Council archive · source document
Reference Document - Acid Sulfate Soil Report 11_2023- OPW23_0189 · OPW26/0094
-
NOOSA COUNCIL
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
OPW26/0094 9 SEP 2026
ACID SULFATE SOIL REPORT: Proposed Residence
30 Mossman Court
Noosa Heads
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd
November 2023
PG-10899
VERSION 3
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of pages 2 to 64 (of 75)
Page 2
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
Author: Robert Maxwell
28th November, 2023
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]
ATTENTION: DAVID DODD
Dear Sir,
ACID SULFATE SOIL INVESTIGATION – PROPOSED RESIDENCE
30 MOSSMAN COURT, NOOSA HEADS
Enclosed is a copy of our report for the above project dated November 2023. An
electronic copy of the report has been issued.
It should be noted that access to the site was restricted by the existing on-site
residence and testing was therefore restricted to one location only. Additional
borehole drilling and testing will be required when access becomes available.
Should you have any queries regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact
Robert Maxwell or Peter Elkington at this office.
Yours faithfully,
R. MAXWELL (RPEQ 16596)
For and on behalf of
PACIFIC GEOTECH PTY LTD
[email protected]
www.pacgeo.com.au
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 2
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 2
4.0 GEOLOGICAL MODEL .......................................................................................... 4
5.0 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................... 4
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................... 5
7.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 7
Appendices
Appendix A
Notes relating to this report
Appendix B
Borehole Record Sheets
Appendix C
Laboratory Test Certificates
Appendix D
Site Plan
Appendix E
Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 4
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 1
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of the acid sulfate soil investigation by Pacific Geotech
and contains advice and recommendations relating to:
Acid sulfate soil conditions
Development of an Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan
Proposed Development
It is understood that the proposed development is to consist of the construction of a
two-storey residence above a single level basement at the above site. Earthworks are
envisaged to consist of cuts of up to 3m for the basement. The total volume of material
to be disturbed is in the order 900m3.
The proposed development is indicated below.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED SECTION
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 5
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 2
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of one (1) boreholes to a depth
of 9.0m, using a Compac 018 drilling rig fitted with 100mm solid flight augers, and one
(1) hand auger across the proposed building area. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) testing was conducted adjacent to the boreholes.
The deeper borehole was sampled for Acid Sulfate purposes, in addition to
geotechnical sampling.
Additional borehole drilling and testing will be required when access to the remainder
of the site becomes available.
The boreholes were located by an experienced geotechnical engineer with
reference to the site features and locations were recorded. At the completion of the
drilling, the holes were checked for groundwater intrusion and then backfilled.
The soil classification descriptions and field tests were carried out in general
accordance with Australian Standards.
AS 1726 Geotechnical Site Investigations
QASSIT Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation
Team Dept. of Natural Resources, 'Guidelines
for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland Acid
Sulfate Soils (ASS) in Queensland, 1998' (Oct.
1998, Revision 4.0).
NOOSA COUNCIL 'SC6.9.3 Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) Investigation
and management plan
QUEENSLAND State Planning Policy Guideline, December
GOVERNMENT 2013, Acid Sulfate Soils
Borehole records, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test results and a site plan showing
the test locations are appended to the report.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site of the proposed development is located at 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads.
The site was bordered by Mossman Court to the south, existing residences to the east
and west, and a canal to the north.
At the time of the investigation, the site was occupied by an existing two storey
residence and detach single garage. The site was relatively level and drainage was
considered poor to fair.
Refer following aerial and site photographs for typical site conditions.
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 6
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 3
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
AERIAL IMAGE
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 7
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 4
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
4.0 GEOLOGICAL MODEL
The subsurface profile encountered in borehole BH01 generally consisted of a surficial
concrete layer associated with the driveway, overlying very loose to loose sand fill to
a depth of 2.3m, overlying natural sands that were generally medium dense to dense,
becoming indurated at a depth of 6.6m, and continued to the termination of
borehole BH01 of 9.0m.
In HA02, loose silty sand fill was encountered to a depth of 0.6m, overlying loose sand
fill to the termination depth of 1.0m.
Table 1. presents a summary of the encountered subsurface profile. Detailed borehole
record sheets are appended to this report.
TABLE 1 SUBSURFACE PROFILE SUMMARY
NATURAL
SAND
BH No. FILL BH TD
Dense to Very Dense
Medium Dense to Dense
(Indurated)
BH01 0.0-2.3 2.3-6.6 6.6-TD 9.0
BH02 0.0-TD NE NE 1.0
Notes:
1. All depths in metres below ground level at time of investigation.
2. NE - Not Encountered; TD - Termination Depth.
5.0 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was noted in borehole BH01 at a depth of 2.8m at the time of drilling.
Water levels can be expected to similar to the tidal levels of the neighbouring canal
and may vary with seasonal and climatic conditions.
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 8
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 5
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
Typically the groundwater levels in the area are encountered at levels of
approximately RL 0.5m to RL 1.0m. Fluctuations of +/- 0.5m are typically noted in the
area.
Increases in the groundwater levels often occur following significant rainfall events
(floods) with the groundwater levels to as much as RL 1.5m to RL 2.0m being noted in
the area.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was undertaken in general accordance with the
recommendations outlined in the QASSIT 'Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods
Guidelines 2004' and was undertaken by Pacific Geotech. The results of the testing
program are appended to this report.
The testing program comprised of initial screening tests on recovered samples,
followed by quantitative testing using the Chromium Reducible Sulfur (CRS) suite.
Screening Tests
Screening tests were undertaken on soil samples collected from borehole BH01. Two
small sub-samples of each soil sample were prepared; one sub-sample from each
sample was mixed with approximately 20mL of distilled water, and the other sub-
sample mixed with approximately 20mL of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), buffered to a
pH of 5.4 with sodium hydroxide.
Slurry pHs were measured with a calibrated pH meter. The pH of the distilled water/soil
slurry (pHF) was measured approximately one hour after mixing, whilst the pH of the
hydrogen peroxide/soil slurry (pHFOX) was measured approximately one to two hours
after mixing.
The pH screening tests can be used for the preliminary identification of a potential or
actual ASS using a combination of three trigger factors as follows:
a) The strength of the reaction with peroxide is a useful indicator but cannot be
used alone. Organic matter and other soil constituents such as manganese
oxides can also cause a reaction.
b) A pHFOX value at least one unit below pHF may indicate a potential ASS. The
great the difference between the two measurements, the more indicative the
value is of a potential ASS. The lower the final pHFOX value the better the
indication of a positive result.
c) If the pHFOX is less than 3, and the other two conditions apply, then it strongly
indicates a potential ASS. The more the pHFOX drops below 3, the more positive
the presence of sulfides.
In broad summary, several of the ‘natural’ soil samples tested did show a strong
indication of ASS presence at depths greater than 3m below ground level. The results
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 9
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 6
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
of the screening tests were used to assist in the selection of samples for more detailed,
quantitative laboratory testing.
Chromium Suite Analysis
Chromium suite analysis was undertaken to quantify existing soil acidity and potential
future acid generation from possible ASS. Soil samples were refrigerated until
transported to Pacific Geotech’s laboratory, under standard chain of custody
protocol. A summary of results is given in Table 2.
TABLE 2 CHROMIUM SUITE TESTING SUMMARY
Nett Acidity Liming Rate
BH No. Depth (m)
(mol H+/t) (kg CaCO3/t)
BH 01 1.0 <5 <1
BH 01 2.0 11 <1
BH 01 3.0 23 2
BH 01 4.0 35 3
Summary
On the basis of the testing undertaken, some samples provided nett acidity values
above the QASSIT defined action criteria at depths greater than 3m below ground
level. Therefore, soils disturbed on-site should be treated in accordance with the
attached Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan.
The results of the laboratory testing are appended to this report.
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 10
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 7
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
7.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the Proposed Residence at 30 Mossman Court,
Noosa Heads. The report is provided for the exclusive use of DD Sunnyside CD
Sunnyside Pty Ltd, for this project only and for the purposes outlined in the report. It
should not be used by, or relied upon, for other projects on the same or different sites
or by a third party. In preparing this report, we have relied upon information provided
by the client or their agents.
The results are indicative of the subsurface conditions on site only at the specific
testing locations. Subsurface conditions can change between test locations and the
design and construction should take the spacing of the testing and testing methods
adopted and the potential for variation between the test locations.
This is not to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Pacific Geotech, but rather
to ensure that the parties who may rely on the information contained in this report are
aware of the responsibilities they assume in doing so.
R. MAXWELL (RPEQ 16596)
For and on behalf of
PACIFIC GEOTECH PTY LTD
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 11
Project No. PG-10899
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
APPENDICES
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 12
Project No. PG-10899
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
APPENDIX A
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 13
Notes Relating to this Report
Reports other particles present (e.g. sandy clay) as set
out below:
The report has been prepared by qualified
personnel, is based on the information Soil
Particle Size
obtained from field and laboratory testing, and Classification
has been undertaken to current engineering Clay less than 0.002mm
standards of interpretation and analysis. Silty 0.002 to 0.06mm
Sand 0.06 to 2mm
Gravel 2 to 60mm
Every care has been taken with the report as it
relates to interpretation of subsurface
Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of
conditions, discussion of geotechnical
relative density which can be correlated from
conditions and contains recommendations or
the results of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as
suggestions for design and construction.
below:
However, unexpected variations in ground
conditions will occur. The potential for this will
SPT ‘N’ Value
depend partly on testing, spacing and Relative Density
(blows/300mm)
sampling frequency. Very Loose less than 4
Loose 4 – 10
If variations are identified, Pacific Geotech Medium Dense 10 – 30
would be pleased to assist with additional Dense 30 – 50
investigations or advice to resolve the matter. Very Dense greater than 50
Copyright Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of
strength (consistency) and can be quantified
This report is the property of Pacific Geotech by the Pocket Penetrometer test, Vane Shear
Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the test, laboratory testing or engineering
purpose for which it was commissioned and in examination. The strength terms are defined as
accordance with the Terms of Engagement of follows:
proposal. Unauthorised use of this report is
prohibited. Unconfined Compressive
Classification
Strength kPa
Borehole and Test Pit Logs Very Soft less than 25
Soft 25 - 50
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this Firm 50 – 100
report are an engineering and/or geological Stiff 100 – 200
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and Very Stiff 200 - 400
Hard greater than 400
their reliability will depend to some extent on
Friable strength not attainable – soil
frequency of sampling and the method of crumbles
drilling or excavation.
Rock types are classified by their geological
Interpretation of the information and its
names, together with descriptive terms
application to design and construction should
regarding weathering, strength, defects, etc.
therefore take into account the spacing of
boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, Planarity
and the possibility of other than ‘straight line’ CU Curved
variations between the test locations. DIS Discontinuous
IR Irregular
Description and Classification Methods PR Planar
ST Stepped
The description and classification of soils and UN Undulose
rocks used in this report are based on AS 1726.
Soil types are described according to the
predominating particle size and behaviour as
set out in the attached Unified Soil
Classification Table qualified by the percent of
October 2017 pg. 1
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 14
Roughness Investigation Methods
POL Polished
RJ Rough Test Pits: These are typically undertaken with a
S Smooth backhoe or a tracked excavator, allowing
SL Slickened examination of the insitu soils. Limitations of test
VR Very Rough
pits are the problems associated with collapse
of the pits, disturbance and difficulty of
Defects Type reinstatement and the consequent effects on
BP Bedding Parting close-by structures. Care must be taken if
CL Cleavage construction is to be carried out near test pit
CO Contact locations to either properly recompact the
CS Crushed Seam backfill during construction or to design and
CZ Crushed Zone
construct the structure so as not to be
DB Drilling Break
adversely affected by poorly compacted
DK Dyke
DL Drill Lift backfill at the test pit location.
