Montarosa Pty Ltd - EPA Victoria · 3.3 Air Emissions Assessment ... Princetown Integrated Eco-Tourism Resort Facility (Resort Facility). ... ACN 127 791 502 Registered Address 735

Montarosa Pty Ltd Princetown Resort Development

EPA Works Approval ApplicationSeptember 2016

GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485 | i

Table of contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of this report........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope and limitations ........................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 1

2. General information ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Company Legal Entity .......................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Estimated cost and application fee ...................................................................................... 2

2.3 Land use .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.4 Track record ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.5 Community engagement ...................................................................................................... 3

2.6 Process and Integrated Environmental Assessment ......................................................... 10

3. Environmental information ........................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Energy use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 15

3.2 Water use and associated load to the WWTP ................................................................... 15

3.3 Air Emissions Assessment ................................................................................................ 16

3.4 Buffers ................................................................................................................................ 18

3.5 Noise emissions ................................................................................................................. 20

3.6 Water.................................................................................................................................. 23

3.7 Land and groundwater ....................................................................................................... 26

3.8 Waste ................................................................................................................................. 32

3.9 Environmental management .............................................................................................. 32

4. Other approvals ............................................................................................................................ 34

4.1 Seeking other EPA approvals ............................................................................................ 34

5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 35

Table index Table 1 Level of engagement ........................................................................................................... 4

Table 2 Stakeholder Consultation plan ............................................................................................. 5

Table 3 System capacity ................................................................................................................. 11

Table 4 Sizes of the motors and pumps ......................................................................................... 12

Table 5 Integrated Water Balance Model Scenario ........................................................................ 15

Table 6 Water Balance Results ...................................................................................................... 16

Table 7 Odour criteria at and beyond the property boundary (SEPP(AQM)) ................................. 18

Table 8 Requirement for WWTP odour emissions to achieve SEPP(AQM) design criteria ........... 18

Table 9 Distances from WWTP components to sensitive receiver locations ................................. 19

Table 10 Derived NIRV noise criteria for nearest sensitive receivers dB(A) LAeq ........................... 20

ii | GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485

Table 11 Design criteria to meet the night time noise criteria under the NIRV planning

zones.................................................................................................................................. 22

Table 12 Loads on WWTP ................................................................................................................ 24

Table 13 Requirements for Class A and Class B Water (EPA Publication 464.2) ................................. 25

Table 14 Water balances for proposed irrigated area ...................................................................... 28

Table 15 Mineral uptake to trees and grasses .................................................................................. 29

Table 16 Phosphorus and nitrogen nutrient balances ...................................................................... 29

Figure index

Figure 1 Locality Map ......................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2 Planning Zones .................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 Site master plan ................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4 Illustrative concept and footprint ........................................................................................ 12

Figure 5 Suggested buffer distances for small WWTPs .................................................................. 19

Figure 6 Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 7 Model concept .................................................................................................................... 23

Appendices Appendix A – ASIC Company Extract

Appendix B – Integrated Water Balance Assumptions

Appendix C – Air Assessment Assumptions

Appendix D – Noise Assessment Assumptions

Appendix E – Land Capability Assessment

GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485 | 1

1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this report

This report forms Montarosa’s application to EPA Victoria for a works approval for the

construction and operation of a waste water treatment plant (WWTP) at the proposed

Princetown Integrated Eco-Tourism Resort Facility (Resort Facility). This works approval

application has been developed with consideration given to the EPA works approval application

online checklist and works approval application guideline (EPA Publication 1307). Detailed

design of the WWTP has yet to occur. This will occur subsequent to a tender being issued to

vendors for the design and construction of the WWTP. Rather than demonstrating the

compliance of a particular WWTP design it was agreed with EPA that this application for works

approval establishes environmental criteria required to be met by the successful vendor of the

design of the waste water treatment plant. The criteria include the required capacity, treatment

performance and odour and noise performance.

The application also includes a land capability assessment which investigates the suitability of

irrigating the treated wastewater at the resort.

1.2 Scope and limitations

This report has been prepared by GHD for Montarosa Pty Ltd and may only be used and relied

on by Montarosa Pty Ltd for the purpose agreed between GHD and the Montarosa Pty Ltd as

set out in section 1.1 of this report.

GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Montarosa Pty Ltd arising in

connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent

legally permissible.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those

specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions

encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no

responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring

subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions

made by GHD described in this report (refer section(s) 1.3 and other relevant sections of this

report). GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by Montarosa Pty Ltd and

others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities), which GHD has

not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept

liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the

report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

1.3 Assumptions

This application for works approval has been prepared with consideration given to the following:

Information provided to GHD to inform this application and supporting technical studies

was accurate at the time this report was prepared.

2 | GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485

2. General information 2.1 Company Legal Entity

Legal Entity Details

Applicant type Company

Full name of company Montarosa Pty Ltd

ACN 127 791 502

Registered Address 735 Ormond Road

Springbank Victoria 3352

ASIC Search Refer to Appendix A

Application Contact

Organisation GHD Pty Ltd

Contact Tom Young

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street

Melbourne Victoria 3000

Ph: 03 8687 8596

Email: [email protected]

2.2 Estimated cost and application fee

Estimated costs

Cost of works $790,000 (estimated)

Application fee $7,900

2.3 Land use

2.3.1 Planning and other approvals

Planning Approvals

Planning Authority Corangamite Shire Council

Council Contact Ian Gibb

Ph: 03 5593 7100

Email: [email protected]

Planning Zone Rural Conservation Zone

Status of planning permit application To be submitted concurrently with works approval application

2.3.2 Choice of location for new premises

Details of the proposed Resort Facility are provided in section 2.6.1 of this report. The site which

has been purchased for the resort development is currently vacant, devoid of any buildings. The

site has previously been used for agricultural grazing and cropping purposes, however this use

has ceased and currently the site is unmanaged grassland.


Existing structures on the site are limited to fencing, cattle yards and associated agricultural

infrastructure, including tracks. There are no other structures or buildings currently on the site.

As there is no sewer system at Princetown it is necessary to develop a WWTP to treat

wastewater produced by the Resort Facility. The WWTP will be located within the proposed

Resort Facility approximately 745 m south east of the township of Princetown which is located

on the Great Ocean Road, approximately 185 km south west of Melbourne. Within the resort

site, the WWTP will be located in proximity to the southern property boundary, 135 m west of

the eco cabins and 305 m south east of the activity centre. The Gellibrand River partially

encircles the site, and is located approximately 330 m to the south west and 580 m north of the

proposed location of the WWTP. Refer to Figure 1 for the site location and Figure 3 for the site

master plan. The WWTP is the rectangular shape labelled as number 14 on Figure 3. This

location was selected to:

Locate the plant above the 1:100 flood level

Minimise potential amenity issues by maximising the separation distance from resort

patrons and off site sensitive receptors

Take advantage of the natural topography of the site in relation to the location of a

suitable treated water storage

Make use of screening from existing vegetation

Maintain ease of access to the plant for maintenance and monitoring purposes

2.4 Track record

The proposed development is a new development. Montarosa Pty Ltd and its Directors have not

had any relevant offences in relation to their eco-tourism operations in the past 10 years.

2.5 Community engagement

An informal consultation and community engagement program has commenced in relation to

the planning approvals for the overall development and has been undertaken directly by the

project proponent, Montarosa. A formal advertising period will form part of the planning and

works approvals process.

The intention of the community engagement exercise has been to keep the local community,

interested stakeholders and relevant agencies updated on the status of the project as it

develops and to obtain any preliminary feedback on the development concept which may be

able to be incorporated into the design response. This included face-to-face meetings and

telephone discussions in January and February 2016 with local residents, Princetown Landcare,

Estuary watch and Princetown Recreation Reserve representatives, and distribution of a flyer

detailing the development project.

Montarosa provides a monthly email update to approximately 50 recipients in the Princetown

community.

Montarosa also felt it important to keep the community informed on the status of the recently

awarded grant to the project under the Federal Government’s Tourism Demand Driver

Infrastructure Programme (TDDI).

Feedback received to date includes positive feedback about job creation and infrastructure

development. Concerns have been raised regarding the appropriateness of a tourism facility in

this location, the design and siting of built form and the impacts such a development might have

on the township of Princetown.

All feedback has been logged and addressed where able.


To date, no concerns have been raised in relation to the waste water treatment plant.

Montarosa has prepared the following consultation plan.

2.5.1 Public Consultation Plan

Purpose of consultations: to inform stakeholders, neighbours and the public of the

development proposal, research and the various studies undertaken to underpin the design

response and its appropriateness and suitability to the site, local community and region.

Exclusions: Council and a wide number of agencies relevant to the development have been

extensively consulted during the preparation of the proposal, including, but not limited to, CFA,

CCMA, DELWP, Parks Victoria, EPA, AAV, Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation, Vicroads,

Powercor, RDV, Wannon Water.

Public stakeholders identified (after exclusions):

Residents of Princetown township and surrounds

Businesses in and around Princetown

Neighbouring landholders

Princetown Landcare Group

Heytesbury District Landcare Network

Princetown Recreation Reserve

Princetown Cricket Club

Twelve Apostles Tourism and Business Association

Port Campbell Progress Association

Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism

Table 1 Level of engagement

Level Objective Contract with the public Actions

Inform To provide the public with balanced and objective information; to make them aware of and assist them in understanding the proposal, alternatives, and /or solutions.

To keep the public informed

Advise the public of the proposal. Inform on a decision or direction. Provide advice on an issue. No response required from the public.

Consult To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

To keep the public informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the final decision or outcome.

Research to identify appropriate stakeholders, individuals and/or groups and their needs or issues. Seek comment on proposal, action or issue. Seek feedback on service or facility. Request response, but limited opportunity for dialogue. Take account of consultation feedback in decision making.


Level Objective Contract with the public Actions

Involve To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public and private concerns are consistently understood and considered.

To work with the public to ensure that their concerns and issues are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

Involve the whole community or identified segments of the community in discussion or debate. Assist the development of informed input through briefing and information dissemination. Use participatory approach in meetings and forums. Involve the community at different stages of the planning process.

Partner To partner with the public in each aspect of decision making including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

To seek direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and to incorporate community advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

Establish partnerships for involvement in decision making. Use participatory approach in meetings and forums. Establish mechanisms for ongoing involvement. Develop ways of keeping the community informed. Allocate clear responsibilities for achieving outcomes.

Table 2 Stakeholder Consultation plan

Timing Activity Level of engagement

2012-2014 Shipwreck Coast Masterplan 5 stage consultation process. The released plan includes specific reference to a proposed private sector development and uses that align with this proposal.

Involve/Partner

Dec 2015- Jan 2016 Face to face meeting and telephone contact with stakeholders

Inform/Consult

Dec 2015- Feb 2016 Discussions of proposal with councillors Inform/Consult

Jan 2016 – Feb 2016 Developed email list (50+) of all known public stakeholders. Emailed 3 page project flyer to list, taking on board feedback which refined proposal.

Inform/Consult

Feb 2016 – Jun 2016 (formal town planning submission Jun 2016)

Monthly email update Regular telephone and face to face contact with many stakeholders

Inform

May 2016 Cross Agency planning workshop (pre-submission)

Involve/Partner


Timing Activity Level of engagement

PROPOSED Aug – Sep 2016

Advertising and letters of notice as required by formal Council/EPA processes Public drop in sessions at 2 key locations (Princetown and Port Campbell) with pop up displays of proposal and a takeaway information flyer. To be organised by council and EPA with GHD and proponent to be present to discuss with the public.

Inform

As required, further council mediated information sessions and individual meetings.

180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com

BridgeAccess

Great Ocean Rd

Old Coach Rd

Old P

ost O

ffice R

d

Old Ocean Rd

LATROBE CREEK

GELLIBRAND RIVER

PRINCETOWN

PrincetownWildlife Reserve

(hunting)

Great OtwayNational Park


Great OtwayNational

Park


TwelveApostles Marine

National Park

Port CampbellNational Park

PrincetownRecreation Reserve

and Camping Ground

687,500

687,500

688,000

688,000

688,500

688,500

689,000

689,0005,714,

000

5,714,

000

5,714,

500

5,714,

500

5,715,

000

5,715,

000

G:\31\33485\GIS\Maps\Working\Planning\Town Planning Services\3133485_009_ProjectLocationMap_A3L_RevC.mxd© 2016. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

LEGEND0 50 100 150 20025

MetresMap Projection: Transverse Mercator

Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

Montarosa Pty LtdPrincetown Resort Development

Job NumberRevision C

31-33485

09 Mar 2016

Project Locality Map

Date

Data source: Google Earth Pro Imagery, Vicmap, DELWP, 2015. Coastal Lidar Contours, DELWP, 2009, Created by:lrsmith

Scale 1:5,000 (At A3)Site BoundaryRoadParcelRiver

StreamWildfire Management OverlayNational ParkNatural Features Reserve

PrincetownSite Location

COLAC

TERANG

CRESSY

COBDEN

MORTLAKE

CAMPERDOWN

APOLLO BAY

WARRNAMBOOL

PORT CAMPBELL

10 0 105Kilometers

Great Ocea n Rd Old Ocea n Rd

Old Coa ch Rd

Old Post Office Rd

SerpentineL ane

PCRZ

RDZ1

TZ

RCZ1

RAZ1

RCZ1

PCRZ

LATROBE CREEK

GELLIBRAND RIVER

165,500

165,500

166,000

166,000

166,500

166,500

167,000

167,000

5,709,

500

5,709,

500

5,710,

000

5,710,

000

180 L onsda le Street Melbourne V IC 3000 Austra lia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E melma [email protected] W www.ghd.comG:\31\33485\GIS\Ma ps\Working\Pla nning\Town Pla nning Services\3133485_ 008_ Pla nningZ ones_ A3L .mxd© 2016. Whilst every ca re ha s been ta ken to prepa re this ma p, GHD (a nd DATA CU STODIAN) ma ke no representa tions or wa rra nties a bout its a ccura cy, relia bility, completeness or suita bility for a ny pa rticula r purpose a nd ca nnot a ccept lia bility a nd responsibility of a ny kind (whether in contra ct, tort or otherwise) for a ny expenses, losses, da ma ges a nd/or costs (including indirect or consequentia l da ma ge) which a re or ma y be incurred by a ny pa rty a s a result of the ma p being ina ccura te, incomplete or unsuita ble in a ny wa y a nd for a ny rea son.

L EGEND0 50 100 150 20025

MetresMa p Projection: Tra nsverse Merca torHorizonta l Da tum: GDA 1994Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Z one 55

Monta rosa Pty L tdPrincetown Resort Development

Figure 2

Job NumberRevision A

31-33485

11 Feb 2016

Pla nning Z ones

Da te

Da ta Source: Ima ge © 2016 Google, Digita lGlobe a nd V icMa p, DEL WP (2016). Coa sta l L ida r Contours, DEL WP, 2009. Crea ted by:lrsmith

Sca le 1:5,000 (At A3)Site Bounda ryPa rcelRiverStrea m

Planning zonePublic Conserva tion & ResourceRura l ActivityRura l Conserva tion

Roa d – Ca tegory 1Township

PrincetonSite Location

COL AC

TERANG

CRESSY

COBDEN

MORTL AKE

CAMPERDOWN

APOL L O BAY

WARRNAMBOOL

PORT CAMPBEL L

10 0 105Kilometers

SUB HEADINGHEADING

Integrated Eco-Tourism Facility -Old Coach Road

Montarosa Pty LtdLevel 8, 180 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000

T 61 3 8687 8000 W www.ghdwoodhead.com

Copyright retained by GHD Woodhead Architecture Pty Ltd

Job No: 31/33485

Scale: 1:2000 Original Size: B1

Drawing No: SK-001

Approved: P. Thatcher

Date: 21.09.2016

Rev: A

1111. RRRRRRReeeeeesssssssttttttttaaaaaauuuurrrraaaaaannnnnttttt ///// DDDDDDaaaayyyyyyy CCCCCCeeeeennnnntttttrrrrreeeee //// AAAAAccccttttiiiiivviittttttyyyyy PPPPPPrrrrreeeeeeccccciiiiiinnnnncccccttt (((((gggggrrrrrrooooouuuunnnnndddddd lllllleeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeellll bbbbbbuuuuuuuiiiiilllllddddddiiiiinnnnggggg)))):::: CCCCCaaaaaaassssssuuuuuaaaaalllll &&&&& aaaaa LLLLLLaaa CCCCCCaaaaaarrttttteeeeee rrrreeesssstttttaaaaaauuuuurrrrrraaaannnnnnnttttssssss wwwwwwiiiiiittttthhhhh oooooouuuuuuttttttdddddoooooooooorrrrr ssssseeeeaaaaaattttiiiinnnnnggggg;;;; aaaaannnnnccccciiiiillllllllllaaaarrrrryyyy ssssssoooouuuuvvvvvveeeeennnnnniiiiir ssssssaaaaleeeeesssss/////rrrreeccceeeeppppppptttttiioooonnnnnn;;; aaaaannnnndddddd bbbbbrriiieeeeeefififififi nnngggg fffffaaaacccciiiiillllliiiiitttttiiiiieeeeessssss

22222... CCCChhhhhiiiiillllldddddrrrreeeeennnnn’’’’’’ssss ppppplllllaaaayyyyyggggggrrrrrooooouuuuuunnnnnndddddd aaaaadddddjjjjaaaaaccccceeeeennnnntttttt tttttooooooo oooouuuttttdddddoooorrr dddiiinnniinnggggg aaaaannnnndddd kkkkkaaaaannnnnggggaaaarrrrroooooooooooo vvvvvviiiiiiieeeeewwwwwwwiiiiinnnnnggggg lllllaaaawwwwwwnnnnn

3333... PPPPPiiiiicccccnnnnnniiiiicccccc &&&&&&& BBBBBBBBBBBQQQQQ llllaaaawwwwwwnnnn wwwwiiiitttttthhhhhh sssssshhhhhhaaaaaddddddeee sssssshhhheeeeeeelllltttttteeeerrrrss

4444..... UUUUnnnnssssseeeeeaaaallllleeeeeddddd cccccooooommmmpppppaaaaaccccccttttteeeedddd gggggggrrrrraaaaaaavvvvveeeeellll 111111....55555mmmmmmm pppppeeeeedddddeeeeessssstttttrrrriiiiaaaaaannnnn ppppppaaaaatttthhhhhhssss

5555... PPPPPaaaaannnnnoooorrrrrraaaammmmmiiiiccccc LLLLLooooooooookkkkkkoooooouuuuttttt

66666.. BBBBBuuuuusssss pppppaaaaarrrrrrkkkkkiiiinnnnnggggg

77777... UUUUUnnnnnsssseeeeeaaaaalllleeeeddddd ccccaaaarrrrpppppaaaarrrrkkkkk

888888888... SSSSSeeeeerrrrrvvvvviiiiiccccceeeee,, wwwwaaaasssstttteeeee ssssstttttoooorrrraaaaagggggeeeee,,,, ddddeeeellliiivvvvveeeeeerrrrriiiiieeeeessssss aaaaaannnnnddddd ssssstttttaaaaaaffffffffffff pppppaaaaarrrrrrkkkkkkiiiiinnnnnnggggg

99999. UUUUUUnnnnnnsssseeeeeaaaaalllleeeeddddd lllloooooooopppp rrrrooooaaaaaddddd wwwwwiiiittttthhhhh bbbbbuuuuusssss aaaaaannnnnnddddd ccccccaaaarrrrr dddddddrrrrroooooppppp oooooffffffffff

11110000.. PPPPPPeeeedddddddeeeessssstttttrrrrriiiiiaaaaaannnn cccccoooonnnnnnnnnneeeeeccccctttttiiiiiooooooonnnnnsssss ttttoooo eeeeexxxxxiiiissssstttttiiiinnnnngggggg RRRRReeeeecccccrrrreeeeaaaaaatttttiiiiiiooooonnnnn RRRRReeeesssssseeeerrrrrrvvvvveeeee wwwwwwiiiiiittthhhhhhh wwwwwwwwwwiiillldddddllllliiiiifffffeeeee vvvvviiiiieeeeewwwwwiiiiinnnnnggggg ddddeeeeecccccckkkkk

11111111111.... SSSSSSmmmmaaaallllllll bbbbbbbiiirrrrdddddhhhhhiiiiiddddeeeee/////ssssshhhhheeeeelllltttteeeeerrrrrssssss ooooonnnnn bbbbbbboooooaaaaaarrrrrdddddwwwwwaaaaallllkkkkk llllloooooooooppppp. PPPPaaaavvvvviiiilllliiiiooooonnnnn fffffoooorrrrrmmmmsssss tttttttoooooo bbbbbeeeee rrrreeeeeeeeemmmmmiiiiinnnnniiiiissssssccccceeeeennnnnttttt ooooofffff bbbbbiiiiirrrrrddddd nnnnnneeeeessssstttttssss

DDDDDDDRRRRRRAAAAAAAWWWWWWWIIIINNNNGGGGGG LLLLLEEEEEEGGGGGGEEEEENNNNNDDDDDD

1111222222....OOOOvvvvvveeeeerrrsssssssttttoooooorrrrrreeeeeyyyyyy &&&& ssssshhhhrrruuuubbbb rrrreeeevvvvvveeeeeegggggeeeetttaaatttiiiiioooooonnnnnnn aaaarrrreeeeaaaaaaassssssss ddddddeeeevvveeeeellllooooopppppeeddd iiinnnn ccccooonnnsssuuulttaaaattttiiioooonnn wwwwittttthhh ttthhhheeeee CCCCMA & Counnccciiill

1113. NNNNaaatttuuurrree lloooopppp wwwwaaaalllkkk ooooooonn eeellleevvvvaaattttteeeedddd bboaaardddwalk withhh iinterrpretive sssiiigggnnaaage aaannnnddd wwwwiiilllddddlllliifffffeee vvviiiewwwwiiiiinnngggg

14444444. WWWWWWWWiintteer sttoorraaaaagggggggge- ttrrrrrrreaatteedd wwaassttee wwaater fromm deevveeloopmmeennt. SSSSSSSmmmmmmmmallll wwaassttee wwaatteerr ttreatmennnnttttt ppplaannntt ssssttrrrruuuuuccccctttttuuuurrrrreeeee aannddd ggeenneerraaattoorrr//bbbaattttteeeeeeeerrrrrrryyyyyyyyy ssttoorraaggee ssccrreeeeeeennnneeeeedddd fffrrrooommm rroooaaaaddd

1111115555555555..... CCCCCCCCClllluuuuummmmmmmpppppppppeeeeeeeddddddd rrrrrreeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvveeeeeeeegggggggggggeeetttaattiioonn aaalllooonnnggg bbbbbbooooouunnndddaaarrryyyy wwwiiittthhh eeexxissttiinngg RRRRRRRRRRRRReeeeeeeeccccccrrrrrreeeeeeeaaaaaaaattttttttttiiiiiiiiiooooooooooonnnnnnnnn RRRRRRRRRReeeeesssssseeeeeeeeerrrrrrvvvvvvvvvveee

1111666. UUUUnnnnssssseeeeeaaaallleeeeddddd 44.000mmmmm wwwiiidddddeeeee FFFFiiiiirrrreeee SSSeeeerrrrvvvviiiccccceeeeessss aaaacccccccceeeeesssssssss, mmmaaaiinnnttteeennnaaaannnnccccceee traacckkk aaaanddd sshaaaared ppaaatttthhhh

17. Staaattticcc wwater storage to seervice botth Ecoo Loodge, Reeesstttaaauurraantt // Daay Ceentre / Activity Precincttt. CFAA emeerrrggeenncy requirreemmeennttss ssccaalee && fifi nal locatiion subject to dddeetaaaailedd ddesign

1118888... FFFFeeeeaaaaattuurrrree ennttttrrry wall constructed froomm llooccaallllyy quarrieed sstonne aanndd ttimmbeeerrrrssss oveeerr stone paverrss flfl uusshh wwiitthh road surffaaccee aass fffeeeeaaaatttuuurrreeee tthhhhreeeesssshhhhoooollld

1119999. EEEEExxxxiiissssttttiiiinnnngggg eeephhhemmmmeeeeeral wwaater body

22222200000.. NNoottiooonnnaaall liineee of eexxistinng CCommoonn RReeeedd

222221111.. WWWateeerr--bbbbbbbaseedd pleassurrreeeee activitiees ffffrroomm flfl ooaattiinngg ttiimmbbeerr ppppoooonnnttooonn wwwwwwwiiiitttttttthh small booaatt shed and uunnsseeaaleeddd vveeehhiiccllee aaacccccceesssss tttrraacckk. CCCCCCCaaaanoee, kayyak, staand uupp ppaaddddllee booaarrdd aanndd sssssssmmmmaalll bboat eeccoo ttourrrrrrsssssss aannd hire

222222222222.TTTwwweeennnnntttttyyyy EEEEEcccooooo CCCCaaabbbbiiiinnnssss wwwiiittthhh uuunnnnsseeeeeaaallleeeddddd cccccaaaaarrrrrrppppppppaaarrrrrkkkkk aaaaaacccccccceeeeeesssssssssaanndddd ccccccclluuummmmmpppss oofff lllooowwww leevvveell rreeevvveeeeggggeeetttaaattttiiiioooonnnn

