Council archive · source document
Attachment 4 - Geotech Report · MCU23/0030
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION &
ACID SULFATE SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Proposed Residence
50 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads
Report for: Adrian Puljich
C/- Innovative Planning Solutions
22500-001-Rev0
2 February 2023
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
PO Box 899, Buderim QLD 4556
Office: 07 5478 9016
Email: [email protected]
www.tectonicgeo.com.au
A.B.N. 83 165 727 828
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 44 (of 59)
Page 2
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
Document Review
Document No. Revision Prepared By Reviewed By Date Issued
001 0 Mark Thomson Ashley Davey 2 February 2023
Report Distribution
Document Revision Method of Delivery Issued To
Sian Davis
001 0 Electronic
([email protected])
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
Mark Thomson BSc, CPESC 7057 Ashley Davey BEng (Geo) RPEQ 8159
Senior Environmental Scientist Principal Geotechnical Engineer
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 i
Page 3
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Fieldwork ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................. 4
4.3 Environmental Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 4
5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Regional Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Subsurface Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 5
5.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 6
5.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................. 7
6.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................ 7
6.1 Earthworks .................................................................................................................................................... 7
6.1.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................................... 7
6.1.2 Excavations ............................................................................................................................................. 7
6.1.3 Material Re-Use ...................................................................................................................................... 8
6.1.4 Trafficability ............................................................................................................................................. 8
6.1.5 Filling....................................................................................................................................................... 8
6.2 Temporary and Permanent Retention........................................................................................................... 9
6.3 Building Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 10
6.3.1 Footing Options ..................................................................................................................................... 10
6.3.2 Raft Footing Design .............................................................................................................................. 10
6.3.3 Piled Footing Design ............................................................................................................................. 11
6.3.4 Earthquake Design Considerations ....................................................................................................... 12
6.3.5 Site Classification .................................................................................................................................. 12
6.4 Permanent Drainage................................................................................................................................... 12
6.5 Additional Investigation ............................................................................................................................... 12
7.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 13
7.1 General ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
7.2 DERM ASS Mapping .................................................................................................................................. 13
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 ii
Page 4
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
7.3 ASS Investigation Results .......................................................................................................................... 14
7.3.1 Field Screen Analysis............................................................................................................................ 14
7.3.2 Quantitative Laboratory Analysis .......................................................................................................... 14
7.4 ASS Risk Characterisation ......................................................................................................................... 15
8.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................................ 15
8.1 Training and Orientation ............................................................................................................................. 15
8.2 Management of Disturbed Material ............................................................................................................. 15
8.2.1 Verification Testing................................................................................................................................ 16
8.2.2 Agricultural Lime Availability ................................................................................................................. 16
8.3 Management of Groundwater & In situ ASS ............................................................................................... 17
8.4 Water Quality Management ........................................................................................................................ 18
9.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 iii
Page 5
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Groundwater Physio-chemical Parameters and Laboratory Testing ................................................. 6
Table 2: Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................... 7
Table 3: Retaining Structure Design Parameters .............................................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Ultimate Pile Design Parameters......................................................................................................................... 11
Table 5: Water Quality Release Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 18
TEXT FIGURES
Text Figure 1: Proposed site layout (JPD, Dwg No. BP1373/SK/1.03) ............................................................................... 1
Text Figure 2: Proposed basement layout (JPD, Dwg No. BP1373/SK/1.04) ..................................................................... 2
Text Figure 3: Aerial image of the site and surrounds (courtesy QLD Globe Website, Sept 2022) ..................................... 2
Text Figure 4: Existing residence looking from front (LHS) and rear (RHS) ........................................................................ 3
Text Figure 5: Existing boulder rock revetment wall looking east (LHS) and looking west (RHS) ....................................... 3
Text Figure 6: Rear of yard, revetment and jetty to north (rear) of residence ...................................................................... 3
Text Figure 7: Extract of Laguna Bay Surface 1:100,000 Geology Map ............................................................................. 5
Text Figure 8: Maroochy-Caloundra Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-A0 3331) ................................................... 14
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Plan
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports and Explanatory Notes
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates
APPENDIX C
Environmental Laboratory Test Certificates
APPENDIX D
Limitations
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 iv
Page 6
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a geotechnical and acid sulfate soil (ASS) investigation undertaken for a
proposed residence at 50 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads. The investigation was performed by Tectonic for
Adrian Puljich, generally in accordance with Proposal P22770-Rev0 dated 2 December 2022. Innovative
Planning Solutions Pty Ltd (IPS) are the town planners for the project.
The investigation comprised the drilling of boreholes at two locations in accessible areas, with subsequent
environmental and geotechnical laboratory testing. This report summarises the results of the investigation
and provides geotechnical recommendations regarding earthworks, footings, retaining walls and
groundwater management, together with an assessment of the extent and severity of ASS. Management
advice is also provided to mitigate the potential ASS risk posed by site development during construction.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Proposed development of the site comprises the demolition of the existing residential structure and
construction of a new two-storey residence over a single level basement. An inground pool is proposed in
the north-eastern corner of the site. Preliminary architectural drawings prepared Jared Poole Design
(Drawing No. BP1373/SK, 1.01-1.06, dated October 2022) indicate that basement construction will require
excavations up to about 3 m deep below ground level (BGL) across an approximate 330 m2 area.
Construction of the proposed swimming pool will also require excavations of up to about 2 m deep across an
approximate 25 m2 area. These works will result in an estimated 1000 m³ of material to be excavated and
removed from site.
The basement will extend to within about 1.5 m of the eastern and western boundaries and will be set back
approximately 3 m from the revetment wall along the river to the north. The pool is expected to be located
within about 0.5 m of the eastern boundary and will also be set back approximately 3 m from the revetment
wall. No alteration to the existing revetment is currently proposed.
Text Figures 1 and 2 (below and overleaf) show the proposed site layout and basement level.
NOOSA RIVER
Text Figure 1: Proposed site layout (JPD, Dwg No. BP1373/SK/1.03)
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 1
Page 7
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
Text Figure 2: Proposed basement layout (JPD, Dwg No. BP1373/SK/1.04)
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site consists of a single allotment legally described as Lot 22 on N21844, covering an area of 611 m2,
and having frontage to Noosa Parade along the southern boundary and Noosa River on the northern
boundary. To the west a similar two-storey residence was present, and to the east was Ravenwood Park.
The site is generally level with an existing ground surface elevation ranging from approximately RL 2.4 m to
2.6 m AHD.
At the time of our inspection, the subject site contained an existing two storey residence, constructed of
masonry walls and a tiled roof. Fronting the site to Noosa Parade and present on the western boundary
were rendered masonry walls of around 2 m height. Front and rear gardens featured a mixture of garden
beds, maintained lawns and a paved driveway.
The existing revetment on the northern side of the site comprised a boulder wall, about 2 m to 3 m high,
sloping back at about 25⁰ (46%) and extending below the surface of the river. The wall was noted to be in
relatively good condition at the site and on neighbouring sites to the east and west, with no evidence of
slumping or instability observed. A small jetty, of wooden construction, also extended to the canal from the
rear of the property. A relatively recent aerial image of the site and surrounds is shown in Text Figure 3
below.
Subject site
Text Figure 3: Aerial image of the site and surrounds (courtesy QLD Globe Website, Sept 2022)
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 2
Page 8
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
Text Figures 4 to 6 illustrate the site conditions at the time of the investigation.
Text Figure 4: Existing residence looking from front (LHS) and rear (RHS)
Text Figure 5: Existing boulder revetment wall looking east (LHS) and looking west (RHS)
Text Figure 6: Rear yard, revetment and jetty to north (rear) of residence
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 3
Page 9
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 Fieldwork
Fieldwork was carried out on 13 January 2023 by an experienced environmental consultant from Tectonic.
Two boreholes, designated boreholes BH1 and BH2, were drilled within the site footprint. Borehole BH1
was drilled on the southern side of the property using a tracked vehicle mounted Hanjin DB8 rotary drill rig,
by a combination of solid flight augering and rotary wash boring techniques, to a depth of about 22 m below
ground level (BGL). In situ soil strength was assessed in BH1 by conducting standard penetration tests
(SPTs) at regular intervals. Pocket penetrometer (PP) testing was also undertaken on relatively
undisturbed auger cuttings and SPT samples of clay where appropriate.
Machinery access to the rear of the site was limited by the existing residence, therefore, borehole BH2 was
drilled on the northern side of the property using hand auger equipment, extending to a depth of 3.5 m BGL.
The hand augered borehole was unable to achieve full target depth (4 m BGL) due to borehole collapse in
wet sand at around 3 m BGL. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was completed adjacent BH2 for
assessment of the density/consistency of the soil profile to a depth of 4.5 m BGL.
All boreholes were logged in accordance with the AS1726-2017 Geotechnical Site Investigations.
Samples for ASS laboratory analysis were recovered at 0.25 m depth intervals to 4.0 m BGL in borehole
BH1 and to 3.5 m BGL in borehole BH2. ASS sampling protocols in the field were observed in order to
minimise potential for oxidation prior to laboratory testing and followed the National Acid Sulfate Soil
Guidance; National acid sulfate soils sampling and identification manual (2018).
A PVC standpipe was installed in borehole BH1 to a depth of 4.5 m BGL to enable measurement of
standing groundwater level and sampling. The groundwater level in the standpipe was measured after the
completion of the drilling works and prior to environmental sampling. Borehole BH2 was backfilled with
cuttings and slightly mounded at ground surface.
Borehole locations are illustrated in the Site Plan attached as Figure 1. Borehole logs (including SPT and
DCP results) together with explanation sheets describing the terms and symbols used are attached in
Appendix A.