DZ Decomposed Zone
FC Fracture Hand Auger Drilling: A borehole of typical
FL Foliation diameter of between 50mm to 75mm advance
FZ Fracture Zone manually operated equipment. Premature
HB Handling Break refusal of the hand augers can occur on a
IS Infilled Seam variety of materials such as fill, gravel, hard
JT Joint clays and collapse of the borehole (typically in
H Schistosity non-cohesive soil).
SI Sill
SM Seam Continuous Spiral flight Augers: The borehole is
SS Shear Seam advanced using 65mm to 100mm diameter
SZ Shear Zone
continuous spiral flight augers, which are
VN Vein
withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling and
VO Void
insitu testing. Augers of up to 300mm in
Sampling diameter are used to recover larger volumes of
sample. Samples are returned to the surface
Sampling is undertaken during the fieldwork to by the flights or may be collected after
allow examination of the soil or rock and to withdrawal of the auger flights. Samples can
allow laboratory testing to be undertaken. be disturbed and layers may become mixed.
Augering below the groundwater table can be
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide less reliable than augering above the water
information on plasticity, grain size, colour, table.
moisture content and minor constituents. Bulk
samples are similar but of greater volume A Tungsten Carbide (TC) bit for auger drilling
required for some test procedures such as CBR into rock can be used to indicate rock strength
testing. and continuity by variation in drilling resistance
and from examination of recovered rock
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a fragments but provides only an indication of
thin-walled sample tube, usually 50mm the likely rock strength. Where rock strengths
diameter (known as a U50), into the soil and may have a significant impact on construction
collecting a sample of the soil contained in a feasibility or costs, then further investigation by
relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield means of cored boreholes may be warranted.
information on structure and strength, and are
necessary for laboratory determination of shear Wash Boring: The borehole is advanced by a
strength and compressibility. Undisturbed bit attached to the end of a hollow rod string,
sampling is generally effective only in cohesive with water being pumped down the drill rods
soils. and returned up the annulus of the borehole,
carrying the drill cuttings. Changes in
Details of the type and method of sampling stratification can be determined from the
used are given on the attached logs. return, together with information from “feel”
and rate of penetration.
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 15
The borehole can be stabilised through the use using a Cone Penetrometer in general
of drilling mud as a circulating fluid. The term accordance with AS 1289 6.5.1, 1999.
‘mud’ encompasses a range of products
ranging from bentonite to polymers such as In the tests, a 36mm diameter rod with a
Revert or Biogel. conical tip is pushed continuously into the soil,
the reaction being provided by a hydraulic
Continuous Core Drilling: A continuous core ram system. Measurements are made of the
sample is obtained using a diamond tipped end bearing resistance on the cone and the
core barrel. This technique provides a reliable fractional resistance on a separate 135mm
(but relatively expensive) method of long sleeve, immediately behind the cone.
investigation. In rocks, an NMLC triple tube Pore Pressure is recovered through a pore ring
core barrel is used, which gives a core of about located either within, or more usually
50mm diameter. The length of core recovered immediately behind the cone/tip.
is compared to the length drilled and any
length not recovered is shown as CORE LOSS. As penetration occurs (at a rate of
approximately 20mm per second) and data is
Standard Penetration Tests: Standard recorded every 20mm of penetration, the
Penetration Tests (SPT) are used mainly in non- results are presented graphically.
cohesive soils, but can also be used in cohesive
soils as a means of indicating density or The information provided on the plot
strength and also of obtaining a disturbed comprises:
sample. The test procedure is described in
Cone resistance – expressed in mPa
Australian Standard 1289, “Methods of Testing
Sleeve friction – expressed in kPa
Soils for Engineering Purposed”, Test 6.3.1.
Friction ratio – the ratio of sleeve
The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a friction to cone resistance expressed as
50mm diameter split sample tube with a a percentage.
tapered shoe, under the impact of a 63kg Pore pressure in kPa
hammer, with a free fall of 760mm. The sample Tilt of probe (in degrees).
is driven in three successive 150mm increments
and the ‘N’ value is taken as the number of
The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone
blows for the last 300mm. In dense soils, hard
resistance will vary with the type of soil
clays or weak rock, the full 450mm penetration
encountered, with higher relative friction in
may not be practicable and the test is
clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1% to 2%
discontinued.
are commonly encountered in sands and rising
The test results are reported in the following to 2% to as high as 8%, and higher in organic
form: soils. Soil descriptions based on cone
resistance and friction ratios are only inferred
In the case where full penetration is and must not be considered as exact.
obtained with successive blow counts
for each 150mm of , say, 4, 6 and 7 Stratification can be inferred from the cone
blows, as and friction traces and from experience and
N = 13 information from nearby boreholes, etc. Where
4, 6, 7 shown, this information is presented for general
In a case where the test is discontinued guidance, but must be regarded as
short of full penetration, say after 15 interpretive.
blows for the first 150mm and 30 blows
Dynamic Cone Penetrometers:
for the next 40mm, as
N > 30
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are
15, 30/40mm
carried out by driving a 16mm diameter rod
into the ground with a 9kg sliding hammer
Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT): Cone
dropping 510mm and counting the blows for
Penetrometer Testing with or without pore
successive 100mm increments of penetration.
pressure measurement (CPTu) is carried out
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 16
Logs for fill, it may be difficult to reliably determine
the extent of the fill.
The borehole or test pit logs are an
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and Laboratory Testing
their reliability will depend to some extent on
the frequency of sampling and the method of Laboratory testing is carried out in general
drilling or excavation. accordance with Australian Standard 1289
‘Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering
Interpretation of the information shown on the Purposes’.
logs, and its application to design and
construction, should therefore take into Site Anomalies
account the spacing of the boreholes or test
In the event that conditions encountered on
pits, the method of drilling or excavation, the
site during construction appear to vary from
frequency of sampling and testing and the
those which were expected from the
possibility of other than “straight line” variations
information contained in the report, the
between the boreholes or test pits. Subsurface
company requests that it immediately be
conditions between boreholes or test pits may
notified. Most problems are much more readily
vary significantly from conditions encountered
resolved when conditions are exposed than at
at the borehole or test pit locations.
some later stage.
Groundwater
Review of Design
Where groundwater levels are measured in
Where major civil or structural developments
boreholes, there are several potential
are proposed or where only a limited
problems:
investigation has been completed or where the
Although groundwater may be geotechnical conditions/constraints are quite
present, in low permeability soils it may complex, it is prudent to have a design review.
enter the hole slowly or perhaps not at
Site Inspection
all during the time it is left open.
A localised perched water table may
Pacific Geotech would be pleased to provide
lead to an erroneous indication of the
engineering inspection services for
true water table.
geotechnical aspects of work to which this
Water table levels will vary from time to
report is related:
time with seasons or recent weather
changes and may not be the same at Requirements could range from:
the time of construction.
The use of water or mud as a drilling i. a site visit to confirm that conditions
fluid will mask any groundwater inflow. exposed are no worse than those
Water has to be flushed from the hole interpreted, to
and drilling mud must be washed out ii. a visit to assist the contractor or other
of the hole or ‘reverted’ chemically if site personnel in identifying various
water observations are to be made. soil/rock types such as appropriate
More reliable measurements can be made by footing or pier founding depths, or
installing standpipes from which ongoing iii. full time engineering present on site.
monitoring can be undertaken.
Fill
The present of fill materials can often be
determined only by the inclusion of foreign
objects (e.g. bricks, steel ,etc.) or by distinctly
unusual colour, texture or fabric. Identification
of the extent of fill materials will also depend on
investigation methods and frequency. Where
natural soils similar to those at the site are used
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 17
Project No. PG-10899
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
APPENDIX B
BOREHOLE RECORD SHEETS
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 18
Borehole No.
BH01
Page 1 of 2
Project No.: PG-10899
Client: DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd Commenced: 06/10/2023
Project Name: Proposed Residence Logged By: RR
Hole Location: 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads Checked By:
Hole Position:
Drill Model and Mounting: Compac 018 RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: Datum: AHD Operator: RR
Drilling Information Soil Description DCP
Classification
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Recovery
Tests Fraction, Colour, Structure, Bedding,
Symbol
Method
Casing
Remarks Plasticity, Sensitivity, Additional
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Concrete (CCT)
0.15
SP FILL SAND (SP) Very loose to loose, fine to medium grained, pale
yellow brown, moist.
ASS 0.50-1.00 m
1
ASS 1.00-1.50 m
D 1.10-1.50 m
ASS 1.50-2.00 m
ER PACGEO 1.01.2 LIB.GLB Log PACGEO BOREHOLE PG-10899.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 17/10/2023 10:45 10.03.00.09 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: pacgeo 1.01.2 2022-05-25 Prj: Precise 1.01 2016-11-23
2
ASS 2.00-2.50 m
2.30
SP NATURAL SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, pale
yellow brown, moist.
AD/T
ASS 2.50-3.00 m
D 2.60-3.00 m
2.80
SP SAND (SP) Medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained, pale grey,
wet.
3
ASS 3.00-3.50 m
ASS 3.50-4.00 m
4
4.10
D 4.10-4.50 m SP SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, pale grey, wet.
Method Water Samples and Tests Remarks
AS - Auger Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample
RR - Rock Roller D - Disturbed Sample 1. Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.
WB- Washbore Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test 2. DCP refusal at 3.07m.
B - Bulk Sample 3. Standpipe installed to 3.15m.
Classification Symbols and
Support Soil Descriptions
C - Casing
Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 19
Borehole No.
BH01
Page 2 of 2
Project No.: PG-10899
Client: DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd Commenced: 06/10/2023
Project Name: Proposed Residence Logged By: RR
Hole Location: 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads Checked By:
Hole Position:
Drill Model and Mounting: Compac 018 RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: Datum: AHD Operator: RR
Drilling Information Soil Description DCP
Classification
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Recovery
Tests Fraction, Colour, Structure, Bedding,
Symbol
Method
Casing
Remarks Plasticity, Sensitivity, Additional
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
SP SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, pale grey, wet.
(continued)
6
6.60
ER PACGEO 1.01.2 LIB.GLB Log PACGEO BOREHOLE PG-10899.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 17/10/2023 10:45 10.03.00.09 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: pacgeo 1.01.2 2022-05-25 Prj: Precise 1.01 2016-11-23
SM Silty SAND (SM) Dense to very dense, fine to medium grained, dark
brown, wet (indurated sand).
AD/T
7
8
D 8.60-9.00 m
9.00
9
Hole Terminated at 9.00 m
Method Water Samples and Tests Remarks
AS - Auger Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample
RR - Rock Roller D - Disturbed Sample 1. Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.
WB- Washbore Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test 2. DCP refusal at 3.07m.
B - Bulk Sample 3. Standpipe installed to 3.15m.
Classification Symbols and
Support Soil Descriptions
C - Casing
Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 20
Borehole No.
HA02
Page 1 of 1
Project No.: PG-10899
Client: DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd Commenced: 06/10/2023
Project Name: Proposed Residence Logged By: RR
Hole Location: 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads Checked By:
Hole Position:
Drill Model and Mounting: Hand Auger RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: Datum: AHD Operator: RR
Drilling Information Soil Description DCP
Classification
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Recovery
Tests Fraction, Colour, Structure, Bedding,
Symbol
Method
Casing
Remarks Plasticity, Sensitivity, Additional
Water
RL Depth
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
SM FILL Silty SAND (SM) Loose, fine to medium grained, dark brown, with
fine sized gravel, dry.
HA
0.60
SP FILL SAND (SP) Loose, fine to medium grained, pale yellow brown,
moist to dry.
