Council archive · source document
Appendix 5. Geotechnical Engineering Report [As Published] · 132007.2399
Golder Associates Pty Ltd A.B.N. 64 006 107 857 n foes Unit 1, Dalton Centre, Newspaper Place . (Z |= Golder Maroochydore, Qld 4558 Australia | 4 “Associates (PO Box 5569, Maroochydore BC, Qld 4558 Australia) Telephone +61-7 5443 3511 Fox +61-7 5443 6645 www.goldercom REPORT ON PRELIMINARY ACID SULFATE SOIL AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PRECINCT J NOOSA SPRINGS, QUEENSLAND Submitted to: Starco Developments Pty Ltd PO Box 1184 Noosa Heads QLD 4567 DISTRIBUTION: 2 Copies ~-Starco Developments Pty Ltd —_1 hard copy (bound); i electronic copy (PDF) Attention: Mr Alan Starkey 1 Copy ~ Golder Associates Pty Ltd October 2007 077682076(AB) “ Hewitt EMPLOYERS OFFICES IN ADELAIDE, BRISBANE, CAIRNS, MAROOCHYDORE, MELBOURNE, PERTH, SYDNEY, TOWNSVILLE INDONESIA, NEW CALEDONIA, NEW ZEALAND, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PHILIPPINES, SINGAPORE ssecounower esa "2006/07 OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA
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 the other 67 pages
Page 2
October 2007 -i- 077682076(AB)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Starco Developments Pty Ltd has commissioned Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to
conduct a preliminary ASS and geotechnical investigation for a proposed residential
development described as Precinct J at Noosa Springs. The proposed works include a 27 lot
residential subdivision and realignment of the 18th hole golf tees to the south-west. This
report presents the results of the investigation together with preliminary comments and advice
regarding ASS and geotechnical matters.
A preliminary investigation was conducted because details regarding earthworks and building
development were not known at the time of reporting.
The site covers an area of about 3.06 ha, mostly comprising gently sloping ground ranging in
elevation from about RL 9 m (east) to RL 1.5 m (west, south-west). The site mostly
comprises a palm plantation surrounded by the Noosa Springs Golf Course.
The investigation comprised eight boreholes drilled to depths of between 3 m and 6 m, with a
number of samples recovered from two of the boreholes used for ASS testing.
Following the field and laboratory work, the results were used to assess the extent of ASS,
together with measures for environmental management during construction, and a number of
geotechnical issues. Summarised below are the investigation findings and recommendations:
• The western part of the site is underlain by mostly medium dense to dense sands or denser
indurated sands (‘coffee rock’).
• Swampy deposits including up to 1.5 m thick soft ‘marine’ clays occur in the south-
western part of the site, overlying stiff residual clays.
• Groundwater seepage typically occurs at depths of between 1 m and 1.5 m.
• Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) exist within natural materials in the south-western part
of the site, with the ‘marine’ clays being high level PASS.
• Lime treatment is required at varying rates for material that will be excavated from the
site, ranging from 10 kg/m³ for fill and pale coloured natural soils up to 100 kg/m³ for the
soft ‘marine’ clay.
• The construction of ‘bridging’ layers and/or excavation and removal of unsuitable
materials will likely be required for fills in the south-west.
• Dependent upon the final locations of buildings, preloading and/or piling may be required
where soft clays occur.
• In general, future site classifications are anticipated to be ‘S’ for residential construction
(based on the natural soil profiles).
• Higher site classifications are probably in areas underlain by soft ‘marine’ clay.
Golder Associates
Page 3
October 2007 - ii - 077682076(AB)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 1
3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION................................................................... 2
3.1 Preliminary Assessment ..........................................................................2
3.2 Field Work ...............................................................................................2
3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing.............................................................3
3.4 ASS Laboratory Testing ..........................................................................3
4.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ....................................................................... 4
4.1 Preliminary ASS Assessment..................................................................4
4.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................4
4.3 Groundwater............................................................................................5
4.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing.............................................................6
5.0 ACID SULFATE SOILS ................................................................................ 6
5.1 Investigation Aims ...................................................................................7
5.2 Soil Sampling...........................................................................................7
5.3 Field pH (pHF) and Peroxide pH (pHFOX) .................................................7
5.4 Summary of Soil Analysis Results...........................................................8
5.5 ASS Extent and Severity .........................................................................9
5.6 Preliminary Recommendations..............................................................10
5.6.1 Treatment of Excavated Soil......................................................10
5.6.2 Stockpiles and Handling ............................................................12
5.6.3 Excavation for Services .............................................................12
5.6.4 Extrusion of ‘Marine’ Clays Adjacent Fill Areas .........................13
5.6.5 Dewatering.................................................................................13
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 13
6.1 Subdivision Development ......................................................................13
6.1.1 Earthworks .................................................................................13
6.1.2 Retaining Structures ..................................................................15
6.1.3 Preliminary Pavement Design ...................................................15
6.1.4 Drainage ....................................................................................16
6.1.5 Site Management & Erosion Potential .......................................16
6.2 Residential (Building) Development ......................................................17
6.2.1 Earthworks .................................................................................17
6.2.2 Site Classification & Footings ....................................................17
6.2.3 Drainage ....................................................................................17
6.3 Further Investigation ..............................................................................17
7.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION .................................................................... 18
Golder Associates
Page 4
October 2007 - iii - 077682076(AB)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Classification Testing
Table 2 ASS Action Criteria
Table 3 Retaining Structure Design Parameters
Table 4 Presumptive CBR Values
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Plan
Figure 2 Extract of ASS Map
Figure 3 Section A-A
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Reports of Boreholes
Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole
and Test Pit Reports
Method of Soil Description Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports
Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C Table C1 Summary of ASS Field & Laboratory Analysis Results
Environmental Laboratory Test Results (Soil)
Appendix D Important Information About Your Geo-environmental Report
Golder Associates
Page 5
October 2007 -1- 077682076(AB)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a preliminary acid sulfate soil (ASS) and geotechnical
investigation undertaken for a proposed residential development described as Precinct J at
Noosa Springs. The investigation was carried out for Starco Developments Pty Ltd.
We understand that the proposed development will comprise approximately 27 residential
allotments. The proposed residential developments will require realignment of golf tees for
the 18th hole of the Noosa Springs Golf Course. We anticipate that earthworks will comprise
mostly excavations for roads and underground services across the residential area, whilst
filling will likely be carried out for the new golf tees.
This report details the results of the investigation, including a preliminary assessment of the
extent of ASS, and includes preliminary recommendations relating to management of ASS,
groundwater and surface water. Preliminary geotechnical advice is also provided regarding
earthworks, building footings and retention systems.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
As shown in the aerial image below, the site is located in the central eastern part of Noosa
Springs within the existing golf course area and covers an area of approximately 3.06 ha.
Access to the site is via a track leading west from a round-about on Links Drive. Figure No. 1
includes a contour and detail survey plan of the study area together with a more detailed aerial
image.
Site
Photograph 1: Site Location
Golder Associates
Page 6
October 2007 -2- 077682076(AB)
As shown in Figure No. 1, which includes contours at 0.5 m intervals, the ground surface
generally slopes down towards the west to south-west at gradients of up to 5º (9%). Steeper
man-made slopes occur around features such as the golf tees and a lake adjacent to the
western boundary (where the eastern bank slopes at approximately 20º). Ground surface
elevations range from approximately RL 9 m AHD along the eastern boundary, down to
RL 1.5 m AHD in the low-lying south-western corner (area of proposed golf tees). The water
level in the lake on the western boundary was at RL 0.54 m AHD at the time of the survey.
A large part of the subject site is covered by a palm plantation, where rows of palm trees are
separated by areas of short grass. There are some stands of dense native vegetation, with
melaleuca observed in the low-lying south-western corner. The existing 18th fairway traverses
the south-western corner and underground services (power and sewerage pressure main)
traverse the southern part of the site.
3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
3.1 Preliminary Assessment
To assist with planning the level of detail required for this investigation a preliminary site
assessment was conducted, comprising:
• a desktop study; and
• a walk-over survey on 25 September 2007.
The desktop assessment comprised a review of available published reports and plans on
geology and ASS distribution. The findings from this preliminary assessment are presented in
Section 4.1.
3.2 Field Work
The fieldwork was planned in order to enable a preliminary assessment of geotechnical and
ASS matters for the proposed development. It should be noted that the ASS investigation
does not fully comply with the number of boreholes required by State Guidelines (Ref.
Section 5.2).
A total of eight boreholes (designated BH1 to BH8) were drilled across the site using a 4WD-
mounted flight auger rig. Six boreholes (BH1 to BH4, BH6 & BH7) were drilled to 3 m
depth, mainly across the proposed residential development area, whilst boreholes BH5 and
BH8 were extended to 6 m.
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing was conducted adjacent to each borehole. One
undisturbed (U50) tube sample was recovered from 1.5 m to 1.75 m depth in borehole BH8
and was tested by pocket penetrometer (PP).
Golder Associates
Page 7
October 2007 -3- 077682076(AB)
Samples for ASS testing were recovered from boreholes BH5 and BH8 at 250 mm intervals to
3 m depth. ASS sampling protocols in the field were conducted to minimise oxidation prior
to laboratory testing and followed the Queensland Sampling Guidelines1 October 1998
(Revision 4.0) of the “Guidelines for sampling and analysis of lowland Acid Sulfate Soils
(ASS) in Queensland 1998” produced by the Queensland Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation
Team (QASSIT).
The approximate location of each borehole was recorded using a hand-held GPS unit having
an accuracy of ± 3 m. Borehole positions are shown in Figure No. 1. Reports of boreholes
are presented in Appendix A, along with explanatory notes. Easting and northing coordinates
recorded for each borehole location are shown on the reports, together with ground surface
elevations interpolated from survey data provided.
Borehole drilling fieldwork was conducted on 4 and 5 October 2007 in the presence of a
Senior Geotechnician from Golder.
3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical classification testing was carried out on samples recovered from the boreholes at
the Bokarina laboratory of Geotech (S.C.) Pty Ltd in accordance with the procedures
described in Australian Standard AS1289 “Method of testing soils for engineering purposes”.
The results are given in Appendix B and are summarised in Table 1, Section 4.4.
3.4 ASS Laboratory Testing
Tests to assess field pH and pH after oxidation (with 30% hydrogen peroxide solution
buffered to pH>4.5) were conducted as an initial screening procedure to help select samples
for laboratory analysis. A total of 24 pHF/pHFOX tests were conducted and the results are
shown in Table C1 (Appendix C)
Based upon our assessment of the pH test results, a total of 6 samples were sent to Australian
Laboratory Services (ALS) at Stafford for ASS testing comprising the Chromium suite of
tests in accordance with ASS Method 23 laboratory procedures. pH was also measured in
KCl suspension by the analytical laboratory on all samples submitted for testing.
The ASS laboratory test reports from ALS are given in Appendix C and the results are
summarised in Table C1. Observations and discussion on the laboratory findings are given in
Section 5.
1
Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland ASS in Queensland, Qld ASS Investigation Team
(QASSIT), Revision 4.0, October 1998.
Golder Associates
Page 8
October 2007 -4- 077682076(AB)
4.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
4.1 Preliminary ASS Assessment
Available geological information2 indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary age strata,
being across the boundary between sand dune and coastal swamp deposits.
As shown in Figure No. 2, Extract of ASS Map, published ASS information3 covers the
subject site, with classifications given as follows:
• S – Low-lying south-western area. “Land where ASS occurs within 5 m of the surface”.
• LP/LP5 – Remainder of site. Land with a low or negligible probability of ASS
occurrence, including ground above RL 5 m AHD.
Following the desktop study, and prior to the fieldwork, a walk-over survey of the site was
conducted by a Senior Geotechnical Engineer from our Maroochydore office on 25
September 2007. The walk-over survey was carried out in the presence of Mr Alan Starkey,
who provided anecdotal evidence regarding the site.
As mentioned in Section 2.0, a large part of the site is gently sloping land, where sandy soils
are exposed at the ground surface. The low-lying south-western part is approximately level or
has been filled and includes areas of melaleuca vegetation, which frequently indicates ‘wet’
ground and an increased risk of ASS occurrence (below RL 5 m AHD). Surface water drains
from this low-lying area via a system of drains and lakes towards the south.
Our preliminary assessment generally concurs with the published data in that potential ASS
(PASS) are likely to occur at shallow depths from natural ground level across the south-
western part of the subject site. No surface indications of previous oxidation of ASS (ie.
actual ASS or AASS) were observed; ie. we did not see any areas of iron staining, jarosite or
scalded vegetation.
4.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes drilled across the subject site are
summarised below under classifications of inferred origin. Section A-A, Figure No. 3, shows
a cross-section through the site, overlain with subsurface conditions encountered in selected
boreholes.
2
1:100,000 Geological Map, GYMPIE SPECIAL, Sheet 9445 & Part 9545, DME, 1999
3
1:100,000 Redcliffe to Teewah ASS Map 2, DNRM, 1999
Golder Associates
Page 9
October 2007 -5- 077682076(AB)
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA
Across the proposed residential development area, five boreholes (BH1 to BH4 & BH6) were
drilled to depths of 3 m and one borehole (BH5) was drilled to 6 m. The 3 m deep boreholes
encountered mostly medium dense to dense natural silty sand and sand to the depth of the
investigation. Loose sand was encountered from the ground surface to 0.2 m depth in most of
these boreholes, however was recorded to 0.7 m depth in borehole BH6. Boreholes BH1 to
BH4 encountered dense to very dense indurated sand (‘coffee rock’) in layers of various
thickness, commencing at depths of between 0.9 m and 2.6 m.