4.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Selected soil samples were dispatched to a NATA accredited laboratory for geotechnical testing. Laboratory
testing was undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS1289 Method for Testing Soils for
Engineering Purposes and comprised one particle size distribution (PSD) analyses and Atterberg Limits to
assess material properties. Geotechnical laboratory test results are summarised in Section 5.4, and test
certificates are attached in Appendix B.
4.3 Environmental Laboratory Testing
Collected ASS and groundwater samples were dispatched to Eurofins MGT, a NATA accredited analytical
laboratory located in Brisbane. A total of 30 ASS samples were screened to assess field pH (pHF) and pH
after oxidation (pHFOX). Following the screen testing, 8 samples were selected to undergo quantitative
analysis by the Total Actual Acidity (TAA) and Chromium Reducible Sulfur (CRS) suite in accordance with
ASS Methods 23F (TAA) and 22B (CRS) laboratory procedures. ASS laboratory test results are discussed
in Section 7. ASS results are summarised in Table C1 attached in Appendix C, together with the
environmental laboratory test certificates.
Groundwater field and laboratory testing was also undertaken on a sample recovered from the borehole BH1
standpipe. Field quality parameters, including pH, electrical conductivity and REDOX were measured, and
the sample dispatched to Eurofins for analysis of dissolved and total aluminium and iron, chloride, sulfate,
and titratable acidity. Groundwater test results are summarised in Section 5.3. Groundwater test certificates
are attached in Appendix C.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 4
Page 10
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
5.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
5.1 Regional Geology
Published geological information 1 indicates that the site is underlain by anthropogenic deposits comprising
“man-made deposits of gravel, sand and silt being generally associated with land-fill or mining” (Ref. Text
Figure 7). This is generally due to the area having been previously developed for residential use.
Natural soils below are indicated to be Quaternary (Holocene) age, and a mixture of recent channel alluvium
including sand, silt and clay; and slightly older “esturine channels and banks” comprising “sandy mud, muddy
sand [and] minor gravel.” Ultimately the site is likely underlain at depth by residual soils and bedded
sedimentary rock materials associated with the late Triassic to Jurassic age Tiaro Coal Measures.
Subject Site
Text Figure 7: Extract of 1:100,000 Laguna Bay Surface Geology Map
5.2 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes were generally consistent with the published geology
and are summarised below.
Topsoil and Historic Fill – comprising mostly loose to medium dense sand and silty sand to depths
of between 1.0 and 2.1 m BGL, being typically deeper on the northern side of the site (BH2); then
Alluvial Soil – generally comprising loose to dense alluvial sand/silty sand extending to at least BH2
termination depth (3.5 m BGL), and to about 6.6 m BGL in BH1. Very dense, indurated sand/silty
sand (‘coffee rock’) was then encountered in BH1 to a depth of 9.4 m BGL, followed by interbedded
layers of medium dense to dense silty sand and firm to stiff silty clay to about 15.6 m BGL; overlying
Residual Soil – comprising stiff to hard silty and sandy clay to 20.7 m BGL in borehole BH1,
underlain by hard, extremely weathered sandy clay to 21.4 m BGL; then
Weathered Rock – comprising low strength sandstone, becoming low to medium strength at 21.7 m
BGL to borehole termination at 22.06 m BGL.
Proposed basement and pool excavations are expected to disturb historic fill and alluvial soils to a depth of
about 3 m BGL, typically comprising loose to medium dense sand and silty sand.
1
Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, 1:100,000 Laguna Bay Surface Geology Map, Sheet 9545, 2018
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 5
Page 11
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage and saturated sand indicating the presence of groundwater inflow was encountered
during drilling between 1.8 m and 2.0 m BGL (~ RL 0.4 m to RL 0.6 m AHD). Standing groundwater was
recorded at a depth of 1.8 m BGL (measured during mid tide) in the borehole BH1 standpipe at completion of
drilling works. A groundwater sample was collected (following bore purging) and basic field water quality
parameters measured, prior to dispatch to Eurofins MGT for analysis of ASS related water quality
parameters. Results of the field and laboratory testing conducted on the groundwater sample from borehole
BH1 are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Groundwater Physio-chemical Parameters and Laboratory Testing
Parameter Units BH1
SWL* m BGL 1.8
pH pH 6.52
Conductivity mS/cm 0.626
REDOX mV -227
Acidity (as CaCO3) mg/L 310
Sulphate mg/L 55
Chloride mg/L 120
Total Aluminium mg/L 7.6
Aluminium (Soluble) mg/L 0.78
Total Iron mg/L 9.0
Iron
mg/L 0.49
(Soluble)
Note: SWL denotes standing water level.
Test results indicate that the groundwater conditions are fresh (EC >1.5 mS/cm), and neutral (pH 6.5 - 8.5).
This is not uncommon for groundwater within such a setting near a tidal river.
Levels of chloride and sulphate are typical of estuarine groundwater conditions and do not indicate an added
source of sulphate from past oxidation of ASS.
Levels of total aluminium and iron are relatively high when compared to guideline levels for recreational
surface waters. It is noted that levels of total aluminium and total iron are likely to be mostly present as
suspended and colloidal sediment within the groundwater. Where dewatering takes place, appropriate water
treatment will be required to adjust pH and reduce total suspended sediment loads, thereby also reducing
iron and aluminium levels prior to discharge or release.
Groundwater is expected to be generally encountered during excavation of the lower half of the proposed
basement excavation, below about RL 1 m AHD. As the site is located directly adjacent to Noosa River, a
relatively consistent phreatic groundwater level is likely to be present which will rise and fall in sympathy with
tidal surface water movements. Groundwater is expected to be well recharged based on proximity to the
river and rates of infiltration into excavations below the water table would likely be high given the sandy
nature of the soil profile.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 6
Page 12
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
5.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Table 2 summarises the results of geotechnical classification laboratory testing conducted on a soil sample
recovered from borehole BH2. The laboratory test certificate is presented in Appendix B.
Table 2: Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Particle Size Distribution Atterberg Limits
Borehole
Depth (m)
No. Fines Sand Content Coarse Plasticity Liquid
Content * (%) ** (%) Fraction *** (%) Index (%) Limit (%)
BH2 2.6 – 3.0 7 93 93 N/P -
Note: * Fines Content is the percentage of clay/silt fraction in the soil sample
** Sand Content taken as % retained on 0.075 mm sieve less % passing 2.36 mm
*** Coarse Fraction taken as % retained on 2.36 mm sieve.
N/P Denotes Non-Plastic
Laboratory testing of the sample from borehole BH2 indicates that the material tested comprised silty sand
with non-plastic fines.
6.0 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
6.1 Earthworks
Architectural drawings indicate that the proposed residential structure will include a single level basement,
with two storeys above. Bulk excavations for the basement are expected to extend to around 3 m depth, and
excavations to around 2 m depth will also be required locally for the pool to the north of the residence.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Following removal of the existing building, pavements and associated elements, together with clearing of
vegetation; all tree stumps, footings and remnant internal services should be ‘grubbed out’. Any organic rich
topsoil should then be stripped and set aside. Organic topsoils and garden soils must not be re-used as
structural fill (off-site), however may be retained on site for later use across landscaping areas, if required.
6.1.2 Excavations
Excavations for the basement in the order of about 3 m BGL are expected to be mostly within relatively loose
to medium dense sands (fill and natural), with some firm sandy clay. Excavations to the design level should
be achievable using medium to large (14 to 30 tonne) excavators with toothed bucket attachments.
The standing groundwater table was recorded during the investigation at around 1.8 m to 2 m BGL. Depth to
groundwater may vary and is expected to be largely influenced by rainfall patterns and the adjacent river
level which is tidal. Excavations for the basement are therefore expected to extend into the groundwater
table and, considering that the basement excavations will be relatively close to the eastern and western site
boundaries, battering is not likely to be feasible. Temporary shoring of the excavation will be required and is
discussed in Section 6.2.
The pool excavation will encroach close to groundwater level and consideration should be given to raising
the level of the pool so as to avoid intersecting the groundwater table, otherwise temporary retention may
also be required for the pool excavation.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 7
Page 13
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
6.1.3 Material Re-Use
Materials excavated for the basement are expected to comprise mostly sands, with some sandy clays. These
materials should generally be suitable for re-use as structural fill, subject to appropriate moisture adjustment
for the placement of such materials, and treatment of ASS where necessary. Internal dewatering prior to bulk
excavation (within a perimeter wall system) would be prudent to enable easier handling of excavated sand
materials for off-site transport and re-use, particularly if groundwater is shallow at the time of construction. It
is estimated that the sands would have CBR values of 7 % or higher once compacted to at least 95 %
Standard density.
6.1.4 Trafficability
After stripping and excavation to the design levels, the basement subgrade is expected to consist of loose to
medium dense natural sands; with the remainder of the site subgrade in near surface areas (following
stripping) expected to feature loose sands (historic fill). Following site preparation, and bulk excavation for
the basement, the subgrade must be inspected by a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical RPEQ
to determine whether any over-excavation is required to achieve a stable subgrade for construction activities,
and a suitable subgrade for the preferred foundation solution (Ref. Section 6.3).
Where poorly graded, fine grained sands and/or high silt contents are encountered in the subgrade
materials, they could be subject to strength loss from repetitive vehicle loading or if they are left / become
saturated. Thus, the measures outlined below are recommended:
Grade the base of the excavation (minimum 1V:100H) to achieve positive drainage to a dewatering
point(s) (e.g. sump-pump), with collected waters then pumped to a suitable discharge outlet (after
treatment to a suitable quality). Adequate internal dewatering will need to be maintained to achieve
trafficability.