1.00
1
Hole Terminated at 1.00 m
ER PACGEO 1.01.2 LIB.GLB Log PACGEO BOREHOLE PG-10899.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 17/10/2023 10:45 10.03.00.09 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: pacgeo 1.01.2 2022-05-25 Prj: Precise 1.01 2016-11-23
2
3
4
Method Water Samples and Tests Remarks
AS - Auger Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample
RR - Rock Roller D - Disturbed Sample 1. Groundwater not encountered.
WB- Washbore Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test 2. DCP refusal at 2.38m.
B - Bulk Sample
Classification Symbols and
Support Soil Descriptions
C - Casing
Based on Unified Soil
Classification System
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 21
Project No. PG-10899
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST CERTIFICATES
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 22
pH Screen Report
CLIENT: DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd PROJECT NUMBER: PG-10899
ADDRESS: 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads REPORT NUMBER: 23-536 Rev. No.0
REPORT DATE: 10.10.23
PROJECT NAME: Proposed Residence
TEST METHOD: ENV04
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLING METHOD: Disturbed
SAMPLED BY: Pacific Geotech
DATE SAMPLED: 6.10.23
DATE RECEIVED: 9.10.23
DATE TESTED: 9.10.23
Sample
Lab Ref. No. Depth (m) pH pHFOX pHFOX Reaction Rating
Description
E23-536-1 BH01 0.5 6.4 5.1 X
E23-536-2 BH01 1.0 6.3 5.2 X
E23-536-3 BH01 1.5 6.6 5.1 X
E23-536-4 BH01 2.0 6.5 5.1 X
E23-536-5 BH01 2.5 6.5 5.1 X
E23-536-6 BH01 3.0 5.7 3.1 XX
E23-536-7 BH01 3.5 5.2 3.0 XXXX
E23-536-8 BH01 4.0 4.8 3.0 XXXX
pH Screen Reaction Rating Table
Reaction Scale Reaction
X Slight Reaction
XX Moderate Reaction
XXX High Reaction
XXXX Vigorous Reaction, gas evolved, heat generated
Pacific Geotech accepts no responsibilty for the collection and transport of samples submitted by external parties.
Measurement uncertainty data is available upon request. LOR denotes Limit of Reporting
All samples are analysed on an as received basis and the results in rhis report pertain only to the sample submitted.
This report supercedes any previous report(s) issued with this reference number. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.
Accredited for Compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing Approved Signatory
Pacific Geotech Pty Ltd - Accreditation No. 21130
Daryl Surkitt
Gold Coast Laboratory - Site No. 25487 Environmental Laboratory Manager
Form ER003.1.
Page 1 of 1
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 23
Acid Sulfate Soil Report
CLIENT: DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd PROJECT NUMBER: PG-10899
ADDRESS: 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads REPORT NUMBER: 23-537 Rev. No.0
PROJECT NAME: Proposed Residence REPORT DATE: 13.10.23
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLING METHOD: Disturbed
SAMPLED BY: Pacific Geotech
DATE SAMPLED: 6.10.23
DATE RECEIVED: 9.10.23
DATE TESTED: 9.10.23
PREPERATION/ANALYSIS METHOD: ENV01/ENV02
Lab Ref Number E23-537-1 E23-537-2 E23-537-3 E23-537-4
Sample Description Unit LOR BH01 BH01 BH01 BH01
Depth (m) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
pHKCL pH Unit 0.1 6.4 6.6 5.3 5.1
Chromium Reducible Sulfur %w/w S 0.005 <0.005 0.017 0.037 0.056
Chromium Reducible Sulfur mol H+/t 3 <3 11 23 35
TAA pH to 6.5 mol H+/t 2 <2 <2 <2 <2
s-TAA pH to 6.5 %w/w S 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
KCl Ext S %w/w S 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.006
HCl Ext S %w/w S 0.005 0.012 0.010 0.015 0.012
Retained Acidity (SNAS) %w/w S 0.005 N/R N/R N/R N/R
Retained Acidity (SNAS) mol H+/t 3 N/R N/R N/R N/R
ANC %CaCO3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
ANC mol H+/t 5 12 13 13 11
Net Acidity mol H+/t 5 <5 11 23 35
Net Acidity %w/w S 0.005 <0.005 0.018 0.037 0.056
Net Acidity - ANC mol H+/t 1 <1 <1 10 24
Liming Rate kg CaCO3/t 1 <1 1 2 3
Liming Rate - ANC kg CaCO3/t 1 <1 <1 1 2
Liming rate only includes ANC when its effectiveness has been corroborated by simulative oxidation procedures such as incubation. Unless corroborated, the results for ANC analyses should not be used when determining Net Acidity for
for comparison with action criteria. The Liming Rate-ANC calculation is only inluded when the amount of acid neutralising present in the soil is capable of buffering the soil at pH 6.5 or above. A liming safety factror of 1.5 has been applied.
Results apply to samples that have been dried at 85±5oC. LOR denotes Limit of Reporting. N/R denotes Not Required. The results in this report pertain only to the samples as received. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.
Method uncertainty data is available at www.pacgeo,com,au/safety-and -quality-assurance. This report supercedes anty previous report(s) isssued with this reference number.
Pacific Geotech accepts no responsibilty for the collection and transport of samples submitted by external parties.
Accredited for Compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing Approved Signatory
Pacific Geotech Pty Ltd - Accreditation No. 21130
Daryl Surkitt
Gold Coast Laboratory - Site No. 25487 Environmental Laboratory Manager
Form ER004.1
Page 1 of 1
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 24
Project No. PG-10899
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
APPENDIX D
SITE PLAN
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 25
HA02
BH01
Drawn
Project: Proposed Residence
RM
Drawing No.
Date
Location: 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads A4
Oct 23
PG-10899-01
Checked
Client: DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 26
Project No. PG-10899
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASR VER 3
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation - Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
APPENDIX E
ACID SULFATE SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 27
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 1
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASSMP VER 2
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan – Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
ACID SULFATE SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN (ASSMP)
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
30 MOSSMAN COURT, NOOSA HEADS
Objective The objective of the ASSMP is to control any acid generation from
insitu ASS materials and to restrict to an acceptable level any
potential on-site and off-site environmental impacts. A further
objective is to manage earthworks activities and provide measures
to maintain water quality within the site and in adjacent areas.
Proposed It is understood that the proposed development is to comprise the
Development construction of a two storey residence with a basement.
Earthworks are envisaged to consist of cuts of up to 3m for the
basement. A total volume of material to be disturbed is
approximately 900m3. Additional investigation and testing will be
required to confirm the results and recommendations of this
management plan.
Subsurface Mapping
Conditions The site is located in an area that is mapped on the Noosa Council
Acid Sulfate Soils Mapping as Disturbed Land likely to contain ASS.
ASS Investigation
Drilling and sampling encountered a reasonably consistent profile
of sand that:
• did not indicate any obvious ASS presence from a visual and
tactile perspective in the fill or the natural profile.
• indicated that the upper level sands were not acid sulfate soils
and the lower level sands below 3.0m indicated a low level of
acid sulfate soil present.
• had the highest liming rate required to neutralise the acidity of
4kg/m3 (based on laboratory testing of selected samples) for
the lower level sands.
• The proposed excavations for the basement (up to 3.0m
depth)are not expected to disturb the acid sulfate soils but may
just indicate the acid sulfate strata.
Management To mitigate and manage potential adverse environmental impacts
Strategy during site construction operations, the following will be
undertaken:
• an ASS consultant should review the site earthworks schedule
and plan of operations;
• adoption of appropriate erosion control measures to limit
sediment loss due to run-off from site works area;
• where excavation below the water table, or if disturbance of
any silty sands is necessary, a materials handling and
management strategy and procedures for lime treatment of
any disturbed material will be required;
• monitoring and treatment (if necessary) of waters in detention
basins to a level suitable for discharge into external waterways;
and
• site supervision by approved persons and regular reporting to
the Project Engineer/Manager throughout the construction
phase.
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 28
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 2
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASSMP VER 2
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan – Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
Tasks/Actions Investigations of ASS to date have targeted soils to a maximum
depth of 4.0m below the existing ground level. Zones of materials
with nett acidity above the action criteria have been identified
over the site at depths greater than 3m below ground level. The
materials to a depth of approximately 3.0m have been shown by
testing to not contain acid sulfate. If material below 3m is disturbed
they will require lime treatment to neutralize acidity.
In order to assess potential impacts and treatment requirements for
ASS, the Earthworks Contractor shall prepare an earthworks
schedule for the proposed construction activities prior to
commencement of the construction and earthworks activities.
ASS Treatment:
The spoil to be removed from site will either be treated onsite prior
to removal, or:
• treated on-site in accordance with the procedures given below;
or
− A temporary stockpile and treatment area will be
established where all excavated material may be
conditioned (dried) and lime treated, for subsequent use for
site landscaping or general fill requirements.
− Bunding will be constructed around the perimeter of the
designated ASS treatment pad to intersect and contain run-
off from the pad during the soil treatment operations.
− A suitably sized drain or temporary retention basin will be
constructed to collect drainage water from the treatment
pad in the vent of heavy rainfall during the construction
period. This will be constructed in a manner to protect
water quality in adjacent waterways.
− Alternatively, the basement excavation can be used as a
treatment platform with drainage water or run-off collected
in the retention basin will be tested to determine the quality
of the water. If the water quality falls outside the
performance indicators (described below), the water will
be treated prior to discharge from the site.
− The excavated spoil will be spread out in a designated
treatment area in layers up to 0.25m loose thickness. Aglime
with a neutralising value of 100% will be applied evenly over
the surface and thoroughly blended into the spoil at a
uniform minimum rate of 4kg (CaC0 3 )/m3.
− When incorporation of the lime is complete, Chromium Suite
validation testing of the treated spoil will be carried out to
establish that sufficient lime has been added (and uniformly
mixed) to neutralise the acid generation potential of the
spoil. The validation test will be deemed to have passed if
the net acidity is 18 mol H+/t. A higher result will require the
application of additional lime, until a satisfactory validation
result has been achieved.
− Once lime treatment is complete, the treated spoil will be
removed from site or may then be stockpiled for later use
for landscaping or for general site fill requirements.
− Selection of the most appropriate test methods and
determination of liming requirements for neutralisation will
be the responsibility of the ASS Consultant.
• Treated at an off-site facility in accordance with the approved
ASSMP for the facility.
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 29
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 3
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASSMP VER 2
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan – Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
Performance ASS
Indicators Chromium Suite testing carried out for validation of applied liming
rates will be deemed to be acceptable if the net acidity recorded
is 18 mol H+/t.
Water
Laboratory testing of retained water will be carried out for pH,
electrical conductivity (ED), iron (Fe), aluminium (Al), dissolved
oxygen and turbidity. Levels of these parameters considered
acceptable are as follows:
pH 6.5 to 8.5 pH units
EC <1,500 S/cm
Fe <1,000 ug/L
Al <5.0 ug/L if pH <= 6.5 pH units
<100.0 ug/L if pH > 6.5 pH units
Turbidity <20NTU
Dissolved Oxygen >80% saturated
Testing for the Fe and Al will only be necessary if the pH of the water
falls below pH 6.0.
Frequency/Timing ASS
The sampling and testing of any lime treated material will be
subject to QA testing, which will be repeated until satisfactory
results are obtained. Chromium Suite validation testing will be
carried out at a rate of 1 test/250m3 of treated spoil.
Water
The following monitoring frequency is recommended during
dewatering operations (if required):
• daily measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and
suspended solids; and
• weekly measurements of the full list of Performance Indicators
nominated above (if dewatering has been required).
If the results of monitoring prove consistent, the frequency of
monitoring may be reduced, subject to the approval of the ASS
Consultant.
