report on salinity assessment and salinity management plan
TRANSCRIPT
Appendix B
Report on Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan
Report on Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan
Land Capability Study Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW
Prepared for Department of Planning & Environment and
Camden Council, c/- Macarthur Developments Pty Ltd
Project 76742.00 September 2018
Document History
Document details Project No. 76742.00 Document No. R.003.Rev1 Document title Report on Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan
Land Capability Study Site address Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly
Report prepared for Department of Planning & Environment and Camden Council c/o Macarthur Developments
File name 76742.00.R.003.Rev1 Document status and review
Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued Rev0 Emily McGinty Chris Kline 11 January 2017 Rev 1 Emily McGinty Chris Kline / Rod Gray 11 September 2018
Distribution of copies
Status Electronic Paper Issued to
Rev 0 1 0 Macarthur Developments Pty Ltd Mr Stephen McMahon
Rev 1 1 0 Department of Planning & Environment Ms Evelyn Ivinson
The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all attached drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions and inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 11 September 2018
Reviewer 11 September 2018
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd ABN 75 053 980 117
www.douglaspartners.com.au 18 Waler Crescent
Smeaton Grange NSW 2567 Phone (02) 4647 0075
Fax (02) 4646 1886
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Scope of Works .............................................................................................................................. 1
3. Site Description .............................................................................................................................. 2
4. Regional Geology Soil Landscapes and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 3
5. Investigation Methods .................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 Electromagnetic (EM) Profiling ............................................................................................ 4
5.2 GPS Positioning and GIS Mapping ...................................................................................... 6
5.3 Test Pit Excavation .............................................................................................................. 6
6. Field Work Results ......................................................................................................................... 6 6.1 EM Profiling Data Processing and Presentation .................................................................. 6
6.2 Test Pit Excavation .............................................................................................................. 7
7. Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................................................. 7
8. Assessment of Soil Aggressivity to Concrete and Steel ................................................................ 8
9. Salinity Assessment from Laboratory Results ............................................................................. 10
10. Salinity Assessment Incorporating EM Results ........................................................................... 11
11. Assessment of Soil Sodicity and Dispersibility............................................................................. 12
12. Impact of the Site Materials on the Proposed Development ........................................................ 12
13. Salinity Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 12
14. Additional Recommendations and Conclusions........................................................................... 14
15. References ................................................................................................................................... 15
16. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A: About This Report
Drawings B1 – B9
Appendix B: Test Pit Logs (Pits 1 – 20)
Appendix C: Laboratory Analytical Results
Appendix D: Summary Table
Page 1 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
Report on Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Land Capability Study Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly 1. Introduction
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) was commissioned by Stephen McMahon of Macarthur Developments (MD) on behalf of Department of Planning & Environment and Camden Council to complete a Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan (SMP) for a parcel of land located within Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct (‘the site’). The site has been previously been identified by the Growth Centres Commission for potential rezoning and urban development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006. The site is currently zoned RU1 (primary production) and is proposed to be rezoned for various purposes, including (and primarily) residential type land use. DP understands that MD intends to identify if the site is suitable for potential rezoning for predominantly residential land use and concurrently to inform future planning proposals for the site. This SMP forms part of and therefore informs an overarching Land Capability Study for the site (DP (2018a) Report on Land Capability Study, Project 76742.00.R.001; the geotechnical and contamination investigation findings are reported separately (Ref 1 and Ref 2 respectively). Saline soils affect much of the Western Sydney Region. Buildings and infrastructure located on shales of the Wianamatta Group are particularly at risk. Salinity can affect urban structures in a number of ways, including corrosion of concrete, break down of bricks and mortar, corrosion of steel (including reinforcement), break up of roads, attack on buried infrastructure, reduced ability to grow vegetation and increased erosion potential. The construction of a primarily residential development is proposed and the salinity investigation was carried out to provide preliminary information on subsurface conditions to assist in conceptual planning of the development. The investigation comprised the completion of an electromagnetic (EM) survey, followed by the excavation of 20 test pits and laboratory analysis of select samples, engineering analysis and reporting. This report presents the findings of the field logging, sampling and analysis of select soil samples as well as the findings of the final processed EM survey that includes correlation with the soil sampling and analysis findings. Details of the work undertaken and the results obtained are given within this report, together with preliminary comments relating to design and construction practice. 2. Scope of Works
The scope of works comprised the following:
• Baseline review of regulatory documents, Council requirements, salinity mapping and hydrological landscape data;
• Completion of a non-invasive investigation with an electromagnetic (EM) system and a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS), followed by mapping of apparent conductivities (ground conductivities) across the whole site;
Page 2 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
• Selection of 20 targeted locations (noting that the selection of investigation locations also complements the geotechnical investigation).for follow up direct investigation, based on apparent conductivities;
• Set out (using DGPS) 20 test pits, complete excavation and logging of each test pit to collect samples for salinity and related testing at depths of 0.5 m in all pits and thence 0.5 m intervals to a depth of 0.5 m below the design depth of excavation or prior refusal;
• Analysis of electrical conductivity (EC1:5) and pH and results for 99 soil and weathered rock samples and soil texture results for 89 soil texture analysis (owing to insufficient sample remaining, the remaining ten were assumed to comprise heavy clay) determined at a NATA accredited analytical laboratory, for classification of salinity and aggressivity;
• Laboratory analysis of additional salinity, aggressivity and erodibility indicators, including chloride and sulphate concentrations (29 samples), sodicities (12 samples) and dispersibility testing (6 samples) at a NATA accredited analytical laboratory;
• Assessment of the results with respect to potential for salinity impacts on the development and preparation of hazard or constraint maps, indicating areas of elevated aggressivity and sodicity, which may adversely affect the development;
• Recalibration of EM survey results using analytical data collected from the sampling analysis works;
• Preparation of this Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan report (SMP) discussing the methodology and findings of the assessment, and recommended management strategies. The SMP shall also include:
o The construction of proposed public assets/infrastructure. Such detail shall relate to and be incorporated into the preliminary road pavement design/materials and provide further advice with respect to the types and class of all proposed precast products;
o The construction of buildings; and
o Other construction activities and associated risks, where relevant. 3. Site Description
The site is located on The Northern Road, approximately 9 km north-west of Narellan town centre and approximately 7 km west of Leppington town centre. The site is approximately 517 hectares (ha) in size and is expected to deliver an anticipated yield of approximately 7,000 dwellings. The site is located within the Camden Council local government area (LGA) and is currently used for a combination of rural residential and agricultural (predominantly pastoral) purposes. The site comprises the following lots as shown on Drawing B1 (refer Appendix A):
• Part Lot 101 on Deposited Plan (D.P) 1203966 (‘Lot 101’);
• Lot 3 on D.P. 218798 (‘Lot 3’);
• Lot 4 on D.P. 119173 (‘Lot 4’);
• Lot 29 on D.P. 872135 (‘Lot 29’);
• Lot 1 on D.P. 218779 (‘Lot 1 north’);
• Lots 21 to 23 on D.P. 836540 (‘Lots 21 to 23’);
Page 3 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
• Lots 1 and 8 on D.P. 1216380 (‘Lot 1 south’ and ‘Lot 8’);
• Lots 10 and 15 on D.P. 1218155 (‘Lot 10’ and ‘Lot 15’); and
• Lot 102 on D.P. 746955 (‘Lot 102’). The site is irregular in shape and is bordered by The Northern Road along the eastern boundary and mixed rural residential and agricultural land to the north, west and south. Lowes Creek (watercourse) runs west to east through the centre of the site. The site is accessed via The Northern Road and is currently being used for mixed rural residential, agricultural and grazing purposes. Maryland Homestead is located on Lot 1, near to the centre of the site. Lots 3 and 4 north were until recently occupied by Birling Avian Laboratories where testing of veterinary treatments and chemicals occurred. DP understands that Lot 1 (south) is to be retained and continue occupancy by the current occupants as part of the development works. Heritage buildings located in Lot 1 (north) and Lot 280, near to Lot 1 will also be retained. 4. Regional Geology Soil Landscapes and Hydrogeology
The Penrith 1:100 000 Geological Series Sheet (Ref 3) indicates that the site is underlain by Bringelly Shale of the Wianamatta Group of Triassic age. This formation typically comprises shale, carbonaceous claystone, laminite, fine to medium grained lithic sandstone and some minor coal bands. The results of the test pitting were consistent with the geological mapping with shale and sandstone encountered in those pits that intersected bedrock. The bedrock is locally mantled by Quaternary aged alluvium (fine sand, silt and clay), particularly associated with Lowes Creek and associated minor creeks and gullies. The Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000 Sheet (Ref 4) indicates that the site includes two soil landscapes:
Blacktown Soil Landscape (bt) – which is mapped over most of the central and western sections of the site and is characterised by topography of "gently undulating rises on Wianamatta Group Shale, with local relief to 30 m and slopes usually less than 5 %". This is a residual landscape which the mapping indicates comprises up to four soil horizons that range from shallow red-brown hard-setting sandy clay soils on crests and upper slopes to deep brown to yellow sand and clay soils overlying grey plastic mottled clay on mid to lower slopes. These soils are typically of low fertility, are moderately reactive and have a generally low wet-bearing strength.
Luddenham Soil Landscape (lu) – which is mapped in the eastern section of the site and is characterised by "undulating to rolling low hills on Wianamatta Group Shales, often associated with Minchinbury Sandstone with local relief 50 – 80 m, and slopes 5 – 20 %. The mapping indicates that it is an erosional unit with shallow (<1.0 m) Brown Podsolic Soils and massive earthy clays on crests and ridges and moderately deep (0.7 – 1.5 m) Red Podsolic Soils on upper slopes.
South Creek Soil Landscape (sc) – which is mapped along Lowes Creek and associated minor creek extending south through easternmost dam on Lot 29 and is characterised by “Floodplains, valley flats and drainage depressions of the channels on the Cumberland Plain. Usually flat with incised channels; mainly cleared.” Mapping indicates soils associated with this landscape comprise very deep layered sediments over bedrock or relict soils. Red and yellow podsolic soils occur.
