5YR 3/4

5YR 4/4

5YR 5/8

None

Notes: Site co-ordinates: 52 L 730187, 8602038, no rock outcrop, laterite at 0.60m, minimal surface gravel, water table not encountered. Within land unit 2b1.

H2

H3

Weak

Sandy clay loam

Sandy loam



0.1 A140% 2-6 Small

pebbles0.15 A1 60% <2mm0.16 A20.4 A20.5 A2 50% <2mm0.6 B0.7 B

0.8 B65% 2-6mm Small

pebbles0.9 B 5% <2mm1.0 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B

1.4 B15% 20-60mm Large pebbles

1.5 B 5% <2mm

0.12-0.5

>3.0





Moist

H1

H2

H3

H4 Sandy loam

Silty clay loam

Sandy clay loam


Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 730253, 8602829, no rock outcrop, no fill, water table not encountered. Within land unit 3c.

None

Some yellow

and grey

Weak

5YR 3/2

5YR 3/4

5YR 4/6

5YR 6/6


Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A10.2 A10.3 A1 40% <2mm

0.4 A275% 2-6mm Small

pebbles0.5 A20.6 A2

0.75 A2 10% <2mm

0.76 B70% 2-6mm Small

pebbles

0.9 B15% 20-60mm Large pebbles

1 B 15% <2mm 1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B 20% <2mm

IntrapacLot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

Soil Bore Log

H1

Weak

H2

H3

H4

Sandy loam

Sandy loam

Silty clay loam

7.5YR 2.5/2

7.5YR 4/4

5YR 4/6

5YR 4/4

Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 730605, 8603022, water table not encountered, no fill, no rock outcrop. Within land unit 3c.

None

Some yellow

and grey

Grey. Some yellow

Moist

>3.0

0.12-0.5

>3.0






Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.10.20.30.40.50.6 Refusal

>90% <2mm

2% 2-6mm Fine gravel

None7.5YR 4/1StructurelessSand Wet >3.0H1 A1


Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 731007, 8602979, Refusal on first attempt at 0.4m, Test pit moved 50m, refusal on second attempt at 0.5m. Water table encounted at 0.5m. Within land unit 6b.



0.1 A1

0.2 A10.3 A1 50% <2mm0.4 A20.5 A20.6 A20.7 A20.8 A2

0.9B

1 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B

0.12 - 0.5

7.5YR 3/4

5YR 5/8

None



50% <2mm



20% <2mm

Weak

Weak


Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015

Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 7315925, 8602863, water table not encountered, no fill, no rock outcrop. Within land unit 1c.

H1 7.5YR 3/3

Moist

0.5-0.15

H2

H3

Sandy loam

Clay loam

Sandy clay loam

Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate

Appendix B – Soil Laboratory Results

False

6 6.00True Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : ES1504581 Page : 1 of 9

:: LaboratoryClient Environmental Division SydneyECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

: :ContactContact MR MIKE WELCH Client Services

:: AddressAddress PO BOX 381

DARWIN NT, AUSTRALIA 0801

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

:: E-mailE-mail [email protected] [email protected]

:: TelephoneTelephone +61 08 89811100 +61-2-8784 8555

:: FacsimileFacsimile +61 08 89811102 +61-2-8784 8500

:Project INTRAPAC LCA QC Level : NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

:Order number ----

:C-O-C number ---- Date Samples Received : 25-FEB-2015

Sampler : CH Issue Date : 10-MAR-2015

Site : ----

31:No. of samples received

Quote number : SY/548/14 31:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for

release.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825

Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been

carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Ankit Joshi Sydney InorganicsInorganic Chemist

Ashesh Patel Sydney InorganicsInorganic Chemist

Dian Dao Sydney InorganicsInorganic Chemist

Pabi Subba Sydney InorganicsSenior Organic Chemist

Satishkumar Trivedi Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils2 IC Acid Sulfate Soils Supervisor

Wisam Marassa Sydney InorganicsInorganics Coordinator

Environmental Division Sydney ABN 84 009 936 029 Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company

Address 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164 | PHONE +61-2-8784 8555 | Facsimile +61-2-8784 8500

2 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581

ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

INTRAPAC LCA:Project

General Comments

The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.

Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes.

Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting

Key :

EA058 Emerson: V. = Very, D. = Dark, L. = Light, VD. = Very Darkl

ED007 and ED008: When Exchangeable Al is reported from these methods, it should be noted that Rayment & Lyons (2011) suggests Exchange Acidity by 1M KCl (Method 15G1) is a more

suitable method for the determination of exchange acidity (H+ + Al3+).

l

3 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analytical Results

TP2 H1TP1 H4TP1 H3TP1 H2TP1 H1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)

13-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time

ES1504581-005ES1504581-004ES1504581-003ES1504581-002ES1504581-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

EA002 : pH (Soils)

pH Value 6.46.0 6.2 6.2 6.2pH Unit0.1----

EA010: Conductivity

Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 24 2 3 6µS/cm1----

EA051 : Bulk Density

Bulk Density 22001960 2190 2010 1920kg/m31BULK_DENSITY

EA055: Moisture Content

Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 7.68.6 8.7 7.2 10.3%1.0----

EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test

Color (Munsell) BrownV.D. Greyish Brown Yellowish Red Dark Reddish Brown Very Dark Brown------

Texture Gravelly SandSand Graelly Sand Gravelly Sand Gravelly Sand------

Emerson Class Number 88 8 8 8--EC/TC

ED008: Exchangeable Cations

Exchangeable Calcium 0.40.5 1.1 1.6 1.5meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Magnesium 0.10.1 0.5 0.7 0.8meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Potassium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Sodium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Aluminium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----

Cation Exchange Capacity 0.50.7 1.6 2.3 2.3meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Sodium Percent 2.22.0 1.4 1.2 2.4%0.1----

Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 4.05.0 2.2 2.3 1.9-0.1----

EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity

Phosphate Sorption Capacity <250283 ---- 399 474-250----

Phosphate Sorption Capacity -------- 343 ---- ----mg P

sorbed/kg

250----

4 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analytical Results




EA002 : pH (Soils)

pH Value 6.25.8 5.8 6.3 6.0pH Unit0.1----

EA010: Conductivity







Color (Munsell) Yellowish RedDark Brown Dark Red Dark Brown Dark Brown------

Texture Sandy LoamLoamy Sand Clay Loam Rocks Gravelly Sand------












Phosphate Sorption Capacity 292473 514 <250 <250-250----

5 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analytical Results




EA002 : pH (Soils)

pH Value 5.55.4 5.6 5.5 5.4pH Unit0.1----

EA010: Conductivity







Color (Munsell) Dark RedStrong Brown V.D. Greyish Brown Dark Red Red------

Texture Silty Clay LoamRocks Rocks Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay------



Exchangeable Calcium 0.40.6 0.4 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----









Phosphate Sorption Capacity 935409 <250 573 815-250----

6 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analytical Results




EA002 : pH (Soils)

pH Value 5.95.6 5.8 5.7 6.2pH Unit0.1----

EA010: Conductivity







Color (Munsell) Dark BrownYellowish Red Dark Brown Dark Red Very Dark Brown------

Texture Sandy Clay LoamSilty Clay Sandy Loam Sandy Clay Loam Rocks------



Exchangeable Calcium 0.6<0.1 0.1 <0.1 3.1meq/100g0.1----


Exchangeable Potassium 0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----





Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 0.8<0.1 0.2 0.1 3.4-0.1----


Phosphate Sorption Capacity 766367 476 778 520-250----

7 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analytical Results




EA002 : pH (Soils)

pH Value 5.75.8 5.5 6.1 5.7pH Unit0.1----

EA010: Conductivity







Color (Munsell) Reddish BrownDark Brown Yellowish Red Very Dark Brown Dark Brown------

Texture Sandy LoamSilty Clay Loam Clay Loam Rocks Sandy Loam------












Phosphate Sorption Capacity 563670 934 564 542-250----

8 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analytical Results




EA002 : pH (Soils)

pH Value 5.55.8 5.7 5.5 5.5pH Unit0.1----

EA010: Conductivity







Color (Munsell) RedRed Very Dark Grey Dark Greyish Brown Brown------

Texture Silty Clay LoamSilty Clay Loam Loamy Sand Sandy Loam Clay Loam------



Exchangeable Calcium <0.10.4 0.1 0.3 <0.1meq/100g0.1----









Phosphate Sorption Capacity 700780 <250 658 460-250----

9 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analytical Results

----------------TP10 H3Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)

----------------13-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time

----------------ES1504581-031UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

EA002 : pH (Soils)

pH Value ----5.7 ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----

EA010: Conductivity

Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ----2 ---- ---- ----µS/cm1----


Bulk Density ----1990 ---- ---- ----kg/m31BULK_DENSITY


Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ----13.0 ---- ---- ----%1.0----


Color (Munsell) ----Yellowish Red ---- ---- ----------

Texture ----Silty Clay Loam ---- ---- ----------

Emerson Class Number ----4 ---- ---- ------EC/TC


Exchangeable Calcium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Magnesium ----0.6 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Potassium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Sodium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Aluminium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----

Cation Exchange Capacity ----0.8 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----

Exchangeable Sodium Percent ----4.2 ---- ---- ----%0.1----

Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ----0.2 ---- ---- -----0.1----


Phosphate Sorption Capacity ----575 ---- ---- -----250----

True

Environmental

INTERPRETIVE QUALITY CONTROL REPORTWork Order : ES1504581 Page : 1 of 9










Site : ----


CH:Sampler Issue Date : 10-MAR-2015

:Order number ----

No. of samples received : 31

Quote number : SY/548/14 No. of samples analysed : 31

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release.