Corrective Action ASS
If lime treatment of ASS is unsuccessful, whereby performance
targets are not being met as indicated by the QA and water quality
testing procedures:
• The earthworks schedule will be reassessed and action taken to
determine the problems causing the breach of standards.
• If the problems are related to ineffective implementation of the
ASSMP, then the plan will be audited to ensure improved
implementation. Monitoring and testing will be increased to
ensure compliance with the established standards.
• Any significant changes to the ASSMP will be subject to
discussions with and the approval of, the relevant regulatory
authorities.
Water
Compliance failures regarding specified performance criteria shall
be recorded including the date, time, nature of failure and actions
taken to rectify the situation. Monitoring results should be reviewed
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 30
Project No. PG-10899 Page | 4
November 2023
Ref: PG-10899, 2023-10-16, ASSMP VER 2
DD Sunnyside CD Sunnyside Pty Ltd – Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan – Proposed Residence, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads
in relation to site management practices on a regular basis and
improvement strategies should be developed as required.
Responsibility The satisfactory implementation of the ASSMP will be the
responsibility of the Earthworks Contractor. The ASS Consultant will
ensure that:
• the contractor is made aware of site specific conditions and
implications for the management of ASS within the site; and
• correct methods for the collection of samples and testing are
employed and the reporting of results to the relevant site
authorities.
The Earthworks Contractor’s responsibilities will include:
• awareness of site conditions and requirements for the
implementation of the ASSMP;
• modifying earthworks/construction procedures to comply with
the ASSMP and erosion control plan;
• propose any corrective action measures to be approved by
the ASS Consultant; and
• implementing approved correction actions.
Reporting The ASS Consultant shall report to the Project Manager on a regular
basis on the performance of the site management plan.
The Contractor’s Representative shall report to the Project
Manager and to the ASS Consultant on:
• the effectiveness of the operating strategies;
• problems in implementing the ASSMP management strategies;
• compliance with testing requirements run-off control and
materials handling; and
• effectiveness of any corrective action adopted.
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 31
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd All Correspondence
ACN: 630 555 225 PO Box 6405
ABN: 98 630 555 225 Yatala DC QLD 4207
P 07 3801 1564
E [email protected]
W adgconsulting.com.au
NOOSA COUNCIL
REFERENCE DOCUMENT
OPW23/0189 23 FEB 2024
Dewatering Management Plan
Proposed Residential Development:
Lot 149 on N21859, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, Queensland
September 2023
Prepared for:
David & Craig Dodd
c/‐ SCG Consulting Engineers
Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment On‐site Wastewater Management Contaminated Land Assessment & Remediation
Dewatering Management Environmental Management Plans Surface & Groundwater Investigation & Monitoring
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 32
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Report details
Project ref: ADG1580.23
ADG Project Contact: Michael Campbell
Report title: Dewatering Management Plan
Proposed Residential Development:
Lot 149 on N21859, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, Queensland
Version: Rev0
Author(s): ADG
Reviewer: Michael Campbell
Client: David & Craig Dodd
c/‐ SCG Consulting Engineers
Client contact: Tom Harrington – SCG Consulting Engineers
Distribution date: 28 September 2023
Distributed to: SCG Consulting Engineers
Copies: 1 PDF
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Michael Campbell BEnvSc, BSc[Hons],
DipProjMgt, DipOHS, DipBusMgt, DipBus(Quality Auditing)
MEIANZ, MALGA, MASSI
Director & Principal Environmental Scientist
Date: 28 September 2023
This document and all its content is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism
and/or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of the content may be reproduced, reused or
redistributed without the prior written permission of ADG Consulting Pty Ltd.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page ii
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 33
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
1.2 RELEVANT GUIDELINES 1
1.3 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL DUTY 1
1.4 DMP OBJECTIVES 2
1.5 SCOPE OF WORK 2
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
2.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 3
2.2 SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT 3
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY 3
2.4 GEOLOGY & SOILS 3
2.5 HYDROGEOLOGY 3
3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 4
3.1 DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD 2021 4
3.1.1 SOILS 4
3.1.2 GROUNDWATER 4
3.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 5
4 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 6
4.1 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 6
4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 6
4.3 PROPOSED WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 7
5 DEWATERING METHODOLOGY 9
5.1 BASEMENT EXCAVATION AND SHORING 9
5.2 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION 9
5.3 EXTRACTION/DISCHARGE RATES AND VOLUME 9
5.3.1 DEWATERING EXTRACTION CALCULATION BASED ON SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE 9
5.4 DEWATERING DURATION 10
5.5 GROUNDWATER DRAWDOWN 10
5.6 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT 10
5.7 NOMINATED HOLD POINTS 10
6 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 12
6.1 RESPONSIBILITY 12
6.2 OPERATIONAL POLICY 12
6.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 12
6.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 12
6.4.1 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 12
6.4.2 DEWATERING STRATEGY 13
6.4.3 INITIAL PUMP‐OUT 13
6.5 MONITORING 13
6.5.1 VISUAL MONITORING 13
6.5.2 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 13
6.5.3 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES 14
6.6 MAINTENANCE 15
6.7 REPORTING 15
6.8 CONTINGENCIES 15
7 NOISE & ODOUR MANAGEMENT 17
7.1 RESPONSIBILITY 17
7.2 OPERATIONAL POLICY 17
7.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 17
7.4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 17
7.4.1 NOISE 17
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page iii
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 34
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
7.4.2 ODOUR 17
7.5 MONITORING 17
7.6 REPORTING 18
7.7 CONTINGENCIES 18
8 LIMITATIONS 19
9 REFERENCES 20
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
APPENDIX B: DRDMW LICENCED BORE SEARCH
APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLANS
APPENDIX D: DEWATERING CALCULATION OUTPUT
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page iv
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 35
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
1 Introduction
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd (ADG) was engaged by David & Craig Dodd care of SCG Consulting Engineers (SCG)
to prepare a Dewatering Management Plan (DMP) for the proposed residential development within
property described as Lot 149 on N21859, situated at 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, Queensland.
1.1 Proposed development
The proposed development comprises the construction of a two‐storey residential building overlying a
single level in‐ground basement on the 610 m2 site. The supplied information indicates that excavations
will extend to a maximum depth of approximately 2.4 m below ground level (bgl; existing), corresponding
to a maximum excavation elevation of approximately RL ‐0.7 m AHD (assuming 400 mm basement slab
thickness). Localised deeper excavations may be required to facilitate other structural elements (i.e. pile
caps and footings), where required.
Groundwater depths have not yet been assessed, and it is understood that a geotechnical and acid sulfate
soil investigation for the site is planned in the near future and could be used to update the DMP with site
specific details at a later date, if required. Groundwater seepage was recorded at 1.6 m below ground
level (approx. 0.5 m AHD) during preliminary geotechnical works (drilling) on a neighbouring site by
Douglas Partners (2021). Standing groundwater levels are therefore conservatively expected to occur at
an approximate elevation of around RL 1.0 m AHD.
These conditions and the sites’ proximity to the adjacent Noosa canal (tidally connected part of Noosa
River catchment) suggest that dewatering of the site will be necessary to allow the basement to be
constructed in dry conditions. Based off information provided by SCG and ADG’s experience in the local
area, it is noted that acid sulfate soil conditions are likely to be present, which has the potential to affect
water quality during construction dewatering.
1.2 Relevant guidelines
The DMP was prepared with reference to the following documents:
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. 2018. Australian and
New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments (ANZG), Canberra ACT,
Australia.
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. 2000. Australian and
New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management
Council of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC/ARMCANZ).
Environmental Protection (Water & Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019. Department of Environment
and Science (DES), Queensland Government.
Noosa River environmental values and water quality objectives. 2022. Department of Environment
and Science (DES), Queensland Government.
Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. 2018. Australian Government, National Health
and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2018, Version 2 June 2018. 2018. Department of Environment
and Science (DES).
Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009, Version 3. 2013. The Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection (DEHP).
1.3 General environmental duty
The Environmental Protection Act 1994 describes that all persons in Queensland have a “General
Environmental Duty” and that “a person must not carry out an activity that causes, or is likely to cause
environmental harm unless the person takes all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or
minimise the harm”.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 1
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 36
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
The Act requires that appropriate action be taken to report that environmental harm is occurring or has
the potential to occur, unless the harm is authorised under an environmental protection policy, an
environmental management program, a development approval, or an environmental protection order.
This is known as the “Duty to Notify”. Failure to fulfil this duty is an offence and may result in prosecution.
1.4 DMP objectives
The objectives of the DMP are to:
Describe the dewatering methodology, groundwater treatment, monitoring and reporting
procedures to be employed at the site during dewatering activities.
Provide effective management procedures to prevent environmental harm resulting from the
discharge of extracted groundwater from the site.
1.5 Scope of work
To achieve the investigation objectives, the following scope of work was undertaken:
A desktop study including:
1. Review of the development proposal and proposed shoring/dewatering designs (where
available).
2. Review of geology and soil maps for the area.
3. Search of groundwater bores licensed by the Department of Regional Development,
Manufacturing and Water (DRDMW) within a 200 m radius of the site.
4. Review of relevant existing reports and groundwater data from the local area.
5. Review of current aerial photographs of the site and surrounds.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 2
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 37
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
2 Site characteristics
2.1 Property description
The site is described as Lot 149 on N21859, and is situated at 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads,
Queensland. The site is understood to be currently occupied by a multistorey dwelling (Google
Streetview, 28 September 2023) which is planned to be demolished. The site is irregular in shape and has
an area of 610 m2. The site locality is shown in Figure 1, Appendix A.
2.2 Surrounding environment
The surrounding environment and land use is described briefly in Table 1.
Table 1 Surrounding land use and environment
Direction Environment
North Noosa River canal, then residential development
East Residential development.
South Mossman Court, then residential development, then Noosa River.
West Residential development, then Noosa River.
2.3 Topography
The site and surrounding land is considered to be generally level, with the site gently sloping towards the
Noosa River canal from the south to north. Surface elevations range from 2.20 m to between 1.7 m AHD.
Refer to Appendix C (Preliminary Concept Design ‐ Sections, 11/07/23).
2.4 Geology & soils
The surface geology at the site is mapped as being Anthropocene aged gravel, sand and silt; man‐made
deposits generally associated with land‐fill or mining (tailings, dumps and rehabilitated areas). The
dominant rock type is identified as volcanic and metamorphic as reference through the detailed surface
geology (accessed via Queensland Globe online, 28 September 2023).
The Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) mapping layer 1:100,000 Redcliffe to Teewah categorises the site as ‘SDL’ or
‘Acid Sulfate on Disturbed Land’, indicating that the site is likely to contain acid sulfate soils (and potential
exists that partial or full treatment may have been undertaken), however limited field investigation has
been performed in this area (accessed via Queensland Globe online, 28 September 2023).
2.5 Hydrogeology
A search of groundwater bores licensed by DRDMW was conducted by ADG on 28 September 2023. The
search identified no licensed bores within a 200 m radius of the site. A map showing the bore search area
is provided in Appendix B.
Based on the local geology and topography, and the site’s proximity to the Noosa River canal, the inferred
groundwater flow is to the north. Groundwater beneath the site is likely to be hydraulically connected to
the canal network and/or river, therefore saline groundwater conditions are anticipated, and additional
saltwater intrusion is likely to occur during dewatering.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 3
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 38
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
3 Previous investigations
This DMP is based on site specific information sourced from the following, provided to ADG by SCG:
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residence, 38 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads.
2021. Douglas Partners Pty Ltd. Ref: 206126.00.R.001.
Preliminary Concept Design, Noosa Villa, Set dated 11 July 2023. Chris Clout Design.