Borehole BH5 was drilled in the low-lying south-western part of the residential development
area and encountered a different profile comprising silty sand and firm sandy/silty clay fill to
1.1 m depth. Given our understanding of the history of placement of fill within the subject
site, any fill materials would likely be classified as “uncontrolled” in accordance with
Australian Standard AS3798. With uncontrolled fill, between test locations, there is
significant uncertainty regarding the composition and degree of compaction of the fill,
together with the proficiency of site preparation (eg. topsoil stripping and subgrade
compaction).
The fill materials in borehole BH5 overlie inferred natural swamp deposits of loose to
medium dense clayey sand or soft sandy clay to 2.4 m depth then soft to firm silty ‘marine’
clay to 3.2 m depth. Below 3.2 m depth the silty clay becomes stiff to very stiff (inferred
residual) and extends to the depth of investigation (6 m).
GOLF TEE REALIGNMENT AREA
Two boreholes (BH7 and BH8) were drilled to depths of 3 m and 6 m, respectively, across the
proposed 18th hole golf tee realignment area. Borehole BH7 encountered mostly medium
dense (or denser) natural silty sand or sand to 2.8 m depth with a band of indurated sand from
2.2 m to 2.8 m depth, then stiff sandy clay to 3 m. Borehole BH8 was drilled in the low-lying
south-western area near BH5 and encountered a similar profile, being very loose natural
clayey sand from the ground surface to 0.9 m depth overlying soft sandy and silty clay
becoming stiff (or stiffer) below 2.6 m depth.
4.3 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was generally encountered at depths of between 1 m and 1.5 m in the
boreholes during the investigation, except for boreholes BH6 and BH7 where seepage was
encountered at depths of 2.4 m and 2.2 m respectively. The groundwater level across the site
will be subject to variations dependent upon the intensity and duration of preceding rainfall
events and may rise close to the ground surface in places.
Golder Associates
Page 10
October 2007 -6- 077682076(AB)
4.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
The results of geotechnical laboratory classification testing carried out are given in Appendix
B and are summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Classification Testing
Borehole # % <0.075 mm Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Linear Emerson
(Depth, m) (Silt/Clay) (%) (%) Index (%) Shrinkage Class
(%) Number
BH1, 0.3-0.4 3 - - - - 6
BH3, 0.4-0.5 9 - - - - 8
BH4, 0.3-0.4 5 - - - - 8
BH5, 0.2-0.3 64 53 16 37 14.5 -
BH6, 0.5-0.6 2 - - - - -
Geotechnical laboratory testing generally confirms our field descriptions of the sands and
clays encountered in the boreholes. Emerson class numbers of 6 to 8 indicate that the soils
tested are non-dispersive.
5.0 ACID SULFATE SOILS
The development of Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) is commonly the result of marine
and estuarine deposition of sulfate and iron bearing sediments in the presence of an abundant
source of readily decomposable organic matter resulting in the deposition of pyrite. This
pyrite is stable within the soil so long as anoxic conditions prevail. Oxidation of this material
produces acidic conditions and oxidation typically occurs as the material is exposed above the
water table by excavation.
Previous experience and available guidelines indicate that PASS are normally restricted in
extent to recent (Holocene to Pleistocene age) soil horizons deposited in a saline environment
below RL 5 m AHD. The State Planning Policy SPP2/02 Planning and Managing
Development Involving Acid Sulfate Soils applies to land, soil and sediment at or below RL
5 m AHD where the natural ground level is less than 20 m AHD. Within such areas the SPP
applies to development involving any of the following:
• Excavating or otherwise removing 100 m3 or more of soil or sediment; or
• Filling of land involving 500 m3or more of material with an average depth of 0.5 m or
greater.
The topography of western part of this site is consistent with the above criteria (Ref. Figure
No. 1 for RL 5 m AHD contour). Furthermore, the proposed development will involve
Golder Associates
Page 11
October 2007 -7- 077682076(AB)
excavation and filling earthworks during subdivision (eg. civil works to form roads,
underground services and realign the golf tees). SPP2/02 is therefore applicable to this site
and an assessment of potential disturbance of ASS is required.
5.1 Investigation Aims
The aims of this investigation were to:
• Conduct a preliminary ASS assessment, partly in accordance with SPP 2/02 and
Queensland Sampling Guidelines;
• Identify the presence or absence of ASS in the proposed disturbance area; and
• Provide an indication of the likely location of ASS and treatment methods.
The results of the preliminary ASS investigation follow.
5.2 Soil Sampling
In accordance with SPP2/02 a borehole sampling program is to be defined based on the broad
scale information obtained from the desktop assessment (Section 4.1) and calculations of the
extent of the proposed disturbance. The Queensland Sampling Guidelines Section 4.2
indicate a minimum of 6 boreholes per hectare for sites of between 1 and 2 hectares (less than
half of the site is located below RL 5 m AHD). A total of six ASS boreholes would therefore
be required to satisfy the Guidelines.
Due to the preliminary nature of current project planning, a preliminary ASS investigation
was carried out comprising two boreholes (BH5 and BH8) within the lowest-lying south-
western part of the site (golf tee realignment area). Four additional boreholes will be required
to satisfy the required density of testing specified in the Queensland Sampling Guidelines and
these should be carried out once more detailed information is available regarding the proposed
development.
The depth of investigation, being 3 m, was established as at least 1 m below the anticipated
depths of disturbance, being up to 2 m for service trenching.
Soil sampling, handling and testing was conducted as described in Section 3.2.
5.3 Field pH (pHF) and Peroxide pH (pHFOX)
A typical consequence of the oxidation of pyrite in soils and the formation of sulfuric acid is a
drop in soil pH. Measuring field pH (pHF ) as soon as possible after sampling and then
measuring pH following oxidation (pHFOX ) of the soil in suspension with a strong oxidising
agent (hydrogen peroxide) provides a simple, relatively conservative test procedure to detect
Golder Associates
Page 12
October 2007 -8- 077682076(AB)
soils which are not likely to be ASS. The test simulates extreme natural conditions and pH
drops following this test may not be entirely attributable to pyrite oxidation.
pHF was measured using a TPS MC81 meter with an intermediate junction electrode
immersed in a 1:5 soil-water suspension. Soil pHF and pHFOX are summarised in Table C1 in
Appendix C.
Some significant variations in soil field pH were noted across the site. The natural soils were
generally found to range between moderately acidic and neutral with pHF values (natural
state) typically between pH 4 to pH 7.
5.4 Summary of Soil Analysis Results
Table 2 shows the ASS action levels adopted by Queensland authorities based on three broad
texture categories (QASSIT Guidelines - October 1998). These categories have been used to
highlight significant results in Table C1, based on the Action Criteria for greater than
1000 tonnes of disturbed soils.
Table 2: ASS Action Criteria
Type of Material Action Criteria Action Criteria if more than
1-1000 tonnes disturbed 1000 tonnes disturbed
Texture range Approx Sulfur trail Acid trail Sulfur trail Acid trail
+
McDonald et al. clay %S oxidisable mol H / tonne % S oxidisable mol H+ / tonne
(1990) Content (oven-dry basis) (oven-dry basis) (oven-dry basis) (oven-dry basis)
(%) eg STOS or SPOS eg, TPA eg STOS SPOS eg, TPA
(or TSA) (or TSA)
Coarse Texture ≤5 0.03 18 0.03 18
Sands to loamy sands
Medium Texture 5 - 40 0.06 36 0.03 18
Sandy loams to light
clays
Fine Texture ≥40 0.1 62 0.03 18
Medium to heavy
clays and silty clays
The actual volume of soils disturbed at this site will likely be greater than 1000 tonne and
therefore the lowest action criteria (ie. 0.03% S and 18 mol H+/tonne) are applicable.
The data quantifying the acid generating potential for soils sampled within the site have been
collated and are summarised in Table C1, Appendix C, along with laboratory reports.
Samples with pH drops of 2.0 or more pH units or pH < 3 after oxidisation are highlighted in
Table C1. From the laboratory test results, SCR % and TAA values above the action levels are
Golder Associates
Page 13
October 2007 -9- 077682076(AB)
also highlighted. The following observations are made regarding the investigation results as
presented in Table C1:
• 67% of samples show pH after oxidation less than pH3, with 81% of those samples being
described as grey or dark grey coloured silty/sandy clays or clayey sands of soft or loose
consistency, respectively.
• 3 out of 6 samples selected for laboratory testing returned SCr results exceeding the
Action Criteria (0.03%S), with a maximum value of 1.17%S recorded for the ‘marine’
clay sample from 1.75 m depth in borehole BH8. The other 3 samples returned results
less than the laboratory detection limit of 0.02%.
• 3 out of 6 samples tested for TAA returned results at or above the Action Criteria (18 mol
H+/t) ranging between 21 mol H+/t and 66 mol H+/t.
• 1 sample (BH8, 1.75 m) returned a pHKCl value greater than 6.5 and was subsequently
tested to determine retained acid neutralising capacity (ANC). The ANC was found to be
262 mol H+/t and is due to the presence of broken shells as noted in the borehole report.
These broken shells were noted to be mostly coarse, rather than fine grained.
5.5 ASS Extent and Severity
The results from this investigation indicate that ASS having a potential to generate sulfidic
leachate (ie. PASS) exist within the natural grey to dark grey coloured clayey sand and
sandy/silty clay soils in the low-lying south-western part of this site. Dark grey silty ‘marine’
clays in boreholes BH5 (2.4 m to 3.2 m depth) and BH8 (1.4 m to 2.6 m depth) are likely to
be high level PASS.
It should be noted that there is also existing acidity variably distributed throughout the fill
materials and natural soil profile.
Although one of the ‘marine’ clay soil samples tested has an acid neutralising capacity that
could significantly reduce or neutralise the potential acidity, it is our opinion that the ANC
should be excluded from calculations when assessing required liming rates for this site. This
is because the ANC in the soils is derived from broken shells that are generally very coarse,
hence the ANC from those shells is unlikely to be fully available in the field.
The SPP2/02 Guideline requires that the level of treatment for management of ASS is based
on treatment of all existing and potential acidity. The results of the laboratory testing have
been accumulated in an Acid-Base Account to give a Net Acidity Value for each sample in
units of mol H+/tonne as presented in Table C1. These values have been calculated from
sulfur trail potential acidity (SCr or SPOS) plus actual acidity (TAA) plus retained acidity
(SNAS), but does not include ANC.
Golder Associates
Page 14
October 2007 - 10 - 077682076(AB)
Liming rates calculated from the laboratory analyses are summarised in Table C1, Appendix
C, along with a summary of the soil type. As shown in Table C1, calculation of liming rates
required for full neutralisation of combined actual and potential acidity indicates a range in
treatment rates from <1 kg.CaCO3/m³ to 99 kg.CaCO3/m³. These rates have been calculated
by using the net acidity values, without ANC, for the various depth intervals, include a factor
of safety of 1.5 and a bulk density of 1.8 tonne/m³.
Liming rates of less than 10 kg.CaCO3/m³ should be anticipated for fill materials and pale
coloured residual soils, whilst rates in the order of 50 kg.CaCO3/m³ and 100 kg.CaCO3/m³
could be expected for dark coloured natural clayey sands and silty ‘marine’ clays.
Delineation of the various layers in the field during excavation, and corresponding required
lime treatment rates, would be based upon visual observations and pH testing. As an
example, the ‘marine’ clays that are high level ASS would be identified by their dark colour
and soft consistency, together with pHFOX values of generally less than 2. Field pHFOX
screening would be a relatively simple procedure during construction earthworks.
5.6 Preliminary Recommendations
As there are likely to be significant earthworks in areas of ASS, and such works will also
likely disturb existing groundwater, there will be a requirement for detailed management of
these issues. The volume of disturbance and the level of treatment required indicates that
management of ASS at this site could be classified as Category XH (extra high level)
treatment in accordance with SPP2/02 Guideline - Table 4.
SPP2/02 Guideline requires that for Category XH treatment an environmental management
plan (EMP) must be provided. Furthermore, Section 9.15 of SP2/02 Guideline stipulates that
“this plan should provide for ongoing management and monitoring of the effects of
disturbance of ASS through the construction and operation of the project and describe the
construction schedules and environmental management procedures. The project should also
be staged so that the potential effects on any area disturbed at anyone time is limited and
easily managed.”
Preliminary recommendations on strategies to be included in the EMP are discussed as
follows.
5.6.1 Treatment of Excavated Soil
It is anticipated that most soils excavated from the site below RL 5 m AHD will be used as fill
above the water table and must therefore be managed by full neutralisation of existing plus
potential acidity. It is proposed that fine agricultural lime thoroughly mixed with the soil is
used as the neutralising agent. Lime treatment should be carried out in accordance with
Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual, Soil Management Guidelines (Ver 3.8 Nov.
2002).
Golder Associates
Page 15
October 2007 - 11 - 077682076(AB)
In particular the following measures apply to the liming process:
• Treatment should be carried out on prepared pads which may be the permanent
placement area. The earthworks strategy should be formulated to provide a number of
pads of appropriate size for practical spreading mixing and drying, so that adequate time
is available to complete the treatment and validation testing before placing the next layer.
• Treatment pads are to be contained by bunds with stormwater runoff directed to a
collection sump. Bunds to be constructed from low permeability materials that are not
ASS or have been fully lime treated.