22222233333.. EEEEEEcccccoooooo LLLLLooooddddddgggee WWWeesssttt WWWiinnngggg --ggggrrroooouuunndddd lllleeeevel:: 6666 rrrooooooommmmssss ---fifififi rrrrsssstttt flflfl oooooorr: 44 rroooommssss

24. Eccccooooo LLLLLooooodddddgggggeeeee EEEEEaaaaasssstttttt WWWWWWiiiinnnnnnnggggggggg ---- ggggggggrrrrrooooouunndddd lleeeevvvveell::: rrreeeeccccceeeeepppptttttiiiiooooonnnnn,,,, ddddddiiiinnnnniiiiiinnnnggggg,,,, fffuuunnnncccccttttiiiiooooonnnnnnn rrrroooooooooommmmm,,,, pppppooooooooolllll fififififi rrrrsssstttt flflflflfl oooooooorrrrr:::::: 11111000000 rrrroooooooooommmmmsssss,,,,, ddddddaaaaayyyyy sssssppppppaaaaa

2255. EEvvvvennts laaaaawwwwwn aand ouuuuutdoooorrrrrr ddddddiiiiinnnnniiiinnnnnggggg

2266.. SSmall eevvennts ppppavilion wwithh vvvviiieeeewwwwwssssss tooo nnnnneeeeaaaaarrrrrbbbbyyyy rrriiivveerrrr

2277. SSeerrvviiccee,, wwaasstee sstoorraaaaagggee,, dddeellivveeerrrrrriiiiiiieeeessss aaaaannnnndddd ssssttttaaafff ppaarrrrkkkkkkiinnnnnggggg

2288.. FFoollddeedd llaawwwn lannd aaaart, to rreffffeeerrrreeeeeeeennnnncceee ‘PPPPrinnncceetooooowwwwwnnnnnn SSSSSSpppppiiiiittttsss’ lloooccccccaaaaalll ggeeoollooggiiccaal foormaation

229. IInnffooorrrmmmaaalll llaawwnss,, wwithh bbirdhhhide annd cluummmmmpppppssss ooooofff iiinnnnddddiiigggggeeeennnnnoooouuuussss rreveegggeettaattiioonn ffoorr wwiillddlife viewwwwwingg

33000. AAAcccccoommmodattiiiooon PPreeccincccttttt paaaaavveed ppplaaaazzzza dddrrrooooppppp ooooffffffff aaaarrrrrreeeeeaaaaaa,, wwwwiiiittth ssttoonne wall, water feature, ggggggguueesst ppaarkingggg aaaannnnnddddd fffeattuuure trrreeeeeess

33111.. UUUpppggradee of OOld CCooaacch Rooad rreeqquuiiiiirreeddddddd ppppppast PPrinccceeetoowwnnn RRReeeccrreeeaatioonn RReeessseerrvvee ttoo alllow acccceessss ttoo proooposed EEco llooddggeee &&& CCabbinss

3322. Outdoor heaatteedd sswimmmming & hheeaatedd ssppaa pool wwwwwwittth ppooool pumphhouuse and outside maassssaaggee//ddaayy sspa area iin small ppaavvillions. Pavilioonn foorrrms tto bbe rreemminnisccent of biird nests

3333. NNeeww uunnsseealed sharedd ppeddestrian/bbiiccyycclle ppaath ffrroomm DDaay CCeenttre / Activity Precinct to Old CCooacchh Roaad is proposed. Replacement oof thhe eexxiisstting walking trail bbetwweeeen bridge and develooppmmeenntt eennttrryy iiss aa ffuture project annd nnot part of tthhiss ssubmissssioon

3344. PPotteenttial loocatioonn ffoorr sshhaarred 1112222 AAApoostles Trail - coonnect ttoo nneeww shhhaaarreedd ppaatthh ffrroom Restaaaauraant / DDay Ceentre //// AAAccttiivviittyy eeennntttrrraaannnccce (FFuuture PPrroojjeecctt: part ooooooffff Shippwreckk CCCCooooaaast MMMaasstteeerrpppllaaann wwooorrks - noot parrtt oof this submmmmmissssioon)

3355.. AAAccccceessss thrrouugghh Croowwnn Land alllottmentttttt. Gravvvel rrrooaaddd aaaannnnndddd pppaaatthh wwiitthh nnoo ssignnage on Crown Land

33333366. EExxiissttiinngg bbrriiddggee aapppprrooaaacchheessss slightlyy raaaaaaaaaaised tttto proovvviidddeee aaallll wweeaatthhheerr acccccess.

377. CCCCCCaaabbbinn gguueesstt ppaarrkkiinnnggg oon noorrth side ooooof eentry road anddLLLLLLoodddgggee gguueesstt ppaarrkkiinggg ttttooooo ssooouuthh side oooooof entry rroad with path cccccccccoonnnneeeeeeecccccccttttttiiiiiioooooonnnnnn bbbbbbaaaaaaccccccckkkkkk tttttooooooo llooddgggeee

3333333888888888888.. EEEEEEEEEEEExxxxxxxxxxxttttttttttteeeeennnnddddd OOlldd CCooaaccchh RRRRooaaad iiiiiinnnnnn tttthhhhhissss aarrrrrreaa ttto mmmmeeeet pproperttyyyyy bbbboouunndddaaarrryyyyyy

Gellibrand River

Great O

cean Road

Old Coach Road

Great Ocean Walk

Princetown

Princetown Recreation Reserve & Camping

1

2

4

4

6

7

8

10

13

11

11

12

11

11

11

12

10

9

3

3

5

14

32

16

1838

34

33

34

19

20

21

2223

24

29

25

30

26

17

2728

37

15

15

34

34 35

36

36

36

36

20

20

20

0 20 40 100m


2.6 Process and Integrated Environmental Assessment

2.6.1 Description of proposal

Montarosa Pty Ltd is seeking to establish an integrated tourism facility with accommodation,

restaurant, and activity centre at Princetown, Victoria. The development on the subject site will

include the following:

access improvements

advertising signage

eco-lodge with 20 rooms with ancillary office, pool and day spa.

eco-cabins (14 x 2-bed cabins and 6 x 3-bed cabins).

restaurant with a total capacity of 300 persons with ancillary souvenir sales, reception and

briefing facilities.

panoramic lookout structure.

informal recreation activities, including walking/cycling tours and trails, picnic areas,

wildlife viewing and kids’ playground.

water-based pleasure activities from proposed jetty pontoon including canoe, kayak,

stand up paddle board and small boat eco tours and hire.

car parking for the accommodation and activity centre

As there is no sewer present at the site it is proposed to treat the sewage generated by the use

of the resort and irrigate the treated wastewater on site. The WWTP design has not been

finalised but is likely to consist of a standard packaged WWTP (refer to section 2.6.3).

The WWTP will receive waste water from the activity centre, restaurant, eco lodges and cabins,

staff accommodation and day spa. Water from the wash down of mountain bikes and canoes

and swimming pool spillage will not be directed to the WWTP.

The WWTP will be designed to treat a peak day demand of 88.9 kL per day which has been

rounded to 90 kL per day of wastewater to Class B standard or better. The treatment

requirements exceed the threshold of 5000 litres per day contained within the Scheduled

Premises and Exemption Regulations and hence the proposed wastewater treatment plant is a

Scheduled Premises A03 requiring works approval and potentially licencing (threshold of

100,000 litres per day).

It is proposed that following treatment the treated wastewater will be stored in a winter storage

(10ML) and is then irrigated or stored in a tank for static firefighting water supply (288,000 litres

minimum). The winter storage will feature either a liner of compacted low permeability clay or

polyethylene liner and will be constructed to meet EPA requirements.

It is expected that the WWTP will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. The WWTP will be

located in proximity to the southern boundary of the property, 135 m from the onsite cabins and

305 m from the day centre. The closest sensitive receptor outside of the site boundary is the

Princetown Recreation and Camping Reserve located adjacent to the western boundary of the

resort. The site layout and location of the proposed WWTP is provided in Figure 1 (shows winter

storage) and Figure 3 (shows the WWTP as the rectangular shape labelled as number 14).


2.6.2 Process and technology

Montarosa has undertaken a concept design for the WWTP. This Works Approval application is

based on that concept design, and although the final design may be different from the concept

design, the concept and final designs, in their implemented forms, would be unlikely to have a

significantly different environmental impact. It is understood that the EPA will include a condition

in the works approval requiring that Montarosa provide it with the final WWTP design prior to

construction.

The tender specification that will be put to vendors of packaged WWTPs will provide for the

requirements outlined below in relation to the process and technology to be designed by the

vendor.

Type of WWTP

For the purposes of this approval, the concept design is based upon a rotating biological

contactor (RBC) plant. RBCs are used widely in Australia for the treatment of wastewater at the

loads proposed. RBC technology is appropriate, because it is conventional, robust, and has a

proven track record.

Examples of RBC units similar to the system proposed have been commissioned as follows:

Xstrata Zinc – McArthur River Mine Camp, NT – 600 m3/d of wastewater treated – Class

A effluent quality suitable for irrigation reuse – Commissioned Feb 2013

Australian Government – Offshore Detention Facility on Nauru Island – 350 m3/d of

wastewater treated –Commissioned Dec 2013

Process stages

Four primary tanks which together serve as:

– primary sedimentation tanks

– backwash balance tanks

– humus (waste biomass) storage tank

– biomass digesters

Six rotating biological contactors (all mounted inside containers)

A chemical dosing system for TP-removal (inside a container)

A clarifier (inside a container)

A filter feed tank

A pressure filter (inside a container)

A chlorination unit (inside a container)

A storage tank

Table 3 System capacity

Parameter Capacity

Peak Flow 90 kL/d

Peak BOD load 47 kg/d

Peak TN load 11 kg/d

Peak TP load 1.8 kg/d

*Refer to Appendix B for basis of this calculation.


Table 4 Sizes of the motors and pumps

Pump size Number

0.5 kW 1

1.1 kW 3

1.5 kW 1

1.9 kW 1

Electricity consumption

Average power consumption is estimated to be 3.0 kW

Maximum total load of the process units is estimated to be 7 kW, distributed between the

containers with a maximum of 4 kW per container (20 A connections)

1 x 3-phase and 1 x 1-phase general power outlets for maintenance purposes

Appearance and Footprint

The WWTP will comprise both external tanks and containerized units

Indicatively, the WWTP footprint, excluding access roads, would be approximately

500 m2, with the length: width ratio in the range from 1:1 to 3:1

The tops of the tanks and the containers would be approximately 3 m above ground level

There are also likely to be safety railings on the top of the containers

Air from the foul-air treatment facility is likely to be discharged from a stack (with a

notional height of 6 m above ground level)

Footprint 27 m x 17 m

Figure 4 Illustrative concept and footprint


Noise and odour

The WWTP is not expected to require additional works for the attenuation of noise,

because the motors are small and located inside the containers.

Odour control works may be required, so space for a foul-air treatment facility (expected

to comprise a biofilter and/or an activated carbon filter) has been allowed for in the

WWTP footprint.

Performance requirements for noise and for odour are to be included in the WWTP

specification (see section 3.3 (Air) and section 3.5 (Noise)).

Biosolids accumulation and storage

Biosolids will accumulate and will be stored in the primary tanks. Approximately 90 m3 of

biosolids will be produced every 18 months. Biosolids will be pumped out approximately

every 18 months and transported to a municipal wastewater treatment plant for treatment.

This process is similar to that implemented for the removal and disposal of the contents of

a domestic septic tank.

Automation and indicative operator attendance

Fully automated plant with timer-based controls (This will be a requirement in the WWTP

specification)

Periodic operator checks and monthly water sampling (two hours per week, average)

Periodic sludge removal (once every 12 to 18 months)

Periodic maintenance (twice per annum)

Contractual Arrangements

Montarosa proposes a Design-and-Construct (D&C) style contract for the WWTP. In this

arrangement, a Contractor will be engaged to undertake the detailed design, the construction,

the commissioning and the performance proving of the WWTP. The D&C contract will be a

performance-based one, with the treatment and environmental impact objectives defined.

2.6.3 Choice of process and technology

It was agreed with the EPA that this works approval application will establish environmental

performance criteria for the WWTP that must be met by the successful vendor. As the detailed

design of the plant has not gone out to tender at this time the following wastewater treatment

options are likely to be considered by the vendors:

A rotating biological contactor (RBC) plant

An activated sludge plant

A trickling filter plant

A membrane bioreactor plant

All of the above are packaged WWTPs. Lagoon style WWTP will be excluded from the tender

process.

The successful vendor will be required to demonstrate to the proponent and EPA that the

chosen process and technology will meet the environmental criteria set by this works approval.


2.6.4 Integrated Environmental Assessment

The proposed WWTP is required as there is no sewer connection at the proposed resort

development site. The plant will be a brand new wastewater treatment package with low

emissions and high energy efficiency and will treat wastewater to Class B standard or better.

The decision to reuse the treated wastewater via irrigation to land is considered best practice in

comparison to the alternatives to discharge to surface water or truck offsite for storage and

potential irrigation elsewhere. As such it is considered that a detailed integrated environmental

assessment is not relevant to this application as it fully meets all EPA requirements.


3. Environmental information 3.1 Energy use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.1.1 General information

The overall annual energy use associated with the operation of the WWTP 24 hours a day, 365

days a year is estimated to be 26.2 MWh.

The overall scope 2 emissions from the associated electricity consumption was calculated by

applying the 2015 National Greenhouse Gas Accounts Factors. Emissions associated with

electricity consumption were calculated as 29.7 tCO2-e.

It is noted that any methane generated from the wastewater itself would be in trace amounts

and therefore its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible. Hence no

estimate of emissions from this source has been made.

3.2 Water use and associated load to the WWTP

In order to calculate the load of wastewater sent to the WWTP it has been assumed that any

water consumed at the Resort Facility will make its way to the WWTP with the exception of bike

and canoe washdown.

An integrated water balance was completed for the proposed Resort Facility. The water balance

was based on average and peak occupancy rates for the resort facility and was inclusive of

efficient shower heads/taps and waterless urinals. The details of the occupancy and demand

assumptions applied to the integrated water balance are outlined in Appendix B.

3.2.1 Model scenario

The scenario characteristics modelled are outlined in Table 5.

Table 5 Integrated Water Balance Model Scenario

Application Source Applies to Water source

Dishwasher Potable Restaurant/cafe kitchen, dining kitchen, Eco Lodge (staff rooms only)

Rainwater with groundwater/truck water back-up

Misc (incl. tap) Potable Restaurant/café, dining, Eco Cabins, Eco Lodge, Swimming Pools (inclusive of filling pool), Day Spa


Shower (& bath tub) Potable All Eco Cabins, & Eco Lodge rooms


Wash-down of canoes & mountain bikes

Non-Potable

Activity centre & boat shed Rainwater with groundwater/truck water back-up

Swimming pools (indoor/outdoor)

Potable Top-up of indoor and outdoor pools

Groundwater with truck water back-up


Application Source Applies to Water source

Toilet Non-Potable

Toilets in Eco Cabins, Eco Lodge rooms, and shared toilet facilities at (1) Restaurant/café/activity centre and (2) Lodge dining, swimming pools, and day spa


Outdoor / Irrigation Non-Potable

Disposal of excess recycled wastewater

Class B recycled water

3.2.2 Model Results

The IWM Water Balance Results by water category on an average day, a peak day and total

annual water usage results are presented within Table 6.

Table 6 Water Balance Results

Usage Rainwater Groundwater Total

Average usage per day (kL/d)

5.1 44.9 50.0

Peak usage per day (kL/d) - 93.3 93.3

Annual usage (ML/yr) 1.8 16.4 18.2

The WWTP will be designed to treat a peak day demand of 90 kL/d from the Eco-Tourism

facility (noting 4.4 kL/d of water use from pool losses and canoe/mountain bike wash down does

not reach the treatment plant). There may be some variation in the actual size depending upon

the standard sizes of vessels that vendors use.

Rainwater will be captured from the roof areas of the activity centre, eco cabins and lodges and

the boat shed and stored in tanks. The capture and storage of rainwater will be separate from

the stormwater management system. The treatment system for rainwater will consist of filtration

and UV sterilisation, with the exception of the boat shed tank which will not be treated as this

water is proposed to be used for wash down only. Note that the groundwater extracted for

treatment and use at the resort will be managed through approvals from Southern Rural Water

and is below the thresholds for a scheduled activity under the Environment Protection

(Scheduled Premises and Exemption Regulations) 2007.

3.3 Air Emissions Assessment

3.3.1 Air Emissions Sources

Odour modelling was undertaken as a single volume source encompassing the entire WWTP

boundary to within one metre of either side of the plant boundary, refer Figure 4 for assumed

plant layout.


3.3.2 Air Quality Management Best Practice

The following best practice environmental management requirements will form a condition of the

successful vendor engagement:

The release of noxious or offensive odours or any other noxious or offensive airborne

contaminants resulting from the activities must not cause a nuisance at any nuisance

sensitive or commercial place beyond the WWTP boundary. It is noted that this is more

stringent than the EPA requirements which is set at the property boundary. This is

because as a tourist facility there is an inherent requirement that offensive odours are not

discernible at the Resort Facility in addition to at the property boundary and sensitive

receivers such as the recreation reserve.

Foul air shall be removed from the inlet works, primary tanks, and all sludge storage

vessels, and all foul air thus removed shall be treated in an odour treatment facility prior

to discharge to the atmosphere.

The Contractor shall remain wholly responsible for all equipment in the WWTP to meet

the general odour impact requirement and requirements of the SEPP (Air Quality

Management) (SEPP (AQM)).

In the air discharged from the odour treatment facility the concentration of odour will be

less than 500 OU m3/s, and the concentration of H2S will be less than 0.1 ppm.

Gas contaminant concentrations shall be less than safe working levels requiring personal

protective equipment.

The vendor must give consideration to covering and subjecting to extraction the

secondary reactor(s) and the secondary sedimentation tank(s), so as to reduce odour

emission from them. If they are not covered and subjected to extraction from the outset,

they must be designed so that covers and extraction can be conveniently retrofitted.

3.3.3 Air Quality Impact Assessment

Odour modelling was undertaken for the proposed WWTP. The modelling made use of the RBC

methodology proposed as a concept design as outlined in section 2.6.2 to model a generic site

layout and odour emission. The following sections inform the odour criteria, the modelling

results and subsequent design criteria. Any assumptions applied to the odour modelling are

outlined in Appendix C.

Air assessment criteria

Odour from the WWTP is to be managed in accordance with the SEPP(AQM). The SEPP(AQM)

provides in Schedule A of the document, a tabulated list of class 1, class 2, class 3 indicator

substances with various degrees of toxicity. General odour falls under a further classification in

Schedule A termed unclassified indicators. The definition of general odour is defined in the

SEPP(AQM) “as an unclassified air quality indicator of local amenity and aesthetic enjoyment of

the air environment”.


The design criteria for new sources of general odour is the odour detection threshold (1 odour

unit) and should be applied at and beyond the boundary of a premise, refer Table 7.

Table 7 Odour criteria at and beyond the property boundary (SEPP(AQM))

Substance Unclassified Indicators

Reason for classification

Averaging time Design Criteria (OU)

General odour Amenity 3-minute 1 Odour Unit

Results

The Gaussian plume dispersion model AUSPLUME (V 6.0) was used to simulate odour

dispersion from the proposed WWTP. This was driven by the MESTSAMP-simulated

meteorological package. The AUSPLUME model was run to simulate odour emissions from

within the WWTP site boundary using a single volume source enveloping the entire site to within

1 m of the boundary at all sides (25 m x 15 m) and 3 m high.

Discrete receptor locations were input into the model and the 3-minute averaged model results

were compared against the SEPP(AQM) design criterion for odour of 1 OU at ground level

(GLC) for the 99.9th percentile peak level.

Results of odour modelling at discrete receptor locations within the facility and at the boundary

adjacent the recreation and camping reserve was undertaken and is provided in Table 8.

Table 8 illustrates that the proposed plant is predicted to meet the design criteria of 1 OU at

each receptor location for odour emission rates up to 50,000 OU m3/s and at the nearest offsite

sensitive receptor and at the Activity Centre at 100,000 OU m3/s. As outlined in section 3.3.2 the

vendor will be required to design the plant so as to minimise odour emissions from the plant to

no more than 500 OU m3/s, thus the SEPP (AQM) design criteria of 1 OU is predicted to be

satisfied.

Table 8 Requirement for WWTP odour emissions to achieve SEPP(AQM) design criteria

Odour Emission Rate,

OU m3/s Design Criteria (OU)

Discrete Receptors (OU) 99.9 percentile GLC

Eco Cabin Activity Centre Recreation & Camping

Reserve

X,metres

688,093

Y,metres

5,714,334

X,metres

688,242

Y,metres

5,714,317

X,metres

687,891

Y,metres

5,714,579

X,metres

687,993

Y,metres

5,714,371

100,000

1 Odour Unit

2.187E+02

2.187

= 2 OU

0.000E+00

1.000

= 0 OU

0.000E+00

1.000

= 0 OU

50,000

1.094+02

1.094

= 1 OU

0.000E+00

1.000

= 0 OU

0.000E+00

1.000

= 0 OU

3.4 Buffers

The proposed locations of the WWTP, winter storage lagoon and irrigation areas will provide the

following buffer distances from the WWTP to the camping grounds, eco-cabins, activity centre,

and Princetown community, and nearest section of the adjacent Gellibrand River system, see

Table 9.


Table 9 Distances from WWTP components to sensitive receiver locations

WWTP Component

Distances to sensitive locations (m)

Camping ground

Eco Cabins Activity Centre

Princetown township

Gellibrand River

WWTP 90 135 305 745 330 SW

Winter Storage

40 150 295 700 260 SW

Irrigation area

As per guideline for

reuse of Class B water





200 50 East

Note: All distances are taken in a straight line (aerial view) from the nearest point of source to

nearest point of the sensitive location. All internal buildings nearest point is taken as being 10 m

from the façade of the building, all other sensitive receivers nearest points are taken as being

the boundary of that property.

EPA publication 1518 ‘Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air

Emissions – Guideline’ provides the formula for a mechanical/biological plant WWTP of ‘buffer =

10n1/3 where n is population equivalent serviced’. At its peak in summer the equivalent

population is estimated as 450 people. This gives a buffer of 77 metres.

Figure 5 of the EPA document – Code of Practice for Small Wastewater Treatment Plants

(1997) provides a buffer distance guide for small WWTPs. Using the population equivalent of

approximately 450 (EP), a buffer distance of approximately 40 m as a guideline value is

calculated, see Figure 5 below. As can be seen in Table 9 above the WWTP meets both of

these buffer guideline requirement at the onsite and offsite sensitive receivers such as the

camping ground and the Princetown Township.

Figure 5 Suggested buffer distances for small WWTPs


3.5 Noise emissions

3.5.1 General Noise Emissions Impact Assessment

Noise modelling was undertaken for the WWTP based on RBC technology suggested as a

concept design as outlined in section 2.6.2 to model a generic site layout and noise emission.

The following sections inform the noise criteria, the modelling results and subsequent design

criteria. Any assumptions associated with the modelling are provided in Appendix D.

Noise Criteria

Noise from the WWTP is to be managed in accordance with the Noise from Industry in Regional

Victoria (NIRV) Publication 1411 (EPA, October 2011). NIRV is applied to manage the impact of

noise on residential and other noise-sensitive uses and should be applied when siting or

designing new or expanded industry or plant and when government authorities assess

applications for industry in regional Victoria.

NIRV allows the maximum noise level permissible in a noise sensitive area from a commercial

or industrial premise to be established for the time of day or night and land use zonings

applicable to the area. The first step is to define the land-use zones of the receiving zone1 and

generating zone2. Once the receiving and generating zones are known, then applying Table 1 in

the NIRV guideline, the Zone Levels are developed for each time period.

The obtained Zone Levels are then adjusted, depending on the receiver-to-source distance to

obtain the maximum allowable noise levels and these are compared to a minimum criterion, the

‘base noise level check’.

Criteria have been developed for the three closest sensitive receiver locations to the WWTP,

namely:

Within 10 m from the façade of the western most eco cabin located 135 metres to the

east of the central point of the proposed WWTP location;

Within 10 m from the façade of the south-eastern most façade of the activity centre some

305 metres to the northwest of the central point of the proposed WWTP;

At the western property boundary adjacent the Princetown recreation and camping

reserve.

The final derived noise criteria are summarised in Table 10. A land use map for the site is

provided in Figure 6.

Table 10 Derived NIRV noise criteria for nearest sensitive receivers dB(A) LAeq

NIRV Criteria

dB(A) LAeq

Daytime 7 am – 6 pm Mon-Fri 7 am – 1 pm Sat

Evening-time 6 pm–10 pm Mon–Fri 1 pm–10 pm Sat 7 am–10 pm Sun

Night-time 10 pm – 7 am

Eco Cabin 45 38 33

Activity Centre

Recreation & Camping Reserve

1 ‘Receiving zone’ is the land-use zone in which the noise-sensitive area is located.

2 ‘Generating zone’ is the land-use zone in which the noise emitter is located.


Figure 6 Land Use

Noise Modelling Results

Noise modelling was undertaken using Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) V4.6 noise

modelling software to predict the effects of operational related noise from the Project site.