A brief discussion of relevant soil and groundwater conditions is provided below.
3.1 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd 2021
A preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was undertaken at a nearby site situated at 38 Mossman Court
in July 2021 by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP). This information has been used in preparing this report in
the interim until site‐specific geotechnical and acid sulfate soils information becomes available, and is
considered applicable given the short ~25 m horizontal distance between the two sites directly across
the cul‐de‐sac bulge.
3.1.1 Soils
A total of one (1) borehole (Bore 1) was drilled within the northern portion of the 38 Mossman Court site
(due to limited rig access) to 6.0 m below ground level (bgl). Two additional dynamic cone penetrometer
(DCP) tests were carried out within the southern portion of that site.
The subsurface profile encountered generally comprised medium dense silty sand fill overlying medium
dense to dense silty sand fill to approximately 0.9 m in depth. Natural medium dense silty sand was
encountered to 3.7 m depth overlying dense silty sand to 4.7 m depth. Very dense silty sands were
encountered to the termination depth of 6.0 m (Bore 1 only). DP reported that similar conditions were
reported within the DCP holes, with relatively loose conditions encountered to 1.5 m depth.
As part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (2021), Acid Sulfate Soil (ASS) samples were
collected at 0.25 m intervals in Bore 1 to 4.0 m depth. A total of sixteen (16) samples were collected for
ASS screening and four (4) samples were selected for further analysis by the Chromium Reducible Sulfur
suite (CRS). Titratable actual acidity (TAA) concentrations were reported to be between 9 moles H+/tonne
and 26 Moles H+/tonne, with one exceedance of the relevant QASSIT action criterion of 18 moles
H+/tonne in Bore 1 at 1.0 m depth. Therefore, actual acid sulfate soils (AASS) should be expected to be
present to at least 1.0 m depth bgl. Reported oxidisable sulfur concentrations reported as SCr ranged
from 0.06 %S to 0.18 %S, all above the relevant action criterion of 0.03% S. The results indicated the
presence of potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) to at least 3.25 m bgl.
ADG notes that the testing was limited to one borehole with ASS testing to 4.0 m depth. DP summarised
that within this depth profile both the existing sand fill and natural silty sands are considered to contain
ASS and that neutralisation, using ag lime or similar will be required at a rate of 9.5 kg/m3 for the upper
fill profile and at a rate of 12.5 kg/m3 for the natural silty sands on the site. In addition, to treatment of
the excavated soil, a guard layer of ag lime (rate 4 kg/m3) should be applied to the basement excavation.
It is expected that ASS impacted material will be excavated and removed from site for appropriate
treatment and disposal at a licenced facility due to available area constraints on site. Given that ASS
material has been identified within the locality sub‐soil profile, any leachate generated on the site must
be suitably treated/neutralised before leaving the site and must not be directly discharged to stormwater.
3.1.2 Groundwater
During drilling activities for a nearby Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation at 38 Mossman Court,
groundwater seepage/inflow was encountered at 1.60 m depth below the ground surface, which
corresponds to an elevation of approximately 0.5 m AHD (Douglas Partners, 2021).
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 4
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 39
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
3.2 Groundwater quality
In the absence of any localised monitoring well data, and based on numerous groundwater investigations
and dewatering monitoring projects that have been undertaken by ADG throughout the Noosa Coast
Region and immediate locality in recent years, our understanding of the groundwater quality in the region
is provided below:
Groundwater is generally mildly acidic to neutral, with pH levels ranging from approximately 5.5 to
6.5 and electrical conductivity ranging from brackish to saline between 2,000 µS/cm to
48,000 µS/cm. Groundwater pH has the potential to reduce (become more acidic) following
oxidisation of PASS as dewatering progresses, particularly if re‐wetting of the soils occurs.
Dissolved oxygen levels in static groundwater typically range from approximately 35 – 40 %
saturation.
The groundwater associated with indurated sand strata is moderately to highly turbid as a result of
staining and organic content.
Concentrations of dissolved metals are typically below the available marine water trigger values
(MWTV’s) provided in ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) for the receiving waters, however elevated levels
of aluminium and particularly iron are expected in the untreated groundwater and have the
potential to increase following oxidisation of PASS as dewatering progresses or as a result of existing
acidic groundwater conditions.
Given the location and previous use of the site, groundwater impacts resulting from site
contamination are not anticipated.
A groundwater investigation will be undertaken at the commencement of dewatering as described in
Section 6.5.2 of this report. This assessment will be representative of the groundwater being extracted
and treated from the entire site, as opposed to localised monitoring well data which is often misleading.
Based on previous experience with dewatering in the area, ADG expects the groundwater to require
treatment to increase pH and dissolved oxygen levels, as well as reduce turbidity, suspended sediments
and dissolved metal concentrations prior to being discharged to the Noosa River.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 5
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 40
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
4 Water quality objectives
4.1 Receiving environment
It is proposed to discharge extracted groundwater directly into the Noosa River canal adjacent to site.
Based on the stormwater mapping available via the Noosa Council Enterprise Mapping System
(Intramaps) there is a stormwater gully pit located south of 28 Mossman Court. This stormwater pit
terminates within the Noosa River (<40 m) directly north of the gully pit. The exact location of the
receiving waters/environment will be confirmed on commencement of dewatering; however, it is
considered most appropriate that the site will discharge directly north to the adjacent Noosa River canal.
The receiving environment in this location identifies as a moderately disturbed, middle estuary
environment. The following section establishes water quality objectives (WQOs) to ensure that the
environmental values of the receiving waters are protected and maintained.
4.2 Development of water quality objectives
WQOs have been developed to support and protect the designated environmental values (EVs) for the
receiving environment. The WQOs are based on a moderately disturbed level of protection for enclosed
coastal/lower estuaries. The WQOs have been developed with reference to the following guideline
documents:
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2018. (ANZG 2018) The
selected trigger values apply to moderately disturbed systems to provide a 95% level of species
protection for marine waters.
Environmental Protection (Water & Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019. Queensland Government.
Noosa River environmental values and water quality objectives. 2022. DES.
Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, Version 3, September 2009. 2013. DEHP.
The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality by the Australian and
New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council
of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000), has undergone review, with the publication of
the 2018 version. The revised Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality
2018 is a joint initiative between the Australian and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and
territory governments (ANZG, 2018) and supersedes the ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000 publication. Where
ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) is referenced, the relevant sections are still relevant and consistent with the
updated ANZG 2018 publication, as referenced in the ANZG 2018 publication.
The Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009 (DEHP, 2013) was made pursuant to the provisions of the
Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 1999, now the Environmental Protection (Water & Wetland
Biodiversity) Policy 2019 (the EPP(Water)), which is a subordinate legislation under the Environmental
Protection Act 1994 and was developed as the State response to the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000)
Guidelines. The EPP(Water) provides a framework for:
Identifying environmental values for Queensland waters, and deciding the water quality objectives
to protect or enhance those environmental values.
Including the identified environmental values and water quality objectives under Schedule 1 of the
EPP (Water).
WQOs are long term goals for surface water quality management. They are indicators established for
receiving waters to support and protect the designated Environmental Values (EVs) for those waters. DES
(2022) describes that for slightly to moderately disturbed waters, the guideline values should be
compared with the median of values at a test site, whilst ANZG (2018) stresses that the aquatic ecosystem
guideline values are triggers to further action, are inherently conservative, and that the response to non‐
compliance should match the magnitude and impacts (if any) of the exceedance.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 6
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 41
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Regardless of the WQOs adopted in this DMP, the General Environmental Duty set out in the EP Act is
paramount, which requires that “a person must not carry out an activity that causes or is likely to cause
environmental harm unless the person takes all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or
minimise the harm”.
4.3 Proposed water quality objectives
The proposed water quality objectives that have been developed for the discharge of extracted
groundwater from the site are provided in the Tables below. All water discharged from the site must
comply with the discharge criteria provided in Table 2. In addition, the receiving water quality within a
20 m radius of the discharge point entry to the receiving water shall comply with the receiving water
criteria provided in Table 3. Receiving waters data will be assessed against background monitoring data
if non‐compliant results are obtained at the receiving waters monitoring location.
Table 2 Discharge criteria
Parameter Criteria
Physico‐chemical
pH (pH units) 6.5 – 8.51
Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) ≥802
Suspended solids (mg/L) ≤501,2
Turbidity (NTU) ≤502
Litter None visible
Total metals (µg/L)
Aluminium No ANZG criteria / 2003
Iron No ANZG criteria / 3003
Table notes:
1. QWQG 2009 (2013) Refer to Table 8.2.1. Summary of design objectives for management of stormwater quality and flow –
construction phase of development in Queensland.
2. Typical discharge criteria recognised throughout Queensland & NSW.
3. Criteria subject to anticipated Development Application (DA) notice and conditions by Noosa Shire Council.
Table 3 Receiving waters criteria
Parameter Criteria
Physico‐chemical
pH (pH units) 7.8 – 8.31
Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) 85 – 1051
Suspended solids (mg/L) ≤141
Turbidity (NTU) ≤81
Dissolved metals (µg/L)
Aluminium No relevant ANZG criteria available
Arsenic 2.32*
Cadmium 5.52
Chromium 4.42
Copper 1.32
Iron No relevant ANZG criteria available
Lead 4.42
Nickel 702
Zinc 82
Mercury 0.42
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 7
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 42
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Parameter Criteria
Totals metals (µg/L)
Aluminium No ANZG criteria / 2003
Iron No ANZG criteria / 3003
Table notes:
1. DES(2022). Noosa River environmental values and water quality objectives (canal).
2. ANZG (2018). Supersedes ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) ‐ Marine water trigger values for 95% species protection.
3. Criteria subject to expected condition in Development Application (DA) notice by Noosa Shire Council.
* = Insufficient data to derive a reliable trigger value. Low reliability value adopted (refer ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Section
8.3.7.
Although ADG has not been provided a copy of the DA notice and conditions for the proposed
development, based on previous dewatering projects in the Sunshine/Noosa Coast Region it is expected
that total iron and aluminium concentrations as listed in Table 3 (above) are likely to be conditioned by
Noosa Shire Council for compliance. It should be noted, that these concentrations are considered to be
onerous with respect to the risk‐based (worst‐case) bioavailable trigger value criteria contained in ANZG
2018 & ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) for marine water (moderately disturbed) 95% species protection, and
are likely to be difficult to achieve given the groundwater conditions encountered in the locality on
previous dewatering projects on the Sunshine/Noosa Coast.
Prior to discharge to the stormwater system or any waterway, discharges are to be tested to meet the
requirements of the ANZG 2018 & ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality. There is currently no chemical toxicant trigger value criteria available for total or dissolved (i.e.
bioavailable) concentrations of aluminium or iron for marine or estuarine waters under the Australian
and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality Guidelines (ANZG 2018 &
ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000 – i.e. ANZECC Guidelines) or the Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational
Waters (NHMRC 2008), with regards to managing environmental impacts to the waterway.
In addition, Section 5 (Guidelines for recreational water quality and aesthetics) of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ
(2000) Guidelines (per section 5.2 thereof) was superseded by the Guidelines for Managing Risks in
Recreational Water in 2008 (NHMRC, 2008). Therefore, a reference to the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000)
Guidelines is by association and extension a reference to the current 2008 NHMRC Guidelines. The 2008
NHMRC Guidelines contain no criteria for aluminium, and only includes an aesthetic criterion for iron –
noting this is an aesthetic criterion derived from the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines on the basis of
ingesting 2L of the recreational water solution per day. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Section 5.2.3.3, notes
that as a general guideline, under Toxic Chemicals, ‘Higher concentrations of toxicants may be tolerated
occasionally if it assumed that no person will ingest more than a maximum of 100 mL water during a
normal swimming session (NHMRC 1990) compared with 2L/d for potable water’, and Section 3.1.1.3,
under Risk based approach of the guidelines, ‘The guideline trigger values are based on bioavailable
concentrations, and hence are relatively conservative when compared with total concentrations in the
field, so the use of the decision frameworks will increase guideline concentrations in most cases’.