Page 4 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
Additional reference to the Map of Salinity Potential in Western Sydney (Ref 5) indicates that the site is predominantly located in an area of “Moderate salinity potential” where “saline areas may occur ....which have not yet been identified or may occur if risk factors change adversely". Lowes Creek and associated minor creek to the south (leading to easternmost dam on Lot 29) is located in an area of “high salinity potential” where “conditions are similar to areas of known salinity". These classifications are based on the landform and geology and it is noted that due to the resolution at the scale of the mapping, it is not possible to delineate the zone boundaries with precision. McNally (Ref 6) describes some general features of the hydrogeology of Western Sydney which are relevant to this Site. The shale terrain of much of Western Sydney is known for saline groundwater, resulting either from the release of connate salt in shales of marine origin or from the accumulation of windblown sea salt. Seasonal groundwater level changes of 1 – 2 m can occur in a shallow regolith aquifer or a deeper shale aquifer due to natural influences. Groundwater investigations undertaken by DP in the Camden area and previous studies of areas underlain by the Wianamatta Group and Quaternary alluvium indicate that:
• The shales have a very low intrinsic permeability, hence groundwater flow is likely to be dominated by fracture flow with resultant low yields (typically <1 L / s) in bores; and
• The groundwater in the Wianamatta Group is typically brackish to saline with total dissolved solids (TDS) in the range 4000 – 5000 mg/L (but with cases of TDS up to 31750 mg/L being reported). The dominant ions are typically sodium and chloride and the water being generally unsuitable for livestock or irrigation.
5. Investigation Methods
5.1 Electromagnetic (EM) Profiling
EM profiling was undertaken as part of the examination of soil salinity potential, enabling rapid continuous measurement of apparent electrical conductivity to target areas for soil sampling and to reduce the requirements for laboratory testing of soils for salinity assessment purposes. Apparent electrical conductivity is variously referred to as ground conductivity, terrain conductivity, bulk conductivity or bulk electrical conductivity and is generally designated as σa or ECa. Although measurement of apparent conductivities can include contributions from a variety of sources including groundwater, conductive soil and rock minerals and metals, it has been estimated (Ref 7) that in 75 – 90 % of cases in Australia, apparent conductivity anomalies can be explained by the presence of soluble salts. Apparent conductivity can therefore be considered, in the majority of cases, a good indicator of soil salinity. Most portable instruments measure apparent conductivity in milliSiemens per metre (mS/m) and typical measurement ranges (Table B1) have been suggested as indicative of salinity classes (after Ref 8).
Page 5 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
Table B1: Salinity Classes in Relation to Apparent Conductivity
Class ECa (mS/m)
Non-Saline <50
Slightly Saline 50 – 100
Moderately Saline 100 – 150
Very Saline 150 – 200
Extremely Saline >200
The survey instrument employed was the GSSI EMP400 Profiler, mounted on extensions behind a 4wd vehicle. The Profiler (pictured on the following page) recorded data using the broadside, horizontal co-planar coil configuration, for a theoretical depth of investigation (response to ground conductors) of up to approximately 6 m below the coils, however this is dependent on actual soil conductivities and most of the conductivity response was expected to be in the depth range 1 – 3 m below the coils. Some depth discrimination (within the above range) is provided by concurrent measurements at three instrument frequencies, selected after initial test traverses on the site. A field calibration was performed to compare the difference between the Profiler being vehicle mounted and being hand carried at the calibrated height above ground for 15 kHz, to best approximate local conductivities and results presented herein were measured at that frequency.
Figure B1: Profiler extended behind 4WD vehicle, with DGPS system visible at rear of the tray. A Hemisphere R130 Differential Global Positioning System was used to record position as the survey proceeded and both positional data and ECa data were acquired at 1 Hz (1 second intervals) to the Profiler’s digital data logger. Data were obtained along approximately 100 line – km of traverse (36,200 data points) on a grid of primary survey lines approximately 50 m apart (30 – 60 m), with an average data point spacing of 2 – 3 m.
Page 6 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
5.2 GPS Positioning and GIS Mapping
All field work positions and heights were acquired with differential GPS, presented in GDA94 (Geodetic Datum of Australia 1994), projection MGA94 (Map Grid of Australia 1994) Zone 56 and heights in AHD71 (Australian Height Datum 1971). Digital mapping has been carried out in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment using MapInfo software. 5.3 Test Pit Excavation
Subsequent to EM profiling, field work included the excavation of 20 test pits (Pits 1 – 20) was undertaken to depths of 1.2 – 3.0 m using a backhoe fitted with a 450 mm wide bucket. The pits were logged on site by a geotechnical engineer who collected representative disturbed samples to assist in strata identification and for laboratory testing. After carefully backfilling each test pit, the surface was reinstated to its previous level. The test pit locations were nominated by DP on the basis of initial EM profiling analysis and were located on site by DP. The test pit locations are presented on Drawing B2 (in Appendix A). The surface levels and co-ordinates (refer test pit logs, Appendix B) were recorded by DGPS. 6. Field Work Results
6.1 EM Profiling Data Processing and Presentation
Data processing included a layback correction to align positional data with EM data, due to Profiler to GPS antenna separation. The apparent conductivity, quadrature and phase data were despiked, interpolated or truncated and filtered to remove responses from electric fences and known large metallic objects. The line data were subsequently processed in MapInfo to generate gridded data for map making. Drawings B3 to B6 present the location of the electromagnetic survey lines and apparent conductivities as colour images with continuous colour spectral scales in m AHD and mS/m, respectively. Areas of most interest are those at the red end of the spectrum representing the highest apparent conductivities and potentially the highest salinities. Apparent conductivities ranged from approximately 10 – 300 mS/m, mean 86 mS/m, standard deviation 32 mS/m, potentially indicating soils covering the non-saline to extremely saline range based on Chhabra’s typical measurement ranges (refer Table 1). The value of EM profiling, with high along-line sampling density and appropriate line spacings is the ability to identify local variations in the salinity distribution which are not visible in the broader-scale salinity potential map. Based on the mapped distribution of apparent conductivities, test pit locations were selected to enable soil sampling, primarily of the high conductivity areas but also of some low conductivity and moderate conductivity areas as controls and to populate the data set for correlation of field and laboratory results. The in-phase measurements are generally insensitive to soil conductivity but respond to subsurface metallic conductors and were mapped to assess the degree of interference with the apparent conductivity data.
Page 7 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
6.2 Test Pit Excavation
The test pit logs are included in Appendix B and should be read in conjunction with the accompanying standard notes defining classification methods and descriptive terms. The test pit locations (TP) are shown on Drawing B2. Relatively uniform conditions were encountered underlying the accessible areas of the site, with the general succession of strata broadly summarised as follows:
• TOPSOIL – typically brown silty clay to depths ranging from 0.2 – 0.5 m in Pits 1 – 4 and 6 – 20. The topsoil was encountered beneath uncontrolled filling at a depth of 0.8 m in Pit 5 and continued to a depth of 1 m;
• FILLING – silty clay filling to a depth of 0.8 m in Pit 5;
• CLAY – firm to hard (but typically stiff to very stiff), residual and alluvial clay to depths of 0.5 m to in excess of 3.0 m in in most pits, with the exception of Pit 2, and to the termination depths of 3.0 m in Pits 6 and 9; and
• BEDROCK – variably extremely low up to very low to low strength shale, siltstone and/or sandstone below depths of 0.3 – 2.5 m in in most pits with the exception of Pits 6 and 9. Pits 2, 5, 10, 12, 14 – 17 and 19 reached bucket refusal on low to medium up to medium strength rock at depths of 1.2 – 2.5 m.
No free groundwater was observed in any of the pits during excavation; however, localised seepage was noted in TP1, TP3 and TP18 at depths of 1.8 m, 2.8 m and 2.4 m, respectively. The pits were immediately backfilled following excavation which precluded long term monitoring of groundwater levels. Groundwater levels are affected by factors such as soil permeability and weather conditions and will vary with time. No signs of efflorescence were noted during the inspection. 7. Laboratory Test Results
Soil samples from the test pits were tested in a NATA-accredited laboratory for parameters related to salinity:
• Electrical Conductivity (EC1:5) of a 1:5 soil:water extract (all samples);
• pH (all samples);
• chloride and sulphate concentrations (selected samples);
• exchangeable sodium content, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and exchangeable sodium potential (ESP or sodicity) (selected samples); and
• Dispersion (Emerson Crumb test) (selected samples). Laboratory analytical results are included in Appendix C and a Summary Table showing all analytical results and their corresponding calculated aggressivity, sodicity and salinity class values are presented in Appendix D.
Page 8 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
A textural classification, by the method of the former Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC – Ref 9), was undertaken on each sample tested for EC1:5, to allow determination of the appropriate Textural Factor (M) for conversion of EC1:5 to soil salinity ECe (electrical conductivity of a saturated extract). These factors are included in the Summary Table, along with the soil texture groups indicated by the factors, ranging from heavy clays (M=6) to loams (M=10) and rock at depth (assumed textural class=7, i.e. medium clay). The total test sample numbers and the range of test results obtained are summarised in Table B2, below. Table B2: Summary of Test Results
Parameter Units Samples Minimum Maximum
pH pH units 61 4.5 9.4
Chlorides (mg/kg) 13 10 2,200
Sulphates (mg/kg) 13 10 280
Aggressivity to Concrete [AS2159] non-aggressive moderately
aggressive
to Steel [AS2159] non-aggressive moderately aggressive
Exchangeable Sodium (Na) (meq/100g) 6 38 1,500
CEC (cation exchange capacity) (meq/100g) 6 5.2 36
Sodicity [Na/CEC] (ESP%) 6 1 20
Sodicity Class [after DLWC – Ref 9] - sodic highly sodic
EC1:5 [Lab.] (uS/cm) 61 79 740
Resistivity Ω.cm 61 667 26,316
ECe [M x EC1:5] 1 (dS/m) - 0.2 11.9
Salinity Class [after Richards 1954 – Ref 10] - non-saline very saline
1 M is soil textural factor 8. Assessment of Soil Aggressivity to Concrete and Steel
Figure B2 presents variations of aggressivity with depth, based on pH profiles at all test pit locations, together with the aggressivity class ranges as indicated in Australian Standard AS 2159 - 2009 (Ref 11). The absence of free groundwater from all test pits and the impermeability of the sampled clay-rich soils indicate that soils at all test pits are in Condition “B”.