CadnaA is a computer program for the calculation, assessment and prognosis of noise

propagation. CadnaA calculates environmental noise propagation according to ISO 9613-2,

“Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors”. Propagation calculations take

into account sound intensity losses due to hemispherical spreading, atmospheric absorption

and ground absorption. The ISO 9613-2 algorithm also takes into account the presence of a

well-developed moderate ground based temperature inversion, such as commonly occurs on

clear, calm nights or ‘downwind’ conditions which are favourable to sound propagation.

Noise modelling at sensitive receiver locations within the facility and at the boundary adjacent

the recreation and camping reserve was undertaken. The results in Table 11 show the noise

levels at 10 metres from the WWTP to be met so that by the time noise arrives at sensitive

receivers it has attenuated to the point where the NIRV criteria in Table 10 are predicted to be

met. A general layout of the concept within the model is provided in Figure 7.


Table 11 Design criteria to meet the night time noise criteria under the NIRV planning zones

ID Location Distance from WWTP footprint boundary

Cumulative Sound Pressure level at 10 m around the site footprint to achieve compliance at sensitive receiver locations

(dB LAeq)

Eco Cabin Activity Centre

Recreation & Camping Reserve

NE Quadrant

North-Eastern WWTP footprint boundary

10 m 55 58 51

SE Quadrant

South-Eastern WWTP footprint boundary

10 m 43 47 39

NW Quadrant

North-Western WWTP footprint boundary

10 m 55 59 51

SW Quadrant

South-Western WWTP footprint boundary

10 m 47 51 43

Note a design criterion has been stipulated using a sound pressure level (SPL) at 10 metres as

there is some variability in layout and sound intensity throughout the site, so by stepping back

10 metres some of this variability in noise emission can be averaged out across each quadrant.

Noise Best Practice

The following best practice environmental management requirements will form a condition of the

successful vendor engagement:

The sound pressure level of all equipment supplied under the Contract, when installed

and operating within the specified duty range, shall not exceed that stated by the

Contractor in the relevant Technical Schedule of the Tender.

Each blower/pump shall also be fitted with an acoustic hood such that noise level is

attenuated.

The equipment noise shall not exhibit any excessive tonality at specific frequencies.

Noise levels shall be less than safe working levels requiring PPE equipment.

Notwithstanding the above, any equipment supplied that, in the opinion of the Contract

Administrator, produces sound, at whatever frequency, that could be considered intrusive

may be rejected.

The Contractor shall remain wholly responsible for specifying and installing all equipment

for the WWTP to meet the requirements of the NIRV.

Noise monitoring shall be undertaken at a distance of 10 m from the plant boundary to

confirm the noise criteria in Table 11 have been met.


Figure 7 Model concept

3.6 Water

3.6.1 Proposed Wastewater Treatment System

Raw wastewater

As outlined in section 3.2, the WWTP will receive waste water from the activity centre,

restaurant, eco lodges and cabins, staff accommodation and day spa and will be designed to

treat a peak day demand of 90 kL/d to Class B standard or better. The quality of the wastewater

entering the plant is outlined in Table 12.


Table 12 Loads on WWTP

Parameter Capacity

Peak Flow 90 kL/d

Peak BOD load 47 kg/d

Peak TN load 11 kg/d

Peak TP load 1.8 kg/d

*Refer to Appendix B for basis of this calculation.

Proposed wastewater treatment processes

In this concept design the plant to be installed will be a standard package rotating biological

contactor (RBC) plant. RBCs are used widely in Australia for the treatment of wastewater at the

loads proposed above.

The wastewater treatment process will include:

Four primary tanks which together serve as:

– Primary sedimentation tanks

– Backwash balance tanks

– Humus (waste biomass) storage tank

– Biomass digesters

Six rotating biological contactors (all mounted inside containers)

A chemical dosing system for TP-removal (inside a container)

A clarifier (inside a container)

A filter feed tank

A pressure filter (inside a container)

A chlorination unit (inside a container)

A storage tank

Six pumps ranging in size from 0.5 kW to 1.9 kW

Winter storage pond (10 ML) (compacted clay or polyethylene liner)

3.6.2 Treated wastewater quality and compliance with SEPP (WoV)

Target water quality

Water for use within the proposed development would be sourced predominantly from

groundwater (approximately 80%) with the remainder planned to be sourced from rainwater

(treated to a suitable standard). Wastewater will be treated to at least Class B or better standard

(in accordance with EPA Publication 464.2) prior to use for irrigation. EPA Publication 464.2,

Table 1, specifies the requirements for Class B and Class A water as summarised in Table 13.


Table 13 Requirements for Class A and Class B Water (EPA Publication 464.2)

Class Water quality

objectives1,2

Treatment

processes3

Range of uses

A < 10 E. coli org/100

mL

Turbidity < 2 NTU4

< 10 mg/L BOD and

5 mg/L SS5

pH 6 -96

1 mg/L Cl2 residual

(or equivalent

disinfection)7

Tertiary and

pathogen reduction

with sufficient log

reductions to

achieve:

< 10 E. coli per

100 mL

< 1 helminth per

litre

< 1 protozoa per

50 litres

< 1 virus per 50

litres

Urban: (non-potable):

with uncontrolled

public access

Agricultural: e.g.

human food crops

consumed raw

Industrial: open

systems with worker

exposure potential

B < 100 E. coli

org/100 mL

< 20 mg/L BOD and

30 mg/L SS5

pH 6 -96

Secondary and

pathogen

(including helminth

reduction if

required for water

to be suitable for

cattle grazing)8

Urban (non-potable):

with controlled public

access

Agricultural: e.g. dairy

cattle, grazing, human

food crops

cooked/processed,

irrigation of fodder,

non-food crops

including turf, woodlots

and flowers.

Industrial: e.g. wash-

down water 1 Median determined over a 12-month period

2 Refer also to Chapters 6 and 7, and EPA Publication 168 for additional guidance on water quality criteria for salts, nutrients and toxicants

3 Guidance on pathogen reduction measures and required pre-treatment levels for individual disinfection processes are described in GEM: Disinfection of Reclaimed Water (EPA Victoria, 2003, Publication 730.1)

4 Turbidity is a 24-hour median value measured pre-disinfection. Maximum is 5 NTU

5 BOD = biological oxygen demand; SS = suspended solids

6 pH range is 90th percentile

7 Chlorine residual limit of greater than 1 mg/L after 30 minutes (or equivalent pathogen reduction level) is suggested where there is significant risk of human contact or where reclaimed water will be within the distribution system for prolonged periods. Applies at the end point of use.

8 Guidance on pathogen reduction measures and required pre-treatment levels for individual disinfection processes are described in GEM: Disinfection of Reclaimed Water (EPA Victoria, 2003, Publication 730.1). Helminth reduction is either detention in a pondage system for greater than or equal to 30 days, or by an EPA Victoria approved disinfection system (for example, sand or membrane filtration).


Total nitrogen (TN, mg/L) and total phosphorus (TP, mg/L) are not listed in Table 13. The

expected TN and TP concentrations of the wastewater post-treatment will be approximately 86

mg/L of TN and 12 mg/L TP. A conservative range of 50 – 100 mg/L for TN and 8-16 mg/L TP

have been used to calculate the nutrient balances as provided in section 3.7.1 and Appendix E.

3.6.3 Sludge management

Biosolids will accumulate and will be stored in the primary tanks. Approximately 90 m3 of

biosolids will be produced every 18 months. Biosolids will be pumped out approximately every

12 to 18 months and transported via a licensed waste transporter to a municipal wastewater

treatment plant for treatment. This process is similar to that implemented for the removal and

disposal of the contents of a domestic septic tank.

3.7 Land and groundwater

A detailed Land Capability Assessment (LCA) is provided in Appendix E. This section

summarises key components of the LCA.

3.7.1 Reuse of treated water

Application of waste in compliance with SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria)

Groundwater salinity is less than 500 mg/L TDS in the Lower Mid- Tertiary Aquifer (LMTA) and

Lower Tertiary Aquifer (LTA); and falls under Segment A1 of the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria 1997 (GoV).

Groundwater salinity is between 501 – 1,000 mg/L TDS in the Quaternary Aquifer (QA), and

falls within Segment A2 of the SEPP GoV. SAFE mapping data indicates a higher salinity range

(1,000 mg/L to 3,500 mg/L TDS) for the majority of the site in the water table aquifer (i.e. the

QA) which would classify the groundwater within Segment B of the SEPP GoV.

The beneficial uses of this groundwater segment are provided in Appendix E and it is

considered that with the exception of industrial water use (which is unlikely to occur in the rural

setting surrounding the site), all of the listed beneficial uses of groundwater for Segment A2 are

relevant to this site and require protection.


Irrigation system location and design

Corangamite CMA has recommended that the proposed wastewater irrigation area be located

above established 1:20 flood level - 2.02 metres AHD. Available information (as provided by

Corangamite CMA and mapping as shown in Appendix E) has subsequently been used to

define the following:

Total site area (land owned by Montarosa) = 48.42 ha

Site area below flood level = 37.5 ha

Site area above flood zone (RL 2.06 mAHD, approximately 1:20 ARI) = 11 ha

Total available area for irrigation (including the dunes but excluding building and road

areas above the flood level and excluding the recreational reserve) = 9.0 ha

Total area for irrigation, excluding the dune area of 1.5 ha = 7.5 ha

This information illustrates that there is sufficient land available to support the proposed reuse

scheme. Further information is presented in the Land Capability Assessment in Appendix E.

It is noted that the likely vegetation structure (and potential for water use) will vary dependent on

the types of areas used for irrigation. There are approximately 1.5 ha of dune areas covered

with native vegetation that could potentially be used as additional area to dispose of wastewater

in a wet year if required (situated at a RL > 3 mAHD).

The design of the irrigation system has not yet been finalised. Irrigation will most likely occur by

the supply of the treated wastewater by pipe, with water to be delivered by sprinklers and/or

drippers. The design of the irrigation system will be dependent on the total number of hectares

to be irrigated. An assessment of how many hectares are required to be irrigated, to use the

wastewater inflows plus rainfall to storages each year, has been undertaken as part of the water

balances.

Water balances

A water balance has been calculated for the area available for irrigation at the project site. The

details of the water balance are provided in Appendix E with the results summarised below.

Water balances have been calculated for three different climatic conditions to identify the land

area needed to use the water available for irrigation in an average rainfall year and also under

climatic extremes associated with a wet year and a dry year. The long-term average, 90% and

10% percentile values were used for the water and nutrient balances.

Two different sets of water balances for the three climatic conditions are shown in Table 14 to

provide an indication of the difference in water use for an area entirely planted to turf grass (a

combination of a winter grass (rye grass) and a summer grass (Couch/Bermuda Grass)) that

may be typically used on a sports field and a mixture of grass and immature trees (such as may

be more representative of the entire area available for irrigation in the early years of tree

establishment). An additional water balance is shown using Lucerne, to demonstrate the impact

that plant selection may have on increasing water use over the applied area. The water

balances are indicative and subject to a series of estimates and assumptions as provided in

Appendix E.


Table 14 Water balances for proposed irrigated area

Rainfall Total number of hectares needed for irrigation

Months of irrigation

Irrigation of a combination of 40% immature trees (i.e., eucalyptus) and 60% turf grasses

Mean Rainfall 7.4 6 months (October – March)

90th Percentile rainfall (wet year) 10.5 6 months (October – March)

10th Percentile rainfall (dry year) 5.6 6 months (October – March)

Irrigation of 100% turf grass species




Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture

Mean Rainfall 3 6 months (October – March)



The above calculations are based on information provided in EPA Publication 168 and a

number of other assumptions, which are summarised in Table 7 of Appendix E.

The detailed water balance calculations are provided in Appendix E.

In addition to the information provided in Table 7 of Appendix E, the water balances

assumed that the soils are suitable for irrigation and that the top 2 – 3 m of soil is not

sodic or saline.

The top 1 -1.5 m of soil is not saturated or waterlogged during the six-month irrigation

period.

The results show that with appropriate planting sufficient area is present at the Resort Facility to

allow for onsite irrigation.

Further assessment of the climatic scenarios will be undertaken as part of the development of

an Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) for the water reuse scheme to determine the most

appropriate plant selection required.

Management of applied nutrient loads

Using the information obtained from the water balances, nutrient balances for total

phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) have been calculated assuming that the recycled

water has a TP of 6 - 18 mg/L and a TN of 50 - 100 mg/L. These values are conservative

and encompass the expected TN and TP concentrations of the wastewater post-treatment

which will be approximately 86 mg/L of TN and 12 mg/L of TP. Nutrient balances have been

performed with reference to the nutrient uptakes shown in Table 15.

Nutrient balances have assumed that the nutrients used will be based on the percentage of

each plant type on site consistent with the assumptions of the water balance. It has been

calculated from the percentages in Table 15 that the combination of plants onsite will extract

183 kg/ha/year of nitrogen and 37.5 kg/ha/year of phosphorus.


Table 15 Mineral uptake to trees and grasses

Plant species1 Nitrogen Uptake (kg/ha/yr)

Phosphorus uptake (kg/ha/yr)

% of site cover2

Rye grass 180 70 30

Couch/Bermuda Grass 280 40 30

Eucalypt 90 15 40

Lucerne 220 - 540 20-30 NA 1 - Uptake figures presented from EPA Publication 464.2, Appendix F; 2 - % Cover only applies to the scenario with a mixture of grass and trees as noted in water balances above. Where there is a range of uptakes, the lower value has been used in nutrient balances.

Nitrogen and phosphorous nutrient balances

Nitrogen and phosphorous nutrient balances are provided in detail in Appendix E.

In summary, based on the range of nitrogen concentrations (50 – 100 mg/L) and phosphorus

concentrations (8 – 16 mg/L) in the wastewater nitrogen and phosphorus will accumulate or be

in deficit as shown in Table 16. It should be noted that the range of concentrations used have

been taken from the concentration predicted during the peak tourist season (86 mg/L of nitrogen

and 12 mg/L of phosphorus), concentrations in wastewater will be lower when averaged over a

12-month period (76 mg/L TN and 11 mg/L TP).

Table 16 Phosphorus and nitrogen nutrient balances

Climate scenario

Irrigation

ML/ha/year

Upper limit TP, mg/L

Lower limit TP, mg/L

Upper limit TN. Mg/L

Lower limit TN. mg/L


Average rainfall 2.5 2.5 kg/ha/yr accumulation

17.5 kg/ha/yr deficit

67 kg/ha/yr accumulation

58 kg/ha/yr deficit

90th percentile rainfall

1.8 8.7 kg/ha/yr deficit


3 kg/ha/yr deficit

93 kg/ha/yr deficit


3.4 16.9 kg/ha/year accumulation


157 kg/ha/year accumulation

13 kg/ha/yr deficit


Average rainfall 3.4 14 kg/ha/yr accumulation



110 kg/ha/yr deficit


2.4 1.6 kg/ha/yr deficit


40 kg/ha/yr deficit



4.4 30.4 kg/ha/yr accumulation



60 kg/ha/yr deficit

Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture (Lower limit for P uptake of 20 kg/ha/year and N uptake of 220/kg/ha/yr )

Average rainfall 6.3 80.8 kg/ha/yr accumulation1

30.40 kg/ha/yr accumulation1

410 kg/ha/yr accumulation2



5.2 63.2 kg/ha/yr deficit1

21.6 kg/ha/yr deficit1




7.6 101.6 kg/ha/yr accumulation1




Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture (Upper limit for P uptake of 30 kg/ha/year and N uptake of 540/kg/ha/yr)

Average rainfall 6.3 70.80 kg/ha/yr accumulation3



225 kg/ha/yr deficit4











1 Lower limit for P uptake of 20 kg/ha/year 2 Lower limit for N uptake of 220 kg/ha/year 3 Upper limit for P uptake of 30 kg/ha/year 4 Upper limit for N uptake of 540 kg/ha/year


Nutrient balances in Table 16 indicate that accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil

profile may occur based on 100 mg/L TN and 16 mg/L TP and is highly dependent on the plant

type selected. Table 16 does show that with appropriate plant selection nutrients in the treated

wastewater should not pose a barrier to irrigation. The nutrient balances indicate that TN and TP

closer to the lower range provided in Table 16 is preferable to the upper ranges. As discussed in

the sections above, the forecasted peak concentrations are somewhere in the mid-range of these

values and the average values are closer to the lower range. Plant selection for the site will be

important to get a balance of water use requirements and nutrient uptake. Given the relatively low

clay and organic matter content of the soil and its coarse, free draining structure, there is a

relatively low risk of phosphorus and nitrogen accumulating in the soil profile and contaminating

the soil. However, given the free-draining nature of the soils onsite, there is the potential for

nitrogen and phosphorus applied in excess to plant requirements to drain to the water table. Such

risks are discussed in section 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.

3.7.2 Impact on soil

Water balances completed for the site (refer to Appendix E) indicates that there is sufficient

land, including 7.7 ha at the site plus a possible 1.5 ha of dunes (covered with native

vegetation) to irrigate wastewater at the site (refer to Table 14). It is considered likely that the

best vegetation for the site will be a combination of native, deep rooted plants that are endemic

or otherwise well suited to the coastal environment. Specific crop factors for such plant species

were not available for the Land Capability Assessment, with water balances completed using a

number of different plant types to illustrate the potential range of water use of different plant

species that could be utilised onsite. Initial nutrient balances indicate that the proposed

wastewater quality is not prohibitive to irrigation, provided that appropriate measures are put in

place to monitor and manage nutrient loads and fertiliser inputs to prevent discharge of

contaminated drainage water to the underlying shallow groundwater table.

A preliminary risk assessment was undertaken to identify the potential impacts arising from the

irrigation of the treated wastewater at the site (Appendix E). Further refinement of this risk

assessment will be undertaken as part of the EIP for the site.

3.7.3 Impact on groundwater

The groundwater assessment (Appendix E) determined that the site is located on quaternary

age sediments and that these sediments consist of coastal dune deposits, redeposited dunes,

quartz and calcareous sands, well sorted and unconsolidated, silts and clays. The water table at

the site is shallow (less than 5 m below ground level) and situated within the Quaternary Aquifer

(QA). The site is within 1.5 km of Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems including the Gellibrand

River, La Trobe Creek, Boggy Creek and the surrounding wetlands. Groundwater levels within

the QA are influenced by water levels within the Gellibrand River estuary and the site is subject

to periodic flooding. Groundwater within the local area is extracted from the Lower Tertiary

Aquifer (> 31 m below ground level) which is separated from the water table by an aquitard

between 4 – 30 m below ground level. The site occurs within the Newlingrook Groundwater

Management Area (GMA), which pertains to all geological units at this location. The permissible

consumptive volume (PCV) for the Newlingrook GMA is 1,977 ML/year. Groundwater quality

within the water table aquifer has been assessed as Segment A2 for the purpose of the Land

Capability Assessment.

Key groundwater risks (where a risk rating prior to mitigation measures of medium or higher was

identified) identified in the Land Capability Assessment (Appendix E) include:

Impact to groundwater beneficial uses by wastewater irrigation

Irrigation run-off entering drainage lines and waterways


Mitigation measures are presented in Appendix E and will be refined as part of the EIP to be

produced for the site and submitted to EPA prior to irrigation commencing.

3.7.4 Reuse Environmental Improvement Plan

Further investigations will be undertaken as part of detailed design and development of the EIP

for submission to EPA prior to irrigation. The purpose of these investigations will be to:

Characterise the groundwater quality within the Quaternary Aquifer (QA), which is the

shallow water table aquifer at the site. Information obtained from groundwater testing will

be compared with the final proposed wastewater quality and limits for water quality

provided in the SEPP (GoV) and supporting guidelines.

Identify the most appropriate plant types for irrigation at the site with consideration to

suitability for planting in the sandy, free-draining soil types and tolerance to possible

periodic flooding of the lower root-zone during periods of flood.

Further soil testing (soil chemistry) of the proposed irrigation areas to assess the potential

for any limitations within the soil, which may limit irrigation (such as salinity or sodicity).

Soil sampling will also include the dune area, which all also require permeability testing to

identify if this 1.5 ha is suitable as an alternative area for water disposal in a wet year (if

required).

Following on from the above investigations, the following tasks will be completed:

A revised water balance and nutrient balance with reference to the water and nutrient

uptake of the preferred combination of plants for the site.

Update the risks to the beneficial uses of groundwater based on the results of

groundwater testing and comparison with wastewater quality parameters against

guideline limits.

Revise the risk assessment to show mitigation measures and revised risk levels and

formation of specific mitigation measures for inclusion in the EIP for the site to reduce the

risks identified for the site.

Further develop the contingency options for alternative disposal of excess wastewater in

storages in a wet year. This may include negotiations with local landholders to accept

excess water, irrigation of the dune area and provisions for continuously monitoring water

levels within the winter storage against developed trigger levels. Trigger levels (metres of

freeboard) will be identified against specific storage levels for both ‘watch and act’ interim

levels and action levels to allow for the implementation of the contingency measures if

required.

Detailed design of the winter storage to meet EPA requirements including the design of

the liner; either polyethylene or a suitable thickness of low permeability (10-9) m/s) clay.

Develop an EIP for the site with reference to the investigations listed above, EPA

Publication 464.2 and EPA Publication 168. The EIP will also include:

– Updated water and nutrient balances

– Soil and wastewater quality monitoring program

– Guidance on sustainable irrigation practices (application rates, times and duration,

requirement for fertiliser program, etc.)

– Control measures to mitigate risks to soil health, the natural environment and human

health as appropriate

The EIP will be submitted to EPA prior to irrigation commencing.


3.7.5 Fall back should irrigation be unavailable

Should irrigation not be possible (ie in an exceedingly wet year), Montarosa has identified the

following alternatives to onsite irrigation:

Negotiations to supply the wastewater to a neighbouring landholders site for irrigation –

there is the potential for Montarosa to identify other landholders further from the

Gellibrand River that may be able to accept wastewater. Excess wastewater held in

onsite storages would be trucked or piped from site.

Trucking of excess water held in winter storages in a wet year, offsite for disposal to

sewer

3.8 Waste

3.8.1 Industrial waste generation

Biosolids will accumulate and will be stored in the primary tanks of the WWTP. Approximately

90 m3 of biosolids will be produced every 18 months. Biosolids will be pumped out

approximately every 12 to 18 months and transported via a licensed waste transporter to a

municipal wastewater treatment plant for treatment.

3.9 Environmental management

3.9.1 Risk assessment of non-routine operations

It will be a requirement of the Tender that the vendor of the WWTP provide for a risk

assessment of non-routine operations.

3.9.2 Management systems

Environmental management systems

A Framework Environmental Management Plan has been prepared for the project that outlines

the requirements for environmental management to be applied by the vendor.

It will be a requirement of the Tender that the vendor provide a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) for the construction phase of the project. The CEMP will be required

to be developed to meet the requirements of ISO 14001:2004: Environmental Management

Systems – Requirements with guidance for use. The CEMP will include specific environmental

management strategies and requirements for the management of environmental risks including

but not limited to:

Flora and fauna

Weed and pathogens

Water quality, stormwater and erosions

Management of spoil and contaminated material (including acid sulphate soil)

Management of topsoil

Chemical and fuel management

Air quality

Noise and vibration

Waste management

Access and traffic management

Cultural and natural heritage


The CEMP will be provided to the Corangamite Shire Council for review and approval as part of

the planning permit application process.

Plant monitoring

The plant will be fully automated and provided with critical process alarms as determined by the

vendor to demonstrate robust environmental measurements for compliance monitoring

purposes.

Indicatively, the following list of parameters will be required to be monitored by the operator:

Treatment plant effluent: BOD, electrical conductivity, E. coli count, pH, concentrations of

suspended solids, ammonia-N, total-N, total-P, and total chlorine.

Effluent being disposed of by irrigation: electrical conductivity, E. coli count, pH, and

concentrations of suspended solids, total-N, total-P, sodium, magnesium, calcium,

potassium and alkalinity.


4. Other approvals 4.1 Seeking other EPA approvals

No other EPA approvals are required to be obtained for the project.


5. Conclusions Montarosa Pty Ltd is seeking to establish an integrated tourism facility with accommodation,

restaurant, and activity centre at Princetown, Victoria. As no sewer system is present in

Princetown wastewater produced at the tourism facility is to be treated at an onsite wastewater

treatment plant (WWTP). The required capacity of the WWTP has been determined to be 90 kL

per day.

The WWTP is yet to undergo detailed design but will be an off the shelf packaged plant that is

likely to use one of the following technologies:

A rotating biological contactor (RBC) plant

An activated sludge plant

A trickling filter plant

A membrane bioreactor plant

A request for tender will be submitted to vendors of packaged wastewater treatment plants. The

tender will include requirements:

To use technology that has been proven to work in Australia

To produce Class B treated wastewater (or better) which is suitable for irrigation

To meet specific noise and odour standards so that patrons of the facility and offsite

sensitive users are not impacted

It should be noted that it is an inherent requirement to the success of the tourist facility that the

WWTP not impact upon amenity of guests which will therefore also protect the amenity of offsite

sensitive receivers.

Following completion of the tender process the detailed design specification of the WWTP will

be supplied to EPA.

The treated Class B wastewater will be irrigated on site. The Land Capability Assessment

conducted indicates that with appropriate plant selection there is sufficient area on site at the

facility to irrigate all of the produced wastewater from both a volume and nutrient perspective.