• The treatment pad should be stripped of topsoil and proof rolled to achieve a uniform
density and reduced permeability, then a guard layer of neutralising agent should be
spread across the soil surface prior to placement of the first layer of fill. The rate of
neutralising agent applied should be based on 0.2 times the average total potential plus
existing acidity for every 1m depth of fill placed. For preliminary purposes an
application rate of 5 kg lime per m2 per vertical metre of fill thickness is suggested.
• Treatment should be carried out by spreading the soil in maximum 300 mm loose
thickness layers and moisture conditioning before spreading lime at the appropriate
application rate. The ASS may require reworking several times to achieve adequate
mixing of the neutralising agent and/or drying of the soil.
• It is proposed that treatment levels are assigned on the basis of the results of a detailed
ASS investigation. Liming rates from this preliminary investigation would be as follows:
o Existing fill/pale coloured soils 10 kg lime/m3
o Natural dark coloured clayey sands 50 kg lime/m3
o ‘Marine’ clay 100 kg lime/m3
Lime treatment rates should be confirmed following further investigation, together with
inspection and field testing by a suitably qualified and experienced environmental
scientist during excavation.
• Verification sampling and analysis is to be carried out on the treated soil using the
Chromium suite method at a rate of 1 test per 250 m³ to confirm that appropriate amounts
of the neutralising agent have been incorporated into the soil.
• An accurate spatial tracking system should be developed to control the movement and
final location of the treated soils so that initial testing (from this report) can be correlated
to the verification of prescribed treatment.
Golder Associates
Page 16
October 2007 - 12 - 077682076(AB)
5.6.2 Stockpiles and Handling
Wherever practical the earthworks handling should involve transport directly from cut to
treatment/fill area and stockpiling of untreated ASS should be avoided. The recommended
maximum time period for which soils can be temporarily stockpiled without treatment is 18
hours for sands and 2 to 3 days for other soils.
Where it is necessary to stockpile untreated ASS for moderate periods (up to 3 weeks) the
following additional management measures must be followed:
• Stockpiles are to be contained by bunds with stormwater runoff directed to a collection
sump. Bunds are to be constructed from low permeability materials that are not ASS or
have been fully lime treated.
• A guard layer of neutralising agent should be spread across the soil surface prior to
placement of the stockpile. The rate of neutralising agent applied should be based on 0.3
times the average total potential plus existing acidity for every 1m height of soil in the
stockpile.
• The surface area of the stockpile is to be minimised by shaping and possibly capping or
covering to prevent moisture loss and rainfall entry.
• Keep the surface of the stockpile moist using a spray of water or neutralising solution
with care to avoid over-wetting.
5.6.3 Excavation for Services
Assessment can be made on an individual basis of the extent of excavations and where these
potentially disturb the ASS. However, in general the residential development area may
involve excavations extending into underlying soils, which may have potential acidity.
Trenching works would need to be carried out under a management plan which for linear
excavations that typically would include:
• Lime treatment, thoroughly mixed into the soil at the appropriate rate for full
neutralisation of potential plus actual acidity.
• As a general practice in trenching operations, stockpiles of excavated material should not
be left exposed for longer than the minimum practical time before being replaced beneath
the groundwater table before oxidation can occur. The QASSIT Soil Management
Guidelines recommend reburial below the water table within 18 hours for coarse textured
soil.
• Minimise the extent of groundwater drawdown adjacent to the excavation by staging the
excavation in short sections that are kept open for a limited duration (eg. 18 hours).
Golder Associates
Page 17
October 2007 - 13 - 077682076(AB)
5.6.4 Extrusion of ‘Marine’ Clays Adjacent Fill Areas
We anticipate that new fills will be constructed for the realigned golf tees in the south-western
part of the site. Investigations in those areas indicate soft clays up to approximately 1.5 m
thick. Provided that construction of new fill is staged and monitored, it is our opinion that
there should be a low probability of extrusion of ‘marine’ clays above the groundwater table.
Preloading of the site may be required together with settlement plate monitoring for any
building areas over soft clays. Preliminary geotechnical advice regarding filling of the site is
provided in Section 6.
5.6.5 Dewatering
All waters collected from groundwater or surface water inflow to excavations and runoff from
treatment areas should be collected in sumps and pumped to a treatment pond or tank for
monitoring and treatment to compliance with discharge criteria (if required) prior to release
from site.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
6.1 Subdivision Development
6.1.1 Earthworks
6.1.1.1 Site Preparation and Filling
Prior to any earthworks, organic rich topsoil must be stripped and removed from the
construction area. This material must not be used as fill to support any structural loads. Areas
of existing fill must also be excavated and re-placed in a controlled manner following the
guidelines below (eg. existing golf tees).
Dependent upon the natural ground conditions and prevailing weather at the time of
construction, areas of the exposed subgrade following surface stripping may comprise loose,
soft or saturated materials, particularly across the low-lying south-western part of the site. To
enable filling over such subgrades, it may be necessary to construct ‘bridging’ layers or over-
excavate and replace the unsuitable materials with select fill. Bridging layers can comprise a
combination of materials including geotextiles, clean gravel and rock ‘spalls’.
Following preparation of the subgrade, fill should be compacted at moisture contents within
the range of -2% to +0.5% of optimum moisture content for Standard Compaction.
Confirmatory testing must be carried out at regular intervals. A minimum of two tests per
300 mm vertical interval is recommended where structural fill heights are to exceed 300 mm.
Further details for control and testing of fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007
"Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments". Level 1
certification (as per AS3798) of earthworks is recommended for this site.
Golder Associates
Page 18
October 2007 - 14 - 077682076(AB)
Select fill should have a maximum particle size of 100 mm for an uncompacted layer
thickness of 200 mm and shall be compacted by repeated rolling to achieve a dry density ratio
of at least 95% of the Maximum Standard Dry Density for cohesive soils, or 70% Dry Density
Index for cohesionless soils.
In accordance with good construction practice, fill embankments should be ‘over built’ and
then trimmed back to the well compacted material.
6.1.1.2 Settlements & Preloading
For future fills in the order of 2 m height in the south-western part of the site (eg. new golf
tees), we estimate total settlements from consolidation of soft ‘marine’ clays in the order of
90 mm for 1.5 m of total clay thickness. This estimate is for a design life of 50 years and is
based upon estimates of compressibility coefficients based upon local experience. It should
be noted that this settlement does not include the effects of building loads.
In order to minimise differential settlements for civil structures (eg. pavements and services)
and buildings, dependent upon the locations of such structures, it may be necessary to preload
fill areas. Based upon our experience in the local area, preload durations of up to 6 months
may be required. Preload durations and potential future creep settlements may be reduced by
the placement of additional fill (ie. surcharge) above the design fill level. Preloading
settlements must be monitored by settlement plates installed in the new fill.
It is essential that global stability issues are considered at the edges of preloaded areas prior to
the commencement of earthworks. It may be necessary to implement staged construction in
order to reduce the risk of global instability to an acceptable level.
In order to more accurately define likely settlements, preloading and staged construction
requirements, further detailed geotechnical investigation is recommended (Ref. Section 6.3),
once detailed subdivision design is available
6.1.1.3 Excavations and Batter Slopes
Excavations for road construction and underground services should be achievable using
conventional earthmoving equipment. The assistance of ripper attachments may be required
for excavation of the dense to very dense indurated sand, which was encountered below much
of the residential development area.
Temporary batters in clay, clayey engineered fill and indurated sand may be formed at 1V:1H,
and temporary batters in non-indurated sand should be no steeper than 1V:1.5H. Flatter
batters may be required if groundwater seepage is encountered or if batters are not protected
from erosion by rainfall.
Golder Associates
Page 19
October 2007 - 15 - 077682076(AB)
Permanent batters should be formed no steeper than 1V:2.5H in sandy materials and 1V:2H in
clay (or engineered fill batters). Steeper cuts or fill batters should be retained.
6.1.2 Retaining Structures
Design for retaining structures could be carried out using a triangular pressure distribution
applicable to the wall type and based on the parameters listed in the table below. The values in
Table 3 assume that the walls are fully drained and no allowance is included for construction
loading, up-slope footing loadings, the effects of sloping ground, and backfill compaction
stresses.
Table 3 – Retaining Structure Design Parameters
Retained Material Unit Friction Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
Weight Angle
(t/m3) (Degrees)
Ka Ko Kp
Loose to Medium 1.9 30 0.33 0.5 3.0
Dense Sand
Dense Sand 1.9 35 0.27 0.4 3.6
Stiff Clay 1.8 27 0.4 0.6 2.6
Compacted Fill * * * * *
Note:
• Variable dependent upon the type of material used and the degree of compaction achieved.
6.1.3 Preliminary Pavement Design
The design of pavements (flexible and rigid) is based upon the CBR value of the subgrade
material. The subgrade CBR may be obtained by i) laboratory soaked CBR tests, ii)
correlations with DCP tests, and iii) the Queensland Transport Pavement Design Manual –
1990 which provides presumptive insitu CBR values based on soil type and site conditions.
At this site, the subgrade material is expected to comprise mostly loose to medium dense and
dense silty sands and sands. Section 5.3.3, Table 5.5 of the Queensland Transport Pavement
Design Manual, suggests the CBR values in Table 4 below for various subgrade soil types and
site conditions.
Golder Associates
Page 20
October 2007 - 16 - 077682076(AB)
Table 4 – Presumptive CBR Values
Subgrade Type Drainage conditions Presumptive CBR (%)
Silty SAND (SM) Poor 5
Good 7
Dense SAND (SW, SP) Poor 10
Good 15
For the proposed pavement areas we recommend that a preliminary design CBR of 7% be
adopted for design. The subgrade CBR must be confirmed by inspection and testing
following earthworks to subgrade level.
6.1.4 Drainage
Diversion drainage, in the form of earth bunds or swales, should be placed up slope of
construction areas in order to divert surface water away.
Permanent subsurface drainage should be installed in any areas identified during construction
or earthworks as having wet (as opposed to moist or dry) soil. Natural groundwater ‘springs’
may occur across the site, particularly at breaks-in-slope such as around the edge of the low-
lying south-western area.
Positive permanent drainage must be installed behind retaining walls to prevent the
development of hydrostatic pressures. Diversion drains may be required above the crest of
cut or fill embankments.
Stormwater collected from road surfaces should be directed by swales or pipes to engineer
designed dissipation/detention structures.
Perimeter, subsurface cut-off drains should be installed adjacent to new pavements in order to
intercept and divert subsurface seepage prior to entering the pavement subgrade.
6.1.5 Site Management & Erosion Potential
It is recommended that ‘good’ building practices are adopted so that moisture variations are
minimised in foundation/subgrade materials. In particular we recommend the following:
• Site drainage should be designed to readily remove surface water and to prevent ponding
of water on subgrade areas during construction and also adjacent to foundations and
pavements once construction is completed.
• Construction methods involving subgrade preparation for earthworks, foundation
excavation and service trenching should be such that any clay soils are not subjected to
Golder Associates
Page 21
October 2007 - 17 - 077682076(AB)
continued exposure, as this may result in excessive drying followed by moisture re-
adjustment (with associated expansive movements) when areas are overlaid by
pavements or slabs.
Laboratory testing indicates that the site soils have Emerson class numbers of 6 to 8, which
indicates that the soils tested are non-dispersive. Normal best practice erosion and sediment
control will be required during construction.
6.2 Residential (Building) Development
6.2.1 Earthworks
Earthworks for residential development should be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations provided in Section 6.1.
6.2.2 Site Classification & Footings
Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, without any additional
cutting or filling, we anticipate site classifications are likely to be ‘S’ in accordance with
AS2870-1996 “Residential Slabs and Footings”. For the majority of the residential
development area. The final site classification will depend on the type and compaction of any
new fill together with the potential reactivity of the natural soil profile.
Increased site classifications (eg. ‘M’, ‘H’ or ‘P’) may be required, and/or support on deeper
piled footings, for any buildings constructed above soft clay areas.
In general, residential footings should generally penetrate through any uncontrolled fill or
unsuitable natural soils and found at least 100 mm into medium dense ( or denser) natural
sand. Conventional strip, pad or beam footings so founded could be designed using an
allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa.
It should be noted that individual site investigations (‘soil tests’) will be required prior to
building for every allotment.
6.2.3 Drainage
Drainage for individual residential allotments should comply with the recommendations in
Section 6.1.4, where applicable.
6.3 Further Investigation
Based upon the results of this preliminary investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed
residential development is feasible, from a geotechnical viewpoint, by incorporating
conventional geotechnical measures (possibly including preloading fills and piling buildings).
Golder Associates
Page 22
October 2007 -18- 077682076(AB) In order to enable the provision of detailed geotechnical advice for the development of this site, it is recommended that further geotechnical investigation should be carried out at the civil/building works stage. Such further investigation should include additional boreholes, which could also be utilised to satisfy the ASS investigation requirements per State Guidelines. 7.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION Your attention is drawn to the document - “Important Information About Your Geo- environmental Report”, which is included in Appendix D of this report. This document has been prepared by the ASFE (Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences), of which Golder Associates is a member. 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 groundworks for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Golder Associates, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing. We would be pleased to answer any questions about this important information from the reader of this report. GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD Ashley Davey BE(Geéot.) MIEAust RPEQ 8159 Senior Geotechnical Engineer 41\2007\GEOTECHNICAL\077682076\00_CORRESPONDENCE\OUTIAB077682076R DOC ACDIDIQ/aed Golder Associates
Page 23
LEGEND
TREE LINE
N i6th GREEN -
oo DENOTES BOREHOLE LOCATION
RL5 A A DENOTES SECTION LINE
kd) (REF. FIGURE NO.2)
(5th GREEN
=
aS
LAKE 3
>
LAKE
Weiter
Level
RLO54
(7th GREEN
YSP108098
/4th GREEN
&
Note: Baseplan supplied by JF&P Pty Ltd Dwg. No. M1806-09
‘CLIENT PROJECT
Starco Developments Pty Ltd Proposed Precinct J, Noosa Springs
| im DRAWN DATE TITLE
| Gold JM 30-10-07
: SITE PLAN
| Bisettes. ose aco* |" 30-10-07
sme 1:1500 (Approx.) a3 PE" 77682076 FIGURE Re 1
4J:\2007\Geotechnical\\077682076\ TASK\03_FIGURES_DRAWINGS\077682076 Figure 1 SITE PLAN.dwg Oct 31, 2007 — 12:15pm NOTE: THE * BESIDE THE TYPED INTTALS DENOTES THE ORIGINAL DRAWING ISSUE WAS SIGNED OR INTIALLED BY THAT RESPECTIVE PERSON.