Page 9 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
Figure B2: Vertical Soil pH Profiles and Aggressivity The pH profiles (Figure B2) indicate that the materials throughout the site, at all investigated depths are non-aggressive to mildly aggressive to concrete. Where measured, the sulphate concentration indicates that the soil is non-aggressive to concrete. The pH profile indicates that soils / rock throughout the site are non-aggressive to steel. The chloride concentration guidelines of AS 2159 support this non-aggressive classification. However, based on resistivity criteria (Appendix D), samples were classified as mildly aggressive to moderately aggressive to steel. Calculated worst-case soil resistivities for concrete and steel were interpolated to define areas of non-aggressive, mildly aggressive and moderately aggressive soil, as presented in Drawings B7 and B8, respectively (Appendix A). The Summary Table (refer Appendix D) indicates that 55 % of all samples were non-aggressive to concrete, 42 % were mildly aggressive to concrete and 3 % were moderately aggressive to concrete. Approximately 42 % of all samples were non-aggressive to steel, 42 % were mildly aggressive and 16 % were moderately aggressive to steel.
Page 10 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
9. Salinity Assessment from Laboratory Results
The DLWC guideline for salinity investigations (Ref 9) applies the method of Richards (Ref 10) and Hazelton and Murphy (Ref 12) in the classification of soil salinity on the basis of ECe. The implications of the resulting salinity classes on agriculture are described in Table B3. Table B3: Soil Salinity Classification
Class ECe (dS/m) Implication
Non-Saline <2 Salinity effects mostly negligible
Slightly Saline 2 – 4 Yields of sensitive crops affected
Moderately Saline 4 – 8 Yields of many crops affected
Very Saline 8 – 16 Only tolerant crops yield satisfactorily
Highly Saline >16 Only a few very tolerant crops yield satisfactorily
Salinity measurements on 99 samples from 20 test pit locations, many in the areas of elevated apparent conductivity determined by EM profiling, are distributed throughout the salinity classes as shown in detail in the Summary Table (Appendix D) and graphically in Figure B3.
FIgure B3: Vertical Soil Salinity Profiles The Summary Table (Appendix D) indicates that 25 % of all soil samples were non saline, 21 % were slightly saline, 42 % were moderately saline and 12 % were very saline.
Page 11 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
10. Salinity Assessment Incorporating EM Results
The DLWC salinity investigation guideline allows for a reduction in the density of test locations and the number of laboratory tests, when an EM investigation is carried out and the ECa results are correlated with the laboratory ECe results, enabling interpolation of data throughout the EM survey area at the high spatial density of that data. To carry out the required correlations, the ECa gridded line data was evaluated at the exact test pit locations and the ECa values were plotted in a scattergram (Figure 4, below) against bulk ECe values. A reasonable linear trend between these parameters (correlation coefficient of 0.87) indicates that the EM system is responding to soil salinity and that the EM data obtained provides a reasonable measure of the site salinity. The line of best fit defines the ECe/ECa trend and provides an equation by which to convert apparent conductivities (ECa in mS/m), to estimate apparent salinities (ECe in dS/m) throughout the data set.
Figure B4 - Correlation of Bulk ECe and ECa data The correlation equation (ECe = 0.0471 x ECa - 0.7877) was applied to all apparent conductivity gridded data for presentation as an apparent salinity image (Drawing B9) with continuous colour spectral scales in dS/m. The 2-D surface was also contoured at 2 dS/m intervals, corresponding to boundaries of the salinity classes of Richards 1954, providing a direct subdivision of the study area into non-saline (<2 dS/m), slightly saline (2 - 4 dS/m), moderately saline (4 - 8 dS/m) and very saline (8 - 16 dS/m) classes. Apparent salinities shown in Drawing B9 indicate non-saline conditions (largely restricted to areas of higher elevation in the north-west of the site) and slightly to moderately saline conditions throughout most of the investigated areas. Moderately saline conditions are concentrated in low lying drainage areas, water courses and dams. An area of very saline soil is inferred at the lowest elevations, being in the vicinity of the south-eastern end of the site.
y = 0.0471x - 0.7877 R² = 0.7635, C = 0.87
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 50 100 150 200
Bulk
Sal
inity
(ECe
in d
S/m
) at T
est P
it lo
catio
ns, f
rom
lab
test
s
Apparent Conductivity (ECa in mS/m) at Test Pit locations, from EM profiling
Bulk Ece to 3m depth
Page 12 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
11. Assessment of Soil Sodicity and Dispersibility
The sodicity test reported in the Summary Table (Appendix D) shows non-sodic to highly sodic soils, indicating some potential for erodibility of soils left exposed. The dispersion potential of the soils, as measured by the Emerson Crumb Test (refer Summary Table, Appendix D), were determined to be a Class 5 to 6 (no dispersion) from the location tested, at a depth of 0.5 m. 12. Impact of the Site Materials on the Proposed Development
The mild to moderate aggressivity to concrete, the mild to moderate aggressivity to steel, the presence of moderate to occasionally very saline materials and the highly sodic soils are naturally occurring features of the local landscape and are not considered significant impediments to the proposed development, provided appropriate remediation or management techniques are employed. Salinity and aggressivity affects the durability of concrete and steel by causing premature breakdown of concrete and corrosion of steel. This has impacts on the longevity of structures in contact with these materials. As a result management will be required (refer to Section 13). Sodic soils have low permeability due to infilling of interstices with fine clay particles during the weathering process, restricting infiltration of surface water and potentially creating perched water tables, seepage in cut faces or ponding of water in flat open areas. In addition, sodic soils tend to erode when exposed. Management of sodic soils is therefore required to prevent these adverse effects. 13. Salinity Management Plan
The current salinity investigation indicates that materials within the site range from non-saline to very saline. Testing of other parameters associated with salinity indicates that the materials are mildly to moderately aggressive to steel and mildly to moderately aggressive to concrete. In addition, shallow soils were in places highly sodic. The following management strategies are confined to the management of those factors with a potential to impact on the development: A. Management should focus on capping of the upper surface of the sodic soils, both exposed by
excavation and placed as filling, with a more permeable material to prevent ponding, to reduce capillary rise, to act as a drainage layer and to reduce the potential for erosion.
B. When possible, the placement of excavated soils in fill areas with similar salinity characteristics (i.e. to place material on to in-situ soils with a similar or higher aggressivity or salinity classification) should be carried out. With respect to imported fill material, testing should be undertaken prior to importation, to determine the salinity characteristics of the material.
Page 13 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
C. Sodic soils can also be managed by maintaining vegetation where possible and planting new salt tolerant species. The addition of organic matter, gypsum and lime can also be considered where appropriate. After gypsum addition, reduction of sodicity levels may require some time for sufficient infiltration and leaching of sodium into the subsoils, however capping of exposed sodic material should remain the primary management method. Topsoil added at the completion of bulk earthworks is, in effect, also adding organic matter which may help infiltration and leaching of sodium.
D. Avoiding water collecting in low lying areas, in depressions, or behind fill. This can lead to water logging of the soils, evaporative concentration of salts, and eventual breakdown in soil structure resulting in accelerated erosion.
E. Any pavements should be designed to be well drained of surface water. There should not be excessive concentrations of runoff or ponding that would lead to waterlogging of the pavement or additional recharge to the groundwater through any more permeable zones in the underlying filling material.
F. Surface drains should generally be provided along the top of batter slopes to reduce the potential for concentrated flows of water down slopes possibly causing scour.
G. Salt tolerant grasses and trees should be considered for landscaping, to reduce soil erosion as in Strategy A above and to maintain the existing evapo - transpiration and groundwater levels. Reference should be made to an experienced landscape planner or agronomist.
The following additional strategies are recommended for completion of service installation and for building construction. These strategies should be complementary to standard good building practices recommended within the Building Code of Australia, including cover to reinforcement within concrete and correct installation of a brick damp course, so that it cannot be bridged to allow moisture to move into brick work and up the wall.
H. Where soils are classified as non-aggressive to concrete, piles should nevertheless have a minimum strength of 32 MPa and a minimum cover to reinforcement of 45 mm (as per AS 2159).
I. Where soils are classified as mildly aggressive to concrete, piles should have a minimum strength of 32 MPa and a minimum cover to reinforcement of 60 mm (as per AS 2159) to limit the corrosive effects of the surrounding soils (in accordance with AS 2159).
J. Where soils are classified as moderately aggressive to concrete, piles should have a minimum strength of 40 MPa and a minimum cover to reinforcement of 65 mm (as per AS 2159) to limit the corrosive effects of the surrounding soils (in accordance with AS 2159).
K. With regard to concrete structures, for non-saline and slightly saline soils (soils with salinities less than 4 dS/m):
o Where soils are classified as non-aggressive to concrete (AS 3600 - 2009 [Ref 13] – exposure classification A1), slabs and foundations should have a minimum strength of 20 MPa, and should be allowed to cure for a minimum of three days (as per AS 3600) to limit the corrosive effects of the surrounding soils; and
o Where soils are classified as mildly aggressive to concrete (AS 3600 – exposure classification A2), slabs and foundations should have a minimum strength of 25 MPa, and should be allowed to cure for a minimum of three days (as per AS 3600) to limit the corrosive effects of the surrounding soils.
Page 14 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
L. With regard to concrete structures, for moderately saline soils (soils with salinities of 4 dS / m to 8 Ds / m) that are classified as non-aggressive to mildly aggressive to concrete, slabs and foundations should have a minimum strength of 25 MPa, a minimum cover to reinforcement of 45 mm from unprotected ground and should be allowed to cure for a minimum of three days (as per AS 3600) to limit the corrosive effects of the surrounding soils.
M. With regard to concrete structures, for very saline soils (soils with salinities of 8 dS / m – 16 dS / m) slabs and foundations should have a minimum strength of 32 MPa, a minimum cover to reinforcement of 50 mm from unprotected ground and should be allowed to cure for a minimum of three days (as per AS 3600) to limit the corrosive effects of the surrounding soils.
N. Wet cast concrete pipes and currently manufactured spun concrete pipes are understood to have estimated compressive strengths of 50 MPa and 60 – 70 MPa, respectively, in excess of the requirements for mass concrete in K, L and M above. Reference to the maximum and minimum test results of Table B1 (Section 6 of this report) and to Tables E1 and 3.1 of AS 4058 – 2007 (Ref 14) indicates that the site falls within the AS 4058 Clay/Stagnant (low sulphate) soil type (chlorides ≤20 000 ppm, pH≥4.5 and sulphates ≤1000 ppm) and (in the absence of tidal water flow) falls within the AS 4058 Normal durability environment. Under these conditions, AS 4058-compliant reinforced concrete pipes of general purpose Portland cement, with a minimum cover to reinforcement of 10 mm, are expected to have a design life in excess of 100 years. Any concrete pipes installed within the site should employ AS 4058-compliant steel reinforced pipes of general purpose Portland cement, with minimum cover to reinforcement of 10 mm, or should be fibre reinforced.