Never the less alternative disposal routes have been identified should there be periods where

onsite irrigation is not possible.

GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485

Appendices


Appendix A – ASIC Company Extract

ݖ

View Details

MONTAROSA PTY LTD ACN 127 791 502

Company Summary

Name: MONTAROSA PTY LTD

ACN: 127 791 502

Registration date: 1/10/2007

Next review date: 1/10/2016

Status: Registered

Type: Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares

Locality of registered office: SPRINGBANK VIC 3352

Regulator: Australian Securities & Investments Commission

Information for purchase

Purchased information is delivered online unless specified. Payment by credit card only.

Example of paid information

Within:For:

Search company and other regis ters Search business names register Search SMSF auditor register

Check Name Availability Professional Registers Information Brokers

Company extract

Current company information

Current and historical company information

Satisfied charges

Satisfied charges

Roles & relationships

Page 1 of 1View Details - Organisations and Business Names

7/06/2016https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_...


Appendix B – Integrated Water Balance Assumptions


Occupancy Assumptions

The average and peak occupational assumptions for the various facilities are summarised in

Table B1.

Table B1 Average and peak occupational assumptions

Facility Demand Assumptions Characteristics Average number of people/day

Maximum number of people/day

Rounded Yearly average implied by proposed seasonality ratio (people/day)

Activity Centre Peak of 240, average of 90 Toilets, wash down of canoe and mountain bikes

90 240 94

Restaurant - 150 seat Café

Serviced by central kitchen at a la carte restaurant

Toilets & Kitchen

200 450 203

Restaurant - 150 seat a la carte

Kitchen, shop, convenience store, central amenities, briefing and small function centre

Kitchen combined with café

200 450 203

Lodge Dining Kitchen Kitchen 88 200 90

Eco Cabins: 14 x 2 Bed, 6 x 3 Bed

Some cabins to have a maximum 8 people per 3 bedroom and 6 people per 2 bedroom

Toilet, Kitchen, Bathroom

72 120 62

Staff on site during day

Peak of 45 FTE, average of 35 FTE during day,

Toilet 35 45 33.0

Staff Accommodation

Peak of 10, average of 5 Toilet, Kitchen, Bathroom

5 10 5.0

Swimming Pools

80% of lodge/cabin guests use day spa

Pool Top-up, Change rooms with Toilets & Showers

86 144 79

Day Spa 20% of lodge/cabin guests use day spa

Change room Shared with above

22 36 20

Eco Lodge: 20 Rooms

Maximum 3 people per room

Toilet, Bathroom

36 60 37

Demand Assumptions

Table B2 outlines the proposed average day demand for each of the facilities. For the purposes

of the integrated water balance a per capita average day demand has been adopted. These

demands can be factored up for peak day and peak hour infrastructure sizing requirements.


Table B2 Average daily water usage demand

Facility Characteristics Demand Basis

Activity Centre Toilets Wash down of mountain bikes

4 No. Urinals – 1 L/hr Average Dual Flush – 3.5 L/flush Vacuum Toilets – 1L/flush 67.5 L/d or 24,637 L/yr

Assume the average/peak usage of these toilets is equivalent to the total number of guests using activity centre and restaurant & café 15 min wash down per day at 4.5 L/min

Boat shed Wash down of canoes 67.5 L/d or 24,637 L/yr

15 min wash down per day at 4.5 L/min

Restaurant/Café - 150 seat Café & 150 seat a la carte (580 sq m servicing area inclusive of decking)

Toilets combined with activity centre Kitchen

34 L/meal/day

- Dziegielewski, B., 2000, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water, AWWA Research Foundation, U.S.A. (upper range 9 gal/meal served)

Lodge Dining (120 sq m servicing area)

Kitchen 34 L/meal/day Dziegielewski, B., 2000, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water, AWWA Research Foundation, U.S.A. (upper range 9 gal/meal served)

Eco Cabins: 14 x 2 Bed, 6 x 3 Bed

Toilet (23.4%) Misc. Taps (16.9%) Dishwasher (1.3%) Shower & bath (48.1%) Potable Leak (6.5%) Non Potable Leak (3.8%)

Daily per person adjusted based on total 216 L/person/day

Fair Practice Single Dwelling Benchmark Demand City of Sydney Water Efficiency Plan, Institute of Sustainable Futures, July 2011. Based on 2.3 people per room

Staff on site during day

Toilet Urinals – 1 L/hr Average Dual Flush – 3.5 L/flush Vacuum Toilets – 1L/flush

Assume average/peak usage of these toilets is equivalent to double the total number of staff per day

Staff Accommodation

Toilet (23.4%) Misc. Taps (16.9%) Dishwasher (1.3%) Shower & bath (48.1%) Potable Leak (6.5%) Non Potable Leak (3.8%)


Fair Practice Single Dwelling Benchmark Demand City of Sydney Water Efficiency Plan, Institute of Sustainable Futures, July 201. Based on 2.3 people per room


Facility Characteristics Demand Basis

Swimming Pools Pool Top-up Change room toilets Change room showers

30 L/bather/day 4 No. Urinals – 1 L/hr Average Dual Flush – 3.5 L/flush Vacuum Toilets – 1L/flush Showers 9 L/min (standard practice) Showers 6.5 L/min (exceeding standard practice)

Good Practice Aquatic Benchmark Demand City of Sydney Water Efficiency Plan, Institute of Sustainable Futures, July 2011 Assume the average/peak usage of these toilets is equivalent to the total number of guests using day spa & swimming pool. Assume average number of guests using the showers is based on pool use (80% of lodge and cabin guests). Average shower time 5 mins.

Day Spa Change room shared with swimming pool

- -

Eco Lodge: 20 Rooms

Toilet (23.7%) Misc. Taps (17.1%) Shower & bath (48.7%) Potable Leak (6.6%) Non Potable Leak (3.8%)


Fair Practice Single Dwelling Benchmark Demand City of Sydney Water Efficiency Plan, Institute of Sustainable Futures, July 2011. Based on 2.3 people per room.

Climate Data

The IWM Water Balance was run over a 10-year dry climate series (1997 – 2006) using data from

the Princetown meteorological station. This equates to 769.7 mm per annum on average. The

long term annual average from the Princetown meteorological station is 887.9 mm per annum.

Roof area assumptions

The roof area assumptions adopted for the purposes of modelling rainwater yields are

summarised in Table B3. The total roof area sums to 4467 sq m.

Table B3 Roof Area Assumptions

Facility Breakdown Modelling Split

Activity Centre, Restaurant/Café Total 1120 sqm 1120 sqm to 1 No. 5 kL tank

Eco Cabins 14 x 2 Bed – 78 sqm each,

6 x 3 Bed – 110 sqm each

Total 1752 sq m

798 sqm to 1 No. 5 kL tank

954 sqm to 1 No. 5 kL tank

Eco Lodge East wing (inclusive of dining, swimming pool & day spa) roof of 955 sqm

West wing roof of 560 sqm

Total 1515 sq m

1515 sq m to 1 No. 5 kL tank

Boat shed Total 80 sqm 80 sqm to 1 No. 5 kL tank


BOD Loading Assumptions

Table B4 shows the breakdown of the BOD loading by source and Table B5 shows the overall

summary of the BOD loading on the WWTP. The calculations were based on the factors in EPA

Publication 500, June 1997.

Table B4 Breakdown of BOD loading by source

Source of wastewater

Average number of people

Maximum number of people

Daily BOD (low estimate)(g/person)

Daily BOD (high estimate) (g/person)

EPA Category (EPA Publication 500)

Activity Centre 90 240 10 15 Schools and day training centres – day students

Restaurant – 150 seat cafe

200 450 8 12 Restaurants – tea room/coffee shop

Restaurant 150 seat a la carte

200 450 28 45 Restaurants – premises with more than 50 seats

Lodge Dining – 62 seats

88 200 28 45 Restaurants – premises with more than 50 seats

Eco Cabins – 14 x 2 Bed, 6 x 3 Bed

72 120 30 40 Hotels, motels and guest houses – per resident guest

Staff on site 35 45 10 15 Schools and day training centres – day students

Staff Accommodation


Eco Lodge – 20 Rooms


Table B5 Summary of BOD loading

Daily BOD (low estimate (kg)

Daily BOD (high estimate) (kg)

Annual average 14 22

Peak season average 30 47


Appendix C – Air Assessment Assumptions


Assumptions

The following assumptions have been applied to the odour assessment referred to in Section 3.3:

Site plans/layouts including detailed drawings, elevations and plan views showing site

boundaries and nearby building footprints and aerial photographs of the site were

accurate at the time of the assessment.

Odour modelling was undertaken as a single volume source encompassing the entire site

boundary to within 1 metre of either side of the boundary (25 m x 15 m), refer Figure 4 for

site layout.

Odour modelling was undertaken using AUSPLUME and the meteorological file

METSAMP. It is assumed this will provide a good approximation for use in setting the

design criteria for such near field receiver locations and low lying volume source

emissions.

No ground topography (elevation contours) have been included in the odour modelling via

METSAMP.

Locations of the Eco-Cabins represented in the model are approximate only and are

subject to change.

Locations of the property boundary is approximate only and is subject to change following

further confirmation.

The location and layout of the WWTP site and equipment is concept stage only and the specific

location or existence of items at the site is subject to the final detailed design.


Appendix D – Noise Assessment Assumptions


Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made for the noise assessment referred to in section 3.4:

No ground topography (elevation contours) have been included in the noise modelling.

Locations of the Eco-Cabins represented in the model are approximate only and are

subject to change.

Locations of the property boundary is approximate only and is subject to change following

further confirmation.

The location and layout of the WWTP site and equipment is concept stage only and the

specific location or existence of items at the site is subject to the final detailed design.

Sound power levels and noise spectra used in the model are indicative only and will be

subject change depending on the final package selection and final design and layout of

the WWTP.

A ground absorption factor of 0.5 was used in the noise modelling.

A max order of reflection of one was used in the noise modelling.

Temperature and humidity were set to 10 degrees Celsius and 70 % humidity

respectively.

All sensitive receiver locations were located 1.5 metres AGL.

All design criterion locations were located 1.5 metres AGL and 10 m from the centre of

each quadrants site boundary.

Construction noise has not been considered in this assessment.


Appendix E – Land Capability Assessment

Montarosa Pty Ltd Princetown Resort Development

Land Capability Assessment

September 2016

GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485/16 | i

Table of contents

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

1.1 Site overview ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Purpose of this report........................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Scope of works .................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Information sources ............................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Land Capability Assessment Tasks ..................................................................................... 3

2.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. Legislation and policy ..................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Relevant legislation .............................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Groundwater quality ............................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Wastewater irrigation ........................................................................................................... 6

4. Existing conditions ......................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Site setting ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Geology ................................................................................................................................ 9

4.3 Soil conditions .................................................................................................................... 10

5. Groundwater assessment ............................................................................................................ 11

5.2 Interaction with the proposed development with groundwater .......................................... 15

6. Proposed irrigation scheme ......................................................................................................... 16

6.1 Area available for irrigation ................................................................................................ 16

6.2 Wastewater quality ............................................................................................................. 16

6.3 Irrigation system design and operation .............................................................................. 19

6.4 Water balances .................................................................................................................. 19

6.5 Management of applied nutrient loads............................................................................... 22

6.6 Management of applied salt loads, sodicity and heavy metals ......................................... 26

6.7 Management of wastewater pH ......................................................................................... 27

7. Alternatives to onsite wastewater irrigation .................................................................................. 28

8. Preliminary risk assessment ........................................................................................................ 29

8.1 Requirement ...................................................................................................................... 29

8.2 Process .............................................................................................................................. 29

8.3 Risk rankings ..................................................................................................................... 32

9. Conclusions and next steps ......................................................................................................... 38

9.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 38

9.2 Next steps to be completed ............................................................................................... 39

10. References ................................................................................................................................... 41

11. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 42

ii | GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485/16

Table index Table 1 Protected beneficial uses and groundwater segments ........................................................ 6

Table 2 Summary of Climate Data .................................................................................................... 9

Table 3 Hydrogeological summary ................................................................................................. 11

Table 4 Requirements for Class A and Class B Water (EPA Publication 464.2) ........................... 17

Table 5 Estimated groundwater quality .......................................................................................... 18

Table 6 Water balances for proposed irrigated area ...................................................................... 20

Table 7 Assumptions and limitations of the water balances ........................................................... 20

Table 8 Mineral uptake to trees and grasses .................................................................................. 23

Table 9 Nitrogen nutrient balances ................................................................................................. 23

Table 10 Phosphorus nutrient balances ........................................................................................... 24

Table 11 Consequence criteria ......................................................................................................... 30

Table 12 Likelihood categories ........................................................................................................ 31

Table 13 Risk rating matrix .............................................................................................................. 31

Table 14 Data / information availability ratings ................................................................................. 31

Table 15 Risk Register ...................................................................................................................... 33

Table 16 Simplified stratigraphic profile ............................................................................................ 45

Table 17 SAFE groundwater layers .................................................................................................. 48

Table 18 Lithological logs of bore WRK963884................................................................................ 50

Table 19 Summary of nearby WMIS groundwater bores ................................................................. 52

Table 20 SEPP groundwater segments ............................................................................................ 56

Figure index

Figure 1 Site location ....................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 2 Site location, surface geology and identified groundwater bores ...................................... 47

Figure 3 Water table aquifers ........................................................................................................... 49

Figure 4 Depth to water table ........................................................................................................... 54

Figure 5 Groundwater salinity .......................................................................................................... 58

Appendices Appendix A – Hydrogeological assessment

Appendix B – Water and nutrient balances

Appendix C - Flooding Extent Site Map

GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485/16 | 1

1. Introduction 1.1 Site overview

Montarosa Pty Ltd wish to establish an integrated tourism facility with accommodation,

restaurant, adventure hub and other facilities at a site located at Old Coach Road, Princetown,

Victoria (referred to as the project, the site or proposed development herein).

The proposal seeks to establish an integrated eco-tourism facility on the subject site with the

following components:

Accommodation precinct:

Eco-lodge with ancillary office, function room, pool and day spa

Eco-cabins

Restaurant / Day Centre / Activity Precinct:

Restaurant with a total capacity of 300 persons with ancillary souvenir sales, reception

and briefing facilities

Panoramic lookout structure

Informal recreation activities, including:

– Walking/cycling tours and trails, including boardwalks and picnic areas

– Wildlife viewing

– Kids playground

Water-based pleasure activities from proposed jetty pontoon:

Canoe, kayak, stand up paddle board and small boat eco tours and hire

1.2 Purpose of this report

Montarosa plan to treat wastewater generated from the proposed development to at least Class

B standard (Class B though actual parameters may be Class A)1 and to irrigate the treated

wastewater to land at the site. To assess the feasibility of irrigation of wastewater at the site, a

land capability assessment (LCA) is required to demonstrate that there is sufficient land

available to take the projected volume of reclaimed water and nutrient loads from the

wastewater and to verify that the winter storage is sized appropriately. This document details

the LCA completed by GHD for submission to the EPA as part of the Works Approval

Application for the site.

1.3 Scope of works

The LCA has been prepared with reference to relevant guidelines and standards, including, but

not limited to: EPA Publication 464.2 – Guidelines for Environmental Management: Use of

Reclaimed Water and EPA Publication 168 – Guidelines for Wastewater Irrigation. The EPA’s

works approval application guidelines specifies information that must be provided for the

proposed re-use of treated wastewater. To address these requirements, the land capability

assessment includes:

1 In accordance with EPA Publication 464.2 Guidelines for Environmental Management: Use of Reclaimed Water

2 | GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485/16

A desktop review of existing hydrology and hydrogeology to characterise the existing

surface water, geology and groundwater environments relevant to the site. This desktop

review is required to identify the hydrology systems and associated beneficial uses,

receptors and water users for the site in accordance with the State environment

protection policy (Groundwaters of Victoria) (SEPP (GoV)).

An assessment of risks to the hydrogeological environmental associated with the

construction and operation of the project, in particular the proposed water re-use scheme

with management actions identified as required.

Identification of the size of the area required for irrigation based on a water balance

(taking into account a 90th percentile rainfall event) and an assessment of the capacity of

the parcel of land for irrigation to receive the volume of water proposed and the

associated nutrient load (as developed by a nutrient balance).

An assessment of the suitability of the proposed winter storages to hold excess water

prior to irrigation in a 90th percentile rainfall year supported by the water balances which

rely on information on inflow volumes from the wastewater treatment plant and climate

data for the site.

An assessment of the longer-term sustainability of irrigation with wastewater and risks to

soil health associated with the wastewater irrigation with management actions to reduce

risks associated with wastewater re-use identified as required.


2. Methods 2.1 Information sources

The LCA was completed with reference to:

Information provided by Montarosa related to bore water quality (which will provide the

main source of water (80%) for the site, with the remainder sourced from

rainwater/potable water)

Information obtained from investigations undertaken as part of the WAA to assess

occupancy levels, water treatment requirements, wastewater inflows and wastewater

quality

Data and findings presented in the preliminary LCA (Brian Consulting Pty Ltd, December

2015) with regards to soil texture and depth, depth to groundwater and permeability and

drainage characteristics of the soil profile

Publicly available published and unpublished hydrological information (such as

hydrogeological reports in the proximity of the site, published geological and

hydrogeological mapping, government produced literature (such as meteorological and

topographical data and groundwater zones and overlays)

State Groundwater Management System (Victorian Data Warehouse).

2.2 Land Capability Assessment Tasks

2.2.1 Capacity of the land environment to receive wastewater

The information sources listed in section 2.1 were used in conjunction with historical climate

information obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (rainfall, evaporation and

evapotranspiration) to complete:

Water balances for average, wet (90% percentile) and dry (10%) rainfall years

Nutrient balances for phosphorus and nitrogen based on the proposed irrigation volumes

per hectare of land and guidance on maximum nitrogen loadings

A comparison of available water quality data (salinity, nutrients, etc.) for the treated

wastewater against indicative values provided in EPA guidelines (EPA Publications 168

and 464.2).

The information obtained from the above tasks was then used to undertake a preliminary

assessment of the feasibility of the proposed wastewater irrigation at the site.

2.2.2 Characterisation of the groundwater environment and potential impacts from wastewater irrigation

The information sources in section 2.1 (and further resources summarised in Appendix A) were

used to characterise the groundwater environment to provide a concise summary of:

Site geology and stratigraphy

Identified aquifers

Local groundwater bores, groundwater uses, bore yields, groundwater depth and quality

The presence of groundwater management units (GMU), Groundwater Dependant

Ecosystems (GDE) or acid sulphate soils


Beneficial uses for protection under the State environment protection policy

(Groundwaters of Victoria)

2.3 Assumptions

This LCA has been prepared during the concept design phase for the proposed development. A

more detailed assessment of wastewater flows, treatment and volumes will be undertaken at the

detailed design phase of the project to refine the project design and further reduce the risks to

the environment, including those identified as part of this LCA.

Additional data used to compile this LCA was sourced from Montarosa Pty Ltd and GHD

technical specialists.

Information regarding soil texture and depth is based on the limited site investigations

undertaken by Brian Consulting (2015). It is assumed this information is correct.

No soil chemistry data was provided but it is assumed this information will be obtained during

the detailed design stage.

Water balances have been undertaken on the basis that climate information obtained from

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) sites accurately reflects the conditions at the project site. The

nearest BOM weather station is located close by in Princetown, Victoria.

An Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) will be required for the site before irrigation occurs.

This LCA does not constitute an EIP but will assist in the development of any subsequent EIP at

the detailed design stage.


3. Legislation and policy This section provides an overview of the key legislation and policy documents, which form the

regulatory framework for this assessment.

3.1 Relevant legislation

The framework for the management of groundwater in Victoria is established primarily

through the:

Water Act 1989

Environment Protection Act 1970

In the context of groundwater, the Water Act principally deals with the sustainable, efficient and

equitable management and allocation of the resource. It also provides a means for the

protection and enhancement of all elements of the terrestrial phase of the water cycle.

The Environment Protection Act empowers the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA

Victoria) to implement regulations, maintain State Environment Protection Policies (SEPPs) and

protect the environment from pollution and the management of wastes. The Act regulates the

discharge or emission of waste to water, land or air by a system of Works Approvals and

licences. It has the objectives of preventing and managing pollution and environmental damage,

and the setting of environmental quality goals and programs.

A number of subordinate legislation and guidelines exist which further expand on the general

tenets of the Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act. SEPPs set out Victorian

Government policies that control and reduce environmental pollution and have been formulated

for discharges to atmosphere, water, land and noise emissions. These policies protect the

environment and human activities (beneficial uses) from pollution caused by waste discharges

and noise and are subordinate documents to the Environment Protection Act.

3.2 Groundwater quality

Under the Environment Protection Act and on the recommendation of the EPA Victoria, the

Victorian Government enacted the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Groundwaters

of Victoria). This policy aims to maintain and, where possible, improve groundwater quality to

protect beneficial uses. Groundwater with higher concentrations of salinity (measured as

mg/L TDS) is deemed to have fewer beneficial uses.

SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) forms the primary guide to determining existing impacts and

the risk of impacts to groundwater quality. The policy is based on a number of principles,

which include:

Groundwater is an undervalued resource and all Victorians have a shared responsibility

for its protection.

Protection of groundwater (and aquifers) is fundamental to the protection of connected

surface waters.

Groundwater (and aquifers) should be protected to the greatest extent practicable from

serious or irreversible damage arising from human activity.

Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) principles are applicable (e.g.

polluter pays, intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle).


The policy provides that groundwater be categorised into segments, with each segment having

particular identified uses. The segments and their beneficial uses are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Protected beneficial uses and groundwater segments

Beneficial use

Segment (mg/L TDS)

A1 A2 B C D

0–500 501–1,000 1,001–3,501 3,501–13,000 >13,000

Maintenance of ecosystems

Potable water

Desirable

Acceptable

Potable mineral water supply

Agriculture, parks and gardens

Stock watering

Industrial water use

Primary contact recreation (e.g. swimming / bathing)

Buildings and structures

Note: TDS – Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L). Source EPA 1997

EPA Victoria may determine these beneficial uses do not apply to groundwater where:

There is insufficient yield.

The background level of a water quality indicator other than TDS precludes a

beneficial use.

The soil characteristics preclude a beneficial use.

A Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ) has been declared.

The SEPP (GoV) requires that occupational health and safety, odour and amenity also be

considered, due to the fact that vapours sourced from impacted groundwater may present a

potential risk to workers, and that odours or discolouration may result in degradation of overall

beneficial use.

3.3 Wastewater irrigation

3.3.1 National guidelines

Under a National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS), guidelines for water recycling

have been prepared to enable a nationally consistent approach to the management of health

and environmental risks from water recycling. The guidelines, NRMMC et al (2006) are not

mandatory and have no formal legal status however the States are encouraged to adopt them.

The guidelines deal with the theory and practice of water recycling and include:

The risk management framework

Managing health risks


Managing environmental risks

Monitoring

Consultation and communication

3.3.2 Victorian approach

Under the Environment Protection Act (1970) (Act) discharges to the environment must be

managed so that they do not adversely affect the receiving environment, e.g. land, surface

water or groundwater. This Act includes works approval and licensing requirements

administered by EPA Victoria, for the appropriate control of such discharges.

Government declares the SEPP and Industrial waste management policy (IWMP) under the Act.

The SEPP provides ambient environmental quality objectives and attainment programs for

achieving these objectives. Compliance with the relevant policies must be attained for all

activities that involve reclaimed water treatment and use.

Whilst waste discharges to the environment are typically subject to works approvals and

licensing, the EPA can however, provide for exemptions where reclaimed water can be

considered a resource. EPA guideline 464.2 (Use of Reclaimed Water) defines acceptable

discharge, deposit and operation specifications that are required for the determination of an

exemption, i.e.:

Reclaimed water treatment and quality

Site selection and management

Permitted end uses and restrictions

Monitoring, reporting auditing

Environmental improvement plans (EIPs)

EPA guideline 464.2 specifies measures to meet performance objectives for re-use schemes for

reclaimed water however, it notes that the guidelines are not inflexible. As such, alternative

measures may be proposed provided it is demonstrated that the alternative measures achieve

the required performance objectives. EPA guideline 464.2 applies to the use of reclaimed water

from sewerage treatment plants. However, the guidelines state that the principles (performance

objectives and suggested measures) may be applied to the reuse of appropriately treated

industrial water such as that generated from intensive animal industries (feedlots, piggeries and

dairies) and food and beverage manufacturing.

EPA Publication 168 (Guidelines for Wastewater Irrigation) provides details on designing and

operating a wastewater irrigation scheme that is sustainable and minimises the risk of pollution

to land, water and groundwater. EPA Publication 168 provides guidance on how to create a

water balance to reduce the risk of excessive application of wastewater and how to assess

nutrient inputs to soil from wastewater against crop requirements. It also provides information on

the potential impacts of salts, nutrients, pH and heavy metals in wastewater on soil and crop

health, which are important factors in assessing the feasibility and longer-term sustainability of a

wastewater re-use scheme.


4. Existing conditions 4.1 Site setting

4.1.1 Study area

The subject area is located in the township of Princetown, Victoria.