Place non-woven geosynthetic filter fabric (e.g. Bidim or equivalent) across the subgrade to prevent
‘pumping’ of ‘fines’ (silt materials) into the rock fill working platform. The grade of geosynthetic to be
used will be dependent upon the particle size of the selected granular material used (see below).
Construct a minimum 150 mm thick granular working platform to the design subgrade level. We
suggest the use of 75 mm to 150 mm rock fill with a thin capping layer of CBR 15 % material to
provide a smooth working surface.
Specific design will need to be carried out to determine working platform requirements for any heavy plant
(e.g. mobile cranes or piling rigs), and a thicker rock fill platform may be required than recommended above.
6.1.5 Filling
Based on the supplied architectural drawings, and the proposed construction methodologies, minimal
structural filling works are anticipated as part of the development. To achieve non-worsening of the global
stability of the rock revetment along the river to the north, filling should not exceed 0.5 m high above the
existing ground surface unless assessed and approved by a geotechnical RPEQ prior to construction.
It is recommended that any imported fill for the project comprise good quality, low reactivity materials (e.g.
non-descript crushed rock, ‘clean’ sands, or similar), that comply with the following:
Minimum CBR of 10 %
Maximum plasticity index of 15 %
Shrink-swell index ≤ 1 %
Maximum particle size of 100 mm
Fill material should be placed in 200 mm thick (loose thickness) layers and be compacted by repeated rolling
using a minimum 4 tonne roller (vibration on if safe to do so) to achieve a dry density ratio of at least 95 % of
the maximum Dry Density Ratio (DDR), based upon the Standard Compaction method, or a Dry Density
Index of at least 70 %. Confirmatory compaction testing must be carried out at regular intervals. A minimum
of two tests per vertical lift is recommended where structural fill heights are to exceed 300 mm. Further
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 8
Page 14
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
details for control and testing of fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks
for Commercial and Residential Developments.
Due to the close proximity of structures on surrounding blocks, care will need to be taken with any activities
which may cause excessive ground vibrations (e.g. fill compaction and excavations). It would be prudent to
conduct a dilapidation survey of nearby structures before commencement of construction, and to monitor
ground vibrations during construction works. When in proximity to settlement sensitive structures or
services, only static compaction rolling should be conducted, particularly if excessive vibrations are
encountered, and/or to prevent pumping of pore water leading to subgrade heaving/strength loss over the fill
platform generally.
6.2 Temporary and Permanent Retention
Excavations are expected to be up to about 3 m deep BGL; and given that the planned basement footprint
extends close the eastern and western site boundaries (where a two-storey structure on the neighbouring
allotment was located), some form of temporary shoring will be required to support the excavation. Shoring
methods for the ground conditions encountered could include sheet pile, secant (over-lapping) piles and
mud-diaphragm walls. From a cost-benefit perspective, based upon our experience with similar sites in the
Noosa coastal area, it is anticipated that sheet piles could be adopted.
Depending on the thickness of sheet piles, and other considerations, it may be possible to design for
cantilever such that no lateral restraint is required. For a 3 m deep basement excavation, if not designed for
cantilever, it is anticipated that lateral restraint may be restricted to internal props or struts in places (as
anchors may not be feasible given the proximity to adjacent structures/property boundaries). Along the
western boundary where the basement excavation will be close to a neighbouring house, it may be
necessary to install a structurally stiffer retention system such as secant piles to mitigate the risk from ground
settlement.
The advice of a specialist contractor must be sought regarding feasibility, design and installation of the
retention system for this site.
Sheet pile installation may require pre-drilling to the desired depth due to the presence of dense to very
dense sands (including indurated materials) from depths of about 5 m BGL. Care would need to be taken
with sheet pile installation to manage potential vibration impacts on nearby structures. It would be prudent to
conduct a dilapidation survey of such adjacent structures prior to commencement of the site works.
Considering the potential for adverse impacts on nearby structures due to settlement, and potential
environmental impacts due to significant dewatering of the groundwater table, external dewatering outside
the chosen retention system should be avoided if possible and otherwise managed through a site-specific
dewatering management plan prepared by the shoring/dewatering contractor, if necessary. The proposed
retention system should be designed to support full hydrostatic pressure. If sheet piles are adopted, subject
to detailed design of the basement support system, heavy gauge sheets with an efficient overlap/interlock
would be required.
To prevent ‘boiling’ of the basement subgrade, the retention system would need to be designed to penetrate
to an adequate depth below the basement excavation level such that groundwater flow paths are
lengthened, and inflows are minimised. Very dense indurated sand (about 2 m thick) was found at about
7 m BGL in borehole BH1. If this layer is continuous across the site, which is to be confirmed by future
investigation works (Ref. Section 6.5 below), and the retention system is toed into it, the indurated sand
should act as an aquitard to reduce the amount of groundwater inflow through the base of the excavation
such that the impact on the surrounding, external groundwater table would be negligible. Depending on the
efficiency of the perimeter cut-off wall, an internal dewatering system (e.g. a series of sand spears or wells
connected to an extraction pump) may be required to pick up any seepage that migrates up through the
sands across the basement excavation floor.
To minimise the volumes of extracted groundwater and the associated treatment requirements, it would be
prudent to adjust the depths of internal wells/spears and pumping rates such that the stabilised groundwater
level below the excavation floor is optimised (i.e. dewatering is not carried out to an excessive depth, say no
more than 1 m deep below the excavation level).
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 9
Page 15
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
To minimise inflow rates and reduce the risk of external dewatering care must be taken to ensure the
temporary shoring wall is ‘water-tight’. Special attention would need given to the detailing such as ensuring
secant piles overlap or using interlocking sheet piles as opposed to overlapping sheets which leak.
Design for temporary and permanent retaining structures could be carried out using a trapezoidal (for
propped walls) pressure distribution applicable to the wall type and based on the parameters listed in Table 3
below. These values do not include allowance for hydrostatic pressures nor transient (e.g. construction) or
adjacent footing loadings. The values in Table 3 could also be utilised in assessing lateral earth pressures
for the design of the proposed in-ground pool to the north of the site.
Table 3: Retaining Structure Design Parameters
Lateral earth pressure coefficients
Unit Friction
Retained material weight angle
(t/m3) (Degrees) Ka Ko
Kp
(Cantilever wall) (Non-yielding wall)
Loose Sands
1.7 30 0.33 0.5 3.0
(< 2 m BGL)
Medium Dense Sands
1.8 33 0.29 0.46 3.39
(> 2 m)
The advice of a specialist contractor must be sought regarding feasibility, design and installation of the
preferred retention and dewatering system for this site. It will be necessary to conduct numerical analysis to
optimise the retention system.
The difficulty and risk associated with managing the basement excavation at this site should not be
underestimated. It is recommended that building, retention and dewatering contractors who are well
experienced and familiar with such construction in the local area be engaged to undertake the works.
6.3 Building Foundations
6.3.1 Footing Options
The feasibility of adopting a high level footing system will depend on the final building levels, earthworks and
structure loads. For anticipated working column loads in the order of 1500 kN, and considering the bearing
capacity of the foundation soils at basement level, the adoption of individual strip and pad footings for the
building is not considered to be practically feasible. Therefore, footing options that may be considered for the
residence include a well stiffened raft slab or pile. Discussion on a raft slab and piled footing system is given
in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 respectively.
Resistance to uplift from hydrostatic pressures must be addressed (refer Section 6.2 above) by the
structural RPEQ. Piles or tie down anchors to resist uplift may be required.
Where structures are proposed outside the basement footprint (e.g. outdoor entertaining area), the building
would need to be articulated along this junction(s), and the external supported on piles founded in medium
dense soils at least 2 m BGL. Screw piles would be a suitable pile type in this circumstance.
6.3.2 Raft Footing Design
It is anticipated that a well stiffened raft slab footing system could be adopted to support the proposed
building a basement level provided that total and differential settlements can be accommodated. The raft
would need to be designed to evenly distribute building loads throughout the slab, including concentrated
column loads. For the proposed two storey residence over a single level basement, we estimate a gross
distributed load of about 30 kPa (approximately 10 kPa per level) at the foundation level. With a basement
excavation depth of about 3 m BGL (below current ground levels), the nett distributed load at foundation
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 10
Page 16
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
level should be negligible. Settlements of less than 40 mm are anticipated. An allowable bearing (contact)
pressure of 100 kPa may be adopted for raft foundation design.
The effects of hydrostatic uplift / buoyancy need to be considered and tie down anchoring or piles may be
required.
Excavations for the basement are expected to expose mostly loose to medium dense sand across the
subgrade level. Over-excavation and replacement of any unsuitable materials with select granular fill may
be required (e.g. about a 200 mm layer working platform). The ability for the temporary shoring system to
support over-excavation should be considered in the design of the walls if a raft footing option is adopted
and a contingency for additional propping, anchoring or material lime treatment may need to be allowed for
to enable deeper excavations. Select fill materials, placement and compaction would need to comply with
Section 6.1.5. The raft subgrade must be inspected by a geotechnical RPEQ to confirm the foundation
materials and allowable bearing pressure, and to advise on treatment of any unsuitable zones.
6.3.3 Piled Footing Design
To achieve a non-worsening of global instability for the existing rock revetment along the river, the proposed
pool and outdoor entertaining area, should be supported on footings (piles where necessary) founded into
medium dense (or denser) sand at least 2 m BGL. Consideration should be given to differential movements
due to these structures being outside the proposed basement as discussed in Section 6.3.1 above.