O. Resistivity results indicate soils that are moderately aggressive to steel. For these areas of soil identified as mildly and moderately aggressive to steel, the following corrosion allowances (as per AS 2159 – 2009) should be taken into account by the designer:
o Mild: uniform corrosion allowance 0.01 – 0.02 mm / year; and
o Moderate: uniform corrosion allowance 0.02 – 0.04 mm / year.
In instances where a coating is applied to the pile, if the design life of the pile is greater than the design life for the coating, consideration must be given to corrosion of the pile in accordance with the above list.
14. Additional Recommendations and Conclusions
Additional investigation should be undertaken in development areas which are to be excavated deeper than 3 m, where direct sampling and testing of salinity has not been carried out. Salinity management strategies may need to be modified or extended following additional investigations by deep test pitting and/or drilling, sampling and testing for soil and water pH, electrical conductivity, TDS, sodicity, sulphates and chlorides. Such works, if required, could be conducted when final cut and fill requirements have been determined. It is considered that the management strategies described herein when incorporated into the design and construction works are appropriate to mitigate the levels of salinity, aggressivity and sodicity identified at the site.
Page 15 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
This salinity investigation has been undertaken for the purpose of providing preliminary advice. A detailed salinity investigation will be required prior to construction in order to provide more detailed recommendations for individual lots. 15. References
1. DP 2018a. Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Land Capability Study, Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, Project 76742.R.002
2. DP 2018b. Report on Preliminary Site Investigation, Land Capability Study, Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, Project 76742.R.004
3. Geological Survey of New South Wales, 1991. Geology of 1:100 000 Penrith Geological Series Sheet 9030 (Edition 1).
4. Bannerman, S. M and Hazelton, P A. Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000 Sheet. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.
5. DIPNR, 2002 Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, New South Wales (DIPNR) 2002, Salinity Potential in Western Sydney.
6. McNally, G. 2005, Investigation of Urban Salinity – Case Studies from Western Sydney, Urban Salt 2005 Conference Paper, Parramatta.
7. Spies, B. and Woodgate, P. 2004, Technical Report Salinity Mapping Methods in the Australian Context, Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council.
8. Chhabra, R. 1966, Soil Salinity and Water Quality, A. Bakema/Rotterdam/Brookfield, New York, 284 pp.
9. DNR, 2002, Site Investigations for Urban Salinity (now managed by DPI).
10. Richards, L. A. (ed.) 1954, Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils USDA Handbook No 60, Washington D.C.
11. Standards Australia 1995, AS 2159 – 2009 Piling Design and Installation.
12. Hazelton, P. A. and Murphy B. W. 2007, Interpreting Soil Test Results Department of Natural Resources.
13. Standards Australia 2009, AS 3600 – 2009 Concrete Structures.
14. Standards Australia 2007, AS 4058 – 2007 Precast concrete pipes.
Page 16 of 16
Salinity Assessment and Salinity Management Plan Project 76742.00 R.003.Rev0 Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly, NSW September 2018
16. Limitations
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) has prepared this report (or services) for this project at Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct, Bringelly in accordance with DP’s proposal dated 22 April 2016 and email acceptance received from Stephen McMahon dated 4 May 2016. The work was carried out under DP’s Conditions of Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of the Department of Planning & Environment, Camden Council and Macarthur Developments for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing has been completed. DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction. The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the hazards likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent upon factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life. This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role respectively of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the (geotechnical / environmental / groundwater) components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design, construction, maintenance and demolition.
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Appendix A
About This Report Drawings B1 – B9
July 2010
Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify DP's report in regard to classification methods, field procedures and the comments section. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports. DP's reports are based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling, supplemented by knowledge of local geology and experience. For this reason, they must be regarded as interpretive rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Copyright This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Conditions of Engagement for the commission supplied at the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Borehole and Test Pit Logs The borehole and test pit logs presented in this report are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, but this is not always practicable or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits represent only a very small sample of the total subsurface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other than 'straight line' variations between the test locations. Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes there are several potential problems, namely: • In low permeability soils groundwater may
enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all during the time the hole is left open;
• A localised, perched water table may lead to an erroneous indication of the true water table;
• Water table levels will vary from time to time with seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report; and
• The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the hole if water measurements are to be made.
More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes which are read at intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be interference from a perched water table. Reports The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, is based on the information obtained from field and laboratory testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal, the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed. If this happens, DP will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work. Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, DP cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
The potential for this will depend partly on borehole or pit spacing and sampling frequency;
• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities; or
• The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.
If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with investigations or advice to resolve the matter.
July 2010
Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, DP requests that it be immediately notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event. Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. DP would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical and environmental aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site.
TITLE:
OFFICE:
DATE:SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CLIENT:
REVISION:
PROJECT No:
DRAWING No: B1
Macarthur Developments Pty Ltd
As shown
IKAMacarthur
17.08.2018 C
76742.00
MGA
0 1,000
metres
SITE
Legend
Approximate Seperate Ownership Boundaries
Approximate Lot Boundaries
Apprximate Site Boundary
TITLE:
OFFICE:
DATE:SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CLIENT:
REVISION:
PROJECT No:
DRAWING No: B3
Macarthur Developments Pty Ltd
as shown
AJKMacarthur
10 Sep 2018 B
76742.00
29
1,5
00
mE
28
9,5
00
mE
29
0,5
00
mE
28
8,5
00
mE
6,238,000 mN
6,239,000 mN
28
7,5
00
mE
6,240,000 mN
Datum: GDA94 Projection: MGA94 zone 56
Legend
separate ownership
site boundary
Appendix B
Test Pit Logs (Pits 1 – 20)
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - very stiff, orange brown clay with some gravel anda trace of roots, MC~PL
- becoming red brown below 0.9m
- becoming firm, MC>PL below 1.8m
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered,brown grey shale
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
2.4
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 1PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 31/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 1.8m
SURFACE LEVEL: 84.9 mAHDEASTING: 290132NORTHING: 6237915
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
8483
8281
D
B
D
U50
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 350-390
pp = 400-450
pp = 290-310
pp = 60-90
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with a trace of organics
SILTSTONE - very low to low strength, highly weathered,brown siltstone
- becoming low strength, white grey below 0.9m
- becoming low to medium strength, brown below 1.3m
Pit discontinued at 1.5m- refusal on low to medium strength siltstone
0.3
1.5
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 2PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 31/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 125.9 mAHDEASTING: 289502NORTHING: 6238389
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
125
124
123
122
D
BU50
D
D
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.5
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff to very stiff, brown grey silty clay, MC~PL
- with some extremely low strength, extremely weathered,brown grey shale bands below 0.9m
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered,brown grey shale
- with some very low to low strength, highly weatheredbands below 2.4m
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
1.5
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 3PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 31/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 2.8m
SURFACE LEVEL: 81.4 mAHDEASTING: 290349NORTHING: 6238434
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
8180
7978
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
0.5
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 300-350
pp = 350-400
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, orange brown silty clay with some gravel anda trace of rootlets, MC~PL
- becoming hard, red grey below 1.2m
- with some extremely low strength, extremely weatheredshale bands below 1.5m
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered,grey and red shale with some very low strength, highlyweathered bands
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
1.8
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 4PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 30/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 84.4 mAHDEASTING: 290095NORTHING: 6238724
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
8483
8281
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 350-400
pp = 180-240
pp >600
FILLING - brown black silty clay with some gravel, MC~PL
TOPSOIL - black silty clay with some organics (formertopsoil layer)
CLAY - very stiff, red mottled grey clay with some gravel,MC~PL
SANDSTONE - extremely low strength, extremelyweathered, red brown sandstone with some extremely lowstrength, extremely weathered, grey shale bands
- becoming very low to low strength, highly weatheredbelow 2.1m
Pit discontinued at 2.5m- refusal on low to medium strength sandstone
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.5
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 5PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 31/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 75.7 mAHDEASTING: 290798NORTHING: 6239067
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
7574
7372
D
D
B
D
D
D
0.5
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
2.5
pp = 280-320
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff to very stiff, dark brown silty clay with a traceof gravel, MC~PL
- with some extremely low strength, extremely weathered,brown black shale bands below 1.2m
- becoming brown, with some extremely low strength,extremely weathered, brown black shale bands below1.8m
- with some extremely low strength, extremely weathered,grey shale bands below 2.5m
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 6PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 72.3 mAHDEASTING: 289961NORTHING: 6239535
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
7271
7069
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 400-450
pp = 450-500
pp = 450-550
pp = 500-500
pp = 400-450
pp = 440-480
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - firm to stiff, orange brown silty clay with somegravel and a trace of rootlets, MC~PL
- becoming stiff, red and grey below 0.9m
- with some extremely low strength, extremely weathered,red grey shale bands below 1.5m
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered,grey and red shale with some very low strength, highlyweathered bands
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
1.8
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 7PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 30/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 73.2 mAHDEASTING: 290477NORTHING: 6239510
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
7372
7170
D
B
U50
D
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 260-350
pp = 200-250
pp = 220-270
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff to very stiff, brown silty clay with a trace ofgravel and rootlets, MC~PL
- becoming very stiff below 1.5m
- becoming stiff, brown gravelly clay with some extremelylow strength, extremely weathered shale bands below1.9m
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered,grey brown shale with some very low to low strength,highly weathered bands and brown gravelly clay bands
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
2.5
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 8PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 67.1 mAHDEASTING: 290994NORTHING: 6239864
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
6766
6564
D
B
U50
D
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 250-300
pp = 450-500
pp = 290-330
pp = 150-200
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, brown grey clay with some gravel and a traceof rootlets, MC~PL
- becoming very stiff to hard below 0.8m
- with some cobbles below 1.0m