The site lies near the mouth of the Gellibrand River (which is located approximately 600 m

downstream of the site), which forms a natural boundary in three directions.

Access to the site is via Old Coach Road, which is currently an unsealed road that connects

directly to Great Ocean Road via a bridge crossing Gellibrand River with a 3.6 metre width. An

undeveloped road is visible on the Title Plan and dissects the site. This ‘Paper Road’ is Crown

Land, managed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

4.1.2 Neighbouring land use

Based upon a desktop review of aerial photography the site is bounded by the Gellibrand River

to the north, east and west. Coastal Crown land (foreshore reserve) and the Princetown oval

and recreation grounds abuts the southern boundary.

The township of Princetown lies west of the Gellibrand River. The town of Princetown is situated

above the level of the Gellibrand River and is not supplied with a piped sewer system (sewage

contained by septic tanks).

It is understood that beef and dairy farmers graze cattle along the river upstream of the site.

Montarosa has advised that a review of aerial photography has indicated expanding areas of

phragmites (Common or Ditch reed) along the Gellibrand River over the last 100 years.

Disturbance of wetlands and waterways that removes competitors and enriches nutrients

strongly promotes the spread of phragmites2. An assessment of local flora is outside the scope

of this report however, the presence of phragmites may therefore be a possible indicator of

nutrient enrichment of the water from activities upstream of the proposed development site.

4.1.3 Site topography

Princetown is located on the low-lying coastal fringe abutting the Gellibrand River mouth. The

site topography is slightly undulating with a minor fall northward.

4.1.4 Neighbouring waterways

The Gellibrand River encircles the property to the north, east and west. The river rises from the

Otway Ranges to the north and flows southwest to its mouth at Princetown. It receives some of

the stormwater flows from Princetown and meanders through the Great Otway and Port

Campbell National Park. The estuarine environment of the Gellibrand River mouth is located

approximately 250 m downstream to the south of the site.

4.1.5 Flood potential

As part of the preliminary LCA undertaken for the site (Brian Consulting Pty Ltd, December

2015) a request was sent to the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (Corangamite

CMA) for information on the 100 year and 20 year ARI flood levels. The Corangamite CMA

responded by letter in October 2015 (Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, 2015)

and advised that the CMA does not have detailed flood modelling for this location but that this

2 Flora Database – the Western Australian Flora, https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/browse/profile/555, accessed 31 May 2016.


site is regularly (annually) subject to estuarine flooding during dry weather and when the mouth

of the estuary is closed.

Subsequently, a flood assessment was undertaken of the site (GHD, 2016),which provides

indicative flood levels for flood events of a frequency of 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, 1:50 and 1:100

years (ARI). Correspondence that followed between GHD on behalf of Montarosa and

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority in March 2016 concluded that treated

wastewater must only be dispersed above the 1:20 ARI flood level, assessed to be 2.02 mAHD

(GHD, 2016).

The advice provided by the Corangamite CMA was used to assess the potential area for

irrigation available, situated above 2.02 m AHD (refer to section 6.1).

4.1.6 Climate data

Climate data was obtained from the Victorian Bureau of Meteorology from Station 90071 located

at Princetown. The mean data is summarised in Table 2 which is based on a 127 year period of

rainfall record. The long term annual rainfall for the site is 885 mm.

Table 2 Summary of Climate Data

Month

Temperature (ºC) Record 1889 - 2015

Maximum Minimum Average Rainfall

90% Percentile (wet

year)

10% Percentile (dry year)

Evaporation (daily average, mm)

Jan 22.4 12.8 39.7 74.03 10.11 12.8

Feb 22.8 13.4 37.5 75.62 9.05 13.4

Mar 21.2 12.4 52 91.59 15.44 12.4

Apr 18.4 10.6 72.8 122.37 28.37 10.6

May 15.8 8.9 91.1 143.1 37.76 8.9

Jun 13.6 7.2 100.2 156.88 49.88 7.2

Jul 13.1 6.5 108.1 156.18 61.96 6.5

Aug 13.9 6.8 108.7 165.92 61.4 6.8

Sep 15.4 7.7 89.9 126.34 47.08 7.7

Oct 17.3 8.8 78.7 127.34 38.64 8.8

Nov 18.9 10.2 60.2 100.12 27.3 10.2

Dec 20.7 11.5 51.6 91.94 16.8 11.5

Annual 17.8 9.7 885.1 1116.87 735.16 9.7

Note: 1 Record length: Rainfall: 1899 – present, Site elevation: 7 m

4.2 Geology

4.2.1 Geological setting

The site in question is located on the Victorian Geological Survey’s Port Campbell Embayment

(1:250,000) Zone 54 geological map sheet. The underlying site lies upon (Quaternary age)

sediments. These sediments consist of coastal dune deposits, redeposited dunes, quartz and

calcareous sands, well sorted and unconsolidated, silts and clays.


4.3 Soil conditions

A preliminary soil survey at the site has been performed to determine the suitability of soils for

irrigation with treated wastewater (Brian Consulting Pty Ltd, December 2015). This assessment

described the soil profile in the eastern section of the site as dark brown soft, clayey sand

topsoil overlaying dark grey stiff highly plastic sandy clay, light grey silty clay marl and light

brown calcareous sand of medium density.

The soil profile in the western section of the site consisted of dark brown, soft, sandy topsoil

overlying dark brown coarse medium dense calcareous sand.

Brian Consulting (2015) undertook percolation testing at the eastern and western portion of the

site. The average percolation rate at the eastern site was 378 mm/hr (9.07 m/day) indicating

rapid draining characteristics. This compared to the calcareous sands of the western site, where

the average percolation rate was 2440 mm/hr (58.6 m/day) with very rapid draining

characteristics.


5. Groundwater assessment The desktop hydrogeological assessment, including referenced figures, is in Appendix A. The results are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Hydrogeological summary

Conceptual Element Description Figure reference

(Appendix A)

Relevant surface water features 2

Gellibrand River straddles the perimeter of the site, while its tributary, Latrobe Creek, is situated immediately west of the site.

The site lies within, and is surrounded by, swampland near the site.

The Southern Ocean is located approximately 50 km southeast of the site at Cape Otway.

Figure 1

Outcrop geology 1 Alluvial sediments of the Gellibrand River comprise the surficial geology. This unit varies in

thickness and is likely to be around 5 m thick at this location.

Figure 2



(Appendix A)

Hydrogeological

setting 3

An indicative hydrogeological setting of the project site is shown below.

Period Sub Period Geological Formation

Hydrostratigraphic Unit

Lithology Indicative Salinity (mg/L TDS)

Indicative Depth (m)

Quaternary Quaternary Aquifer (QA)

sand, gravels, clay, silts

500 – 1,000 0 - 4

Tertiary Miocene Gellibrand Marl Upper-Mid Tertiary Aquitard (UMTD)

clay, silt, marl (fractured rock) and minor sand

Unknown 4 - 30

Eocene-Oligocene

Clifton Formation

Lower Mid-Tertiary Aquifer (LMTA)

sand, gravel, limestone (fractured rock), minor clay, occasional coal

< 500 30 -31

Mid-Lower Eocene

Mepunga Formation, Dilwyn Formation, pebble Point Formation, Moomowroong Sands and Wiridjil Gravel.

Lower Tertiary Aquifer (LTA)

sand, gravel, clay and silt, minor coal

< 500 31 -370

Mesozoic to Palaeozoic

Cretaceous and Permian

Sherbrook Group

Otway Group (Eumeralla Formation)

Cretaceous and Permian Sediments Aquitard (CPS)

Sandstone, mudstone, siltstone (all fractured rock), sand and minor coal

Unknown 370 -500

Palaeozoic Basement rocks Basement rocks Aquifer (BSE)

sedimentary and igneous rocks

500 – 1,000 500 -700

Figure 3



(Appendix A)

Relevant aquifer/s1, 3 The shallowest aquifer at the site is the outcropping Quaternary Aquifer (QA), this is separated

from Lower-Mid Tertiary Aquifer (UMTA)/Lower Tertiary Aquifer (LTA) by the Upper-Mid Tertiary

Aquitard (UTMD).

The water table is likely to occur within the Quaternary Aquifer (QA) at the site. This inference is

supported by DELWP data1 (refer to section 5.1.1)

Figure 3

Depth to water

table 3

Available desktop information indicates the depth to groundwater is likely to be less than 5 m

below ground level across the majority of the site.

Figure 4

Groundwater quality

& beneficial uses1,3

Groundwater salinity is less than 500 mg/L TDS in the LMTA and LTA; and falls under

Segment A1 of the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria 1997

(GoV).

Groundwater salinity is between 501 – 1,000 mg/L TDS in the QA, and falls within Segment A2

of the SEPP GoV. SAFE mapping data indicates a higher salinity range (1,000 mg/L to

3,500 mg/L TDS) for the majority of the site in the water table aquifer (i.e. the QA) which would

classify the groundwater within Segment B of the SEPP GoV.

Figure 5

Groundwater users4 Seven existing bores were identified within a 1.5 km radius of Princetown. Two of the identified

bores did not specify use. Two of the bores were drilled for domestic purposes, another two of

the bores were used for industrial purposes and the remaining bore was used for commercial

purposes. Only four bores record depth information, with depths ranging from 97 m to 625 m.

Most bores show depths of less than 130 m deep, indicating that typically, the LTA is developed.

Figure 2

Groundwater yields

/ aquifer

parameters4

No groundwater yield information was available for bores located within 1.5 km of Princetown. Figure 2



(Appendix A)

Groundwater flow4,1 No groundwater level information was available from WMIS and no regional hydrogeological

mapping information was available. On a local scale based on the SAFE mapping, groundwater

flow in the water table aquifer is likely to be towards the main surface water features such as the

Gellibrand River and Latrobe Creek.

Groundwater

management

arrangements

The site occurs within the Newlingrook Groundwater Management Area (GMA), which pertains

to all geological units at this location. The permissible consumptive volume (PCV) for the

Newlingrook GMA is 1,977 ML/year.

Figure 1

Potential for GDEs5 The Gellibrand River, Latrobe Creek, Boggy Creek and surrounding wetlands (deep marsh,

shallow marsh, permanent saline and semi saline) are situated within 1.5 km of the site and are

identified as Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems (GDEs) ecosystems that rely in the surface

expression of groundwater.

(1) Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP): Victorian Aquifer Framework (VAF) Secure Allocation Future Entitlements (SAFE) project data (2) DELWP VicMap spatial data (3) DELWP Groundwater Resource Report tool. Accessed online @ http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/water/groundwater/groundwater-resource-reports

(4) DELWP Water Measurement Information System (WMIS). Accessed online @ http://data.water.vic.gov.au/monitoring.htm (5) Bureau of Meteorology: GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas


5.1.1 Assumptions and limitations

The hydrogeological investigations relied on a number of assumptions related to data sources

and their availability, these assumptions and limitations are provided in Appendix A.

5.2 Interaction with the proposed development with groundwater

The following main points have been summarised from the hydrogeological assessment in the

sections above and in Appendix A:

The water table is within the Quaternary Aquifer (QA), with an indicative depth of 0-4 m

bgl. The Upper-Mid Tertiary Aquitard (UMTD) underlies the QA as a low permeability

layer and separates the QA from the lower aquifers (including the LTA).

There is some inconsistency in the regional mapping of the groundwater quality in the

water table aquifer directly beneath the site (i.e. the QA) with it either being in the range:

– 501 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L TDS, Segment A2 (DELWP ,2015), or

– 1,000 mg/L to 3,500 mg/L TDS, Segment B (SAFE dataset).

As a conservative measure, for the purpose of this assessment, the groundwater within

the water table aquifer at the site has been classified as Segment A2 under the SEPP

(GoV) (refer to Appendix A).

There is limited groundwater flow information available in the area. Based on the SAFE

mapping of the water table aquifer, it is likely that groundwater flows are influenced at the

site by the Gellibrand River, which largely encircles the site.

The water table (QA) near the site is likely to interact with three GDEs within 1.5 km of the

site. Irrigation at the site must be managed to prevent the discharge of contaminated

groundwater to the QA, which may in turn impact nearby GDEs (i.e., the beneficial uses

of maintenance of ecosystems and primary contact recreation).

Groundwater quality was also tested from a LTA bore near Princetown (refer to section

6.2) this bore showed salinity in the order of 400 mg/L TDS (Segment A1, SEPP GoV).

Only four bores record depth information, with depths ranging from 97 m to 625 m. Most

bores show depths of less than 130 m deep, indicating that typically, the LTA is

developed for groundwater extraction. The shallow water table (QA) is unlikely to be

suitable for bores for consumptive purposes (i.e., drinking water and stock, agriculture,

parks and gardens and domestic purposes). The UMTD (aquitard) separates the water

table from the LTA and therefore is unlikely to interact with groundwater extracted from

local bores.

The site is within the Newlingrook GMA and has a permissible consumptive volume of

1,977 ML/year (DELWP 2016) and licences cannot be issued to extract above this

amount.


6. Proposed irrigation scheme 6.1 Area available for irrigation

As discussed in section 4.1.5, the proposed development site is immediately adjacent the

estuarine environment of the Gellibrand River mouth and is located approximately 600 m

downstream to the south of the site. As such, the site is subject to periodic flooding on an

annual basis. Corangamite CMA has recommended that the proposed wastewater irrigation

area be located above 2.02 metres AHD. Available information (as provided by Corangamite

CMA and mapping as shown in Appendix C) has subsequently been used to define the

following:

Total site area (land owned by Montarosa) = 48.42 ha

Site area below flood level = 37.5 ha

Site area above flood zone (RL 2.06 mAHD, approximately 1:20 ARI) = 11 ha

Total available area for irrigation (including the dunes but excluding building and road

areas above the flood level and excluding the recreational reserve) = 9.0 ha

Total area for irrigation (excluding the dune area of 1.5 ha, building and road areas above

the flood level and the recreational reserve) = 7.5 ha

This information is presented in Appendix C..

It is considered that the recreational reserve will not be available for irrigation. It is noted that the

likely vegetation structure (and potential for water use) will vary dependent on the types of areas

used for irrigation. There are approximately 1.5 ha of dune areas covered with native vegetation

that could potentially be used as additional area to dispose of wastewater in a wet year if

required (situated at a RL > 3 mAHD).

6.2 Wastewater quality

Water for use within the proposed development would be sourced predominantly from

groundwater (approximately 80%) with the remainder planned to be sourced from rainwater

(treated to a suitable standard). Wastewater will be treated to at least Class B standard (in

accordance with EPA Publication 464.2) prior to use for irrigation. EPA Publication 464.2,

Table 1, specifies the requirements for Class B and Class A water as summarised in Table 4.

Class B water will be suitable for irrigation at the site in accordance with EPA Publication 464.2

provided the additional controls required by EPA Publication 464.2 for Class B water (urban –

with public access restrictions) compared with Class A water (urban - uncontrolled public

access) are implemented. Montarosa retains the option to treat the wastewater to Class A

standard, if deemed required at a later stage in the project.


Table 4 Requirements for Class A and Class B Water (EPA Publication 464.2)

Class Water quality objectives1,2 Treatment processes3 Range of uses

A < 10 E. coli org/100 mL

Turbidity < 2 NTU4

< 10 mg/L BOD and 5

mg/L SS5

pH 6 -96

1 mg/L Cl2 residual (or

equivalent disinfection)7

Tertiary and pathogen

reduction with sufficient log

reductions to achieve:

< 10 E. coli per 100 mL

< 1 helminth per litre

< 1 protozoa per 50 litres

< 1 virus per 50 litres

Urban: (non-potable): with

uncontrolled public access

Agricultural: e.g. human

food crops consumed raw

Industrial: open systems

with worker exposure

potential

B < 100 E. coli org/100 mL

< 20 mg/L BOD and 30

mg/L SS5

pH 6 -96

Secondary and pathogen

(including helminth

reduction if required for

water to be suitable for

cattle grazing)8

Urban (non-potable): with

controlled public access

Agricultural: e.g. dairy

cattle, grazing, human food

crops cooked/processed,

irrigation of fodder, non-

food crops including turf,

woodlots and flowers.

Industrial: e.g. wash-down

water 1 Median determined over a 12-month period

2 Refer also to Chapters 6 and 7, and EPA Publication 168 for additional guidance on water quality criteria for salts, nutrients and toxicants

3 Guidance on pathogen reduction measures and required pre-treatment levels for individual disinfection processes are described in GEM: Disinfection of Reclaimed Water (EPA Victoria, 2003, Publication 730.1)

4 Turbidity is a 24-hour median value measured pre-disinfection. Maximum is 5 NTU

5 BOD = biological oxygen demand; SS = suspended solids

6 pH range is 90th percentile

7 Chlorine residual limit of greater than 1 mg/L after 30 minutes (or equivalent pathogen reduction level) is suggested where there is significant risk of human contact or where reclaimed water will be within the distribution system for prolonged periods. Applies at the end point of use.

8 Guidance on pathogen reduction measures and required pre-treatment levels for individual disinfection processes are described in GEM: Disinfection of Reclaimed Water (EPA Victoria, 2003, Publication 730.1). Helminth reduction is either detention in a pondage system for greater than or equal to 30 days, or by an EPA Victoria approved disinfection system (for example, sand or membrane filtration).

Future groundwater testing will be undertaken once a new bore is established at the site and a

groundwater extraction licence is in place. A groundwater bore that services the town has been

sampled to provide an indication of groundwater quality that will be available at the site. The

town bore is located approximately 300 m from the proposed location of the new bore and is

considered to provide a reasonable approximation of groundwater that will be available for the

site. The groundwater quality (as sampled on 24 March 2016) is summarised in. From it is

noted that:

Manganese is higher than the guideline limit specified for health in the Australian Drinking

Water Guidelines (0.5 mg/L)

Iron is higher than the guideline limit specified for aesthetics in the Australian Drinking

Water Guideline (0.3 mg/L)


Total nitrogen (TN, mg/L) and total phosphorus (TP, mg/L) are not listed in Table 5, however, for

the purposes of this LCA assessment, it has been advised that the expected TN and TP

concentrations of the wastewater post-treatment will be approximately 86 mg/L of TN and 12

mg/L TP. A conservative range of 50 – 100 mg/L for TN and 8-16 mg/L TP have been used to

calculate the nutrient balances as provided in section 6.5.

It has been advised (by GHD’s Process Engineering team designing the Wastewater Treatment

System) that the TDS of the wastewater (approximately 700 mg/L) will be approximately 300

mg/L higher than that of the groundwater supply.

Table 5 Estimated groundwater quality

Parameter Total concentration (mg/L)

Arsenic 0.001

Barium 0.052

Bicarbonate 210

Boron 0.13

Bromide 0.4

Carbonate <2

Chloride 140

Copper 0.006

Fluoride 0.2

Iron Total 1.3

Manganese Total 0.18

Nickel 0.001

Nitrate 0.1

Strontium 0.64

Sulphate 25

Zinc 0.017

TDS 440

pH (in pH units) 7.6

Electrical conductivity (µS/cm) 950

Suspended solids 4


6.3 Irrigation system design and operation

6.3.1 Irrigation system design

The design of the irrigation system has not yet been finalised. Irrigation will most likely occur by

the supply of the treated wastewater by pipe, with water to be delivered by sprinklers and/or

drippers. The design of the irrigation system will be dependent on the total number of hectares

to be irrigated and the classification of the water irrigated (i.e., if Class B is used irrigation will

need to be managed to minimise the risk of exposure to staff and visitors). An assessment of

how many hectares are required to be irrigated, to use the wastewater inflows plus rainfall to

storages each year, has been undertaken as part of the water balances.

6.4 Water balances

Based on the Princetown weather station rainfall data (refer to Table 2), a water balance has

been calculated for the area available for irrigation at the project site (refer to section 6.1). The

details of the water balance are provided in Appendix B with the results summarised below.

Water balances have been calculated for three different climatic conditions to identify the land

area needed to use the water available for irrigation in an average rainfall year and under

climatic extremes associated with a wet year and a dry year. The long-term average, 90% and

10% percentile values provided in Table 2 were used for the water and nutrient balances

provided in section 6.5.

Two different sets of water balances for the three climatic conditions are shown in Table 6 to

provide an indication of the difference in water use for an area entirely planted to turf grass (a

combination of a winter grass (rye grass) and a summer grass (Couch/Bermuda Grass)) that

may be typically used on a sports field and a mixture of grass and immature trees (such as may

be more representative of the entire area available for irrigation in the early years of tree

establishment). An additional water balance using Lucerne, to demonstrate the impact that plant

selection may have on increasing water use over the applied area. The water balances are

indicative and subject to a series of estimates and assumptions as provided in Table 7.


Table 6 Water balances for proposed irrigated area

Rainfall Total number of hectares needed for irrigation

Months of irrigation









Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture

Mean Rainfall 3 6 months (October – March)



The above calculations are based on information provided in EPA Publication 168 and a

number of other assumptions, which are summarised in Table 7.

The detailed water balance calculations are provided in Appendix B.

In addition to the information provided in Table 7, the water balances assumed that the

soils are suitable for irrigation and that the top 2 – 3 m of soil is not sodic or saline.

The top 1 -1.5 m of soil is not saturated or waterlogged during the six month irrigation

period.

An interpretation of the water balances is provided in section 6.4 and further discussion on the

assumptions made and the viability of irrigation at this site, are provided in later sections in this

report.

Table 7 Assumptions and limitations of the water balances

Code1 Description Assumption/limitations R1 Rainfall Rainfall data is from data obtained from the Princetown weather station, data

from 1889 – 2015. Rainfall values for an average year are based on the mean value for each month over the data period. For the 90th and 10th percentile years, the 90th and 10th percentile years have been identified based on the total annual rainfall. The 90th percentile year was 2013 (approx. 1117 mm/annum); the 10th percentile year was 1961 (736.6 mm/annum). The monthly values for the 90th and 10th percentile years was obtained by allocation of a percentile of the total annual rainfall based on the average rainfall percentage for each month (for example, 10th of rainfall occurs in September 10% x 1117 mm = 112.81 mm). The distribution of rainfall in the 20% wettest and driest year is similar to that of average year.

R2 Effective rainfall

Calculated as 70% of R1, as described in EPA Publication 168. EPA Publication provides a table of effectiveness of rainfall on pasture to allow effective rainfall to be determined based on soil texture and plant root depth. However, similar information was not available for turf grass or trees for this assessment. As provided for in EPA Publication 168, it was assumed for the water balances that for monthly rainfall > 25 mm that effective rainfall = 70%; for monthly rainfall < 25 mm, effective rainfall =50%. All months in all climatic conditions had rainfall > 25 mm. This approach is limited as it does not allow for calculations based on the variance in root depth (which is greater for trees) and water holding capacity of the soils (Brian Consulting Pty Ltd, December 2015), assessed the site soils


Code1 Description Assumption/limitations as a clayey sand and/or coarse sand and with a high permeability (and a low water holding capacity).

A EPan Monthly pan evaporation in mm, based on data from the weather station. EPan data does not correlate with rainfall (i.e., EPan in an average year similar to that in a wet year or dry year).

I Crop factor Crop factor for eucalyptus in EPA Publication used for immature trees, this approach is conservative, as younger trees will have lower water requirements. Crop factors for turf grass species were obtained from available online resources (University of California , 2016). Crop factors from Lucerne from EPA Publication 168. Assumed six months each of summer grass and winter grass. Crop factors for modelled scenarios with trees and grasses derived by a percentage of the area anticipated to planted to each crop type.

C1 ET Evapotranspiration, I x A

C2 Irrigation requirement

Equal to C1 – B2, in mm

D Monthly evaporation from lagoon storage

Calculated from total rainfall and evaporation data and the surface area of the storage, which was assumed as 50 m x 80 m = 0.4 ha. Was assumed storage depth was 2.5 m, if a deeper storage can be used, the surface area (and therefore rainfall catchment area) would be reduced.

E Wastewater input

Based on peak wastewater flows and occupancy rates provided for the preferred wastewater treatment option (Scenario 2) in Appendix B. Full calculations provided in Appendix B. Wet year calculations assume occupancy and wastewater flows equal to those in an average or dry year. This is conservative, as occupancy rates are likely to decline in a wet year (but cannot yet be quantified).

F Total volume for irrigation

F = E – D. In months where D is negative, there is a net accumulation of water in storages (evaporation < rainfall).

6.4.1 Viability of irrigation based on water balances

The above scenarios indicate that in all except a wet year with a combination of immature trees

and turf grasses, that there is sufficient irrigation area for the wastewater volumes predicted

under the peak wastewater flows modelled. With reference to Table 7 and Appendix B, the

following caveats on the water balance and the potential for irrigation at the site are made.

The water balances may underestimate the water use of the plant-types modelled

There is limited information on the vegetation that will be used at the site and the method used

to calculate the effectiveness of rainfall in the water balances does not take into account the

root depth of the trees, which is likely to significantly greater than that of grasses (0.2 – 0.3 m).

Further modelling of water use based on specific crop factors for the preferred plant types (such

as deep-rooted coastal grasses) may improve the outcome of the water balance (i.e., reduce

the irrigation area required). In this sense, the preliminary water balances provided in this

assessment are considered conservative.