Therefore, any chemical toxicant trigger values would require reassessment and likely increase upwards
of any ANZG 2018 &/or ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Guideline trigger values due to the slightly to
moderately disturbed nature (and thereby reduced sensitivity) of the receiving waters.
In conditioning more onerous criteria, rather than the available marine chemical toxicant trigger value
criteria contained within the ANZG/ANZECC Guidelines, an unachievable constraint may be placed on the
development. This DMP has allowed for contingency measures to be incorporated into the treatment
and discharge system if required, including silt curtains to be installed within the receiving waterway
surrounding the discharge location, or further onsite treatment measures such as filtration, to prevent
and/or minimise as far as reasonably practicable the potential for release of suspended solid loads into
the broader receiving waterway.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 8
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 43
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
5 Dewatering methodology
5.1 Basement excavation and shoring
It is understood that the excavation/basement perimeter will be stabilised along the perimeter of the
basement excavation using a contiguous secant pile wall. Excavations to facilitate the construction of the
basement level will extend to a maximum of approximately 2.4 m below ground level, which corresponds
to a maximum elevation of ‐0.7 m AHD (assuming 400 mm basement slab thickness). Localised deeper
excavations may be required for construction of other structural elements (i.e. footings & pile caps). Refer
to Preliminary Concept Plans, Appendix C.
It is expected that the development will include a ‘tanked’ basement to prevent the requirement for a
permanent dewatering facility at the site.
5.2 Groundwater extraction
Dewatering will be undertaken using a series of 40 mm diameter PVC spears installed to below maximum
excavation depth at 1.5 m intervals around the internal perimeter of the basement excavation.
The basement excavation must be dewatered to a minimum of 1.0 m below the deepest point of
excavation to allow construction to be undertaken in dry conditions. The water table is therefore
expected to be lowered by minimum of approximately 2.7 m to around ‐1.7 m AHD.
5.3 Extraction/discharge rates and volume
5.3.1 Dewatering extraction calculation based on subsurface soil profile
The dewatering extraction rate, area of influence and cone of depression has been estimated using the
Western Australian Department of Water and Environmental Regulation Cone of Depression Calculator.
The calculation results are based on the following parameters (as provided by ADS) and known site‐
specific conditions. The following is applicable to the basement excavations spanning across the lot:
Approximate length of excavation = 18 m
Approximate width of excavation = 16 m
Reduction in depth of groundwater across the basement footprint/excavation = 2.7 m
Approximate depth of saturated aquifer = 10 m (standardised conservative value applied)
The soil profile comprised predominantly of fine to medium sands, has a hydraulic conductivity of
8.2 m/day, or equivalent 0.0000949 L/sec (WA Calculator). The results of this calculation are shown in
Table 4 below, and a copy of the output is provided in Appendix D.
Table 4 Dewatering extraction rate results
Output Result
Effective pumping radius of spears (m) 10
Dewatering radius of influence (m) 79
Discharge rate (L/sec) 7
Discharge rate (L/hr) 25,200
Establishment of cone of depression (hours) 111
Based on the above inputs, a groundwater flow rate of approximately 7 L/sec or 420 L/min or 25,200 L/hr
has been predicted for the development.
However, it should be noted that the WA Calculator provides a conservative assessment of inflows to an
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 9
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 44
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
excavation footprint based on area and depth, but does not take account of the method of perimeter
piling i.e. sheet pile/concrete secant wall, which will inhibit lateral inflows. Also note that the cone of
depression radius measure includes water table depressions of 1 mm depth or more, so any significant
depression of the water table is limited to much closer to the spear point dewatering spears (generally
within 3 to 10 m from the pile shoring wall in fine‐medium grained sands, depending on density of the
strata).
5.4 Dewatering duration
Dewatering will be necessary throughout the basement construction phase, which is expected to require
dewatering for approximately 8 to 12 weeks. To minimise the potential impacts during construction of
short‐term dewatering, periods of active dewatering will be minimised as much as possible. However,
ADG notes that once active dewatering has commenced, dewatering will not be able to be ceased until
both: a) the basement hydrostatic uplift forces have been compensated to the satisfaction of the
consulting RPEQ engineer; and b) potential hydraulic loading on the external face of the piled shoring
system has been compensated to the satisfaction of the consulting RPEQ engineer and shoring
contractor.
5.5 Groundwater drawdown
Groundwater drawdown caused by dewatering has the potential to create settlement in unconsolidated
sediments and loose sands. It is noted that dilapidation reports for surrounding structures and services
are proposed to be undertaken, which were not available or supplied to ADG for the purposes of
preparing this DMP, and are to be provided to Council separately from this DMP.
Groundwater drawdown may also oxidise potential acid sulfate soils within the cone of depression,
subsequently producing acidic groundwater conditions and mobilising heavy metals. Monitoring of the
extracted untreated groundwater will be undertaken to detect potential in‐situ oxidation, as required
and at the frequencies stated in Section 6.5.2. Groundwater monitoring bores for groundwater level
gauging external to the excavation footprint are unable to be established and monitored prior to and
during construction on the site, due to limited space (SCG Consulting Engineers).
A plan showing the proposed basement extent is provided at Appendix C.
5.6 Groundwater treatment
All extracted groundwater will be treated on‐site using available technologies prior to discharge to the
stormwater network. The following treatment measures will be adopted, and will be installed and
operational prior to the commencement of dewatering:
1. A groundwater pH buffering treatment system (primary treatment)
2. A sedimentation tank to provide additional residence time and sedimentation (secondary
treatment).
3. Installation of fine media filtration to retain suspended sediments and/or heavy metals (tertiary
treatment), if required.
Details of the treatment systems and methodologies are provided in Section 6 of this report.
Note: Consideration should be taken, regarding placement of treatment gear on site to enable easy
cleaning and maintenance throughout the dewatering phase for the project. Consider the potential
requirement for regular de‐sludging of sedimentation tank/s to suitable area onsite, if available (cost
minimisation).
5.7 Nominated Hold Points
In accordance with anticipated DA Conditions, nominated hold points to be enacted during construction
have been proposed to facilitate for certification by the suitably qualified person experienced with Acid
Sulfate Soils, as well as Council Development Engineer to ensure all possible avenues for continual
dewatering below permanent groundwater level, including around pipework bedding that outlet to
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 10
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 45
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
waterways, are appropriately sealed. The nominated hold points regarding dewatering for this project
are:
1. Prior to commencement of dewatering/initial pump out
2. At finished excavation level, prior to blinding layer application
3. External to basement service installation trench opening/s prior to backfilling.
The above nominated hold points are subject to confirmation by the consulting engineer, and liaison with
council representatives and the Site Manager.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 11
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 46
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
6 Water quality management
6.1 Responsibility
The Site Manager is ultimately responsible for implementing the water quality management procedures
described in this DMP.
6.2 Operational policy
To prevent impacts on the receiving waters by effectively treating all extracted groundwater prior to
discharge from the site.
6.3 Performance criteria
The performance criteria for the discharge of extracted groundwater are the water quality objectives
provided in Table 2 and Table 3 in Section 4 of this report. Both the discharge and receiving waters (within
a 20 m radius of the stormwater discharge point) will be assessed against the WQOs to ensure that the
environmental values of the waterway are maintained. Receiving waters data will also be assessed
against background monitoring data if non‐compliant results are obtained at the receiving waters
monitoring location.
6.4 Implementation strategy
All extracted groundwater will be treated on‐site using available technologies prior to discharge to the
stormwater network. The treatment system described in Section 6.4.1 will be adopted, installed and
operational prior to the commencement of dewatering.
6.4.1 Groundwater treatment systems
Subject to final appointment of shoring and dewatering contractors (who all generally have different
treatment systems), the following treatment systems are generally proposed for dewatered groundwater
treatment prior to discharge. Regardless of the contractor employed, groundwater treatment systems
should be installed with capability for treating flow rates of up to 8 to 10 L/sec, as a contingency against
higher than anticipated flow rates exceeding the estimated 7 L/sec as a result of varying ground conditions
across the extent of excavation.
Primary treatment
A groundwater treatment system will be installed to provide primary treatment of the extracted
groundwater. The system will provide the following capabilities:
1. A baffled treatment tank with 5 kL minimum capacity
2. Automated in‐line chemical dosing systems for the addition of buffering solutions and coagulants
3. A filtration system to reduce fine particulates (if required)
4. Emergency response alarms for non‐routine situations.
Based on the estimated extraction rate, a 5 kL system will provide approximately eleven minutes contact
time during the initial chemical dosing, prior to secondary treatment using a sedimentation tank. Primary
treatment tank will be vertically stacked on the secondary treatment tank wherever practicable to
minimise site area required for groundwater treatment equipment.
Secondary treatment
A sufficiently sized sedimentation tank will be utilised to provide the necessary residence time for
secondary treatment of the groundwater prior to discharge to the stormwater system. Based on the
estimated groundwater extraction rate of approximately 25,200 L/hr (equivalent 420 L/min) from section
1.1 of this report, a 23 kL sedimentation tank will provide approximately fifty‐four minutes retention time
following primary treatment of the extracted groundwater.
Tertiary treatment – may be required following initial testing of extracted groundwater.
A filtration treatment system with specialised fine filtration media and chlorine dosing will be utilised to
provide the required heavy metal removal (specifically for total and dissolved iron) where not
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 12
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 47
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
precipitated and retained within the sedimentation tank/s (secondary treatment). This treatment system
will provide tertiary treatment of the groundwater prior to offsite discharge. This type of fine media
filtration treatment system is a forced‐flow system under pressure, and generally capable of treating flow
rates of up to 20 L/sec per filtration unit (therefore residence time is inconsequential to treatment quality
achieved).
Tertiary treatment will only be required if the required water quality is unable to be achieved following
primary and secondary stages of treatment. Subject to the results of field and laboratory testing during
the pre‐discharge monitoring event.
6.4.2 Dewatering strategy
The Site Manager, Dewatering Contractor and ADG Consulting must formulate a dewatering strategy to
ensure that the dewatering treatment system is sufficient to meet the requirements of the project and
that the necessary equipment can be accommodated within the site prior to the commencement of
dewatering.
Where construction of the proposed development requires occupation of the road reserve (verge area
and/or road formation) for either short term or long term, a road reserve permit must be obtained from
Council prior to any occupation of the road reserve.
6.4.3 Initial pump‐out
Prior to discharge of any extracted groundwater to the canal system, the following pre‐dewatering
procedure will be undertaken:
1. The basement area will be excavated down to the standing groundwater level.
2. The initial dewatering discharge will be directed (via the treatment systems) into the excavation and
allowed to infiltrate/recharge the aquifer. This process will provide initial clarification of the extracted
groundwater as disturbed sediment loads are typically reduced following the initial pump‐out.
3. Samples of the treated groundwater will be recovered and analysed for the parameters detailed in
Table 2 and Table 3.
4. The extracted groundwater will be directed into the stormwater system following confirmation that
the water quality complies with the discharge criteria.
6.5 Monitoring
6.5.1 Visual monitoring
Visual inspections of the site and dewatering equipment shall be undertaken daily by the Site Manager
to identify the following:
Quantity of chemical product within the dosing system
Effective operation of all dewatering treatment equipment
Short circuiting of water around baffles and filter media in sediment tanks, where required to be
installed.
Visible hydrocarbon sheens and odours
Green blue or extremely clear water indicating high levels of dissolved aluminium.