- becoming hard below 1.1m
- becoming red and grey below 1.9m
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 9PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 75.2 mAHDEASTING: 290418NORTHING: 6239957
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
7574
7372
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 420-480
pp >600
pp >600
pp >600
pp >600
pp >600
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - firm to stiff, red and grey clay, MC~PL
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered,grey shale
- with some very low to low strength, highly weatheredbands below 1.4m
- becoming very low to low strength, highly weathered,with medium strength bands below 1.8m
Pit discontinued at 2.0m- refusal on low to medium strength shale
0.3
0.9
2.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 10PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 81.8 mAHDEASTING: 290599NORTHING: 6240182
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
8180
7978
D
U50
D
B
D
D
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.5
2.0
pp = 250-300
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, red grey clay, MC~PL
- becoming very stiff below 1.5m
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered, redand grey shale
- with some very low to low strength, highly weatheredbands below 2.5m
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
1.8
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 11PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 93.0 mAHDEASTING: 289614NORTHING: 6240402
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
9392
9190
D
U50
D
B
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 300-350
pp = 200-250
pp = 250-300
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - firm to stiff, brown grey clay with a trace of graveland rootlets
SILTSTONE - low to medium strength, moderatelyweathered, grey brown siltstone with extremely lowstrength bands
Pit discontinued at 1.2m- refusal on medium strength siltstone
0.2
0.6
1.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 12PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 96.6 mAHDEASTING: 288942NORTHING: 6239908
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
9695
9493
D
B
U50
D
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
pp = 400-490
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, red brown grey clay with a trace of gravel androotlets, MC~PL
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered, redand grey shale with some very low to low strength, highlyweathered bands
- with low to medium strength bands below 1.5m
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
0.9
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 13PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 85.6 mAHDEASTING: 289182NORTHING: 6239347
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
8584
8382
D
B
U50
D
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 300-350
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
- with trace organics below 0.3m
CLAY - stiff to very stiff, red grey clay with some graveland extremely low strength, extremely weathered shalebands, MC>PL
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered, redand grey shale
- becoming very low to low strength, highly weathered withsome medium strength bands below 1.4m
- becoming medium strength below 1.8m
Pit discontinued at 2.0m- refusal on medium strength shale
0.5
1.0
2.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 14PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 91.1 mAHDEASTING: 288267NORTHING: 6239802
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
9190
8988
D
B
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
pp = 230-280
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, orange brown clay, MC<PL
SILTSTONE - very low to low strength, highly weathered,light brown grey siltstone with extremely low strengthbands
Pit discontinued at 1.5m- refusal on medium strength siltstone
0.2
0.5
1.5
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 15PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 106.3 mAHDEASTING: 288520NORTHING: 6239781
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
106
105
104
103
D
B
U50
D
D
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.5
pp >600
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - very stiff to hard, brown silty clay with a trace ofrootlets, MC~PL
SILTSTONE - extremely low to very low strength,extremely weathered, brown grey siltstone
- becoming low to medium strength, moderatelyweathered below 1.4m
Pit discontinued at 1.7m- refusal on medium strength siltstone
0.2
0.9
1.7
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 16PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 101.1 mAHDEASTING: 289293NORTHING: 6240279
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
101
100
9998
D
D
B
D
0.5
1.0
1.2
1.5
pp = 550-600
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, brown silty clay with some mudstonefragments, MC~PL
SILTSTONE - extremely low strength, extremelyweathered, brown siltstone with some very low strength,highly weathered bands
- becoming very low to low strength, highly weathered withsome extremely low strength, extremely weathered, greyshale bands below 1.2m
- becoming medium strength, with high strength shalebelow 1.9m
Pit discontinued at 2.0m- refusal on medium strength siltstone
0.2
0.6
2.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 17PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 30/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 112.2 mAHDEASTING: 288771NORTHING: 6239031
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
112
111
110
109
D
U50
D
B
D
D
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
pp = 400-430
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - firm to stiff, orange brown clay with some finegravel, MC~PL
- becoming very stiff below 0.9m
- becoming firm, with some extremely low strength,extremely weathered, grey shale bands below 1.7m
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.3
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 18PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 30/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Groundwater seepage observed at 2.4m
SURFACE LEVEL: 93.7 mAHDEASTING: 288968NORTHING: 6238802
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
9392
9190
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 400-450
pp = 500-550
pp = 280-300
pp = 50-60
pp = 50-60
pp = 50-60
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, red brown silty clay with some gravel, MC~PL
SILTSTONE - extremely low strength, extremelyweathered, brown siltstone with some very low strength,highly weathered bands
- becoming very low to low strength, highly weatheredbelow 1.0m
- becoming low to medium strength below 1.8m
Pit discontinued at 2.0m- refusal on low to medium strength rock below 1.8m
0.3
0.6
2.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 19PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 1/9/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS: Test pit moved due to access constraints
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 120.9 mAHDEASTING: 288754NORTHING: 6238603
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
120
119
118
117
D
U50
D
B
D
D
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
pp = 400-500
TOPSOIL - brown silty clay with some organics
CLAY - stiff, brown silty clay with some gravel, MC<PL
- becoming red and grey below 0.6m
SHALE - extremely low strength, extremely weathered, redand grey shale with some very low to low strength, highlyweathered bands
Pit discontinued at 3.0m- limit of investigation
0.2
1.5
3.0
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
TEST PIT LOG
Lowes Creek / Maryland (Barkers Mill)Bringelly, NSW
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Dept of Planning & Environment/Camden CouncilLand Capability Study
Results &Comments
LOGGED: NG SURVEY DATUM: MGA94 Zone 56
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION:
PIT No: 20PROJECT No: 76742.00DATE: 30/8/2016SHEET 1 OF 1
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Typ
e
REMARKS:
RIG: JCB 4CX backhoe - 450mm tooth bucket
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No free groundwater observed
SURFACE LEVEL: 98.0 mAHDEASTING: 289674NORTHING: 6239015
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Depth(m) R
L
1
2
3
9897
9695
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
0.5
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
pp = 400-550
pp >600
May 2017
Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of
soils and rocks used in this report are based on
Australian Standard AS 1726-1993, Geotechnical
Site Investigations Code. In general, the
descriptions include strength or density, colour,
structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.
Soil Types Soil types are described according to the
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading
of other particles present:
Type Particle size (mm)
Boulder >200
Cobble 63 - 200
Gravel 2.36 - 63
Sand 0.075 - 2.36
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Clay <0.002
The sand and gravel sizes can be further
subdivided as follows:
Type Particle size (mm)
Coarse gravel 20 - 63
Medium gravel 6 - 20
Fine gravel 2.36 - 6
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36
Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2
The proportions of secondary constituents of soils
are described as:
Term Proportion Example
And Specify Clay (60%) and
Sand (40%)
Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay
Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy
Clay
With some 5 - 12% Clay with some
sand
With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace
of sand
Definitions of grading terms used are:
• Well graded - a good representation of all
particle sizes
• Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
particular sizes within the specified range
• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular
particle size
• Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular
particle size with the range
Cohesive Soils Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the
basis of undrained shear strength. The strength
may be measured by laboratory testing, or
estimated by field tests or engineering
examination. The strength terms are defined as
follows:
Description Abbreviation Undrained shear strength
(kPa)
Very soft vs <12
Soft s 12 - 25
Firm f 25 - 50
Stiff st 50 - 100
Very stiff vst 100 - 200
Hard h >200
Cohesionless Soils Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are
classified on the basis of relative density, generally
from the results of standard penetration tests
(SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below:
Relative Density
Abbreviation SPT N value
CPT qc value (MPa)
Very loose vl <4 <2
Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5
Medium
dense
md 10 - 30 5 - 15
Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25
Very
dense
vd >50 >25
May 2017
Soil Origin It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
of the underlying rock;
• Transported soils - formed somewhere else
and transported by nature to the site; or
• Filling - moved by man.
Transported soils may be further subdivided into:
• Alluvium - river deposits
• Lacustrine - lake deposits
• Aeolian - wind deposits
• Littoral - beach deposits
• Estuarine - tidal river deposits
• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium
• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported
downslope by gravity assisted by water.
Often includes angular rock fragments and
boulders.
May 2017
Introduction These notes summarise abbreviations commonly
used on borehole logs and test pit reports.
Drilling or Excavation Methods C Core drilling
R Rotary drilling
SFA Spiral flight augers
NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia
NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia
HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia
PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia
Water Water seep
Water level
Sampling and Testing A Auger sample
B Bulk sample
D Disturbed sample
E Environmental sample
U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)
W Water sample
pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
PID Photo ionisation detector
PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa
S Standard Penetration Test
V Shear vane (kPa)
Description of Defects in Rock The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should
be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,
Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling
and handling breaks are not usually included on
the logs.
Defect Type
B Bedding plane
Cs Clay seam
Cv Cleavage
Cz Crushed zone
Ds Decomposed seam
F Fault
J Joint
Lam Lamination
Pt Parting
Sz Sheared Zone
V Vein
Orientation
The inclination of defects is always measured from
the perpendicular to the core axis.
h horizontal
v vertical
sh sub-horizontal
sv sub-vertical
Coating or Infilling Term
cln clean
co coating
he healed
inf infilled
stn stained
ti tight
vn veneer
Coating Descriptor
ca calcite
cbs carbonaceous
cly clay
fe iron oxide
mn manganese
slt silty
Shape
cu curved
ir irregular
pl planar
st stepped
un undulating
Roughness
po polished
ro rough
sl slickensided
sm smooth
vr very rough
Other
fg fragmented
bnd band
qtz quartz
May 2017
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock General
Soils
Sedimentary Rocks
Metamorphic Rocks
Igneous Rocks
Road base
Filling
Concrete
Asphalt
Topsoil
Peat
Clay
Conglomeratic sandstone
Conglomerate
Boulder conglomerate
Sandstone
Slate, phyllite, schist
Siltstone
Mudstone, claystone, shale
Coal
Limestone
Porphyry
Cobbles, boulders
Sandy gravel
Laminite
Silty sand
Clayey sand
Silty clay
Sandy clay
Gravelly clay
Shaly clay
Silt
Clayey silt
Sandy silt
Sand
Gravel
Talus
Gneiss
Quartzite
Dolerite, basalt, andesite
Granite
Tuff, breccia
Dacite, epidote
Appendix C
Laboratory Analytical Results
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 152879
Client:
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Smeaton Grange
18 Waler Crescent
Smeaton Grange
NSW 2567
Attention: Emily McGinty
Sample log in details:
Your Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
No. of samples: 98 soils
Date samples received / completed instructions received 02/09/16 / 02/09/16
Analysis Details:
Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.
Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.
Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.
Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.
Report Details:
Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 9/09/16 / 8/09/16
Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued
NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.