Where piles are required, it may be possible to obtain sufficient pile load capacity founding in the medium
dense sands present from about 2 m BGL (existing ground surface). Based on the subsurface conditions,
suitable pile types that could be considered include:
CFA grout injected piles
Steel screw piles (lightly loaded piles only)
Bored piles would not generally be suitable due to the presence of sandy soils and groundwater, and would
need to be constructed using liners, in conjunction with dewatering and tremie equipment. Reinforced
concrete driven piles would not be suitable due to potential installation vibration effects on the surrounding
structures. The advice of a specialist piling contractor must be sought regarding an assessment of suitable
pile types, pile design, and associated constructability considerations. The most cost effective piling solution
depends on a combination of pile type, diameter and length. Piling companies are best equipped to make
this assessment based on the costs of the various options.
Piles may be designed using the ultimate end bearing and ultimate skin friction values present in Table 4
below.
Table 4: Ultimate Pile Design Parameters
Material Type Ultimate End Bearing (kPa) Ultimate Skin Friction (kPa)
Fill NR NA
Medium Dense Sand present
675 20
below 2 m BGL
Very Dense Indurated Sand
2500 100
present below 7 m BGL
Notes:
1) NA – Not Applicable; NR – Not Recommended
Ultimate geotechnical capacities (Rd,ug) determined from the parameters provided in Table 4 must be
multiplied by a Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor (øg) in accordance with Section 4 of AS2159-2009 to
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 11
Page 17
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
determine the Design Geotechnical Strength (Rd,g). The Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor should be
determined in accordance with AS2159 and is expected to be in the range of 0.45 to 0.55.
Settlements of piles founded as above under working or serviceability loadings would not be expected to
exceed 1% of pile diameter (e.g. less than 10 mm for pile diameters less than 1 m) provided pile bases and
sockets are cleaned of disturbed material and cuttings.
The exposure classifications for concrete and steel piles are likely to be ‘moderate to severe’ in accordance
with AS 2159 2009 Piling Design and Installation due to tidal influences.
6.3.4 Earthquake Design Considerations
Based on the information known from the current scope of investigation, and in accordance with Section 4.2
of Australian Standard AS 1170.4-2007 Structural design actions, Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia,
this site would be classified as “Class Ce” (Shallow Soil Site).
6.3.5 Site Classification
We understand that site classification in accordance with AS2870 is considered as part of the hydraulic
design for a site when determining whether flexible plumbing connections at building junctions are required.
The potential relative movements between the anticipated raft slab supported building and surrounding
ground (i.e. at plumbing connection points) would not be expected to exceed 40 mm. Thus, an equivalent
Class M is recommended for hydraulic design purposes.
6.4 Permanent Drainage
Due to a number of factors, including potential for adverse environmental impacts associated with permanent
dewatering, the proposed basement should be designed as a fully ‘tanked’ structure. Design of the
proposed basement walls and floor will therefore need to include allowance for full hydrostatic pressures.
Although groundwater levels were measured at between about 1.8 m and 2 m BGL around the time of
investigation, groundwater could rise close to the ground surface following periods of heavy or prolonged
rainfall, and flooding.
The use of a passive pressure relief system could be considered to enable a reduction in the allowance for
hydrostatic uplift in the basement construction. This could comprise a drainage network connected to a
series of standpipes or one-way valves that allow groundwater seepage to flow into a sump-pump collection
system. A drawback of such a system would be the need for water quality treatment prior to off-site
discharge, and the on-going maintenance required. Design of basement tanking, and any pressure relief
system, must be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced structural RPEQ.
Permanent site drainage should be installed to ensure that stormwater runoff is directed away from building
walls and footings (e.g. perimeter paths/drains and swales where space allows).
6.5 Additional Investigation
With the scope of works requested for the investigation, and the current preliminary nature of the building
design, there are some outstanding geotechnical issues to be resolved for the proposed construction. In
addition, there are benefits (and potential cost savings) for the future design, along with mandatory
regulations which could be met utilising further geotechnical investigation. We would recommend that
following demolition of the existing residential structure, additional borehole drilling is undertaken at the site.
This should comprise drilling one borehole on the northern side of the site within the footprint of the proposed
pool using a 4WD mounted auger rig to 8 m BGL.
This borehole would provide the following information:
Further information regarding the consistency and makeup of the deeper subsurface profile,
allowing for identification of deeper compressible estuarine clay or loose sands within the alluvial
sequence (if present at depth).
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 12
Page 18
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
An assessment of the depth of relatively impermeable indurated sand materials to provide a ‘cut off’
into which the temporary retention system could be keyed into to resist against the upward migration
of groundwater for the basement excavation.
Increased information and data to refine the pile design for structures to the rear of the site.
A review of global stability of the proposed works near the river revetment, which should consider
detailed design of the landscaping proposed in that area.
7.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT
7.1 General
ASS is common in low-lying coastal areas of Queensland, typically in Holocene to Pleistocene age alluvial
sediments located below RL 5.0 m AHD. Such areas are often characterised by the presence of estuaries,
swamps, floodplains, salt marshes and mangroves. The affected soils contain iron sulfides, most frequently
pyrite, which, when exposed to air, can oxidise to form sulfuric acid.
There are two basic types of ASS. These are actual acid sulfate soil (AASS), which is soil in which pyrite has
already oxidised and sulfuric acid is present in the soil, and potential acid sulfate soil (PASS), where pyrite is
present but has not been oxidised. When these soils are maintained in their natural setting (generally
anaerobic conditions below the groundwater table or sea level), the iron sulfides (PASS) are unable to
oxidise, therefore the ASS remains in a stable state. However, where disturbances such as civil construction
or development expose ASS to aerobic conditions, the iron sulfides are able to oxidise and form sulfuric acid,
resulting in the soil becoming acidic. Existing acidity attributed to the oxidation of ASS may also be present
because of previous exposure of ASS material either by human interference or by natural processes. This
acidity may become mobilised by ground disturbances.
The production, or mobilisation of acidity related to ASS, can have significant adverse effects including
degradation of the water quality in receiving areas, fish disease/kills, reduced crop productivity, corrosion of
built structures and health related issues. In view of the potential effects of ASS disturbance, it is critical that
any development that occurs within an area likely to contain ASS is planned, managed and monitored
appropriately so as to minimise or remove the risk of adverse environmental outcomes.
7.2 DERM ASS Mapping
An extract from the Queensland Government’s Redcliffe to Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-
A0 3261) covering the region is shown in Text Figure 8 overleaf. The mapping classifies the site as ‘SDL’
(purple shading), which is described as “disturbed land…likely to contain ASS”, and that only a “limited field
investigation” has been undertaken as part of the mapping program.
It should be noted that ASS risk mapping does not definitively indicate the presence nor absence of ASS at a
particular site, but rather provides an indication of terrain where ASS is likely to occur. The presence or
absence of ASS at a site may only be confirmed by completion of a site investigation, involving an
appropriate degree of site assessment and quantitative analysis.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 13
Page 19
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
Subject Site
Text Figure 8: Maroochy-Caloundra Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-A0 3331)
7.3 ASS Investigation Results
Site and laboratory investigation methods are described earlier in this report in Section 4. The investigation
findings for soil and groundwater analyses are discussed below. ASS laboratory results are summarised in
Table C1 attached in Appendix C, together with laboratory test certificates.
7.3.1 Field Screen Analysis
A total of 30 samples were recovered and assessed using pH field screen analyses. Soil pH (pHF) ranged
from 4.8 to 8.2, being mostly within acidic to neutral pH range.
A combination of three factors is considered when arriving at a positive field sulfide identification using pH
field screen analysis.
1. Strength of the reaction with peroxide.
2. Level of difference between field pH (pHF) and oxidised pH (pHFOX)
3. Actual value of oxidised pH (pHFOX)
All samples indicated a pH change greater than 2, and pHFOX values of less than 4, resulting in all 30
samples indicating a moderate or higher likelihood of potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) being present.
It is noted that pH screen testing is indicative only and cannot definitively confirm the presence of ASS, nor
can it quantify the nature or strength of any acidity present. Further quantitative laboratory testing was
therefore carried out on a range of samples in order to assess the strength of any acidity present, and to
quantify the level of oxidisable sulfur content, if any.
7.3.2 Quantitative Laboratory Analysis
Quantitative laboratory analyses were completed on 8 samples using the CRS suite of testing in order to
quantify the severity and nature of any actual or potential acidity present in the soil profile. The quantum of
any actual acidity was assessed using Titratable Actual Acidity (TAA), and potassium-chloride extractable
sulfur (SKCl) was used to assess the nature of the measured actual acidity. Potential acidity was measured
by the CRS method which specifically measures inorganic oxidisable sulfur (SCR). These methods are set
out in the National Acid Sulfate Soil Guidance; National acid sulfate soils sampling and identification manual
(2018) and associated ASS management guidelines.
Based on the nature of the proposed disturbance an action criteria of 0.03 %S (18 mol H+ per tonne) was
adopted for comparison with the combined actual and potential acidity results.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 14
Page 20
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
The combined actual and potential acidity exceeded the adopted action criteria for 5 of the 8 quantitative
samples tested, confirming the presence of acidic soil within the underlying soil profile. The strength of
recorded (net) acidity ranged from 7 to 145 mol H+ per tonne.
ASS laboratory test results are summarised in Table C1 in Appendix C along with laboratory certificates.
7.4 ASS Risk Characterisation
Based on the site investigation and soil test results, fill materials encountered to a depth of 1 m BGL (approx.