6.5.2 Water quality monitoring
Water quality monitoring will be undertaken for the duration of dewatering activities at the site by a
suitably qualified and independent person. The monitoring will include analysis of the extracted
groundwater, treated discharge water and off‐site monitoring in the receiving waters (in the mixing zone
within a 20 m radius of the discharge point). The exact location within the receiving waterway (Noosa
River canal) is to be confirmed, however it is anticipated to be directly north/adjacent of the site.
Background water quality monitoring of field parameters will also be conducted during each sampling
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 13
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 48
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
event, if applicable. Background samples will be recovered from the river, either upstream or
downstream from the receiving water location (tide dependant).
The proposed monitoring locations are shown in Figure 1, Appendix A are a subject to confirmation
following mobilisation of dewatering gear to site.
Monitoring will be undertaken at the following frequencies:
Daily monitoring of field parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and
turbidity) in the treated discharge water and pH of the untreated extracted groundwater (to
determine potential acidification). Daily monitoring will be undertaken by a suitably trained site
employee under the supervision of the Site Manager.
Weekly monitoring of field parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature
and turbidity) in the untreated extracted groundwater, treated discharge water, receiving waters
and background waters by ADG Consulting.
Weekly laboratory analysis of treated discharge water and receiving waters for suspended solids
and dissolved 0.45µm filterable metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
nickel, zinc and mercury). Total aluminium and iron will also be analysed for, if required.
Pre‐discharge/initial monitoring of field parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen
and oxidation‐reduction potential) in the extracted groundwater (prior to treatment) to assess
changes in groundwater chemistry associated with PASS oxidation.
Pre‐discharge/initial laboratory analysis of extracted groundwater (prior to treatment) for
suspended solids, dissolved 0.45µm filterable metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury) and for soluble sulfate and chloride to assess changes
in groundwater chemistry associated with PASS oxidation. Total aluminium and iron will also be
analysed for, if required.
Laboratory analysis of untreated groundwater would also be performed periodically (monthly) if
changes in untreated groundwater pH levels are detected that may indicate local acidification, and
to determine any changes in local groundwaters that may require further investigation of potential
environmental impacts.
All samples will be recovered by a suitably qualified Environmental Scientist and submitted to a National
Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory for analysis.
6.5.3 Monitoring responsibilities
The persons responsible for undertaking the compliance monitoring described in Section 6.5.2 above are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Monitoring responsibilities
Activity Frequency Responsibility Person
Monitoring of field parameters in discharge water
Daily Site Manager Site Manager
and untreated extracted groundwater
Monitoring of field parameters in untreated
Environmental
extracted groundwater, discharge water, Weekly ADG Consulting
Consultant
receiving waters and background waters
Laboratory analysis of samples recovered from Environmental
Weekly ADG Consulting
discharge water and receiving waters Consultant
Monitoring of field parameters in extracted Environmental
Weekly ADG Consulting
groundwater (pre‐treated) Consultant
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 14
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 49
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Laboratory analysis of samples recovered from Initially, then as Environmental
ADG Consulting
extracted groundwater (pre‐treated) required Consultant
6.6 Maintenance
The groundwater treatment systems must be regularly maintained. Maintenance must include:
Regular cleaning and or replacement of the filters within the filtration unit, where required to be
installed.
Regular removal of sediment from the sedimentation tank. The sediment must be either returned
to the excavation pit for dewatering and bulking out with excavated material, or removed from the
site by a licensed liquid waste contractor.
Regular check of the dosing system and top‐up of buffering solutions and flocculants.
6.7 Reporting
Dewatering management procedures and monitoring results will be reviewed by ADG Consulting weekly
to ensure that the treatment procedures are effective, and that the receiving waters are not being
impacted by the extracted groundwater being discharged.
The following reporting procedures will be adopted:
A summary report will be prepared upon completion of the initial pre‐discharge monitoring. The
report will be submitted to the Site Manager, Dewatering Contractor, and NSC upon request.
Weekly interim reports will be prepared upon receipt of laboratory data for each round of ongoing
compliance monitoring. The interim reports will display all data obtained during the previous
monitoring event, and provide comments and recommendations based on the results.
A dewatering compliance report will be prepared on completion of the project (upon request).
The above reports will be prepared by ADG Consulting and provided to the Site Manager and Dewatering
Contractor as they become available. The reports will include all water quality results and comparison to
the WQOs, corrective actions and recommendations made to the Site Manager and Dewatering
Contractor during the monitoring period.
The Site Manager must keep records of complaints, volumes of chemicals used and treatment methods
employed. These records must be available on‐site at all times and submitted to NSC by the Site Manager
upon request.
6.8 Contingencies
If water quality monitoring indicates ongoing exceedances of the performance criteria, and the water
quality objectives for the receiving waters cannot be met, then corrective actions will be adopted as
necessary. Possible contingencies may include one or more of the following:
Installation of additional sedimentation tanks to provide increased residence time and assist with
the retention of precipitated iron hydroxides, other heavy metals and/or suspended sediments.
Installation of additional flocculant and/or coagulant dosing systems to assist in precipitation of
suspended sediments and/or heavy metals.
Installation of activated carbon filtration or other fine media filtration to retain suspended
sediments and/or heavy metals.
Install a floating sediment curtain/s around the stormwater termination point in the receiving
waterway to prevent unsightly plumes and contain sediment and/or heavy metals for periodic
removal (subject to approval by Noose Shire Council).
Preventive and corrective actions shall be taken in the event that groundwater monitoring
observations indicate that unexpected groundwater contamination has been encountered during
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 15
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 50
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
dewatering. The most appropriate action(s) shall be dependent on the stage of construction and
risk of adverse impacts to groundwater users and the receiving environment.
Any modification to the dewatering system and pumping rates shall be in consultation with a
suitably qualified scientist/geotechnical/engineer.
Following heavy rainfall all ponded surfaces waters are to meet discharge criteria (Table 3) prior to
offsite discharge. Where discharge criteria not met, Site Manager to obtain approval from
Dewatering Contractor regarding treating surface waters with treatment gear before offsite
discharge.
Pumping systems and shoring works to be maintained in fit for purpose state by Dewatering
Contractor and/or shoring contractor. In the event that dewatering equipment has failed and is
likely to cause a significant impact on the environment, or surrounding properties (i.e. flooding) the
Dewatering Contractor is to be contacted immediately. The Principal Contractor, in consultation
with the Dewatering Contractor shall be responsible in rectifying the failure in a practicable time
frame to minimise potential impacts. Equipment, spare parts, materials and tools necessary to
manage aspects of the system/s which present a high risk of significant impacts in the event of
failure (if any) shall be readily available.
Construction vibrations could potentially cause settlement in the loose upper level sands, thereby
damaging nearby structures founded in these strata. Prior to commencement of construction on
site (including staged works), it is recommended that a detailed dilapidation survey be undertaken
to establish the condition of all existing adjacent structures, roads and services.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 16
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 51
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
7 Noise & odour management
7.1 Responsibility
The Project Manager is responsible for ensuring the appropriate management of noise and odour during
dewatering operations.
7.2 Operational policy
To minimise noise and odour emissions generated from the site during dewatering.
7.3 Performance criteria
The appropriate criteria to measure the performance of dewatering management at the site are provided
below.
1. No noise or odour related complaints received from neighbouring residents or the community.
2. No degradation of air quality due to fumes or odours emanating from the dewatering process.
7.4 Implementation strategy
Noise and odour emissions will be managed as described in the following sections.
7.4.1 Noise
All dewatering equipment must be operated appropriately and maintained in good working order. All
dewatering systems and plant must be fitted with the appropriate noise reduction equipment to comply
with the performance criteria. Non‐complying dewatering plant will be replaced or repaired as necessary.
It is proposed to employ noise mitigation strategies including use of electric pumps and dewatering
systems rather than diesel powered equipment. Noise attenuation blankets and screens will be installed
around noise generating dewatering pumps and equipment where practicable. Noise monitoring
equipment (unattended) will be installed by the site manager prior to commencement and monitored for
the duration of dewatering.
7.4.2 Odour
All dewatering plant must be fitted with the appropriate emission reduction devices. Where practicable,
all dewatering plant will be sealed to prevent the release of odours to the atmosphere. Fine mist odour
control sprays will be applied to reduce offensive odours if complaints are received from neighbouring
residents.
7.5 Monitoring
An inspection of the site and dewatering equipment shall be undertaken daily by the Site Manager to
identify the following:
Excessive noise being generated by the dewatering systems and plant; and
Strong or offensive odours being generated by the dewatering equipment and/or extracted
groundwater.
Noise monitoring equipment (unattended, continuous logging) is proposed to be installed by the Site
Manager prior to commencement and monitored for the duration of dewatering. The Environmental
Protection (Noise) Policy 2019 (EPP(Noise)) identifies specific acoustic quality objectives (noise criteria)
to assist in preventing significant impacts on noise sensitive receptors and as a guide to long‐term
acoustic quality for sensitive receptors. The primary EPP(Noise) criteria relevant to this investigation is
outside a dwelling (i.e. adjacent dwellings), which should not have noise at levels in the daytime or
evenings greater than 50dB(A) LAeq,adj,1hr. This means that noise levels in the receiving environment
outside of nearby dwellings (i.e. on balconies) should not exceed an equivalent sound energy as would
be received from a one hour continuous sound of 50 decibels on the A‐weighted scale (adjusted for tonal
character perceptible by the human ear).
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 17
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 52
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
While this report has not been generated for the purpose of assessing compliance with the requirements
of workplace health and safety legislation, it is noted that a person conducting a business or undertaking
must ensure that workers are not exposed to noise that exceeds the exposure standard for noise. The
exposure standard for noise is defined in the Work Health & Safety Regulation 2011 (QLD) as LAeq,8h of
85 dB(A) or an LC,peak of 140 dB(C). As such, it is considered appropriate to adopt these exposure
standards to assess average and peak noise generated at the site with the potential to affect exposure
levels of nearby sensitive receptors (noting there will be some attenuation between source and receptors
and actual noise experienced by receptors would need to be measured at the receptor location).
7.6 Reporting
The Site Manager must keep records of complaints, monitoring records (including continuous noise
monitoring data), and corrective and preventive actions/methods employed for noise abatement. These
records must be available on‐site at all times and submitted to NSC by the Site Manager upon request.
7.7 Contingencies
If noise levels consistently exceed the performance criteria, temporary acoustic barriers will be
constructed around the offending dewatering systems and plant. Odour control sprays will be applied as
necessary to mask odour emissions if complaints are received from neighbouring residents. This may
include the direct injection of deodorisers to the groundwater treatment system.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 18
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 53
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
8 Limitations
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd has prepared this report for David & Craig Dodd care of SCG Consulting Engineers
in accordance with the agreed scope of work. The services performed by ADG have been conducted in a
manner consistent with the normal level of care and expertise exercised by members of the
environmental consulting profession. No other warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is made as
to the professional advice included in this report.
This report is solely for the use of David & Craig Dodd and SCG Consulting Engineers and ADG accepts no
responsibility for the use of any part of this report for any other purpose or by third parties, as it may not
contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or users. This report must only be
presented in full, and may not be used for any other objective, except where prior written approval is
obtained from ADG. This report does not comment on legal obligations, as legal advice can only be given
by qualified legal practitioners.
The information contained in this report is provided to minimise potential impacts on the receiving
environment, however implementation of the described management procedures does not guarantee
that the objectives will be achieved.
The information contained in this report is considered to be accurate at the date of issue. Subsurface
conditions, including contaminant concentrations can change in space and time, either through natural
processes or by the accidental or intentional addition of contaminants to a site. Where conditions
encountered subsequently at the site are significantly different from those reported herein, ADG must
be notified and be provided the opportunity to review the conclusions and recommendations of this
report.