It is considered unlikely that Lucerne would be planted across the entire site, but the water

balance created from Lucerne illustrates that selection of plants that have a high water use

requirement and a deep root system (0.7 – 1.8 m from EPA Publication 168) can significantly

reduce the area required for irrigation. Careful selection of plants at the detailed design stage

for the creation of the EIP that are well suited to the site will be critical in providing further

clarification of the area required for irrigation.

In a wet year, the occupancy rate used to calculate monthly wastewater volumes is likely

to be over-estimated

In a wet year, the area adjacent the site will be flooded more often, making the location less

appealing to tourists and reducing the availability/suitability of some activities at the site. It is

considered that in a wet year, the rate of occupancy is likely to decrease significantly from the

rates used to develop the monthly wastewater volumes for the water balance. A reduction in


occupancy rate in a wet year will reduce wastewater flows and the volume that will be required

to be disposed of by irrigation (and thus reduce the irrigation area required). No information on

the occupancy rates in a wet year was available at the time of this assessment, although

anecdotal information suggests that occupancy numbers would reduce between 10 – 20%.

Water balances do not take into account the water holding capacity of the soil

The preliminary LCA undertaken by Brian Consulting (2015) included a characterisation of soil

texture, depth and permeability. The assessment undertaken by Brian Consulting (2015)

observed two different soil types (refer to section 4.3), and percolation testing was conducted on

both the eastern and central parts of the site to capture this difference in soil types. Percolation

testing confirmed that soil on the eastern portion of the site has rapid drainage characteristics

and soil on the western portion of the site has very rapid drainage characteristics. Brian

Consulting (2015) concluded that the soil at the site can be categorised as Category 1 in

accordance with Table 5.1 of AS/NZS 1547:2012 and concluded that due to the very

permeability of the sand onsite, secondary treatment of the wastewater is required (presumably

to reduce the risk of contamination of groundwater). Class B would be acceptable given that it

can be demonstrated that there will be no contamination of groundwater from biological

contaminants (i.e., E coli.) above relevant guideline limits. In practical terms, soil that has a low

capacity to hold water has a low ability to store water and nutrients available for plant use. Such

risks may be reduced by a number of management measures (such as the selection of coastal

plants with deep, fibrous root systems that are endemic or otherwise suited to the conditions at

the site) and are discussed further in section 8.

Water balances do not consider the potential for irrigation water to interact with

groundwater

Brian Consulting (2015) observed groundwater at 1.0 – 1.2 m below ground level during bore

hole development in September 2015 for two of the locations (bore hole 2 and 3 respectively).

Groundwater levels are likely to be closely linked to levels of water within the estuary (refer to

section 5.2) and therefore may be further elevated during periods of flooding. The coarse, sandy

soil present at the site means that there is a lower potential for waterlogging of the soil around

the roots of plants (provided the root zone is above the water table). However, coarse soil

means that there also a higher risk that water and nutrients may percolate past the roots of

plants and into the water table. Careful plant selection and management of applied wastewater

volumes and nutrient loads will be required to prevent discharge of wastewater to the local

water table. The plants selected should be able to tolerate periodic waterlogging of the root

zone. This is discussed further in section 8.

6.5 Management of applied nutrient loads

Using the information obtained from the water balances, nutrient balances for total

phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen have been calculated assuming that the recycled water

has a total phosphorus of 6 - 18 mg/L and a total nitrogen of 50 - 100 mg/L (these

conservative values encompass the expected TN and TP concentrations of the wastewater

post-treatment will be approximately 86 mg/L of TN and 12 mg/L TP). Nutrient balances

have been performed with reference to the nutrient uptakes shown in Table 8.

Nutrient balances have assumed that the nutrients used will be based on the percentage of

each plant type on site consistent with the assumptions of the water balance. It has been

calculated from the percentages in Table 8 that the combination of plants onsite will extract

183 kg/ha/year of nitrogen and 37.5 kg/ha/year of phosphorus.


Table 8 Mineral uptake to trees and grasses

Plant species1 Nitrogen Uptake (kg/ha/yr)

Phosphorus uptake (kg/ha/yr)

% of site cover2

Rye grass 180 70 30

Couch/Bermuda Grass 280 40 30

Eucalypt 90 15 40

Lucerne 220 - 540 20-30 NA 1 - Uptake figures presented from EPA Publication 464.2, Appendix F 2 - % cover only applies to the scenario with a mixture of grass and trees as noted in water balances above. Where there is a range of uptakes, the lower value has been used in nutrient balances.

6.5.1 Nitrogen nutrient balances

Nitrogen nutrient balances are provided in Appendix B. In summary, based on the range of

nitrogen concentrations in the wastewater (50 – 100 mg/L), nitrogen will accumulate or be in

deficit as shown in Table 9. It should be noted that the range of nitrogen concentrations used

have been taken from the concentration predicted during the peak tourist season (86 mg/L),

nitrogen concentrations in wastewater will be lower when averaged over a 12 month period (76

mg/L TN).

Table 9 Nitrogen nutrient balances

Climate scenario Irrigation

ML/ha/year

Upper limit TN, mg/L Lower limit TN, mg/L


Average rainfall 2.5 67 kg/ha/yr accumulation 58 kg/ha/yr deficit

90th percentile rainfall 1.8 3 kg/ha/yr deficit 93 kg/ha/yr deficit

10th percentile rainfall 3.4 157 kg/ha/year

accumulation

13 kg/ha/yr deficit




10th percentile rainfall 4.4 160 kg/ha/yr

accumulation

60 kg/ha/yr deficit

Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture (Lower limit for uptake of 220 kg/ha/year)

Average rainfall 6.3 410 kg/ha/yr

accumulation

95 kg/ha/yr accumulated


accumulation



7.6 540 kg/ha/yr

accumulation




ML/ha/year


Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture (Upper limit for uptake of 540 kg/ha/year)




accumulation


6.5.2 Phosphorus nutrient balances

Phosphorus nutrient balances are provided in Appendix B. In summary, based on the range of

phosphorus concentrations in the wastewater (8 – 16 mg/L), nitrogen will be accumulated or in

deficit as shown in Table 10.

It should be noted that the range of phosphorus concentrations used have been taken from the

concentration predicted during the peak tourist season (12 mg/L), phosphorus concentrations in

wastewater will be lower when averaged over a 12 month period (11 mg/L TP).

Table 10 Phosphorus nutrient balances


ML/ha/year




90th percentile rainfall 1.8 10.2 kg/ha/yr deficit 24.6 kg/ha/yr deficit

10th percentile rainfall 3.4 15.4 kg/ha/year

accumulation



Average rainfall 3.4 14 kg/ha/yr

accumulation



10th percentile rainfall 4.4 30.4 kg/ha/yr

accumulation


Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture (Lower limit for uptake of 20 kg/ha/year)

Average rainfall 6.3 80.8 kg/ha/yr

accumulation

30.40 kg/ha/yr accumulation



7.6 101.6 kg/ha/yr

accumulation




ML/ha/year


Irrigation of 100% Lucerne pasture (Upper limit for uptake of 30 kg/ha/year)

Average rainfall 6.3 70.80 kg/ha/yr

accumulation



accumulation



accumulation


6.5.3 Viability of irrigation based on nutrient balances

Nutrient balances in Table 9 and Table 10 indicate that accumulation of nitrogen and

phosphorus in the soil profile may occur in most rainfall scenarios based on 100 mg/L TN and

16 mg/L TP and is highly dependent on the plant type selected. These nutrient balances

indicate that TN and TP closer to the lower range provided in these tables is far preferable to

the upper ranges. As discussed in the sections above, the forecasted peak concentrations are

somewhere in the mid-range of these values and the average values are closer to the lower

range. A small deficit of nutrients is preferable to an accumulation of nutrients as a deficit can be

targeted by fertiliser applications, if required. A small accumulation of nutrients could be

addressed by applying a small water deficit (under-watering) and spreading the available

wastewater over a greater area. Wastewater could also be diluted with other sources (i.e.,

potable) if available. Plant selection for the site will be important to get a balance of water use

requirements and nutrient uptake – for example, lucerne will use more water per hectare but

result in a higher accumulation of nutrients. Given the relatively low clay and organic matter

content of the soil and its coarse, free draining structure (as determined by (Brian Consulting

Pty Ltd, December 2015)), there is a relatively low risk of phosphorus and nitrogen

accumulating in the soil profile and contaminating the soil. However, given the free-draining

nature of the soils onsite, there is the potential for nitrogen and phosphorus applied in excess to

plant requirements to drain to the water table.

Section 5 of this report notes that groundwater at the site can be classified as Segment A2

under the SEPP (GoV). The beneficial uses of this groundwater segment are provided in Table

1 and it is considered that with the exception of industrial water use (which is unlikely to occur in

the rural setting surrounding the site), all of the listed beneficial uses of groundwater for

Segment A2 are relevant to this site and require protection.

For irrigation of wastewater to be viable, the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus, and

other potential contaminants (such as oils, greases, salts and metals) in the wastewater will

need to be keep sufficiently low as to prevent discharge of contaminated water to groundwater.

A detailed assessment of potential contaminant loadings against the guideline limits provided

for groundwater segments in the SEPP (GoV) is beyond the scope of this assessment.

Reducing nutrient loads to a concentration that will most likely result in nutrient deficiency will

reduce the risk of nutrients discharging to the water table. Further investigations required and

potential mitigation measures are provided in section 8 and section 9 of this report.


6.6 Management of applied salt loads, sodicity and heavy metals

6.6.1 Salts

The TDS of the treated wastewater is predicted to be approximately 700 mg/L (equivalent to an

electrical conductivity of approximately 1100 µS/cm, dependent on the types of salts present in

the treated wastewater). EPA Publication 168 designates wastewater of this salinity at the lower

end of Class 3 (550 – 1500 mg/L TDS, 780 – 2340 µS/cm). EPA Publication 168 states that the

more saline waters in this Class should not be used on soils with restricted drainage. The soils

on site are sandy and free-draining and a TDS of 700 mg/L is at the lower end of this Class,

which indicates that plants with a moderate to high salt tolerance may be grown. Irrigation of this

water by sprinklers may cause leaf burn on more sensitive plant types and dripper irrigation is

preferred where feasible.

The TDS of the groundwater is similar to the wastewater, therefore, salinization of the soil profile

due to the rise of the natural groundwater table following irrigation that is more saline than the

wastewater, is considered unlikely. Waterlogging of the soil profile is possible during periods of

flooding that naturally occurs in this estuarine environment. The groundwater levels that occur at

the site and the proposed irrigation area during periods of flood are unknown, but it is possible

that water tables could rise to within 1 m of the soil surface. Use of coastal plants that are native

to the area and adapted to the site conditions will reduce the risk to plant health from

waterlogging at the site.

Groundwater sourced to supply the site with water will be from a deeper fresher aquifer than the

groundwater table, as discussed in section 6.2. The TDS of the wastewater is within the range

of that predicted for the water table (Segment A2, 500 – 1000 mg/L TDS), reducing the risk of

saline irrigation water percolating through to the groundwater. However, careful selection of

fertilisers will be required to prevent salts from fertiliser application impacting on groundwater.

The sodium absorption ratio (SAR – measure of the amount of sodium present relative to

calcium and magnesium) of the wastewater is not known. Soils irrigated with water with a high

SAR can cause deterioration in soil structure. EPA Publication 464.2 states a SAR of greater

than 3 in waters is a trigger for further investigation, as irrigation with water with an SAR > 3

could negatively impact on soil structure.

Soil sampling has not been undertaken to confirm the suitability of the soil for irrigation (i.e.,

confirmation that the soil is not saline or sodic). Soil sampling to assess soil chemistry should be

undertaken at the site.

6.6.2 Metals and other nutrients

The concentration of heavy metals in the groundwater is shown in Table 5. The concentration of

metals in treated wastewater is not known at this stage, however, it is noted that the

concentration of some metals in the groundwater (manganese and iron) are above relevant

guideline values will need to be reduced (refer to section 6.2). Suspended solids have been

measured at 4 mg/L in the groundwater and may need to be reduced to consistently achieve

Class A recycled water (if Class A is selected for the site rather than Class B).

The groundwater proposed to be extracted for use onsite is within the Lower Tertiary Aquifer

and available information suggests it is less saline than the groundwater within the water table

aquifer (refer to section 5). Sampling of groundwater within the water table aquifer will be

required for this aquifer (QA, section 5) before irrigation commences, to provide baseline data

against which future groundwater monitoring results (from sampling undertaken during

irrigation) can be compared to assess impacts from irrigation on groundwater.


EPA Publication 464.2 and EPA Publication 168 provides guidance on sampling parameters

and frequency for heavy metals and other nutrients that should be undertaken as part of a

monitoring program associated with wastewater irrigation.

6.6.3 Biological and wastewater classification parameters

Classification of wastewater under EPA Publication 464.2 is based on a limited range of

parameters including biological parameters that pose a risk to human and/or livestock health

(E.coli, helminth, protozoa, viruses) and pH, BOD, SS and turbidity (for Class A water only).

Montarosa has committed to treat the wastewater to at least Class B standard, and irrigation of

public spaces with controlled access if permissible under the guidelines for Class B water (see

Table 4). Buffer distances will be implemented between irrigation and the Gellibrand River in

accordance with guideline requirements.

6.7 Management of wastewater pH

The pH of the treated wastewater has been estimated between 6 -9 (refer to Table 5). A soil pH

lower than 6 or higher than 9 can cause changes in soil chemistry leading to possible

nutrient/heavy metal toxicity and adversely impact crop health. The pH of the wastewater should

be maintained as near as possible to 7 (range 6.5 – 8).


7. Alternatives to onsite wastewater irrigation As discussed in sections above, there are some potential limiting factors associated with

irrigation at the proposed development site, such as insufficient onsite irrigation area during a

wet year (as noted from water balances in Table 6 where 10.5 ha is required to irrigate a

combination of trees and turf grasses) and as yet unknown factors related to the seasonal water

table at the site. As discussed in section 6.4.1, some of the identified risks associated with

onsite wastewater irrigation can be reduced by careful selection of plants suited to the estuarine

environment that exists onsite. Wastewater flows are also likely to reduce in a wet year due to

lower visitor numbers at the site. However, it is considered prudent to have some additional

contingency measures in place in the event that onsite irrigation is found to unviable under

certain climatic conditions. Potential alternatives to onsite wastewater irrigation have been

discussed with Montarosa, who have provided advice on the following potential alternatives to

onsite irrigation:

Negotiations to supply the wastewater to a neighbouring landholders site for irrigation –

there is the potential for Montarosa to identify other landholders further from the

Gellibrand River that may be able to accept wastewater. Excess wastewater held in

onsite storages would be trucked or piped from site.

Trucking of excess water held in winter storages in a wet year, offsite for disposal to

sewer – may be a suitable option in instances in a wet year if not all of the water

contained in the lagoon storage can be irrigated onsite.

Water balances indicate that with irrigation over the summer months (October – March) in a 90th

percentile wet year the maximum volume held in storage will be approximately 8 – 8.8 ML

(assuming a surface area of 0.4 ha), providing between 1.2 – 2 ML of available freeboard in the

planned 10 ML onsite storage (10 – 20%). This may provide an option for trigger levels (height

of freeboard in the storage) to be set that when reached trigger the requirement to find an

alternative method of disposal. This approach acknowledges the potential for a very wet period

to be followed by a hot, dry period, which may reduce the requirement to find an alternative

method of wastewater disposal. This approach could be developed further in the EIP required

prior to irrigation commencing onsite.


8. Preliminary risk assessment 8.1 Requirement

Users of reclaimed water need to identify and assess the potential exposure routes for

groundwater associated with the reuse scheme in order to maximise the protection of water

quality and the environment. Users of reclaimed water also need to assess potential for

degradation of soil health associated with the reuse scheme.

Reclaimed water use schemes should meet a number of environment protection objectives:

Protect the beneficial uses of groundwater and surface waters as defined in the relevant

SEPP

Avoid structural changes to the soil or contamination (for example, soil salinity or sodicity)

that may reduce the (short or long term) productivity of the land

Avoid contamination of the air environment by the production of offensive odours, spray

drift and aerosols (this is beyond the scope of the groundwater assessment)

The risk assessment in the sections below has been undertaken with reference to information

provided in earlier sections of this report related to wastewater quality, volume, beneficial uses

of the environment for protection and the geological setting of the proposed development site.

8.2 Process

To assess the potential impacts of the reuse of treated wastewater on the groundwater

environment and current and future land use, it is necessary to understand the risks. The

following methodology was used to assess the groundwater impact pathways and define risk

ratings for the project:

1. Assess the ‘impact pathway’ – how the project impacts on a given groundwater value or

issue

2. Describe the ‘consequences’ of the impact pathway to define levels of consequence

(Table 11)

3. Assess the ‘likelihood’ of the consequence occurring to the level assigned in Step 2.

Likelihood descriptors are provided in Table 12

4. Assess the maximum credible ‘consequence level’ associated with the impact as defined

in Table 11. The method for defining these criteria is described in section 8.2.1

5. Form the consequence and likelihood levels assigned to the impact pathway. Use the risk

matrix to assess the risk rating (Table 13)

6. Define the level of data/information availability associated with the risk assessment rating

(Table 14)

8.2.1 Consequence criteria

With the groundwater assessment, impacts are generally simplified into those that affect

groundwater quality and/or groundwater level. Falls or rises in groundwater level affect

hydraulic gradients and groundwater movement. The effect on movement or groundwater flow

translates to a change in groundwater availability, be it available for environmental reserves or

resource users. For the land capacity assessment, impacts are those that can affect productivity

of the agricultural land under irrigation. Where a future change in land use is feasible (i.e.

agriculture to residential development) impacts to those potential uses are also considered.


Direct impacts to the groundwater environment may take the form of changes to water quality,

changes to water level or changes to access (extractive use) or an environmental asset or

function, such as a Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE). Direct impacts to the land under

irrigation may involve salinization or contamination with nutrients and/or heavy metals or a

change in soil chemistry that adversely alter soil structure.

Consequence criteria (Table 11) range on a scale of magnitude from ‘insignificant’ to

‘catastrophic’. Magnitude was considered a function of the size of the impact (the spatial area

affected and expected recovery time of the environmental system or soil health).

Consequence criteria descriptions indicating a minimal size impact over a local area, and with a

recovery time potential within the range of normal variability were considered to be at the

negligible end of the scale. Conversely, catastrophic consequence criteria describe scenarios

involving a very high magnitude event, affecting a catchment area, or requiring several years to

reach functional recovery.

Table 11 Consequence criteria

Criteria Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Direct impacts to the groundwater environment

Direct impacts to land capacity and productivity

Negligible change to groundwater regime, quality and availability.

Negligible change to soil health and productivity.

Temporary or highly localised changes to groundwater regime, quality and availability but no significant implication for groundwater users or the environment.

Temporary or highly localised changes to soil health and productivity but no significant implication on current and future land use.

Changes to groundwater regime, quality and availability with minor implications (localised) (reduction in available volume or quality but existing users still viable or negligible impact to receiving environments)

Changes to soil health that impact productivity over a limited area (i.e. 10% or less of total) for a moderate length of time (i.e. months).

Groundwater regime, quality or availability significantly compromised (existing uses of groundwater no longer viable, and/or impact on waterway flows/receiving environment)

Significant impacts to soil over the entire irrigated area that significantly impact productivity for a moderate length of time (i.e. months) or over a limited area for a longer time period (1 -2 years).

Widespread groundwater resource depletion, groundwater quality degradation or contamination.

Widespread changes to soil health over the irrigated area that prevent or restrict current or future potential agricultural land use in the medium to long-term due to soil contamination, salinization, soil structural collapse, etc.

The probability or likelihood of a consequence occurring (refer to Table 12) has also been

assigned a qualitative descriptor. Risks are ranked from ‘Negligible’ through to ‘Extreme’, and

are derived from the risk matrix (Table 13). The risk ranking therefore indicates the need for

management intervention. This could include:

Further assessment, investigation

Management actions, implementation of mitigation measures (if available)


The severity of the risk ranking also provides an indication of the timing or prioritisation of the

intervention. For example, an ‘Extreme’ risk ranking may require immediate attention, further

assessment and/or mitigation measures to be implemented within short time frames to reduce

the risk to an acceptable ranking. Conversely, a ‘Negligible’ risk ranking may require a watching

brief only.

Table 12 Likelihood categories

Descriptor Explanation

Almost Certain The event is expected to occur in most circumstances >50% chance of occurring

Likely The event will probably occur in most circumstances 25–50% chance of occurring

Possible The event could occur 5–25% chance of occurring

Unlikely The event could occur but not expected 1–5% chance of occurring

Rare The event may occur only in exceptional circumstances Less than 1% chance of occurring

Table 13 Risk rating matrix

Likelihood

Consequence

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Almost Certain Low Medium High Extreme Extreme

Likely Low Medium High High Extreme

Possible Negligible Low Medium High High

Unlikely Negligible Low Medium Medium High

Rare Negligible Negligible Low Medium Medium

The level of data/information availability relating to the assessment of risk was considered in the

following categories shown in Table 14. The rating of data/information availability was used to

assess where any additional focus was required in mitigating the risk. For example, if a risk has

a ‘catastrophic’ consequence and a low level of data or information available then more effort

should be focussed on understanding and mitigating this risk, than an ‘insignificant’

consequence with a high level of data and information available.

Table 14 Data / information availability ratings

Criteria Low Availability Medium Availability High Availability

Data / Information

Data and information is not specific to the region, conditions and industry and has very limited historical records or statistical support.

Data and information has some aspects specific to project region and conditions but not all. Historical records / statistical data are limited in some areas.

Data and information is specific to the region and conditions, and industry has sufficient historical records / statistics to support risk rating.


8.3 Risk rankings

The results of the risk assessment completed by GHD have been summarised in Table 15.

Measures to mitigate risks have been included in the assessment. In some cases, further

investigations may be required to select a preferred mitigation measure, after consideration of

its particular cost and time implications.


Table 15 Risk Register

Risk Pathway / Issue Likelihood Consequence Risk Ranking

Data / Information availability

Mitigation Options

Groundwater/surface water

GW1 Groundwater beneficial uses are impacted, by wastewater irrigation

Possible Major High Medium Investigations to characterise groundwater quality within the quaternary aquifer (QA), which is the water table aquifer.

Comparison of wastewater quality against limits provided for in the SEPP (GoV) for the applicable groundwater segment. Development of controls to prevent discharge of water exceeding trigger limits for relevant beneficial uses in the QA near the site (protection of ecosystems, primary contact recreation) to groundwater.

Final treatment and classification of wastewater (i.e., Class B or Class A) determined with regards to the risks associated with the use of Class B water at the site.

Lower aquifers are confined beneath a low permeability layer (UMTD) and are unlikely to be directly impacted by irrigation of wastewater at the site.

Plant selection to maximise water and nutrient use.

Irrigation scheduled with reference to plant water use requirements and soil moisture probes to prevent discharge of irrigation drainage to groundwater.

Use of an alternative site to dispose of the wastewater if preferred site proves unsuitable in a wet year due to flooding.

Use of the dune area as a contingency disposal area if required.

Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) (which specifies controls for irrigation management practices based on guidance in EPA Publication 168).

GW2 Irrigation run-off enters drainage lines and waterways

Unlikely Major Medium Medium Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) (which specifies controls for irrigation management practices based on guidance in EPA Publication 168).

Available information suggests that due to the high




Mitigation Options

permeability of the soil, surface run-off is unlikely (Brian Consulting Pty Ltd, December 2015) Irrigation limited to areas above the 1:20 year ARI with water balances indicating there is sufficient land above this extent available for irrigation

Options to re-use wastewater or further reduce final wastewater volumes if further investigations indicate there is a significant risk to surface water and/or groundwater from irrigation in some of the area flagged as dispersal area in this report.

Selection of final wastewater quality (Class B or A) based on an assessment of risks to surface water and irrigation type and buffer distances to surface water required to minimise risk.

GW3 Excavations expose and activate potential ASS

Possible Major High Low A review of the Victorian mapping of Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Distribution (Map 2, for West Coast Victoria)3 indicates a high potential for Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) near the project site.

Investigations to characterise the presence of ASS materials prior to excavation, with reference to applicable guidance documents4. Implementation of an ASS management plan if required.

Land capacity/irrigation management

LP1 Contamination of soils/toxicity to crops/plantings due to excess levels of heavy metals or nutrients in wastewater

Unlikely Moderate Medium Low Soil toxicity considered unlikely due to relatively low nutrient load in wastewater and free draining, sandy soils.

Test wastewater for nutrients and heavy metal concentrations prior to commencement of irrigation. Comparison of concentrations against guideline limits.

Baseline soil testing prior to commencement of irrigation (for creation of EIP) and periodically thereafter in accordance

3 Victorian Resources Online ww.dpi.vic.gov.au/vro 4 Victorian Coastal Acid Sulfate Soil Strategy and Victorian Best Practice Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils,




Mitigation Options

with general guidance provided in EPA Publications 168 and 464.2.

Irrigation with consideration to nutrient balances.

LP2 Over irrigation resulting in waterlogging and possible salinization of soils due to rise of saline water table suspected within 2 – 5 m of surface

Unlikely Major Medium Low Investigations to further characterise the site groundwater level in areas to be used for irrigation (particularly during periods of flooding adjacent the irrigation area, which is when groundwater levels will be highest.