Page 24
N
SUBJECT SITE
Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates Pty Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright . © Golder Associates Pty Ltd.
Reproduced with permission of the Department of Natural Resources & Water
CLIENT PROJECT
Starco Developments Pty Ltd Proposed Precinct J, Noosa Springs
DRAWN DATE TITLE
ACD 30/10/07
CHECKED DATE
EXTRACT OF ASS MAP
DJQ* 31/10/07
SCALE PROJECT No FIGURE No
Not Defined A4 077682076 2
J:\2007\Geotechnical\077682076\TASK\03_FIGURES_DRAWINGS\Fig02.ppt Note: The * typed beside the initials indicates that the original drawing was signed or checked by that respective person
Page 25
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
10 10
8 8
BH 3
L
6 DS
MD 6
Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. Copyright Golder Associates Pty. Ltd.
BH 4
D
MD
DS
Existing Ground Surface
4 4
BH 5
D
MD
DS
2 2
REDUCED LEVEL (m - AHD)
F
BH 8
L
S
L-MD VL
0 0
DS S-F
U50 PP=30 kPa
S
DS
-2 St-VSt -2
DS
GAP5_1_MDORE_COLOUR.GLB FENCE A3 NO PLAN J:\2007\GEOTECHNICAL\077682076\TASK\01_GINT\077682076BH.GPJ GAP5_1.GDT 30/10/2007 3:54:58 PM
St-VSt
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
-10 -10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
DISTANCE (m)
LEGEND
OFFSET FROM
BASELINE BH#
(5.0) CONSISTENCY,
DENSITY OR
Silty SAND Silty CLAY Refer to Figure No. 1 for Borehole Locations
ROCK STRENGTH
L
SPT "N" LOW
UNDISTURBED
16
PASS
SAND Sandy CLAY
MEDIUM
SAMPLE
U63 HIGH
PP=500 kPa
INDURATED SAND
CLIENT PROJECT
k=3.5x10-6m/s
REFER TO
Starco Developments Pty Ltd Proposed Precinct J, Noosa Springs
EXPLANATION
WATER
REFER TO
SHEET FILL DRAWN DATE TITLE
EXPLANATION
SHEET
sv=450 kPa GAP Form No 6
ACD 30/10/2007 SECTION A-A
GAP Form No 6 PID=5 ppm
PM=460 kPa
Clayey SAND CHECKED
DJQ* DATE
31/10/2007
SOIL
(NON CORED)
CORED RQD % UNIT OR CLASS SCALE PROJECT No FIGURE No
Sandy Silty CLAY
95 II
19 uL
PACKER TEST H 1:1000 V 1:100 A3 077682076 3
Note: The * beside the typed initials denotes the original drawing issue was signed or initialled by that respective person
Page 26
Appendix A Reports of Boreholes Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Method of Soil Description Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports
Page 27
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 1
GAPS_{_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE J:\2007\GEOTECHNICAL\077682076\TASK\01_GINTI077682076BH.GPJ GAP5_1.GDT_30/10/2007 3:47:23 PM
SHEET: 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Ltd COORDS: mE mN 56 WGS84 DRILL RIG: Edson CP1
PROJECT: Precinct J SURFACE RL: 6.5m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling
LOCATION: Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 4/10/07
JOB NO: 077682076 HOLE DIA: 100 mm_ HOLE DEPTH: 3.00m CHECKED: hve DATE: Sejto/oe
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
Su ° = 3
5 g SAMPLE OR # ° 3 w a DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2)
8 |e 3 gle IL |ATERIAL 5 Blows per 100 mm
8 ES fi ze FIELD TEST 3 zo & SOIL / ROCK M DESCRIPTION 3 Be pet
3
2 BE) 8 | Be Par #188 g [sat
0.0 S50 TSM] Silty SAND
| 020 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of root matter 1
6.30 SP| SAND
1 DS 0.30-0.40m | fine to medium grained, dark grey 1
0.5 4
‘| 070 1
5.80 Silty SAND
1 090 fine to medium grained, dark grey 7
5.60 Indurated SAND J
1.0 T fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of silt el, 7
1,20 4
5.30 SAND
1 fine to medium grained, dark brown, trace of sitt = 4
2) E1184 160 = 4
3 7 490 indurated SAND 7
E fine to medium grained, dark grey 7
6 4 4
3 2044 4
z 4 4
3 4 4
5 4 =/s 4
g 4 4
| 25-4 4
€ d 4
2
5 4 4
ap | 3.00 a
i END OF [email protected] m d
3.5 om
40 4
45-4 4
5.0 4
55 om
604 cm
This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for
geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for
information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP giNT FN. me
Page 28
GAPS_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE J\2007\GEOTECHNICAL\077682076\TASK\01_GINTI077682076BH.GPJ_GAPS_1.GOT_30/10/2007_2:47:26 PM. € j.Golder, . REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 2 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Ltd COORDS: 508370 m E 7078345mN 56 WGS84 = DRILL RIG: Edson CP1 PROJECT: Precinct J SURFACE RL: 7m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling LOCATION: Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 5/10/07 JOB NO: 077682076 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 3.00 m CHECKED: hur DATE: Sepio (e+ Drilling Sampling Field Materia! Description bu a 3 Eg zl), | 8 w le DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) Slee | xg SAMPLEOR wi? | & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 list Blows per 100 mm Geel 2 | Be 8/88] 8 giz 065 ttm Bee S| we pe 2/59] $8 g[se 2 OP 9.0 0.10 *[SM| Silty SAND 4 6.90 SP Mine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of root matter 7 | SAND _ 7 7 fine to medium grained, pale grey q 05 s|2 4 19} 19 : 7 5.90 Silty SAND 1 fine to medium grained, dark grey © 1 Pel a g 8/157] 160 |_| Y € 5.40 Indurated SAND = 7 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of silt : 7 i] 3 2] 204 4 a) 8 1 5 4 4 & 4 4 a 4 4 3 287) 260 J 4.40 SAND 1 fine to medium grained, dark grey and dark brown zla 1 ao | 300 ee J mm | 400 END OF [email protected] m d 3.5 > 40 4 45 on 5.04 on 5.5 4 6.0 com | Jot test -L------4 J-L4d- eee | J 4! P-L This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. Fore
Page 29
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 3 GAP5_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE J\2007\GEOTECHNICAL\077682076\TASK\O1_GINTI077682076BH.GP) GAPS5_1.GDT_30/10/2007_ 3:47:28 PM This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. SHEET: 1 OF 4 CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Ltd COORDS: 508340 m E 7078450mN 56 WGS84_ ~— DRILL RIG: Edson CP1 PROJECT: Precinct J SURFACE RL: 6.5m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling LOCATION: — Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 5/10/07 JOB NO: 077682076 HOLE DIA: 100 mm_ HOLE DEPTH: 3.00m CHECKED: Ate _DATE: BojwfoP Drilling Sampling Field Material Description Sw 3 3 eS g 3 wif DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) 3 ee %|z3 SAMPLE OR 3 : & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 BE Blows per 100 mm Fiza, ] od Oo; so] oO 5 42 B [eg] S| Be Pam #]63| 8 giggh § 2 8 2% 0.0—T-s50 ® Silty SAND. 7 1 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of root matter | | 7 = “| 0.80 | DS 0.40-0.60m 4 0.56.00 SAND 7 1 fine to medium grained, grey, trace of silt 7 1.0 co 4+ 430 4 | 520 Silty SAND 7 Q 3 15 fine to medium grained, dark grey J Ee 4.60 4 2 4.90 Indurated SAND = 1 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of silt z 7 8 | 20 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 3| 4 J 2 3 4 4 Oo | 254 ~| an | 300 4 we | 3:50 END OF [email protected] m 4 3.5 > 4.0 - 45-4 4 5.0] 4 55 6.0 an | Jollet -L-----_1ij 4 [oo ee | Joe t-te bb GAP gINT FN. F01b RL2
Page 30
GINTO77682076BH.GPJ GAPS_1.GDT 30/10/2007 3:47:30 PM GAPS_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE J\2007\GEOTECHNICAL\077882076\TASKIO1 REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 4 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Ltd COORDS: 508315 m E 7078380 mN 56 WGS84__—s DRILL RIG: Edson CP1 PROJECT: Precinct J SURFACE RL: 4.5m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling LOCATION: Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 5/10/07 JOB NO: 077682076 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 3.00m CHECKED: Avs DATE: $o/te/oF Drilling Sampling Field Material Description Bu 9 3 eo a 3 w |e DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) 8léhel sz SAMPLEQR [w/2 | & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Slee Blows per 100 mm = pol a| 28 FIELDTEST 13 z,|2 e |@E ZO! a6 9 5 lz4 2 \e8] $ | BE Par #/53| 3 ear 2 7 8 2 % 0.07 aa0 Silty SAND 1 fine to medium grained, dark grey 1 ‘| 0.40 | DS 0.30-0.40m 7 4.40 SAND eT | 7 05 fine to medium grained, pale grey 7 too} ep EL 1 | 10 3.60 becoming grey 4 & 4 4 3 4 4 é 4w0f 0 ‘| Pp LoL 4 5 J 320 becoming dark grey, trace of silt J g B] 15-4 7 g 4 4 i zfe 5 4 4 5 4 4 S| 20-4 4 § 4 4 2 5 4 4 254 oa 4 J 1-90 indurated SAND 1 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of silt = 1 = ag | 300 a" J an END OF [email protected] m d 3.5 4 40 4 454 4 5.0 on 554 4 6.04 ~ Pp jot ites J LH ____ Jot Pod | _ This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. Fol
Page 31
GAP5_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE_J\2007\GEOTECHNICALN077682076\TASK\01_GINT\077682076BH.GPJ_GAPS_1.GDT_30/10/2007_3:47:33 PM. Me etes SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Ltd COORDS: 508271 mE 7078240mN 56 WGS84 DRILL RIG: Edson CP1 PROJECT: Precinct J SURFACE RL: 2.6m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling LOCATION: — Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 4/10/07 JOB NO: 077682076 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: At® _ DATE: 30 jie jor Drilling Sampling Field Material Description Sw 9 8 Eg # 3 ws DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) S\éele| oe SAMPLEOR Jw) 2 | & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 lee Blows per 100 mm 2 (Go) G| £8 FIELDTEST |3|/z | @ aaa IZ oo oO O;o 4 u |pe] S| Be PR #|88|2 gigae 8 OT ri SM] Silty SAND (FILL) [2] 2.40 CH fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of roots 7 7 DS 0.20-0.30m Sandy CLAY (FILL) 7 4 high plasticity, pale grey, trace of fine grained sand 7 5 T o60 =}y 7 T1890 CH Silty CLAY (FILL) 1 1 high plasticity, pale grey and red J 1.0—- 110 4 eS 7.40 Clayey SAND 1 3 1 1.30 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of roots - 1 E [20 ‘Sandy Silty CLAY | 1 = medium to high plasticity, dark grey, fine to medium o 7 5 1.5 1.60 grained sand 7 g 0.90 Clayey SAND y | ] 5 4 fine to medium grained, dark grey z 7 8 7 2 7 S| 204 = 4 = 4 al 4 z 1 J 2 0 4 4 2.40 4 0.10 Silty CLAY 25-7 high plasticity, dark grey q Kk 4 4 —s . 4 J ps2.802.90m fg— é ] =| 7 2 3.0 7 Ty 1 320 Pa |_| Augered out to 3.1m 1 ~0.70 Lx | 4 i, 4 4 le 4 3.5 4 4 kk 4 1 DS 3.80-3.90m a, 7 40-4 a 4 4 1 —3 4 4 <— = 4 4 Ix | 4 45 4 z 4 4 g 4 4 a 4 1 DS 4.70-4.80m 1 50 4 5.54 > | 6.00 _ 6873.50 END OF [email protected] m | | Jottest -L-----_44 —jt eee [Iie 4d J_-L__L_d This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. roe
Page 32
Bee...