This Interpretive Quality Control Report contains the following information:

l Analysis Holding Time Compliance

l Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance

l Brief Method Summaries

l Summary of Outliers



2 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Analysis Holding Time Compliance

This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with recommended holding times (USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM) based on the sample container provided. Dates

reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and preclude subsequent dilutions and reruns. A listing of breaches (if any) is provided herein.

Holding time for leachate methods (e.g. TCLP) vary according to the analytes reported. Assessment compares the leach date with the shortest analyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These are: organics

14 days, mercury 28 days & other metals 180 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.

Holding times for VOC in soils vary according to analytes of interest. Vinyl Chloride and Styrene holding time is 7 days; others 14 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all VOC analytes and

should be verified in case the reported breach is a false positive or Vinyl Chloride and Styrene are not key analytes of interest/concern.

Matrix: SOIL Evaluation: û = Holding time breach ; ü = Within holding time.

AnalysisExtraction / PreparationSample DateMethod

EvaluationDue for analysisDate analysedEvaluationDue for extractionDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s)

EA002 : pH (Soils)

Snap Lock Bag (EA002)

TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

27-FEB-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û ü

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA002)

TP1 H1 27-FEB-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û ü

3 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581






EA010: Conductivity


TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

27-MAR-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û ü


TP1 H1 27-MAR-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û üEA051 : Bulk Density


TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

12-AUG-2015---- 03-MAR-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü


TP1 H1 12-AUG-2015---- 03-MAR-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü

4 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581







Snap Lock Bag (EA055-103)

TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

27-FEB-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA055-103)

TP1 H1 27-FEB-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- üEA058: Emerson Aggregate Test


TP1 H1, TP1 H2,

TP1 H3, TP1 H4,

TP2 H1, TP2 H2,

TP2 H3, TP2 H4,

TP3 H1, TP3 H2,

TP3 H3, TP3 H4,

TP4 H1, TP4 H2,

TP4 H3, TP4 H4,

TP5 H1, TP5 H2,

TP5 H3, TP7 H1,

TP7 H2, TP7 H3,

TP7 H4, TP8 H1,

TP8 H2, TP8 H3,

TP8 H4, TP9 H1,

TP10 H1, TP10 H2,

TP10 H3

12-AUG-2015---- 04-MAR-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü

5 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581







Snap Lock Bag (ED008)

TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

13-MAR-201513-MAR-2015 02-MAR-201502-MAR-201513-FEB-2015 ü ü

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (ED008)

TP1 H1 13-MAR-201513-MAR-2015 02-MAR-201502-MAR-201513-FEB-2015 ü üEK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity

Snap Lock Bag (EK072)

TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

12-AUG-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EK072)

TP1 H1 12-AUG-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü

6 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Quality Control Parameter Frequency ComplianceThe following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(were) processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to

the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Matrix: SOIL Evaluation: û = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; ü = Quality Control frequency within specification.

Quality Control SpecificationQuality Control Sample Type

ExpectedQC Regular Actual

Rate (%)Quality Control Sample Type CountEvaluationAnalytical Methods Method

Laboratory Duplicates (DUP)

NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.5 10.04 32 üBulk Density EA051

NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 10.0 10.04 40 üElectrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010

NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.9 10.04 31 üExchangeable Cations with pre-treatment ED008

NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 10.0 10.06 60 üMoisture Content EA055-103

NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.9 10.04 31 üP Sorption Index & P Sorption Capacity EK072

NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 10.0 10.04 40 üpH (1:5) EA002

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)



Method Blanks (MB)



7 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Brief Method SummariesThe analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the

Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions.

Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod

In house: Referenced to APHA 21st ed., 4500H+. pH is determined on soil samples after a 1:5 soil/water leach.

This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) (Method 103)

pH (1:5) EA002 SOIL

In house: Referenced to APHA 21st ed., 2510. Conductivity is determined on soil samples using a 1:5 soil/water

leach. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) (Method 104)

Electrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010 SOIL

The Determination of bulk density requires the measurments of the mass of soil in a measured volumeBulk Density EA051 SOIL

In-house. A gravimetric procedure based on weight loss over a 12 hour drying period at 103-105 degrees C.