RL 1.4 m) are characterised as non-ASS, and will require no specific treatment or management where
disturbed. Materials encountered below a depth of 1 m BGL were found to contain levels of PASS which
exceed the action criteria. It is noted that proposed bulk excavation for basement construction will extend to
a depth of about 3 m BGL (approx. RL -0.6 m) and will therefore involve disturbance of material containing
PASS. Where disturbed, these materials will require treatment to neutralise the ASS hazard.
Proposed basement construction is also expected to involve excavation extending below the observed
groundwater table. Design and construction of a temporary retention system will be required to effectively
mitigate the risk of ground settlement and/or oxidation of possible in situ ASS in areas adjacent to the subject
site. The use of a suitably designed and constructed perimeter cut off wall should also help reduce volumes
of groundwater inflow, which will aid in managing onsite construction water prior to discharge.
Recommended site management measures are described in Section 8.
8.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The primary objective of this management plan is to provide a framework to allow the proposed works to
proceed without adverse environmental impacts related to the disturbance of ASS. To successfully achieve
this objective, the following issues shall be addressed:
Mitigation of risk associated with ASS present in disturbed soil (via neutralisation of disturbed soil
and successful verification testing);
Containment, testing and treatment (where necessary) of any water collected during the excavation
and/or during the treatment processes; and
Limitation of any alteration to the existing groundwater conditions and appropriate treatment of any
collected groundwater before re-use, offsite discharge or disposal.
8.1 Training and Orientation
Appropriate training should be provided to all Contractors staff involved in earthworks on the site, to be
delivered as part of site induction. Sessions should be conducted prior to the commencement of earthworks
and at other such regular intervals as required to ensure staff are fully aware of the requirement for field
management of ASS and associated waters, the management strategies to be implemented, and their roles
and responsibilities in achieving the desired management outcomes.
8.2 Management of Disturbed Material
Material encountered from the existing ground surface level to a depth of 1.0 m BGL presents no net
ASS risk and may be excavated and removed from site without need for specific ASS management
measures.
Material excavated or otherwise disturbed below a depth of 1 m BGL will be treated to neutralise the levels of
potential acidity present including a factor of safety of 1.5.
Neutralisation of disturbed soil will generally be undertaken within the basement excavation where erosion
and sediment control measures will be in place to prevent any uncontrolled spills or releases. This is
consistent with general site control requirements for erosion and sediment control during construction and
should not pose any additional effort on the part of the Contractor to implement.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 15
Page 21
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
Soil excavated below 1 m BGL will be mixed with a neutralising agent (fine agricultural lime) at rate of
19 kg lime per m3, as calculated from quantitative testing results.
Agricultural lime will be spread across the excavation zone at the prescribed rate, which will then be
excavated and mixed through in layers not more than 0.5 m deep at a time. This process will allow for
thorough mixing of the lime throughout the excavated material during the excavation process.
Once the material has been mixed and treated it will be sampled for verification testing. It is noted that
treated material may be stored on-site while verification testing is completed, however due to the spatial
limitations, treated soil may be transferred to designated storage stockpiles offsite while verification testing is
completed. If material is removed from site prior to completion of verification testing, all materials (including
volumes of soil, treatment rates and storage locations) must be recorded and tracked by the Contractor.
And, material must be stored in a fashion that will allow further treatment if necessary, with suitable drainage
management at the storage site to ensure that any surface water runoff and leachate is able to be captured
and effectively treated to ensure that no waters are released without meeting the required site release
criteria described in Table 5.
Following excavation of the basement to the design level, a lime guard layer will be applied to the
subgrade soil at rate of 1 kg lime per m2, prior to construction of the blinding slab, or basement floor.
The recommended liming rates assume the use of fine grained agricultural lime with a purity of not less than
90%, a soil bulk density of 1.8 tonnes per cubic metre, and a factor of safety of 1.5 to allow for incomplete
mixing and the reactivity of the lime. These rates are based on the results of the limited laboratory analysis
performed on the samples collected during previous investigations. The applicability of these rates to the
broader scale of the entire excavation is a function of the degree to which the samples taken during the
investigation are representative of the material to be excavated as a whole.
8.2.1 Verification Testing
To verify treatment of excavated ASS material, verification testing will be carried out at a rate of
1 test per 250 m3 of treated soil.
Verification testing will not be required for material encountered from the existing ground surface level to a
depth of 1 m BGL. As it is expected that approximately 1000 m3 of soil will be excavated from below 1 m
BGL during basement construction, 4 verification tests will be required.
Each verification sample will be taken by compositing treated material from no less than six subsample
locations (including at depth) from treated soil within the treatment area. The laboratory test regime for
validation testing will involve the measurement of pH, net acidity (the sum of actual, potential and residual
acidity) and acid neutralising capacity (ANC). Where the pH post treatment is greater than 6.5 and the ANC
is not less than 1.5 times the net acidity, then the validation shall be deemed successful.
If analysis of any verification sample/s indicates unsuccessful treatment, re-treatment of the represented soil
will be required prior to completion of another series of verification testing. This procedure should be
repeated until successful treatment has been verified.
8.2.2 Agricultural Lime Availability
To help demonstrate that appropriate quantities of lime have been used as specified to neutralise the ASS,
quantities of lime delivered to the site, verified by delivery dockets, will be maintained by the Contractor. The
lime usage shall quantify volumes of soil treated.
It is expected that that approximately 20 tonne of agricultural lime will be required for soil treatment during
construction. The contractor should ensure that a stockpile of at least 2 tonne of fine-grained agricultural
lime be kept at the treatment site during the construction period. This stockpile should be stored in a fashion
so as to prevent the unplanned release of the lime into the environment, through erosion or runoff.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 16
Page 22
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
8.3 Management of Groundwater & In situ ASS
Excavation below the groundwater table, such as that proposed for this site, has the potential to result in
localised lowering of the water table caused by dewatering. This process is referred to as groundwater
drawdown and can create a time variable cone of depression around the excavation, the scale of which is
dependent on the type and method of dewatering used, and the nature of the aquifer containing the
groundwater. The cone of depression is the volume of soil around the disturbance which was previously
saturated (below the water table), but due to the dewatering becomes unsaturated (at least for a short time
period during construction).
This lowering of the water table may lead to two potential problems:
settlement of the land adjacent to the excavation which may lead to subsidence; and
exposure of in situ PASS within the cone of depression, thereby causing oxidation of these soils and
subsequent generation of acidity, having potential adverse effects on groundwater conditions.
To minimise dewatering and mitigate impacts to groundwater outside of the construction area, construction
will utilise a retention system around the full basement perimeter to provide temporary batter support for
construction, and to minimise groundwater inflow. This should enable construction activities occurring inside
the basement to have a negligible impact on the environmental values of the groundwater and soil outside of
the basement perimeter.
To achieve this, the retention system must be designed to incorporate the following:
Development of full hydrostatic pressure so that external dewatering is minimised.
For sheet piles, the design incorporates an efficient sheet interlock method so that seepage
between individual sheets is minimal, and ingress of fine soils is negated.
So that the perimeter wall can achieve an effective groundwater ‘cut-off’, piles should
penetrate into the very dense, indurated sand layers present at depths below 7 m BGL (about
4 m below the proposed excavation level).
Proposed pool excavation is also expected to extend below groundwater levels and temporary retention may
also be required for the pool excavation, however a less intensive method may be adopted considering that
excavations would only likely penetrate just below the groundwater table.
Design and construction of a basement retention system as described above should result in negligible
drawdown of the groundwater table outside the excavation and minimise oxidation of in situ ASS in areas
adjacent to the works. This methodology should also significantly reduce the volumes of groundwater
ingress, which would reduce difficulty in managing construction waters prior to discharge.
It is anticipated that some groundwater flows may be encountered through the base of the excavation and
through the perimeter piles during construction, however such inflows should be handled using shallow
sump-pumps. These groundwater inflows shall be treated and discharged together with any surface water
runoff accumulating during the construction period.
Some minor dewatering may be required to facilitate construction of footings and lift overrun pits and may be
undertaken with minimal risk as these are typically located in the centre of the basement zone. Where minor
dewatering or likely drawdown may be occurring, passive control measures such as lime application and/or
surface watering may be used to mitigate risk of soil oxidation or leachate transport.
To further mitigate any potential for risk associated with minor/short-term dewatering, the following
management strategies should be undertaken to mitigate any potential issues:
Periods of any active dewatering shall be limited as much as possible.
Depth of dewatering shall be limited to within 1 m from the base of proposed excavation.
Quality of any groundwater inflows into excavations shall be monitored to ensure in situ acidification
is not occurring. Monitoring will involve pH testing of inflows daily during dewatering periods. It
should be noted that groundwater in the area may be naturally acidic (5.0-6.0). If the monitored pH
levels fall more than 1.0 unit over the course of construction monitoring, or is consistently below pH
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 17
Page 23
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
4.0, then an ASS specialist should be engaged to determine whether there has been any significant
environmental impact, why the pH has dropped and how the works may progress without undue
environmental risk.
Once basement excavation has achieved the final design level a reinforced concrete structural slab and
perimeter walls will be constructed to seal the basement and achieve a ‘tanked structure’, whereby no
permanent dewatering will be required (during operation).
8.4 Water Quality Management
Erosion and sediment control measures are expected to be applied in accordance with current industry
practice to contain and control site runoff waters during construction. Runoff generated from the ASS
treatment area(s), including excavation activities, will be contained, tested and treated (if necessary) prior to
discharge or re-use onsite. Uncontrolled discharge of water from excavation areas, ASS treatment areas or
exposed works areas will not be allowed to occur.
If discharge from the site is required, performance criteria detailed in Table 5 must be met prior to release.
The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring relevant water quality criteria are met prior to discharge.