SHEET: 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Ltd COORDS: 508418 m E 7078180 mN 56 WGS84 = DRILL RIG: Edson CP1
PROJECT: Precinct J SURFACE RL: 7m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling
LOCATION: — Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 5/10/07
JOB NO: 077682076 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 3.00m CHECKED: DATE: 38/@/{oh
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
Foam 2 3
EQ uw 3 w a DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2)
Blt el og SAMPLEQR jul | § SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 loz Blows per 100 mm
Glee el as 3/82 3 Slag 5 0 tt
2 lee) S| Se RTH zZ|oS| 3 $[sa
0.0700 = TSM] Silty SAND
1 fine to medium grained, grey, trace of roots 7
9.30 4
6.70 SAND 4
1 fine to mediurn grained, pale grey Jd
087 DS 0.50-0.60m :
4 o 4
10 = 4
4 sL 4
2 15 4
Tao} |] ee 7
J 530 becoming brown 4
20 4
4 o 4
Teo) BT LL 1
vs 460 [becoming dark brown, trace of silt
a] 25
3 4 4
=| 4 = ]
a J 4
3
= BL. 1 300 . |
5 3 | 4.00 END OF [email protected] m "T
Al lel !
| lal | |
| [eles 4
zl J J
g
é 7 4
g 40-4 4
a ~ q
g 1 1
g 7 4
2 4 4
3 454 on
g 1 |
é
§ 1 4
Ee]. 5.0 4
8 4 4
& 4 4
Z
5 4 4
E 4 4
2 | 4
8 5.5 : 1
y 4 4
& 4 4
5 6.0 7 7
3
g 4 4
: 1
= J_oL_ 5 -Li ts ae Jj 4__t__ Pt
‘ $:
& This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for
6 geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for
information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. Fore
Page 33
SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Ltd COORDS: 508312 m E 7078187 mN 56 WGS84_ —— DRILL RIG: Edson CP1 PROJECT: Precinct J SURFACE RL: 4m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling LOCATION: Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 5/10/07 JOB NO: 077682076 HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 3.00m CHECKED: Aro DATE: o/tefod Drilling Sampling Field Material Description z > Ou a - oO =o SAMPLE OR wy © 3 w iS DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) BlEE a | ee Fietptest |S1= 1 SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p [Be Blows per 700 mm Ee) B| Es 85013 ele, 5 2 lee] S| BE RM #188/8 g Bar pe 2 % 0.0406 Silty SAND 4 | 020 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of roots 7 | 3:80 [becomingdarkgrey =—=—“‘“‘S~*S*‘“‘™S™*~*~*™ | 1 | g 4 0.50 05-1350 SAND ro 7 1 fine to medium grained, pale grey 7 J = 4 1.04 4 | ° 4 3 1544 4 Taf TE EL 7 7 230 becoming grey 4 4 s 4 20 = om | 220 ] ea 180 indurated SAND 1 3 7 fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace of silt 7 E a | 255 =/8 4 = 4 4 E ‘| 280 J 5 4.20 Sandy CLAY 3). z 81.4 | 300 medium plasticity, dark grey =)? 7 g 3 we | 400 END OF [email protected] m T 5 2/4] 1 sg 8 7 7 5| 5 | a t 3.5 4 5 1 1 @| 4 4 g J 4 é sol 1 g 4 4 é 1 ] 9 45 4 é | 1 6 4 4 z 7 4 6 4 4 = 4 4 5 4 4 a | - 2 5.5 : : 5 4 4 y 4 4 = 4 4 3 6.0 _ ry 7) 4 3 4 4 z 4 4 8 4 4 FL IL _tes -L---- ~~ — tee } J t__] J__L__L_ : 5 & This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for o geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. For
Page 34
Ors. REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 8 GAPS5_1_MDORE.GLB FULL PAGE J\2007\GEOTECHNICAL\077682076\TASK\01_GINTIO77682076BH.GPJ_GAPS_1.GDT_30/10/2007_3:47:40 PM. SHEET: 1 OF 1 CLIENT: Starco Developments Pty Lid COORDS: 508255 m E 7078200 mN 56 WGS84 DRILL RIG: Edson CP1 PROJECT: SURFACE RL: 1m DATUM: AHD DRILLER: Contract Drilling LOCATION: Noosa Springs INCLINATION: -90° LOGGED: PGH DATE: 4/10/07 JOB NO: HOLE DIA: 100 mm HOLE DEPTH: 6.00 m CHECKED: A-Ve __DATE: Bajio/e Drilling Field Material Description Bu 2 = B Eo w 3 w |Z DCP TEST (AS1289.6.3.2) o |<2 ° oe |e SEE & ze 3 z= & SOIL / ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p [Be Blows per 100 mm = [eal] & oO] sealo g lege w lee] s | Be #188 /8 gia § 0.0 =TSC] Clayey SAND ] fine to medium grained, dark grey 1 4 4 4 05 > 4 ] [becomingpalegrey =—S=C=~Csé‘sS*‘“‘;™SC~* 71 | ‘Sandy CLAY | 7 1.0 1 medium plasticity, grey, fine to medium grained sand y | z 4 = v- 156 Silty CLAY 1 s | high plasticity, dark grey, trace of broken shells J = 7 o 7 z 4 4 3 4 4 @ 2) 20 4 5 8 7 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 é 4 4 2 | 25-] 4 ey; [Becoming pale grey, orange brown and red ] 2 3.0 4 3.55 4 40 4 4 x 1 4 2 4 4 6 4 45 4 5.05 4 55-4 4 | END OF [email protected] m a” | Jotilggt -L-----_-ti_ a | Jot —~-t—-L__-L_4 This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination. GAP gINT FN. rep
Page 35
e EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS = Golder Associates USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD AS* Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm AD* Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm "vy V-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm ‘T TC-Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator DTC _ Diatube Coring CT Cable Tool Rig EE Existing Excavation WB Washbore or Bailer JET Jetting HAND Excavated by Hand Methods PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE L Low resistance. Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used. M Medium resistance. Excavation/possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used. H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate and requires significant effort from the equipment. R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to the digging implement or machine. These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of excavation or drilling tools, and the experience of the operator. WATER 3 Water level at date shown <J Partial water loss Cc Water infiow <q Complete water loss GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling OBSERVED water, surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit. GROUNDWATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be ENCOUNTERED present in less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open for a longer period. SAMPLING AND TESTING SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-1993 4,7,11 N=18 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. _N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating 30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil DS Disturbed sample BDS Bulk disturbed sample G Gas Sample w Water Sample FP Field permeability test over section noted FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sy = peak value, s, = residual value) PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm PM Pressuremeter test over section noted PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres Ranking of Visually Observable Contamination and Odour (for specific soil contamination assessment projects) R=0 No visible evidence of contamination R=A No non-natural odours identified R=1 Slight evidence of visible contamination R=B Slight non-natural odours identified R=2 Visible contamination R=C Moderate non-natural odours identified R=3 Significant visible contamination R=D Strong non-natural odours identified ROCK CORE RECOVERY TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%) = Length of core recovered x100 - > Length of cylindrical core recovered x100 - Axial lengths of core > 100mm x100 Length of core run Length of core run Length of core run GAP Form No. 6 RL4
Page 36
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION Golder Associates USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS FILL + _—_} CLAY (CL, Cl or CH) Fe 29) GRAVEL (GP or GW) x* 4 ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt) o°q ly dy Po oe _ “=| SAND (SP or SW) a COBBLES or BOULDERS ° o Do. yx] SILT (ML or MH) Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay. CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in AS1726 — 1993, Appendix A. The material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods. Particle Size Plasticity Properties Major Division | Sub Division Particle Size 40 BOULDERS > 200 mm cH COBBLES 63 to 200 mm = 3 cow Sitety tn eye Coarse 20 to 63 mm = oy clay GRAVEL Medium 6.0 to 20 mm 3 20 Fine 2.0 to 6.0 mm 2 ign i it Coarse 0.6 to 2.0mm 2 * SAND Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mm a 10 A | eee Fine 0.075 to 0.2 mm ST ‘en SILT 0.002 to 0.075 mm 9 + 0 40 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 CLAY < 0.002 mm Liquid Limit (%) MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 1993 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. WwW Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere. CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 1993 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 to4 Ss Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4to 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 — 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and equipment type. GAP Form No. 5 RL7
Page 37
Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
Page 38
Geotech (8.C.) Pty Ltd
ACN 074 982 979 ABN 39 074 982 979
Geotechnical Testing Authority
3 Bearing Ave
Warana Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
Particle Size Distribution Report
Client:
Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. Report Number: G7003 - 295
Client Address: P.O. Box 5569 Maroochydore BC Qld. 4558
Job Number: G7003 Report Date: 30/10/2007
Project: Lab. Testing Project No:077682076 Order Number:
Location Development fro Starco P/L, Noosa Springs Page i of £
Lab No: 75314 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 04/10/2007 Bore 1
Date Tested: 29/10/2007 Depth 0.3 - 0.4m
Sampled By: Client
Sample Method:
Material Source: Site
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: : Spec Number: -
A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Passing {Specification
Minimum Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
75.0mm
i i i i 63.0mm
; + : : 53.0mm
: ; i * 37.5mm
oH i
L i [ i 26.5mm
! i 19.0mm
; ; 7 i 16.0mm
ae f 13.2mm
ae : 7 : 9.5mm
j ; : ' 6.7mm
: 4 i 4.75mm
: i 7 : 2.36mm
: 1 { 1.18mm
; i H 0.600mm
H : t 0.425mm
SS t 0.300mm
On7S 1190 assonsui 0x0 045 0600 0.150mm
0.075mm
Approved Signatory |Form Number
NATA This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
a
WORLD RECOGNIsED
ACCREDITATION
requirements.Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.This
document shall not be reproduced except in full.
ar 23 REP APSD-1-4
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
°@ N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory «@e Roadworks & Subdivision Testing *@* Aggregate & Quarry Product Testing *@* Earthworks Supervision @+
Page 39
Geotech (S.C.} Pry Btel acn 074 982979 ABN 39 074 982 979 Geotechnical Testing Authority 3 Bearing Ave Warana Qld 4575 PO Box 2 Buddina Q!d 4575 Telephone: (07) 5493 1733 Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019 Email: [email protected] Particle Size Distribution Report Client: For Use As: Remarks: Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. Report Number: G7003 - 296 Client Address: P.O. Box 5569 Maroochydore BC Qid. 4558 Job Number: G7003 Report Date: 30/10/2007 Project: Lab. Testing Project No:077682076 Order Number: Location Development fro Starco P/L, Noosa Springs Page 1 of 1 Lab No: 75315 Sample Location Date Sampled: 04/10/2007 Bore 3 Date Tested: 29/10/2007 Depth 0.4 - 0.5m Sampled By: Client Sample Method: Material Source: Site Lot Number: - Spec Number: - A.S. es inimum Test Method: AS1289.3,.6.1 75.0mm 63.0mm 53.0mm 37.5mm 26.5mm 19.0mm 16.0mm 13.2mm 9.5mm 6.7mm 4.75mi 2.36m 1.18m 0.600m 0.425m 0.300m 0.150m 0.075m: Percent Passing jaximum on NATA. a WORLD RECOGNISED ACCREDITATION This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation requirements.Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.This document shall not be reproduced except in full. Approved Signatory |Form Number WN 2) REP APSD-1-4 Mel Burnett NATA Accred No:1551 °@ N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory «@» Roadworks & Subdivision Testing ¢@+ Aggregate & Quarry Product Testing «@« Earthworks Supervision @>
Page 40
Geotech (S.C.} Pty ted = acno74 982 979 ABN 39 074 982 979
Geotechnical Testing Authority
3 Bearing Ave
Warana Qld 4575
PO Box 2
Buddina Qld 4575
Telephone: (07) 5493 1733
Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019
Email: [email protected]
Particle Size Distribution Report
Client: Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. Report Number: G7003 - 297
Client Address: P.O. Box 5569 Maroochydore BC Qld. 4558
Job Number: G7003 Report Date: 30/10/2007
Project: Lab. Testing Project No:077682076 Order Number:
Location Development fro Starco P/L , Noosa Springs Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 75316 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 04/10/2007 Bore 4
Date Tested: 29/10/2007 Depth 0.3 - 0.4m
Sampled By: Client
Sample Method:
Material Source: Site
For Use As:
Remarks:
Lot Number: -
Spec Number: -
A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification
Minimum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
Percent Passing {Specification
Maximum
75.0mm
po 63.0mm
vi
53.0mm
37.5mm
Co 26.5mm
19.0mm
16.0mm
13.2mm
9.5mm
Percent Passint%)
6.7mm
4.75mm
2.36mm
1.18mm
0.600mm
0.425mm
i H i : 0.300mm
me 04s fr) 148 0.150mm
0.075mm
@)
WORLO RECOGNISED
ACCREDITATION
‘This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation
requirements.Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.This
document shall not be reproduced except in full.