Results Approved By:
Page 1 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-1 152879-2 152879-3 152879-4 152879-5
Your Reference ------------
-
1 1 1 1 1
Depth ------------ 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 7.5 6.6 7.1 7.8 8.3
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 440 850 1,400 1,100 880
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 580 1,100 [NA] [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 130 250 [NA] [NA] [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-6 152879-7 152879-8 152879-9 152879-10
Your Reference ------------
-
1 2 2 2 3
Depth ------------ 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 8.5 8.7 9.4 9.4 7.0
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 930 120 190 280 72
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] 10 [NA] [NA] 39
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] 20 [NA] [NA] 83
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-11 152879-12 152879-13 152879-14 152879-15
Your Reference ------------
-
3 3 3 3 3
Depth ------------ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.9 6.1 6.9 6.8 7.3
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 380 380 870 920 1,100
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 440 [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 140 [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA]
Page 2 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-16 152879-17 152879-18 152879-19 152879-20
Your Reference ------------
-
4 4 4 4 4
Depth ------------ 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 6.3 5.4 4.9 5.3 5.3
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 45 330 780 560 540
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg <10 [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 44 [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-21 152879-22 152879-23 152879-24 152879-25
Your Reference ------------
-
4 5 5 5 5
Depth ------------ 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.2 7.6 6.5 5.5 5.4
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 650 160 700 940 1,000
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] 52 [NA] [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] 170 [NA] [NA] [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-26 152879-27 152879-28 152879-29 152879-30
Your Reference ------------
-
5 6 6 6 6
Depth ------------ 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
31/08/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
Date prepared - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 9.0
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 490 840 1,400 1,300 1,100
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] 1,200 2,200 [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] 80 90 [NA] [NA]
Page 3 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-31 152879-32 152879-33 152879-34 152879-35
Your Reference ------------
-
6 6 7 7 7
Depth ------------ 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 8.8 8.7 5.6 4.8 4.9
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 1,100 910 180 780 580
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 45 860 [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 190 220 [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-36 152879-37 152879-38 152879-39 152879-40
Your Reference ------------
-
7 7 7 8 8
Depth ------------ 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 4.7 4.7 4.8 5.5 6.6
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 1,100 1,000 920 280 770
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] 260 [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] 180 [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-41 152879-42 152879-43 152879-44 152879-45
Your Reference ------------
-
8 8 8 8 9
Depth ------------ 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.5 7.9
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 870 620 650 1,000 160
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA] 110
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA] 33
Page 4 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-46 152879-47 152879-48 152879-49 152879-50
Your Reference ------------
-
9 9 9 9 9
Depth ------------ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.4 5.2 5.5 6.1 6.6
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 1,500 1,400 1,200 1,100 1,000
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-51 152879-52 152879-53 152879-54 152879-55
Your Reference ------------
-
10 10 10 10 11
Depth ------------ 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.4 6.1
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 310 500 560 380 54
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 230 580 [NA] [NA] 10
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 220 220 [NA] [NA] 46
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-56 152879-57 152879-58 152879-59 152879-60
Your Reference ------------
-
11 11 11 11 11
Depth ------------ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.2 6.0
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 54 130 210 300 380
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 33 [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 32 [NA] [NA] [NA] [NA]
Page 5 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-61 152879-62 152879-63 152879-64 152879-65
Your Reference ------------
-
12 12 13 13 13
Depth ------------ 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.6 6.6 5.4 4.5 4.5
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 100 190 1,100 1,200 1,200
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 66 [NA] 1,500 [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 35 [NA] 250 [NA] [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-66 152879-67 152879-68 152879-69 152879-70
Your Reference ------------
-
13 13 13 14 14
Depth ------------ 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.8 4.7
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 1,100 1,000 840 170 880
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] 42 1,000
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] 190 260
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-71 152879-72 152879-73 152879-74 152879-75
Your Reference ------------
-
14 14 15 15 15
Depth ------------ 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.0 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.2
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 580 660 210 320 420
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 150 300 [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 120 110 [NA]
Page 6 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-76 152879-77 152879-78 152879-79 152879-80
Your Reference ------------
-
16 16 16 17 17
Depth ------------ 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.0 4.5 5.1 6.9 5.2
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 170 400 340 120 350
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 130 [NA] [NA] 20 [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 110 [NA] [NA] 110 [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-81 152879-82 152879-83 152879-84 152879-85
Your Reference ------------
-
17 17 18 18 18
Depth ------------ 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.4 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 340 200 370 590 990
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 400 [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 100 [NA] [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-86 152879-87 152879-88 152879-89 152879-90
Your Reference ------------
-
18 18 18 19 19
Depth ------------ 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 6.6 7.1 7.6 7.4 8.2
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 1,000 1,100 1,000 38 300
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] 10 300
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] [NA] <10 51
Page 7 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-91 152879-92 152879-93 152879-94 152879-95
Your Reference ------------
-
19 19 20 20 20
Depth ------------ 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 7.8 8.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 270 290 880 780 730
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 1,100 [NA] [NA]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NA] [NA] 280 [NA] [NA]
Misc Inorg - Soil
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-96 152879-97 152879-98
Your Reference ------------
-
20 20 20
Depth ------------ 2.0 2.5 3.0
Date Sampled
Type of sample
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 4.9 5.0 5.0
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 870 620 830
Page 8 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
ESP/CEC
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-1 152879-7 152879-16 152879-27 152879-33
Your Reference ------------
-
1 2 4 6 7
Depth ------------ 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
31/08/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Exchangeable Ca meq/100g 1.4 30 0.6 3.5 5.2
Exchangeable K meq/100g <0.1 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Exchangeable Mg meq/100g 6.3 5.8 7.0 12 9.4
Exchangeable Na meq/100g 1.9 0.36 0.92 3.5 1.3
Cation Exchange Capacity meq/100g 9.6 36 8.7 19 16
ESP % 19 <1 11 18 8
ESP/CEC
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-45 152879-51 152879-55 152879-61 152879-63
Your Reference ------------
-
9 10 11 12 13
Depth ------------ 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
1/09/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Exchangeable Ca meq/100g 0.9 0.4 0.3 2.0 5.5
Exchangeable K meq/100g <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1
Exchangeable Mg meq/100g 3.3 8.6 6.6 8.0 13
Exchangeable Na meq/100g 1.0 1.9 1.4 0.96 2.6
Cation Exchange Capacity meq/100g 5.2 11 8.3 11 21
ESP % 19 17 16 9 12
ESP/CEC
Our Reference: UNITS 152879-76 152879-83
Your Reference ------------
-
16 18
Depth ------------ 0.5 0.5
Date Sampled
Type of sample
1/09/2016
soil
30/08/2016
soil
Date prepared - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2016 07/09/2016
Exchangeable Ca meq/100g 1.7 3.5
Exchangeable K meq/100g 0.3 0.1
Exchangeable Mg meq/100g 7.8 11
Exchangeable Na meq/100g 0.48 2.2
Cation Exchange Capacity meq/100g 10 17
ESP % 5 13
Page 9 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Method ID Methodology Summary
Inorg-001 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4500-H+. Please note
that the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.
Inorg-002 Conductivity and Salinity - measured using a conductivity cell at 25oC in accordance with APHA latest edition
2510 and Rayment & Lyons.
Inorg-081 Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA latest edition,
4110-B. Alternatively determined by colourimetry/turbidity using Discrete Analyer.
Metals-009 Determination of exchangeable cations and cation exchange capacity in soils using 1M Ammonium Chloride
exchange and ICP-AES analytical finish.
Page 10 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate
Sm#
Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %
Recovery
Misc Inorg - Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date prepared - 06/09/2
016
152879-1 06/09/2016 || 06/09/2016 LCS-1 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 06/09/2
016
152879-1 06/09/2016 || 06/09/2016 LCS-1 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units Inorg-001 [NT] 152879-1 7.5 || 7.2 || RPD: 4 LCS-1 102%
Electrical Conductivity
1:5 soil:water
µS/cm 1 Inorg-002 <1 152879-1 440 || 440 || RPD: 0 LCS-1 88%
Chloride, Cl 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 152879-1 580 || 560 || RPD: 4 LCS-1 101%
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 152879-1 130 || 140 || RPD: 7 LCS-1 104%
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate
Sm#
Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %
Recovery
ESP/CEC Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD
Date prepared - 07/09/2
016
[NT] [NT] LCS-1 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 07/09/2
016
[NT] [NT] LCS-1 07/09/2016
Exchangeable Ca meq/100
g
0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 104%
Exchangeable K meq/100
g
0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 99%
Exchangeable Mg meq/100
g
0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 102%
Exchangeable Na meq/100
g
0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 101%
ESP % 1 Metals-009 [NT] [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-12 06/09/2016 || 06/09/2016 LCS-2 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-12 06/09/2016 || 06/09/2016 LCS-2 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-12 6.1 || 6.1 || RPD: 0 LCS-2 103%
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-12 380 || 440 || RPD: 15 LCS-2 91%
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] LCS-2 100%
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT] LCS-2 106%
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-21 06/09/2016 || 06/09/2016 LCS-3 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-21 06/09/2016 || 06/09/2016 LCS-3 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-21 5.2 || 5.1 || RPD: 2 LCS-3 100%
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-21 650 || 720 || RPD: 10 LCS-3 105%
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
Page 11 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-34 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 LCS-4 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-34 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 LCS-4 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-34 4.8 || 4.8 || RPD: 0 LCS-4 100%
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-34 780 || 750 || RPD: 4 LCS-4 102%
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 152879-34 860 || 770 || RPD: 11 [NR] [NR]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg 152879-34 220 || 200 || RPD: 10 [NR] [NR]
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-41 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 LCS-5 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-41 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 LCS-5 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-41 7.7 || 7.7 || RPD: 0 LCS-5 99%
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-41 870 || 840 || RPD: 4 LCS-5 101%
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-50 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 152879-2 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-50 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 152879-2 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-50 6.6 || 6.6 || RPD: 0 152879-2 #
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-50 1000 || 1100 || RPD: 10 152879-2 #
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-62 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 152879-73 06/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-62 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016 152879-73 06/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-62 6.6 || 6.6 || RPD: 0 152879-73 #
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-62 190 || 180 || RPD: 5 152879-73 #
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]
Page 12 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-70 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-70 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-70 4.7 || 4.7 || RPD: 0
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-70 880 || 950 || RPD: 8
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 152879-70 1000 || [N/T]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg 152879-70 260 || [N/T]
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-81 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-81 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-81 5.4 || 5.4 || RPD: 0
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-81 340 || 320 || RPD: 6
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT]
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate
Misc Inorg - Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-91 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-91 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 152879-91 7.8 || 7.6 || RPD: 3
Electrical Conductivity 1:5
soil:water
µS/cm 152879-91 270 || 290 || RPD: 7
Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg [NT] [NT]
Sulphate, SO4 1:5
soil:water
mg/kg [NT] [NT]
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate
ESP/CEC Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-7 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-7 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
Exchangeable Ca meq/100
g
152879-7 30 || 30 || RPD: 0
Exchangeable K meq/100
g
152879-7 0.3 || 0.2 || RPD: 40
Exchangeable Mg meq/100
g
152879-7 5.8 || 6.0 || RPD: 3
Exchangeable Na meq/100
g
152879-7 0.36 || 0.36 || RPD: 0
ESP % 152879-7 <1 || <1
Page 13 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate
ESP/CEC Base + Duplicate + %RPD
Date prepared - 152879-76 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
Date analysed - 152879-76 07/09/2016 || 07/09/2016
Exchangeable Ca meq/100
g
152879-76 1.7 || 1.9 || RPD: 11
Exchangeable K meq/100
g
152879-76 0.3 || 0.4 || RPD: 29
Exchangeable Mg meq/100
g
152879-76 7.8 || 8.7 || RPD: 11
Exchangeable Na meq/100
g
152879-76 0.48 || 0.48 || RPD: 0
ESP % 152879-76 5 || 4 || RPD: 22
Page 14 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Report Comments:
Misc Inorganics# Percent recovery not available due to matrix interference, however an acceptable recovery
was achieved for the LCS.
Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job
Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job
INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested
NR: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required
<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample
Page 15 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
Client Reference: 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Quality Control Definitions
Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,
glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.
Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample
selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.
Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix
spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.
LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank
sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.
Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds
which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.
Laboratory Acceptance Criteria
Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency
to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix
spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.
Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted
during sample extraction.
Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.
For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.
Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.
Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%
for organics (+/-50% surrogates) and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics
and speciated phenols is acceptable.
In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples
respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.
When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs),
the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse
within the THT or as soon as practicable.
Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity
of the analysis where recommended technical holding times may have been breached.
Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.
Page 16 of 16Envirolab Reference: 152879
Revision No: R 00
SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE
Client Details
Client Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Smeaton Grange Attention Emily McGinty
Sample Login Details
Your Reference 76742.00, Barkers Mill Bringelly
Envirolab Reference 152879 Date Sample Received 02/09/2016 Date Instructions Received 02/09/2016 Date Results Expected to be Reported 09/09/2016
Sample Condition
Samples received in appropriate condition for analysis YES
No. of Samples Provided 98 soils Turnaround Time Requested Standard Temperature on receipt (°C) 18.0 Cooling Method None Sampling Date Provided YES
Comments
Samples will be held for 1 month for water samples and 2 months for soil samples from date of receipt of samples
Please direct any queries to:
Aileen Hie Jacinta Hurst
Phone: 02 9910 6200 Phone: 02 9910 6200
Fax: 02 9910 6201 Fax: 02 9910 6201
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Sample and Testing Details on following page
Sample Id
Ch
lori
de,
Cl 1
:5
soil:
wa
ter
Elec
tric
al
Co
nd
uct
ivit
y 1
:5
soil:
wa
ter
pH
1:5
so
il:w
ate
r
Sulp
ha
te, S
O4
1:5
soil:
wa
ter
ESP
/CEC
1-0.5
1-1.0
1-1.5
1-2.0
1-2.5
1-3.0
2-0.5
2-1.0
2-1.5
3-0.5
3-1.0
3-1.5
3-2.0
3-2.5
3-3.0
4-0.5
4-1.0
4-1.5
4-2.0
4-2.5
4-3.0
5-0.5
5-1.0
5-1.5
5-2.0
5-2.5
6-0.5
6-1.0
6-1.5
6-2.0
6-2.5
6-3.0
7-0.5
7-1.0
7-1.5
7-2.0
7-2.5
7-3.0
8-0.5
8-1.0
8-1.5
Sample Id
Ch
lori
de,
Cl 1
:5
soil:
wa
ter
Elec
tric
al
Co
nd
uct
ivit
y 1
:5
soil:
wa
ter
pH
1:5
so
il:w
ate
r
Sulp
ha
te, S
O4
1:5
soil:
wa
ter
ESP
/CEC
8-2.0
8-2.5
8-3.0
9-0.5
9-1.0
9-1.5
9-2.0
9-2.5
9-3.0
10-0.5
10-1.0
10-1.5
10-2.0
11-0.5
11-1.0
11-1.5
11-2.0
11-2.5
11-3.0
12-0.5
12-1.0
13-0.5
13-1.0
13-1.5
13-2.0
13-2.5
13-3.0
14-0.5
14-1.0
14-1.5
14-2.0
15-0.5
15-1.0
15-1.5
16-0.5
16-1.0
16-1.5
17-0.5
17-1.0
17-1.5
17-2.0
18-0.5
18-1.0
18-1.5
Sample Id
Ch
lori
de,
Cl 1
:5
soil:
wa
ter
Elec
tric
al
Co
nd
uct
ivit
y 1
:5
soil:
wa
ter
pH
1:5
so
il:w
ate
r
Sulp
ha
te, S
O4
1:5
soil:
wa
ter
ESP
/CEC
18-2.0
18-2.5
18-3.0
19-0.5
19-1.0
19-1.5
19-2.0
20-0.5
20-1.0
20-1.5
20-2.0
20-2.5
20-3.0
Appendix D
Summary Table
Summary Table Page 1 of 2
Sample Depth pH Resistivity Soil ConditionBy inversion of
EC1:5Aggr. to Concrete -
from sample pH Aggr. to Concrete - from Sulphate conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample pH
Aggr. to Steel - from Chloride conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample Resistivity
(m bgl) (pH units) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Ω.cm [AS2159-2009]
1 0.5 7.5 580 130 2273 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
1 1.0 6.6 1100 250 1176 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Mild
1 1.5 7.1 - - 714 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
1 2.0 7.8 - - 909 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
1 2.5 8.3 - - 1136 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
1 3.0 8.5 - - 1075 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
2 0.5 8.7 10 20 8333 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
2 1.0 9.4 - - 5263 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
2 1.5 9.4 - - 3571 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
3 0.5 7.0 39 83 13889 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
3 1.0 5.9 440 140 2632 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
3 1.5 6.1 - - 2632 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
3 2.0 6.9 - - 1149 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
3 2.5 6.8 - - 1087 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
3 3.0 7.3 - - 909 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
4 0.5 6.3 10 44 22222 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
4 1.0 5.4 - - 3030 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
4 1.5 4.9 - - 1282 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
4 2.0 5.3 - - 1786 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
4 2.5 5.3 - - 1852 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
4 3.0 5.2 - - 1538 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
5 0.5 7.6 52 170 6250 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
5 1.0 6.5 - - 1429 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
5 1.5 5.5 - - 1064 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
5 2.0 5.4 - - 1000 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
5 2.5 5.8 - - 2041 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
6 0.5 8.0 1200 80 1190 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Mild
6 1.0 8.2 2200 90 714 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Moderate
6 1.5 8.4 - - 769 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
6 2.0 9.0 - - 909 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
Chloride Concentration
Sulphate Concentration
Test Pit
[AS2159-2009]
Sample Aggressivity Class
Summary Table Page 2 of 2
Sample Depth
(m bgl)
1 0.5
1 1.0
1 1.5
1 2.0
1 2.5
1 3.0
2 0.5
2 1.0
2 1.5
3 0.5
3 1.0
3 1.5
3 2.0
3 2.5
3 3.0
4 0.5
4 1.0
4 1.5
4 2.0
4 2.5
4 3.0
5 0.5
5 1.0
5 1.5
5 2.0
5 2.5
6 0.5
6 1.0
6 1.5
6 2.0
Test Pit
Sodicity Sodicity Class Dispersion? Soil Texture Group EC1:5 ECe Sample Salinity Class[Na/CEC] (from Emerson
Class)(for detailed soil logs see
Report Appendix)[Lab.] [M x EC1:5] (Based on sample ECe)
(meq/100g) (meq/100g) (%) [after DLWC] [AS1289.3.8.1] [after DLWC] [after DLWC] (microS/cm) (deciS/m) [Richards 1954]
1.9 9.6 20 Highly Sodic 5 No Heavy clay 6.0 440.0 2.6 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 850.0 6.0 Moderately Saline
Light clay 8.5 1400.0 11.9 Very Saline
Clay loam 9.0 1100.0 9.9 Very Saline
Clay loam 9.0 880.0 7.9 Moderately Saline
Light clay 8.5 930.0 7.9 Moderately Saline
0.36 36 1 Non-Sodic Heavy clay 6.0 120.0 0.7 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 190.0 1.3 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 280.0 2.0 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 72.0 0.4 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 380.0 2.7 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 380.0 2.7 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 870.0 6.1 Moderately Saline
Light medium clay 8.0 920.0 7.4 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1100.0 7.7 Moderately Saline
0.92 8.7 11 Sodic 5 No Heavy clay 6.0 45.0 0.3 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 330.0 2.0 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 780.0 5.5 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 560.0 3.9 Slightly Saline
Light clay 8.5 540.0 4.6 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 650.0 4.6 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 160.0 1.0 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 700.0 4.2 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 940.0 6.6 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1000.0 7.0 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 490.0 3.4 Slightly Saline
3.5 19 18 Highly Sodic Medium clay 7.0 840.0 5.9 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1400.0 9.8 Very Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 1300.0 7.8 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 1100.0 6.6 Moderately Saline
Textural Factor (M)
Emerson Crumb Class
Number
Cation Exchange Capacity
Exchangeable Sodium (Na)
Concentration
Summary Table Page 3 of 2
Sample Depth pH Resistivity Soil ConditionBy inversion of
EC1:5Aggr. to Concrete -
from sample pH Aggr. to Concrete - from Sulphate conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample pH
Aggr. to Steel - from Chloride conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample Resistivity
(m bgl) (pH units) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Ω.cm [AS2159-2009]
Chloride Concentration
Sulphate Concentration
Test Pit
[AS2159-2009]
Sample Aggressivity Class
6 2.5 8.8 - - 909 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
6 3.0 8.7 - - 1099 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
7 0.5 5.6 45 190 5556 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
7 1.0 4.8 860 220 1282 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Mild
7 1.5 4.9 - - 1724 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
7 2.0 4.7 - - 909 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
7 2.5 4.7 - - 1000 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
7 3.0 4.8 - - 1087 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
8 0.5 5.5 260 180 3571 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
8 1.0 6.6 - - 1299 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
8 1.5 7.7 - - 1149 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
8 2.0 7.9 - - 1613 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
8 2.5 8.0 - - 1538 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
8 3.0 8.5 - - 1000 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
9 0.5 7.9 110 33 6250 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
9 1.0 5.4 - - 667 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