Table 5: Water Quality Release Criteria
Indicator Release Limit
pH 6.5 - 8.5
Total Suspended Solids < 50 mg/L
Aluminium < 0.2 mg/L
Iron < 0.3 mg/L
No visible litter sheen or odour washed from the site
Litter/Gross Pollutants
or deposited in waters downstream of any discharge
Groundwater extracted internally would be expected to require quality adjustment prior to off-site release to
stormwater. At a minimum, this is expected to involve buffering (increasing) of the pH to within the range 6.5
to 8.5 by the addition of a suitable agent, followed by the addition of a flocculant to reduce turbidity and
subsequent metal loads. Effective treatment of groundwater to achieve suitable release criteria requires
reasonable spatial and temporal consideration. Where required, a suitable dewatering sub-contractor should
be consulted to ensure appropriate outcomes can be achieved.
For basement excavations in similar conditions, groundwater treatment is normally carried out using a staged
process. The first stage involves adjustment of the pH, typically by mixing caustic soda solution within an
enclosed tank. As dissolved metals (mostly iron) typically ‘come out’ of solution as the pH is raised, thereby
increasing turbidity, a second stage of treatment is normally required. This involves reduction of the turbidity
by the addition of a flocculant.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
Your attention is drawn to the document Limitations, which is included in Appendix D of this report. The
statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this
report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the
services provided by Tectonic for this project.
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0 18
Page 24
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
PO Box 899
Buderim Qld 4556
Ph: 07 5478 9016
PROJECT:
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
50 NOOSA PARADE,
BH2 NOOSA HEADS
NOOSA RIVER
TITLE:
SITE PLAN
CLIENT:
MR ADRIAN PULJICH
BH1 C/- IPS PTY LTD
DATE:
MOOLOOLAH RIVER
DRAWN:
MT 2/02/2023
CHECKED: DATE:
ACD 2/02/2023
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
LEGEND:
BOREHOLE LOCATION
0 10 m 20 m
Notes: PROJECT NO.: FIGURE: REV:
Aerial imagery courtesy of QLD Globe, dated 28 May 2023
Basement overlay courtesy of Jared Poole Design (Drawing No. BP1373/SK, 1.01-1.06, dated October 2022) 22500-001 1 0
Page 25
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports and Explanatory Notes
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0
Page 26
Borehole No.
BH1
Page 1 of 3
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 22500
Client: IPS Commenced: 13/1/2023
Project Name: Residence Completed: 13/1/2023
Hole Location: 50 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads Logged By: MS
Hole Position: 7081165.8 m E 508290.9 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MT
Drill Model and Mounting: Hanjin Inclination: -90° RL Surface: 2.40 m
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification Piezometer
Pocket Construction
Penetration
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer
Recovery
Condition
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS
Symbol
Method
Remarks secondary and minor components, colour
Water
RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
ASS No Surface Completion
BH1 Piezo
SAND (FILL), fine grained, pale grey
at
0.25m Bentonite
SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained, brown,
Intervals M L
with silt, trace of medium sized gravel
to
4.0m
1.4
1
SPT Sandy CLAY (ALLUVIUM), medium plasticity,
2,3,2
AD/T
grey and dark brown
N=5 M F 80
SP SAND (ALLUVIUM), fine to medium grained, M to
grey, with silt fines W
L
SWL 1.8m
0.4
2
SPT Sand
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 22500.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 1/2/2023 09:40 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
3,6,7 MD
N=13
-0.6
3
SPT
3,5,4
N=9
L to
-1.6
4 MD
W MD
-2.6
5
RB
with fine sized sub-rounded gravel
SPT
11,20,25
N=45
D
-3.6
6
SM Silty SAND (ALLUVIUM), fine to medium grained,
dark brown
SM Indurated SAND (ALLUVIUM), fine to medium
grained, dark brown, weakly cemented
-4.6
7
SPT
20,30/145mm
N*>60 VD
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS - Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols and < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Fr - Friable
Classification System
Page 27
Borehole No.
BH1
Page 2 of 3
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 22500
Client: IPS Commenced: 13/1/2023
Project Name: Residence Completed: 13/1/2023
Hole Location: 50 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads Logged By: MS
Hole Position: 7081165.8 m E 508290.9 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MT
Drill Model and Mounting: Hanjin Inclination: -90° RL Surface: 2.40 m
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification Piezometer
Pocket Construction
Penetration
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer
Recovery
Condition
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS
Symbol
Method
Remarks secondary and minor components, colour
Water
RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
ASS SM Indurated SAND (ALLUVIUM), fine to medium
at grained, dark brown, weakly cemented
0.25m (continued)
Intervals
to
4.0m VD
SPT
19,27,32
-6.6
9
N=59
SM Silty SAND (ALLUVIUM), fine to medium grained,
dark brown
-7.6
10
SPT
9,12,17
N=29 MD to
D
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 22500.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 1/2/2023 09:40 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
-8.6
11
SPT
6,6,8 W
N=14
becoming grey
-9.6
12
RB
MD
-10.6
13
SPT
8,17,18
N=35
D
-11.6
14
with high plasticity clay fines
CH Silty CLAY (ALLUVIUM), high plasticity, grey
F
U50
14.5-15.01m
trace of organics
-12.6
160
15
M to
St
W
without organics
CH Silty Sandy CLAY (RESIDUAL), high plasticity, St to
grey and pale grey mottled brown, fine to medium VSt
grained sand
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS - Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols and < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Fr - Friable
Classification System
Page 28
Borehole No.
BH1
Page 3 of 3
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 22500
Client: IPS Commenced: 13/1/2023
Project Name: Residence Completed: 13/1/2023
Hole Location: 50 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads Logged By: MS
Hole Position: 7081165.8 m E 508290.9 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MT
Drill Model and Mounting: Hanjin Inclination: -90° RL Surface: 2.40 m
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification Piezometer
Pocket Construction
Penetration
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description
Penetrometer
Recovery
Condition
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS
Symbol
Method
Remarks secondary and minor components, colour
Water
RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m)
100
200
300
400
500
ASS CH Silty Sandy CLAY (RESIDUAL), high plasticity,
at grey and pale grey mottled brown, fine to medium
0.25m grained sand (continued) 260
Intervals
to
VSt
4.0m
SPT
-14.6
3,5,8 17
N=13
SC Clayey SAND (RESIDUAL), fine to medium
SPT grained, pale grey and grey, high plasticity clay
5,8,15 fines
MD
N=23
-15.6
18
CH Sandy CLAY (RESIDUAL), high plasticity, grey,
fine to coarse grained sand St
M to
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 22500.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 1/2/2023 09:40 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
W
-16.6
19
RB
SPT
4,7,9
N=16 230
VSt
-17.6
20
becoming grey and brown
Sandy CLAY (EXTREMELY WEATHERED
MATERIAL), high plasticity, grey mottled brown,
-18.6
21 H
fine to coarse grained sand
SANDSTONE, highly weathered, fine to coarse
grained, grey and brown, very low strength
becoming low to medium strength
-19.6
22
SPT becoming moderately weathered, medium
30/60mm strength
N*>60
Hole Terminated at 22.06 m
Target depth
-20.6
23
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS - Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols and < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Fr - Friable
Classification System
Page 29
Borehole No.
BH2
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 22500
Client: IPS Commenced: 13/1/2023
Project Name: Residence Completed: 13/1/2023
Hole Location: 50 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads Logged By: MS
Hole Position: 7081188.7 m E 508290.0 m N MGA2020 Zone 56 Checked By: MT
Drill Model and Mounting: Hand Auger Inclination: -90° RL Surface: 2.40 m
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Tectonic
Drilling Information Material Description and Observations
Relative Density
Classification
Pocket DCP TEST
Penetration
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
Penetrometer
Recovery
Condition
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS Blows per 100 mm
Symbol
Method
Remarks secondary and minor components, colour
Water
RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
100
200
300
400
500
ASS SM Silty SAND (TOPSOIL), fine grained, dark brown,
at trace of organics
0.25m MD
Intervals Silty SAND (FILL), fine grained, dark grey D to
to M
3.5m SAND (FILL), fine grained, pale brown
DS
0.6-0.9m
1.4
1
M to
W
L
HA
0.4
2
Groundwater seepage at 2.0m
SM Silty SAND (ALLUVIUM), fine to medium grained,
brown
becoming grey
TECTONIC 3.00.2 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 22500.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 1/2/2023 09:40 10.02.00.04 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30 Prj: Tectonic 3.00.2 2021-03-30
DS
2.6-3.0m W
-0.6
3
MD
Hole Terminated at 3.50 m
Hand auger refusal at 3.5m BGL (Collapsing
sands)
-1.6
4
-2.6
5
-3.6
6
-4.6
7
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit VE - Very Easy Level (Date) U## - Undisturbed Sample (## mm) D - Dry VS - Very Soft
AD/V-Auger Drilling V Bit E - Easy DS - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RT - Rotary Tri-cone Bit Inflow BDS - Bulk Disturbed Sample W - Wet F - Firm
RD - Rotary Drilling F - Firm SPT - Standard Penetration Test VSt - Very Stiff
Partial Loss
NMLC -Rock Core H - Hard H - Hard
VH - Very hard Complete Loss
HA - Hand Auger Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols and < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching Soil Descriptions
indicates material) = PL D - Dense
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Fr - Friable
Classification System
Page 30
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON LOGS
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil is classified and described in borehole and test pit logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 2017.