Approved Signatory }Form Number
REP APSD-1-4
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
[email protected]. Accredited Soil Laboratory *@+ Roadworks & Subdivision Testing «@»* Aggregate & Quarry Product Testing »@* Earthworks Supervision @>
Page 41
Geotech (S.C.) Pag Ltd acnozs82979 Asn 39074 982 979 Geotechnical Testing Authority 3 Bearing Ave Warana Qld 4575 PO Box 2 Buddina Qld 4575 Telephone: (07) 5493 1733 Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019 Email: [email protected] Quality of Materials Report Client: Client Address: Job Number: Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. P.O. Box 5569 Maroochydore BC Qid. 4558 G7003 Report Number: G7003 - 299 Report Date: 30/10/2007 Project: Lab. Testing Project No:077682076 Order Number: - Location Development fro Starco P/L , Noosa Springs Page 1 of 1 Lab No: 75317 Sample Location Date Sampled: 04/10/2007 Bore 5 Date Tested: 29/10/2007 Depth 0.2 - 0.3m Sampled By: Client Sample Method: Materia! Source: Site Spec Description: - For Use As: - Lot Number: - Remarks: : Spec Number: : A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Specification Minimum Passing Maximum Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1 75.00 mm 53.00 mm 37.50 mm 26.50 mm 19.00 mm 13.2 mm 9.50 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm 2.36 mm 1.18 mm 0.600 mm 0.425 mm 0.300 mm 0.150 mm 0.075 mm 64 Atterberg Tests Test Method Specification Result Specification Minimum Maximum Liquid Limit (%) AS1289.3.1.2 53 Plastic Limit (%) AS1289.3.2.1 _16 Plasticity Index AS1289.3.3.1 37 Linear Shrinkage (%) AS1289.3.4.1 14.5 P.I. x % Passing 0.425 mm ™. Approved Signatory Form Number This document is issued in accordance with NATA's NATA accreditation requirements.Accredited for compliance KRY OD Vv with ISO/IEC 17025.This document shall not be REP AQUAL-1-5 womis necoaness reproduced except in full. Mel Burnett accneprrarion NATA Accred No:1551 ¢@ N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory «@» Roadworks & Subdivision Testing »@* Aggregate & Quarry Product Testing ¢@+ Earthworks Supervision @+
Page 42
Geotech (S.C.} Pty Httel = acn074 982979 ABN 39 074 982 979 CT-yealig-Tal Geotechnical Testing Authority 3 Bearing Ave Warana Qld 4575 PO Box 2 Buddina Qld 4575 Telephone: (07) 5493 1733 Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019 Email: [email protected] Particle Size Distribution Report Client: Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. Report Number: G7003 - 298 Client Address: P.O. Box 5569 Maroochydore BC Qid. 4558 Job Number: G7003 Report Date: 30/10/2007 Project: Lab. Testing Project No:077682076 Order Number: Location Development fro Starco P/L , Noosa Springs Page 1 of 1 Lab No: 75318 Sample Location Date Sampled: 04/10/2007 Bore 6 Date Tested: 29/10/2007 Depth 0.5 - 0.6m Sampled By: Client Sample Method: Material Source: Site For Use As: - Lot Number: - Remarks: - Spec Number: - AS. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Passing Specification Minimum Maximum Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1 75.0mm i i 63.0mm at 1 53.0mm ar i 37.5mm *L Li 26.5mm ™ t : 19.0mm 1 16.0mm 5 13.2mm i } 9.5mm i r 6.7mm 4.75mm 2.36mm ? 1.18mm if 0.600mm i 0.425mm ot TT : 0.300mm 0075 0150 0x0 1550 Sen 00 ANB 2% 0. 150mm 0.075mm @ WORLD RECOGNISED ACCREDITATION This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation requirements.Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.This ‘document shall not be reproduced except in full. Approved Signatory |Form Number REP APSD-1-4 Mel Burnett NATA Accred No:1551 °@ N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory «@* Roadworks & Subdivision Testing »@» Aggregate & Quarry Product Testing «@* Earthworks Supervision @«
Page 43
Geotech (8.C.) Ptay Lted cn ozs 982979 Asn 39 074 982 979 3 Bearing Ave Warana Qld 4575 | y i PO Box 2 a a "cc Buddina Qld 4575 a : e Telephone: (07) 5493 1733 Geotechnical Testing Authority Facsimile: (07) 5493 6019 Email: [email protected] Kawana Laboratory Author: Mel Burnett Project No: G7003 Certificate Number: G7003-289 Date Tested: 30 October, 2007 30 October, 2007 Golder Associates P O Box 5569 Maroochydore Qid 4558 Dear Sir, RE: Certificate of Laboratory Testing — Development Noosa Springs 1.0 Laboratory Work Determination of the Emerson Class No. of a Soil (Test Procedure AS1289.3.8.1) 2.0 Laboratory Results All results are contained in Table 1 below. Table 1 Sample No. 75314 75315 75316 Location Bore 1 Bore 3 Bore 4 Depth (m) 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.3-0.4 Emerson Class No: 6 8 8 Type of Water Distilled Distilled Distilled We trust the above meets your requirements, however, should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Mel Burnett at our Kawana laboratory. Yours faithfully, Wt A This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of MLN. Burnett NATA Testing Authorities, Australia. The test(s) reported herein have Director Ww been performed in accordance with its scope of accreditation. GEOTECH (SC) PTY LTD wort necoouses “THiS document shall not be reproduced, except in full. ACCREDITATION °@ N.A.T.A. Accredited Soil Laboratory «@* Roadworks & Subdivision Testing «@° Aggregate & Quarry Product Testing ¢@* Earthworks Supervision @+
Page 44
Appendix C Table C1 Summary of ASS Field & Laboratory Analysis Results Environmental Laboratory Test Results (Soil)
Page 45
October 2007 Starco/Subdivision/Noosa Springs 077682076
TABLE C1 - SUMMARY OF ACID SULFATE SOIL FIELD AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Quick Screening Test Lab pH Sulfur Trail Acid trail Acid Neutralising Capacity Retained Acid - Base Required
PointID Depth Description pHF pHFOX1 Reaction Remark pHKCl pHOX SKCL SP SPOS2 Scr² a-S TAA2 TPA2 TSA Ca-A Mg-A a-CaA+a-MgA ANC-E SNAS Account3 Lime Rate 4
(m) (%S) (%S) (mH+/t) (mol H+/tonne) (%Ca) (%Mg) mol H+/t mol H+/t mol H+/t mol H+/t kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/m3
BH5 0.25 Sandy CLAY (FILL) pale grey 5.0 3.4 1
0.50 5.2 3.2 1 4.9 <0.02 0 21 21 1.6 3
0.75 Silty CLAY (FILL) pale grey and red 5.1 3.1 1
1.00 4.4 2.6 1
1.25 Clayey SAND dark grey, trace of roots 4.3 2.2 1
1.50 Sandy Silty CLAY, dark grey 4.3 2.1 1
1.75 Clayey SAND, dark grey 4.4 1.9 1 4.7 <0.02 0 58 58 4.4 8
2.00 4.7 2.0 1
2.25 5.0 1.3 2 4.7 0.45 281 66 347 26.0 47
2.50 Silty Clay, dark grey 6.0 1.4 3
2.75 6.5 2.4 3
3.00 6.6 2.9 5
BH8 0.25 Clayey SAND, dark grey 5.8 3.8 1
0.50 4.8 3.4 1 <0.02 0 9 <10 <1 <1
0.75 becoming pale grey 5.1 2.6 1 5.4
1.00 Sandy CLAY, grey 5.6 2.2 1
1.25 6.1 1.9 2
1.50 Silty CLAY, dark grey, trace shells 6.3 1.7 2
1.75 6.4 1.3 4 7.5 1.17 730 <2 262 730 54.8 99
2.00 6.9 4.2 3
2.25 6.8 1.3 3
2.50 6.8 3.5 3
2.75 becoming pale grey 6.8 3.0 3
3.00 6.8 1.9 5 5.1 0.04 25 11 36 2.7 5
Notes:
1. Shaded pHFOX results are those where there is a drop of 2.0 or more pH units (light shade) or where the pH FOX is less than 3.0 (darker shade) after oxidisation.
2. Shaded TAA, TPA, & S CR results are those exceeding the QASSIT action levels of 18 mol H +/t or 0.03 %S.
3. Acid-Base Account = Total Acidity (ie. Potential + Actual + Retained), not including ANC, but not less than TSA
4. Required Lime Rate is calculated from the net Acid-Base Account with a factor of safety = 1.5 and bulk density of 1.8 t/m³
Golder Associates
Page 46
ALS Environmental
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Client ! GOLDER ASSOCIATES Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane Page : 10f5
Contact : MR DANIEL JOYCE Contact : Tim Kilmister Work Order : EB0711624
Address : PO BOX 5569 MAROOCHYDORE SOUTH Address : 32 Shand Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053
QLD AUSTRALIA 4558
E-mail : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected]
Telephone : 6443 3511 Telephone | +61-7-3243 7222
Facsimile : 5443 6645 Facsimile : 461-7-3243 7218
Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA Quote number : EN/002/05 Date received : 10 Oct 2007
Order number : MQ4752 Date issued 2 19 Oct 2007
C-O-C number : « Not provided - No. of samples - Received : 6
Site : + Not provided - Analysed : 6
i
ALSE - Excellence in Analytical Testing
This document has been electronically signed by those names that appear on this report and are the authorised signatories. Electronic
signing has been carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.
Signatory Position Department
Jessica Garwood Supervisor - Acid Sulphate Soils Inorganics - NATA 825 (818 - Brisbane)
NATA Accredited Laboratory
m™ “
This document is issued in
NA I A accordance with NATA's
accreditation requirements.
Accredited for compliance with
WORLD AEGOGHISED
ACCREDITATION ISO/IEC 17028.
Page 47
Page Number :20f5 Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES L Work Order : EBO711624 aL’ Sruironmenke Comments This report for the ALSE reference EB0711624 supersedes any previous reports with this reference. Results apply to the samples as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release. This report contains the following information: e Analytical Results for Samples Submitted e@ Surrogate Recovery Data The analytical procedures used by ALS Environmental have been developed from established internationally-recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported herein. Reference methods from which ALSE methods are based are provided in parenthesis. When moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis. When a reported ‘less than’ result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extracts/digestion dilution and/or insuffient sample amount for analysis. Surrogate Recovery Limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN38 (in the absence of specified USEPA limits). Where LOR of reported resutt differ from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture, reduced sample amount or matrix interference. When date(s) and/or time(s) are shown bracketed, these have been assumed by the laboratory for process purposes. Abbreviations: CAS number = Chemical Abstract Services number, LOR = Limit of Reporting. * Indicates failed Surrogate Recoveries. : Specific comments for Work Order EB0711624 Liming rate is calculated and reported on a dry weight basis assuming use of fine agricultural lime (CaCO3) and using a safety factor of 1.5 to allow for non-homogeneous mixing and poor reactivity of lime. For conversion of Liming Rate from ‘kg/t dry weight’ to ‘kg/m in-situ soil’, multiply ‘reported results’ x ‘wet bulk density of soil in t’m3’. Retained Acidity not required because pH KC! greater than or equal to 4.5
Page 48
Page Number 1 30f5
Client ‘ GOLDER ASSOCIATES {ALS
Work Order :_EB0711624 ale Sragrareuenkad
~BH8.
Client Sample ID : BHS: 2 BHB : BH5 ‘BH8
Analytical Results osm 4.75m |) 228m 075m 4:75m
Sample Matrix Type / Description : SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL
Sample Date / Time : 8 Oct 2007 8 Oct 2007 8 Oct 2007 8 Oct 2007 8 Oct 2007
15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00
Laboratory Sample ID :
Analyte CAS number LOR Units
EB0711624-001 £B0711624-002 EB0711624-003 EB0711624-004 EB0711624-005
EA033-A: Actual Acidity oe 2088 ee 4 : : 3 : 3
pH KCI (23A) pH Unit : 49 47 47 5A 75
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) 2 moleH+/t 21 58 66 9g <2
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity 0.02 % pyrite S 0.03 0.09 0.10 <0,02 <0.02
(8-23F) :
EA033-B: Potential Acidity” i ae : / oo a Se
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) 0.02 %*S~ : <0,02 <0.02 0.45 <0,02 1.17
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur 10 mole H+/t <10 <10 281 <10 730
(@-22B) 5
EA033-C: Acid Neutralising Capacity See ee : : : be
Acid Neutralising Capacity (19A1) ‘ 0.01 % CaCO3 — : _ _ = 1.31
acidity - Acid Neutralising Capacity . 10 mole H+/t —_ —_ _ —_ 262
(@-19A1) QU a
sulfidic - Acid Neutralising Capacity 0.01 % pyrite S —_ — _ _ 0.42
(s-19A1) ee
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting DL eee ge : :
ANC Fineness Factor . 0.5 1.5 1,5 15 1.5 1,5
Net Acidity (sulfur units) =” 0.02 %S 0.03 0.09 0.56 <0,02 0.89
Net Acidity (acidity units) 10 mole H+/t 21 58 347 <10 555
Liming Rate 1 kg CaCO3/t 2 4 26 <1 42
NTL
A Carapivel! Brothers Limited Company
Page 49
Client Sample ID :
Page Number :40f5
Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES
Work Order 2 EBO711624
Analytical Results
£A033-A: Actual Acidity -
Sample Matrix Type / Description :
Sample Date / Time :
CAS number
“04
Laboratory Sample ID :
pH Unit
'BHE
3m
SOIL
8 Oct 2007
15:00
EB0711624-006
SL Erevlrarmmnieal
pH KCI (23)
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) 2 mole H+/t
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity 0.02 % pyrite S <0.02
(s-23F)
£A033-B: Potential Acidity _ oo : a
"Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) 0.02 %S 0.04
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur 10 mole H+/t 25
{@-22B)
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting ae
ANC Fineness Factor 0.5
Net Acidity (sulfur units) 0.02 %S 0.06
Net Acidity (acidity units) 10 mole H+/t 36
Liming Rate 1 kg CaCO3it 3
el
A Campbell Brothers Limited Gempsny
Page 50
Page Number :5o0fs Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES Work Order : EBO711624 ALS Eratraraenivel Surrogate Control Limits @ No surrogates present on this report. er Report version: COANA 3.02 A Campbeit Brothers Limiter Company
Page 51
ALS Latbaratary Group ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY & TESTING SERVICES Environmenta! Division QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Work Order Client Contact Address E-mail Telephone Facsimile Project Site C-O-C number Sampler ‘Order number Quete number : EBO711624 Page 1 0f5 : GOLDER ASSOCIATES Laboratory ; Environmental Division Brisbane : MR DANIEL JOYCE Contact : Tim Kilmister : P.O BOX 5569 MAROOCHYDORE SOUTH QLD AUSTRALIA Address : 32 Shand Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053 4558 : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected] : +61 07 5443 3511 Telephone : : +61-7-3243 7222 : +61 07 5443 6645 Facsimile 1 +61-7-3243 7218 : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS QC Level : NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement + ee Date Samples Received : 10-OCT-2007 = DuJ Issue Date : 19-OCT-2007 : MQ4752 No. of samples received 6 : EN/002/05 No. of samples analysed :6 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release. This Quality Control Report contains the following information: ® Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) and Acceptance Limits @ = Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report; Recovery and Acceptance Limits @ = Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Acceptance Limits NATA Accredited Laboratory 825 This document is issued in accordance with NATA accreditation requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISOMEC 17025. Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories Position Accreditation Category Jessica Garwood Supervisor - Acid Sulphate Soils Inorganics Environmental Oluision Brisbane Pad ofthe ALS Lateratary Graup 32 Shand Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053 Tel. +81-7-3243 7222 Fax. +61-7-3243 7218 www.alsglobal.com A Campbell Bro crs Limited Company
Page 52
Page 1 20f5 Work Order : EBO711624 Client ; GOLDER ASSOCIATES Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS meena aetna NNN NNN NNN CCCI General Comments The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. Where moisture determination has been preformed, results are reported on a dry weight basis. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insuffient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference. Key: Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process fot CAS Number = Chemistry Abstract Services number LOR = Limit of reporting RPD = Relative Percentage Difference # = Indicates failed QC
Page 53
Page : 30fS
Work Order ; €BO711624
Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES
Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS ALS
Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report
The quality control term Laboratory Duplicate refers to a randomly selected intralaboratory split. Laboratory duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. The permitted ranges
for the Relative Percent Deviation (RPD) of Laboratory Duplicates are specified in ALS Method QWI-EN/38 and are dependent on the magnitude of results in comparison to the level of reporting: Result < 10 times LOR-
No Limit; Result between 10 and 20 times LOR:- 0% - 50%; Result > 20 times LOR:- 0% - 20%,
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Laboratory Duplicate (DUP} Report
Laboratory sample ID Client sample 1D Ie CAS Number: LOR | Unit Original Result Duplicate Result I RPD {%) Ll Recovery Limits {%)
Niet ecret eens ee ie Cy : : 4
EB0711624-001 BH5 0.5m
mole H+ /t 0% - 50%
EA033: pH KCI (23A)
SG Be ee tia} Acid e 6 “3 Boe
EB0711624-001 BH5 0.5m £A033:; Chromium Reducible Sulfur (228) —[ 0027 | %S <0,02 i <0.02 ' 0.0 i =
EA033: acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur —| 10 | mole H+ /t <10 <10 6 00 -
(@-22B) | i :
A Campbell
Page 54
Page : 40f5
Work Order . EBO711624
Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES ‘
Project ; 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS ALS
neteetnaaemmenemmmntantaaannneeeneeetnemenmitnittnctNNRNNNERINeitnentNnnnaeeenmmnicnnnusninusunumeuaeemnetCementnaneTatnt
Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report
The quality control term Method / Laboratory Blank refers to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation. The purpose of this QC
parameter is to monitor potential laboratory contamination. The quality control term Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) refers to a ceriified reference material, or a known interference free matrix spiked with target
analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor method precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix. Dynamic Recovery Limits are based on statistical evaluation of processed Les.