Careful selection of plantings best suited to the site environment (i.e., deep rooted, high water use and tolerant of periodic waterlogging) – update of the water balances and nutrient balances for the selected plant species at the EIP development stage prior to irrigation commencement.

Creation of Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) for irrigation with recycled water.

Irrigation in accordance with water balances, monitoring of soil water moisture and application rates calculated in accordance with guidance provided in EPA Publication 168.

Use of an alternative site to dispose of the wastewater if preferred site proves unsuitable in a wet year.


LP3 Insufficient land onsite to irrigate all wastewater in onsite storage lagoons each year (overflow and onsite flooding)

Possible Major High Low The likelihood rating of ‘possible’ has been assigned based on uncertainty around the final choice of plants that will occur at a later stage in the project. Careful selection of plants with deep roots and high water use can reduce this ranking.

Size onsite storages to hold 100% of wastewater and rainfall in a 90th percentile wet year + 10% contingency. Current 10 ML provides more than a 10% contingency (as per water balances, refer to Appendix B).


Monitor of freeboard in the winter storage to implement a




Mitigation Options

plan for alternative disposal if trigger levels within the storage is reached.

Contingency option to truck/pipe excess water from site to alternative farmer’s site (contingency options to be further assessed in future planning/EIP for site).

Minimal water held in lagoons at start of wet season (April) so all incoming wastewater can be held over winter until irrigation can recommence (October).

LP4 Degradation of surface soil structure due to irrigation leading to increased erosion, hard setting, decrease in permeability and poor plant growth

Unlikely Major Medium Low Wastewater relatively low in salt, but sodium and other salts yet unknown. Free-draining, sandy soil reduces the risk of structural problems.

Investigations to characterise the soil structure and chemistry (e.g. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR), pH, salinity, etc.) prior to commencement of wastewater irrigation.

Addition of top soil or fertilisers to improve top soil condition.

Initial and periodic monitoring of wastewater and soil.

Use of an alternative site to dispose of the wastewater if preferred site proves unsuitable in a wet year.

LP5 Poor plant growth due to excess or inadequate nutrients in wastewater

Possible Moderate Medium Low Irrigation with consideration to water and nutrient balances.

Soil moisture monitoring and soil sampling to detect nutritional issues on a regular basis, as provided for in the EIP.

Additional fertiliser inputs as required.




Mitigation Options

LP6 Risks to human health from irrigation.

Unlikely Moderate Medium Low Adherence to EPA guideline requirements for minimising human and animal exposure to Class B water (i.e., no access to areas during irrigation and until the area is dry, use of drippers, low-level micro-sprays or sub-surface drip to risk of access and exposure is minimal).

Colour-coding of pipes in accordance with relevant standards and removal of tap heads to prevent people accessing recycled water (tap heads available to maintenance staff only).

Reduce risk to human health by option to increase water treatment to Class A water if deemed necessary.

Indirect risks to human health from impacts of groundwater discharge to the estuary and primary contact recreation could occur, but are unlikely. Risk to human health mitigated by careful application of wastewater irrigation to prevent discharge of wastewater in excess of guideline limits to groundwater.

Training of staff/landholders that will come in contact with water so they are aware of risks.

Clear signage in accordance with relevant guidelines to reduce risk of exposure (i.e. drinking of wastewater from taps).


9. Conclusions and next steps 9.1 Conclusions

The groundwater assessment determined that the proposed Princetown Resort site is located

on quaternary age sediments and that these sediments consist of coastal dune deposits,

redeposited dunes, quartz and calcareous sands, well sorted and unconsolidated, silts and

clays. The water table at the site is shallow (less than 5 m below ground level) and situated

within the Quaternary Aquifer (QA). The site is within 1.5 km of Groundwater Dependant

Ecosystems including the Gellibrand River, La Trobe Creek, Boggy Creek and the surrounding

wetlands. Groundwater levels within the QA are influenced by water levels within the Gellibrand

River estuary and the site is subject to periodic flooding. Groundwater within the local area is

extracted from the Lower Tertiary Aquifer (> 31 m below ground level) which is separated from

the water table by an aquitard between 4 – 30 m below ground level. The site occurs within the

Newlingrook Groundwater Management Area (GMA), which pertains to all geological units at

this location. The permissible consumptive volume (PCV) for the Newlingrook GMA is

1,977 ML/year. Groundwater quality within the water table aquifer has been assessed as

Segment A2 for the purpose of this assessment.

The soils at the site have been assessed as sand or clayey sand and that the coarse,

calcareous sands at the site have a very high permeability and a very low water holding

capacity. This information, along with the presence of a shallow water table indicates that there

is high potential for irrigation water to leach to groundwater unless carefully managed.

Water balances completed for the site indicates that there is sufficient land, including 7.76 ha at

the site plus a possible 1.5 ha of dunes (covered with native vegetation) to irrigate wastewater

at the site. It is considered likely that the best vegetation for the site will be a combination of

native, deep rooted plants that are endemic or otherwise well suited to the coastal environment.

Specific crop factors for such plant species were not available for this assessment, with water

balances completed using a number of different plant types to illustrate the potential range of

water use of different plant species that could be utilised onsite. Initial nutrient balances indicate

that the proposed wastewater quality is not prohibitive to irrigation, provided that appropriate

measures are put in place to monitor and manage nutrient loads and fertiliser inputs to prevent

discharge of contaminated drainage water to the underlying shallow groundwater table.

A risk assessment was undertaken to identify the potential impacts arising from the irrigation of

the treated wastewater at the site. The risk assessment was preliminary and shows the risks

prior to implementation of mitigation measures presented in the risk assessment table. Further

refinement of this risk assessment will be undertaken as part of the EIP for the site.

Key groundwater risks (where a risk rating prior to mitigation measures of medium or higher was

identified) include:

Impact to groundwater beneficial uses by wastewater irrigation

Irrigation run-off entering drainage lines and waterways

Key land capability/irrigation management risks identified include:

Contamination of soils/toxicity to crops/planting due to excess levels of heavy metals or

nutrients in wastewater

Over irrigation resulting in waterlogging and possible salinization of soils due to rise of

saline water table within 2 m of the surface


Insufficient land onsite to irrigate all wastewater in onsite storages each year (overflow

and onsite flooding)

Degradation of surface soil structure due to irrigation leading to increased erosion, hard

setting, decreasing in permeability and poor plant growth

Poor plant growth due to excess or inadequate nutrients in the wastewater

Risks to human health from irrigation

The mitigation measures presented in the risk assessment table (Table 15) form the basis for

the future works provided in the section below.

9.2 Next steps to be completed

Mitigation measures have been identified in section 8.3 as part of the risk assessment and

throughout the report. In summary, further investigations will be undertaken as part of future

project stages (including detailed design and development of the EIP for submission to EPA

prior to irrigation) to:

Characterise the groundwater quality within the Quaternary Aquifer (QA), which is the

shallow water table aquifer at the site. Information obtained from groundwater testing will

be compared with the final proposed wastewater quality and limits for water quality

provided in the SEPP (GoV) and supporting guidelines.

Identify the most appropriate plant types for irrigation at the site with consideration to

suitability for planting in the sandy, free-draining soil types and tolerance to possible

periodic flooding of the lower root-zone during periods of flood.

Further soil testing (soil chemistry) of the proposed irrigation areas to assess the potential

for any limitations within the soil, which may limit irrigation (such as salinity or sodicity).

Soil sampling will also include the dune area, which all also require permeability testing to

identify if this 1.5 ha is suitable as an alternative area for water disposal in a wet year (if

required).

Following on from the above investigations, the following will completed:

Completion of a revised water balance and nutrient balance with reference to the water

and nutrient uptake of the preferred combination of plants for the site.

Updating of the risk to the beneficial uses of groundwater based on the results of

groundwater testing and comparison with wastewater quality parameters against

guideline limits.

Revision of the risk assessment to show mitigation measures and revised risk levels and

formation of specific mitigation measures for inclusion in the EIP for the site to reduce the

risks identified for the site.

Further develop the contingency options for alternative disposal of excess wastewater in

storages in a wet year. This may include negotiations with local landholders to accept

excess water, irrigation of the dune area and provisions for continuously monitoring water

levels within the winter storage against developed trigger levels. Trigger levels (metres of

freeboard) will be identified against specific storage levels for both ‘watch and act’ interim

levels and action levels to allow for the implementation of the contingency measures if

required.

Develop an EIP for the site with reference to the investigations listed above, EPA

Publication 464.2 and EPA Publication 168. The EIP will also include:

– Updated water and nutrient balances


– Soil and wastewater quality monitoring program

– Guidance on sustainable irrigation practices (application rates, times and duration,

requirement for fertiliser program, etc.)

– Control measures to mitigate risks to soil health, the natural environment and human

health as appropriate

The EIP will be submitted to EPA prior to irrigation commencing.


10. References Brian Consulting Pty Ltd. (December 2015). Land Capability Assessment 1 Old Coach Road

Princetown. Warranmbool, VIC: Brian Consulting. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. (2015). Flood Advice 1 Old Coach Road Princetwon

Victoria, 3269 . Colac, Victoria: Corangamite Catchment Management Authority reference F-2015-0646.

GHD. (2016). Old Coach Road Development Flood Level Report. Melbourne, Vic: GHD Pty Ltd. University of California . (2016). Center for Landscape and Urban Horticulture - Turf Grass Crop

Coefficients. Retrieved May 11, 2016, from University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources : http://ucanr.edu/sites/UrbanHort/Water_Use_of_Turfgrass_and_Landscape_Plant_Materials/Turfgrass_Crop_Coefficients_Kc/


11. Limitations This report: has been prepared by GHD for Montarosa Pty Ltd and may only be used and relied

on by Montarosa Pty Ltd for the purpose agreed between GHD and the Montarosa Pty Ltd as

set out in section 2.3 of this report.

GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Montarosa Pty Ltd arising in

connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent

legally permissible.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those

specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions

encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no

responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring

subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions

made by GHD described in this report (refer section(s) 1.3 and 2.3 of this report). GHD

disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by Montarosa Pty Ltd and

others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities)], which GHD has

not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept

liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the

report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

Appendices

Appendix A – Hydrogeological assessment

Geological setting

The study site is located in the township of Princetown as shown in Figure 1. The surface geology at the project site comprises Quaternary unconsolidated

sediments consisting of swamp, lake and estuarine deposits, coastal, beach and dune deposits, quartz and calcareous sands, which are well sorted and

unconsolidated.

The subsurface geology and hydrostratigraphy was interpreted utilising the Geological Survey of Victoria Colac 1:250,000 mapsheet and DELWP’s Victorian

Aquifer Framework (VAF) datasets. A summary of the interpreted hydrostratigraphy has been provided in Table 16, while surficial geology at the site is shown

in Figure 2. The units most relevant to the study area are described further in the following sections.

Table 16 Simplified stratigraphic profile

Period Sub Period Indicative Depth (m)

Geological Formation Lithology Hydrostratigraphic Unit Aquifer?

Quaternary 0-4 sand, gravels, clay, silts Quaternary Aquifer (QA) Yes

Tertiary Miocene 4-30 Gellibrand Marl clay, silt, marl (fractured rock) and minor sand

Upper-Mid Tertiary Aquitard (UMTD)

No

Eocene-Oligocene

30 -31 Clifton Formation sand, gravel, limestone (fractured rock), minor clay, occasional coal

Lower Mid-Tertiary Aquifer (LMTA)

Yes

Mid-Lower Eocene

31 - 370 Mepunga Formation, Dilwyn Formation, pebble Point Formation, Moomowroong Sands and Wiridjil Gravel.

sand, gravel, clay and silt, minor coal

Lower Tertiary Aquifer (LTA) Yes

Mesozoic to Palaeozoic

Cretaceous and Permian

370 -500 Sherbrook Group Otway Group (Eumeralla Formation)

Sandstone, mudstone, siltstone (all fractured rock), sand and minor coal

Cretaceous and Permian Sediments Aquitard (CPS)

No

Palaeozoic 500 -700 Basement rocks sedimentary and igneous rocks

Basement rocks Aquifer (BSE) Yes

Figure 1 Site location


Figure 2 Site location, surface geology and identified groundwater bores

Relevant aquifers and nature of confinement

Stratigraphic formations that contain or can transmit groundwater are termed aquifers. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)

VAF Secure Allocation Future Entitlements (SAFE) project data was used to identify the occurrence, thickness and salinity of aquifers (and aquitards) near the

project site; the results of which are shown in Table 17. The SAFE mapping indicates a number of aquifers and aquitards beneath the site. The shallow

aquifers of relevant to the site are the:

Quaternary Aquifer (QA). The QA is likely to form the water table aquifer across the site (refer Figure 3).

Lower Mid-Tertiary Aquifer (LMTA) and Lower Tertiary Aquifer (LTA). The LMTA is approximate only 1 m thick in the area so it is considered along

with the LTA, which is around 31 to 371 m below ground. These aquifers are confined by the Upper Mid-Tertiary Aquitard, which is around 25 m thick in

the region. The LTA is also considered to be a water table aquifer to the north and east of the site.

The water table aquifers (i.e. the shallowest saturated hydrogeological units) that are relevant to the site are shown in Figure 3.

Table 17 SAFE groundwater layers

Groundwater Layers Layer description Depth below surface (m) Groundwater Salinity (mg/L)

From To

Quaternary Aquifer (QA) sand, gravels, clay, silts 0 4 501 to 1,000

Upper Mid-Tertiary Aquitard (UMTD) clay, silt, marl, minor sand 4 30 Unknown

Lower Mid- Tertiary Aquifer (LMTA) Sand, gravel, limestone, minor clay, occasional coal 30 31 <500

Lower Tertiary Aquifer (LTA) sand, gravel, clay and silt, minor coal 31 371 <500

Cretaceous and Permian Sediments (CPS) Sandstone, mudstone, siltstone, sand, minor coal 371 497 Unknown

Basement rocks Aquifer (BSE) sedimentary and igneous rocks 497 >700 501 to 1,000

Source: DELWP (2016)


Figure 3 Water table aquifers


Groundwater management

DELWP has recognised areas of intensive groundwater use throughout Victoria. The principle management unit for groundwater resources in Victoria is the

Groundwater Management Unit (GMU). A GMU may be a Groundwater Management Area (GMA), a Water Supply Protection Area (WSPA) or an

Unincorporated Area (UA). These are declared under the Water Act 1989 to provide sustained management of the groundwater resources.

A WSPA is essentially a GMA with a management plan, which may include caps or moratoriums on the issue of additional extraction licenses. WSPAs have

been developed in areas that require more intensive management due to extensive use of groundwater. An unincorporated area is a region falling outside of a

GMA or WSPA.

The site lies within the Newlingrook GMA and has a permissible consumptive volume of 1,977 ML/year (DELWP 2016). The groundwater licensing authority

throughout the study area is Southern Rural Water (SRW).

Drilling data

Drilling data was collated from DELWP’s Water Measurement Information System (WMIS), which contains records for existing boreholes near the site.

Lithological logs were available for one bore in the site vicinity and has been summarised in Table 18.

Table 18 Lithological logs of bore WRK963884

Bore Depth (m) Description

From To

Bore WRK963884 0 1 Top soil

1 20 Clay

20 45 Cemented sands

45 58 Black clay

58 97 Marley sand

Groundwater bore information

WMIS bores

A search of the WMIS was undertaken to identify and characterise groundwater and geology in the site area. Based on a search of the WMIS data, seven

bores were identified within 1.5 km of Princetown. These bore are shown in Figure 2 and the bore details are summarised in Table 19.


Groundwater use

Two of the identified bores did not specify use. Two of the bores were drilled for domestic purpose, another two of the bores were used for industrial purposes

and the remaining one bore was used for commercial purposes. Figure 2 shows bore use for bores identified in the site vicinity. Some of these bores have

groundwater information including construction details, logs and chemistry as included in Table 19.

Bore yields

Bore yield can be used as a guide to the hydraulic character of aquifers. It should be noted that bore yield is dependent upon bore construction and aquifer

penetration/intersection, and that many stock and domestic bores may not necessarily have been constructed as high yielding bores. Bore yield data was not

recorded for the seven bores identified within 1.5 km of Princetown.

Table 19 Summary of nearby WMIS groundwater bores

Bore ID Easting

(MGA 54)

Northing

(MGA 54)

Constructed

Date

Constructed

Depth (m)

Elevation at

ground level

(mAHD)

Bore Use Screen

From (m)

Screen

To (m)

Screened

Lithology

Electrical

Conductivity

(µS/cm)

75064 686622.3 5715132 31/12/1963 625.75 38 Not known - - - -

75065 687817 5715369 9/05/1968 128.02 Unknown Domestic 0 128.02 - 816

75071 686861.3 5715477 1/01/1988 Unknown 25 Domestic - - - -

WRK043654 687461.6 5715006 Unknown Unknown 22.24 Industrial - - - -

WRK046712 687345 5714820 Unknown Unknown 1.96 Industrial - - - -

WRK963884

687461.6 5715006 20/12/2003 97 22.4 Commercial 66 93 Marley sand

-

WRK982089 687546 5714993 Unknown 100 21.98 Not known - - - -

Groundwater levels

The depth to groundwater near the site is shown on Figure 4. Based on this review, groundwater level data was not identified from existing neighbouring

bores.

Figure 4 shows that based on regional mapping, the water table is likely to occur at depths of less than 5 m below the ground surface, within the QA.

State groundwater observation bores

There were no identified state observation network (SON) bores located within 1.5 km of the site, although there is an extensive network of SON bores across

the Newlingrook GMA.

Groundwater recharge and flow systems

There is limited groundwater flow information available in the area. Based on the SAFE mapping of the watertable aquifer, it is likely that groundwater flows

are influenced at the site by the Gellibrand River, which largely encircles the site. Shallow groundwater flow in the water table aquifer is likely to be locally

influenced by this surface water feature. Regionally, groundwater flow in the LTA occurs southerly towards Bass Strait.


Figure 4 Depth to water table

GHD | Report for Montarosa Pty Ltd - Princetown Resort Development, 31/33485/16

Groundwater quality

Local groundwater quality

At the time of reporting, there was no available groundwater quality information available for the water table aquifer at the site.

The only bore within 1.5 km which recorded salinity information was bore 75065, screened in the LTA, which recorded an electrical conductivity value of

816 µS/cm (or approximately 490 mg/L TDS, using a conversion factor of 0.6).

Groundwater quality was also tested from a LTA bore near Princetown (refer Section 6.2). This bore showed salinity in the order of 380 mg/L TDS.

Regional groundwater quality

Regional mapping (DELWP, 2015) indicates fresh groundwater quality (501 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L TDS) in the QA and BSE and fresher groundwater quality

(<500 mg/L TDS) in the LMTA and LTA aquifers (which is consistent with results from bore 75065).

SAFE mapping data indicates a higher salinity range (1,000 mg/L to 3,500 mg/L TDS) for the water table aquifer (i.e. the QA) across the site (refer to Figure

5).

Therefore, there is some inconsistency in the regional mapping of the groundwater quality in the water table aquifer directly beneath the site (i.e. the QA) with

it either being in the range:

501 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L TDS (DELWP ,2015); or

1,000 mg/L to 3,500 mg/L TDS (SAFE dataset).

The installation of a shallow, groundwater monitoring bore at the site would be required to further assess the shallow groundwater at the site specifically, with

a higher degree of confidence.

Beneficial uses

Groundwater quality data from Groundwater Resource Report and SAFE mapping has been used to appraise regional groundwater quality characteristics for

each major aquifer that occurs beneath the site.

Under the Environment Protection Act 1970 and upon recommendation of the EPA, the State of Victoria enacted a SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria 1997,

which has the objective to maintain and where possible, improve groundwater quality sufficient to protect existing and potential beneficial uses.

The policy forms the primary guide to assessing existing impacts and risk of impacts to groundwater quality. It categorises groundwater into segments based

on the groundwater salinity, with each segment having particular identified uses. The segments and their beneficial uses are summarised in Table 20.


Table 20 SEPP groundwater segments

Use

Segment (mg/L TDS)

A1 A2 B C D

0 – 500 501 – 1,000 1,001 – 3,501 3,501 – 13,000 >13,000

Maintenance of Ecosystems

Potable Water

Desirable

Acceptable

Potable Mineral Water Supply


Stock Watering


Primary contact recreation (e.g. swimming / bathing)

Buildings and structures

The EPA may determine that these beneficial uses do not apply to groundwater where:

There is insufficient yield

The background level of a water quality indicator other than TDS precludes a beneficial use

The soil characteristics preclude a beneficial use, or

A groundwater quality restricted use zone has been declared.


The SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) also requires that occupational health and safety and odour and amenity be considered, due to the fact that vapours

sourced from impacted groundwater may present a potential risk to workers and that odours or discolouration may result in the degradation of the overall

beneficial use.

Based on the groundwater salinity data obtained from the SAFE mapping layers, the groundwater in the water table aquifer (ie QA) beneath the site is likely to be either segment A2 or B based on the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria). As such, the identified beneficial uses of groundwater to be protected in the

water table aquifer include:

Potable Water (Acceptable)

Maintenance of ecosystems, which includes groundwater discharges to the environment

Potable mineral water supply


Stock watering


Primary contact recreation

Buildings and structures.

As noted, there is some inconsistency in the mapped groundwater salinity in the water table aquifer at the site, and further work would be required to confirm

the groundwater salinity and the protected beneficial use segment.


Figure 5 Groundwater salinity


Groundwater dependent ecosystems

Definition

A groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) is an ecosystem, which has its species composition and natural ecological processes determined by

groundwater. That is, they are natural ecosystems that require access to groundwater to meet all, or some of their water requirements to maintain their

communities of plants and animals, ecological processes and ecosystem services. If the availability of groundwater to GDEs is reduced, or if the quality is

allowed to deteriorate, these ecosystems will be impacted.

It is widely acknowledged that a poor understanding exists in recognising GDEs, or understanding the hydrogeological processes affecting GDEs, or their

environmental water requirements. GDEs can be broadly grouped into three categories:

1. Ecosystems that depend on the surface expression of groundwater:

– Swamps and wetlands can be sites of groundwater discharge and may represent GDEs. The sites may be permanent or ephemeral systems that

receive seasonal or continuous groundwater contribution to water ponding or shallow water tables. Tidal flats and inshore waters may also be sites

of groundwater discharge. Wetlands can include ecosystems on potential acid sulphate soils and in these cases maintenance of high water levels

may be required to prevent waters from becoming acidic.

– Permanent or ephemeral stream systems may receive seasonal or continuous groundwater contribution to flow as base flow. Interaction would

depend upon the nature of stream bed and underlying aquifer material and the relative water level heads in the aquifer and the stream.

2. Ecosystems that depend on the subsurface presence of groundwater. Terrestrial vegetation such as trees and woodlands may be supported either

seasonally or permanently by groundwater. These may comprise shallow or deep rooted communities that use groundwater to meet some or all of their

water requirements. Animals may depend upon such vegetation and therefore indirectly depend upon groundwater. Groundwater quality generally

needs to be high to sustain the vegetation growth.

3. Ecosystems that reside within a groundwater resource. These are referred to as hypogean ecosystems. Micro-organisms in groundwater systems can

exert a direct influence on water quality, for example, stygofauna typically found in karstic, fractured rock or alluvial aquifers.

GDEs in the study area

To assess if there are identified GDE sites located in the Princetown area, a search was undertaken using the National Atlas of Groundwater Dependent

Ecosystems (BOM, 2016). The search identified three GDEs within 1.5 km of the site. Identified GDEs include:

Gellibrand River (surface expression), situated less than 50 m from, and largely bordering, the site. The river has been identified as having a high

potential for groundwater interaction.


Latrobe Creek (surface expression), situated less than 100 m north-west of the site. The creek has been identified as having a high potential for

groundwater interaction.

Boggy Creek (surface expression), situated less than 850 m north of the site. The creek has been identified as having a high potential for groundwater

interaction.

Wetlands (surface expression), situated partly over the site and around the neighbouring rivers and creeks. These wetlands have been identified as

generally a high to moderate potential for groundwater interaction.

Assumptions and limitations of the hydrogeological review

Hydrogeology data sources

The hydrogeological investigations have relied on a number of different data sources, these included:

Published geological maps and reports

Victorian Government data including the SAFE mapping system, topographic data, meteorological data and Water Measurement Information System

(WMIS)

National GDE datasets from the BoM.

GHD, 2006, “Newlingrook GMA, Review of Groundwater Resources” Report for Department of Sustainability and Environment

Dealing with data / information availability

The hydrogeological assessment had been used to identify potential risks to the groundwater environment. There is a degree of uncertainty involved in the

assignment of risks that is dependent on the availability of site specific information (i.e., groundwater levels, lithology logs and groundwater quality

information). Uncertainty regarding data/information availability has been managed through using a conservative approach when assigning consequences

associated with risks.

Notes regarding WMIS data

Bores installed prior to the proclamation of the original Water Act 1989 may not be registered as there was no mandatory requirement to licence bores

prior to this date

The WMIS does not provide information regarding the operational status or casing condition status of groundwater bores

Bores installed without a bore construction licence are unlikely to be registered on the WMIS


Many bores have not been surveyed for location

The information registered on the WMIS is subject to the accuracy of bore completion reports submitted by drilling contractors

Information registered on the WMIS is subject to change since the completion of a bore e.g. water level information, pump setting depth, groundwater

quality

Some information is not available on the WMIS (e.g. pump setting depth, bore ownership)

The WMIS does not provide information regarding the currency of bores with licensable extractive use, i.e. a bore indicated as being an irrigation bore

may not have any allocation attached to it. That is, the intended use may have altered due to identified low yield or poor quality groundwater. These use

changes are not reflected in the WMIS.