The material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
Particle Size Plasticity Properties
Major Sub Division Particle Size
Division
BOULDERS > 200 mm
COBBLES 63 to 200 mm
Coarse 19 to 63 mm
GRAVEL Medium 6.7 to 19 mm
Fine 2.36 to 6.7 mm
Coarse 0.6 to 2.36 mm
SAND Medium 0.21 to 0.6 mm
Fine 0.075 to 0.21
SILT 0.002 to 0.075
CLAY < 0.002 mm
NOTE: The U line is an approximate upper bound for most materials.
Data which plot above the U line may represent unusual/problem soil
behavior, or unreliable data and should be considered carefully.
MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.
M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 2017
Symbol Term Undrained Shear Symbol Term Density Index % SPT “N” #
Strength
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
H Hard Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of
the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 – 2017, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and
equipment type.
Rev1
October 2017
Page 31
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0
Page 32
Construction Sciences Pty Ltd Laboratory: Sunshine Coast Laboratory
ABN: 74 128 806 735 Phone: 07 5452 0100
Fax: 07 5452 0133
Address: Email: [email protected]
32 Hi-Tech Drive,
Kunda Park QLD 4556
QUALITY OF MATERIALS REPORT
Client: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Report Number: 3740/R/58132-1
Client Address: 924 David Low Way, Marcoola Project Number: 3740/P/2437
Project: 50 Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads Lot Number:
Location: Various Internal Test Request: 3740/T/44261
Supplied To: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Client Reference/s: O/N 22500
Area Description: Report Date / Page: 1/02/2023 Page 1 of 1
Test Procedures AS1289.3.6.1, AS1289.3.1.2, AS1289.3.2.1, AS1289.3.4.1, AS 1289.3.3.1
Sample Number 3740/S/234949 Borehole name BH 2
Sampling Method Tested As Received Start Sample Depth (m) 2.6
Date Sampled 13/01/2023 End Sample Depth (m) 3.0
Sampled By Client Sampled (m)
Date Tested 23/01/2023 Material Source Insitu
PSD Preparation Material Type -
Atterberg Preparation - / - Prep Material > 53.0mm (%)
Material Description Sand
Specification Percent Specification PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH
AS Sieve (mm)
Minimum (%) Passing (%) Maximum (%)
100
4.75 100
2.36 100
1.18 100 80
0.600 99
Percent Passing (%)
0.425 96
60
0.300 76
0.150 11
0.075 7 40
20
0
1.18
2.36
4.75
0.075
0.150
0.300
0.425
0.600
AS Sieve Size (mm)
Specification Specification Specification Specification
Test Result Result Test Result Result
Minimum (%) Maximum (%) Minimum (%) Maximum (%)
Liquid Limit (%) Can't be determined 0.075/0.425 Fines Ratio 0.07
Plastic Limit (%) Can't be determined PI x 0.425 Ratio (%) -
Plastic Index (%) Non Plastic LS x 0.425 Ratio (%) 0.0
Linear Shrinkage (%) 0.0 Linear Shrinkage Defects -
Remarks Results apply to the sample/s as received.,
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
Accreditation Number: 1986
Corporate Site Number: 3740
Approved Signatory: Thomas Hewitt
Form ID: W85Rep Rev 3
Page 33
50 NOOSA PARADE, NOOSA HEADS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
APPENDIX C
Environmental Laboratory Test Certificates
2 February 2023
Report No. 22500-001-Rev0
Page 34
Table C1 - Summary of ASS Laboratory Testing Ref: 22500
Titratable
Chromium Reducible NET
Location & Depth pHF AASS pHFOX PASS Reaction pH KCl Actual SKCl SNAS ANC_bt Required Lime Rate
Soil Type Sulfur ACIDITY
(m) liklihood1 likelihood2 Acidity
3
pH Unit pH Unit 1 to 4 pH Unit mole H+ / t %S %S mole H+ / t mole H+ / t mole H+ / t mole H+ / t kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/m
0.0-0.25 6.0 L 3.1 M 4
0.25-0.5 5.7 L 3.0 M 4
SAND (Fill)
0.5-0.75 4.8 M 2.8 H 4 5.0 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 <3 N/A N/A 11 0.9 1.5
0.75-1.0 5.4 L 3.0 M 4
1.0-1.25 Sandy Clay 4.9 M 2.8 H 4
1.25-1.5 (Alluvium) 5.3 L 2.0 H 4
BH1
1.5-1.75 5.4 L 2.0 H 4 4.8 15 0.023 0.21 130 N/A N/A 145 11.5 19.5
1.75-2.0 5.7 L 2.3 H 4
2.0-2.25 5.6 L 2.3 H 4
2.25-2.5 5.6 L 2.2 H 4
2.5-2.75 Silty SAND 5.0 M 2.7 H 4
2.75-3.0 (Alluvium) 5.6 L 2.3 H 4 5.0 7.7 0.009 0.12 77 N/A N/A 84.7 6.7 11.4
3.0-3.25 7.6 L 2.4 H 4
3.25-3.5 5.5 L 2.5 H 4
3.5-3.75 8.2 L 2.6 H 4 5.9 2.7 0.007 0.076 48 N/A N/A 50.7 4.0 6.8
3.75-4.0 5.3 L 1.9 H 4
0.0-0.25 5.5 L 2.7 H 3
Silty SAND (Fill)
0.25-0.5 5.6 L 3.0 M 3
0.5-0.75 5.8 L 3.1 M 3 5.1 8.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 <3 N/A N/A 8.1 0.6 1.1
0.75-1.0 5.8 L 3.3 M 3
1.0-1.25 5.8 L 3.2 M 3
SAND (Fill)
1.25-1.5 6.1 L 3.9 M 3 5.5 4.4 < 0.005 0.005 3.3 N/A N/A 7.7 0.6 1.0
BH2 1.5-1.75 6.3 L 3.9 M 3
1.75-2.0 6.2 L 3.9 M 3
2.0-2.25 5.1 L 2.4 H 4
2.25-2.5 5.2 L 2.1 H 4 4.8 22 0.006 0.068 42 N/A N/A 64 5.1 8.6
2.5-2.75 Silty SAND 5.1 L 2.5 H 3
2.75-3.0 (Alluvium) 5.3 L 3.2 M 4
3.0-3.25 6.3 L 1.9 H 4
3.25-3.5 6.4 L 2.0 H 4 5.6 4.3 0.018 0.17 110 N/A N/A 114.3 9.0 15.4
Notes: 1. Actual Acid Sulfate Soil (AASS) liklihood is indicated by Low (L & no shading)(pHF > 5). Medium (M & yellow shade)(pHF 5 ≤ pHF > 4) and High (H & red shade)(pHF ≤ 4).
2. Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) liklihood is indicated by Low (L & no shading, where pHFOX is > 4 and ∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is < 2 pH units). Medium (M & yellow shade, where ∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is ≥ 2 pH
units OR pHFOX is <4)) and High (H and red shade)(change from pHF to pHFOX is ≥2 pH units AND pHFOX is <3)
3. Reaction 1 = Nil to slight reaction, 2 = Moderate reaction, 3 = Strong reaction (persistant froth), 4 = Extreme reaction.
4. Shaded TAA & SCR results are those exceeding the QASSIT action levels of 18 mol H+/t or 0.03 %S (> 0.03%S Yellow; > 0.1%S Orange; > 1.0%S Red).
5. Net Acidity = TAA + CRS + SNAS (Excluding ANC.)
5. Required Lime Rate is calculated from the net Acid-Base Account (ANC has not been corroborated) with a factor of safety = 1.5 and bulk density of 1.7 t/m³. N/R = Not Required
Page 35
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Site Number 20794
924 David Low Way Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
NATA is a signatory to the ILAC Mutual Recognition
Marcoola Arrangement for the mutual recognition of the
equivalence of testing, medical testing, calibration,
QLD 4564 inspection, proficiency testing scheme providers and
reference materials producers reports and certificates.