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Method Blank (M8) Report Laboratory Control Spike {LCS) Report
"Spike Spite Recover, | Recovery Limite 9)
Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit a Result Concentration ics ~ Low High
RRL ees ee OOLG : 5 :
EA033: Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) — 2 mole H+/t | <2 | — ~~ — —
EA033: sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) —_ 0.02 % pyrite . <0.02 C _— — —_ —
Ube ga Nate vats e oe
hromium Reducible Sulfur (22B)
cidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur (a-22B)
A heh e zs gj ro § O3 y 883 is Ss
EA033: Acid Neutralising Capacity (19A1) —_ 0.01 % CaCO3 <0.01 _ | —_— — —
EA033: acidity - Acid Neutralising Capacity (a-19A1) —f 10 mole H+ /t <10 — — — —
EA033: sulfidic - Acid Neutralising Capacity (s-19A1) = 0.01 % pyrite S <0.01 —_ —_— — —
Page 55
Page : 5o0f5 Work Order : EB0711624 Client ; GOLDER ASSOCIATES Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS Matrix Spike (MS) Report The quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) refers to an intralaboratory split sample spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor potential matrix effects on analyte recoveries. Static Recovery Limits as per laboratory Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Ideal recovery ranges stated may be waived in the event of sample matrix interference. @ No Matrix Spike (MS) Results are required to be reported.
Page 56
ALS Laboratory Group ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY & TESTING SERVICES Environmental Division INTERPRETIVE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Work Order :EB0711624 Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES Contact : MR DANIEL JOYCE Address : PO BOX 5569 MAROOCHYDORE SOUTH QLD AUSTRALIA 4558 E-mail : [email protected] Telephone > +61 07 5443 3511 Facsimile : +61 07 5443 6645 Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS Site — C-O-C number i Sampler : DJJ Order number :MQ4752 Quote number : EN/002/05 Page Laboratory Contact Address E-mail Telephone Facsimile QC Level Date Samples Received Issue Date No. of samples received No. of samples analysed 21 0f6 : Environmental Division Brisbane : Tim Kilmister : 32 Shand Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053 : [email protected] : +61-7-3243 7222 : +61-7-3243 7218 : NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement : 10-OCT-2007 : 19-OCT-2007 :6 :6 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release. This Interpretive Quality Control Report contains the following information: @ Analysis Holding Time Compliance ® Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance @ Brief Method Summaries @ Summary of Outliers NTT LLC T TTT tN TERR STreTteRRttETRt TT €nulronmental Division Brisbane Pad ofthe ALS Laberatery Greup 32 Shand Street Slafford QLD Australia 4053 ‘Tel. +84-7-8283 7222 Fax. +61-7-3243 7218 wwwalsylobal.com A Campbell Brothers Limited Company
Page 57
Page 1 20ff
Work Order ; £B0711624 kd
Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES _
Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS ALS
Analysis Holding Time Compliance
The following report summarises extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares with recommended holding times. Dates reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and precludes subsequent
dilutions and reruns. Information is also provided re the sample container (preservative) from which the analysis aliquot was taken. Elapsed period to analysis represents number of days from sampling where no
extraction / digestion is involved or period from extraction / digestion where this is present. For composite samples, sampling date is assumed to be that of the oldest sample contributing to the composite. Sample date
for laboratory produced leachates is assumed as the completion date of the leaching process. Outliers for holding time are based on USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM (1998). A listing of breaches is provided in
the Summary of Outliers.
Holding times for feachate methods (excluding elutriates) vary according to the analytes being determined on the resulting solution. For non-volatile analytes, the holding time compliance assessment compares the
leach date with the shortest analyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These soil holding times are: Organics (14 days); Mercury (28 days) & other metals (180 days). A recorded breach therefore does not
guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.
Evaluation: x = Holding time breach ; “ = Within holding time.
Matrix: SOIL
° ee ee Sample Date | Extraction / Preparation “Analysis
Container / Client Sample ID(s) Date extracted | Due for extraction | Evaluation Date analysed Due for anatysis Evaluation
ee ae on ’
Snap Lock Bag |
BHS - 0.5m, BHS5 - 1.75m, 08-OCT-2007 | 10-OCT-2007 | 09-OCT-2007 Kx 15-OCT-2007 | 13-JAN-2008 vo
BH5 - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m, |
BH8 - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m
A Bie reo) 4 Eee
Snap Lock Bag | | |
BHS - 0.5m, BH5 - 1.75m, 08-OCT-2007 | 10-OCT-2007 i 09-OCT-2007 | x 18-OCT-2007 | 13-JAN-2008 |
BHS - 2.25, BH - 0.75m, i '
BHB - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m - | L
AG roe 920} oH OF-F er) :
Snap Lock Bag i
BHS - 0.5m, BH5 - 1.75m, 08-OCT-2007 | 10-OCT-2007 | 09-OCT-2007 ' x 15-OCT-2007 | 13-JAN-2008 v
BH5 - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m, | |
BH8 - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m _
AG i 108 3 ere erakee le)
Snap Lock Bag ~ | ~~ P
BH5 - 0.5m, BHS - 1.75m, 08-OCT-2007 | 10-OCT-2007 | 09-OCT-2007 % 45-OCT-2007 | 13-JAN-2008 ov
BHS5 - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m,
BH8 - 1,75m, BH8 - 3m |
a0 aoe : g / o
Snap Lock Bag —_ —_ /
BHS - 0.5m, BHS5 - 1.75m, 08-OCT-2007 | 10-OCT-2007 | 09-OCT-2007 | % 15-OCT-2007 | 13-JAN-2008 ov
BHS - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m, i |
BH8 - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m
Page 58
Page : 30f6 Work Order : EBO711624 q Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES oe Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS ALS Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance The following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(where) processed, Actual rate should be greater than or equal to the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers. Matrix: SOIL Evaluation: * = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; v = Quality Control frequency within specification. nel Sore Tope Se ot ae 8) "T Quality Control Specification ~ Analytical Methods 5 ieee : Chromium Suite for Acid Sulphate Soils - ~ EA033 4 PM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement uae eg ee ; : Chromium Suite for Acid Sulphate Soils EA033 1 " 6 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement |
Page 59
Page > 40f6 Work Order : EBO711624 Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES Project , 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS ALS Brief Method Summaries The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. in house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions, eiho) : ee Be Upeee iene ie : " Chromium Suite for Acid Sulphate Soils EA033 SOIL Ahern et al 2004. This method covers the determination of Chromium Reducible Sulfur (SCR); pHKCI; titratable actual acidity (TAA); acid neutralising capacity by back titration (ANC); and net acid soluble sulfur (SNAS) which incorporates peroxide sulfur. It applies to soils and sediments (including sands) derived from coastal regions. Liming Rate is based on results for samples as submitted and incorporates a minimum safety factor of 1.5. aration Meliod 2 } te Drying at 85 degrees, bagging and ENO20PR In house labelling (ASS)
Page 60
Page 1 50f6
Work Order ; EBO711624
Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES
Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS
‘atten eee ninntanmenernneianeeentnnteetninttttnttinnnnnaetemennntnmnint
Summary of Outliers
Outliers : Quality Control Samples
The following report highlights outliers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report. Surrogate recovery limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN/38 (in the absence of specific USEPA limits).
"Anonymous" Client Sample {Ds refer to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot, This report displays QC Outliers (breaches) only,
Duplicates, Method Blanks, Laboratory Control Samples and Matrix Spikes
@ For ail matrices, no Method Blank value outliers occur,
@ For ail matrices, no Duplicate outliers occur.
® For all matrices, no Laboratory Control outliers occur.
@ For all matrices, no Matrix Spike outliers occur.
Regular Sample Surrogates
@ For all regular sample matrices, no surrogate recovery outliers occur.
Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance
This report displays Holding Time breaches only. Only the respective Extraction / Preparation and/or Analysis component is/are displayed.
Matrix: SOIL
Container / Client Sample ID(s)
Ree Ore
Snap Lock Bag
BHS - 0.5m, BH65 - 1.75m,
BHS - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m,
BH8 - 1.75m, BH8-3m
roa 25a oh) ei EVENS EB
SnapLockBag tt tsti—i—sS
BH5 - 0.5m, BHS - 1.75m,
BHS - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m,
BH8 - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m
AG ‘ E
Snap Lock Bag
BH5 - 0.5m, BHS5 - 1.75m,
BHS - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m,
BH8 - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m
Nie asst .
Snap Lock Bag ~
BHS - 0.5m, BH5 - 1.75m,
BHS5 - 2.25m, BH8 - 0.75m,
BHB - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m
Ae Mellie cas ayer)
Days
|
i_overdue
10-OCT-2007
10-OCT-2007
09-OCT-2007
| 09-OCT-2007
i
Due for analysis
Days
overdue
1
;
t
| se-ocr.2007 | 09-OCT-2007
|
10-OCT-2007 | 09-OCT-2007
|
Page 61
Page : 6 of6 Work Order : EBO711624 Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA SPRINGS Matrix: SOIL p 5 Extraction / Preparation Analysis: Container / Client Sample ID(s) Date extracted Due for extraction | Date analysed Due for analysis ; Days Days | L_ overdue overdue Acid Base Acconuth Snap Lock Bag BHS - 0.5m, BHS - 1.75m, 10-OCT-2007 BHS - 2.25m, BHB - 0.75m, BH8 - 1.75m, BH8 - 3m 09-OCT-2007 1 Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples The following report highlights breaches in the Frequency of Quality Control Samples. @ No Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers exist.