This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) Section 7.1 and Table 1 (14 day holding time).

Moisture Content EA055-103 SOIL

In house: Referenced to AS1289.3.8.1. Testing is performed only on soils with suitable aggregates; sands and

gravels are usually unsuitable for this test. The test classifies the behaviour of soil aggregates, when immersed,

on their coherence in water.

Emerson Aggregate Test EA058 SOIL

In house: Referenced to Rayment & Higginson (2011) Method 15A2. Soluble salts are removed from the sample

prior to analysis. Cations are exchanged from the sample by contact with Ammonium Chloride. They are then

quantitated in the final solution by ICPAES and reported as meq/100g of original soil. This method is compliant

with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) (Method 301)

Exchangeable Cations with

pre-treatment

ED008 SOIL

In house: Referenced to Rayment & Higginson (1992) Method 9H1 & 9I1 Soil is bought to equilibrium with a

solution of P at known concentration. P absorbed, released is determined by FIA analysis of the final solution.

P Sorption Index & P Sorption Capacity EK072 SOIL

Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod

Rayment & Higginson (1992) method 15A1. A 1M NH4Cl extraction by end over end tumbling at a ratio of 1:20.

There is no pretreatment for soluble salts. Extracts can be run by ICP for cations.

Exchangeable Cations Preparation

Method

ED007PR SOIL

8 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Summary of Outliers

Outliers : Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights outliers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report. Surrogate recovery limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN/38 (in the absence of specific USEPA limits). This

report displays QC Outliers (breaches) only.

Duplicates, Method Blanks, Laboratory Control Samples and Matrix Spikes

l For all matrices, no Method Blank value outliers occur.

l For all matrices, no Duplicate outliers occur.

l For all matrices, no Laboratory Control outliers occur.

l For all matrices, no Matrix Spike outliers occur.

Regular Sample Surrogates

l For all regular sample matrices, no surrogate recovery outliers occur.

Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance

This report displays Holding Time breaches only. Only the respective Extraction / Preparation and/or Analysis component is/are displayed.

Matrix: SOIL

AnalysisExtraction / Preparation

Date analysedDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s) Days

overdue

Days

overdue

Due for extraction Due for analysis

Method

EA002 : pH (Soils)

Snap Lock Bag

----20-FEB-2015TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

----27-FEB-2015 7 ----

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

----20-FEB-2015TP1 H1 ----27-FEB-2015 7 ----

EA010: Conductivity

9 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Matrix: SOIL

AnalysisExtraction / Preparation

Date analysedDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s) Days

overdue

Days

overdue

Due for extraction Due for analysis

Method

EA010: Conductivity - Analysis Holding Time Compliance

Snap Lock Bag

----20-FEB-2015TP1 H2, TP1 H3,

TP1 H4, TP2 H1,

TP2 H2, TP2 H3,

TP2 H4, TP3 H1,

TP3 H2, TP3 H3,

TP3 H4, TP4 H1,

TP4 H2, TP4 H3,

TP4 H4, TP5 H1,

TP5 H2, TP5 H3,

TP7 H1, TP7 H2,

TP7 H3, TP7 H4,

TP8 H1, TP8 H2,

TP8 H3, TP8 H4,

TP9 H1, TP10 H1,

TP10 H2, TP10 H3

----27-FEB-2015 7 ----

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

----20-FEB-2015TP1 H1 ----27-FEB-2015 7 ----

Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights breaches in the Frequency of Quality Control Samples.

l No Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers exist.

False 6 6.00False

Environmental

QUALITY CONTROL REPORTWork Order : ES1504581 Page : 1 of 6










Site : ----


Sampler : CH Issue Date : 10-MAR-2015

:Order number ----

31:No. of samples received

Quote number : SY/548/14 31:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for

release.

This Quality Control Report contains the following information:

l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) and Acceptance Limits

l Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report ; Recovery and Acceptance Limits

l Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Acceptance Limits



2 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



General Comments

The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.

Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

RPD = Relative Percentage Difference

# = Indicates failed QC

Key :

This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been carried out in compliance with

procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Ankit Joshi Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics

Ashesh Patel Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics

Dian Dao Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics

Pabi Subba Senior Organic Chemist Sydney Inorganics

Satishkumar Trivedi 2 IC Acid Sulfate Soils Supervisor Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils

Wisam Marassa Inorganics Coordinator Sydney Inorganics

SignatoriesNATA Accredited

Laboratory 825

Accredited for

compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

3 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

The quality control term Laboratory Duplicate refers to a randomly selected intralaboratory split. Laboratory duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. The permitted ranges

for the Relative Percent Deviation (RPD) of Laboratory Duplicates are specified in ALS Method QWI -EN/38 and are dependent on the magnitude of results in comparison to the level of reporting: Result < 10 times LOR:

No Limit; Result between 10 and 20 times LOR: 0% - 50%; Result > 20 times LOR: 0% - 20%.

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

Original Result RPD (%)Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit Duplicate Result Recovery Limits (%)

EA002 : pH (Soils) (QC Lot: 3839887)

EA002: pH Value ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.0 6.1 0.0 0% - 20%TP1 H1ES1504581-001


EA002 : pH (Soils) (QC Lot: 3839889)



EA010: Conductivity (QC Lot: 3839888)

EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm 4 4 0.0 No LimitTP1 H1ES1504581-001


EA010: Conductivity (QC Lot: 3839890)



EA051: Bulk Density (QC Lot: 3843073)

EA051: Bulk Density BULK_DENSITY 1 kg/m3 1140 1160 1.2 0% - 20%AnonymousEM1502122-001

EA051: Bulk Density BULK_DENSITY 1 kg/m3 2150 2150 0.0 0% - 20%TP3 H2ES1504581-010

EA051: Bulk Density (QC Lot: 3843074)



EA055: Moisture Content (QC Lot: 3840436)

EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 1.1 1.5 30.2 No LimitAnonymousEP1501255-003

EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 8.7 9.3 6.6 No LimitTP1 H3ES1504581-003


EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 13.1 12.4 6.0 0% - 50%TP3 H4ES1504581-012

EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 14.5 14.9 3.1 0% - 50%TP7 H4ES1504581-023


EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % <1.0 <1.0 0.0 No LimitAnonymousES1504593-001

EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % <1.0 <1.0 0.0 No LimitAnonymousES1504593-012

ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 3838947)

ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - 5.0 5.0 0.0 0% - 20%TP1 H1ES1504581-001

ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % 2.0 1.9 5.3 0% - 20%

ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.5 0.5 0.0 0% - 20%

ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.1 0.1 0.0 0% - 20%

ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%

ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%

ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%

4 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Sub-Matrix: SOIL Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

Original Result RPD (%)Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit Duplicate Result Recovery Limits (%)

ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 3838947) - continued

ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.7 0.7 0.0 0% - 20%TP1 H1ES1504581-001








ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.4 0.4 0.0 0% - 20%

ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 3838949)











ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%






EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity (QC Lot: 3838740)

EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity ---- 250 mg P sorbed/kg 283 290 2.4 No LimitTP1 H1ES1504581-001


EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity (QC Lot: 3838741)



5 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

The quality control term Method / Laboratory Blank refers to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation. The purpose of this QC

parameter is to monitor potential laboratory contamination. The quality control term Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) refers to a certified reference material, or a known interference free matrix spiked with target

analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor method precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix. Dynamic Recovery Limits are based on statistical evaluation of processed LCS.

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Method Blank (MB)

Report

Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

Spike Spike Recovery (%) Recovery Limits (%)

Result Concentration HighLowLCSMethod: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit

EA010: Conductivity (QCLot: 3839888)

EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 1031412 µS/cm 13070

EA010: Conductivity (QCLot: 3839890)

EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 93.01412 µS/cm 13070

ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QCLot: 3838947)

ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1011 meq/100g 12890

ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1021.67 meq/100g 12086

ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 93.30.51 meq/100g 13585

ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1130.87 meq/100g 12886

ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------

ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % <0.1 -------- --------

ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - <0.1 -------- --------

ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------

ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QCLot: 3838949)

ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1021 meq/100g 12890

ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1041.67 meq/100g 12086

ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 91.80.51 meq/100g 13585

ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1110.87 meq/100g 12886

ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------

ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % <0.1 -------- --------

ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - <0.1 -------- --------

ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------

Matrix Spike (MS) ReportThe quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) refers to an intralaboratory split sample spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor potential matrix effects on

analyte recoveries. Static Recovery Limits as per laboratory Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Ideal recovery ranges stated may be waived in the event of sample matrix interference.

l No Matrix Spike (MS) Results are required to be reported.

6 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1504581



Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Report

The quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) refers to intralaboratory split samples spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of these QC parameters are to

monitor potential matrix effects on analyte recoveries. Static Recovery Limits as per laboratory Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Ideal recovery ranges stated may be waived in the event of sample matrix interference.

l No Matrix Spike (MS) or Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Results are required to be reported.