Attention: Mitchel Stewart
Report 955951-S
Project name 50 NOOSA PARADE NOOSA HEADS
Project ID 22500
Received Date Jan 16, 2023
BH1 - 0.0- BH1 - 0.25- BH1 - 0.5- BH1 - 0.75-
Client Sample ID 0.25M 0.5M 0.75M 1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016289 B23-Ja0016290 B23-Ja0016291 B23-Ja0016292
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.0 5.7 4.8 5.4
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.0
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - - 5.0 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - - 0.018 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - - 11 -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - - < 0.005 -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - - <3 -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - - < 0.005 -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - - 2.0 -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - - 1.5 -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - - < 0.02 -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - - 11 -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - - <1 -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - 110 -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - < 0.005 -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - - 100 -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - - < 0.1 -
% Moisture 1 % - - 6.5 -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 1 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 36
BH1 - 1.0- BH1 - 1.25- BH1 - 1.5- BH1 - 1.75-
Client Sample ID 1.25M 1.5M 1.75M 2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016293 B23-Ja0016294 B23-Ja0016295 B23-Ja0016296
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 4.9 5.3 5.4 5.7
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - - 4.8 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - - 0.024 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - - 15 -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - - 0.21 -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - - 130 -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - - 0.023 -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - - 2.0 -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - - 1.5 -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - - 0.23 -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - - 150 -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - - 11 -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - 160 -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - < 0.005 -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - - 100 -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - - < 0.1 -
% Moisture 1 % - - 23 -
BH1 - 2.0- BH1 - 2.25- BH1 - 2.5- BH1 - 2.75-
Client Sample ID 2.25M 2.5M 2.75M 3.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016297 B23-Ja0016298 B23-Ja0016299 B23-Ja0016300
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.6 5.6 5.0 5.6
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 2 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 37
BH1 - 2.0- BH1 - 2.25- BH1 - 2.5- BH1 - 2.75-
Client Sample ID 2.25M 2.5M 2.75M 3.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016297 B23-Ja0016298 B23-Ja0016299 B23-Ja0016300
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - - - 5.0
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - - - 0.012
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - - - 7.7
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - - - 0.12
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - - - 77
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - - - 0.009
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - - - N/A
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - - - N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - - - N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - - - N/A
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - - - 2.0
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - - - N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - - - N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - - - N/A
ANC Fineness Factor factor - - - 1.5
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - - - 0.14
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - - - 85
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - - - 6.4
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - - 90
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - - < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % - - - 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - - - < 0.1
% Moisture 1 % - - - 20
BH1 - 3.0- BH1 - 3.25- BH1 - 3.5- BH1 - 3.75-
Client Sample ID 3.25M 3.5M 3.75M 4.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016301 B23-Ja0016302 B23-Ja0016303 B23-Ja0016304
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 7.6 5.5 8.2 5.3
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.4 2.5 2.6 1.9
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - - 5.9 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - - 0.004 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - - 2.7 -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - - 0.076 -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - - 48 -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 3 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 38
BH1 - 3.0- BH1 - 3.25- BH1 - 3.5- BH1 - 3.75-
Client Sample ID 3.25M 3.5M 3.75M 4.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016301 B23-Ja0016302 B23-Ja0016303 B23-Ja0016304
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - - 0.007 -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - - 2.0 -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - - 1.5 -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - - 0.08 -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - - 50 -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - - 3.8 -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - 120 -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - < 0.005 -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - - 100 -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - - < 0.1 -
% Moisture 1 % - - 20 -
BH2 - 0.0- BH2 - 0.25- BH2 - 0.5- BH2 - 0.75-
Client Sample ID 0.25M 0.5M 0.75M 1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016305 B23-Ja0016306 B23-Ja0016307 B23-Ja0016308
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.8
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.3
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - - 5.1 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - - 0.013 -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - - 8.1 -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - - < 0.005 -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - - <3 -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - - < 0.005 -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 4 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 39
BH2 - 0.0- BH2 - 0.25- BH2 - 0.5- BH2 - 0.75-
Client Sample ID 0.25M 0.5M 0.75M 1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016305 B23-Ja0016306 B23-Ja0016307 B23-Ja0016308
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - - N/A -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - - 2.0 -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - - N/A -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - - N/A -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - - 1.5 -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - - < 0.02 -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - - < 10 -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - - <1 -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - 88 -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - 1.2 -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - - 99 -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - - 1.3 -
% Moisture 1 % - - 2.4 -
BH2 - 1.0- BH2 - 1.25- BH2 - 1.5- BH2 - 1.75-
Client Sample ID 1.25M 1.5M 1.75M 2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016309 B23-Ja0016310 B23-Ja0016311 B23-Ja0016312
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.2
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.9
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - 5.5 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - 0.007 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - 4.4 - -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - 0.005 - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - 3.3 - -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - < 0.005 - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - 2.0 - -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 5 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 40
BH2 - 1.0- BH2 - 1.25- BH2 - 1.5- BH2 - 1.75-
Client Sample ID 1.25M 1.5M 1.75M 2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016309 B23-Ja0016310 B23-Ja0016311 B23-Ja0016312
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - N/A - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - N/A - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5 - -
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - < 0.02 - -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - < 10 - -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - <1 - -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 93 - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - < 0.005 - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 100 - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - < 0.1 - -
% Moisture 1 % - 6.1 - -
BH2 - 2.0- BH2 - 2.25- BH2 - 2.5- BH2 - 2.75-
Client Sample ID 2.25M 2.5M 2.75M 3.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016313 B23-Ja0016314 B23-Ja0016315 B23-Ja0016316
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.3
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.4 2.1 2.5 3.2
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - 4.8 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - 0.035 - -
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - 22 - -
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - 0.068 - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - 42 - -
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - 0.006 - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - N/A - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - 2.0 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - N/A - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - N/A - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - N/A - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5 - -
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 6 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 41
BH2 - 2.0- BH2 - 2.25- BH2 - 2.5- BH2 - 2.75-
Client Sample ID 2.25M 2.5M 2.75M 3.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016313 B23-Ja0016314 B23-Ja0016315 B23-Ja0016316
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - 0.10 - -
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - 64 - -
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - 4.8 - -
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 89 - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - < 0.005 - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 100 - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - < 0.1 - -
% Moisture 1 % - 21 - -
BH2 - 3.0- BH2 - 3.25-
Client Sample ID 3.25M 3.5M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016317 B23-Ja0016318
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.3 6.4
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 1.9 2.0
Reaction Ratings*S05 0 - 4.0 4.0
Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2)
pH-KCL (NLM-3.1) 0.1 pH Units - 5.6
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 0.003 % pyrite S - 0.007
Titratable Actual Acidity (NLM-3.2) 2 mol H+/t - 4.3
Potential Acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (s-SCr) (NLM-2.1)S04 0.005 %S - 0.17
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-SCr) (NLM-2.1) 3 mol H+/t - 110
Extractable Sulfur
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.005 %S - 0.018
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.005 %S - N/A
Retained Acidity (S-NAS)
Net Acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) NLM-4.1 0.005 %S - N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (s-SNAS) NLM-4.1S02 0.005 %S - N/A
Net Acid soluble sulfur (a-SNAS) NLM-4.1 2 mol H+/t - N/A
HCl Extractable Sulfur Correction Factor 1 factor - 2.0
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt)
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 0.01 % CaCO3 - N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (s-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2)S03 0.02 %S - N/A
Acid Neutralising Capacity - (a-ANCbt) (NLM-5.2) 2 mol H+/t - N/A
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5
Net Acidity (Including ANC)
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 0.02 %S - 0.18
CRS Suite - Net Acidity - NASSG (Including ANC) 10 mol H+/t - 110
CRS Suite - Liming Rate - NASSG (Including ANC)S01 1 kg CaCO3/t - 8.3
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 7 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 42
BH2 - 3.0- BH2 - 3.25-
Client Sample ID 3.25M 3.5M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil
Eurofins Sample No. B23-Ja0016317 B23-Ja0016318
Date Sampled Apr 29, 2022 Apr 29, 2022
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC)
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 130
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - < 0.1
% Moisture 1 % - 22
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 8 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 43
Sample History
Where samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction is reported.
If the date and time of sampling are not provided, the Laboratory will not be responsible for compromised results should testing be performed outside the recommended holding time.
Description Testing Site Extracted Holding Time
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test Brisbane Jan 18, 2023 7 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7060 Determination of field pH (pHF) and field pH peroxide (pHFOX) tests
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding ANC) Brisbane Jan 17, 2023 6 Week
- Method: LTM-GEN-7070
% Moisture Brisbane Jan 17, 2023 14 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 Moisture
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 9 of 17
Date Reported: Jan 19, 2023 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 955951-S
Page 44
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd Eurofins ARL Pty Ltd Eurofins Environment Testing NZ Ltd
ABN: 50 005 085 521 ABN: 91 05 0159 898 NZBN: 9429046024954
Melbourne Geelong Sydney Canberra Brisbane Newcastle Perth Auckland Christchurch
6 Monterey Road 19/8 Lewalan Street 179 Magowar Road Unit 1,2 Dacre Street 1/21 Smallwood Place 4/52 Industrial Drive 46-48 Banksia Road 35 O'Rorke Road 43 Detroit Drive
Dandenong South Grovedale Girraween Mitchell Murarrie Mayfield East NSW 2304 Welshpool Penrose, Rolleston,
VIC 3175 VIC 3216 NSW 2145 ACT 2911 QLD 4172 PO Box 60 Wickham 2293 WA 6106 Auckland 1061 Christchurch 7675
web: www.eurofins.com.au Tel: +61 3 8564 5000 Tel: +61 3 8564 5000 Tel: +61 2 9900 8400 Tel: +61 2 6113 8091 Tel: +61 7 3902 4600 Tel: +61 2 4968 8448 Tel: +61 8 6253 4444 Tel: +64 9 526 45 51 Tel: 0800 856 450
email: [email protected] NATA# 1261 Site# 1254 NATA# 1261 Site# 1254 NATA# 1261 Site# 18217 NATA# 1261 Site# 20794 NATA# 1261 Site# 25079 NATA# 2377 Site# 2370 IANZ# 1327 IANZ# 1290
V2
Company Name: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Order No.: N/A Received: Jan 16, 2023 6:05 PM
Address: 924 David Low Way Report #: 955951 Due: Jan 24, 2023
Marcoola Phone: 07 5478 9642 Priority: 5 Day
QLD 4564 Fax: Contact Name: Mitchel Stewart
Project Name: 50 NOOSA PARADE NOOSA HEADS
Project ID: 22500
Eurofins Analytical Services Manager : Zoe Flynn
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
Moisture Set
ANC)
Chromium Suite (SKCl) - NASSG (Excluding
Sample Detail
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA # 1261 Site # 20794 X X X
External Laboratory
No Sample ID Sample Date Sampling Matrix LAB ID
Time
1 BH1 - 0.0- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016289 X
0.25M
2 BH1 - 0.25- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016290 X
0.5M
3 BH1 - 0.5- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016291 X X X
0.75M
4 BH1 - 0.75- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016292 X
1.0M
5 BH1 - 1.0- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016293 X
1.25M
6 BH1 - 1.25- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016294 X
1.5M
7 BH1 - 1.5- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016295 X X X
1.75M
8 BH1 - 1.75- Apr 29, 2022 Soil B23-Ja0016296 X
2.0M
Eurofins Environment Testing 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 10 of 17
ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600
Date Reported:Jan 19, 2023
The text continues on page 45.
Used in these records
Attachment 4 - Geotech Report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 6.1 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.