Page 62
ALS Laboratory Group A AL CHEMISTRY & TESTING SERVICES Environmental Division SAMPLE RECEIPT NOTIFICATION (SRN) Comprehensive Report Work Order : EB0711624 Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane Contact : MR DANIEL JOYCE Contact : Tim Kilmister Address : PO BOX 5569 MAROOCHYDORE Address : 32 Shand Street Stafford QLD Australia SOUTH QLD AUSTRALIA 4558. 4053 E-mail : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected] Telephone : +61 07 5443 3511 Telephone : +61-7-3243 7222 Facsimile : +61 07 5443 6645 Facsimile + +61-7-3243 7218 Project : 077682076 STARCO SUBDIV NOOSA Page > 10f2 SPRINGS Order number : MQ4752 C-O-C number le Quote number : £S20050035 (EN/002/05) Site io Sampler : DJS QC Level :NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement Dates Date Samples Received : 10-OCT-2007 issue Date + 10-OCT-2007 11:24 Client Requested Due Date : 19-OCT-2007 Scheduled Reporting Date : 49-OCT-2007 Delivery Details Mode of Delivery : Carrier Temperature : 4.6 C - Ice present No. of coolers/boxes : 1 MEDIUM No. of samples received 76 Sercurity Seal : Intact. No. of samples analysed 26 General Comments ®@ = This report contains the following information: - Sample Container(s)/Preservation Non-Compliances - Summary of Sample(s) and Requested Analysis - Requested Deliverables Samples received in appropriately pretreated and preserved containers. Breaches in recommended extraction / analysis holding times may occur. The recommended holding time for Acid Sulphate analysis is 24 hours from the time of sampling. Please direct any turn around / technical queries to the laboratory contact designated above. Please direct any queries related to sample condition / numbering / breakages to Maggie Kahi. Analytical work for this work order will be conducted at ALSE Brisbane. Sample Disposal - Aqueous (14 days), Solid (90 days) from date of completion of work order. Environmental Biuision Brisbane Patol the ALS Leboratory Group 32 Shand Street Stafford QLD Australia 4063 Tel, +61-7-3243 7222 Fax +61-7-3242 7218 www.alsglobal.com AG:
Page 63
Issue Date : 10-OCT-2007 11:24 Page :20f2 Work Order ; EBO711624 Client : GOLDER ASSOCIATES Sample Container(s)/Preservation Non-Compliances All comparisons are made against pretreatment/preservation AS, APHA, USEPA standards. @ Nosample container / preservation non-compliance exist. Summary of Sample(s) and Requested Analysis Some items described below may be part of a laboratory process neccessary for the execution of client requested tasks. Packages may contain additional analyses, such as the determination of moisture content and preparation tasks, that are included in the package. When date(s) and/or time(s) are shown bracketed, these have been assumed by the laboratory for process purposes. a 3 3 2 a 2 s 5 a zB S 2 2 g 84 Matrix: SOIL 3? aS ; . Laboratory sample Client sampling Client sample ID 2 5 1D date /time aS EB0711624-001 08-OCT-2007 15:00 BHS 0.5m v EB0711624-002 08-OCT-2007 15:00. BHS 1.75m ¥ EB0711624-003 08-OCT-2007 45:00 © BH5S 2.25m v EB0711624-004 08-OCT-2007 15:00 BH8 0.75m v £B0711624-005 08-OCT-2007 15:00 BH8 1.75m v £B0711624-006 08-OCT-2007 15:00 | BH8 3m v Requested Deliverables MR DANIEL JOYCE - A4- AU Certificate of Analysis - NEPM format Email [email protected] - A4- AU Interpretive Quality Control Report Email [email protected] - A4-AU Quality Control Report - NATA Email [email protected] - A4- AU Sample Receipt Notification Email [email protected] - Default - Chain of Custody Email [email protected] ~ EDI Format - GHDNEW Email [email protected] THE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE (MRCHYDRE) - A4-AU Tax Invoice Email [email protected]
Page 64
Forward to: ALS Environmental
32 Shand Street Stafford QLD
077682076
MQ4752 Project No.:
Starco/Subdiv/Noosa spring
EN/002/05
Contact Name:
Full SPOCAS Suite
Full Chromium Suite
SPOCAS (No ANC, No Spas)
No. of
Bags
TESTING REQUEST FORM
GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
Unit 1 Dalton Centre Phone: (: (07) 54433511
Newspaper Place 3 (07) 54436645
Maroochydore Qld 4558
Fax
Ske
PHxc,p TAA
TAA + Spas
PHxc Only
TAA + TPA + TSA Only
FIELD SCREEN (pH; + pHa)
HOLD FOR FUTURE TESTS
\ Basco a stoz007 _t
2 pas as soit ar on007 -
S[pus 2s soil Pt vioz007 .
4 pS soit TT sorz007
Spee sot roo
BES Ls | sol TT 8t02007 1
Checked by: “22,4, Please Return Signed Copy By Faogimile: /
Date Sent from Golder Lab: 9/10/2007 Environmental Division Date Received By ALS: jo we a Signature: zt -
Brisbane Dom
Work Order
EBO0711624
IL
Telephone : + 61-7-3243 7222
Page 65
Appendix D Important Information About Your Geo-Environmental Report
Page 66
Geo-environmental studies are commissioned to gain information about environmental conditions on and beneath the surface of a site. The more comprehensive the study, the more reliable the assessment is likely to be. But remember, any such assessment is to a greater or lesser extent based on professional opinions about conditions that cannot be seen or tested. Accordingly, no matter how much data is accumulated, risks created by unanticipated conditions will always remain. Have realistic expectations. Work with your Geo- environmental consultant to manage known and unknown risks. Part of that process should already have been accomplished, through the risk allocation provisions you and your Geo-environmental professional discussed and included in your contract's general terms and conditions. This document is intended to explain some of the concepts that may be included in your agreement, and to pass along information and suggestions to help you manage your risk. Beware of Change; Keep Your Geo- environmental Professional Advised The design of a Geo-environmental study considers a variety of factors that are subject to change. Changes can undermine the applicability of a report's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Advise your Geo- environmental professional about any changes you become aware of them. Geo-environmental professionals cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because a report fails to consider conditions that did not exist when the study was designed. Ask your Geo-environmental professional about the types of changes you should be particularly alert to. Some of the most common include: e modification of the proposed development or ownership group, «sale or other property transfer, replacement of or additions to the financing entity, amendment of existing regulations or introduction of new ones, or changes in the use or condition of adjacent property Should you become aware of any change, do not rely on an existing Geo-environmental report. Advise your Geo-environmental professional immediately; follow the professional's advice. Recognize the Impact of Time A Geo-environmental professional's _ findings, recommendations, and conclusions cannot remain valid indefinitely. The more time that passes, the more likely it is that important latent changes may occur. Do not rely on a Geo-environmental report if too much time has elapsed since it was completed. Ask your environmental professional to define “too much time." In the case of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), for example, more than 180 days after submission is generally considered "too much." Prepare To Deal with Unanticipated Conditions The findings. recommendations, and conclusions of a Phase I ESA report typically are based on a review of historical information, interviews, a site “walkover,” and other forms of noninvasive research. When site subsurface conditions are not sampled in any way, the risk of unanticipated conditions is higher than it would otherwise be. While borings, installation of monitoring wells, and similar invasive test methods can help reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions, do not overvalue the effectiveness of testing. Testing provides information about actual conditions only at the precise locations where samples are taken, and only when they are taken. Your Geo-environmental professional has applied that specific information to develop a general opinion about environmental conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ (sometimes sharply) from those predicted in a report. For example, a site may contain an unregistered underground storage tank that shows no surface trace of its existence. Even conditions in areas that were tested can change, sometimes suddenly, due to any number of events, not the least of which include occurrences at adjacent sites. Recognize, too, that even some conditions in tested areas may go undiscovered, because. the tests or analytical methods used were designed to detect only those conditions assumed to exist. Manage your risks by retaining your Geo-environmental professional to work with you as the project proceeds. Establish a contingency fund or other means to enable your Geo-environmental professional to respond rapidly, jn order to limit the impact of unforeseen conditions. To help prevent any misunderstanding, identify those Page 1 of 3 GAP - Form No.34 RL
Page 67
empowered to authorize changes and the administrative procedures that should be followed. Do Not Permit Any Other Party To Rely on the Report Geo-environmental professionals design their studies and prepare their reports to meet the specific needs of the clients who retain them, in light of the risk management methods that the client and Geo-environmental professional agree to, and the statutory, regulatory, or other requirements that apply. The study designed for a ‘developer may differ sharply from one designed for a lender, insurer, public agency .. or even another developer. Unless the report specifically states otherwise, it was developed for you and only you. Do not unilaterally permit any other party to rely on it. The report and the study underlying it may not be adequate for another party's needs, and you could be held liable for shortcomings your Geo-environmental professional was powerless to prevent or anticipate. Inform your Geo-environmental professional when you know or expect that someone else - a third-party will want to use or rely on the report. Do not permit third-party use or reliance until you first confer with the Geo- environmental professional who prepared the report. Additional testing, analysis, or study may be required and, in any event, appropriate terms and conditions should be agreed to so both you and your Geo- environmental professional are protected from third- party risks. Any party who relies on a Geo- environmental report without the express written permission of the professional who prepared it and the client for whom it was prepared may be solely liable for any problems that arise. Avoid Misinterpretation of the Report Design professionals and other parties may want to rely on the report in developing plans and specifications. They need to be advised, in writing, that their needs may not have been considered when the study's scope was developed, and, even if their needs were considered, they might misinterpret Geo-environmental _ findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Commission your Geo-environmental professional to explain pertinent elements of the report to others who are permitted to rely on it, and to review any plans, specifications or other instruments of professional service that incorporate any of the report’s “findings, conclusions, or recommendations. Your Geo-environmental professional has the best understanding of the issues involved, including the fundamental assumptions that determined the study's scope. Give Contractors Access to the Report Reduce the risk of delays, claims, and disputes by giving contractors access to the full report, providing that it is accompanied by a letter of transmittal that can protect you by making it unquestionably clear that: 1) the study was not conducted and the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development, and 2) the findings, conclusions, and recommendations included in the report are based on a variety of opinions, inferences, and assumptions and are subject to interpretation. Use the letter to also advise contractors to consult with your Geo- environmental professional to obtain clarifications, interpretations, and guidance (a fee may be required for this service), and that-in any event-they should conduct additional studies to obtain the specific type and extent of information each prefers for preparing a bid or cost estimate. Providing access to the full report, with the appropriate caveats, helps prevent formation of adversarial attitudes and claims of concealed or differing conditions. If a contractor elects to ignore the warnings and advice in the-letter of transmittal, it would do so at its own risk. Your Geo-environmental professional should be able to help you prepare an effective letter. Do Not Separate Documentation from the Report Geo-environmental reports often include supplementary documentation, such as maps and copies of regulatory files, permits, registrations, citations, and correspondence with regulatory agencies. If subsurface explorations were performed, the report may contain final boring logs and copies of laboratory data. If remediation activities occurred on site, the report may include: copies of daily field reports, waste manifests, and information about the disturbance of subsurface materials, the type and thickness of any fill placed on site, and fill placement practices, among other types of documentation. Do not separate supplementary documentation from the report. Do not, and do not permit any other party to redraw or modify any of the supplementary documentation for incorporation into other professionals’ instruments of service. Understand the Role of Standards Unless they are incorporated into statutes or regulations, standard practices and standard guides developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and other recognized standards-developing organizations (SDOs) are little more than aspirational methods agreed to by a consensus of a committee. The committees that develop standards may not comprise those best qualified to establish methods and, no matter what, no standard method can possibly consider the infinite client and project-specific variables that fly in the face of the theoretical “standard conditions" to which standard practices and standard guides apply. In fact, these variables can be so pronounced that Geo-environmental professionals who comply with every directive of an ASTM or other standard procedure could run foul of local custom and practice, thus violating the standard of care. Accordingly, when Geo-environmental professionals indicate in their reports that they have performed a service “in general compliance" with one standard or another, it means they have applied professional judgement in creating and implementing a scope of service designed for the specific client and project involved, and which follows some of the general precepts laid out in the referenced standard. To the Page 2 of 3 GAP —~ Form No. 34
Page 68
extent that a report indicates "general compliance" with a standard, you may wish to speak with your Geo- environmental professional to learn more about what was and was not done. Do not assume a given standard was followed to the letter. Research indicates that that seldom is the case. Realize That Recommendations May Not Be Final The technical recommendations included in a Geo- environmental report are based on assumptions about actual conditions, and so are preliminary or tentative. Final recommendations can be prepared only by observing actual conditions as they are exposed. For that reason, you should retain your Geo-environmental professional to observe construction and/or remediation activities on site, to permit rapid response to unanticipated conditions. The Geo-environmental professional who prepared the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that professional is not retained to observe relevant site operations. Understand That Geotechnical Issues Have Not Been Addressed Unless geotechnical engineering was specifically included in the scope of professional service, a report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the suitability of subsurface materials for construction purposes, especially when site remediation has been accomplished through the removal, replacement, encapsulation, or chemical treatment of on- site soils. The equipment, techniques, and testing used by geotechnical engineers differ markedly from those used by Geo-environmental professionals; _ their education, training, and experience are also significantly different. If you plan to build on the subject site, but have not yet had a geotechnical engineering study conducted, your Geo-environmental professional should be able to provide guidance about the next steps you should take. The same firm may provide the services you need. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Geo-environmental studies cannot be exact; they are based on professional judgement and _ opinion. Nonetheless, some clients, contractors, and others assume Geo-environmental reports are or certainly should be unerringly precise. Such assumptions have created unrealistic expectations that have led to wholly unwarranted claims and disputes. To help prevent such problems, Geo-environmental professionals have developed a number of report provisions and contract terms that explain who is responsible for what, and how risks are to be allocated. Some people mistake these for "exculpatory clauses," that is, provisions whose purpose is to transfer one party's rightful responsibilities and liabilities to someone else. Read the responsibility provisions included in a report and in the contract you and your Geo-environmental professional agreed to. They are important. Rely on Your Geo-environmental Professional for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE exposes Geo-environmental professionals to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a Geo-environmental project. Confer with your ASFE-member Geo-environmental professional for more information. Page 3 of 3 GAP - Form No. 34
Used in these records
Appendix 5. Geotechnical Engineering Report [As Published]Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 6.3 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.