9 1.5 5.2 - - 714 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
9 2.0 5.5 - - 833 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
9 2.5 6.1 - - 909 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
9 3.0 6.6 - - 1000 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
10 0.5 5.3 230 220 3226 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
10 1.0 5.2 580 220 2000 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
10 1.5 5.2 - - 1786 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
10 2.0 5.4 - - 2632 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
11 0.5 6.1 10 46 18519 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
11 1.0 6.1 33 32 18519 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
11 1.5 6.2 - - 7692 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
11 2.0 6.6 - - 4762 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
11 2.5 6.2 - - 3333 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
11 3.0 6.0 - - 2632 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
Summary Table Page 4 of 2
Sample Depth
(m bgl)
Test Pit
6 2.5
6 3.0
7 0.5
7 1.0
7 1.5
7 2.0
7 2.5
7 3.0
8 0.5
8 1.0
8 1.5
8 2.0
8 2.5
8 3.0
9 0.5
9 1.0
9 1.5
9 2.0
9 2.5
9 3.0
10 0.5
10 1.0
10 1.5
10 2.0
11 0.5
11 1.0
11 1.5
11 2.0
11 2.5
11 3.0
Sodicity Sodicity Class Dispersion? Soil Texture Group EC1:5 ECe Sample Salinity Class[Na/CEC] (from Emerson
Class)(for detailed soil logs see
Report Appendix)[Lab.] [M x EC1:5] (Based on sample ECe)
(meq/100g) (meq/100g) (%) [after DLWC] [AS1289.3.8.1] [after DLWC] [after DLWC] (microS/cm) (deciS/m) [Richards 1954]
Textural Factor (M)
Emerson Crumb Class
Number
Cation Exchange Capacity
Exchangeable Sodium (Na)
Concentration
Heavy clay 6.0 1100.0 6.6 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 910.0 5.5 Moderately Saline
1.3 16 8 Sodic Heavy clay 6.0 180.0 1.1 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 780.0 4.7 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 580.0 3.5 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1100.0 7.7 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1000.0 7.0 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 920.0 6.4 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 280.0 1.7 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 770.0 5.4 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 870.0 6.1 Moderately Saline
Light clay 8.5 620.0 5.3 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 650.0 4.6 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1000.0 7.0 Moderately Saline
1 5.2 19 Highly Sodic Heavy clay 6.0 160.0 1.0 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1500.0 10.5 Very Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 1400.0 8.4 Very Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 1200.0 7.2 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 1100.0 6.6 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 1000.0 6.0 Moderately Saline
1.9 11 17 Highly Sodic 6 No Heavy clay 6.0 310.0 1.9 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 500.0 3.5 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 560.0 3.9 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 380.0 2.7 Slightly Saline
1.4 8.3 17 Highly Sodic Heavy clay 6.0 54.0 0.3 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 54.0 0.3 Non-Saline
Light medium clay 8.0 130.0 1.0 Non-Saline
Light clay 8.5 210.0 1.8 Non-Saline
Loam 10.0 300.0 3.0 Slightly Saline
Light medium clay 8.0 380.0 3.0 Slightly Saline
Summary Table Page 5 of 2
Sample Depth pH Resistivity Soil ConditionBy inversion of
EC1:5Aggr. to Concrete -
from sample pH Aggr. to Concrete - from Sulphate conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample pH
Aggr. to Steel - from Chloride conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample Resistivity
(m bgl) (pH units) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Ω.cm [AS2159-2009]
Chloride Concentration
Sulphate Concentration
Test Pit
[AS2159-2009]
Sample Aggressivity Class
12 0.5 5.6 66 35 10000 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
12 1.0 6.6 - - 5263 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
13 0.5 5.4 1500 250 909 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Moderate
13 1.0 4.5 - - 833 B Moderate - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
13 1.5 4.5 - - 833 B Moderate - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
13 2.0 4.7 - - 909 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
13 2.5 4.9 - - 1000 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
13 3.0 5.1 - - 1190 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
14 0.5 5.8 42 190 5882 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
14 1.0 4.7 1000 260 1136 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Mild
14 1.0 4.7 - - 1053 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
14 1.5 5.0 - - 1724 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
14 2.0 5.0 - - 1515 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
15 0.5 5.4 150 120 4762 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
15 1.0 5.4 300 110 3125 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
15 1.5 5.2 - - 2381 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
16 0.5 5.0 130 110 5882 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
16 1.0 4.5 - - 2500 B Moderate - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
16 1.5 5.1 - - 2941 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
17 0.5 6.9 20 110 8333 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
17 1.0 5.2 - - 2857 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
17 1.5 5.4 - - 2941 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
17 2.0 6.1 - - 5000 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
18 0.5 5.7 400 100 2703 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
18 1.0 5.7 - - 1695 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
18 1.5 5.8 - - 1010 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
18 2.0 6.6 - - 1000 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
18 2.5 7.1 - - 909 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Moderate
18 3.0 7.6 - - 1000 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Mild
19 0.5 7.4 10 10 26316 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
Summary Table Page 6 of 2
Sample Depth
(m bgl)
Test Pit
12 0.5
12 1.0
13 0.5
13 1.0
13 1.5
13 2.0
13 2.5
13 3.0
14 0.5
14 1.0
14 1.0
14 1.5
14 2.0
15 0.5
15 1.0
15 1.5
16 0.5
16 1.0
16 1.5
17 0.5
17 1.0
17 1.5
17 2.0
18 0.5
18 1.0
18 1.5
18 2.0
18 2.5
18 3.0
19 0.5
Sodicity Sodicity Class Dispersion? Soil Texture Group EC1:5 ECe Sample Salinity Class[Na/CEC] (from Emerson
Class)(for detailed soil logs see
Report Appendix)[Lab.] [M x EC1:5] (Based on sample ECe)
(meq/100g) (meq/100g) (%) [after DLWC] [AS1289.3.8.1] [after DLWC] [after DLWC] (microS/cm) (deciS/m) [Richards 1954]
Textural Factor (M)
Emerson Crumb Class
Number
Cation Exchange Capacity
Exchangeable Sodium (Na)
Concentration
0.96 11 9 Sodic 6 No Heavy clay 6.0 100.0 0.6 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 190.0 1.3 Non-Saline
2.6 21 12 Sodic 6 No Heavy clay 6.0 1100.0 6.6 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1200.0 8.4 Very Saline
Light clay 8.5 1200.0 10.2 Very Saline
Medium clay 7.0 1100.0 7.7 Moderately Saline
Light clay 8.5 1000.0 8.5 Very Saline
Light medium clay 8.0 840.0 6.7 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 170.0 1.0 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 880.0 5.3 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 950.0 6.7 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 580.0 4.1 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 660.0 4.6 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7.0 210.0 1.5 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 320.0 2.2 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 420.0 2.9 Slightly Saline
0.48 10.5 5 Non-Sodic Heavy clay 6.0 170.0 1.0 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.0 400.0 2.8 Slightly Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 340.0 2.0 Slightly Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 120.0 0.7 Non-Saline
Medium clay 7.5 350.0 2.6 Slightly Saline
Medium clay 7.0 340.0 2.4 Slightly Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 200.0 1.2 Non-Saline
2.2 17 13 Sodic 5 No Heavy clay 6.0 370.0 2.2 Slightly Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 590.0 3.5 Slightly Saline
Loam 10.0 990.0 9.9 Very Saline
Loam 10.0 1000.0 10.0 Very Saline
Loam 10.0 1100.0 11.0 Very Saline
Loam 10.0 1000.0 10.0 Very Saline
Heavy clay 6.0 38.0 0.2 Non-Saline
Summary Table Page 7 of 2
Sample Depth pH Resistivity Soil ConditionBy inversion of
EC1:5Aggr. to Concrete -
from sample pH Aggr. to Concrete - from Sulphate conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample pH
Aggr. to Steel - from Chloride conc.
Aggr. to Steel - from sample Resistivity
(m bgl) (pH units) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Ω.cm [AS2159-2009]
Chloride Concentration
Sulphate Concentration
Test Pit
[AS2159-2009]
Sample Aggressivity Class
19 1.0 8.2 300 51 3333 B Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive
19 1.5 7.8 - - 3704 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
19 2.0 8.3 - - 3448 B Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive - Non-Aggressive
20 0.5 5.3 1100 280 1136 B Mild Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Non-Aggressive Mild
20 1.0 4.9 - - 1282 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
20 1.5 4.9 - - 1370 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
20 2.0 4.9 - - 1149 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
20 2.5 5.0 - - 1613 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
20 3.0 5.0 - - 1205 B Mild - Non-Aggressive - Mild
NOTES- samples comprising rock have been allocated texture class 6- insufficient samples were reported for TP1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 (all at 0.5 m depth) therefore the lowest possible class (6) has been assumed for these samples.
Summary Table Page 8 of 2
Sample Depth
(m bgl)
Test Pit
19 1.0
19 1.5
19 2.0
20 0.5
20 1.0
20 1.5
20 2.0
20 2.5
20 3.0
NOTES- samples comprising rock have b- insufficient samples were repor
Sodicity Sodicity Class Dispersion? Soil Texture Group EC1:5 ECe Sample Salinity Class[Na/CEC] (from Emerson
Class)(for detailed soil logs see
Report Appendix)[Lab.] [M x EC1:5] (Based on sample ECe)
(meq/100g) (meq/100g) (%) [after DLWC] [AS1289.3.8.1] [after DLWC] [after DLWC] (microS/cm) (deciS/m) [Richards 1954]
Textural Factor (M)
Emerson Crumb Class
Number
Cation Exchange Capacity
Exchangeable Sodium (Na)
Concentration
Medium clay 7.5 300.0 2.3 Slightly Saline
Heavy clay 6 270.0 1.6 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6 290.0 1.7 Non-Saline
Heavy clay 6 880.0 5.3 Moderately Saline
Medium clay 7 780.0 5.5 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6 730.0 4.4 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6 870.0 5.2 Moderately Saline
Heavy clay 6 620.0 3.7 Slightly Saline
Light clay 8.5 830.0 7.1 Moderately Saline