Appendix B – Water and nutrient balances

NUTRIENT BALANCESScenario modelled (information provided) combination of turf grass and immature trees scenario

Email from Tim indicates 50 - 100 mg/L N and 8 - 16 mg/L P in the wastewater GuidelineLower Upper Nitrogen kg/ha/yr kg/ha/yr kg/ha/yr

N 50 100 mg/L (kg/ML) Rye grass 180 54 30%P 8 16 mg/L (kg/ML) Couch (Bermuda) 280 84 30%

Eucalypt 90 36 40%*Note: 1 mg/L = 1 kg/ML 174

Phosphorus Guideline*percentages are based on scenario assumptions, see other spreadsheets in workbook Nitrogen kg/ha/yr kg/ha/yr

Rye grass 70 21 30%Couch (Bermuda) 40 12 30%Eucalypt 15 6 40%

39

Average Year, Scenario 2, upper limit Wet year, Scenario 2, lower limit Dry year, Scenario 2, lower limitNitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen

100 kg/ML 100 kg/ML 100 kg/ML2.5 ML/ha/year 1.8 ML/ha/year 3.4 ML/ha/year

250 kg/ha/yr applied 180 kg/ha/yr applied 340 kg/ha/yr applied183.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 183.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 183.00 kg/ha/yr extracted

67.00 accumulated nitrogen -3.00 deficit nitrogen 157.00 accumulation nitrogenAverage Year, Scenario 2, lower limit Wet Year, Scenario 2, lower limit Dry Year, Scenario 2, lower limit


125 kg/ha/yr applied 90 kg/ha/yr applied 170 kg/ha/yr applied183.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 183.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 183.00 kg/ha/yr extracted-58.00 deficit nitrogen -93.00 deficit nitrogen -13.00 deficit nitrogen

Phosphorus Phosphorus PhosphorusAverage Year, Scenario 2, upper limit Wet Year, Scenario 2, upper limit Dry Year, Scenario 2, upper limit

16 kg/ML 16 kg/ML 16 kg/ML2.5 ML/ha/year 1.8 ML/ha/year 3.4 ML/ha/year40 kg/ha/yr applied 28.8 kg/ha/yr applied 54.4 kg/ha/yr applied

39.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 39.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 39.00 kg/ha/yr extracted1.00 accumulated phosphorus -10.20 deficit phosphorus 15.40 accumulation phosphorus

8 kg/ML 8 kg/ML 8 kg/ML2.5 ML/ha/year 1.8 ML/ha/year 3.4 ML/ha/year20 kg/ha/yr applied 14.4 kg/ha/yr applied 27.2 kg/ha/yr applied

39.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 39.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 39.00 kg/ha/yr extracted-19.00 deficit phosphorus -24.60 deficit phosphorus -11.80 deficit phosphorus

*above calculations doesn’t take into account a dilution factor of rainfall*can be calculated by annual rainfall - evaporation, calculated as a percentage dilution factor of total volumes irrigated

NUTRIENT BALANCESScenario modelled (information provided) 100% Turf grass scenario

GuidelineNitrogen kg/ha/yr

Couch (Bermuda) 280 100%Email from Tim indicates 50 - 100 mg/L N and 8 - 16 mg/L P in the wastewater *100% for Couch as Winter Grass is not irrigated

Lower UpperN 50 100 mg/L (kg/ML) Phosphorus GuidelineP 8 16 mg/L (kg/ML) Nitrogen kg/ha/yr

*Note: 1 mg/L = 1 kg/ML Couch (Bermuda) 40 100%

*percentages are based on scenario assumptions, see other spreadsheets in workbook




60.00 accumulation nitrogen -40.00 deficit nitrogen 160.00 accumulation nitrogenAverage Year, Scenario 2, lower limit Wet Year, Scenario 2, lower limit Dry Year, Scenario 2, lower limit



-110.00 deficit nitrogen -160.00 deficit nitrogen -60.00 deficit nitrogen



54.4 kg/ha/yr applied 38.4 kg/ha/yr applied 70.4 kg/ha/yr applied40.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 40.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 40.00 kg/ha/yr extracted14.40 accumulated phosphorus -1.60 deficit phosphorus 30.40 accumulation phosphorus


27.2 kg/ha/yr applied 19.2 kg/ha/yr applied 35.2 kg/ha/yr applied40.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 40.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 40.00 kg/ha/yr extracted

-12.80 deficit phosphorus -20.80 deficit phosphorus -4.80 deficit phosphorus

NUTRIENT BALANCESScenario modelled (information provided) 100% lucerne scenarioUsing lower limits for nitrogen and phosphorus uptake of lucerne

GuidelineNitrogen kg/ha/yr

Lucerne 220 - 540 100%Email from Tim indicates 50 - 100 mg/L N and 8 - 16 mg/L P in the wastewater Lower value used for calculations

Lower UpperN 50 100 mg/L (kg/ML) Phosphorus GuidelineP 8 16 mg/L (kg/ML) Nitrogen kg/ha/yr

*Note: 1 mg/L = 1 kg/ML Lucerne 20-30 100%

*percentages are based on scenario assumptions, see other spreadsheets in workbook



630 kg/ha/yr applied 520 kg/ha/yr applied 760 kg/ha/yr applied220.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 220.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 220.00 kg/ha/yr extracted410.00 accumulated nitrogen 300.00 accumulated nitrogen 540.00 accumulation nitrogen

Average Year, Scenario 2, lower limit Wet Year, Scenario 2, lower limit Dry Year, Scenario 2, lower limit50 kg/ML 50 kg/ML 50 kg/ML

6.3 ML/ha/year 5.2 ML/ha/year 7.6 ML/ha/year315 kg/ha/yr applied 260 kg/ha/yr applied 380 kg/ha/yr applied

220.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 220.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 220.00 kg/ha/yr extracted95.00 accumulated nitrogen 40.00 accumulated nitrogen 160.00 accumulated nitrogen



100.8 kg/ha/yr applied 83.2 kg/ha/yr applied 121.6 kg/ha/yr applied20.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 20.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 20.00 kg/ha/yr extracted80.80 accumulated phosphorus 63.20 deficit phosphorus 101.60 accumulation phosphorus


50.4 kg/ha/yr applied 41.6 kg/ha/yr applied 60.8 kg/ha/yr applied20.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 20.00 kg/ha/yr extracted 20.00 kg/ha/yr extracted30.40 accumulated phosphorus 21.60 deficit phosphorus 40.80 accumulation phosphorus

Average rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Combination of turf grass and immature, native trees (eucalyptus)# Item Calculation unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual (average year) mm 39.7 37.5 52 72.8 91.1 100.2 108.1 108.7 89.9 78.7 60.2 51.6 891B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 27.79 26.25 36.4 50.96 63.77 70.14 75.67 76.09 62.93 55.09 42.14 36.12 623A EPan (monthly) mm 196.3 166.6 134 82.6 54.7 39.9 45.4 60.9 77.7 109.6 134.1 169.7 1272I cf mm 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.52 0.52 0.52C1 ETcrop I x A mm 102.08 86.63 69.68 52.86 35.01 25.54 29.06 38.98 49.73 56.99 69.73 88.24C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 74.3 60.4 33.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 27.6 52.1 444

Ireq per ha C2 x 0.01 ML/ha 0.74 0.60 0.33 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.28 0.52 2.5D2 Levap x 1000 (10(0.8A -B1) x LA)/1000 ML 0.4694 0.3831 0.2208 -0.0269 -0.1894 -0.2731 -0.2871 -0.2399 -0.1110 0.0359 0.1883 0.3366D Levap D2 x 1000 kL 469 383 221 -27 -189 -273 -287 -240 -111 36 188 337 18235E Wastewater input kL 2759 1764 1674 960 868 690 558 713 960 1674 1890 2759 17269

Wastewater input E /1000 ML 2.759 1.764 1.674 0.96 0.868 0.69 0.558 0.713 0.96 1.674 1.89 2.759 17F Total for irrigation E - D kL 2290 1381 1453 987 1057 963 845 953 1071 1638 1702 2422H Lvol without irrigation kL 14385 16137 17799 987 2044 3007 3852 4805 5876 7514 9216 11638H Lvol with irrigation F + Balance - (10C2 x G) kL 3421 717 -72 987 2044 3007 3852 4805 5876 7410 7258 6160G Area required to use available water Ha 7.4

# Corresponds to numbered columns in EPA Publication 168Ractual monthly rainfall in mm (Bureau of Meteorology)Reffective

Epan (monthly) monthly pan evaporation in mm (Bureau of Meterology)ETcrop monthly crop evapotranspiration in mm, equivalent to E pan multiplied by cfcf

Ireq

Levap montly evaporation from a lagoon 2m x 50 m x 100 m in kL using equation (iii)Table 7, EPA Publication 168. Negative value = water gain (rainfall > evap)Lvol cumulative storage in lagoons. Calculated from April to March assuming volume starts at 0 in April following summer irrigation period.Assumptions:E Wastewater Inflows are based on occupancy rates for individual months: N:\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\33485\Technical\LCA materials_JS\SILO data Princetown.xlsx

LA surface area of required winter storage lagoons calculated as 0.4 ha Storage volume 10000 kLRainfall and evaporation data obtained from Princetown weather station, values calculated from historical records.

crop factor for estimating water usage by the plants irrigated in mm.cf taken from EPA Publication 168, CSIRO, and FAO, Evaporation measured in Epan

effective monthly rainfall available to crop in mm calculated as per EPA Publication 168(months with rainfall > 25 mm effective is 70% of monthly rainfall - approach is accepted for wootlots in Table 7 and pasture in Table 7A)

monthly irrigation requirement in mm representing monthly water usage by plants irrigated,equivalent to: Etcrop minus Reffective or zero if ETcrop < Reffective.

Assumes no irrigation will occur over winter months from May to September and that storage start empty in May(no irrigation requirement over winter months therefore storage is required)

Wet (90th percentile) rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Combination of turf grass and immature, native trees (eucalyptus)# Item Calculation Unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual mm 49.86 47.06 65.19 91.34 114.29 125.72 135.56 136.31 112.81 98.71 75.58 64.73 1117B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 34.901 32.94086 45.63338 63.93668 80.00474 88.00729 94.89171 95.41517 78.96475 69.09934 52.90616 45.3109 782A EPan (monthly) mm 184.42 156.7 126.8 75.14 48.04 37.12 41.52 55.24 72.88 103.88 126.52 165.12 1193I cf mm 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.52 0.52 0.52C1 ETcrop I x A mm 95.90 81.48 65.94 48.09 30.75 23.76 26.57 35.35 46.64 54.02 65.79 85.86C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 61.0 48.5 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 40.6 444

Ireq per ha C2 x 0.01 ML/ha 0.61 0.49 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.41 1.8D2 Levap x1000 (10(0.8A -B1) x LA)/1000 ML 0.3907 0.3132 0.1450 -0.1249 -0.3034 -0.3841 -0.4094 -0.3685 -0.2180 -0.0624 0.1025 0.2695D1 Levap D2 x 1000 kL 391 313 145 -125 -303 -384 -409 -368 -218 -62 103 269 18235E Wastewater input kL 2759 1764 1674 960 868 690 558 713 960 1674 1890 2759 17269

Wastewater input E /1000 ML 2.759 1.764 1.674 0.96 0.868 0.69 0.558 0.713 0.96 1.674 1.89 2.759 17F Total for irrigation E - D 2368 1451 1529 1085 1171 1074 967 1081 1178 1736 1787 2490H Lvol without irrigation kL 15318 17070 18732 1085 2256 3330 4298 5379 6557 8294 10081 12571H Lvol with irrigation F + Balance - (10C2 x G) kL 3686 353 -105 1085 2256 3330 4298 5379 6557 8294 8831 7332G Area required to use available water Ha 10.5


Epan (monthly) monthly pan evaporation in mm (Bureau of Meterology)ETcrop monthly crop evapotranspiration in mm, equivalent to Epan multiplied by cfcf

Ireq

Levap montly evaporation from a lagoon 2.5 m x 50 m x 90 m in kL using equation (iii)Table 7, EPA Publication 168. Negative value = water gain (rainfall > evap)Lvol cumulative storage in lagoons. Calculated from March to February assuming volume starts at 0 in April following summer irrigation period.Assumptions:E Wastewater Inflows are based on occupancy rates for individual months: N:\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\33485\Technical\LCA materials_JS\SILO data Princetown.xlsx



crop factor for estimating water usage by the plants irrigated in mm.cf taken from EPA Publication 168, CSIRO, and FAO, Evaporation measured in Epanmonthly irrigation requirement in mm representing monthly water usage by plants irrigated,equivalent to: Etcrop minus Reffective or zero if ETcrop < Reffective.

Assumes no irrigation will occur over winter months from April to October and that storage start empty in April(as in these months there is no irrigation crop requirement so water needs to be stored)

Dry rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Combination of turf grass and immature, native trees (eucalyptus)# Item Calculation unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual mm 32.87695 31.03049 42.98692 60.22874 75.36495 82.9034 89.38856 89.88166 74.38527 65.092 49.83792 42.68314 891B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 23.01387 21.72134 30.09084 42.16012 52.75546 58.03238 62.57199 62.91716 52.06969 45.5644 34.88655 29.8782 623A EPan (monthly) mm 208.78 175.7 139.6 89.06 58.28 41.64 47.4 65.04 86.84 118.24 145.36 184.76 1272I cf mm 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.52 0.52 0.52C1 ETcrop I x A mm 108.57 91.36 72.59 57.00 37.30 26.65 30.34 41.63 55.58 61.48 75.59 96.08C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 85.6 69.6 42.5 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 15.9 40.7 66.2 444

Ireq per ha C2 x 0.01 ML/ha 0.86 0.70 0.43 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.41 0.66 3.4D2 Levap x 1000 (10(0.8A -B1) x LA)/1000 ML 0.5366 0.4381 0.2748 0.0441 -0.1150 -0.1984 -0.2059 -0.1514 -0.0197 0.1180 0.2658 0.4205D Levap D2 x 1000 kL 537 438 275 44 -115 -198 -206 -151 -20 118 266 420 18235E Wastewater input kL 2759 1764 1674 960 868 690 558 713 960 1674 1890 2759 17269




Ireq

Levap montly evaporation from a lagoon 2.5 m x 50 m x 80 m in kL using equation (iii)Table 7, EPA Publication 168. Negative value = water gain (rainfall > evap)Lvol cumulative storage in lagoons. Calculated from April to March assuming volume starts at 0 in May following summer irrigation period.Assumptions:E Wastewater Inflows are based on occupancy rates for individual months: N:\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\33485\Technical\LCA materials_JS\SILO data Princetown.xlsx





Average rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Turf species over the entire area# Item Calculation unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual (average year) mm 39.7 37.5 52 72.8 91.1 100.2 108.1 108.7 89.9 78.7 60.2 51.6 891B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 27.79 26.25 36.4 50.96 63.77 70.14 75.67 76.09 62.93 55.09 42.14 36.12 623A EPan (monthly) mm 196.3 166.6 134 82.6 54.7 39.9 45.4 60.9 77.7 109.6 134.1 169.7 1272I cf mm 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6C1 ETcrop I x A mm 117.78 99.96 80.40 66.08 43.76 31.92 36.32 48.72 62.16 65.76 80.46 101.82C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 90.0 73.7 44.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 38.3 65.7 444


Wastewater input E /1000 ML 2.759 1.764 1.674 0.96 0.868 0.69 0.558 0.713 0.96 1.674 1.89 2.759 17F Total for irrigation E - D kL 2290 1381 1453 987 1057 963 845 953 1071 1638 1702 2422H Lvol without irrigation kL 14385 16137 17799 987 2044 3007 3852 4805 5876 7514 9216 11638H Lvol with irrigation F + Balance - (10C2 x G) kL 3292 854 20 987 2044 3007 3852 4805 5876 6942 6648 5662G Area required to use available water Ha 5.7



Ireq






Wet (90th percentile) rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Turf species over the entire area# Item Calculation Unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual mm 49.86 47.06 65.19 91.34 114.29 125.72 135.56 136.31 112.81 98.71 75.58 64.73 1117B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 34.901 32.94086 45.63338 63.93668 80.00474 88.00729 94.89171 95.41517 78.96475 69.09934 52.90616 45.3109 782A EPan (monthly) mm 184.42 156.7 126.8 75.14 48.04 37.12 41.52 55.24 72.88 103.88 126.52 165.12 1193I cf mm 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6C1 ETcrop I x A mm 110.65 94.02 76.08 60.11 38.43 29.70 33.22 44.19 58.30 62.33 75.91 99.07C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 75.8 61.1 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 53.8 444

Ireq per ha C2 x 0.01 ML/ha 0.76 0.61 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.54 2.4D2 Levap x1000 10(0.8A -B1) x LA)/1000 ML 0.3907 0.3132 0.1450 -0.1249 -0.3034 -0.3841 -0.4094 -0.3685 -0.2180 -0.0624 0.1025 0.2695D1 Levap D2 x 1000 kL 391 313 145 -125 -303 -384 -409 -368 -218 -62 103 269 18235E Wastewater input kL 2759 1764 1674 960 868 690 558 713 960 1674 1890 2759 17269

Wastewater input E /1000 ML 2.759 1.764 1.674 0.96 0.868 0.69 0.558 0.713 0.96 1.674 1.89 2.759 17F Total for irrigation E - D 2368 1451 1529 1085 1171 1074 967 1081 1178 1736 1787 2490H Lvol without irrigation kL 15318 17070 18732 1085 2256 3330 4298 5379 6557 8294 10081 12571H Lvol with irrigation F + Balance - (10C2 x G) kL 3805 805 104 1085 2256 3330 4298 5379 6557 8294 8389 6955G Area required to use available water Ha 7.8



Ireq






Dry rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Turf species over the entire area# Item Calculation unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual mm 32.87695 31.03049 42.98692 60.22874 75.36495 82.9034 89.38856 89.88166 74.38527 65.092 49.83792 42.68314 891B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 23.01387 21.72134 30.09084 42.16012 52.75546 58.03238 62.57199 62.91716 52.06969 45.5644 34.88655 29.8782 623A EPan (monthly) mm 208.78 175.7 139.6 89.06 58.28 41.64 47.4 65.04 86.84 118.24 145.36 184.76 1272I cf mm 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6C1 ETcrop I x A mm 125.27 105.42 83.76 71.25 46.62 33.31 37.92 52.03 69.47 70.94 87.22 110.86C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 102.3 83.7 53.7 29.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 25.4 52.3 81.0 444





Ireq






Average rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Lucerne over the entire area# Item Calculation unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual (average year) mm 39.7 37.5 52 72.8 91.1 100.2 108.1 108.7 89.9 78.7 60.2 51.6 891B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 27.79 26.25 36.4 50.96 63.77 70.14 75.67 76.09 62.93 55.09 42.14 36.12 623A EPan (monthly) mm 196.3 166.6 134 82.6 54.7 39.9 45.4 60.9 77.7 109.6 134.1 169.7 1272I cf mm 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1C1 ETcrop I x A mm 186.49 149.94 113.90 66.08 38.29 21.95 24.97 39.59 58.28 93.16 127.40 169.70C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 158.7 123.7 77.5 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.1 85.3 133.6 444


Wastewater input E /1000 ML 2.759 1.764 1.674 0.96 0.868 0.69 0.558 0.713 0.96 1.674 1.89 2.759 17F Total for irrigation E - D kL 2290 1381 1453 987 1057 963 845 953 1071 1638 1702 2422H Lvol without irrigation kL 14385 16137 17799 987 2044 3007 3852 4805 5876 7514 9216 11638H Lvol with irrigation F + Balance - (10C2 x G) kL 2490 544 -107 987 2044 3007 3852 4805 5876 6408 5741 4492G Area required to use available water Ha 3



Ireq






Wet (90th percentile) rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Lucerne over the entire area# Item Calculation Unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual mm 49.86 47.06 65.19 91.34 114.29 125.72 135.56 136.31 112.81 98.71 75.58 64.73 1117B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 34.901 32.94086 45.63338 63.93668 80.00474 88.00729 94.89171 95.41517 78.96475 69.09934 52.90616 45.3109 782A EPan (monthly) mm 184.42 156.7 126.8 75.14 48.04 37.12 41.52 55.24 72.88 103.88 126.52 165.12 1193I cf mm 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1C1 ETcrop I x A mm 175.20 141.03 107.78 60.11 33.63 20.42 22.84 35.91 54.66 88.30 120.19 165.12C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 140.3 108.1 62.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 67.3 119.8 444

Ireq per ha C2 x 0.01 ML/ha 1.40 1.08 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.67 1.20 5.2D2 Levap x1000 10(0.8A -B1) x LA)/1000 ML 0.3907 0.3132 0.1450 -0.1249 -0.3034 -0.3841 -0.4094 -0.3685 -0.2180 -0.0624 0.1025 0.2695D1 Levap D2 x 1000 kL 391 313 145 -125 -303 -384 -409 -368 -218 -62 103 269 18235E Wastewater input kL 2759 1764 1674 960 868 690 558 713 960 1674 1890 2759 17269

Wastewater input E /1000 ML 2.759 1.764 1.674 0.96 0.868 0.69 0.558 0.713 0.96 1.674 1.89 2.759 17F Total for irrigation E - D 2368 1451 1529 1085 1171 1074 967 1081 1178 1736 1787 2490H Lvol without irrigation kL 15318 17070 18732 1085 2256 3330 4298 5379 6557 8294 10081 12571H Lvol with irrigation F + Balance - (10C2 x G) kL 3261 917 230 1085 2256 3330 4298 5379 6557 8294 7627 5833G Area required to use available water Ha 3.8



Ireq






Dry rainfall scenario (based on data from Princetown weather station (1889-2016) Lucerne over the entire area# Item Calculation unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December TotalsB1 Ractual mm 32.87695 31.03049 42.98692 60.22874 75.36495 82.9034 89.38856 89.88166 74.38527 65.092 49.83792 42.68314 891B2 Reffective 70% B1 mm 23.01387 21.72134 30.09084 42.16012 52.75546 58.03238 62.57199 62.91716 52.06969 45.5644 34.88655 29.8782 623A EPan (monthly) mm 208.78 175.7 139.6 89.06 58.28 41.64 47.4 65.04 86.84 118.24 145.36 184.76 1272I cf mm 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1C1 ETcrop I x A mm 198.34 158.13 118.66 71.25 40.80 22.90 26.07 42.28 65.13 100.50 138.09 184.76C2 Ireq C1-B2 mm 175.3 136.4 88.6 29.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 54.9 103.2 154.9 444


Wastewater input E /1000 ML 2.759 1.764 1.674 0.96 0.868 0.69 0.558 0.713 0.96 1.674 1.89 2.759 17F Total for irrigation E - D kL 2222 1326 1399 916 983 888 764 864 980 1556 1624 2339H Lvol without irrigation kL 13661 15413 17075 916 1899 2787 3551 4416 5395 6951 8575 10914H Lvol with irrigation F + Balance - (10C2 x G) kL 2268 622 82 916 1899 2787 3551 4416 5395 5696 5006 3893G Area required to use available water Ha 2.5



Ireq







Appendix C - Flooding Extent Site Map

04/05/2016 C

B REVISED ISSUE 11/03/2016

C REVISED ISSUE 04/05/2016

Provisional Irrigation Areas

Princetown Resort

For InformationLevel 8, 180 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne VIC 3000

T 61 3 8687 8000 E [email protected] W www.ghdwoodhead.com

Copyright retained by GHD Woodhead Architecture Pty Ltd

Job No: 31-33485

Original Size: A3

Drawing No: 31-33908-SK001

Approved: PT

Date: 15/09/16

Rev: M

11Ha - SITE AREA ABOVE 1:20 FLOOD LEVEL

THIS DIAGRAM SHOWS THE ON SITE AREA AVAILABLE FOR THE WASTE WATER IRRIGATION FIELD THE FINAL IRRIGATION SOLUTION WILL BE DESIGNED TO WORK WITHIN THESE CONSTRAINTS.

AREA AVAILABLE FOR IRRIGATION IS 9ha (EXCLUDES BUILT AREA OF 2ha)

GHD

57 Orange Avenue Mildura, Victoria 3500 T: (03) 5018 5200 F: (03) 5018 5201 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2016

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

N:\AU\Mildura\Projects\31\3348516\WP\603853.docx

Document Status

Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date

3 Jo Stephens

Tom Young Tom Young 21/09/2016

www.ghd.com

GHD

180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000 T: (03) 8687 8000 F: (03) 8687 8111 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2016

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

G:\31\33485\WP\251938.docx

Document Status

Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date

0 Kate Dortmans

Tom Young Tom Young 22/09/16

www.ghd.com

Documents

Montarosa Pty Ltd - EPA Victoria · 3.3 Air Emissions Assessment ... Princetown Integrated Eco-Tourism Resort Facility (Resort Facility). ... ACN 127 791 502 Registered Address 735