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 19
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 54
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
9 References
ANZG 2018. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and
New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments, Canberra ACT, Australia.
ANZECC/ARMCANZ. 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource
Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
DES. 2019. Environmental Protection (Water & Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019. Queensland
Government. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
DEHP. 2013. Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009, Version 3. Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
DES. 2018. Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2018, Version 2 June 2018. Department of Environment and
Science. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
DES. 2022. Noosa River environmental values and water quality objectives. Department of Environment
and Science (DES), Queensland Government.
Douglas Partners. 2021. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residence, 38 Mossman Court,
Noosa Heads. Ref: 206126.00.R.001.
Government of Western Australia. 2023. Cone of Depression Cal;culator. Department of Water and
Environmental Regulation. Accessed 28 September 2023,
https://www.wa.gov.au/service/environment/cone‐of‐depression‐calculator.
NHMRC. 2018. Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. Australian Government, National
Health and Medical Research Council.
Noosa Shire Council. Noosa Council Interactive Mapping, Stormwater Infrastructure. Accessed 28
September 2023
https://enterprise.mapimage.net/IntraMaps910/?project=Public&module=Property%20Recreation%20
Utilities&configId=64251f07‐9411‐4a61‐930e‐2bd9b45d8fff&startToken=8fb07456‐4db7‐45a7‐89df‐
64e9b5a76aff&touch=false
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23 Page 20
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 55
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1 Site and proposed monitoring locations
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 56
Figure 1 - Site and proposed monitoring locations (to be confirmed) A product of
Lot 149 on N21859, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, QLD
26°23'23"S 153°4'49"E 26°23'23"S 153°5'8"E
Legend located on next page
0 50 metres
Scale: 1:1806
Printed at: A3
Print date: 28/9/2023
Not suitable for accurate measurement.
Projection: Web Mercator EPSG 102100 (3857)
For more information, visit https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/help-info/Contact-
us.html
Includes material © State of Queensland 2023. You are responsible for ensuring that
the map is suitable for your purposes. The State of Queensland makes no
representation or warranties in relation to the map contents and disclaims all liability.
If imagery is displayed, imagery includes material © CNES reproduced under license
from Airbus DS, all rights reserved © 21AT © Earth-i, all rights reserved, © Planet Labs
PBC, 2023
26°23'37"S 153°4'49"E 26°23'37"S 153°5'8"E Department of Resources
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 57
Figure 1 - Site and proposed monitoring locations (to be confirmed)
Lot 149 on N21859, 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, QLD
Legend Attribution
Includes material © State of Queensland (Department of Resources); ©
Places: Land parcel Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia); © 21AT, © Earth-i, all rights
reserved, 2023.
Site - Lot 149 on N21859
© State of Queensland (Department of Resources) 2021
Places: My Places
© State of Queensland (Department of Resources) 2023
Site Discharge
Receiving Waters
Background Waters
Cities and Towns
Road Crossing
Bridge
Tunnel
Road
Highway
Main
Local
Private
Railway
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 58
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Appendix B: DRDMW licenced bore search
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 59
DRDMW Licensed Bore Search A product of
200 m radius
26°23'22"S 153°4'45"E 26°23'22"S 153°5'9"E
Legend located on next page
0 50 metres
Scale: 1:2256
Printed at: A3
Print date: 28/9/2023
Not suitable for accurate measurement.
Projection: Web Mercator EPSG 102100 (3857)
For more information, visit https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/help-info/Contact-
us.html
Includes material © State of Queensland 2023. You are responsible for ensuring that
the map is suitable for your purposes. The State of Queensland makes no
representation or warranties in relation to the map contents and disclaims all liability.
If imagery is displayed, imagery includes material © CNES reproduced under license
from Airbus DS, all rights reserved © 21AT © Earth-i, all rights reserved, © Planet Labs
PBC, 2023
26°23'39"S 153°4'45"E 26°23'39"S 153°5'9"E Department of Resources
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 60
DRDMW Licensed Bore Search
200 m radius
Legend Attribution
Includes material © State of Queensland (Department of Resources); ©
Registered water bores [RDMW Road Crossing Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia); © 21AT, © Earth-i, all rights
and private] reserved, 2023.
Bridge
© State of Queensland (Department of Resources) 2021
Artesian bore Tunnel
Artesian bore (abandoned but © State of Queensland (Regional Development, Manufacturing and Water) 2021
useable)
Road
© State of Queensland (Department of Resources) 2023
Artesian bore (abandoned and Highway
destroyed) Main
Artesian bore, ceased to flow Local
Private
Artesian bore, ceased to flow
(abandoned but useable
Cities and Towns
Artesian bore, ceased to flow
(abandoned and destroyed)
Sub-artesian facility Railway
Sub-artesian facility (abandoned
but useable)
Sub-artesian facility (abandoned
and destroyed)
Surface water facility
Surface water facility (abandoned
but useable)
Surface water facility (abandoned
and destroyed)
Places: Land parcel
Site - Lot 149 on N21859
Places: My Places
200 m radius
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 61
ADG Consulting Pty Ltd
Appendix C: Preliminary Concept Plans
ADG1580.23 Dewatering Management Plan_Rev0_28.09.23
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 62
NOOSA VILLA
CLIENT NAME: DAVID & CRAIG DODD PROJECT NAME: NOOSA VILLA
www.chriscloutdesign.com.au GENERAL NOTES:
Use written dimensions only. DO NOT scale drawings. Contractors to verify all SITE ADDRESS: 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, Qld 4567
A: OFFICE 1/20 DUKE STREET
dimensions on site prior to commencing works. Site location in accordance with
SUNSHINE BEACH, QLD 4567
engineers details. These drawings are to be read in conjunction with engineers design
DRAWING TITLE: COVER
E: [email protected] and details, the accompanying building specification and schedule of finishes. If in doubt, DRAWING DATE: 11/07/23 SCALE: @ A3 DRAWN BY: C.CLOUT
Document Set ID: 22828362
P: (07) 54748 107 BSA LICENCE: 1127508 please request clarification. DO NOT ASSUME.
ISSUE: PRELIMINARY CONCEPT C0.0
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 63
KEY: AREAS: COSTING GUIDLINE:
AW - AWNING WINDOW CO - COFFEE MACHINE N - NICHE SLD - SLIDING DOOR LOWER FLOOR: 299m² 703m² x $8000 = $5,624,000
GROUND FLOOR: 188m² 703m² x $10000 = $7,030,000
B - BATH FD - FRENCH DOORS OV - OVEN SLW - SLIDING WINDOW UPPER FLOOR: 216m²
NOT INCLUDING TERRACES
BFD - BI-FOLD DOOR FR - FRIDGE P - PANTRY T - TUB GFA= 703m² OR POOLS
BFW - BI-FOLD WINDOW FP - FIXED PANEL WINDOW SH - SHOWER V - VANITY BASIN SITE = 234.7/ 609.5
SITE COVER =38.5%
CT - COOK TOP L - LOUVER WINDOW S - SINK WC - WATER CLOSET
30 MOSSMAN COURT, NOOSA
HEADS, QLD 4567
AREA = 609.56M2
ORTH
N
www.chriscloutdesign.com.au
A: OFFICE 1/20 DUKE STREET
SUNSHINE BEACH, QLD 4567
EXISTING
PONTOON E: [email protected]
LOCATION P: (07) 54748 107
3
C3.1 BSA LICENCE: 1127508
20
27
00
20
GENERAL NOTES:
FLAT ROOF Use written dimensions only. DO NOT scale
drawings. Contractors to verify all dimensions
on site prior to commencing works. Site
location in accordance with engineers details.
These drawings are to be read in conjunction
with engineers design and details, the
23 accompanying building specification and
32 schedule of finishes. If in doubt, please
request clarification. DO NOT ASSUME.
POOL BELOW
PROJECT:
Proposed New Residence
5684 PROJECT NAME:
NOOSA VILLA
FLAT ROOF
UNDERGROUND
LPG TANK CLIENT:
DAVID & CRAIG DODD
W/M
SITE ADDRESS:
30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, Qld 4567
ENTRY RAMP BELOW
DRAWING TITLE:
SITE PLAN
4
C3.1
DATE:
11/07/23
1
SOLAR LOCATION DRIVEWAY BELOW
C3.0 SCALE:
1 : 100 @ A3
DRAWN BY:
C.CLOUT
ISSUE:
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT
8022
2000
DRAWING NO:
C1.0
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
Page 64
KEY: AREAS: COSTING GUIDLINE:
AW - AWNING WINDOW CO - COFFEE MACHINE N - NICHE SLD - SLIDING DOOR LOWER FLOOR: 299m² 703m² x $8000 = $5,624,000
GROUND FLOOR: 188m² 703m² x $10000 = $7,030,000
B - BATH FD - FRENCH DOORS OV - OVEN SLW - SLIDING WINDOW UPPER FLOOR: 216m²
NOT INCLUDING TERRACES
BFD - BI-FOLD DOOR FR - FRIDGE P - PANTRY T - TUB GFA= 703m² OR POOLS
BFW - BI-FOLD WINDOW FP - FIXED PANEL WINDOW SH - SHOWER V - VANITY BASIN SITE = 234.7/ 609.5
SITE COVER =38.5%
CT - COOK TOP L - LOUVER WINDOW S - SINK WC - WATER CLOSET
30 MOSSMAN COURT, NOOSA
HEADS, QLD 4567
AREA = 609.56M2
ORTH
N
EN
C RE www.chriscloutdesign.com.au
S A: OFFICE 1/20 DUKE STREET
IA
ED SUNSHINE BEACH, QLD 4567
M
E: [email protected]
P: (07) 54748 107
3
CINEMA
5.2 x 5.1 C3.1 BSA LICENCE: 1127508
20
18
0m
27
m
M
IR
00
RO
20
R
W
AL
L
GYM
4.4 x 3.8
IN OL
W
DO
W PO
GENERAL NOTES:
G
Use written dimensions only. DO NOT scale
LA
drawings. Contractors to verify all dimensions
SAUNA
SS
on site prior to commencing works. Site
W
1.4 x 2.1 location in accordance with engineers details.
AL
WC
L
These drawings are to be read in conjunction
W
DO L
D with engineers design and details, the
W POO
POOL ABOVE
CB accompanying building specification and
IN schedule of finishes. If in doubt, please
request clarification. DO NOT ASSUME.
LIFT BATH
1.5 x 3.6
PROJECT:
17 Proposed New Residence
OW
STORE
W I OOL
16
15
ND
1.4 x 3.6
P
14
13
12 6272 PROJECT NAME:
11
NOOSA VILLA
10
ALL
9
SS W
8
7 PLANTER
283.5 sq m CLIENT:
GLA
6
5 DAVID & CRAIG DODD
SPA ABOVE 4
3 W/M
4 CAR GARAGE 2 SITE ADDRESS:
13.1 x 16.2 1
UP 30 Mossman Court, Noosa Heads, Qld 4567
DRAWING TITLE:
GL OOR
D
AS
LOWER FLOOR PLAN
S 4
DATE:
E
C3.1
GAT
CAR TURN TABLE 11/07/23
ING
1
PANEL LIFT DOOR
SLID
DRIVEWAY C3.0 SCALE:
STORE 1 : 100 @ A3
2.3 x 4.4
DRAWN BY:
27 46
C.CLOUT
ISSUE:
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT
SEWER
2 8350
2000
DRAWING NO:
C3.0
C1.1
Document Set ID: 22828362
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/02/2024
The text continues on page 65.
Used in these records
Reference Document - Acid Sulfate Soil Report 11_2023- OPW23_0189.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 5.4 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.